content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction }
\label{se:intro}
The AdS/CFT correspondence states that gauge theories with large 't~Hooft coupling are dual to a weakly coupled string theory with a curved extra dimension~\cite{Maldacena:1997re,Gubser:1998bc,Witten:1998qj,Aharony:1999ti}. For sufficiently large 't~Hooft coupling, string states are heavy and the 5D theory is described by an effective field theory living in an AdS$_5$ background, see {e.g.}~\cite{Heemskerk:2009pn,Heemskerk:2010ty,Fitzpatrick:2010zm,Sundrum:2011ic,ElShowk:2011ag,Fitzpatrick:2012cg}.
Variations of this duality can deform and even truncate the IR region of the AdS space, leading to a discrete tower of Kaluza--Klein states analogous to the hadron spectrum in QCD~\cite{Karch:2006pv,Gursoy:2007cb,Gursoy:2007er,Gubser:2008ny,Falkowski:2008fz, Batell:2008zm, Batell:2008me,Cabrer:2009we,vonGersdorff:2010ht, Cabrer:2011fb,Megias:2019vdb}).
Unlike QCD---which has small 't~Hooft coupling---cascades of radiation at large 't\,Hooft coupling do not form jets because there is no reason for soft or collinear phase space configurations to be preferred. Instead, cascades produce spherical events ending in a large number of low-momentum final states~~\cite{Hofman:2008ar, Chesler:2008wd, Hatta:2007cs,Hatta:2008tx, Hatta:2008qx,Hatta:2008tn, Knapen:2016hky}.
Earlier field-theoretical studies of these \emph{soft bomb} events in AdS$_5$ assume that Kaluza--Klein modes are narrow~\cite{Csaki:2008dt}.
In this work we show that around some transition scale, the narrow modes merge to form a continuum.
We extend the study of soft bombs into this \emph{continuum regime}.
The regimes of field theory in a slice of 5D AdS, as obtained in this work, are the following.
The fundamental scales fixed by geometry are the AdS curvature, $k$, and the IR brane position, $1/\mu$.
The Kaluza--Klein scale is $\mu \ll k$ and represents the mass gap in the dual gauge theory. In the presence of interactions, the theory has a 5D cutoff $\Lambda$ and a transition scale $\tilde \Lambda$ that is explained below. These have a hierarchy $\Lambda>k>\tilde \Lambda> \mu$ that define four different energy regimes:
\begin{itemize}
\item {4D regime}, $E<\mu$. In this limit, Kaluza--Klein modes are integrated out and only sufficiently light 4D modes such as gauge or Goldstone bosons remain in the spectrum.
%
\item {Kaluza--Klein regime}, $\mu< E < \tilde \Lambda$. The theory in this regime has a tower of regularly spaced narrow resonances.
{The resonances in this energy window are narrow glueballs in the dual gauge theory.}
%
\item {Continuum regime},
$ \tilde \Lambda < E < k$. In this regime, the effective theory breaks down in the IR region of AdS. Quantum corrections mix the KK modes and merge them into a continuum. An observer on the UV brane effectively sees pure AdS.
{The theory can equivalently be described by a holographic CFT with no mass gap.}
%
\item Flat space regime, $k < E < \Lambda$.
Here the curvature of AdS becomes negligible, and KK modes from any other compact dimensions appear.
{No simple CFT dual is expected in this regime.}
\end{itemize}
The overarching idea throughout this work is that the bulk correlators effectively lose contact with the IR brane in the continuum regime.
At the qualitative level, this can be argued from the breakdown of the effective theory in the IR region (using e.g. Refs. \cite{ArkaniHamed:2000ds,Goldberger:2002cz}).
Quantitatively, this requires one to account for bulk loops that dress the propagator~\cite{Fichet:2019hkg}.
Throughout this work we say that the IR brane \textit{effectively emerges} for bulk correlators as their energy is decreased through this KK--continuum transition.
One may conjecture that for $p\gg \tilde \Lambda$, the theory is described by an effective Lagrangian without an IR brane. A workaround to this conjecture may be possible via bulk cascade diagrams (i.e.\ soft bombs). A cascade diagram can split the energy of an individual state in the continuum regime into many offspring states reaching into the KK regime.
The evaluation of the rate for such event would imply that the high energy theory already knows about the IR brane, which would invalidate the proposal that there is effectively no IR brane in the continuum regime. A careful investigation of the soft bomb rates is thus required.
In summary, this work \textit{i)} establishes the existence of a continuum regime in the presence of interactions and \textit{ii)} studies soft bomb events in this regime.
There are multiple motivations for such a study:
\begin{itemize}
\item The earlier work on soft bombs in the Kaluza--Klein regime~\cite{Csaki:2008dt} does not apply in the continuum regime because the effective theory breaks down in the IR region of AdS. KK modes are thus not appropriate degrees of freedom.
%
We thus investigate whether events are indeed spherical and soft in the continuum regime. This also serves as a check of the soft bomb picture in the CFT dual.
\item In addition to determining kinematic features, we seek to calculate occurrence probabilities for soft bomb events. To the best of our knowledge, such a calculation has not been presented in the literature.
\item Understanding the KK--continuum transition and the soft bomb rate allows us to complete the picture of the emergence of the IR brane. Without {knowledge of the} soft bomb rates, it remains unclear whether the theory can actually be described by a high-energy effective theory with no IR brane in the continuum regime.
\item Both IR brane emergence and the properties of soft bombs have phenomenological implications for models of physics beyond the Standard Model that involve a strongly--coupled hidden sector with an AdS dual. This holographic dark sector scenario has been recently put presented in \cite{Brax:2019koq,Costantino:2019ixl}, see also~\cite{vonHarling:2012sz,McDonald:2012nc,McDonald:2010fe,McDonald:2010iq, Katz:2015zba,Strassler:2008bv} for earlier and related attempts.
\end{itemize}
This paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{se:AdS} establishes the basic five-dimensional formalism in a slice of AdS. In particular, we present the classical propagator for a scalar field in mixed position--momentum space.
Interactions in the bulk of AdS play a central role in our study. Section~\ref{se:NDA} provides the necessary tools for dimensional analysis at strong coupling.
In Section~\ref{se:regimes}, we dress the propagator with quantum corrections.
The imaginary part of the self-energy induces distinct KK and continuum regimes. The transition scale is understood both qualitatively from the viewpoint of effective theory validity and from the viewpoint of the opacity of the IR region resulting from the dressing of the propagator by bulk fields.
In Section~~\ref{se:Decays} we identify a recursion relation that relates the continuum-regime cascade decay rates with arbitrary number of legs.
Section~\ref{se:picture} presents the general picture of soft bomb events in the continuum regime.
Building on this, we spell out the notion of IR brane emergence. Asymptotically AdS backgrounds and implications for holographic dark sectors are also discussed.
In Section \ref{se:adscft} we connect our analysis to strongly coupled gauge theories using AdS/CFT. We discuss CFT soft bombs,
establish the relation between bulk matter interactions and large-$N$ expansion, and analyse the transition scale in the EFT of glueballs.
Conclusions are given in Sec.\,\ref{se:con}.
\section{A Bulk Scalar in a Slice of AdS}
\label{se:AdS}
In studies of the gravity--scalar system, a general ansatz for the metric preserving the 4D Poincar\'e invariance is
\begin{align}
ds^2 =g_{MN} \, dX^{M}dX^{N}
=e^{-2A(y)} \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu-dy^2 \ ,
\label{eq:metric:general}
\end{align}
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is the 3+1-dimensional Minkowski metric with $(+,-,-,-)$ signature.
This metric appears in certain 5D supergravities, see \textit{e.g.} \cite{Freedman:1999gp}.
It can depart from AdS and develop a singularity at large $y$, beyond which spacetime ends, see \textit{e.g.} \cite{Karch:2006pv,Gursoy:2007cb,Gursoy:2007er, Batell:2008zm, Cabrer:2009we,vonGersdorff:2010ht}. In other classes of models, an IR brane truncating the $y$ coordinate is explicitly included.
In this paper we focus on the simplest example of a slice of AdS for which the metric is exactly anti-de Sitter.
Using the conformally flat coordinates $z=e^{ky}/k$, the metric is
\begin{align}
ds^2 =g_{MN} \, dX^{M}dX^{N}
=(kz)^{-2}\left( \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu-dz^2 \right) \ .
\label{eq:metric}
\end{align}
Space is truncated at endpoints
\begin{align}
z_\textnormal{UV} &= {k^{-1}}
& \textnormal{and}&&
z_\textnormal{IR} &= {\mu^{-1}} > z_\textnormal{UV} \ ,
\end{align}
which correspond to the positions of a UV and IR brane, respectively.
\subsection{Action}
A generic effective theory on this background involves gravitons and matter fields of different spins. In this manuscript we focus on the case of a scalar field $\Phi$ with non-derivative, cubic interactions. We expect that the results of this study generalize readily to any other type of field.
The action for this field is
\begin{align}
S &=
\int d^5X \sqrt{g}
\left(
\frac{1}{2} \nabla_M\Phi \nabla^M\Phi
- \frac{1}{2} m^2_\Phi \Phi^2
+ \frac{1}{3!} \lambda\Phi^3
\right)
+ S_{\rm UV}
+ S_{\rm IR}
+ \cdots \, \label{eq:SPhi}
\end{align}
where we explicitly write the kinetic, mass and interaction terms.
The ellipses denote additional contributions from gravity and higher-dimensional operators that are suppressed by powers of the effective theory's cutoff.
A convenient parameterization of the scalar mass is
\begin{align}
m_\Phi^2 \equiv (\alpha^2-4)k^2 \ .
\end{align}
The Breitenlohner-Freedman bound requires $\alpha^2\geq 0$~\cite{Breitenlohner:1982jf,Breitenlohner:1982bm}. In this work we routinely take $\alpha$ to be non-integer.
The actions $S_\textnormal{UV}$ and $S_\textnormal{IR}$ encode brane-localized operators.
These can include mass terms for the scalar which are conveniently parameterized with respect to dimensionless parameters $b_\textnormal{UV}$ and $b_\textnormal{IR}$ as~(see, e.g.~\cite{Ponton:2012bi}),
\begin{align}
S_{\textnormal{UV}} + S_{\textnormal{IR}}
\supset
\frac{1}{2}
\int d^5X \sqrt{\bar{g}}
\left[
(\alpha-2-b_{\textnormal{UV}})k\delta(z-z_\textnormal{UV})-(\alpha-2+b_{\textnormal{IR}})k\delta(z-z_\textnormal{IR})
\right]
\Phi^2
\, .
\end{align}
We leave these parameters unspecified and simply assume that $b_\textnormal{UV} \neq 0$. There is a special mode in the spectrum with mass $\sim b_{\text{UV}} k$. For $b_{\text{UV}}$ sufficiently small, this mode may affect the physical processes studied here. We assume this special mode is heavy such that it is irrelevant in our analysis.
$\bar{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the induced metric on the brane so that $\sqrt{\bar{g}}=(kz)^{-4}$.
Other degrees of freedom may be localized on the brane and interact with $\Phi$.~\footnote{There are hints that a brane-localized degree of freedom always arises from a bulk field and is thus necessarily accompanied by a tower of Kaluza-Klein modes~\cite{Fichet:2019owx}. This tower can be decoupled from the brane so that it is consistent to consider only the brane-localized mode. } In the context of our analysis, such brane modes provide asymptotic states for the bulk scattering amplitudes.
\subsection{The Scalar Propagator \label{se:propa}}
The classical equation of motion obtained by varying the bulk action for the scalar field, $\Phi$, is
\begin{align}D\Phi\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial_M(g^{MN}\sqrt{g}\partial_N\Phi)+m^2_\Phi\Phi=0 \ .
\end{align}
The Feynman propagator is the Green's function of the $D$ operator,
\begin{align}
D_X\Delta(X,X')
= \frac{-i}{\sqrt{g}} \delta^{(5)}(X-X') \ .
\label{eq:DDelta_free}
\end{align}
{Rather than work in position-space coordinates, $X^M = (x^\mu,z)$, we Fourier transform along the 4D Minkowski slices: $\Phi_p(z)\equiv \int e^{i \eta_{\mu\nu}x^\mu p^\nu} \Phi(x^\mu, z) $.
We call this Poincar\'e position-momentum space. The AdS dilatation isometry becomes $(p^\mu, z)\rightarrow (p^\mu /\lambda, \lambda z)$ so that $pz$ is an invariant. Here $p$ is the Minkowski norm $p=\sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}p^\mu p^\nu}$, which is real (imaginary) for timelike (spacelike) four-momentum, $p^\mu$.
In these coordinates, the propagator is, see \textit{e.g. }\cite{Fichet:2019owx},
}
\begin{align}
\Delta_p(z,z')=&
i \frac{\pi k^3 (zz')^2}{2}
\frac{
\left[\tilde{Y}^{UV}_\alpha J_\alpha(pz_<)-\tilde{J}^{UV}_\alpha Y_\alpha(pz_<)\right]\left[\tilde{Y}^{IR}_\alpha J_\alpha(pz_>)-\tilde{J}^{IR}_\alpha Y_\alpha(pz_>)\right]
}{
\tilde{J}^{UV}_\alpha\tilde{Y}^{IR}_\alpha-\tilde{Y}^{UV}_\alpha\tilde{J}^{IR}_\alpha
}\ ,
\label{eq:propa}
\end{align}
where
$z_{<,>}$ is the lesser/greater of the endpoints $z$ and $z'$.
The $p$-dependent quantities $\tilde{J}^{UV,IR}$ are
\begin{align}
\tilde{J}^{UV}_\alpha = \frac{p}{k} J_{\alpha-1}\left(\frac{p}{k}\right) - b_{UV}J_\alpha\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)&\quad&
\tilde{J}^{IR}_\alpha = \frac{p}{\mu} J_{\alpha-1}\left(\frac{p}{\mu}\right) + b_{IR}J_\alpha\left(\frac{p}{\mu}\right),
\end{align}
with similar definitions for $\tilde{Y}^{UV,IR}$.
For timelike momentum, the propagator \eqref{eq:propa} has poles set by the zeros of the denominator.
This propagator can always be written formally as an infinite sum over 4D poles. Let us introduce the matrix notation
\begin{align}
\mathbf{f}(z) &=
\left[\;
f_n(z)
\;\right]
&
\mathbf{D}&=
\left[\;
\frac{ \delta_{nr}}{p^2-m_n^2}
\;\right]
\ ,
\end{align}
where ${\bf f}$ is a one-dimensional infinite vector and ${\bf D}$ is an infinite diagonal matrix indexed by the Kaluza--Klein (KK) numbers $n$ and $r$.
The propagator in the Kaluza-Klein representation is
\begin{align}
\Delta_p(z,z')=i\,{\bf f}(z)\cdot {\bf D} \cdot {\bf f}(z')\,.
\end{align}
Amplitude calculations often feature sums over KK modes. We can represent these sums as contour integrals~\cite{Fichet:2019hkg},
\begin{align}
\sum_{n=0}^{\tilde n}U(m_n)f_n(z)f_n(z')
=
-\frac{1}{2\pi}
\oint_{\mathcal C \left[\tilde n\right]}
dq^2 U(q^2) \Delta_q(z,z')
\ ,
\label{eq:sumtoint}
\end{align}
where the contour $\mathcal C \left[\tilde n\right]$ in momentum space encloses the first $\tilde n$ poles. $U$ can be any function that does not obstruct the contour with singularities.
The identity \eqref{eq:sumtoint} is a useful link between the KK and closed form representations of the propagator.
\section{Interactions: Dimensional Analysis }
\label{se:NDA}
A key ingredient of our study is the magnitude of the couplings of the bulk scalar from an effective field theory (EFT) perspective. In the presence of interactions, a five-dimensional theory is understood to be an EFT with some ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$ beyond which the EFT becomes strongly coupled.
This cutoff is tied to the strength of interactions through dimensional analysis in the strong coupling limit through so-called na\"ive dimensional analysis (NDA)~\cite{Manohar:1983md, Georgi:1986kr, Georgi:1992dw, Chacko:1999hg, Panico:2015jxa}; see e.g.~\cite{Ponton:2012bi} for a pedagogical introduction of NDA to 5D theories.
The crux of this analysis is to compare amplitudes of different loop order or involving higher dimensional operators. Let us define the loop factors
\begin{align}
\ell_5 &=24\pi^3
&\text{and}&&
\ell_4&=16\pi^2 \ .
\end{align}
\subsection{Gravitational Interactions}
The interactions of the graviton in AdS is controlled by the dimensionless coupling
\begin{align}
\kappa &= \frac{k}{M_{\rm Pl}} \,.
\label{eq:kappa}
\end{align}
The reduced 4D and 5D Planck masses are related by $M_5^3=M^2_{\rm Pl}k$.
By NDA, the cutoff in the gravity sector
\begin{align}
\Lambda_\textnormal{grav}^3 &= \ell_5 M_5^3= \ell_5\kappa M_\textnormal{Pl}^3 \ .
\label{eq:lambda_grav}
\end{align}
In order to keep higher order gravity terms under control, $\kappa$ should be at most $\mathcal O(1)$~\cite{Chacko:1999hg,Agashe:2007zd}.
The gravity cutoff $\Lambda_\textnormal{grav}$ is sometimes taken as a universal scale setting the strength of all interactions in the effective Lagrangian. However, in the EFT the typical strength of interactions in various sectors can in principle be different with different strong coupling scales. Strongly-interacting matter cannot influence the strength of gravity, which is protected by diffeomorphism invariance and set by the background geometry.
In particular, matter interactions are at least as strong as gravity. The strong coupling scale of pure matter interactions can thus be lower than $\Lambda_\textnormal{grav}$.
Notice that gravity can even be removed, $M_\textnormal{Pl}\rightarrow \infty$, while the matter cutoff remains unchanged.\,\footnote{In a UV completion, the $\Lambda$, $\Lambda_{\rm grav}$ scales would likely be correlated and a fine-tuning might be needed to separate these scales. }
\subsection{Matter Interactions \label{se:matter}}
We assume that a universal cutoff $\Lambda$ sets the strength of interactions in the matter sector of our theory.
To make this connection manifest in $D$-dimensions, one writes the fundamental action in terms of dimensionless fields $\hat \Phi$ with $\ell_D$ factored out~\cite{Chacko:1999hg, Ponton:2012bi}:
\begin{align}
S_D &=
\frac{N_s\Lambda^D}{\ell_D}
\int d^D X \hat {\cal L}\left[\hat \Phi, \partial/\Lambda\right]
\,.
\label{eq:SD_NDA}
\end{align}
$N_s$ counts the number of species in the Lagrangian; for the present study we set $N_s =1$.
NDA states that an $\mathcal O(1)$ coupling in $\hat {\cal L}$ corresponds to a strong interaction strength.
The dimensionful Lagrangian is recovered by canonically normalizing the fields.
For the case of a cubic interaction, the NDA coupling dictated by \eqref{eq:SD_NDA} is $\lambda\sim (\ell_5\Lambda)^{1/2}$.
The gravitational cutoff $\Lambda_\textnormal{grav}$ is related to the AdS curvature $k$ through \eqref{eq:kappa} and \eqref{eq:lambda_grav}. One may determine a similar relation between the matter cutoff $\Lambda$ and $k$ by considering the effective 4D interactions between specific KK modes.
When expanding the 5D field in terms of canonically normalized 4D modes, $\Phi= kz \sum_n \tilde f_n(z) \phi_n(x)$, one finds that $\tilde f_n(1/\mu)$ is of order $ \sqrt{k}$.\,\footnote{
The KK mode normalization is $\int dz (kz)^{-1}\tilde f_n(z) \tilde f_m(z)= \delta_{mn}$. One has $\tilde f_m(z)= (kz)^{-1} f_m(z) $, where the $f_m$ are introduced in Sec.~\ref{se:AdS}. }
Because KK modes are localized towards the IR brane, this implies that the order of magnitude of an effective 4D coupling between KK modes is obtained from the 5D coupling by multiplying by powers of $\sqrt{k}$ and the warp factor $w=\mu/k$.
For a given KK mode, the 4D NDA action is
\begin{align}
S_\textnormal{KK} = \frac{w^4 \Lambda^4 }{\ell_4} \int d^4 x \hat {\cal L}\left[\hat \phi, \partial/(w \Lambda )\right]\,
\label{eq:SD_KK}
\end{align}
following the same conventions of~\eqref{eq:SD_NDA}. Notice that the cutoff only appears through the warped down cutoff scale $w \Lambda = \tilde \Lambda$; we discuss this feature in Section~\ref{se:transition}.
Consider a general monomial interaction $\lambda_\textnormal{5D} \Phi^n/n!$ in the 5D action with $n>2$. 5D NDA, \eqref{eq:SD_NDA}, reveals that the strong coupling coefficient is
\begin{align}
\lambda_\textnormal{5D}={\ell_5}^{n/2-1} \Lambda^{5-3n/2}\,.
\end{align}
An interaction between $n$ KK modes with $\mathcal O(1)$ dimensionless couplings is then
\begin{align}
\lambda_\textnormal{4D} \sim {\ell_5}^{n/2-1} \Lambda^{5-3n/2} k^{n/2-1} w^{4-n}\,.
\label{eq:gam4_matched}
\end{align}
On the other hand, the 4D NDA value for $\lambda_4$ is
\begin{align}
\lambda_4={\ell_4}^{n/2-1} \Lambda^{4-n}w^{4-n}\,.
\label{eq:gam4_NDA}
\end{align}
For the effective theory of KK modes to be valid, one must require the effective $\lambda_4$ in \eqref{eq:gam4_matched} to be smaller than or equal to its strong coupling estimate, \eqref{eq:gam4_NDA}.
This implies
\begin{align}
\Lambda > \frac{\ell_5}{\ell_4}k \ .
\label{eq:Lambda_bound}
\end{align}
This universal relation arises because the $\sqrt{k}$ and the loop factors have the same powers in the NDA estimates, which are in turn fixed by field counting.
When \eqref{eq:Lambda_bound} is not saturated, the effective 4D couplings of KK monomials are suppressed by powers of $(\ell_5 k/ \ell_4\Lambda)^{1/2}$ with respect to their strong coupling value. This systematic suppression factor is reminiscent of the large $N$ suppression in the dual CFT, see Section \ref{se:ndaadscft}.
\subsection{Value of the Cubic Coupling \label{se:cubic}}
In this work we consider a scalar field, whose natural mass scale would be $\mathcal O(\Lambda)$, as reflected by NDA.
While the NDA value of the cubic coupling is $\lambda \sim (\ell_5 \Lambda)^{1/2}$, for this manuscript we set it to a smaller value
\begin{align}\lambda \sim m_\Phi \frac{\ell_5^{1/2} }{\Lambda^{1/2}}\,.
\label{eq:lambda_NDA}
\end{align}
This value is consistent with a bulk mass parametrically lower than $\Lambda$:
the self-energy bubble diagram from $\lambda$ gives a $\mathcal O(m_\Phi^2)$ contribution, in accordance with NDA.
The $\lambda$ coupling tends to zero in the free limit $\Lambda\rightarrow \infty$ (i.e.~$N\rightarrow \infty$) as it should.
\section{The Kaluza--Klein and Continuum Regimes of AdS}
\label{se:regimes}
We study the behavior of the effective theory using the results of the free theory in Section~\ref{se:AdS} and the interaction strengths in Section~\ref{se:NDA}.
Quantum corrections from the bulk interactions `dress' the bulk propagator and cause it to have qualitatively different behavior depending on the four-momentum, $p$. We show how these corrections separate the Kaluza--Klein and continuum regimes of a bulk scalar.
\subsection{The Transition Scale \label{se:transition}}
The homogeneity of AdS implies a homogenous 5D cutoff on proper distances smaller than $\Delta X \sim 1/\Lambda$. In the conformal coordinate system the cutoff is $z$-dependent with respect to the Minkowski distance, since $\sqrt{\eta_{\mu\nu}\Delta x^\mu\Delta x^\nu}\sim kz/\Lambda $.
In position--momentum space the condition amounts to $p\sim \Lambda/(kz) $.
This implies that the 5D cutoff for an observer at position $z$ in the bulk is warped down to $\Lambda/(kz)$.
One can see this from an EFT perspective: the effects of higher-dimensional operators in the action are enhanced by powers of $z$. For example, consider dressing the propagator with a higher derivative bilinear, $\square(\partial_\mu \Phi)^2/\Lambda^2$ with an $\mathcal O(1)$ coefficient as dictated by NDA (see Eq.\,\eqref{eq:SD_NDA}). This term dominates for
\begin{align}
p z\gtrsim \Lambda /k\,. \label{eq:cutoff}
\end{align}
For a fixed $p$, this implies that the EFT breaks down in the IR region of AdS, $z \gtrsim (\Lambda/k)/p$; see {e.g.}~\cite{ArkaniHamed:2000ds,Goldberger:2002cz, Fichet:2019hkg}.
The cutoff is warped below the scale $p$ for values of $z$ beyond this region. Therefore propagation into this region of position--momentum space falls outside the EFT's domain of validity.
It follows that the theory also contains a scale
\begin{align}
\tilde{\Lambda} = \Lambda \frac{\mu}{k}\,,
\end{align}
the warped down cutoff at the IR brane. At energies $p>\tilde \Lambda$, the correlation functions cannot know about the IR brane since it is in the region of position--momentum space hidden by the EFT validity condition~\eqref{eq:cutoff}.
In short, for $p>\tilde \Lambda$ the IR brane is ``outside of the EFT,'' see Section~\,\ref{se:picture}.
This is a hint that the behavior of the theory undergoes a qualitative change at $\tilde \Lambda$. The IR brane imposes a boundary condition that leads to discrete KK modes. Thus for $p<\tilde \Lambda$, one can expect that the theory features KK modes. On the other hand, for $p>\tilde \Lambda$ the IR brane is outside the EFT, hence no KK modes should exist. Instead, an observer should see a continuum of states.
\subsection{Dressed Propagator \label{se:opacity}}
The free propagator in \eqref{eq:propa} encodes narrow KK modes. It amounts to $\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$ or $N \rightarrow \infty$.
The continuum behavior becomes apparent when one dresses the free propagator with quantum corrections.\,\footnote{
The exact calculation of diagrams in AdS has recently been an intense topic of research, see {e.g.}~\cite{ Aharony:2016dwx,Yuan:2017vgp,Giombi:2017hpr,Carmi:2018qzm,Carmi:2019ocp,Meltzer:2019nbs} for loop-level diagrams and \cite{Bzowski:2013sza,Isono:2018rrb,Albayrak:2019asr, Albayrak:2020isk} for developments in position--momentum space.
Throughout this paper we instead use approximate propagators.
}
These quantum corrections resolve the poles in the free propagator with timelike momenta as they do in 4D Minkowski space.
Including these effects corresponds to evaluating the leading $1/N^2$ effect on the propagator of the strongly coupled dual theory; in our case this is $1/N^2\sim\lambda^2/k$.
We focus on bulk self-energy corrections from a cubic self-interaction. Brane-localized self-energies only modify the boundary conditions and are thus unimportant for our purposes.
In contrast to the free propagator, the Green's function equation for the dressed propagator satisfies
\begin{align}
D_X\Delta(X,X')
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\int dY \,\Pi(X,Y) \Delta\,(Y,X')
=
-\frac{i}{\sqrt{g}}\delta^{(5)}(X-X')
\,,
\label{eq:DDelta_dressed}
\end{align}
where $i\Pi(X,Y)$ are 1PI insertions that dress the propagator. In our case, the leading $i\Pi$ insertion is induced by the scalar bubble induced by the $\lambda \Phi^3$ interaction. We are interested only in the imaginary part of the self-energy, which is finite.
A calculation of $i\Pi(X,Y)$ is performed analytically in \cite{Fichet:2019hkg} with self-consistent approximations in the limit of strong coupling and moderate bulk masses $\alpha=\mathcal O(1)$.
One of the tricks for the analytical estimate is to expand the non-local self-energy as a series of local insertions, which amounts to a $\partial_z$ expansion.
Using this method, we estimate of the contribution from the $|p|> 1/z_<$ regime. The imaginary part of the 1-loop bubble induces a shift of $p$,
\begin{align}
\Delta_p^{\text{dressed}}(z,z')
&\sim\Delta^{\text{free}}_{p(1+ic)}(z,z')
&
c&\sim a \frac{\lambda^2}{ \ell_5 k}
\,,
\label{eq:dressing}
\end{align}
where $c$ is loop-induced and estimated to have $a\sim \mathcal O(1/10)$ with a large uncertainty.
\footnote{ This estimate is confirmed in the upcoming detailed analysis of \cite{Costantino:2020vdu}.
}
Using the NDA value of $\lambda$ in \eqref{eq:lambda_NDA} and taking $m_\Phi=\mathcal O(k)$, one finds $c \sim a k /\Lambda \sim a/(\pi N^2) $. The $|p|> 1/z_<$ regime provides a larger contribution to $a$ than the result previously presented from the $|p|< 1/z_>$ regime \cite{Fichet:2019hkg}. This extends the validity of our calculations to weaker coupling, hence allowing large $N$. A self-consistent numerical solution to the integro-differential equation of motion, \eqref{eq:DDelta_dressed}, may be required to obtain the general dressed propagator. We leave this for future work.
\subsection{The Two Regimes \label{se:regimes_sub}}
The self-energy dressing of the propagator presents distinct Kaluza--Klein and continuum regimes.
The poles of the free propagator are set by zeros of its denominator.
For momenta much larger than the IR brane scale, $p\gg \mu$, the asymptotic form of the Bessel functions lead to a propagator that is approximately proportional to
\begin{align}
\Delta_p(z,z')
&\propto
\frac{1}{\sin\left(\frac{p}{\mu}-\frac{\pi}{4}\left(1+2\alpha\right)\right)}\ .
\end{align}
The effect of the dressing, \eqref{eq:dressing}, softens the poles and causes them to merge at a scale
\begin{align}
p
&\sim
\frac{\mu}{c} \sim \frac{\tilde \Lambda}{a}
\label{eq:pole_cond} \, .
\end{align}
Above this scale the propagator describes a continuum rather than distinct Kaluza--Klein modes.
Thus we observe that the dressing of the propagator reaffirms the existence of distinct KK and continuum regimes separated by a transition scale controlled by $\tilde \Lambda=(\mu/\Lambda){k}$.
Let us comment further on both sides of the transition.
\subsection{Kaluza--Klein Regime: \texorpdfstring{$p<\tilde \Lambda$}{p < Lambda-tilde}}
\label{sec:KK:regime}
For momenta less than the transition scale $\tilde\Lambda$, {UV correlation functions are} sensitive to the physics of the IR brane.
The IR brane provides a boundary condition for the bulk equation of motion and hence imposes a discrete spectrum of KK modes. These modes may be narrow. However, as the KK mass approaches the transition scale, the KK modes must merge to form a continuum. To see this, one may use the full form of the dressed KK propagator
from \eqref{eq:DDelta_dressed}. This propagator is given by
\begin{align}
\Delta_q(z,z')
=
i\,\mathbf{f}(z)
\cdot
\left[ \mathbf{D}^{-1} + i\,\textrm{Im}\,\mathbf{\Pi} \right]^{-1}
\cdot \mathbf{f}(z') \,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
i \mathbf{\Pi}
&\equiv
\int du \int dv \, i\Pi(u,v) \mathbf{f}(u) \otimes \mathbf{f}(v)
\,.
\end{align}
The imaginary part of $\mathbf{\Pi}$ gives rise to a ``width matrix'' for the KK resonances. Critically, $\mathrm{Im}\,\mathbf{\Pi}$ is \emph{not} diagonal: the KK modes mix due to this non-diagonal, imaginary contribution to the mass matrix.
The KK modes may merge into a continuum either because they become broad, or because of the mixing induced by $\mathrm{Im}\,\mathbf{\Pi}$.
This property of the AdS propagator is suggestive of how heavy glueballs in the strongly-coupled dual tend to merge near the $\tilde \Lambda$ cutoff, see Section~\ref{se:CFT_glueballs}.
At low enough four-momentum $p$, the narrow-width approximation applies to the KK modes. The KK modes can then be treated as asymptotic 4D states. The optical theorem applies to these light KK modes. In contrast, when approaching the transition scale, the KK modes cannot be seen as asymptotic states due to large widths and KK-mode mixing. This is consistent with the properties of non-truncated AdS.
\subsection{Continuum Regime: \texorpdfstring{$p > \tilde \Lambda$}{p>Lambda-tilde}}
When $p$ is above the transition scale, $\tilde \Lambda$, the oscillating pieces of the propagator are smoothed. Within this regime, the endpoints of the propagator define additional scales for which the propagator realizes different behavior.
\paragraph{Continuum regime, low momentum.}
In the continuum regime with low momentum, $|p|>\tilde \Lambda$ and $|p| < z_>^{-1}$, and away from the poles, the propagator is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:propaII}
\Delta_p(z,z')
&\approx
\Delta_\textnormal{UV} + \Delta_\textnormal{heavy} + \Delta_\textnormal{light}
\ ,
\end{align}
where the pieces are
\begin{align}
\Delta_\textnormal{UV}
&=
\phantom{+} i \frac{(b_{UV}+2\alpha)(kz)^{2-\alpha}(kz')^{2-\alpha}}{\alpha \left(p^2/(\alpha-1)k+ 2b_{UV}k\right)}
&
\Delta_\textnormal{heavy}
&=
-i\frac{(kz)^2(kz')^2}{2\alpha k} \left(\frac{z_<}{z_>}\right)^{\alpha}
\\
\Delta_\textnormal{light}
&=
-i \frac{\Gamma(-\alpha)(kz)^2(kz')^2}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)2b_{UV}^2k}
g(z_<)
g(z_>)
\left(
\frac{-p^2}{4k^2}
\right)^\alpha
&
g(z)
&=
\frac{b_\textnormal{UV}+2\alpha}{(zk)^\alpha} -b_{\textnormal{UV}}(zk)^\alpha
\, .
\end{align}
Notice that the dependence on the $\mu$ parameter has dropped this expression. This is a manifestation of the propagator's agnosticism of the IR brane in this regime.
Conversely, this implies that when varying $p$ from UV scales to IR scales, the IR brane is effectively emergent when $p$ drops below $\tilde \Lambda$.
The content of each term in \eqref{eq:propaII} is also instructive. The first term, $\Delta_\textnormal{UV}$ represents a 4D mode localized near the UV brane.\,\footnote{In our convention, the 4D mode squared mass is positive for negative $b_{\textnormal{UV}}$.}
This 4D mode is assumed to be very heavy, $b_{\textnormal{UV}}=\mathcal O(1)$, such that it does not play a role in the processes of in this manuscript. The second term, $\Delta_\textnormal{heavy}$ is analytic and encodes the collective effect of heavy KK modes. The third term, $\Delta_\textnormal{light}$ is nonanalytic and encodes the collective effect of light modes.
\paragraph{Continuum regime, high momentum.}
In the continuum regime with high momentum, $|p| >\tilde \lambda$ and $z_>^{-1}<|p|<z_<^{-1}$, the numerator of the propagator oscillates:
\begin{align}
\Delta_p(z,z')
&\propto
\frac{\cos\left({p}{\mu^{-1}}-pz_>\right)}{\cos\left({p}{\mu^{-1}}+\varphi_-\right)}
\times
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
1
&
\textnormal{for}~{z_>^{-1}}<p<{z_<^{-1}}
\\[1em]
\displaystyle
\cos\left(pz_<-\varphi_+\right)
&\textnormal{for}~p>{z_<^{-1}}
\ ,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where we have written phase shifts as $\varphi_\pm={\pi}\left(1\pm2\alpha\right)/4$. Upon dressing, the non-oscillatory part of the propagator in this region scales as
\begin{align}\Delta_p(z,z') \sim \begin{cases}
e^{- |p| z_>} \quad &\textnormal{for}~p_\mu~\;\textnormal{spacelike}
\\
e^{-c p z_>} \quad &\textnormal{for}~p_\mu~\;\textnormal{timelike}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:Kexp} \ .
\end{align}
This is an important feature: the IR region of AdS is opaque to propagation for both spacelike and timelike momenta.
The regions of opacity are somewhat different---the suppression for spacelike momentum occurs at $z \sim 1/|p|$, while the suppression for timelike momentum occurs at $z \sim 1/{cp}$.
Substituting in $c$, we see that the suppression in the timelike regime occurs for
\begin{align}
pz_> \gtrsim \frac{\Lambda}{a k}\,. \label{eq:op}
\end{align}
This behavior is similar to the region of EFT breaking in \eqref{eq:cutoff}. Therefore the opacity of the space effectively censors the region where the EFT breaks down. This behavior was qualitatively predicted in Ref.~\cite{ArkaniHamed:2000ds}.
For the specific case with an endpoint on the IR brane, $z_>=1/\mu$, the opacity threshold \eqref{eq:op} is the same as the scale at which the Kaluza--Klein poles disappear, \eqref{eq:pole_cond}. The two effects are, of course, closely related: the poles vanish precisely when the IR brane becomes opaque to the propagator.
\paragraph{}
In the continuum regime, KK modes are not appropriate variables to describe the theory because the $f_n$ profiles fall into a spacetime region where the EFT breaks down, \eqref{eq:cutoff}. Instead, the meaningful variables are those localized on the UV brane. These remain in the theory up to the ultimate cutoff $p\sim \Lambda$. This was already observed in \cite{Goldberger:2002cz} from EFT considerations, and is completely consistent with the holographic formalism needed for AdS/CFT.
\section{Cascade Decays in the Continuum Regime}
\label{se:Decays}
The same bulk interactions that induce opacity in the IR region necessarily induce cascade decays in the bulk.
These cascade decays, in turn, may appear to be a possible loophole to the arguments in the previous section.
In particular, it is possible that a continuum with $p\gg \tilde \Lambda$ undergoes cascade decays down the KK regime, ending in light narrow KK states and/or in IR-localized states.
In such a process, it may seem that for \emph{any} initial momentum the cascade decay `knows' that an IR brane exists.
This appears to circumvent the picture obtained in Section~\ref{se:regimes}, where the theory at $p\gg \tilde \Lambda$ does not know at all about the IR brane.
We evaluate explicitly this process in this section and discuss implications in Section~\ref{se:picture}.
The properties of cascade decays initiated in the KK regime are fairly well-understood and are summarized in Section~\ref{se:shape}. We instead focus on the cascade decays starting in the continuum regime. This regime is always present unless interactions are removed ($\Lambda\rightarrow \infty$). Furthermore, in the strong coupling limit $\Lambda\sim k$, there is essentially no KK regime and all propagation is in the continuum regime. We seek to determine the overall shape and the total probability for a cascade decay event to occur in the continuum regime.
The bulk of AdS does not permit asymptotic states or a conventional $S$-matrix (see {e.g.} \cite{Giddings:1999qu,Balasubramanian:1999ri}). However the 4D modes localized on the branes, which have a 4D Minkowski metric, can provide usual asymptotic states.
We thus consider decays that are initiated on the UV brane. The decay may end back on the UV brane or reach asymptotic states on the IR brane. It can also end in narrow KK modes which are effectively asymptotic states in the limit of the 4D narrow width approximation.
\subsection{The Decay Process}
The explicit evaluation of a generic decay diagram with an arbitrary number of legs is, in principle, challenging because there are many phase space and position integrals to perform over a non-trivial integrand.
However, it turns out that a recursive approach can be adopted based on simplifying approximations. We build on this approach to estimate the total rate for a generic decay.
For intermediate steps in this calculation, it is convenient to formally write the final states as KK modes, even if the corresponding momenta are in the continuum regime. Sums over KK modes may then be re-expressed in terms of the closed form propagator at the end of the calculation.
Measurable event rates, such as cross sections and decay widths, depend on the integral of the squared amplitude over phase space.
To emphasize that our approach does not depend on how the continuum is created, we work at the level of this integrated square amplitude, denoted as $P_M$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1.00\linewidth]{SoftBombCascadev2.pdf}
\caption{The cascade decay amplitudes. $u$ and $v$ are coordinates in the $z$ direction. In our recursive approach, we relate the integrated square amplitude of the left diagram to that of the right diagram. \label{fig:amps} }
\end{figure}
For the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:amps} with $M+1$ final states,
\begin{align}
P_{M+1} \equiv
\int\sum_{\textnormal{FS}(M+1)}|\mathcal{M}_{M+1}|^2(2\pi)^4d\Phi_{M+1}.
\end{align}
The sum over ${\textnormal{FS}(M+1)}$ is shorthand for a sum over all possible combinations of $(M+1)$ KK modes that are kinematically allowed final states.
$d\Phi_{M+1}$ is the volume element of the $(M+1)-$body Lorentz-invariant phase space~\cite{PhysRevD.98.030001}.
We label specific specific final state KK numbers and four-momenta as $m$, $p_m$ and $n$, $p_n$.
The amplitude for a given set of final state KK modes is expressed as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_{M+1}^{(m,n,\cdots)}
&=
\int du ~ \mathcal{I}_{M}^{(\cdots)}(u)
\int_{1/k}^{1/\mu} dv \frac{\lambda\Delta_{q}(u,v)}{(kv)^5}f_{m}(v)f_{n}(v)
\ .
\label{eq:amp}
\end{align}
$\mathcal{I}_{M}^{(\ldots)}(u)$ is the amplitude that has been amputated just before the propagator that produces the $m$ and $n$ modes, see Fig.~\ref{fig:amps}.
The $\mathcal{M}_M$ amplitude, shown on the right-hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig:amps}, is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_{M}^{(n,\cdots)} = \int du ~\mathcal{I}_{M}^{(\cdots)}(u)f_{n}(u).
\end{align}
The corresponding integrated square amplitude is
\begin{align}
P_{M}\equiv\int\sum_{FS(M)}|\mathcal{M}_{M}|^2(2\pi)^4d\Phi_{M}
\ .
\end{align}
We now relate $P_{M+1}$ to $P_M$.
\subsection{Recursion Relation}
\label{se:recursion}
Propagators with timelike momentum are suppressed beyond $z_>\sim 1/( c p)$, as seen in \eqref{eq:Kexp}. We assume for simplicity that $c\sim 1$. This implies that our evaluation assumes nearly strong coupling, {i.e.}~$\Lambda$ is not far from $k$. Following this, the position integrals effectively have no support beyond $z\sim 1/p$. Note that this is equivalent to only considering contributions from the $\mu<|p|<z_>^{-1}$ region of position--momentum space, see \eqref{eq:propaII}.
We have numerically evaluated contributions from the $|p|>z_>^{-1}$ regions and found that they tend to be smaller or of the same order as the results from this section for $c$ near unity. These contributions can be somewhat larger for smaller $c$, though a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this manuscript.
We square the amplitude and write sums on KK modes as integrals over the propagator using \eqref{eq:sumtoint}. In the continuum regime, only the third term of the continuum propagator in \eqref{eq:propaII} contributes to the contour integral because it carries a branch cut. By deforming the contour to fit snugly around the branch cut, we determine that
\begin{align}
\sum_{n=0}^{\tilde n} U(m_n^2) f_n(z) f_n(z')
=
-\frac{1}{2\pi}
\oint_{\mathcal C \left[\tilde n\right]}
dq^2 \, U(q^2) \Delta_q(z,z')
=
\frac{-1}{2\pi}
\int_0^{m_{\tilde{n}}^2}
dq^2 \, U(q^2) \mathrm{Disc}[\Delta_{q}(z,z')]
\label{eq:sumtoint2} \, .
\end{align}
In terms of the propagator, $P_{M+1}$ then reads
\begin{alignat}{3}
P_{M+1}
&= 4\pi^2 \sum_{\textnormal{FS}(M-1)}
&& \int d\Phi_{M+1} \int du \int du'\,
\mathcal{I}_{M}(u) \, \mathcal{I}^*_{M}(u')
\int_{{1}/{k}}^{{1}/{q}}dv\label{eq:slowdecay}
\int_{{1}/{k}}^{{1}/{q}}dv'~
\frac{\lambda^2\Delta_{q}(u,v)\Delta_{q}^*(u',v')}{(kv)^5(kv')^5} \times
\\
& &&
\int dp_1^2\, \mathrm{Disc}[\Delta_{p_1}(v,v')]
\int dp_2^2\, \mathrm{Disc}[\Delta_{p_2}(v,v')]
\, .
\nonumber
\end{alignat}
The integrals over the $p_1^2$, $p_2^2$ variables implement the sum over KK modes in \eqref{eq:sumtoint2}.
The integrands in \eqref{eq:slowdecay} carry positive powers of $v$ and $v'$ so that the $dv\, dv'$ integrand is largest at the upper limit, $v,\,v'\sim 1/q$. Because $q$ is the momentum flowing through the parent this implies that the cascade decay progresses slowly towards the IR region.
We break up the phase space using the standard recursion relation, see e.g.~\cite{PhysRevD.98.030001},
\begin{align}
d\Phi_{M+1}=d\Phi_2(q;p_1,p_2)\, d\Phi_M\, (2\pi)^3 dq^2
\, .
\end{align}
We get
\begin{alignat}{3}
P_{M+1}
&=(2\pi)^4 \sum_{\textnormal{FS}(M-1)}
&& \int d\Phi_{M}
\int du \int du'\,
\mathcal{I}_{M}(u) \, \mathcal{I}^*_{M}(u')
\int_{{1}/{k}}^{{1}/{q}}dv\label{eq:integrand}
\int_{{1}/{k}}^{{1}/{q}}dv'~
\frac{\lambda^2}{(kv)^5(kv')^5} \times
\\
& &&
\int dp_1^2\, \mathrm{Disc}[\Delta_{p_1}(v,v')]
\int dp_2^2\, \mathrm{Disc}[\Delta_{p_2}(v,v')]
\int\frac{dq^2}{64\pi^4q^2}K(q,p_1,p_2)\Delta_{q}(u,v)\Delta_{q}^*(u',v')
\, .
\nonumber
\end{alignat}
Here $K(q,p_1,p_2)$ is the 2-body kinematic factor,
\begin{align}
K(q,p_1,p_2)^2
\equiv
{\left[
q^2-\left(p_1+p_2\right)^2
\right]
\left[
q^2-\left(p_1-p_2\right)^2
\right]} \ .
\end{align}
We approximate the integrals over $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$ as
\begin{align}
\int_0^q dp_1 \int_0^{q-p_1} dp_2
~p_1^{2\alpha+1}p_2^{2\alpha+1}
K(q,p_1,p_2)
\approx
\int_0^{{q}/{2}}
dp_1
\int_0^{{q}/{2}} dp_2~ p_1^{2\alpha+1}p_2^{2\alpha+1} q^2\,.
\label{eq:kinapprox}
\end{align}
This approximation introduces a ${\cal O}(1)$ error that depends on $\alpha$.\footnote{The error monotonically increases from $\sim25\%$ for $\alpha$ near 0 to $\sim30\%$ for $\alpha$ near 1.} Note that the dominant contribution to the integral in \eqref{eq:kinapprox} comes from the region near the upper limit. This indicates that the continua tend to decay near kinematic threshold. Thus the cascades gives rise to soft spherical final states, in accordance with former results from both gravity and CFT sides.
Integrating over $p_1^2$, $p_2^2$, $v$, and $v'$, we have
\begin{align}
P_{M+1}
=&
C_\alpha
\sum_{FS(M-1)}(2\pi)^4
\int d\Phi_M
\int \frac{dq^2}{k}
\left(\frac{q}{k}\right)^{2\alpha}
\int du
\int du'
\, \mathcal{I}_{M}(u)
\, \mathcal{I}_{M}^*(u')
(ku)^{2+\alpha}(ku')^{2+\alpha}\,,
\end{align}
where the constant prefactor is
\begin{align}
C_\alpha &=
\frac{
8^{4(1-\alpha)}\lambda^2
}{
\alpha^4\pi^4k
}
\left(
\frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha)\sin(\pi\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
\right)^2
\frac{
|(2+3 \alpha)4^\alpha -(\alpha +2)
\frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
e^{i\alpha\pi}|^2
}{
(2+3\alpha)^2 (2+ \alpha )^2 (1+\alpha)^2
} \ .
\end{align}
One may replace the $dq^2$ in favor of a sum over the continuum of KK final states by applying \eqref{eq:sumtoint2}. This yields a recursion relation
\begin{align}
P_{M+1}
= r \int\sum_{\textnormal{FS}(M)}
\left|\int du ~ \mathcal{I}_{M}(u)f_{n}(u)\right|^2
(2\pi)^4d\Phi_n
= r \, P_M
\ . \label{eq:rec}
\end{align}
The fact that one obtains a simple relation is a consequence of the integrand having a specific momentum dependence and is nontrivial. This relation is clearly useful since it can be used to give an estimate of a total rate with arbitrary number of legs.
The recursion coefficient $r$ is given by
\begin{align}
r \equiv
\frac{\lambda^2}{k}
\frac{1}{1024^{1+\alpha}}
\frac{1}{2\pi^3\alpha^3}
\left(
\frac{
|(2+3 \alpha)4^\alpha -(2+\alpha )
\frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)} e^{i\alpha\pi}|^2
}{
(2+3\alpha)^2 (2+ \alpha )^2 (1+\alpha)^2
}\right)
\frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha)\sin(\pi\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
\ .
\label{eq:recursion}
\end{align}
Even for the strongly coupled case, $\lambda^2 \sim \ell_5 k$, this coefficient is much smaller than one.
\section{Soft Bombs and the Emergence of the IR Brane}
\label{se:picture}
The recursion relation \eqref{eq:recursion} allows us to study the qualitative features of a complete cascade decay event. An event initiated on the UV brane with timelike momentum $P>\tilde \Lambda$ starts in the continuum regime and decays as a cascade of continua. This decay eventually reaches the KK regime.
\subsection{Shape\label{se:shape}}
The differential event rate---the integrand in the expression for $P_M$---determines the most likely configurations in phase space. The phase space approximation \eqref{eq:kinapprox} shows that decays tend to occur near threshold with final momenta evenly split between the offspring.
The event thus tends to be soft and spherical. This confirms the \emph{soft bomb} picture obtained in the KK regime \cite{Csaki:2008dt}, in string calculations (see {e.g.}~\cite{Hofman:2008ar}) and in the gauge theory dual~\cite{Hatta:2007cs,Hatta:2008tn}.
The integrand in \eqref{eq:integrand} shows that vertices tend to occur at $z\sim 1/p$ where $p$ is the momentum of the parent continuum.
There is a sense of progression in the fifth dimension: the cascade decay proceeds from the UV to the IR with each offspring moving further into the IR than its parent.
Let $p_f$ be the average momentum of states after some number of branchings. The soft bomb then leaves the continuum regime and enters the KK regime at $p_f \sim \tilde \Lambda$. This is roughly the scale at which the KK modes become narrow. These features are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:softbomb}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SoftBombCartoon_noaxes.pdf}
\caption{
A typical field-theoretical soft bomb event in AdS$_5$ in the continuum regime $p>\tilde \Lambda$. The rate for such an event to occur is exponentially suppressed.
} \label{fig:softbomb}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Total Rate}
\label{se:rate}
The soft bomb enters the regime of narrow KK modes when the offspring have average momenta $p_f \sim \tilde \Lambda$. At this scale, the narrow width approximation is valid and the recursion \eqref{eq:rec} halts because subsequent decays factorize.
This highlights a key feature of the continuum regime in contrast to the KK regime: the phase space suppression factors are not compensated by narrow poles due to the breakdown of the narrow width approximation. This is why cascade events starting in the continuum regime are suppressed.
One can estimate the total rate of cascade decays
using the recursion \eqref{eq:rec}.
A continuum cascade initiated with momentum $P$ stops at momentum $p_f\sim \tilde \Lambda$. Assuming an equal split of momenta among a total of $M$ offspring gives
\begin{align}
M \sim P/\tilde \Lambda \ . \label{eq:mult}
\end{align}
The recursion relation \eqref{eq:rec} shows that the rate is suppressed by $r^{M-1}$.
\begin{align}
P_M \sim r^{P/\tilde \Lambda} \,.
\label{eq:suppr}
\end{align}
Since $r\ll 1$, the soft bomb is exponentially suppressed as a function of $P$ for initial timelike momenta in the continuum regime $P>\tilde \Lambda$.
\subsection{Emergence of the IR Brane}
The suppression of the soft bomb rate in the continuum regime completes our picture of quantum field theory in AdS for timelike momenta. We can now make a statement about the `disappearance' of the IR brane in QFT first hinted in Section\,\ref{se:transition}.
Consider, for example, a UV-localized field $\varphi$ that couples to the bulk scalar, $\Phi$. The collision of two $\varphi$ states can induce a cascade decay $\varphi\varphi \rightarrow \Phi \rightarrow \Phi \Phi \rightarrow \cdots$
When the center-of-mass four-momentum is in the KK regime, $P<\tilde \Lambda$, the event rate is determined by the $\varphi\varphi \rightarrow \Phi^{(n)}$ amplitude to create an on-shell KK mode $\Phi^{(n)}$ with mass $m_n \sim P$.
In contrast, in the continuum regime, $P>\tilde \Lambda$, the cascade is initiated with 5D continua that have no poles and thus no notion of being on-shell. Narrow KK modes only appear after the cascade has produced enough offspring for the typical momentum to drop below $\tilde \Lambda$.
The amplitude to calculate includes the entire cascade up to, and including, the first narrow KK modes.
The rate for a cascade in the continuum regime is suppressed with respect to that in the KK regime by the tiny factor $r^{P/\tilde \Lambda}$ in \eqref{eq:suppr}.
This suppression implies that continua produced tend not to cascade down to many narrow KK states which can interact with an IR brane, but instead tend to go promptly into UV-brane states with no cascade. Thus in the continuum regime, the theory truly does not know about the IR brane.
The observables---including decays---in this regime of the theory can be equivalently obtained in AdS background with \textit{no} IR brane.
Formally this statement can be spelled out using the partition function of the theory
\begin{align}
e^{i E[J]}=\left<e^{ i \int_{z_{\rm UV}}^{z_{\rm IR}} dz d^4p\, \Phi J} \right>= \int{\cal D}[{\rm fields}] \exp{ i \left( \int_{z_{\rm UV}}^{z_{\rm IR}} dz d^4p \left( {\cal L}_{\rm bulk} + \Phi J \right)+ S_{\rm UV}+ S_{\rm IR}\right)} \label{eq:Zfull} \,,
\end{align}
where $E[J]$ is the generating functional of the connected correlators.
Our claim is that in the $p\gg \tilde \Lambda$ regime, the correlators are equivalently described by
\begin{align}
e^{i E[J]\big|_{p\gg \tilde \Lambda}}\approx \int{\cal D}[{\rm fields}] \exp{ i \left( \int_{z_{\rm UV}}^{\infty} dz d^4p \left( {\cal L}_{\rm bulk} + \Phi J \right)+ S_{\rm UV}\right)} \equiv e^{i E[J]\big|_{z_{\rm IR}\rightarrow \infty}}\,.
\label{eq:EFTUV}
\end{align}
On the right-hand side, $ E[J]\big|_{z_{\rm IR}\rightarrow \infty}$ amounts to the theory with the IR brane removed. In other words, the IR brane---and the fields and operators localized on it---effectively vanishes for $p\gg \tilde \Lambda$.
Conversely, the IR brane affects correlators for lower $p$ and is thus effectively emergent.\,\footnote{
For the purpose of taking functional derivatives, the source $J$ can formally be any distribution.
If instead $J$ is given a physical meaning, it
is typically localized towards the UV brane to avoid any backreaction of the metric towards the IR.
In the context of holography, $J$ is exactly localized on $z=z_{\rm UV}$, giving rise to UV-localized variables as done in Section~\ref{se:ndaadscft}. }
Finally we notice that the continuum regime is exactly described by an appropriate CFT model as dictated by the AdS/CFT correspondence. Apart from the UV brane which amounts to a UV cutoff in the CFT, the theory is exactly AdS in the continuum regime.
\subsection{Optical Theorem}
In Section~\ref{sec:KK:regime} we observed that in the Kaluza--Klein regime, KK modes are valid asymptotic states that obey the optical theorem.
In the continuum regime, even though the rate of cascade decays is exponentially suppressed, the imaginary part of the bulk self-energy ${\rm Im}\,\Pi$ is not. This does not contradict the optical theorem, though it may appear to do so when using the intuition from KK modes.
This is because unlike the KK regime, the continuum regime has no narrow state on which one may perform a unitarity cut. Thus the loop-level contribution to the self-energy is \emph{not} related to a decay---the optical theorem does not apply.
One may insist on identifying propagators of light KK modes with narrow widths upon which one may perform a unitarity cut. Because of the ``near-threshold'' property of KK vertices in Section~\ref{se:shape}, these light KK modes only appear at high loop order. A unitarity cut on this high-loop order diagram ultimately reproduces the typical soft bomb diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:softbomb} that ends in states with $m_{\rm KK}\sim \tilde \Lambda$. Such diagrams only amount to a tiny portion of ${\rm Im}\,\Pi$.
\subsection{Asymptotically AdS Backgrounds \label{se:IR_gen} }
Our study focuses on a slice of pure AdS with no departure from AdS in the IR region. The qualitative features of our results can apply to models whose backgrounds are deformed in the IR.
One kind of model is the slice of AdS stabilized by the Goldberger--Wise mechanism. This produces a non-negligible backreaction of the metric near the IR brane. Another class of model are those where the metric develops a naked curvature singularity in the IR---the soft-wall models, see \textit{e.g.} \cite{Karch:2006pv,Gursoy:2007cb,Gursoy:2007er, Batell:2008zm, Cabrer:2009we,vonGersdorff:2010ht} for some points of entry in the literature. Such models are typically asymptotically AdS towards the UV brane, with the IR deformation becoming relevant near the IR brane/singularity.
One can apply the reasoning of Section~\ref{se:regimes} to these models. By dimensional analysis, there is some typical scale $\hat\mu$ associated with the IR region. A transition scale $\Lambda \hat\mu/k$ thus also exists, above which the IR region should drop from the correlation functions if the EFT is to remain under control.
More quantitatively, one can integrate out the IR region and encapsulate it into an effective IR brane with non-trivial form factors localized on it \cite{vonGersdorff:2010ht}. This holographic projection of the IR region demonstrates that the two regimes can indeed be meaningfully separated. The effective IR brane contains the details of the model-dependent KK regime. Since the bulk is pure AdS, our results from Sections~\ref{se:AdS}-\ref{se:picture} apply.
This immediately shows that at high enough $p$, the effective IR brane leaves the theory, leaving thus a (quasi-)AdS continuum regime like the one described in this paper. Conversely, when decreasing $p$, the deviation from AdS gradually emerges from the viewpoint of a UV-brane observer.
\subsection{Holographic Dark Sector}
The soft bomb suppression rate has phenomenological implications for theories where a dark (or hidden) sector is confined to the IR brane and the Standard Model is confined to the UV brane, as recently proposed in~\cite{Brax:2019koq}.
Suppose, for concreteness, that the decay chain ends in stable IR brane particles that could naturally be identified with dark matter.
A standard way to search for dark matter at colliders is to look for missing energy signatures. In our holographic dark sector scenario, the suppression of the cascade decay rate in the continuum regime implies that the missing energy spectrum should vanish around the $\tilde \Lambda$ scale.
This characteristic of the holographic dark sector framework is completely distinct from standard 4D dark sectors.
Another standard constraint on dark sectors with light states that couple to the Standard Model is stellar cooling from the emission of dark states.
In the holographic dark sector scenario, stars emit KK modes with narrow widths when the temperature of the star is roughly between $\mu$ and $\tilde \Lambda$.
In contrast, if the star is hotter than $\tilde \Lambda$, the center-of-mass energy for dark state production is typically in the continuum regime.
One may then expect that the anomalous cooling rates are then exponentially suppressed within the AdS model. One must be cautious with this intuition, however, as the finite-temperature system may be better described by an AdS--Schwarzschild geometry~\cite{Creminelli:2001th}. The phenomenology of this situation may lead to new possibilities to get around the stellar cooling bounds that constrain standard dark sectors.
These effects are very interesting from a phenomenological viewpoint: they may alleviate experimental constraints and change the experimental complementarity of dark matter searches. The direct detection signatures of this type of framework are studied in~\cite{Katz:2015zba}, which also discusses some qualitative differences of timelike correlation functions in models of near-conformal sectors.
We explore these effects in upcoming phenomenological studies.
\section{AdS/CFT}\label{se:adscft}
This paper focused primarily on the physics of 5D Anti-de Sitter spacetime. In this section we connect our analysis to the properties of the dual gauge theory by the AdS/CFT correspondence.
First we briefly discuss consistency of our soft bomb picture with the one obtained in the CFT literature. We will then show how dimensional analysis (see Section\,\ref{se:NDA}) applied to the holographic action naturally relates to the dual large-$N$ expansion. Finally
we study the transition scale in the dual low-energy EFT of glueballs.
\subsection{CFT Soft Bombs }
\label{se:CFT_softbomb}
There is strong evidence that gauge theories with large 't\,Hooft coupling exhibit vastly different behaviour than weakly-coupled gauge theories, see {e.g.}~\cite{Polchinski:2002jw}.\,\footnote{In the gauge theory context, the strongly-coupled analog of jets have sometimes been referred to as ``spherical events" or ``jets at strong coupling" instead of ``soft bombs'' as done here. }
In \cite{Hatta:2008tn}, the fragmentation of a jet at large 't\,Hooft coupling was qualitatively studied using properties of spacelike and timelike anomalous dimensions.
The jet is assumed to be created from well-defined asymptotic states such as in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation.
In our AdS dual this is realized using asymptotic states localized on the UV brane.
The jet evolves and ends at some infrared scale $\Lambda_{\rm IR}$ at which the parton momenta are measured.
In our AdS dual this $\Lambda_{\rm IR}$ corresponds to the infrared scale $\tilde \Lambda$ that we have determined in Section\,\ref{se:regimes}.
Ref.\,\cite{Hatta:2008tn} finds that parton splitting tends to be democratic because there is no reason for soft or collinear phase space configurations to be preferred---all partons tend to have minimum momentum $p_f\sim \Lambda_{\rm IR}$. Hence, cascades give rise to spherical events with a large number of low-momentum final states.
%
This matches our explicit {AdS} calculation in {Section~\ref{se:shape}}. The total {number} of offspring is found to be $n \sim P/\Lambda_{\rm IR}$, which corresponds to {\eqref{eq:mult}}, {with} $\Lambda_{\rm IR}\sim \tilde \Lambda$.
We conclude that the shape of {an} AdS soft bomb event is consistent with findings on the CFT side.
\subsection{Dimensional Analysis and Large \texorpdfstring{$N$}{N} }\label{se:ndaadscft}
In Section\,\ref{se:matter} we have shown that 4D KK mode interactions are naturally suppressed by powers of $(\ell_5 k/ \ell_4\Lambda)$. Here we show that this suppression corresponds to the large $N$ suppression in the dual CFT.
To see this correspondence, instead of KK modes, we must consider the 5D theory in AdS using an appropriate variable---the value of the bulk field on the UV brane
\begin{align}
\hat \Phi_0(x)\equiv \hat \Phi(X)\Big|_{\rm UV\,brane} \, .
\end{align}
$\Phi$ is the dimensionless bulk field in ~\eqref{eq:SD_NDA}.
The bulk field in the action is rewritten as $\hat \Phi=\hat \Phi_0 K$, where $K$ is the classical field profile sourced by $\hat \Phi_0$.
In terms of this holographic variable, the partition function~\eqref{eq:Zfull} takes the form $\int {\cal D} \hat \Phi_0 \exp \left( i S_5[\hat \Phi_0 K]\right)$, where $S_5$ is the 5D action for which the 5D NDA in~\eqref{eq:SD_NDA} applies.
The leading term of the effective action in the semiclassical expansion is the classical holographic action
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\rm hol} = \frac{\Lambda^5}{\ell_5} \int d^4 x {\cal L}_{\rm hol}\left[\hat \Phi_0, \partial/\Lambda\right]+\cdots\,
\label{eq:SD_NDA_hol},
\end{align}
where the ellipses represent quantum terms that are irrelevant for our discussion.
The Lagrangian ${\mathcal L}_\textnormal{hol}$ has dimension $-1$. To recover a 4D NDA formulation as in \eqref{eq:SD_NDA}, we need to introduce a dimensionless Lagrangian.
From explicit calculation (see {e.g.}~\cite{Witten:1998qj, Ponton:2012bi}), the quadratic part of ${\mathcal L}_\textnormal{hol}$, $\frac{1}{2}\hat\Phi_0\Pi[\partial^2] \hat\Phi_0$, is proportional to the inverse of $\Delta_q(z_0,z_0)$ and contains an analytic part representing a 4D mode. Schematically, it is
\begin{align}
\Pi[\partial^2]\sim -\frac{1}{k}\frac{\partial^2+m_0^2}{\Lambda^2} + \ldots
\label{eq:Pi}
\end{align}
up to an $\mathcal O(1)$ coefficient. In the language of AdS/CFT, this is the kinetic term of the 4D source probing the CFT.
The exact expression can be read directly from the propagator~\eqref{eq:propaII} and is not needed here.
We introduce the dimensionless Lagrangian $\frac{1}{k}\hat{\cal L}_{\rm hol}={\cal L}_{\rm hol}$, such that the dimensionless source described in~\eqref{eq:Pi} is canonically normalized.
The action now can be rearranged as
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\rm hol} = \left(\frac{\ell_4 \Lambda }{ \ell_5 k} \right) \frac{\Lambda^4}{\ell_4} \int d^4 x \hat {\cal L}_{\rm hol}\left[\hat \Phi_0, \partial/\Lambda\right]+\cdots \,, \label{eq:Gammahol}
\end{align}
where we explicitly write the $\Lambda^4/\ell_4$ factor appear in accordance with 4D NDA. The factor in parenthesis is the same suppression as obtained in Section~\ref{se:matter}.
From \eqref{eq:SD_NDA_hol} it is clear that this factor systematically appears alongside $\hbar$ in the semiclassical expansion of the holographic action.
We may now perform dimensional analysis on the canonically normalized holographic variable,
\begin{align}
\Phi_0= \left(\frac{\ell_4 \Lambda }{ \ell_5 k} \right)^{1/2} \frac{\Lambda}{\ell_4^{1/2}} \hat \Phi_0 \, .
\end{align}
Functional derivatives with respect to $\Phi_0$ are suppressed as
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta^n\Gamma_{\rm hol}}{\delta \Phi_0(x_1)\delta \Phi_0(x_2)\cdots} \propto \left(\frac{ \ell_5 k}{\ell_4 \Lambda } \right)^{n/2-1}\, \label{eq:AdS_corr}
\end{align}
at leading order.
Hence by applying dimensional analysis at 5D and 4D levels in the holographic action, we have shown that a small parameter ($\sqrt{{\ell_5 k}/{\ell_4 \Lambda}}$) systematically suppressing the interactions and controlled by the AdS curvature appears.
The AdS/CFT correspondence dictates that the above quantity reproduces the connected $n$-point functions of a conformal gauge theory with adjoint fields and large $N$.
The main contribution to the correlator at large $N$ is suppressed as~\cite{Witten:1979kh,Nastase:2007kj}
\begin{align}
\langle {\cal O} {\cal O}\ldots \rangle_{\rm con} \propto \frac{1}{N^{n-2}}\,
\label{eq:CFT_corr}
\end{align}
with canonical normalization such that the 2pt function does not scale with $N$.
Comparing the AdS expression
\eqref{eq:AdS_corr} and the CFT expression~\eqref{eq:CFT_corr}, we see that the suppression factor in AdS corresponds to the $1/N^2$ suppression of the CFT,
\begin{align}
\frac{ \ell_5 k}{\ell_4 \Lambda }\sim \frac{1}{N^2}\,. \label{eq:AdS_N}
\end{align}
We thus obtain a precise, field-theoretical version of the correspondence between the $1/N$ expansion in the CFT and the parameters of the AdS effective field theory.
At fixed AdS curvature $k$, and i.e.~fixed 't\,Hooft coupling, the $N\rightarrow \infty$ limit corresponds to the $\Lambda\rightarrow \infty$ limit. This sets all interactions to zero and therefore produces a free 5D theory.
The relation~\eqref{eq:AdS_N}, when put in the
holographic action~\eqref{eq:Gammahol}, gives
$\Gamma_{\rm hol}=N^2 \frac{\Lambda^4}{{\ell_4}} \int d^4 x \hat{\cal L}_{\rm hol}$. The $N^2$ factor accompanying $\hbar$ in this action is a hallmark feature of AdS/CFT\,\cite{Aharony:1999ti}.
\subsection{{Dual} Interpretation of Transition Scale }
\label{se:CFT_glueballs}
In this section we consider the {dual gauge theory} interpretation of the transition scale using $\Lambda/k\sim N^2 \ell_5/\ell_4$ as established in \eqref{eq:AdS_N}. In the following discussion, we estimate $\ell_5/\ell_4 \sim \pi$.
Interactions vanish in the $\Lambda\rightarrow \infty $ limit. In this limit, the AdS theory thus contains an infinite tower of free, stable KK modes.\,\footnote{{A confined gauge theory produces a spectrum with particles of arbitrary spin. In the QFT approach to AdS/QCD, glueballs of a given spin corresponds to a given field on the AdS side, see \textit{e.g.}~\cite{Karch:2006pv}. Focusing on a bulk scalar amounts to focusing on the sector of scalar glueballs.}
}
This is the AdS manifestation of the infinite tower of stable glueballs when $N\rightarrow \infty $.
For finite $N$, the transition scale is
\begin{align}\tilde{\Lambda} \sim N^2 \pi \mu \,. \label{eq:Lambdatilde}
\end{align}
The scale controlling the mass of the KK modes, $\pi \mu$ appears. The KK masses grow linearly, hence the transition is reached around the mass of the $N^{2}\textnormal{-th}$ KK mode.
The $\tilde \Lambda$ scale would be the cutoff of the glueball EFT. Does the value \eqref{eq:Lambdatilde} make sense from the gauge theory side?
Recall that the large-$N$ theory contains, in principle, many glueballs at low energy. It is thus described by an EFT containing many species.
The interactions between glueballs are set by the $\tilde \Lambda$ scale and suppressed by powers of $1/N$. In the loop diagrams, such suppression is compensated by the multiplicity of glueballs.
For $N^2$ glueballs, the cutoff of the EFT becomes $\tilde \Lambda$.
This feature can be seen by using 4D NDA applied to the glueball theory with arbitrary number of species $N_s$ and $D=4$.
The prefactor of \eqref{eq:SD_NDA} is
\begin{align}\frac{N_s\tilde\Lambda^4}{N^2 \ell_4}\,,
\end{align}
which indicates strong coupling when the number of glueballs $N_s$ is of order $ N^2$.
This paints a consistent picture: the $N^2$ modes of the KK regime in AdS match the $N^2$ glueballs of the gauge theory.
These considerations are only about the number of species and do not tell us about glueball masses.
However we also know that an infinite tower of glueballs is needed to reproduce the logarithmic momentum dependence of the correlator between gauge currents~\cite{Witten:1979kh}.
At finite $N$, the width over mass ratio of the $n^\textnormal{th}$ glueball is expected to grow as $\Gamma_n/m_n \sim n/N^2$.
The $(1/N)^2$ factor comes from the $1/N$ suppressed cubic vertices, and the $n$ factor comes from the number of accessible decay channels into lighter glueballs.
Hence the glueballs tend to become broad at $n\sim N^2$, which signals the transition to a continuum.
Since there is a tower of glueballs, the cutoff of the glueball EFT has to be around the mass of the $N^2\textnormal{-th}$ glueball, \textit{i.e.}~$\tilde \Lambda \sim m_{N^2}$.
This matches the picture obtained on the AdS side in \eqref{eq:Lambdatilde}, where the $N^2\textnormal{-th}$ KK mode is indeed of order of $\tilde\Lambda$.
{Notice this reasoning relies on state-counting and only requires enough of a hierarchy between masses for the decays to occur. This is a very mild condition.
In this work the mass distribution obtained from the AdS side is $m_n\sim n$, but the same line of reasoning would apply to \textit{e.g.} a Regge-like spectrum $m_n\sim \sqrt{n}$ }\,.\,\footnote{For completeness
we notice that at energies approaching the cutoff, $\tilde\Lambda$,
contributions from the multiparticle continuum should become sizeable. This is expected since, by definition, at the EFT cutoff the contributions from all loop orders become same order of magnitude---the EFT becomes strongly coupled.
The multiparticle contributions are suppressed by additional $1/N$ factors and by loop factors $1/\ell_4$ which define the perturbative expansion in the EFT. Near the cutoff, the $1/N$ suppression is compensated by the multiplicity of states in the loop(s).
Hence near the cutoff, one both expects that the resonances merge into a tree-level continuum and that loop-level continua become of same order as the tree-level one.
This is included in Figure~\ref{fig:balls}. }
The spectral density of glueballs obained from the above considerations is summarized in Fig.\,\ref{fig:balls}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.60\linewidth]{AdSSpectral.pdf}
\caption{
Schematic spectral density of the two-point correlator of the large-$N$ glueball EFT.
%
The solid line shows the glueball resonances merging into a continuum when approaching the cutoff of the EFT.
%
The merging of resonances that we describe is distinct from the multiparticle continuum, which we show schematically for completeness.
\label{fig:balls}
}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{se:con}
We revisit the behaviour of an effective theory of interacting matter fields in a slice of AdS$_5$.
We work in Poincar\'e position-momentum space---the AdS Poincar\'e patch Fourier-transformed along Minkowski slices.
We study new features induced by bulk interactions for timelike four-momenta. These correspond to including the leading $1/N^2$ effects in the strongly coupled dual theory.
We show using dimensional analysis that there is a transition scale, $\tilde \Lambda$, above which bulk propagators lose contact with the IR brane because the latter falls beyond the domain of validity of the effective theory. The scale separates the Kaluza--Klein and continuum regimes of the bulk propagator. The continuum regime would be absent if interactions were not taken into account. Conversely the continuum regime is the only one present in the limit of strong interactions.
For timelike momenta the transition between the KK and continuum regimes occurs because the propagator is dressed by bulk interactions, a leading $1/N^2$ effect. This induces an exponential suppression of the propagator in the region where the EFT would become invalid.
This censorship property was qualitatively predicted in \cite{ArkaniHamed:2000ds}.
Our treatment invokes approximations to loop integrals; more details of opacity in AdS may be better elucidated with future formal developments.
In the CFT dual, the existence of the transition scale corresponds to the fact that the effective theory of glueballs cannot contain infinitely many species. It becomes strongly coupled if more than approximately $ N^2$ glueballs are included in the spectrum. Beyond the transition scale, a gauge theory with no mass gap should appear. This is indeed what we demonstrate in the AdS theory.
For timelike bulk propagators, the IR brane is effectively absent when $p> \tilde \Lambda$. However, cascade decays could allow correlators with energy beyond $\tilde \Lambda$ to be sensitive to the IR brane because the momentum is split between many offspring states. We therefore study cascade decays to better understand the notion of IR brane emergence.
We focus on a scalar with a bulk cubic interaction and investigate the squared matrix element integrated over final states that are the main ingredients of observable event rates.
In the continuum regime, there exists a recursion relation between cascades of different branching depth, which we use to estimate the rate for arbitrarily deep cascade.
We have checked that contributions from other effects are subleading.
These include direct decays into an IR brane localized state or into light KK modes via a tower of off-shell KK modes. We found that the contribution from the region in which the propagator is exponentially suppressed may be of the same order, but that this does not change our conclusions.
The cascade decay calculation provides a picture of soft bombs in the continuum regime of AdS.
We find that the shape of the cascade events tend to be soft and spherical in the 4D Minkowski slices.
This is because the branchings tend to be near-threshold with momentum evenly split between the offspring, which matches previous results for the CFT dual. Along the fifth dimension, the decays tend to occur near the region $z\sim 1/p$ where $p$ is the parent four-momentum. Therefore the soft bomb diagram grows in the Minkowski direction and slowly progresses towards the IR. Once the typical momentum of the offspring reaches $\tilde \Lambda$, the soft bomb enters the KK regime.
While there is no diagrammatic change between the KK and continuum regimes, the crucial change occurs in the behaviour of the propagators. In the KK regime, the narrow width approximation applies, such that amplitudes giving the soft bomb rate can effectively be cut. In the continuum regime the propagators do not have poles and the event cannot be cut before reaching the KK regime.
The phase space factor associated with each of the final states accumulate and the soft bomb rate in the continuum regime acquires an exponential suppression.
It follows that the continuum regime can be described by a high-energy effective theory with no IR brane. In other words, the operators on the IR brane effectively emerge at the energy scale $E\sim \tilde \Lambda$,
\textit{i.e.} schematically $
E[J]\big|_{p\gg \tilde \Lambda } \approx E[J]_{\rm no\, IR\, brane}
$ in terms of generating functionals of correlators.
We expect that the same conclusions qualitatively apply to asymptotically AdS backgrounds with a metric deformation in the IR region, such as soft-wall models.
These features can lead to new possibilities for physics beyond the Standard Model, as already pointed out in \cite{Brax:2019koq}.
In particular holographic dark sector scenarios may have bulk fields that mediate interactions between a UV-brane localized Standard Model and IR brane dark states that are emergent.
This implies that a light dark particle can be invisible at high energy experiments. For instance, bounds from stellar cooling or missing energy searches may be alleviated if the dark particles are light enough. The many phenomenological consequences of an emergent dark sector require further studies.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank K.~Agashe, S.~Belayev, D. Buarque, Z.~Chako, H.~Davoudiasl, J.~Hubisz, M.~Luty, R.~Sundrum, and G.~von Gersdorff for useful discussions.
A.C.~is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No.~1840991.
S.F.~is supported by the S\~ao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) under grants \#2011/11973, \#2014/21477-2 and \#2018/11721-4, and funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through a Fundamental Physics Innovation Visitor Award (Grant GBMF6210).
P.T.~is supported by~{de-sc}/0008541. P.T.~thanks the Aspen Center for Physics ({NSF} grant \#1066293) and the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics ({NSF} grant {PHY}-1748958) for their hospitality while part of this work was completed.
\bibliographystyle{utcaps}
|
\section{Introduction}
The power of General Relativity (GR) comes from the fact that it combines profound physical ideas with elegant mathematical apparatus. By generalizing the latter, one may hope to gain a deeper insight into gravity. One of the possible routes in this direction is known as the affine gravity \cite{einstein1923theory,carmichael1925eddington,schrodinger1943general, schrodinger1943union, schrodinger1956space,schrodinger1944affine, kijowski1978new,ferraris1981general, liebscher1988purely}. The idea of this approach is based on the fact that any gravitational theory must include the connection field, but not (necessarily) the metric. Namely, in affine gravity the only independent field is the connection, while the metric is introduced as the momentum, canonically conjugated to the connection. This suggests a new look on the independent variables in gravity, which, for example, might be important for its quantization. However, it is known that affine gravity is phenomenologically equivalent to GR with a non--zero cosmological constant term \cite{fradkin1985quantum,ortin2004gravity,Magnano:1995pv}. In this context, the standard affine gravity does not provide new insights into the physics of gravity.
The aim of this paper is to introduce a novel model of affine gravity, which we dub scalar--affine gravity. In comparison with the standard affine gravity and GR, this model has the following features.
First, scalar--affine gravity is scale--invariant and realizes the no--scale scenario of \cite{minkowski1977spontaneous,zee1979broken, fujii1982origin,shaposhnikov2009scale, Blas:2011ac,kubo2019planck}. Namely, we start with a Lagrangian including only dimensionless constants. Then all physically important quantities, including Planck mass and Hubble parameter, emerge dynamically through the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB). In particular, this naturally gives rise to the inflation. None of the previously considered models, including Born--Infeld type gravities, have these features.
Second, in scalar--affine gravity the vacuum solution is a de--Sitter--like space. Specifically, the metric is the same as in the de--Sitter space, but the background connection gets modified due to non--metricity. Such configuration of the vacuum is achieved by introducing a scalar field non--minimally coupled to gravity. Remarkably, the scalar field effectively acts as dark energy, thus providing an alternative to the cosmological constant term.
Finally, in our model the time direction and the metric emerge dynamically as well. Namely, we start with a general notion of a 4--dimensional manifold with the affine connection. Then, due to SSB, there appears a non--degenerate metric and one of the directions becomes distinguishable, playing the role of the time direction. In this context, our model realizes the idea of \cite{Borisov:1974bn,cutler1987new} that the metric can appear as a field breaking the general covariance down to the Poincare subgroup. We strengthen this approach by showing that the corresponding SSB also induces spontaneous origination of the time direction.
The model we are going to introduce has several drawbacks, which we discuss in the main part of the paper. However, we believe that the mentioned features of the scalar--affine gravity can renew the interest in the study of such models.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec:2} we make an overview of affine gravity and introduce notations. In section \ref{sec:3} we present our model and discuss its features. In section \ref{sec:4} we show that our model is phenomenologically viable, both from the perspective of the direct tests of gravity and cosmological evolution. Finally, in section \ref{sec:5} we discuss the results and possible ways of generalizing the model.
\section{Affine gravity}
\label{sec:2}
\subsection{Overview of affine gravity}
\label{sec:2-1}
Depending on independent variables, all gravitational theories can be classified into three categories \cite{Magnano:1995pv}.
The most often encountered are metric theories of gravity. In such theories the metric is the only source of gravity and the connection is fixed to be given by the Christoffel symbol of the metric. For example, GR belongs to this type of theories.
Metric--affine theories, also known as the first--order (Palatini) formulations of gravity, form the second category. In this approach the metric and the connection are considered as independent variables. It is known that for a given $ f(R) $ theory, the metric and the metric--affine approaches yield different physical observables \cite{Sotiriou:2008rp}.
The third class of gravitational theories constitute the affine theories. In such models the only source of gravity is the connection, while the metric is introduced as the momentum, canonically conjugated to the connection \cite{schrodinger1943general,kijowski1978new}. Affine theories of gravity were first formulated by Einstein and Eddington \cite{einstein1923theory, carmichael1925eddington}, further developed by Schrodinger \cite{schrodinger1943general,schrodinger1943union, schrodinger1956space,schrodinger1944affine}, and later by Ferraris and Kijowski \cite{kijowski1978new,ferraris1981general}.
In affine gravity, the only tensor at hand is the Riemann curvature tensor,
\begin{equation}
R^\sigma_{\mu\nu\rho} = 2\partial_{[\mu}\Gamma^\sigma_{\nu]\rho} + 2\Gamma^\sigma_{[\mu|\lambda|} \Gamma^\lambda_{\nu]\rho} \;.
\end{equation}
Here and further we use parentheses and square brackets to denote, accordingly, symmetrization and antisymmetrization in the corresponding indices with proper weights. We also fix the dimension of the manifold to 4 and prescribe Greek letters to take values from 0 to 3. The contractions of the Riemann tensor give rise to the Ricci tensor,
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu} \equiv R^\sigma_{\mu\sigma\nu} = 2\partial_{[\mu}\Gamma^\sigma_{\sigma]\nu} + 2\Gamma^\rho _{[\mu|\lambda|}\Gamma^\lambda_{\rho]\nu} \;,
\end{equation}
and to the homothetic curvature tensor $ S_{\mu\nu} $,
\begin{equation} \label{homothetic_curv}
S_{\mu\nu} \equiv R^\sigma_{\mu\nu\sigma} = 2\partial_{[\mu}\Gamma_{\nu]\sigma}^\sigma \;.
\end{equation}
In the case of symmetric connection, the homothetic curvature coincides with the antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor, and it is an independent field otherwise. These are the building blocks of affine theories of gravity.
Throughout the paper we assume that the connection is torsionless and, for the reasons to become clear shortly, make use only of the symmetric part of the Ricci tensor. Then, in the absence of additional fields, the only diffeomorphism--invariant Lagrangian, up to multiplication by an arbitrary constant, reads
\begin{equation} \label{affine_classic}
\L =\sqrt{-\det \left( R_{(\mu\nu)}(\Gamma) \right)} \;.
\end{equation}
This is the Lagrangian of the simplest affine gravity model.
As Lagrangian above has a square root form, affine gravity can be considered as a subclass of Born--Infeld gravity \cite{jimenez2018born}. However, in most theories of Born--Infeld type the metric is considered as an independent primary field. As the question of identifying proper independent degrees of freedom might be of crucial importance (for example, for constructing quantum gravity), we prefer to distinguish affine gravity as a separate class.
There are two main ways of showing that affine gravity is equivalent to GR in the first--order formalism. The first approach employs the fact that in the first--order formalism GR's Lagrangian does not include derivatives of the metric. This allows one to consider the metric as a Lagrange multiplier and integrate it out. In the case of non--zero cosmological constant the resulting Lagrangian is that of the affine gravity. Indeed, consider GR with a non--zero cosmological constant term,
\begin{equation}
\L_{\Lambda} = \sqrt{-g} \left( M^2_{pl} R + 2\Lambda \right) \;,
\end{equation}
where $ M_{pl} $ is the Planck mass. Then by taking the determinant of Einstein's equations one gets
\begin{equation} \label{lagr_integr_metric}
\sqrt{-g}\left( M^2_{pl}R + 2\Lambda \right) = 2 \frac{M_{pl}^4}{\Lambda}\sqrt{-\text{det}R_{( \mu\nu ) } } \;,
\end{equation}
which proves the equivalence.
The second way exploits the definition of the metric as the momentum, canonically conjugated to the connection. We will demonstrate this approach on a concrete example, closely following \cite{kijowski1978new}. Consider the Lagrangian
\begin{equation} \label{lagr_kij}
\L_{ex} = \frac{2}{m^2 \psi^2} \sqrt{-\det \left( \partial_\mu \psi \partial_\nu \psi - M_{pl}^2 R_{(\mu\nu)} \right)} \;,
\end{equation}
where $ m^2 $ is some constant and $ \psi $ is a scalar field. Let us introduce $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu\rho}_\lambda $ as the momentum, canonically conjugated to the connection,
\begin{equation}
\label{def_momentum}
\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu\rho}_\lambda \equiv \frac{\delta \L}{\delta \partial_\rho \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}} \;.
\end{equation}
Further, by introducing $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ as
\begin{equation}
\label{def_metric}
\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \equiv \frac{\delta \L}{\delta R_{(\mu\nu)}} \;,
\end{equation}
one can express $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu\rho}_\lambda $ via $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ only,
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu\rho}_\lambda = \delta^{(\mu}_\lambda \mathfrak{g}^{\nu)\rho} - \delta^\rho_\lambda \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \;.
\end{equation}
Notice that $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ is automatically symmetric in its indices due to the symmetrization of $ R_{\mu\nu} $ in the Lagrangian and that its mass dimension equals two.
Lagrangian (\ref{lagr_kij}) is a function of the connection, field $ \psi $, and their derivatives. Then, since the derivatives of the connection enter Lagrangian (\ref{affine_classic}) only via the Ricci tensor, its full differential can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{dif_lagr}
d \L = J^{\mu\nu}_\lambda d\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} + \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} d R_{(\mu\nu)} + J d \psi + P^\mu d \partial_\mu \psi
\end{equation}
for some $ J^{\mu\nu}_\lambda, ~ J $ and $ P^\mu $. To demonstrate the equivalence with GR, we perform the Legendre transformation by contact--deforming Lagrangian (\ref{lagr_kij}) in the gravitational sector,
\begin{equation} \label{contact_deformed}
L = \L - \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu}R_{(\mu\nu)} \;.
\end{equation}
In this ``Hamiltonian'' formulation of gravity, $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ should be considered as an independent field, while $ R_{(\mu\nu)} $ as a function of $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ and $ \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} $. The full differential of (\ref{contact_deformed}) is thus
\begin{equation} \label{diff_hamilt}
dL = J^{\mu\nu}_\lambda d\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} - R_{(\mu\nu)} d \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} + J d \psi + P^\mu d \partial_\mu \psi \;.
\end{equation}
By definition, this implies
\begin{equation} \label{def_hamilt_ricci}
R_{(\mu\nu)} = - \frac{\delta L}{\delta \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu}} \;.
\end{equation}
Then, after introducing the usual metric $ g_{\mu\nu} $ as
\begin{equation} \label{metr_redef_calssic}
\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \equiv - M^2_{pl} \sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu} \;
\end{equation}
and employing the formula for the compound derivative, eq. (\ref{def_hamilt_ricci}) can be cast to the form of the Einstein equations \cite{kijowski1978new}.
It remains to notice that the variation of the action with respect to $ \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} $ yields the metric--compatibility condition,
\begin{equation} \label{metr_comp}
\nabla_\lambda \left( \sqrt{-g} g^{\mu\nu} \right) = 0 \;,
\end{equation}
and that $ \psi $ obeys the Klein--Gordon equation for a scalar field with mass $ m^2 $. Thus, Lagrangian (\ref{lagr_kij}) can be replaced by the equivalent one --- of a usual massive field coupled to the standard GR.
\subsection{Perspectives and problems of affine gravity}
\label{sec:2-2}
If affine gravity is equivalent to GR, one may wonder what are the benefits of employing the affine formalism. We believe that there are two major benefits.
First, affine gravity illustrates that the metric might not be a fundamental field \cite{kijowski1978new}. Instead, in this approach it appears as the momentum, conjugated to the connection, whose equations of motion are precisely the Einstein equations. As we discuss in section \ref{sec:5-2}, this change of perspective on the fundamental variables allows one to approach the gravity as a gauge theory of the connection.
The point above also makes affine gravity more natural than GR from the geometrical perspective. Indeed, the notion of the connection is of primary importance for comparing vectors at different points. On the other hand, the metric, although it has a clear physical meaning, is always an additional structure. In contrast to GR, affine gravity exploits only the primary geometrical object --- the connection --- and by eq. (\ref{def_metric}) unambiguously defines the physical metric.
The second reason is that the affine gravity allows for a wide range of modifications. For example, one can choose not to perform the symmetrization of $ R_{\mu\nu} $'s indices in Lagrangian (\ref{affine_classic}), thus obtaining a non--symmetric metric. Earlier this was considered as a possibility to incorporate the electromagnetism and strong interactions \cite{einstein1923theory,schrodinger1943union} into the unified geometrical model. However, the studies showed that this and similar ideas cannot be successfully implemented. Nonetheless, possible extensions of affine gravity are a subject of an ongoing work \cite{ferraris1982unified,Krasnov:2007ei,Krasnov:2011pp, Poplawski:2007rx,Poplawski:2012bw}, including newly introduced polynomial affine gravity \cite{Castillo-Felisola:2015cqa,Castillo-Felisola:2019wcs} and affine--based models of the inflation \cite{azri2018induced,azri2018cosmological}.
At this point we would also like to make contact with the idea that gravity should be described by a spin--2 field with spin--2 gauge invariance or general covariance \cite{weinberg1964photons,deser1970self, boulware1975classical,wald1986spin, cutler1987new}. An important remark is that in this approach the graviton does not have to be a fundamental particle. Instead, it might be some composite or even auxiliary field. Hence gravitational theories based on ideas of \cite{weinberg1964photons,deser1970self, boulware1975classical,wald1986spin, cutler1987new} should be considered as effective theories of gravity, and affine gravity is consistent with these ideas.
A major problem in affine gravity is that it does not allow for a unified description of the Standard Model and gravity. Namely, one can add the Lagrangian of the Standard Model to the Hamiltonian of the gravity, eq. (\ref{contact_deformed}). However, it is unknown how (and if) such full theory can be translated back to the Lagrange formulation of gravity, i.e., in the form similar to eq. (\ref{affine_classic}). In particular, it is unknown how one should introduce fermions in the Lagrange formulation.
\section{Scalar--affine gravity}
\label{sec:3}
Let us introduce the scalar--affine gravity. As the name of the model suggests, we introduce a scalar field $ \varphi $, a scalar tensor density of weight $ w $. Accordingly, its covariant derivative reads
\begin{equation} \label{def_covar_phi}
\nabla_\mu \varphi = \partial_\mu \varphi - w \Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\sigma} \varphi \;.
\end{equation}
Note that it introduces non--minimal coupling between $ \varphi $ and gravity. The Lagrangian of our model is
\begin{equation} \label{model_lagr}
\L = \sqrt{ -\det L_{\mu\nu} } + \alpha \varphi^{w^{-1}} \,, ~~~~ L_{\mu\nu} = R_{(\mu\nu)} + \frac{c}{2} \frac{\nabla_\mu \varphi \nabla_\nu \varphi}{\varphi^2} \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \alpha $ and $ c $ are some constants. By redefining $ \varphi $ one can set $ w = 1 $ and $ \alpha = 1 $, which is used from here onwards.\footnote{For a general $ w $ this procedure may require redefining $ \varphi $ to be a purely imaginary field. In this case under $ \varphi $'s value one should understand its absolute value.}
Let us discuss this Lagrangian. First, we note that in order to compensate the transformation of the volume element under an arbitrary change of coordinates, the Lagrangian must be a scalar density of weight +1. This implies that $ L_{\mu\nu} $ must be an absolute tensor, i.e., a density of zero weight. Then the only allowed first--order $ \varphi $'s kinetic term is the one introduced in Lagrangian (\ref{model_lagr}).
Further we note that our model is scale--invariant --- it does not include dimensionfull constants. In terms of symmetry transformations, it is invariant under the transformation
\begin{equation} \label{SI_affine}
\Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu}(x) \rightarrow \lambda \Gamma^\rho_{\mu\nu}(\lambda x) \,, ~~~~ \varphi(x) \rightarrow \lambda^4 \varphi(\lambda x) \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \lambda $ is some constant. These transformation rules are direct analogues of the standard, metric--based formulation of the scale--invariance. Indeed, keeping the definition of the metric as the momentum, canonically conjugated to the connection, eq. (\ref{def_metric}), under replacement (\ref{SI_affine}) metric $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ transforms as
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu}(x) \rightarrow \lambda \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu}(\lambda x) \;.
\end{equation}
Together with $ \varphi $'s transformation they form the standard definition of scale--invariance.
Lagrangian (\ref{model_lagr}) is not the most general one that can be written down using the tensors at hand. Possible additional terms fall into two categories.
First, one can add a second--order derivative of $ \varphi $ to $ L_{\mu\nu} $,
\begin{equation} \label{add_1}
L_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow L_{\mu\nu} + c_1 \nabla_\mu \frac{\nabla_\nu \varphi}{\varphi}
\end{equation}
for some constant $ c_1 $. This term, however, violates the equivalence with GR. Indeed, since it contains derivatives of the connection, the contact deformed Lagrangian, eq. (\ref{contact_deformed}), cannot be written in the form, similar to (\ref{diff_hamilt}). This breaks down the identities (\ref{def_hamilt_ricci}), which are, in fact, Einstein equations. As there is no phenomenological evidence for considering such modified theories of gravity, we forbid terms like (\ref{add_1}) in the Lagrangian.
Second, one can introduce more root structures into the Lagrangian, like
\begin{equation} \label{add_root_1}
\L_{add} = \sqrt{- \det \frac{c_2}{2} \frac{\nabla_\mu \varphi \nabla_\nu \varphi}{\varphi^2} } \;,
\end{equation}
where $ c_2 $ is some constant. We expect that in a complete theory of affine gravity some symmetry will restrict the Lagrangian to be a certain function of $ R_{\mu\nu} $ and other fields. In particular, it will forbid the additional square root terms. At present we do not know the corresponding symmetry but assume that the terms like one above are forbidden. Finally, one can also consider the presented model as an illustrative one, showing the possibilities of the approach.
Theories, most similar to the introduced one, were considered in \cite{jimenez2018born,vollick2005born}. However, none of them are scale--invariant or include coupling between the matter fields and the affine connection. In this perspective, scalar--affine gravity represents a new model, not studied anywhere previously.
Let us now qualitatively discuss the dynamics of our model. The $ \varphi^2 $ term appearing in the denominator of $ \varphi $'s kinetic term initiates spontaneous breakdown of scale invariance. Indeed, $ \varphi $'s equation of motion (EqM) read
\begin{equation} \label{phi_eqM_gen}
-\nabla_\lambda \left( \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \frac{\delta L_{\mu\nu}}{\delta \nabla_\lambda \varphi} \right) + \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \frac{\delta L_{\mu\nu}}{\delta\varphi} + 1 = 0 \;.
\end{equation}
Because this equation contains terms with negative power of $ \varphi $, as well as a constant term, on the solution $ \varphi \neq 0\,, ~ \varphi \neq \infty $. In turn, this forces $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \neq 0 $ as well. This is the mechanism for the emergence of non--degenerate metric and dimensionfull parameters in our model.
To study the dynamics of the model, we replace Lagrangian (\ref{model_lagr}) by an equivalent one,
\begin{equation} \label{model_lagr_metric}
\L_{equiv} = -4\sqrt{-\text{det}\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}^{\mu\nu}} +\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}^{\mu\nu} L_{\mu\nu} + \varphi \;.
\end{equation}
Here it is understood that $ \tilde{\mathfrak{g}}^{\mu\nu} $ and the connection are independent variables. The two Lagrangians are equivalent as by integrating $ \tilde{\mathfrak{g}}^{\mu\nu} $ out from (\ref{model_lagr_metric}) one arrives at the initial Lagrangian. In particular, since $ \tilde{\mathfrak{g}}^{\mu\nu} $'s EqM coincide with that of $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $, we will omit tildes over $ \tilde{\mathfrak{g}}^{\mu\nu} $ further. Thus, by introducing $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ as an independent field we get rid of the square root structure and arrive at a commonly known first--order formulation of gravity.
As we know, on the solution $ \varphi \neq 0 $. This allows us to redefine the fields as follows,
\begin{equation} \label{field_reparam_init}
\varphi = \varphi_0^4 e^{\pi} \,, ~~~~~ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} = - \varphi_0^{2}\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu} \;.
\end{equation}
where $ \varphi_0 $ is some constant of unit mass dimension and $ g^{\mu\nu} $ is a non--degenerate symmetric absolute rank 2 tensor. Now $ \pi $ can be thought of as the dilaton and $ g_{\mu\nu} $ as the metric. We will use this parametrization of the fields further.
It is convenient to start the analysis of the model by considering EqM in the gravitational sector. The variation of the action with respect to $ \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} $ yields
\begin{equation} \label{EqM_Connection}
\nabla_\lambda \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} - \delta^{ ( \mu}_\lambda\nabla_\sigma\mathfrak{g}^{|\sigma|\nu ) } = c \mathfrak{g}^{\sigma(\mu}\delta^{\nu)}_\lambda \frac{\nabla_\sigma\varphi}{\varphi} \;.
\end{equation}
Importantly, from this equation one gets
\begin{equation} \label{to_gauge}
\left( 1+\frac{c}{3} \right) \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\sigma\mu} = \partial_{\mu} \ln \sqrt{-g} + \frac{c}{3}\partial_\mu \ln \varphi \;.
\end{equation}
For a special value of $ c = -3 $ this reduces to
\begin{equation} \label{constr_phi}
\varphi = \varkappa \varphi_0 \sqrt{-g} \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \varkappa $ is some constant. Thus, in this special case $ \varphi $ is not an independent degree of freedom, and the total number of degrees of freedom coincides with that in GR. This is our motivation for fixing $ c = -3 $. As we demonstrate below, this is consistent with $ \varphi $'s EqM and ensures that the Planck mass is a constant (as a function of time).
The solution of eq. (\ref{EqM_Connection}) reads
\begin{equation} \label{connect_via_metric}
\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} = \lbrace ^\lambda _{\mu\nu} \rbrace - \frac{1}{2} ( v_\mu \delta^\lambda_\nu + v_\nu \delta^\lambda_\mu - 3 g_{\mu\nu} g^{\lambda\rho}v_\rho ) \,, ~~~~ v_\mu \equiv \frac{\nabla_\mu\varphi}{\varphi} \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \lbrace ^\lambda _{\mu\nu} \rbrace $ is the Christoffel symbol of the metric $ g_{\mu\nu} $. As we see, there is non--zero nonmetricity due to the coupling of $ \varphi $ to the connection.
Having established these facts, we move on to solving the Einstein equations. For this purpose we first obtain $ \varphi $'s energy--momentum tensor. From $ \varphi $'s EqM we know that $ \nabla_\mu \varphi \neq 0 $. Hence we can choose coordinates in which $ \nabla_\nu \varphi $'s direction coincides with the 0--axis,
\begin{equation} \label{anz_deriv}
\frac{\nabla_\mu\varphi}{\varphi} = \left( -2 v,0,0,0 \right) \;,
\end{equation}
where $ v $ is an arbitrary function of the coordinates. Let us denote by $ T_{\mu\nu}^\varphi ~ \varphi $'s energy--momentum tensor plus terms proportional to $ v^2 $ coming from the Einstein tensor due to non--metricity. Then one has
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu\nu}^\varphi = -3v^2g_{\mu\nu} \;.
\end{equation}
We see that $ \varphi $ effectively acts as the dark energy. Further, by using the redefinition of the fields, eq. (\ref{field_reparam_init}), one sees that the determinant of $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $ in Lagrangian (\ref{model_lagr_metric}) also acts as a cosmological constant term. Hence the solution is an Einstein manifold, with the metric of the form
\begin{equation} \label{anz_metr}
g_{\mu\nu} = \text{diag} \left( -1,a^2(t),a^2(t),a^2(t) \right) \;.
\end{equation}
Notice that the $ -1 $ element of the metric correlates with $ \nabla_\mu \varphi $'s direction. This is a must since each of them defines a distinguishable direction, which must coincide. Thus, in our model the time direction emerges dynamically, with $ \nabla_\mu \varphi $ defining the proper time axis.
For the metric (\ref{anz_metr}) the non--zero components of the connection are
\begin{equation} \label{connection_vaccum}
\Gamma^0_{ij} = a^2 ( H+3v )\gamma_{ij} \,, ~~~ \Gamma^i_{0j} = ( H+v )\delta^i_j \,, ~~~ \Gamma^0_{00} = -v \,, ~~~ H \equiv \frac{a'}{a} \;,
\end{equation}
where Latin indices stay for spatial components, $ i =1,2,3 $, apostrophe denotes differentiation with respect to time, and $ \gamma_{ij} = a^{-2} g_{ij} $ is the flat metric. Then from the Einstein equations (or, equivalently, by varying the action with respect to $ \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} $) one gets
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align} \label{eq_consist_Hprime}
H' &= 0 \,, \\
\label{eq_consist_param}
3(H^2+3Hv + &v') = 2 \varphi_0^2 \;,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Hence $ H $ is a constant while $ v $ might be time--dependent.
Consider now $ \varphi $'s EqM. After taking into account that $ \varphi $ follows the dynamic of the determinant of the metric, eq. (\ref{constr_phi}), it reads
\begin{equation} \label{solut_phi}
6 \left( 3Hv + v' \right) = - \varkappa \varphi_0^2 \;.
\end{equation}
Together with eq. (\ref{eq_consist_param}), they form a full set of equations of the scalar--affine gravity. Any of the dimensionfull parameters --- say, $ \varphi_0 $ --- can be chosen as a reference unit. Then these equations define the ratios of the other dimensionfull parameters to the reference one. Thus, scalar--affine gravity realizes the no--scale scenario.
By comparing eq. (\ref{field_reparam_init}) and (\ref{metr_redef_calssic}) and applying the arguments of section \ref{sec:2}, one concludes that $ \varphi_0 $ is the Planck mass. Then we have\footnote{$ \varkappa = -4 $ corresponds to a special solution, for which $ H = 0 $ and $ v $ is time--dependent. We will not consider this case here.}
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{H}{M_{pl}} \right)^2 = \frac{\varkappa + 4}{6} \;.
\end{equation}
As we demonstrate below, for the mass of elementary particles to be much smaller than the Planck mass, it must hold that $ \varkappa \ll 1 $. In this case the Hubble constant is of order of the Planck mass. This naturally gives rise to the inflation as a consequence of spontaneous breakdown of scale--invariance, which is accompanied by the emergence of the metric. This seems to be an interesting starting point for the ``birth'' of the Universe. However, at present, we do not know how to end the inflation and leave this question for future study.
Let us now discuss how one can add fields into the model on the example of a scalar field $ \chi $. Since we already have a scalar density field in the theory, $ \chi $ can be introduced as an absolute tensor. Then requiring the Lagrangian to be a sum of a square root term and a potential, the most general Lagrangian reads
\begin{equation}
\L = \sqrt{ -\det \left( L_{\mu\nu} + \frac{q}{2} \partial_\mu \chi \partial_\nu \chi \right) } + \varphi (1 + \beta \chi^2) \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \beta $ is some constant and $ q = \pm 1 $. Assuming $ \beta>0 $ (thus $ \chi $ does not participate in the SSB), the equivalent first--order Lagrangian, with the metric as an auxiliary field, is
\begin{equation} \label{lagr_with_matter}
\L_{equiv} = -4\sqrt{-\text{det}\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu}} +\mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} L_{\mu\nu} + \varphi + \mathfrak{g}^{\mu\nu} \frac{q}{2} \partial_\mu \chi \partial_\nu \chi + \beta\varphi \chi^2 \;.
\end{equation}
Also notice that, unlike the usual fields in common field theories, $ \chi $'s mass dimension is zero. In order to normalize it conventionally, we redefine it as follows,
\begin{equation}
\chi \rightarrow \varphi_0^{-1} \chi \;.
\end{equation}
Now $ \chi $'s mass dimension is unity and its kinetic term is properly normalized. Then from the Lagrangian one reads out $ \chi $'s mass,
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\chi} = \beta \varkappa M_{pl}^2.
\end{equation}
Assuming $ \beta $ is of order unity, elementary particles are much lighter than the Planck mass only in the regime $ \varkappa \ll 1$.
\section{Phenomenological validity}
\label{sec:4}
\subsection{Linearized limit}
\label{sec:4-1}
Because of the non--zero non--metricity, scalar--affine gravity might not be phenomenologically viable even in the linearized limit. In appendix \ref{sec:A} we show that this is not the case --- EqM in all of the helicity sectors coincide with that of GR. Hence our model describes phenomenologically viable gravitational waves and reproduces Newton's law.
\subsection{Cosmology}
\label{sec:4-2}
As we have mentioned previously, our model does not provide means for ending the inflation. However, if we assume that the inflation has somehow finished, scalar--affine gravity gives rise to phenomenologically viable cosmology. Indeed, after SSB took place, one can introduce all fields of the Standard Model into the theory as the corresponding representations of the stability group of the metric. It remains to show that the standard conservation laws hold in our model. Below we prove this statement.
Let us first discuss $ \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} $'s and $ \varphi $'s EqM in the presence of matter. We assume that matter fields do not couple to $ \varphi $'s covariant derivative or to the connection. This guarantees that the introduced earlier mechanism of spontaneous breakdown of scale--invariance is unaffected by the usual matter. Then $ \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} $'s EqM remain unchanged, with solution given by eq. (\ref{connect_via_metric}), and $ \varphi $ is given by eq. (\ref{constr_phi}) at any time. In particular, in the leading order in the magnitude of fields, $ \varphi $'s EqM is given by eq. (\ref{solut_phi}).
Further, as usually, we assume that the Universe can be described in the hydrodynamic limit and search for a dS--like solutions of the Friedmann equations. The latter read
\begin{subequations} \label{Fr_eq_gen}
\begin{align}
(00)&:~~~ 3v' + 9vH - 2\varphi_0^{\frac{c}{2}} + 3H^2 = 8 \pi M_{pl}^{-2} \rho \;, \\
(ii)&:~~~ 3v' + 9vH - 2\varphi_0^{\frac{c}{2}} + 3H^2 + 2H' = - 8 \pi M_{pl}^{-2} p \;,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $ \rho \,,~ p $ are matter energy densities and pressure correspondingly. As it follows from eq. (\ref{solut_phi}), the first three terms on the left hand side of both of the equations are constants. Then by introducing ``dark energy'' density and pressure,
\begin{equation}
- \rho_{de} = p_{de} = 3v' + 9vH - 2\varphi_0^{\frac{c}{2}} \;,
\end{equation}
Friedman equations get reduced to the usual ones in $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. An immediate consequence of these equations is the usual conservation law in the matter sector,
\begin{equation} \label{cons_matter}
\rho' + 3H(p+\rho) = 0 \;.
\end{equation}
This implies that the cosmological evolution of matter densities as functions of $ a^2 $ are the same as in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
Interestingly, in our model the connection is time--dependent during the dust and radiation dominating epochs. For example, for the dust dominating epoch one gets
\begin{equation}
v = - \frac{\varkappa}{18} M_{pl}^2 t \;.
\end{equation}
Since the connection depends on $ v $, the latter also becomes time--dependent. Provided that $ \varkappa \ll 1 $, this has small influence on the cosmological evolution. Nonetheless, as fermions do couple to the connection, this might have observable phenomenological effects. We comment on this question in the next section.
We would like to end this section by noticing that scalar--affine gravity admits a Schwarzschild--like solution. Namely, the metric is the same as in the Schwarzschild solution, but, due to non--metricity, the background connection gets modified. This fact might have important phenomenological consequences. However, before studying them, we should first provide more solid ground for the foundation of our model. Correspondingly, we leave a detailed study of this question for future.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:5}
\subsection{Possible physical implications}
\label{sec:5-1}
Although scalar--affine gravity cannot account for all phenomenological data, it has some remarkable and promising features. First, as we have already mentioned, it realizes the no--scale scenario --- all physical quantities are generated dynamically through the SSB mechanism. Combined with the fact that scalar--affine gravity is phenomenologically viable, it might provide a foundation for a scale--invariant theory of gravity. In particular, the presence of the additional field $ \varphi $ might improve UV behavior of gravity.
Second, as we have shown, scalar--affine gravity naturally gives rise to the inflation. Namely, we do not need to postulate any specific form of the potential --- the scalar--density field $ \varphi $ effectively acts as dark energy, thus giving rise to the expanding Universe. Although our model does not provide means for ending the inflation, this problem, presumably, can be solved by extending the field content of the model.
Third, in our model the time direction and Lorentz--invariance (in the flat limit) emerge dynamically. In this perspective scalar--affine gravity is an alternative to the standard idea of the emergent Lorentz invariance \cite{nielsen1978beta,chadha1983lorentz, bednik2013emergent}, as well as to the Lorentz--violating gravity \cite{rubakov2004lorentz,dubovsky2004phases, rubakov2008infrared,Blas:2014ira}, including, in particular, the Horava gravity \cite{hovrava2009quantum,hovrava2009membranes}.
Finally, scalar--affine gravity features non--zero non--metricity --- although the metric is of the dS form, the connection is not canonical. In particular, since $ \Gamma^0_{00} \neq 0 $ and fermions couple to the connection, this implies that all fermions are massive, with the mass of the order $ v $. This provides us with an alternative to $ \nu $MSM mechanism for the generation of neutrino's masses \cite{asaka2005numsm}. However, to discuss this topic we first need to fully embed the Standard Model into our theory, including, in particular, the Higgs field.
In this context we would also like to note that the scalar--affine gravity does not provide means for explaining the signature of the metric. Namely, in Lagrangian (\ref{model_lagr}) one can change the minus sign before the determinant to the plus sign. In this case the metric will have Euclidean signature. It will be interesting to study whether there exists a mechanism for fixing the minus sign in Lagrangian (\ref{model_lagr}). This might be closely related to the idea of dynamical generation of Lorentzian signature
of the metric by introducing an additional scalar field \cite{Greensite:1992np, Elizalde:1992ug, Carlini:1993up}
\subsection{Gravity as a gauge theory of connection}
\label{sec:5-2}
One of the approaches to constructing a theory of gravity lies in formulating it as a usual gauge theory \cite{macdowell1977unified,chamseddine1978massive, chamseddine1977supergravity,stelle1980spontaneously, hehl1995metric}. Affine theories of gravity allow to approach this problem from a new perspective. Namely, one can try to construct gravitational theory as a gauge theory of the connection. Below we discuss this idea and how it might be used as a foundation of the scalar--affine gravity.
Since the basic field of the affine gravity is the connection, it is natural to remember Einstein's $ \lambda $--transformations \cite{einstein2003meaning},
\begin{equation} \label{lambda_connection}
\Gamma(x)^\lambda_{\mu\nu} ~ \rightarrow ~ \Gamma(x)^\lambda_{\mu\nu} + \partial_\mu \lambda(x) \delta^\lambda_\nu \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \lambda(x) $ is an arbitrary function. Riemann curvature tensor is known to be invariant under such transformations. In fact, GR possesses even a larger symmetry, namely,
\begin{equation} \label{proj_inv}
\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu} + \xi_\mu \delta^\lambda_\nu \;,
\end{equation}
where $ \xi_\mu $ is an arbitrary function \cite{Julia:1998ys,Dadhich:2010xa}. This symmetry is known as (a subgroup of) the protective invariance \cite{eisenhart2012non}. To reveal its geometrical meaning, consider some geodesic \cite{schrodinger1943union}. In affine geometry there is no notion of a predefined metric. Correspondingly, the equation of the geodesic can be defined only as a parallel transport of a vector, remaining parallel to itself,
\begin{equation} \label{geo_without_metric}
\frac{d^2 x^\mu}{dp^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\sigma\rho}\frac{dx^\sigma}{dp}\frac{dx^\rho}{dp} = \chi(p)\frac{dx^\mu}{dp} \;,
\end{equation}
where $ p $ is the parameter along the geodesic and $ \chi(p) $ is some function. Because of the form of the second term on the left hand side of the equation, only the symmetric part of the connection, which we denote as $ \Upsilon^\lambda_{\mu\nu} $, is relevant. Then a general transformation of the connection leaving a geodesic invariant (up to a reparametrization) reads \cite{schrodinger1943union,schrodinger1956space, eisenhart2012non}
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon^\lambda_{\mu\nu} ~ \rightarrow ~ \Upsilon^\lambda_{\mu\nu} + \delta^\lambda_\nu V_\mu + \delta^\lambda_\mu V_\nu \;,
\end{equation}
where $ V_\nu $ is an arbitrary function. These transformations are known as projective transformations and are wider than transformations (\ref{proj_inv}).
Projective symmetry might form the basis for formulating the scalar--affine gravity as a gauge--type theory. Indeed, in the absence of predefined notion of the metric, eq. (\ref{geo_without_metric}) is the only possible definition of a geodesic. If one considers geodesics as primary objects, all of their symmetries must be symmetries of the full theory as well. Correspondingly, we expect a general theory of scalar--affine gravity to incorporate the projective symmetry.
To demonstrate why this idea is promising, consider Einstein's $ \lambda $--transformations for the trace of the connection,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\sigma} ~ \rightarrow ~ \Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\sigma} + 4 \partial_\mu \lambda \;.
\end{equation}
They mimic the transformation law of the $ U(1) $ 4--potential $ A_\mu $ under the $ U(1) $ gauge symmetry. The analogy goes further --- the homothetic curvature tensor $ S_{\mu\nu} $, eq. (\ref{homothetic_curv}), has the same structure as the electromagnetic tensor $ F_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu $. This suggests that the trace of the connection may be somehow identified with the 4--potential, and $ \lambda $--transformations with the corresponding gauge invariance \cite{borchsenius1976extension}. Such an extension might be of interest for extending the Standard Model, with $ U(1) $ as a symmetry of some hidden or yet unobserved sector \cite{ferraris1981general,ferraris1982unified, Poplawski:2007rx, Castillo-Felisola:2019wcs,Poplawski:2007ik, Krasnov:2017epi, borchsenius1976extension, Kharuk:2018ums}.
In conclusion we would like to say that there is a number of open questions in scalar--affine gravity. Nonetheless, it provides new ways for approaching long--standing problems in gravity. We believe that this makes it worth considering and studying further.
\acknowledgments
The author thanks V. Rubakov and A. Shkerin for useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Deep generative models are powerful tools for modeling complex distributions and have been applied to many tasks such as synthetic data generation~\cite{oord2016wavenet,yu2017seqgan}, domain adaption~\cite{zhu2017unpaired}, and structured prediction~\cite{sohn2015learning}. Examples of these models include autoregressive models~\cite{graves2013generating,oord2016pixel}, variational autoencoders~\cite{kingma2013auto,rezende2014stochastic}, generative adversarial networks~\cite{goodfellow2014generative}, and normalizing flows~\cite{dinh2014nice,rezende2015variational,dinh2016density,kingma2018glow}. Normalizing flows are special because of two advantages: They allow efficient and exact computation of log-likelihood and sampling.
Flow-based models are composed of a series of invertible functions, which are specifically designed so that their inverse and determinant of the Jacobian are easy to compute. However, to preserve this computational efficiency, these functions usually cannot sufficiently encode dependencies among dimensions of a variable. For example, affine coupling layers~\cite{dinh2014nice} split a variable to two parts and require the second part to only depend on the first. But they ignore the dependencies among dimensions in the second part.
To address this problem, \citet{dinh2014nice,dinh2016density} introduced a fixed permutation operation that reverses the ordering of the channels of pixel variables. \citet{kingma2018glow} introduced a 1$\times$1 convolution, which are a generalized permutation layer, that uses a weight matrix to model the interactions among dimensions along the channel axis. Their experiments demonstrate the importance of capturing dependencies among dimensions. Relatedly, \citet{hoogeboom2019emerging} proposed emerging convolution operations, and \citet{hoogeboom2019emerging} and \citet{Finzi2019Invertible} proposed periodic convolution. These two convolution layers have $d\times d$ kernels that can model dependencies along the spatial axes in addition to the channel axis. However, the increase in representational power comes at a cost: These convolution operations do not scale well to high-dimensional variables.
The emerging convolution is a combination of two autoregressive convolutions~\cite{germain2015made,kingma2016improved}, whose inverse is not parallelizable.
To compute the inverse or determinant of the Jacobian, the periodic convolution requires transforming the input and the convolution kernel to Fourier space. This transformation is computationally costly.
In this paper, we develop \emph{Woodbury transformations} for generative flows. Our method is also a generalized permutation layer and uses spatial and channel transformations to model dependencies among dimensions along spatial and channel axes. We use the Woodbury matrix identity~\cite{woodbury1950inverting} and Sylvester's determinant identity~\cite{sylvester1851} to compute the inverse and Jacobian determinant, respectively, so that both the training and sampling time complexities are linear to the input variable's size. We also develop a memory-efficient variant of the Woodbury transformation, which has the same advantage as the full transformation but uses significantly reduced memory when the variable is high-dimensional. In our experiments, we found that Woodbury transformations enable model quality comparable to many state-of-the-art flow architectures while maintaining significant efficiency advantages.
\section{Deep Generative Flows}
\label{sec:background}
In this section, we briefly introduce the deep generative flows. More background knowledge can be found in the appendix.
A normalizing flow~\cite{rezende2015variational} is composed of a series of invertible functions $\mathbf{f} = \mathbf{f}_1 \circ \mathbf{f}_2 \circ ... \circ \mathbf{f}_K$, which transform $\mathbf{x}$ to a latent code $\mathbf{z}$ drawn from a simple distribution. Therefore, with the \emph{change of variables} formula, we can rewrite the log-likelihood $\log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x})$ to be
\begin{equation}
\log p_{\theta}(\mathbf{x}) = \log p_{Z}(\mathbf{z}) + \sum_{i=1}^{K} \log \left|\det \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{f}_i}{\partial \mathbf{r}_{i-1}}\right)\right|,
\label{eq:relikelihood}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{r}_i = \mathbf{f}_i(\mathbf{r}_{i-1})$, $\mathbf{r}_{0} = \mathbf{x}$, and $\mathbf{r}_{K}=\mathbf{z}$.
Flow-based generative models~\cite{dinh2014nice,dinh2016density,kingma2018glow} are developed on the theory of normalizing flows. Each transformation function used in the models is a specifically designed neural network that has a tractable Jacobian determinant and inverse. We can sample from a trained flow $\mathbf{f}$ by computing $\mathbf{z} \sim p_{Z}(\mathbf{z}), \quad \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{f}^{-1}(\mathbf{z})$.
There have been many operations, i.e., layers, proposed in recent years for generative flows. In this section, we discuss some commonly used ones, and more related works will be discussed in \cref{sec:related}.
\textbf{Actnorm layers}~\cite{kingma2018glow} perform per-channel affine transformations of the activations using scale and bias parameters to improve training stability and performance. The actnorm is formally expressed as
$\mathbf{y}_{:,i,j} = \mathbf{s} \odot \mathbf{x}_{:,i,j} + \mathbf{b}$,
where both the input $\mathbf{x}$ and the output $\mathbf{y}$ are $c \times h \times w$ tensors, $c$ is the channel dimension, and $h \times w$ are spatial dimensions. The parameters $\mathbf{s}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are $c \times 1$ vectors.
\textbf{Affine coupling layers}~\cite{dinh2014nice,dinh2016density} split the input $\mathbf{x}$ into two parts, $\mathbf{x}_a, \mathbf{x}_b$. And then fix $\mathbf{x}_a$ and force $\mathbf{x}_b$ to only relate to $\mathbf{x}_a$, so that the Jacobian is a triangular matrix. Formally, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbf{x}_a, \mathbf{x}_b = \text{split}(\mathbf{x}), \quad\quad\quad\quad~~ \mathbf{y}_a = \mathbf{x}_a, \\
&&\mathbf{y}_b = \mathbf{s}(\mathbf{x}_a) \odot \mathbf{x}_b + \mathbf{b}(\mathbf{x}_a), \quad \mathbf{y} = \text{concat}(\mathbf{y}_a, \mathbf{y}_b),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mathbf{s}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are two neural networks with $\mathbf{x}_a$ as input. The $\text{split}$ and the $\text{concat}$ split and concatenate the variables along the channel axis. Usually, $s$ is restricted to be positive. An additive coupling layer is a special case when $\mathbf{s}=\mathbf{1}$.
Actnorm layers only rescale the dimensions of $\mathbf{x}$, and affine coupling layers only relate $\mathbf{x}_b$ to $\mathbf{x}_a$ but omit dependencies among different dimensions of $\mathbf{x}_b$. Thus, we need other layers to capture local dependencies among dimensions.
\textbf{Invertible convolutional layers}~\cite{kingma2018glow,hoogeboom2019emerging,Finzi2019Invertible} are generalized permutation layers that can capture correlations among dimensions. The 1$\times$1 convolution~\cite{kingma2018glow} is $\mathbf{y}_{:,i,j} = \mathbf{Mx}_{:,i,j}$, where $\mathbf{M}$ is a $c \times c$ matrix. The Jacobian of a 1$\times$1 convolution is a block diagonal matrix, so that its log-determinant is $hw\log |\det(\mathbf{M})|$. Note that the 1$\times$1 convolution only operates along the channel axis and ignores the dependencies along the spatial axes.
\begin{wrapfigure}[18]{r}{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}{0.42\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/flow-step.pdf}
\subcaption{Flow step}
\label{fig:flow-step}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.25cm}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/multi-scale.pdf}
\subcaption{Multi-scale arch.}
\label{fig:multi-scale}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-3pt}
\caption{Overview of architecture of generative flows. We can design the flow step by selecting a suitable convolutional layer and a coupling layer based on the task. Glow~\cite{kingma2018glow} uses 1$\times$1 convolutions and affine coupling.}
\label{fig:flow-arc}
\end{wrapfigure}
Emerging convolutions~\cite{hoogeboom2019emerging} combine two autoregressive convolutions~\cite{germain2015made,kingma2016improved}. Each autoregressive convolution masks out some weights to force an autoregressive structure, so that the Jacobian is a triangular matrix and computing its determinant is efficient. One problem of emerging convolution is the computation of inverse is non-parallelizable, so that is inefficent for high-dimensional variables.
Periodic convolutions~\cite{hoogeboom2019emerging,Finzi2019Invertible} transform the input and kernel to the Fourier domain using discrete Fourier transformations, so the convolution function is an element-wise matrix product with a block-diagonal Jacobian. The computational cost of periodic convolutions is $\mathcal{O}(chw\log(hw) +c^3hw)$. Thus, when the input is high-dimensional, both training and sampling are expensive.
\textbf{Multi-scale architectures}~\cite{dinh2016density} compose flow layers to generate rich models, using \emph{split layers} to factor out variables and \emph{squeeze layers} to shuffle dimensions, resulting in an architecture with $K$ flow steps and $L$ levels. See \cref{fig:flow-arc}.
\section{Woodbury Transformations}
\label{sec:method}
In this section, we introduce Woodbury transformations as an efficient means to model high-dimensional correlations.
\subsection{Channel and Spatial Transformations}
Suppose we reshape the input $\mathbf{x}$ to be a $c \times n$ matrix, where $n = hw$. Then the 1$\times$1 convolution can be reinterpreted as a matrix transformation
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{W}^{(c)}\mathbf{x},
\label{eq:c-trans}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{y}$ is also a $c \times n$ matrix, and $\mathbf{W}^{(c)}$ is a $c \times c$ matrix. For consistency, we will call this a channel transformation. For each column $\mathbf{x}_{:,i}$, the correlations among channels are modeled by $\mathbf{W}^{(c)}$. However, the correlation between any two rows $\mathbf{x}_{:,i}$ and $\mathbf{x}_{:,j}$ is not captured.
Inspired by Eq.~\ref{eq:c-trans}, we use a spatial transformation to model interactions among dimensions along the spatial axis
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{xW}^{(s)},
\label{eq:s-trans}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W}^{(s)}$ is an $n \times n$ matrix that models the correlations of each row $\mathbf{x}_{i,:}$.
Combining Equation~\ref{eq:c-trans} and Equation~\ref{eq:s-trans}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{x}_c = \mathbf{W}^{(c)}\mathbf{x}, ~~~~~~~~
\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{x}_c\mathbf{W}^{(s)}.
\label{eq:combin-trans}
\end{eqnarray}
For each dimension of output $\mathbf{y}_{i, j}$, we have
$\mathbf{y}_{i,j} = \sum_{v=1}^{c}\left(\sum_{u=1}^{n}\mathbf{W}^{(c)}_{i,u}\cdot \mathbf{x}_{u,v}\right)\cdot \mathbf{W}^{(s)}_{v,j}$.
Therefore, the spatial and channel transformations together can model the correlation between any pair of dimensions. However, in this preliminary form, directly using Eq.~\ref{eq:combin-trans} is inefficient for large $c$ or $n$. First, we would have to store two large matrices $\mathbf{W}^c$ and $\mathbf{W}^s$, so the space cost is $\mathcal{O}(c^2 + n^2)$. Second, the computational cost of Eq.~\ref{eq:combin-trans} is $\mathcal{O}(c^2n + n^2c)$---quadratic in the input size. Third, the computational cost of the Jacobian determinant is $\mathcal{O}(c^3+n^3)$, which is far too expensive in practice.
\subsection{Woodbury Transformations}
We solve the three scalability problems by using a low-rank factorization. Specifically, we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{W}^{(c)} = \mathbf{I}^{(c)} + \mathbf{U}^{(c)}\mathbf{V}^{(c)}, ~~~~~~~~
\mathbf{W}^{(s)} = \mathbf{I}^{(s)} + \mathbf{U}^{(s)}\mathbf{V}^{(s)},
\label{eq:W}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mathbf{I}^{(c)}$ and $\mathbf{I}^{(s)}$ are $c$- and $n$-dimensional identity matrices, respectively. The matrices $\mathbf{U}^c$, $\mathbf{V}^c$, $\mathbf{U}^s$, and $\mathbf{V}^s$ are of size $c \times d_c$, $d_c \times c$, $n \times d_s$, and $d_c \times n$, respectively, where $d_c$ and $d_s$ are constant latent dimensions of these four matrices. Therefore, we can rewrite Equation~\ref{eq:combin-trans} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{x}_c = (\mathbf{I}^{(c)} + \mathbf{U}^{(c)}\mathbf{V}^{(c)}) \mathbf{x}, ~~~~~~~~
\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{x}_c(\mathbf{I}^{(s)} + \mathbf{U}^{(s)}\mathbf{V}^{(s)}).
\label{eq:w-trans}
\end{eqnarray}
We call Eq.~\ref{eq:w-trans} the Woodbury transformation because the Woodbury matrix identity \cite{woodbury1950inverting} and Sylvester's determinant identity \cite{sylvester1851} allow efficient computation of its inverse and Jacobian determinant.
\textbf{Woodbury matrix identity.}\footnote{A more general version replaces $\mathbf{I}^{(n)}$ and $\mathbf{I}^{(k)}$ with arbitrary invertible $n \times n$ and $k \times k$ matrices. But this simplified version is sufficient for our tasks.} Let $\mathbf{I}^{(n)}$ and $\mathbf{I}^{(k)}$ be $n$- and $k$-dimensional identity matrices, respectively. Let $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ be $n \times k$ and $k \times n$ matrices, respectively. If $\mathbf{I}^{(k)}+\mathbf{VU}$ is invertible, then
$(\mathbf{I}^{(n)} + \mathbf{UV})^{-1} = \mathbf{I}^{(n)} - \mathbf{U}(\mathbf{I}^{k} + \mathbf{VU})^{-1}\mathbf{V}$.
\textbf{Sylvester's determinant identity.} Let $\mathbf{I}^{(n)}$ and $\mathbf{I}^{(k)}$ be $n$- and $k$-dimensional identity matrices, respectively. Let $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ be $n \times k$ and $k \times n$ matrices, respectively. Then,
$\det(\mathbf{I}^{(n)} + \mathbf{UV}) = \det(\mathbf{I}^{(k)}+\mathbf{VU})$.
Based on these two identities, we can efficiently compute the inverse and Jacobian determinant
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{x}_c = \mathbf{y}(\mathbf{I}^{(s)} - \mathbf{U}^{(s)}(\mathbf{I}^{(d_s)} + \mathbf{V}^{(s)}\mathbf{U}^{(s)})^{-1}\mathbf{V}^{(s)}), \nonumber\\
\mathbf{x} = (\mathbf{I}^{(c)} - \mathbf{U}^{(c)}(\mathbf{I}^{(d_c)} + \mathbf{V}^{(c)}\mathbf{U}^{(c)})^{-1}\mathbf{V}^{(c)})\mathbf{x}_c,
\label{eq:w-inverse}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\log \left| \det \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{y}}{\partial \mathbf{x}} \right) \right| &= n \log\left|\det(\mathbf{I}^{(d_c)}+\mathbf{V}^{(c)}\mathbf{U}^{(c)})\right|
+ c \log\left|\det(\mathbf{I}^{(d_s)}+\mathbf{V}^{(s)}\mathbf{U}^{(s)})\right|,
\label{eq:w-det}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{I}^{(d_c)}$ and $\mathbf{I}^{(d_s)}$ are $d_c$- and $d_s$-dimensional identity matrices, respectively.
A Woodbury transformation is also a generalized permutation layer. We can directly replace an invertible convolution in Figure~\ref{fig:flow-step} with a Woodbury transformation. In contrast with 1$\times$1 convolutions, Woodbury transformations are able to model correlations along both channel and spatial axes. We illustrate this in Figure~\ref{fig:three-trans}. To implement Woodbury transformations, we need to store four weight matrices, i.e., $\mathbf{U}^{(c)}, \mathbf{U}^{(s)}, \mathbf{V}^{(c)}$, and $\mathbf{V}^{(s)}$. To simplify our analysis, let $d_c \le d$ and $d_s \le d$, where $d$ is a constant. This setting is also consistent with our experiments. The size of $\mathbf{U}^{(c)}$ and $\mathbf{V}^{(c)}$ is $\mathcal{O}(dc)$, and the size of $\mathbf{U}^{(c)}$ and $\mathbf{V}^{(c)}$ is $\mathcal{O}(dn)$. The space complexity is $\mathcal{O}(d(c+n))$.
For training and likelihood computation, the main computational bottleneck is computing $\mathbf{y}$ and the Jacobian determinant. To compute $\mathbf{y}$ with Equation~\ref{eq:combin-trans}, we need to first compute the channel transformation and then compute the spatial transformation. The computational complexity is $\mathcal{O}(dcn)$. To compute the determinant with Equation~\ref{eq:w-det}, we need to first compute the matrix product of $\mathbf{V}$ and $\mathbf{U}$, and then compute the determinant. The computational complexity is $\mathcal{O}(d^2(c + n) + d^3)$.
For sampling, we need to compute the inverse transformations, i.e., Equation~\ref{eq:w-inverse}. With the Woodbury identity, we actually only need to compute the inverses of $\mathbf{I}^{(d_s)} + \mathbf{V}^{(s)}\mathbf{U}^{(s)}$ and $\mathbf{I}^{(d_c)} + \mathbf{V}^{(c)}\mathbf{U}^{(c)}$, which are computed with time complexity $\mathcal{O}(d^3)$. To implement the inverse transformations, we can compute the matrix chain multiplication, so we can avoid computing the product of two large matrices twice, yielding cost $\mathcal{O}(c^2+n^2)$. For example, for the inverse spatial transformation, we can compute it as
$\mathbf{x}_c = \mathbf{y} - ((\mathbf{yU}^{(s)})(\mathbf{I}^{(d_s)} + \mathbf{V}^{(s)}\mathbf{U}^{(s)})^{-1})\mathbf{V}^{(s)}$,
so that its complexity is $\mathcal{O}(d^3+cd^2+cnd)$. The total computational complexity of Equation~\ref{eq:w-inverse} is $\mathcal{O}(dcn + d^2(n+c)+d^3)$.
In practice, we found that for a high-dimensional input, a relatively small $d$ is enough to obtain good performance, e.g., the input is $256 \times 256 \times 3$ images, and $d=16$. In this situation, $nc \ge d^3$. Therefore, we can omit $d$ and approximately see the spatial complexity as $\mathcal{O}(c+n)$, and the forward or inverse transformation as $\mathcal{O}(nc)$. They are all linear to the input size.
We do not restrict $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ to force $\mathbf{W}$ to be invertible. Based on analysis by \citet{hoogeboom2019emerging}, the training maximizes the log-likelihood, which implicitly pushes $ \det (\mathbf{I} + \mathbf{VU})$ away from $0$. Therefore, it is not necessary to explicitly force invertibility. In our experiments, the Woodbury transformations are as robust as other invertible convolution layers.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/conv.png}
\caption{1$\times$1 convolution}
\label{fig:conv}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/w.png}
\caption{Woodbury}
\label{fig:w}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/me-w.png}
\caption{ME-Woodbury}
\label{fig:me-w}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Visualization of three transformations. The 1$\times$1 convolution only operates along the channel axis. The Woodbury transformation operates along both the channel and spatial axes, modeling the dependencies of one channel directly via one transformation. The ME-Woodbury transformation operates along three axes. It uses two transformations to model spatial dependencies.}
\label{fig:three-trans}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Memory-Efficient Variant}
In Eq.~\ref{eq:combin-trans}, one potential challenge arises from the sizes of $\mathbf{U}^{(s)}$ and $\mathbf{V}^{((s))}$, which are linear in $n$. The challenge is that $n$ may be large in some practical problems, e.g., high-resolution images. We develop a memory-efficient variant of Woodbury transformations, i.e., ME-Woodbury, to solve this problem. The ME version can effectively reduce space complexity from $\mathcal{O}(d(c+hw))$ to $\mathcal{O}(d(c+h+w))$.
The difference between ME-Woodbury transformations and Woodbury transformations is that the ME form cannot directly model spatial correlations. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:me-w}, it uses two transformations, for height and width, together to model the spatial correlations. Therefore, for a specific channel $k$, when two dimensions $\mathbf{x}_{k,i,j}$ and $\mathbf{x}_{k,u,v}$ are in two different heights, and widths, their interaction will be modeled indirectly. In our experiments, we found that this limitation only slightly impacts ME-Woodbury's performance. More details on ME-Woodbury transformations are in the appendix.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
\citet{rezende2015variational} developed planar flows for variational inference
$\mathbf{z}_{t+1} = \mathbf{z}_{t} + \mathbf{u}\delta(\mathbf{w}^T\mathbf{z}_{t} + b)$,
where $\mathbf{z}$, $\mathbf{w}$, and $\mathbf{u}$ are $d$-dimensional vectors, $\delta()$ is an activation function, and $b$ is a scalar.
\citet{berg2018sylvester} generalized these to Sylvester flows
$\mathbf{z}_{t+1} = \mathbf{z}_t + \mathbf{QR}\delta(\tilde{\mathbf{R}}\mathbf{Q}^T\mathbf{z}_{t} + \mathbf{r})$,
where $\mathbf{R}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{R}}$ are upper triangular matrices, $\mathbf{Q}$ is composed of a set of orthonormal vectors, and $\mathbf{r}$ is a $d$-dimensional vector.
The resulting Jacobian determinant can be efficiently computed via Sylvester's identity, just as our methods do. However, Woodbury transformations have key differences from Sylvester flows. First, \citeauthor{berg2018sylvester} only analyze their models on vectors. The inputs to our layers are matrices, so our method operates on high-dimensional input, e.g., images. Second, though Sylvester flows are inverse functions, computing their inverse is difficult. One possible way is to apply iterative methods~\cite{behrmann2018invertible,song2019mintnet,chen2019residual} to compute the inverse. But this research direction is unexplored. Our layers can be inverted efficiently with the Woodbury identity. Third, our layers do not restrict the transformation matrices to be triangular or orthogonal. In fact, Woodbury transformations can be seen as another generalized variant of planar flows on matrices, with $\delta(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{x}$, and whose inverse is tractable. Roughly speaking, Woodbury transformations can also be viewed as applying the planar flows sequentially to each row of the input matrix. After this work was completed and submitted, we learned that the TensorFlow software~\cite{abadi2016tensorflow} also uses the Woodbury identity in their affine bijector.
Normalizing flows have also been used for variational inference, density estimation, and generative modeling. Autoregressive flows~\cite{kingma2016improved,papamakarios2017masked,huang2018neural,macow2019} restrict each variable to depend on those that precede it in a sequence, forcing a triangular Jacobian. Non-linear coupling layers replace the affine transformation function. Specifically, spline flows~\cite{muller2019neural,durkan2019neural} use spline interpolation, and Flow++~\cite{ho2019flow} uses a mixture cumulative distribution function to define these functions. Flow++ also uses variational dequantization to prevent model collapse. Many works ~\cite{kingma2018glow,hoogeboom2019emerging,Finzi2019Invertible,karami2019invertible} develop invertible convolutional flows to model interactions among dimensions. MintNet~\cite{song2019mintnet} is a flexible architecture composed of multiple masked invertible layers. I-ResNet~\cite{behrmann2018invertible,chen2019residual} uses discriminative deep network architecture as the flow. These two models require iterative methods to compute the inverse. Discrete flows~\cite{tran2019discrete,hoogeboom2019integer} and latent flows~\cite{ziegler2019latent} can be applied to discrete data such as text. Continuous-time flows~\cite{chen2018neural,grathwohl2018ffjord} have been developed based on the theory of ordinary differential equations.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section, we compare the performance of Woodbury transformations against other modern flow architectures, measuring running time, bit per-dimension ($\log_2$-likelihood), and sample quality.
\begin{wrapfigure}[25]{r}{0.55\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/runningtime.pdf}
\vspace{-17pt}
\caption{Running time comparison. Sampling with emerging convolutions is slow, since their inverses are not parallelizable. Periodic convolutions are costly for larger inputs. Both 1$\times$1 convolutions and Woodbury transformations are efficient in training and sampling.}
\label{fig:rt}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Running Time}~
We follow \citet{Finzi2019Invertible} and compare the per-sample running time of Woodbury transformations to other generalized permutations: 1$\times$1~\cite{kingma2018glow}, emerging~\cite{hoogeboom2019emerging}, and periodic convolutions~\cite{hoogeboom2019emerging,Finzi2019Invertible}. We test the training time and sampling time. In training, we compute (1) forward propagation, i.e., $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x})$, of a given function $\mathbf{f}()$, (2) the Jacobian determinant, i.e., $\det\left(\left|\frac{\partial \mathbf{y}}{\partial \mathbf{x}}\right|\right)$, and (3) the gradient of parameters. For sampling, we compute the inverse of transformation $\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{f}^{-1}(\mathbf{y})$. For emerging and periodic convolutions, we use $3\times 3$ kernels. For Woodbury transformations, we fix the latent dimension $d=16$. For fair comparison, we implement all methods in Pytorch and run them on an Nvidia Titan V GPU. We follow \citet{hoogeboom2019emerging} and implement the emerging convolution inverse in Cython, and we compute it on a 4 Ghz CPU (the GPU version is slower than the Cython version). We first fix the spatial size to be $64 \times 64$ and vary the channel number. We then fix the channel number to be $96$ and vary the spatial size.
The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rt}. For training, the emerging convolution is the fastest. This is because its Jacobian is a triangular matrix, so computing its determinant is much more efficient than other methods. The Woodbury transformation and ME-Woodbury are slightly slower than the 1x1 convolution, since they contain more transformations. Emerging convolutions, Woodbury transformations, and 1x1 convolutions only slightly increase with input size, rather than increasing with $\mathcal{O}(c^3)$. This invariance to input size is likely because of how the GPU parallelizes computation. The periodic convolution is efficient only when the input size is small. When the size is large, it becomes slow, e.g., when the input size is $96\times 64 \times 64$, it is around $30$ times slower than Woodbury transformations. In our experiments, we found that the Fourier transformation requires a large amount of memory. According to \citet{Finzi2019Invertible}, the Fourier step may be the bottleneck that impacts periodic convolution's scalability. A more efficient implementation of Fourier transformation, e.g., \cite{karami2019invertible}, may improve its running time.
For sampling, both 1$\times$1 convolutions and Woodbury transformations are efficient. The 1$\times$1 convolution is the fastest, and the Woodbury transformations are only slightly slower. Neither is sensitive to the change of input size. Emerging convolutions and periodic convolutions are much slower than Woodbury transformations, and their running time increases with the input size. When the input size is $96 \times 128 \times 128$, they are around $100$ to $200$ times slower than Woodbury transformations. This difference is because emerging convolutions cannot make use of parallelization, and periodic transformations require conversion to Fourier form. Based on these results, we can conclude that both emerging convolution and periodic convolution do not scale well to high-dimensional inputs. In contrast, Woodbury transformations are efficient in both training and sampling.
\textbf{Quantitative Evaluation}~
We compare Woodbury transformations with state-of-the-art flow models, measuring bit per-dimension (bpd). We train with the CIFAR-10~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning} and ImageNet~\cite{russakovsky2015imagenet} datasets. We compare with three generalized permutation methods---1$\times$1 convolution, emerging convolution, and periodic convolution---and two coupling layers---neural spline coupling~\cite{durkan2019neural} and MaCow~\cite{macow2019}. We use Glow (Fig.~\ref{fig:flow-arc}, \cite{kingma2018glow}) as the basic flow architecture. For each method, we replace the corresponding layer. For example, to construct a flow with Woodbury transformations, we replace the 1$\times$1 convolution with a Woodbury transformation, i.e., Eq.~\ref{eq:combin-trans}. For all generalized permutation methods, we use affine coupling. For each of the coupling layer baselines, we substitute it for the affine coupling. We tune the parameters of neural spline coupling and MaCow so that their sizes are close to affine coupling. We follow \citet{hoogeboom2019emerging} and test the performance of small models. For $32\times 32$ images, we set the number of levels to $L=3$ and the number of steps per-level to $K=8$. For $64\times 64$ images, we use $L=4$ and $K=16$. More details are in the appendix.
\begin{table}[htp]
\begin{center}
\caption{Quantitative evaluation results.}
\label{tab:nll}
\begin{tabular}{ l l l l | l l}
\toprule
~ & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{Quantitative measure (bpd)}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Model sizes (\# parameters)}} \\
\toprule
~ & CIFAR-10 & ImageNet & ImageNet & 32x32 images & 64x64 images \\
~ & 32x32 & 32x32 & 64x64 & ~ & ~\\
\midrule
1$\times$1 convolution & 3.51 & 4.32 & 3.94 & 11.02M & 37.04M \\
Emerging & 3.48 & 4.26 & 3.91 & 11.43M & 40.37M \\
Periodic & 3.49 & 4.28 & 3.92 & 11.21M&38.61M \\
Neural spline & 3.50 & 4.24 & 3.95 & \textbf{10.91M} & 38.31M \\
MaCow & 3.48 & 4.34 & 4.15 & 11.43M & 37.83M \\
ME-Woodbury & 3.48 & 4.22 & 3.91 & 11.02M & \textbf{36.98M} \\
Woodbury & \textbf{3.47} & \textbf{4.20} & \textbf{3.87} & 11.10M & 37.60M\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.775\linewidth]{figures/wglow-celeba-64-50000.jpg}
\caption*{Woodbury-Glow\\ Iteration 50,000}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.775\linewidth]{figures/wglow-celeba-64-100000-2.jpg}
\caption*{Woodbury-Glow \\ Iteration 100,000}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.775\linewidth]{figures/wglow-celeba-64-600000.jpg}
\caption*{Woodbury-Glow \\ Iteration 600,000}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.775\linewidth]{figures/glow-celeba-64-100000.jpg}
\caption*{Glow \\ Iteration 50,000}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.775\linewidth]{figures/glow-celeba-64-100000-2.jpg}
\caption*{Glow \\ Iteration 100,000}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.31\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.775\linewidth]{figures/glow-celeba-64-600000.jpg}
\caption*{Glow \\ Iteration 600,000}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Random samples $64 \times 64$ drawn from models trained on CelebA with temperature $0.7$.}
\label{fig:celeba64-compare}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
The test-set likelihoods are listed in Table~\ref{tab:nll} left. Our scores are worse than those reported by \citet{kingma2018glow,hoogeboom2019emerging} because we use smaller models and train each model on a single GPU. Based on the scores, 1$\times$1 convolutions perform the worst. Emerging convolutions and periodic convolutions score better than the 1$\times$1 convolutions, since they are more flexible and can model the dependencies along the spatial axes. Neural spline coupling works well on $32 \times 32$ images, but do slightly worse than 1$\times$1 convolution on $64 \times 64$ images. MaCow does not work well on ImageNet. This trend demonstrates the importance of permutation layers. They can model the interactions among dimensions and shuffle them, which coupling layers cannot do. Without a good permutation layer, a better coupling layer still cannot always improve the performance. The Woodbury transformation models perform the best, likely because they can model the interactions between the target dimension and all other dimensions, while the invertible convolutions only model the interactions between target dimension its neighbors. ME-Woodbury performs only slightly worse than the full version, showing that its restrictions provide a useful tradeoff between model quality and efficiency.
We list model sizes in Table~\ref{tab:nll} (right). Despite modeling rich interactions, Woodbury transformations are not the largest. With $32 \times 32$ images, ME-Woodbury and 1$\times$1 convolution are the same size. When the image size is $64 \times 64$, ME-Woodbury is the smallest. This is because we use the multi-scale architecture, i.e., Fig.~\ref{fig:flow-arc}, to combine layers. The squeeze layer doubles the input variable's channels at each level, so larger $L$ suggests larger $c$. The space complexities of invertible convolutions are $\mathcal{O}(c^2)$, while the space complexity of ME-Woodbury is linear to $c$. When $c$ is large, the weight matrices of invertible convolutions are larger than the weight matrices of ME-Woodbury.
\begin{wraptable}[10]{r}{0.4\textwidth}
\vspace{-11pt}
\caption{Evaluation of different $d$ (bpd).}
\label{tab:d}
\begin{tabular}{ l l l }
\toprule
~ & Woodbury & ME-Woodbury\\
\midrule
$d = 2$ & 3.54 & 3.53 \\
$d = 4$ & 3.51 & 3.51 \\
$d = 8$ & 3.48 & 3.48 \\
$d = 16$ & 3.47 & 3.48 \\
$d = 32$ & 3.47 & 3.48\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{wraptable}
\textbf{Latent Dimension Evaluation}~We test the impact of latent dimension $d$ on the performance of Woodbury-Glow. We train our models on CIFAR-10, and use bpd as metric. We vary $d$ within $\{2,4,8,16,32\}$. The results are in Table~\ref{tab:d}. When $d<8$, the model performance will be impacted. When $d>16$, increasing $d$ will not improve the bpd. This is probably because when $d$ is too small, the latent features cannot represent the input variables well, and when $d$ is too big, the models become hard to train. When $8 \le d \le 16$, the Woodbury transformations are powerful enough to model the interactions among dimensions. We also test two values of $d$, i.e., $16, 32$, of Woodbury-Glow on ImageNet $64 \times 64$. The bpds of both $d$ are $3.87$, which are consistent with our conclusion.
\begin{wrapfigure}[14]{r}{0.375\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/learning_curves_celeba64.pdf}
\caption{Learning curves on CelebA-HQ 64x64. The NLL of Woodbury Glow decreases faster than Glow.}
\label{fig:learning_curves}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Sample Quality Comparisons}~
We train Glow and Woodbury-Glow on the CelebA-HQ dataset~\cite{karras2017progressive}. We use $5$-bit images and set the size of images to be $64 \times 64$, $128 \times 128$, and $256 \times 256$. Due to our limited computing resources, we use relatively small models in our experiments. We follow \citet{kingma2018glow} and choose a temperature parameter to encourage higher quality samples. Detailed parameter settings are in the appendix. We compare samples from Glow and Woodbury-Glow during three phases of training, displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:celeba64-compare}. The samples show a clear trend where Woodbury-Glow more quickly learns to generate reasonable face shapes. After 100,000 iterations, it can already generate reasonable samples, while Glow's samples are heavily distorted. Woodbury-Glow samples are consistently smoother and more realistic than samples from Glow in all phases of training. The samples demonstrate Woodbury transformations' advantages. The learning curves in Figure~\ref{fig:learning_curves} also show that the NLL of Woodbury Glow decreases faster, which is consistent to the sample comparisons. In the appendix, we show analogous comparisons using higher resolution versions of CelebA data, which also exhibit the trend of Woodbury-Glow generating more realistic images than Glow at the same training iterations.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we develop Woodbury transformations, which use the Woodbury matrix identity to compute the inverse transformations and Sylvester's determinant identity to compute Jacobian determinants. Our method has the same advantages as invertible $d \times d$ convolutions that can capture correlations among all dimensions. In contrast to the invertible $d \times d$ convolutions, our method is parallelizable and the computational complexity of our methods are linear to the input size, so that it is still efficient in computation when the input is high-dimensional. One potential limitation is that Woodbury transformations do not have parameter sharing scheme as in convolutional layers, so one potential future research is to develop partially Woodbury transformations that can share parameters. We test our models on multiple image datasets and they outperform state-of-the-art methods.
\section*{Broader Impact}
This paper presents fundamental research on increasing the expressiveness of deep probabilistic models. Its impact is therefore linked to the various applications of such models.
By enriching the class of complex deep models for which we can train with exact likelihood, we may enable a wide variety of applications that can benefit from modeling of uncertainty.
However, a potential danger of this research is that deep generative models have been recently applied to synthesize realistic images and text, which can be used for misinformation campaigns.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec:acknowledgments}
We thank NVIDIA's GPU Grant Program and Amazon's AWS Cloud Credits for Research program for their support. The work was completed while both authors were affiliated with the Virginia Tech Department of Computer Science. Bert Huang was partially supported by an Amazon Research Award and a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation Safe-D Program for work on separate projects not directly related to this paper.
|
\section{Introduction.}\label{S1}
In this paper we prove compactness (up to translation)
of all maximising sequences for a constrained variational problem whose
maximisers represent steady axisymmetric vortex-pairs in a planar flow
of an ideal fluid of unit density that approaches a uniform flow at infinity.
The quantity being maximised is the kinetic energy $E(\zeta)$ due to
the vorticity $\zeta$ and
the constraints are that the vorticity in the upper half-plane should be a
rearrangement of a given compactly supported non-negative function and that
the impulse (linear momentum parallel to the axis) $I(\zeta)$ should take a
prescribed value.
This formulation of steady vortex pairs,
which is derived from ideas of
Arnol$^\prime$d \cite{VIA:COND} and
Benjamin \cite{TBB},
has the notable feature that all the prescribed data are
conserved quantities in the corresponding dynamical problem.
We apply the compactness theorem to orbital stability:
we prove that symmetric flows with non-negative upper half-plane vorticity
starting close to a maximiser remain close to the set of maximisers
for all time, relative to a norm defined by
\[
\| \zeta \|_{\mathfrak{X}^p} := |I(\zeta)| + \| \zeta \|_1 + \| \zeta \|_p ,
\]
where $p>2$.
It must be emphasised that this result does not preclude arbitrarily small
perturbations that result in two-signed initial vorticity leading to flows
that become distant from the set of maximisers.
This stability result is a counterpart for one proved in \cite{BLL}
where kinetic energy penalised by a given constant multiple of impulse was
maximised relative to a set of rearrangements.
In the present paper the same norm $\| \cdot \|_{\mathfrak{X}^p}$ is used to
measure deviations in both the initial state and the evolved state,
whereas in \cite{BLL} deviations in the evolved state were
measured in a weaker norm than deviations in the initial state.
The precise formulations of the results are given
in Subsection \ref{results}; the sequences considered in the compactness
theorem are in fact slightly more general than maximising sequences.
While it is clear that all maximisers of the variational problem of \cite{BLL}
are maximisers of the problem of the present paper (for appropriate fixed
values of the impulse) it is unclear whether the converse holds.
In particular, we do not know generally whether the maximisers for either
formulation are unique (up to axial translation), or even whether all
maximisers for the penalised energy formulation in \cite{BLL}
have the same impulse.
Stability of planar ideal fluid flows has been the subject of many
investigations.
The outcome can depend on which norm is used in the definition of stability,
especially the order of derivatives included, if any, a point that is
emphasised in the expository articles by
Friedlander and Shnirelman \cite{FrShn} and
Friedlander and Yudovich \cite{FrYud}.
\subsection{Formulation.}
\label{formul}
We take the flow to be symmetric in the $x_1$-axis of $\mathbb{R}^2$, so we work
in the upper half-plane $\Pi=\{ (x_1,x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2) \mid x_2>0 \}$
and let $G$ be the Green's function of $-\Delta$ in $\Pi$, that is
\begin{equation}
G(x,y) := \frac{1}{2\pi} \log \left (\frac{|x-\overline{y}|}{|x-y|} \right)
= \frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{4x_2 y_2}{|x-y|^2} \right)
\label{eqx6}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{y} = (y_1,-y_2)$ denotes the reflection in the $x_1$-axis
of $y=(y_1,y_2)$.
An operator $\mathscr{G}$ is defined by
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)= \int_\Pi G(x,y) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y,
\]
when this integral converges (for which it is sufficient that
$\zeta \in L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ for some $p>1$).
For a flow of an ideal (incompressible, inviscid) fluid of unit density
in $\Pi$ approaching a uniform stream with velocity $(\lambda,0)$ at infinity,
parallel to $e_1=(1,0)$ on the axis and having signed scalar vorticity
$\zeta(x)$, the stream function is given by $\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2$ and
the kinetic energy $E(\zeta)$ and impulse $I(\zeta)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
E(\zeta) &=& \frac{1}{2}\int_\Pi \zeta(x) \mathscr{G}\zeta(x) \mathrm{d} x
= \frac{1}{2} \int_\Pi G(x,y) \zeta(x) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y ,\\
I(\zeta) &=& \int_\Pi \zeta(y)y_2 \mathrm{d} y .
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that $E(\zeta)>0$ if $\zeta \neq 0$.
Consider a fixed compactly supported non-negative $\zeta_0 \in L^p(\Pi)$,
for some $2<p<\infty$ and let $\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ denote the set of all
rearrangements of $\zeta_0$ on $\Pi$, defined in Sect. \ref{rearr} below.
Given a number $i_0>0$, any maximiser of $E(\zeta)$ subject to the constraints
$\zeta \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ and $I(\zeta)=i_0$ satisfies an equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq5}
-\Delta \psi(x) = \varphi (\psi(x) - \lambda x_2) \quad \mbox{ in } \Pi
\end{equation}
where $\psi := K\zeta$ and $\varphi$ is an ({\em a priori} unknown) increasing
function; if $\psi$ satisfies \eqref{eq5} then $\psi(x_1,x_2)- \lambda x_2$
is the
stream function of a steady ideal fluid flow.
Viewed in a frame fixed relative to the fluid at infinity,
$\overline{\psi}(x_1,x_2,t):=\psi(x_1 + \lambda t,x_2)$, where $\psi$ satisfies
\eqref{eq5}, is the stream function for a vortex of constant form moving
with velocity $(\lambda,0)$ in an otherwise irrotational fluid that is
stationary at infinity.
Our purpose here is to prove that given $\zeta_0$, for all sufficiently large
$i_0$ the maximisers are orbitally stable to non-negative perturbations of
vorticity in $\| \, \|_{\mathfrak{X}^p}$ in the sense that, if $\zeta$ is a maximiser
and $\omega(t)$ is a flow of a planar ideal fluid whose initial vorticity
$\omega(0)$ is non-negative and is close to $\zeta$ in $\| \,\|_{\mathfrak{X}^p}$ then
$\omega(t)$ remains close in $\| \,\|_{\mathfrak{X}^p}$ to the set of maximisers.
We work with a relaxed formulation of the variational problem,
having a convex constraint set, and refer to its solutions as
{\em relaxed maximisers}; we show these must always exist.
It transpires (see Lemma \ref{lmx7}) that, given $\zeta_0$,
for all sufficiently large $i_0$ the relaxed maximisers
are in fact solutions to the original unrelaxed problem;
it is under these circumstances that we can prove orbital stability.
\subsection{Background.}
The notion that extrema of kinetic energy relative to a set of equimeasurable
vorticities, or ``equivortical surface'', should provide stable steady flows,
was introduced by Arnol$^\prime$d \cite{VIA:COND}.
Benjamin \cite{TBB} adapted Arnol$^\prime$d's ideas to the context of steady
axisymmetric vortex-rings in a uniform flow in the whole of $\mathbb{R}^3$ and
proposed a programme for proving the existence of energy maximisers subject
to the additional constraint of fixed impulse and for proving their
stability from this.
The problem considered in the present paper is the two-dimensional analogue
of Benjamin's problem and this work represents a contribution to its stability
theory, existence of solutions having been studied previously in \cite{GRB:VP}.
Arnol$^\prime$d's stability method proceeds by constructing a Lyapunov
functional, derived from the vorticity-stream function relationship,
concerning which some degree of detail must therefore be known.
However, Benjamin's approach to steady vortices has the novel feature that the
functional relationship between the stream function and the vorticity, which
is the classical condition for a planar flow to be steady, is not specified
{\em a priori} but is determined {\em a posteriori}, by contrast with much
other work on existence of solutions to semilinear elliptic equations.
Our result will therefore not be derived by Arnol$^\prime$d's method,
but rather by the approach to stability envisaged by Benjamin \cite{TBB}.
Burton, Lopes and Lopes \cite{BLL} proved a stability theorem for a related
formulation where the energy is penalised by subtracting a fixed multiple of
the impulse and then maximised on a set of rearrangements without any
constraint on the impulse, which is the planar analogue of an alternative
formulation of vortex rings that had also been proposed by Benjamin \cite{TBB}.
In \cite{BLL} it was shown that when the initial vorticity is non-negative
and close to a maximiser in terms of $I$ and $\| \, \|_2$, subject to a
bound on the area of the vortex-core, the vorticity of the evolving flow
remains close in $\| \, \|_2$ to the set of maximisers.
We suggest that the form of stability proved in the present paper is more
elegant, in using the same norm to measure the perturbations of both the
initial state and the evolved state.
\subsection{Methodology.}
The proof of stability in \cite{BLL} proceeded by constructing, given a flow
with vorticity $\omega(t)$ for which $\omega(0)$ is close to a maximiser
$\widehat{\zeta}$, a ``follower'' $\zeta(t)$ in the constraint set by
advecting $\widehat{\zeta}$ using the transport equation of the velocity
field associated with $\omega(t)$; the distance between $\omega(t)$ and
$\zeta(t)$ is constant in time.
The result was then deduced from a compactness theorem for the maximising
sequences of the variational problem, whose proof used the
Concentration-Compactness principle expounded by P.-L. Lions \cite{PLL:CC1}.
In the present context, this approach gives rise to two difficulties.
Firstly, the transport equation need not conserve impulse so its solutions
need not remain in the constraint set; this frustrates the construction
of a follower.
Secondly, the absence of the penalty term on the energy increases
the difficulty of bounding the supports of various vorticities arising in
the ``Dichotomy'' case of Concentration-Compactness.
We therefore prove directly the compactness of maximising sequences that
approach the constraint set but need not be contained within it and, when
addressing Dichotomy, we improve the compactness by solving subsidiary
constrained variational problems, which may have relaxed solutions only.
\section{Preliminaries and Statements of Results.}
\label{prelim}
In this section we review the properties of the set $\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ of
rearrangements of a function $\zeta_0$ and we define the constraint set
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ for the relaxed variational problem.
Then we derive some estimates for the stream function in terms of the
vorticity and establish weak continuity properties of the energy, which
will be needed for the study of relaxed problem in Section \ref{exist}.
Throughout we use the notation $D(x,R)=\{ y \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid |y-x| < r \}$
and $D_\Pi(x,R) = D(x,R) \cap \Pi$.
\subsection{Rearrangements and Steiner symmetrisation.}
\label{rearr}
Suppose that $f$ and $g$ are non-negative functions $p$-integrable (for some
$1 \leq p <\infty$) on sets of infinite measure in Euclidean spaces (possibly
of different dimensions).
We say $f$ is a {\em rearrangement} of $g$ if the Lebesgue measures of
corresponding super-level sets of $f$ and $g$ are equal, that is, if
\[
\forall \alpha>0 \quad |\{ x \mid f(x)>\alpha \}|
= |\{ y \mid g(y)>\alpha \}|
\]
where $| \, |$ denotes Lebesgue measure of appropriate dimension.
We write $f \preceq g$ if
\begin{equation}
\forall \alpha>0 \; \int_U (f(x)-\alpha)_+\mathrm{d} x \leq
\int_V (g(y) -\alpha)_+ \mathrm{d} y .
\label{eqx8}
\end{equation}
Thus $\preceq$ is transitive, while $f$ is a rearrangement of $g$ if and only
if both $f \preceq g$ and $g \preceq f$ hold, since the measures of the
super-level sets of $f$ and $g$ can be recovered by right-differentiation
of the integrals in \eqref{eqx8} with respect to $\alpha$.
Typically we are interested in functions defined on half-planes, planar strips
or unbounded intervals in $\mathbb{R}$.
Any set of finite positive Lebesgue measure in a Euclidean space
(of any dimension) is measure-theoretically isomorphic to an interval of
equal linear measure in $\mathbb{R}$,
indeed a measure-preserving bimeasurable bijection to the interval less
a countable set exists, see \cite[Chapter 15]{HLR}, and consequently any
set of infinite measure is isomorphic to a half-line and to $\mathbb{R}$.
The isomorphisms allow a measurable function on one set to be
lifted to a rearrangement on any other set of equal measure.
We can therefore be somewhat cavalier about domains in what follows.
The essentially unique {\em decreasing rearrangement} $f^\Delta$ of $f$ can be
defined on $(0,\infty)$ and we extend $f^\Delta$ to vanish on $(-\infty,0)$.
We define the {\em increasing rearrangement} of $f$ by
$f^\nabla(s)=f^\Delta(-s)$ for real $s$.
Clearly $f$ is a rearrangement of $g$ if and only if $f^\Delta=g^\Delta$.
The inequality
\begin{equation}
\| f^\Delta - g^\Delta \|_p \leq \| f - g \|_p
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
holds if $f,g \in L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ for some $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, see for example
\cite[Theorem 3.5]{LILO}, thus decreasing rearrangement is continuous in $L^p$.
One can think of $f^\Delta$ as capturing the statistics of the values of $f$
without capturing their spatial distribution.
Given non-negative $f \in L^p(\Pi)$, for some $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, and
$\beta \in \mathbb{R}$, the {\em Steiner symmetrisation of $f$ in the line
$x_2=\beta$} is the (essentially unique) non-negative function $f^s$ on $\Pi$
such that, for almost every $x_2>0$, the function $f^s(\cdot,x_2)$ is
symmetric decreasing about $\beta$ and $f^s(\cdot,x_2)$ is a rearrangement
of $f(\cdot,x_2)$.
Consider a non-negative $p$-integrable function $\zeta_0$ (some $2<p<\infty$)
defined on a subset of infinite Lebesgue measure in a Euclidean space and
let $U$ be another subset of infinite measure in a Euclidean space.
We denote by $\mathscr{R}_U(\zeta_0)$ the set of all rearrangements of $\zeta_0$ on $U$
and define the set $\mathscr{W}_U(\zeta_0)$, which contains $\mathscr{R}_U(\zeta_0)$, by
\[
\mathscr{W}_U(\zeta_0) = \left\{ 0 \leq \zeta \in \left. L^1(U) \,
\right| \, \zeta \preceq \zeta_0 \right\} ,
\]
writing in particular $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)=\mathscr{W}_\Pi(\zeta_0)$ and
$\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)=\mathscr{R}_\Pi(\zeta_0)$.
Then, from the definition, $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$ is convex and
Douglas \cite{RJD:UD} proved that $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$ is the closure of
$\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ in the weak topology of $L^p(\Pi)$. Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0) &=&
\{\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0) \mid I(\zeta) \leq i_0\} \\
\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0) &=&
\{\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0) \mid I(\zeta) = i_0\} \\
\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,< \infty) &=&
\{\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0) \mid I(\zeta) < \infty \} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Then $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ is convex and strongly closed in $L^p$, and
therefore weakly closed, whereas $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$ is not strongly closed.
Further if $\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$ then $\|\zeta\|_1 \leq \|\zeta_0\|_1$
and $\|\zeta\|_p \leq \|\zeta_0\|_p$.
We write
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0) &=& \{ \zeta 1_A \mid \zeta \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0), \; A \subset \Pi
\mbox{ measurable } \}, \\
\mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0) &=& \{ 0 \leq \zeta \in L^1(\Pi) \mid
\zeta^\Delta = \zeta_0^\Delta 1_{(0,\ell)},
\mbox{ some } 0 \leq \ell \leq \infty \}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The elements of $\mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$ were called {\em curtailments of
rearrangements} of $\zeta_0$ by Douglas \cite{RJD:UD}, who showed that
$\mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$ is the set of extreme points of $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$.
The ideas described above form counterparts, for domains of infinite measure,
of some results of Ryff \cite{Ryff:Major} for bounded intervals
(and hence, by isomorphism, for more general domains of finite measure).
We will consider the relaxed problem of maximising $E$ relative to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ and let $M_0$ denote the supremum of this problem.
It is easy to see from the second form of the Green's function $G$
in \eqref{eqx6}
that translating any nontrivial $\zeta \geq 0$ in the positive $x_2$-direction
strictly increases $E$, so any maximiser of $E$ relative to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ must belong to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$.
The strict convexity of $E$ shows that maximisers of $E$ relative to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$ are extreme points of this set; together with
a result of Douglas \cite{RJD:UD} this will be used to show that all
maximisers belong to the set $\mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$.
This is not quite straightforward because $I$ is an unbounded functional
so Douglas's theorem does not apply directly to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$.
\subsection{Results.}\label{results}
We prove the following compactness theorem, which is more general than
compactness of maximising sequences:
\begin{theorem}[{\bf Compactness}]
Let $i_0 >0$ and $\zeta_0 \in L^p(\Pi)$, $p>2$, be given, such that
$\zeta_0$ is nontrivial and non-negative with compact support.
Let $\Sigma_0$ be the set of maximisers of $E$ relative to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$, let $M_0$ be the value of $E$ on $\Sigma_0$ and
suppose $\emptyset \neq \Sigma_0 \subset \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$.
Suppose $(\zeta_n)$ is a non-negative sequence in $L^p \cap L^1 (\Pi)$ such
that $\zeta_n^\Delta \to \zeta_0^\Delta$ in both $L^p$ and $L^1$,
$I(\zeta_n) \to i_0$ and $E(\zeta_n) \to M_0$.
Then some subsequence of $(\zeta_n)$ converges, after $x_1$-translation,
in both $L^p$ and $L^1$ to an element of $\Sigma_0$.
\label{thm1}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
{\bf Definition.}
By an {\em $L^p$-regular solution} of the vorticity equation we mean
$\omega \in L^\infty_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty)), L^1(\Pi)) \cap
L^\infty_\mathrm{loc}([0,\infty)), L^p(\Pi))$ satisfying, in the sense of
distributions,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq8}
\begin{cases}
\partial_t \omega + \mathrm{div} (\omega u) = 0,\\
u = \nabla^\perp \mathscr{G} \omega, \quad (t,x) \in [0,\infty) \times \Pi ,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
such that $E(\omega(t,\cdot))$ and $I(t,\cdot)$ are constant.
(The operators $\mathrm{div}$, $\nabla^\perp$ and $\mathscr{G}$ are applied
only in the space variable $x$.)
\medskip
This differs from the corresponding definition in \cite{BLL} in omitting
the $\lambda e_1$ term from the formula for $u$; this change represents viewing
the flow in a frame stationary relative to the fluid at infinity instead of one
moving with velocity $-\lambda e_1$.
For a discussion of the global existence of $L^p$-regular solutions of the
vorticity equation with given initial vorticity in $L^p(\Pi) \cap L^1(\Pi)$
see \cite[Sect. 2]{BLL}.
Note that solutions are not known to be unique, except in the case of compactly
supported initial vorticity in $L^\infty$ studied by Yudovich \cite{VIY:NSF}.
In stating the following theorem, we regard vorticity $\omega$ a function
of time $t$ with values in $L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ and suppress the space
variable $x$.
\begin{theorem}[{\bf Stability}]
Let $2<p<\infty$, let $\zeta_0 \in L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ be non-negative
and have compact support and let $i_0>0$.
Suppose $\emptyset \neq \Sigma_0 \subset \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$.
Then for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that, if
$\omega(0) \geq 0$ with compact support satisfies
$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathfrak{X}^p} (\omega(0),\Sigma_0)<\delta$,
then
$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathfrak{X}^p} (\omega(t),\Sigma_0)<\varepsilon$
for all $t>0$, whenever $\omega$ is an $L^p$-regular solution of
the vorticity equation with initial vorticity $\omega(0)$.
\label{thm2}
\end{theorem}
The proofs will be given in Section \ref{S4}.
\subsection{Estimates for the stream function and properties of the energy.}
In Lemmas \ref{lm1}, \ref{lm3} and \ref{lmx1} following we refine the
calculations of \cite[Lemma 1,2,10]{GRB:VP}
to derive estimates for $\mathscr{G}(\zeta)$ that apply uniformly over
$\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0, \leq i_0)$ and in Lemmas \ref{lmx5}, \ref{lmx2}
and \ref{lmx4} we establish weak continuity properties of $E$.
Lemmas \ref{lmx8} and \ref{lm2} then show we can work in a strip in $\Pi$.
\noindent
\begin{lemma}
\label{lm1}
Suppose that $1<p<\infty$ and $1<\alpha<\infty$.
Then there are positive constants $c_1,c_2,c_3$, depending only on $p$ and
$\alpha$, such that, if
$0 \leq \zeta \in L^p(\Pi)$ and $I(\zeta)<\infty$, then
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) \leq x_2^{-1}(c_1 \log x_2 + c_2) I(\zeta)
+ c_3 x_2^{-1/\alpha} \| \zeta \|_p^{1-1/\alpha} I(\zeta)^{1/\alpha}
\quad \forall x_2 \geq 1.
\]
\end{lemma}
\noindent
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) = \left(\int_{\rho<x_2/2} + \int_{\rho>x_2/2}\right)
G(x,y)\zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y
\]
where $\rho=|x-y|$.
Now
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\rho>x_2/2} G(x,y)\zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y &=&
(4\pi)^{-1} \int_{\rho>x_2/2}\log(1+ 4x_2 y_2 \rho^{-2}) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y\\
& \leq & \pi ^{-1} \int_{\rho>x_2/2} x_2 y_2\rho^{-2} \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y
\leq \pi ^{-1} \int_{\rho>x_2/2} 4 x_2^{-1} y_2 \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \\
& \leq &
4\pi^{-1} I(\zeta) x_2^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $0<\rho<x_2/2$ we have $x_2/2 < y_2 < 3x_2/2$ so
\begin{eqnarray*}
4\pi G (x,y) &=& \log(1+4x_2 y_2/\rho^2) < \log (9x_2 y_2/2\rho^2)\\
&=&
\log(9y_2/2) + \log x_2 + 2 \log \rho^{-1}\\
& \leq &
2x_2^{-1}y_2\log(27x_2/4) + 2 x_2^{-1}y_2\log x_2 + 2 \log\rho^{-1}
\end{eqnarray*}
when $x_2 \geq 1$, hence
\[
\int_{\rho<x_2/2} G(x,y)\zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \leq
(4\pi x_2)^{-1}\left(4\log x_2+ 2\log{\textstyle \frac{27}{4}}\right)I(\zeta)
+ 2\int_{\rho<x_2/2} (\log\rho^{-1})\zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y .
\]
To treat the last integral in the above inequality, choose
$\beta = p/(1-1/\alpha)$, which ensures that $\beta>p>1$ and that
\[
\frac{1}{\alpha} + \frac{1}{\beta}
= \frac{1}{\alpha} + \frac{1}{p}\left( 1 -\frac{1}{\alpha} \right)
< \frac{1}{\alpha} + \left( 1 -\frac{1}{\alpha} \right) = 1 ,
\]
hence we can choose $\gamma>1$ such that
$\alpha^{-1} + \beta^{-1} + \gamma^{-1} =1$.
Then H\"older's inequality yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\rho<x_2/2} (\log\rho^{-1}) \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
&\leq&
\int_{\rho<x_2/2} (\log\rho^{-1})_+ \, y_2^{-1/\alpha}y_2^{1/\alpha}\zeta(y)
\mathrm{d} y\\
&\leq&
2^{1/\alpha} x_2^{-1/\alpha} \int_{\rho<x_2/2} (\log\rho^{-1})_+
\zeta^{1-1/\alpha}y_2^{1/\alpha} \zeta^{1/\alpha} \mathrm{d} y\\
&\leq&
2^{1/\alpha} x_2^{-1/\alpha} \| (\log \rho^{-1})_+ \|_\gamma
\| \zeta^{1-1/\alpha} \|_\beta \| y_2^{1/\alpha} \zeta^{1/\alpha} \|_\alpha\\
&\leq&
2^{1/\alpha} x_2^{-1/\alpha} \| (\log \rho^{-1})_+ \|_\gamma
\| \zeta\|_p^{p/\beta} I( \zeta)^{1/\alpha}\\
&\leq&
2^{1/\alpha} x_2^{-1/\alpha} \| (\log \rho^{-1})_+ \|_\gamma
\| \zeta\|_p^{1-1/\alpha} I( \zeta)^{1/\alpha}
\end{eqnarray*}
and we note that
\[
\| (\log \rho^{-1})_+ \|_\gamma =
\left( \int_0^1 2\pi (\log \rho^{-1})^\gamma \rho \mathrm{d} \rho \right)^{1/\gamma}
\]
which is a positive real number depending only on $\alpha$ and $p$ since
$\gamma=\alpha p / ((\alpha -1)(p-1))$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{lemma}
Suppose that $1<p<\infty$ and $1/p+1/q=1$.
Then there is a positive constant $c_4$, depending only on $p$, such that, if
$0 \leq \zeta \in L^p(\Pi)$, then
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) \leq c_4 (\|\zeta\|_1+\|\zeta\|_p) (x_2^{1/q} + x_2^2)
\quad \forall x \in \Pi.
\]
\label{lm3}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Write $\rho=|x-y|$.
Then $y_2 \leq x_2+\rho$ so by \eqref{eqx6} and concavity of $\log$
we have firstly
\[
\int_{\rho > 1} G(x,y)\zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \int_{\rho > 1} \frac{x_2 y_2}{\pi \rho^2} \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \int_{\rho > 1} \frac{x_2^2 +x_2\rho}{\pi \rho^2} \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{1}{\pi} (x_2^2+x_2) \| \zeta \|_1 .
\]
Secondly, if $\rho<x_2$ then $|x-\overline{y}| \leq 2x_2 + \rho \leq 3x_2$, so
we have
\[
\int_{\rho<x_2} G(x,y)\zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}
\int_{\rho<x_2} \log\left(\frac{3x_2}{\rho}\right)\zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}
\left(2\pi x_2^2 \int_0^1 (\log(3s^{-1}))^q \mathrm{d} s \right)^{1/q} \|\zeta\|_p
\]
by H\"older's inequality.
Thirdly, when $x_2<1$ the region $x_2<\rho<1$ is nonempty
and \eqref{eqx6} yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{x_2 < \rho <1} G(x,y)\zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
&\leq& \int_{x_2 < \rho <1} \frac{x_2(x_2+\rho)}{\pi\rho^2} \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \int_{x_2 < \rho <1} \frac{2x_2}{\pi\rho} \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \\
&\leq& \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{x_2<\rho<1}
\left(\frac{x_2}{\rho}\right)^{1/q} \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{4\|\zeta\|_p}{(2\pi)^{1/p}} x_2^{1/q}
\end{eqnarray*}
by H\"older's inequality.
These three bounds yield the result since
$x_2 + x_2^{2/q} \leq 2(x_2^{1/q}+x_2^2)$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Remark.} When $2<p<\infty$ we can strengthen Lemma \ref{lm3} as follows:
\medskip
\begin{lemma}
Let $2<p<\infty$ and $1/q+1/p=1$.
Then there is a constant $c_5>0$ depending only on $p$, such that if
$0 \leq \zeta \in L^p(\Pi) \cap L^1(\Pi)$ then, for $x \in \Pi$
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\nabla_x \mathscr{G} \zeta(x)| &\leq& c_5 (\|\zeta\|_p+\|\zeta\|_1), \\
\mathscr{G} \zeta(x) &\leq& c_5 x_2 (\|\zeta\|_p + \|\zeta\|_1) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\label{lmx1}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $0 \leq \zeta \in L^p(\Pi) \cap L^1(\Pi)$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Pi |\nabla_x G(x,y) \zeta(y)| \mathrm{d} y
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Pi \left| \frac{x-y}{|x-y|^2}
- \frac{x-\overline{y}}{|x-\overline{y}|^2} \right| \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Pi \left( \frac{1}{|x-y|}
+ \frac{1}{|x-\overline{y}|} \right) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\pi}\int_\Pi \frac{1}{|x-y|} \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \\
&=& \frac{1}{\pi}\left( \int_{D_\Pi(x,1)} + \int_{\Pi \setminus D(x,1)} \right)
\frac{1}{|x-y|} \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{\pi}
\left( \int_0^1 \frac{2\pi\rho \mathrm{d}\rho}{\rho^q} \right)^{1/q}
\| \zeta \|_p + \frac{1}{\pi} \| \zeta \|_1 ,
\end{eqnarray*}
hence the first inequality.
The second inequality now follows since $\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) \to 0$
as $x_2 \to 0$ uniformly over $x_1$ by Lemma \ref{lm3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $1<p<\infty$, let $L>0$ and let
\[
\mathscr{L} = \{ \xi \in L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi) \mid \xi \geq 0, \; I(\xi) \leq L, \;
\| \xi \|_1 \leq L, \; \|\xi\|_p \leq L \}.
\]
Then $E$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to
$\| \, \|_1$ relative to $\mathscr{L}$.
\label{lmx5}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From Lemmas \ref{lm1} and \ref{lm3} we can choose a constant $K$ such that
$\| \mathscr{G}\xi \|_\mathrm{sup} \leq K$ for all $\xi \in \mathscr{L}$.
Consider $\xi,\eta \in \mathscr{L}$.
We can assume $E(\xi) \geq E(\eta)$ and so
\[
0 \leq E(\xi)-E(\eta)
= \frac{1}{2} \int_\Pi (\xi-\eta)\mathscr{G}(\xi+\eta)
\leq \frac{1}{2}\|\xi-\eta\|_1(\|\mathscr{G}\xi\|_\mathrm{sup}+\|\mathscr{G}\eta\|_\mathrm{sup})
\leq K\|\xi-\eta\|_1 .
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $2<p<\infty$. Then there is a constant $c_6>0$ such that
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) \leq
c_6(I(\zeta)+\|\zeta\|_1+\|\zeta\|_p) x_2 \min\{1,| x_1 |^{-1/(2p)}\},
\quad x \in \Pi
\]
for all non-negative $\zeta \in L^p(\Pi) \cap L^1(\Pi)$ that are
Steiner-symmetric in the $x_1$-axis with $I(\zeta)<\infty$.
\label{lmx2}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly note that if $\xi \in L^1(0,\infty)$ is decreasing and $0<b<s$ then
the means of $\xi$ on both of the intervals $[s-b,s]$ and $[s,s+b]$ are
no greater than the mean of $\xi$ on $[0,s]$ and therefore
\[
\frac{1}{2b} \int_{s-b}^{s+b} \xi \leq \frac{1}{s} \int_0^s \xi .
\]
Now consider Steiner-symmetric $\zeta\in L^1(\Pi)$ and $x \in \Pi$.
Let $0<b \leq |x|_1$ and apply the above inequality in the $y_1$ integration
to obtain
\[
\frac{1}{2b} \int_{|y_1-x_1|<b} \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{1}{2|x_1|} \int_{|y_1|<|x_1|} \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y
\]
and consequently
\begin{equation}
\int_{|y_1-x_1|<b} \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y \leq \frac{b}{|x_1|} \int_\Pi \zeta(y)\mathrm{d} y .
\label{eqx7}
\end{equation}
Suppose that additionally $I(\zeta)<\infty$, fix $x \in \Pi$ with
$x_1 \neq 0$, let
\[
\zeta_1(y) =
\begin{cases}
\zeta(y) & \mbox{ if } |y_1-x_1| < |x_1|^{1/2} \\
0 & \mbox{ if } |y_1-x_1| \geq |x_1|^{1/2}
\end{cases}
\]
and let $\zeta_2 = \zeta - \zeta_1$.
We write $\rho=|x-y|$ when $x,y \in \Pi$ and obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathscr{G}\zeta_2(x)
&\leq& \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{\rho>|x_1|^{1/2}}
\log\left(1+\frac{4x_2 y_2}{\rho^2}\right)\zeta_2(y)\mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{\rho>|x_1|^{1/2}}
\frac{4x_2 y_2}{\rho^2}\zeta_2(y)\mathrm{d} y \\
&\leq& \frac{x_2}{\pi|x_1|} \int_\Pi \zeta(y) y_2 \mathrm{d} y
= \frac{x_2}{\pi|x_1|} I(\zeta) .
\end{eqnarray*}
When $|x_1|>1$ we have from \eqref{eqx7}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Pi \zeta_1^1 &\leq& \frac{|x_1|^{1/2}}{|x_1|} \int_\Pi \zeta
= |x_1|^{-1/2} \int_\Pi \zeta, \\
\int_\Pi \zeta_1^p &\leq& \frac{|x_1|^{1/2}}{|x_1|} \int_\Pi \zeta^p
= |x_1|^{-1/2} \int_\Pi \zeta^p
\end{eqnarray*}
so by Lemma \ref{lmx1} we have
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta_1(x) \leq c_5 x_2 (\|\zeta_1\|_1 + \|\zeta_1\|_p)
\leq c_5 x_2 (\|\zeta\|_1 |x_1|^{-1/2} + \|\zeta\|_p |x_1|^{-1/(2p)}).
\]
The result follows from the above inequalities for $\mathscr{G}\zeta_1(x)$ and
$\mathscr{G}\zeta_2(x)$ when $|x_1|>1$ and from Lemma \ref{lmx1} when $|x_1| \leq 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $2<p<\infty$ and let $(\zeta_n)$ be a sequence of Steiner symmetric
non-negative functions on $\Pi$, suppose $\| \zeta_n \|_1$ and $I(\zeta_n)$
are bounded and suppose $\zeta_n \to \zeta$ weakly in $L^p(\Pi)$.
Then $E(\zeta_n) \to E(\zeta)$ as $n \to \infty$.
\label{lmx4}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $T>0$, to be chosen later, and consider Steiner symmetric
$\xi \in L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ with $I(\xi)<\infty$.
Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Pi_0 &=& \{ x \in \Pi \mid x_2>T \}, \\
\Pi_1 &=& \{ x \in \Pi \mid x_2<T, \; |x_1|>T \}, \\
\Pi_2 &=& \{ x \in \Pi \mid x_2<T, \; |x_1|<T \}
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\xi_k = \xi 1_{\Pi_k}$ for $k=1,2,3$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}
E(\xi)
= \frac{1}{2} \int_\Pi \xi_2 \mathscr{G} \xi_2 + \int_\Pi \xi_2 \mathscr{G}(\xi_0 + \xi_1)
+ \frac{1}{2} \int_\Pi (\xi_0+\xi_1) \mathscr{G}(\xi_0 + \xi_1) .
\label{eqx3}
\end{equation}
There is a positive constant $C$, depending only on $p$, such that
the inequalities
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathscr{G}\xi(x) &\leq& C(I(\xi) + \|\xi\|_1 + \|\xi\|_p) \label{eq3} \\
\mathscr{G}\xi(x) &\leq&
C(I(\xi)+\|\xi\|_1+\|\xi\|_p) x_2\min\{1,|x_1|^{-1/(2p)}\} \label{eq4}
\end{eqnarray}
hold for all $x \in \Pi$, from Lemmas \ref{lm1} and \ref{lm3}
in the case of \eqref{eq3} and from Lemma \ref{lmx2} in the case of
\eqref{eq4}, the Steiner symmetry being employed only for \eqref{eq4}.
From \eqref{eq3} and \eqref{eq4} we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_\Pi \xi_2 \mathscr{G}(\xi_0 + \xi_1)
&+&
\frac{1}{2} \int_\Pi (\xi_0+\xi_1) \mathscr{G}(\xi_0 + \xi_1)
\leq \int_\Pi \xi_0\mathscr{G}\xi + \xi_1\mathscr{G}\xi \notag \\
&\leq&
\|\mathscr{G}\xi\|_\mathrm{sup} \int_{x_2>T} \xi + \int_{|x_1|>T} \xi\mathscr{G}\xi \notag \\
&\leq&
C(I(\xi)+\|\xi\|_1+\|\xi\|_p)
\left( \int_{x_2>T} T^{-1}x_2\xi(x) \mathrm{d} x
+ \int_{|x_1|>T} x_2|x_1|^{-1/(2p)}\xi(x)\mathrm{d} x \right) \notag\\
&\leq&
C(I(\xi)+\|\xi\|_1+\|\xi\|_p)I(\xi)(T^{-1}+T^{-1/(2p)}) . \label{eqx4}
\end{eqnarray}
Now consider the sequence $(\zeta_n)$, which must be bounded in $L^p(\Pi)$.
Let $\varepsilon>0$, write $Q = (-T,T) \times (0,T)$ and use \eqref{eqx3}
and \eqref{eqx4} to choose $T>0$ such that
\[
0 \leq E(\zeta_n) - E(1_Q \zeta_n) < \varepsilon
\]
for all $n$ and
\[
0 \leq E(\zeta) - E(1_Q \zeta) < \varepsilon.
\]
In view of the compactness of $\mathscr{G}$ as an operator from $L^p(Q)$ to
$L^q(Q)$ we have
\[
E(1_Q \zeta_n) \to E(1_Q \zeta)
\]
as $n \to \infty$. It follows that
\[
E(\zeta_n) \to E(\zeta).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $1<p<\infty$, let $i_0 >0$ and let $\zeta_0$ be non-negative and have
compact support.
Let $\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$.
Then $\zeta$ is the weak limit in $L^p$ of a sequence $(\zeta_n)$ in
$\mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$ having $I(\zeta_n) \leq i_0$ for each $n$.
\label{lmx8}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly consider the case when $I(\zeta)<i_0$.
Since $\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ is weakly dense in $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$ by the results of
Douglas \cite{RJD:UD} we may choose a sequence $(\xi_k)$ in $\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$
converging weakly to $\zeta$ in $L^p(\Pi)$.
Given $g \in L^q(\Pi)$, where $1/p+1/q=1$, we have
\[
\left| \int_{D_\Pi(0,n)} \xi_k g - \int_\Pi \zeta g \right|
\leq
\left| \int_\Pi \xi_k g - \int_\Pi \zeta g \right|
+ \| \zeta_0 \|_p \| g \|_{L^q(\Pi \setminus D(0,n))}
\]
for all $k,n \in \mathbb{N}$.
Hence if $(k(n))$ is any strictly increasing sequence in $\mathbb{N}$ then
$\xi_{k(n)} 1_{D(0,n)} \to \zeta$ weakly in $L^p$ as $n \to \infty$.
Further, for each fixed $n \in \mathbb{N}$ we have
$I(\xi_k 1_{D(0,n)}) \to I(\zeta 1_{D(0,n)})$ as $k \to \infty$, so by
a diagonal sequence argument we can chose a strictly increasing sequence
$(k(n))$ of positive integers such that
$I(\xi_{k(n)} 1_{D(0,n)}) - I(\zeta 1_{D(0,n)}) \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$.
Since $I(\zeta 1_{D(0,n)}) \to I(\zeta)$ by the monotone convergence theorem
we now have $I(\xi_{k(n)} 1_{D(0,n)}) \to I(\zeta)$ as $n \to \infty$.
Therefore $\xi_{k(n)} 1_{D(0,n)} \in \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$ satisfies
$I(\xi_{k(n)} 1_{D(0,n)}) < i_0$ for all sufficiently large $n$ and
$\xi_{k(n)} 1_{D(0,n)} \to \zeta$ weakly in $L^p$.
This completes the proof in the case $I(\zeta)<i_0$.
Secondly, suppose $I(\zeta)=i_0>0$.
Then, by truncation, $\zeta$ can we written as the strong
limit of elements $\xi_n =\zeta 1_{\{x \mid x_2<r_n\}}$ of $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$
with $I(\xi_n)<i_0$, where $(r_n)$ is an increasing sequence of positive
numbers, so each $\xi_n$ is in the weak closure
of $\mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0) \cap I^{-1}([0,i_0])$ by the above
argument, hence $\zeta$ is in the weak closure of
$\mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0) \cap I^{-1}([0,i_0])$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $i_0>0$ and $0 \leq \zeta_0 \in L^p(\Pi)$ for some $1<p<\infty$,
compactly supported.
Then there exists $Z>0$ such that, if $(\zeta_n)$ is any maximising
sequence for $E$ relative to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$ comprising elements of
$\mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$ then ${\displaystyle \left(\zeta_n 1_{\mathbb{R} \times (0,Z)}\right)}$
is also a maximising sequence and
${\displaystyle \left\|\zeta_n 1_{\mathbb{R}\times(Z,\infty)}\right\|_1 \to 0}$.
\label{lm2}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $M_0$ be the supremum of $E$ relative to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$,
so $M_0<\infty$ by Lemma \ref{lmx5}.
Consider $\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0) \cap \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$ such that
$E(\zeta) \geq M_0/2$; such a $\zeta$ must exist if any such sequences
$(\zeta_n)$ exist.
Write $S=\{x \mid \zeta(x)>0\}$ and $S_0 = \{x \mid \zeta_0(x)>0\}$.
Then $\| \zeta \|_1 \leq \| \zeta_0 \|_1$ since $\zeta \in \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$,
hence $\| \mathscr{G} \zeta \|_{\sup} \geq M_0/\| \zeta_0 \|_1$
by H\"{o}lder's inequality.
The estimate of Lemma \ref{lm1} shows there exists $Z_0>0$ such that
every function $\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ obeys
$\mathscr{G}\xi(x)< M_0/(2\|\zeta_0\|_1)$ if $x_2>Z_0$.
Choose $x^* \in \Pi$ at which $\mathscr{G} \zeta$ achieves its supremum;
thus $x^*_2 \leq Z_0$.
Consider $y \in \Pi$ satisfying $y_2>2Z_0$.
Then we have
$|x^*-y| \geq y_2-x^*_2 > y_2/2$ so
\[
G(x^*,y) =
\frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{4 x^*_2 y_2}{|x^*-y|^2} \right)
< \frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{16 Z_0}{y_2} \right) .
\]
We choose $Z_1>2Z_0$ such that $Z_1^2 \geq |S_0|$ and
\[
\frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{16 Z_0}{Z_1} \right)
\leq \frac{M_0}{2\| \zeta_0\|_1^2} .
\]
This choice of $Z_1$ ensures that if $y_2>Z_1$ then we have
\[
G(x^*,y) < \frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{16 Z_0}{Z_1} \right)
\leq \frac{M_0}{2\| \zeta_0\|_1^2}
\]
whereas if $y_2 \leq Z_1$ and $|y_1-x^*_1|>Z_1$ then we have
\[
G(x^*,y) < \frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{4 Z_0}{Z_1} \right)
\leq \frac{M_0}{2\| \zeta_0\|_1^2} .
\]
Write $Q=(x^*_1-Z_1,x^*_1+Z_1) \times (0,Z_1)$; thus
$|Q| = 2 Z_1^2 \geq 2|S_0|$.
Then, by the above bounds,
\[
\int_{\Pi \setminus Q} G(x^*,y) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \leq \frac{M_0}{2\|\zeta_0\|_1}
\]
and therefore, since the choice of $x^*$ ensures
$\mathscr{G}(x^*) \geq M_0/\|\zeta_0\|_1$, we have
\[
\int_Q G(x^*,y) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y \geq \frac{M_0}{2\|\zeta_0\|_1}.
\]
It follows by H\"older's inequality that
\[
\int_Q G(x^*,y) \zeta(y) \mathrm{d} y
\leq \|G(x^*,\cdot)\|_{L^q(Q)} \|\zeta\|_{L^p(Q)}
\leq g \|\zeta\|_{L^p(Q)}
\]
where $1/q+1/p=1$ and we may find a suitable value for the constant $g$
from the rearrangement inequality for the integral of a product of two
functions, as follows.
We have
\[
G(x^*,y) \leq \frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+\frac{8Z_1^2}{|x^*-y|^2} \right),
\quad y \in Q,
\]
so, denoting by $D$ the disc with centre $x^*$ and radius $Z_1$,
denoting by $Q^*$ the disc with centre $x^*$ and area $|Q|$ and noting that
$|D| \geq |Q^*|$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|G(x^*,\cdot)\|_{L^q(Q)}^q = \int 1_Q(y) G(x^*,y)^q \mathrm{d} y
& \leq & \int 1_{Q^*}(y)
\left(\frac{1}{4\pi}\log\left(1+\frac{8Z_1^2}{|x^*-y|^2}\right)\right)^q \mathrm{d} y
\\
& \leq & \int_D
\left(\frac{1}{4\pi}\log\left(1+\frac{8Z_1^2}{|x^*-y|^2}\right)\right)^q \mathrm{d} y
\\
& \leq & \int_0^{Z_1}
\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\log\left(\frac{3Z_1}{\rho}\right)\right)^q 2\pi\rho \mathrm{d}\rho
=: g^q .
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\[
\| \zeta \|_{L^p(Q)} \geq \frac{M_0}{2g\|\zeta_0\|_1} =:m .
\]
Choose $\theta>0$ such that
\[
\int_0^\theta (\zeta_0^\Delta)^p < \frac{m^p}{2} .
\]
Then we have
\[
|Q \cap S | \geq 2\theta .
\]
Let $Q_0=(x^*_1 -Z_1,x^*_1 +Z_1)\times(0,\eta)$ where
$\eta = \theta/(2Z_1)$.
Then $|Q_0|=\theta$ and therefore
\[
\int_{Q \setminus Q_0} \zeta
\geq \inf_{U \subset S, |U|=\theta} \int_U \zeta
\geq \inf_{U \subset S_0, |U| = \theta} \int_U \zeta_0
\geq \int_0^\theta \zeta_0^\nabla =: \nu .
\]
If $x,y \in Q \setminus Q_0$ then
\[
G(x,y) \geq \frac{1}{4\pi}\log\left(1+\frac{4\eta^2}{5Z_1^2}\right) =:\mu .
\]
Hence for all $x \in Q \setminus Q_0$ we have
$\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) \geq \mu \nu$.
Moreover
\[
|Q \setminus Q_0| = |Q|-\theta \geq \frac{|Q|}{2} \geq |S_0| .
\]
Choose $Z > Z_1$ such that $x_2>Z$ implies
$\mathscr{G}\xi(x)<\mu\nu/2$ for all $\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$,
by Lemma \ref{lm1}.
Let $h = \zeta 1_{\mathbb{R} \times (Z,\infty)}$ and consider the possibility that
$h$ is non-trivial; then $h^{-1}(0,\infty)$ is a set of finite positive planar
Lebesgue measure and is therefore measure-theoretically isomorphic to a bounded
interval in $\mathbb{R}$ with linear Lebesgue measure.
Similarly $Q \setminus (Q_0 \cup S)$, which has planar Lebesgue
measure greater than that of $S \setminus Q$, is therefore
isomorphic to another interval, of greater length.
It follows that we can choose a rearrangement $h^\prime$ of $h$ supported in
$Q \setminus (Q_0 \cup S)$.
Then $\zeta +h^\prime -h$ lies in $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0) \cap \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$
and
\[
E(\zeta +h^\prime -h)
= E(\zeta) + \int_\Pi (\mathscr{G} \zeta) (h^\prime - h) + E(h^\prime - h)
\geq E(\zeta) + \mu\nu\|h^\prime\|_1 - \frac{\mu\nu}{2}\|h\|_1
= E(\zeta) + \frac{\mu\nu}{2} \| h \|_1,
\]
so
\[
\| h \|_1 \leq \frac{2}{\mu\nu}(M_0 - E(\zeta)).
\]
Hence if $(\zeta_n)$ is a maximising sequence belonging to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0) \cap \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$ and
$h_n = \zeta_n 1_{\{x \in \Pi \mid x_2>Z \}}$ then $\| h_n \|_1 \to 0$ so
\[
E(\zeta_n - h_n) = E(\zeta_n) - \int_\Pi (\mathscr{G}\zeta_n)h_n +E(h_n)
\geq E(\zeta_n) - \mu\nu \| h_n \|_1 \to M_0.
\]
That is, $( \zeta_n 1_{\mathbb{R} \times (0,Z)})$ is also a maximising sequence of
functions in $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0) \cap \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Existence of relaxed maximisers and first variation condition.}
\label{exist}
In this section we use the estimates of Section \ref{prelim} to extend the
existence theory of \cite[Theorem 16(ii)]{GRB:VP} to the relaxed problem,
since in the proofs of the main results we will have to consider subsidiary
variational problems where only relaxed solutions might exist under the
hypotheses that apply
(situations where solutions to an unrelaxed problem of this type fail
to exist can be found
in the study of Lamb's vortex \cite[Corollary 1]{GRB:LAMB}).
The first variation condition at a maximum gives rise to a functional
relationship between the vorticity and the stream function that shows the
maximisers represent steady flows.
Finally we show that for large values of the impulse, the relaxed solutions
are indeed solutions of the unrelaxed problem.
This will be needed to show that the Stability Theorem applies in a wide
range of cases.
\begin{lemma}
Let $2<p<\infty$, let $i_0>0$ and let
$0 \leq \zeta_0 \in L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ have compact support.
Then\\
{\rm (i)} there exist maximisers for $E$ relative to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$
and all maximisers belong to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,i_0)$,\\
{\rm (ii)} all maximisers are Steiner-symmetric elements of $\mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$,\\
{\rm (iii)} for every maximiser $\zeta$ there exists an increasing function
$\varphi$ and a number $\lambda > 0$ such that
$\zeta = \varphi \circ (\mathscr{G}\zeta - \lambda x_2)$ almost everywhere in $\Pi$
and $\zeta$ vanishes almost everywhere in the set
$\{ x \in \Pi \mid \psi(x)-\lambda x_2 \leq 0 \}$,\\
{\rm (iv)} every maximiser vanishes outside a bounded subset of
$\mathbb{R} \times (0,Z)$, where $Z$ is the number, depending on $i_0$, $\zeta_0$
and $p$ only, provided by Lemma \ref{lm2}.
\label{lmx6}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove (i) we choose a maximising sequence $(\zeta_n)$ for $E$ relative
to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0, \leq i_0)$.
It follows from the 1-dimensional case of the Riesz rearrangement inequality
that Steiner symmetrisation about the $x_2$-axis does not decrease $E$.
Therefore let us assume $(\zeta_n)$ to comprise Steiner-symmetric functions.
The sequence $(\zeta_n)$ is bounded in both $\| \, \|_1$ and $\| \, \|_p$.
We may therefore pass to a subsequence and assume $(\zeta_n)$ converges weakly
in $L^p(\Pi)$ to a limit $\widehat{\zeta}$.
Then $\widehat{\zeta} \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ and $E(\widehat{\zeta}) = M_0$
by Lemma \ref{lmx4}.
Thus $\widehat{\zeta}$ is a maximiser.
If $\zeta \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0, \leq i_0)$ is any element then translation of
$\zeta$ in the positive $x_2$ direction strictly increases $E(\zeta)$.
Therefore every maximiser $\zeta$ of $E$ relative to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$
must satisfy $I(\zeta)=i_0$.
To prove (ii) consider a maximiser $\zeta$.
We can write
\[
E(\zeta) = \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty J(\zeta,x_2,y_2) \mathrm{d} x_2 \mathrm{d} y_2
\]
where
\[
J(\zeta,x_2,y_2) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty
\zeta(x_1,x_2)G(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)\zeta(y_1,y_2)\mathrm{d} x_1 \mathrm{d} y_1
\]
with similar expressions for $E(\zeta^s)$ and $J(\zeta^s,x_2,y_2)$.
Since $G(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)$ is a decreasing function of $|x_1-y_1|$ for
fixed $x_2$ and $y_2$, the Riesz rearrangement inequality shows that
\[
J(\zeta,x_2,y_2) \leq J(\zeta^s,x_2,y_2) \quad \forall x_2>0,y_2>0
\]
and hence $E(\zeta) \leq E(\zeta^s)$, so $E(\zeta)=E(\zeta^s)$ by maximality.
Thus
\[
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty (J(\zeta^s,x_2,y_2)-J(\zeta,x_2,y_2))
\mathrm{d} x_2 \mathrm{d} y_2 =0
\]
and since the integrand is non-negative we must have
\[
J(\zeta,x_2,y_2)=J(\zeta^s,x_2,y_2) < \infty
\]
for almost all pairs $(x_2,y_2)$ of positive numbers.
We can now apply the one-dimensional case of Lieb's analysis\footnote
{Lieb's result applies to the case when one of the functions is strictly
symmetric decreasing, which is the situation here, and has an unstated but
necessary assumption that the integrals in question are finite.
In the proof, $m$ should be defined by $m:=f*\overline{h}$, where
$\overline{h}(y)=h(-y)$, so that $m$ is invariant under equal translations
of $f$ and $h$.}
\cite[Lemma 3]{LIEB}
of equality in the Riesz rearrangement inequality to conclude that,
for almost every pair $(x_2,y_2)$ of positive real numbers,
the functions $\zeta(\cdot,x_2)$ and $\zeta(\cdot,y_2)$ are symmetric
decreasing about the same real number $\beta$ say, and then that $\beta$ is
independent of $x_2$ and $y_2$.
Thus $\zeta$ is Steiner symmetric about the line $x_2 = \beta$.
Lemmas \ref{lmx8} and \ref{lm2} show that $\zeta$ is a weak limit in $L^p$ of
functions $\zeta_n \in \mathscr{R}^+(\zeta_0)$ satisfying $I(\zeta_n) \leq i_0$ and that
$\zeta_n 1_{\mathbb{R} \times (Z,\infty)} \to 0$ in $L^1$.
It follows that $\zeta$ vanishes outside $\mathbb{R} \times (0,Z)$.
Any maximiser $\zeta$ satisfies $I(\zeta)=i_0$ and
the strict convexity of $E$ shows that $\zeta$ must be an
extreme point of $\mathscr{W}_{\mathbb{R} \times (0,Z)} (\zeta_0,i_0)$.
Since $I$ is a bounded linear functional relative to $L^1(\mathbb{R} \times (0,Z))$,
we can apply Douglas's characterisation \cite[Theorem 2.1(ii)]{RJD:UD} of
the extreme points of the intersection of $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0)$
with a closed hyperplane to deduce that $\zeta \in \mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$
(the statement of Douglas's result excludes $L^1$ but the proof of part (ii)
is also valid for $L^1$).
To prove (iii) and (iv) let $\zeta$ be a maximiser and $\psi = \mathscr{G} \zeta$.
From convexity of $E$ it follows that $\zeta$ maximises $\int_\Pi \psi\xi$
subject to $\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$.
Define the ``value function'' $f$ by
\[
f(i) = \sup_{\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i)} \int_\Pi \psi\xi \quad
\mbox{ for all } i \geq 0.
\]
Since $\psi$ is bounded it follows that $f$ is finite-valued.
Since $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_1) \subset \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_2)$ if $0 \leq i_1 \leq i_2$
it follows that $f$ is increasing.
The convexity of $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,<\infty)$ ensures that
\[
(1-\theta)\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_1) + \theta \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_2)
\subset \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq (1-\theta) i_1 + \theta i_2) \quad
\forall i_1 \geq 0, \; i_2 \geq 0, \; 0 \leq \theta \leq 1,
\]
hence $-f$ is a convex function.
Therefore $-f$ is continuous and subdifferentiable on $(0,\infty)$.
Now $\zeta$ maximises $\int_\Pi \psi\xi - f(I(\xi))$ subject to
$\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,<\infty)$ so we have the subdifferential condition that,
for some $-\lambda \in \partial (-f)(i_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta
\mbox{ maximises }
\int_\Pi \psi\xi -\lambda I(\xi)
\left( = \int_\Pi (\psi -\lambda x_2) \xi \right)
\mbox{ subject to }
\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,<\infty) .
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
Since $-f$ is decreasing we have $-\lambda \leq 0$
so $\psi-\lambda x_2$ is bounded above, from Lemma \ref{lm1}.
In order to derive a functional relationship between $\zeta$ and
$\Psi:=\psi-\lambda x_2$ from \eqref{eq6}, for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$
we now write $Q(n)$ for the planar rectangle $(-n,n) \times (0,n)$
and consider the consequences of
rearranging $\zeta$ within $Q(n)$ while fixing $\zeta$ outside $Q(n)$.
Thus $\zeta 1_{Q(n)}$ maximises $\int_{Q(n)}\Psi \xi$ subject
to $\xi \in \mathscr{R}_{Q(n)}(\zeta 1_{Q(n)})$ so by \cite[Lemma 2.15]{GRB:VARP}
there exists an increasing function $\varphi_n$ such that
$\zeta = \varphi_n \circ \Psi$ almost everywhere in $Q(n)$.
We can assume $\varphi_n$ to be defined on an interval $I_n$ such that
$\Psi(Q(n))^\circ \subset I_n \subset \overline{(\Psi(Q(n))}$.
We claim that all the $\varphi_n$ can be assumed to be restrictions of
a single increasing function $\varphi$ defined on the interval $I=\bigcup I_n$.
To see this, firstly define
$S_n=\{s \in I_n \mid \varphi_n(s) \neq \varphi_{n+1}(s) \}$.
Then $S_n$ must have empty interior relative to $I_n$, otherwise
$\varphi_n \circ \Psi \neq \varphi_{n+1} \circ \Psi$ throughout a nonempty
open subset of $Q(n)$, which must have positive measure.
Hence $\varphi_n =\varphi_{n+1}$ on a dense subset of $I_n$ and therefore
at all points where $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_{n+1}$ are both continuous
relative to $I_n$.
Let $D \subset I$ comprise all discontinuities of the $\varphi_n$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$,
which is a countable set by monotonicity; then $\varphi_k(s)=\varphi_n(s)$
provided that $s \in I_n \setminus D$ and $k>n$.
Let $T$ be the set of $s \in I$ for which $\Psi^{-1}(s)$ has positive measure,
which is also countable.
If $s \in T$ and $n$ is the least number for which $\Psi^{-1}(s) \cap Q(n)$
has positive measure then we must have $\varphi_k(s)=\varphi_n(s)$ for all
$k>n$, because $\varphi_k \circ \Psi = \varphi_n \circ \Psi$ almost
everywhere on $Q(n)$; hence $\varphi_k(\Psi(x))=\varphi_n(s)$ for almost
every $x \in Q(k) \cap \Psi^{-1}(s)$, for every $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
For $s \in I \setminus (D \setminus T)$ we can now define
$\varphi(s)=\varphi_n(s)$ for all sufficiently large $n$ and find that
$\varphi$ is increasing and $\zeta=\varphi \circ \Psi$
almost everywhere on $\Pi \setminus \Psi^{-1}(D \setminus T)$.
Since $\Psi^{-1}(D \setminus T)$ has zero measure,
we can complete the construction of $\varphi$ by adopting any definition of
$\varphi(s)$ for $s \in D \setminus T$ that makes $\varphi$ increasing on $I$.
We defer the proof that $\lambda$ is strictly positive until after (iv).
For (iv), let $\zeta$, $\psi$, $\varphi$ and $\lambda \geq 0$ be as above.
Since $\psi$ is Steiner symmetric about the $x_2$-axis, Lemma \ref{lmx2}
yields a constant $c_6>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\psi(x) \leq
c_6(I(\zeta)+\|\zeta\|_1+\|\zeta\|_p) x_2 \min\{1,| x_1 |^{-1/(2p)}\},
\quad x \in \Pi .
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
Since $\zeta$ maximises $\int_\Pi (\psi-\lambda x_2) \xi$ subject to
$\xi \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,<\infty)$ we must have $\zeta=0$ almost everywhere
in the set
$A = \{ x \in \Pi \mid \psi(x)-\lambda x_2 <0\}$, otherwise
\[
\int (\psi-\lambda x_2) \zeta <
\int (\psi-\lambda x_2) \zeta 1_{\Pi \setminus A}
\]
which is impossible since $\zeta 1_{\Pi \setminus A} \preceq \zeta$ so
$\zeta 1_{\Pi \setminus A} \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,<\infty)$.
The set of $x$ where $\zeta(x)(=-\Delta\psi(x))$ is positive and
$\psi(x)-\lambda x_2=0$ necessarily has zero measure.
If $\lambda>0$ it now follows from \eqref{eq2} that $\zeta$ vanishes almost
everywhere outside the region where
$x_1^{1/(2p)} \leq c(I(\zeta) + \|\zeta\|_1 + \|\zeta\|_p)/\lambda$,
so the support of $\zeta$ is also bounded in the $x_1$ direction.
If $\lambda=0$ then $\zeta=\varphi \circ \psi$ almost everywhere in $\Pi$ so,
since $\varphi$ is increasing, there exists $\kappa \geq 0$ such that
\[
\{ x \in \Pi \mid \psi(x) > \kappa \}
\subset \{ x \in \Pi \mid \zeta(x) >0 \}
\subset \{ x \in \Pi \mid \psi(x) \geq \kappa \}
\]
apart from sets of measure zero.
Thus $\kappa>0$, for otherwise $\zeta>0$ almost everywhere on $\Pi$,
whereas $\zeta_0$ vanishes outside a set of finite measure
and $\zeta \in \mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$.
It then follows from \eqref{eq2} that the support of $\zeta$ lies within
the region
$\kappa x_1^{1/(2p)} \leq c_6(I(\zeta)+\|\zeta\|_1+\|\zeta\|_p) Z$.
Thus $\zeta$ vanishes outside a bounded region in the case $\lambda=0$ also.
We now return to (iii) and let $\zeta$, $\varphi$ and $\lambda \geq 0$ be as
above.
We can assume $\varphi$ to be non-negative throughout $\mathbb{R}$ and to vanish on
$(-\infty,0]$, we define $\Phi(s)=\int_{-\infty}^s \varphi$ and we note that
$\Phi(s)>0$ if and only if $\varphi(s)>0$, because $\varphi$ is increasing.
From \cite[Lemma 9]{GRB:VP} we have
\[
2 \int_Q \Phi(\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2) \mathrm{d} x
- \lambda \int_Q \zeta(x)x_2 \mathrm{d} x
= \int_{\partial Q} \Phi(\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2)(x \cdot \mathfrak{n}) \mathrm{d} x
\]
where $Q=[-R,R] \times [0,R]$ is a rectangle containing the support
of $\zeta$ and $\mathfrak{n}$ is the outward unit normal.
Since $\varphi\circ(\mathscr{G}\zeta-\lambda x_2)$ vanishes outside $Q$, so too
does $\Phi\circ(\mathscr{G}\zeta-\lambda x_2)$ and we deduce that
\begin{equation}
2 \int_\Pi \Phi(\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2) \mathrm{d} x = \lambda I(\zeta).
\label{eqx9}
\end{equation}
Since $\Phi(\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2)>0$ almost always when $\zeta(x)>0$
we deduce from \eqref{eqx9} that $\lambda>0$.
\end{proof}
The next result shows that the hypotheses of Theorems \ref{thm1} and
\ref{thm2} below are satisfied in a wide range of situations.
\begin{lemma}
Let $2<p<\infty$, let $\zeta_0 \in L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ be non-negative
and have compact support, let $i>0$ and let $\Sigma_0$ be the set of
maximisers of $E$ relative to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i)$.
Then for all sufficiently large $i$ we have $\Sigma_0 \subset \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$.
\label{lmx7}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use the arguments from the corresponding part of the proof of
\cite[Theorem 16(ii)]{GRB:VP}.
Consider $i>0$, let $\Sigma_i$ denote the set of maximisers of $E$
relative to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0, \leq i)$ and let $M_i$ denote the maximum value.
Consider $\zeta \in \Sigma_i$.
Then, from Lemma \ref{lmx6}, $\zeta \in \mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$ and there exist
$\lambda >0$ and an increasing function $\varphi$ such that
$\zeta(x) = \varphi (\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2)$
except for a set of $x$ having measure zero.
There must be a number $\beta$ such that
$\varphi(s)>0$ for $s>\beta$ and $\varphi(s)=0$ for $s<\beta$.
Moreover $\beta \geq 0$, for if $\beta<0$ then
$\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2>\beta$ for almost all $x$ satisfying
$0<x_2<-\beta/\lambda$ whereas $\zeta$ vanishes outside a set of finite measure.
Now, from the definitions,
\[
\int \zeta(x) (\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2) \mathrm{d} x
= 2E(\zeta)-\lambda I(\zeta)
\]
and, by \cite[Lemma 9]{GRB:VP},
\[
2E(\zeta) = \int \zeta \mathscr{G}\zeta
\geq \frac{3}{2} \lambda I(\zeta) + \beta \|\zeta\|_1
\geq \frac{3}{2} \lambda I(\zeta)
\]
so we obtain
\[
\int \zeta(x) (\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2) \mathrm{d} x
\geq \frac{2}{3}E(\zeta) = \frac{2}{3}M_i .
\]
Since $\|\zeta\|_1 \leq \|\zeta_0\|_1$ we deduce
\[
S := \sup \{ \mathscr{G}\zeta(x) -\lambda x_2 \mid x \in \Pi \}
\geq \frac{2 M_i}{3\|\zeta_0\|_1} .
\]
Let $z$ be a point where $\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2$ achieves its supremum.
Then, for $x$ with $x_2<z_2$ we may apply the mean value inequality
along the line segment $[z,x]$ and use Lemma \ref{lmx1} to obtain
\[
\mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda x_2
\geq \mathscr{G}\zeta(x) - \lambda z_2
\geq \mathscr{G}\zeta(z) - \lambda z_2 - c_5(\|\zeta_0\|_1+\|\zeta_0\|_p)|x-z|
\]
and this is positive provided $|x-z|<S/(c_5(\|\zeta_0\|_1+\|\zeta_0\|_p))$,
for which it is sufficient that
$|z-x| \leq 2M_i/(3c_5\|\zeta_0\|_1(\|\zeta_0\|_1+\|\zeta_0\|_p))$.
Since $M_i \to \infty$ as $i \to \infty$
it follows that we can choose $i_1>0$ such that if $i>i_1$ then the area of
the set
$\{x \mid \mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2>0\}$ is greater than the area of the
set $\{ x \mid \zeta(x)>0 \}$.
If $i>i_1$ we claim that $\zeta \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$.
Suppose not; then the supports of $\zeta^\Delta$ and $\zeta_0^\Delta$
would be intervals $[0,s]$ and $[0,t]$ respectively with $s<t$.
Then, for some $s<r<t$ the isomorphism construction described in
Section \ref{rearr} would yield a rearrangement $\eta$ of
$\zeta_0^\Delta 1_{[s,r]}$ on a subset of
$\{ x \mid \mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2>0, \, \zeta(x)=0\}$
and then we would have $\xi:=\zeta+\eta \in \mathscr{R}\mathscr{C}(\zeta_0)$ and
\[
\int \xi(x)(\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2)
> \int \zeta(x)(\mathscr{G}\zeta(x)-\lambda x_2) .
\]
From this it would follow that $E(\xi)>E(\zeta)$.
This would be impossible, so $\zeta \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of the Compactness and Stability Theorems}
\label{S4}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}}
\label{proof1}
We note that $\Sigma_0$ is equal to the set of maximisers of $E$ relative
to $\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$, from Lemma \ref{lmx6}(i).
We write
\[
\beta = \int_\Pi \zeta_0 = \lim_{n \to \infty} \int_\Pi \zeta_n .
\]
By concentration-compactness \cite[Lemma I.1]{PLL:CC1}, we can replace
$(\zeta_n)$ by a subsequence having one of the following properties:\\
{\em Dichotomy:}
For each $n \in \mathbb{N}$ there is a partition of $\Pi$ into measurable sets
$\Omega_n^1$, $\Omega_n^2$ and $\Omega_n^3$ in such a way that
$\zeta_n^k = \zeta_n 1_{\Omega_n^k}$, $k=1,2,3$, satisfy
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Pi \zeta_n^1 \to \alpha,\\
\int_\Pi \zeta_n^2 \to \beta-\alpha,\\
\int_\Pi \zeta_n^3 \to 0,\\
\mbox{dist}(\Omega_n^1,\Omega_n^2) \to 0
\end{eqnarray*}
as $n \to \infty$, where $0< \alpha < \beta$.
\noindent
{\em Vanishing:}
\[
\forall R>0 \quad \lim_{n\to\infty} \sup_{y \in \Pi} \int_{D_\Pi(y,R)} \zeta_n
= 0;
\]
\noindent
{\em Compactness:}
there exists a sequence $(y^n)$ in $\overline{\Pi}$ such that
\[
\forall \varepsilon>0 \exists R>0 \mbox{ s.t. } \forall n \in \mathbb{N}
\int_{D_\Pi(y^n,R)} \zeta_n > \beta - \varepsilon .
\]
We show that Dichotomy and Vanishing cannot occur and deduce the result
from Compactness.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Excluding Dichotomy.}\\
We have
\[
\int_\Pi \zeta_n^3 (\mathscr{G} \zeta_n) \to 0 \mbox{ as } n \to \infty
\]
because $\mathscr{G} \zeta_n$ is uniformly bounded by Lemmas \ref{lm1} and \ref{lmx1}
and $\| \zeta_n^3 \|_1 \to 0$.
Now
\[
E(\zeta_n) \geq E(\zeta_n^1+\zeta_n^2) = E(\zeta_n -\zeta_n^3)
= E(\zeta_n) + E(\zeta_n^3) - \int_\Pi (\mathscr{G}\zeta_n)\zeta_n^3
\geq E(\zeta_n) - \int_\Pi (\mathscr{G}\zeta_n)\zeta_n^3 \to M_0
\]
and since $E(\zeta_n) \to M_0$ it follows that
\begin{equation}
E(\zeta_n^1 + \zeta_n^2) \to M_0.
\label{eqx10}
\end{equation}
We claim
\begin{equation}
\int_\Pi \zeta_n^1 \mathscr{G} \zeta_n^2 \to 0.
\label{eqx1}
\end{equation}
To prove \eqref{eqx1} note firstly that, given $\varepsilon>0$, we can by
Lemma \ref{lm1} choose $W>0$ independent of $n$ such that
$\mathscr{G}\zeta_n^1(x) < \varepsilon$ and $\mathscr{G}\zeta_n^2(x) < \varepsilon$
if $x_2>W$, thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{y_2>W} \zeta_n^2(y) \mathscr{G}\zeta_n^1(y) \mathrm{d} y
&\leq& \varepsilon \| \zeta_n \|_1 , \\
\int_{x_2>W} \zeta_n^1(x) \mathscr{G}\zeta_n^2(x)\mathrm{d} x
&\leq& \varepsilon \| \zeta_n \|_1 .
\end{eqnarray*}
The remaining term in \eqref{eqx1} is
\[
\int_{x_2<W} \int_{y_2<W} G(x,y)\zeta_n^1(x) \zeta_n^2(y) \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y
\leq \frac{W^2}{\pi\,\mathrm{dist}(\Omega_n^1,\Omega_n^2)^2} \|\zeta_n\|_1^2
\to 0 \mbox{ as } n \to \infty.
\]
Hence \eqref{eqx1}, which, together with \eqref{eqx10}, shows that
\begin{equation*}
E(\zeta_n^1) + E(\zeta_n^2) \to M_0.
\end{equation*}
For $k=1,2$ let $\zeta_n^{k*}$ denote the Steiner symmetrisation of
$\zeta_n^k$ about the $x_2$-axis, so $E(\zeta_n^{k*}) \geq E(\zeta_n^k)$
and $I(\zeta_n^{k*}) = I(\zeta_n^k) = i_n^k$ say.
We can pass to a subsequence and suppose that $\zeta_n^{k*} \to \zeta^k$ say,
weakly in $L^p$.
Now $E$ is continuous with respect to $L^p$ weak convergence of
Steiner-symmetric sequences when $\| \, \|_1$ and $I$ are bounded, by
Lemma \ref{lmx4}, so $E(\zeta^1)+E(\zeta^2) \geq M_0$, whereas
$I(\zeta^1)+I(\zeta^2) \leq i_0$ by weak lower semicontinuity of $I$
relative to non-negative functions in $L^p$.
The decreasing rearrangements $\zeta_n^{1\Delta}$ and $\zeta_n^{2\Delta}$
are both dominated by $\zeta_n^\Delta$ which converges in $L^1$ to
$\zeta_0^\Delta$, so a variant of
Helly's Selection Principle for monotonic functions (see \cite{KOLFOM})
shows that we can pass to a subsequence and suppose $\zeta_n^{1\Delta}$
and $\zeta_n^{2\nabla}$ converge pointwise, and then deduce that they
converge strongly in
$L^1$, to non-negative functions $\xi^1$ and $\xi^2$, say, dominated by
$\zeta_0^\Delta$ and $\zeta_0^\nabla$ respectively, thus the $\xi^k$
are supported on bounded intervals.
Since $\zeta_n^{k*}$ is a rearrangement of $\zeta_n^{k\Delta}$ we have
$\zeta_n^{k*} \preceq \zeta_n^{k\Delta}$ and since
the right-hand integral in \eqref{eqx8} is strongly continuous in
$L^1$ whereas the left-hand integral is weakly lower semicontinuous
in $L^p$, we deduce $\zeta^k \preceq \xi^k$.
On the other hand $\zeta_n^1 + \zeta_n^2 \preceq \zeta_0$ so
$\zeta_n^{1\Delta} + \zeta_n^{2\nabla} \preceq \zeta_0$, since the left-hand
integral of \eqref{eqx8} is additive over two functions that are simultaneously
positive almost nowhere, thus once more we can pass to the limit in
\eqref{eqx8} to obtain $\xi^1 + \xi^2 \preceq \zeta_0$.
Let $i^k = I(\zeta^k)$ for $k=1,2$ so $i^1+i^2 \leq i_0$ and let
$\widetilde{\xi}^k$ be a maximiser for $E$ relative to $\mathscr{W}(\xi^k, \leq i^k)$,
so that $E(\widetilde{\xi}^k) \geq E(\zeta^k)$.
Lemma \ref{lmx6} shows that the $\widetilde{\xi}^k$ exist and have
compact supports, say in a common rectangle $[-Q,Q] \times [0,Q]$.
Then define $\widehat{\xi}^1(x_1,x_2):=\widetilde{\xi}^1(x_1+Q,x_2)$ and
$\widehat{\xi}^2(x_1,x_2):=\widetilde{\xi}^2(x_1-Q,x_2)$, which are
simultaneously positive almost nowhere and satisfy
$\widehat{\xi}^k \preceq \xi^k$.
Again the additivity of the integrals in \eqref{eqx8} ensures that
$\widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2 \preceq \xi^1 + \xi^2 \preceq \zeta_0$ so
$\widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2 \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$.
Now
\begin{equation}
E(\widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2)
= E(\widehat{\xi}^1) + E(\widehat{\xi}^2)+ \int_\Pi \widehat{\xi}^1 \mathscr{G} \widehat{\xi}^2
\geq E(\widehat{\xi}^1) + E(\widehat{\xi}^2) \geq M_0
\label{eqx5}
\end{equation}
proving that $\widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2$ is a maximiser for $E$ relative to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0, \leq i_0)$.
Since $\Sigma_0 \subset \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ by hypothesis, we now have
$\widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2 \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\Pi \widehat{\xi}^1 \leq \int_\Pi \xi^1
&\leq& \lim_{n\to\infty} \int_\Pi \zeta_n^1 = \alpha , \\
\int_\Pi \widehat{\xi}^2 \leq \int_\Pi \xi^2
&\leq& \lim_{n\to\infty} \int_\Pi \zeta_n^2 = \beta-\alpha .
\end{eqnarray*}
If $\widehat{\xi}^1 = 0$ or $\widehat{\xi}^2 = 0$ then
\[
\int_\Pi \widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2 < \alpha + (\beta-\alpha) = \beta
= \int_\Pi \zeta_0
\]
contradicting $\widehat{\xi}^1 + \widehat{\xi}^2 \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$.
Therefore $\widehat{\xi}^1$ and $\widehat{\xi}^2$ are both nonzero so
the first inequality of \eqref{eqx5} is strict, which is impossible.
Thus Dichotomy does not occur.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Excluding Vanishing.}\\
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and choose by Lemma \ref{lm1} $W>0$ large enough that
$\mathscr{G}\zeta_n(x_1,x_2)<\varepsilon$ for all $n$ if $x_2>W$.
We write
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Pi_W &=& \{ (x_1,x_2) \mid 0 < x_2 < W \} \\
\Pi^W &=& \{ (x_1,x_2) \mid x_2 > W \}
\end{eqnarray*}
and deduce that
\[
\int_\Pi \int_{\Pi^W} G(x,y) \zeta_n(x) \zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y
\leq \varepsilon \| \zeta_n \|_1 .
\]
Then for $x \in \Pi_W$ and $R>0$, writing $\rho=|x-y|$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Pi_W \setminus D(x,R)} G(x,y)\zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} y
&\leq&
\int_{\Pi_W \setminus D(x,R)} \frac{1}{4\pi}
\log \left( 1+ \frac{4x_2 y_2}{\rho^2} \right) \zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} y\\
&\leq&
\int_{\Pi_W \setminus D(x,R)} \frac{1}{4\pi}
\log \left( 1+ \frac{4x_2 (x_2+\rho)}{\rho^2} \right) \zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} y\\
&\leq&
\frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{4W (W+R)}{R^2} \right) \| \zeta_n \|_1
\leq \varepsilon \| \zeta_n \|_1
\end{eqnarray*}
provided we choose $R$ suitably large, independently of $n$.
Again for $x \in \Pi_W$ and $R>0$ chosen as above we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Pi_W \cap D(x,R)} G(x,y)\zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} y
&\leq&
\int_{\Pi_W \cap D(x,R)}
\frac{1}{4\pi} \log \left( 1+ \frac{4W (W+R)}{\rho^2} \right) \zeta_n(y)
\mathrm{d} y \\
&\leq&
\left( \int_{D(x,R)}
\left( \log \left( 1+ \frac{4W (W+R)}{\rho^2} \right) \right)^r \right)^{1/r}
\| \zeta_n \|_{L^1(D_\Pi(x,R))}^\theta \| \zeta_n \|_p^{1-\theta} ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $1/r+1/s=1$, $1<s<p$ and $\theta + (1-\theta)/p = 1/s$, by H\"{o}lder's
inequality and the interpolation inequality.
Since $\| \zeta_n \|_{L^1(D_\Pi(x,R))} \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ uniformly over
$x \in \Pi$ by assumption of Vanishing and $\| \zeta_n \|_p$ is bounded
we now have
\[
\int_{\Pi_W \cap D(x,R)} G(x,y)\zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} y
< \varepsilon
\]
for all sufficiently large $n$, uniformly over $x \in \Pi_W$.
Thus
\[
\int_{\Pi_W} G(x,y) \zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} y
< \varepsilon \| \zeta_n \|_1 + \varepsilon
\quad \mbox{ for all } x \in \Pi_W
\]
for all sufficiently large $n$ and therefore
\[
\int_{\Pi_W} \int_{\Pi_W} G(x,y)\zeta_n(y)\zeta_n(x)\mathrm{d} y\mathrm{d} x
< \varepsilon (\|\zeta_n\|_1^2 + \| \zeta_n \|_1)
\]
for all sufficiently large $n$.
Now
\begin{eqnarray*}
E(\zeta_n) &=& \left( \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Pi_W}\int_{\Pi_W}
+ \int_{\Pi_W}\int_{\Pi^W} + \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Pi^W}\int_{\Pi^W} \right)
G(x,y) \zeta_n(x) \zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y\\
&\leq& \left( \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Pi_W}\int_{\Pi_W}
+ \int_\Pi\int_{\Pi^W} \right) G(x,y) \zeta_n(x) \zeta_n(y) \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y
\leq \varepsilon \left(\frac{1}{2} \| \zeta_n \|_1^2 + \frac{1}{2} \| \zeta_n \|_1
+ \| \zeta_n \|_1 \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
for all sufficiently large $n$, hence $E(\zeta_n) \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$.
Since $M_0$ is positive, Vanishing cannot occur for a maximising sequence.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Exploiting Compactness.}\\
If $y^n_2 \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$ then, for each fixed $R>0$,
we would have
\[
\int_{D_\Pi(y^n,R)} \zeta_n \leq (y^n_2-R)^{-1}I(\zeta_n) \to 0
\]
as $n \to \infty$, contradicting the assumption of Compactness.
Therefore, after passing to a further subsequence if necessary, we can suppose
that $y^n_2 <W$ for all $n$, where $W>0$ is fixed.
The Compactness assumption ensures that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \int_{\Pi \setminus D(y^n,R)} \zeta_n \to 0
\mbox{ as } R \to \infty .
\label{eq10}
\end{equation}
We have $D((y_1^n,y_2^n),R) \subset D((y_1^n,0),R+W)$ so there is no loss
in supposing that $y_2^n=0$ for all $n$.
Since $\mathscr{G} \zeta_n$ is bounded in $L^\infty$ uniformly over $n$ we deduce
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}}
\int_{\Pi \setminus D(y^n,R)} \zeta_n\mathscr{G}\zeta_n
\to 0 \mbox{ as } R \to \infty .
\end{equation*}
We write $\overline{\zeta}_n (x_1,x_2) := \zeta_n (x_1 - y^n_1,x_2)$.
It follows that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \int_{\Pi \setminus D(0,R)} \int_\Pi
G(x,y) \overline{\zeta}_n(x) \overline{\zeta}_n(y)\mathrm{d} x \mathrm{d} y
\to 0 \mbox{ as } R \to \infty .
\label{eq11}
\end{equation}
Now, for fixed $R>0$, $\mathscr{G}$ followed by restriction to $D_\Pi(0,R)$ acts as a
compact operator from $L^p(D_\Pi(0,R))$ to $L^q(D_\Pi(0,R))$, where
$p^{-1}+q^{-1}=1$, and we can further pass to a subsequence to ensure
$\overline{\zeta}_n \to \overline{\zeta} \in \mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$ say,
weakly in $L^p(\Pi)$.
Then, for each fixed $R>0$,
\begin{equation}
\int_{D_\Pi(0,R)} \int_{D_\Pi(0,R)} G(x,y)
\overline{\zeta}_n(x) \overline{\zeta}_n(y) \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y \to
\int_{D_\Pi(0,R)} \int_{D_\Pi(0,R)} G(x,y)
\overline{\zeta}(x) \overline{\zeta}(y) \mathrm{d} x\mathrm{d} y \mbox{ as } n \to \infty .
\label{eq12}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq11} and \eqref{eq12} we deduce
\[
E(\overline{\zeta}_n) \to E(\overline{\zeta}).
\]
Thus $\overline{\zeta}$ is a maximiser for $E$ relative to
$\mathscr{W}(\zeta_0,\leq i_0)$.
Therefore $\overline{\zeta} \in \mathscr{R}(\zeta_0)$ so
\[
\|\overline{\zeta}\|_p=\|\zeta_0\|_p=\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\overline{\zeta}_n\|_p
\]
hence by uniform convexity $\overline{\zeta}_n \to \overline{\zeta}$
strongly in $L^p(\Pi)$.
It follows that $\overline{\zeta}_n \to \overline{\zeta}$ strongly in
$L^1(D_\Pi(0,R))$ for each $R>0$.
In view of \eqref{eq10} it now follows that
$\overline{\zeta}_n \to \overline{\zeta}$
strongly in $L^1(\Pi)$.
Since $\overline{\zeta}$ is a maximiser we have $I(\overline{\zeta})=i_0$
so $I(\overline{\zeta}_n) \to I(\overline{\zeta})$.
\qedsymbol
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}}
\label{proof2}
As previously stated, we view vorticity $\omega$ as a function of time $t$
taking values in $L^1(\Pi) \cap L^p(\Pi)$ and suppress the space variable $x$.
Suppose the result fails.
Then there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that, for all sufficiently large
$n \in \mathbb{N}$, we can choose a solution $\omega_n(\cdot)$ of the vorticity
equation and a time $t_n$, such that
$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathfrak{X}^p} (\omega_n(0),\Sigma_0)<1/n$
but
$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathfrak{X}^p} (\omega_n(t_n),\Sigma_0) \geq \varepsilon$.
Observe that, by the conservation properties of the vorticity equation
\[
I(\omega_n(t_n))=I(\omega_n(0)) \to i_0,
\]
\[
\mathrm{dist}_1(\omega_n(t_n),\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0))
= \mathrm{dist}_1(\omega_n(0),\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0))
\leq \mathrm{dist}_1(\omega_n(0),\Sigma_0) \to 0,
\]
\[
\mathrm{dist}_p(\omega_n(t_n),\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0))
= \mathrm{dist}_p(\omega_n(0),\mathscr{R}(\zeta_0))
\leq \mathrm{dist}_p(\omega_n(0),\Sigma_0) \to 0
\]
as $n \to \infty$, hence using inequality \eqref{eq7},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| \omega_n(t_n)^\Delta -\zeta_0^\Delta \|_p &\to& 0, \\
\| \omega_n(t_n)^\Delta -\zeta_0^\Delta \|_1 &\to& 0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, using Lemma \ref{lmx5} in addition,
\[
E(\omega_n(t_n))=E(\omega_n(0)) \to M_0
\]
as $n \to \infty$.
Theorem \ref{thm1} now ensures that, after passing to a
subsequence, we can choose an $x_1$ translation $\xi_n$ of each
$\omega_n(t_n)$ such that the sequence $(\xi_n)$ converges to
an element $\xi_0$ of $\Sigma_0$ in $\| \,\|_1 + \| \,\|_p$.
Since $x_1$ translations preserve $\Sigma_0$ and $\| \, \|_{\mathfrak{X}^p}$ we have
\[
\mathrm{dist}_{\mathfrak{X}^p}(\omega_n(t_n),\Sigma_0)=
\mathrm{dist}_{\mathfrak{X}^p}(\xi_n,\Sigma_0)
\leq \| \xi_n -\xi_0 \|_{\mathfrak{X}^p} \to 0
\]
and this contradicts the choice of the $\omega_n$ and $t_n$, completing the
proof.
\qedsymbol
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Examples.}
Given arbitrary compactly supported nontrivial non-negative $\zeta_0$
in $L^p(\Pi)$ for some finite $p>2$, the hypotheses of Theorem 2 are
satisfied for all sufficiently large $i_0$, by Lemma \ref{lmx7}.
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf\large Acknowledgement.}
The author thanks Helena and Milton Lopes for valuable conversations and he
is grateful for the hospitality and support of
the {\em Thematic Programme on Incompressible Fluid Dynamics}
held in 2014 at IMPA, Rio de Janeiro,
where this research was substantially conducted.
|
\section{Introduction}
With a graphics rendering engine one can, in theory,
synthesize an unlimited number of scene images of
interest and their corresponding ground-truth
annotations~\cite{zamir2018taskonomy, krahenbuhl2018free, zhang2016physically, song2016ssc}.
Such large-scale synthetic data increasingly serves as a source of training data
for high-capacity convolutional neural networks (CNN).
Leveraging synthetic data is particularly important for tasks such
as semantic segmentation that require fine-grained labels at each
pixel and can be prohibitively expensive to manually annotate.
Even more challenging are pixel-level regression tasks where the
output space is continuous. One such task, the focus of our paper,
is monocular depth estimation, where the only available ground-truth
for real-world images comes from specialized sensors that typically
provide noisy and incomplete estimates.
Due to the domain gap between synthetic and real-world imagery,
it is non-trivial to leverage synthetic data.
Models naively trained over synthetic data
often do not generalize well to the real-world images \cite{ganin2014unsupervised, long2015learning, tzeng2015simultaneous}.
Therefore domain adaptation problem has attracted increasing
attention from researchers aiming at closing the domain gap
through unsupervised generative models
(\eg using GAN~\cite{goodfellow2014generative} or CycleGAN~\cite{zhu2017unpaired}).
These methods assume that domain adaptation can be largely resolved
by learning a domain-invariant feature space or translating
synthetic images into realistic-looking ones.
Both approaches rely on an adversarial discriminator to judge whether
the features or translated images are similar across domains,
without specific consideration of the task in question.
For example,
CyCADA translates images between synthetic and real-world domains
with domain-wise cycle-constraints and adversarial learning~\cite{hoffman2017cycada}.
It shows successful domain adaptation for multiple vision tasks where
only the synthetic data have annotations while real ones do not.
T$^2$Net exploits adversarial learning to penalize the
domain-aware difference between both images and features~\cite{zheng2018t2net},
demonstrating successful monocular depth learning where the synthetic data alone
provides the annotation for supervision.
Despite these successes, we observe two critical issues:
\noindent {\bf (1) Low-level vs. high-level domain adaptation}.
As noted in the literature~\cite{isola2017image, zhu2017toward},
unsupervised GAN models are limited in their ability to
translate images and typically only modify low-level factors,
\eg,
color and texture.
As a result,
current GAN-based domain translation methods
are ill-equipped to deal with the fact that images from different domains contain
high-level differences (\eg, novel objects present only in one domain),
that cannot be easily resolved.
Figure~\ref{fig:splashy_figure} highlights this difficulty. High-level
domain shifts in the form of novel objects or clutter can drastically
disrupt predictions of models trained on synthetic images. To combat this
lack of robustness, we argue that a better strategy may be to explicitly
identify and remove these unknowns rather than letting them corrupt
model predictions.
\noindent {\bf (2) Input vs. output domain adaptation}.
Unlike domain adaptation for image classification where appearances change
but the set of labels stays constant, in depth regression the domain shift is
not just in the appearance statistics of the input (image) but also in
the statistics of the output (scene geometry).
To understand how the statistics of geometry shifts between synthetic and
real-world scenes, it is necessary that we have access to at least some
real-world ground-truth. This precludes solutions that rely entirely on
unsupervised domain adaptation. However, we argue that a likely scenario is
that one has available a small quantity of real-world ground-truth along
with a large supply of synthetic training data.
As shown in our experiments, when we try to tailor existing unsupervised
domain adaptation methods to this setup,
surprisingly we find that none of them perform satisfactorily and sometimes
even worse than simply training with small amounts of real data!
Motivated by these observations, we propose a principled approach that
improves depth prediction on real images using a somewhat unconventional
strategy of translating real images to make them more similar to
the available bulk of synthetic training data.
Concretely,
we introduce an attention module that learns to
detect problematic regions (\eg, novel objects or clutter)
in real-world images.
Our attention module produces binary masks with the differentiable Gumbel-Max trick~\cite{gumbel2012statistics, jang2016categorical, veit2018convolutional, kong2019pixel},
and uses the binary mask to remove these regions from the input images.
We then develop an inpainting module that
learns to complete the erased regions with realistic
fill-in.
Finally, a translation module adjusts the low-level factors such as
color and texture to match the synthetic domain.
We name our translation model ARC, as it
attends, removes and completes
the real-world image regions.
To train our ARC model,
we utilize a modular coordinate descent training pipeline where
we carefully train each module individually and then fine-tune
as a whole to optimize depth prediction performance.
We find this approach is necessary since, as with other domain
translation methods, the multiple losses involved
compete against each other and do not necessarily contribute
to improve depth prediction.
To summarize our main contributions:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\vspace{-0.04in}
\setlength\parskip{-0.3em}
\item We study the problem of leveraging synthetic data along with a small amount of annotated real data
for learning better depth prediction,
and reveal the limitations of current unsupervised domain
adaptation methods in this setting.
\item We propose a principled approach (ARC) that
learns identify, remove and complete
``hard'' image regions in real-world images,
such that we can translate the real images
to close the synthetic-real domain gap to improve
monocular depth prediction.
\item We carry out extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of our ARC model,
which not only outperforms state-of-the-art methods,
but also offers good interpretability by explaining what
to remove in the real images for better depth prediction.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\noindent \textbf{Learning from Synthetic Data}
is a promising direction in solving data scarcity,
as the render engine could in theory produce unlimited number
of synthetic data and their perfect annotations
used for training.
Many synthetic datasets have been released
\cite{zhang2016physically, song2016ssc, gaidon2016virtual, levy2010sintel, butler2012naturalistic, dosovitskiy2015flownet},
for various pixel-level prediction tasks like
semantic segmentation, optical flow,
and monocular depth prediction.
A large body of work uses synthetic data
to augment real-world datasets,
which are already large in scale,
to further improve the performance~\cite{li2018cgintrinsics, dosovitskiy2015flownet, varol2017learning}.
We consider a problem setting in which only a limited set of
annotated real-world training data is available along with
a large pool of synthetic data.
\noindent \textbf{Synthetic-Real Domain Adaptation}.
Models trained purely on
synthetic data often suffer limited generalization~\cite{pan2009survey}.
Assuming there is no annotated real-world data during training,
one approach is to close synthetic-real domain gap
with the help of adversarial training.
These methods learn either a domain invariant feature space or
an image-to-image translator that maps between images from synthetic and real-world domains.
For the former,
\cite{long2013transfer} introduces Maximum Mean Discrepancy to learn domain invariant features;
\cite{tzeng2014deep} jointly minimizes MMD and classification error to further improve domain adaptation performance;
~\cite{tzeng2017adversarial, tsai2018learning} apply adversarial learning to
aligning source and target domain features;
~\cite{sun2016deep} proposes to match the mean and variance of domain features.
For the latter,
CyCADA learns to translate images from synthetic and real-world domains
with domain-wise cycle-constraints and adversarial learning~\cite{hoffman2017cycada}.
T$^2$Net exploits adversarial learning to penalize the
domain-aware difference between both images and features~\cite{zheng2018t2net},
demonstrating successful monocular depth learning where the synthetic data alone
provide the annotation for supervision.
\noindent \textbf{Attention and Interpretability.}
Our model utilizes a learnable attention mechanism similar to those that have been widely adopted in the
community~\cite{sun2003object, vaswani2017attention, gehring2017convolutional},
improving not only the performance for the task in question~\cite{nguyen2018weakly, kong2019pixel},
but also improving interpretability and robustness from various perspectives~\cite{andreas2016neural, anderson2018bottom, veit2018convolutional, fang2019modularized}.
Specifically, we utilize the Gumbel-Max trick~\cite{gumbel2012statistics, jang2016categorical, veit2018convolutional, kong2019pixel}, to learn
binary decision variables in a differentiable training framework.
This allows for efficient training while producing easily interpretable
results that indicate which regions of real images introduce errors
that hinder the performance of models trained primarily on synthetic data.
\begin{figure*}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{imgs/system_diagram.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\small Flowchart of our whole ARC model in predicting the depth given a
real-world image.
The ARC framework performs real-to-synthetic translation
of an input image to account for low-level domain shift and
simultaneously detects the ``hard'' out-of-domain regions using
a trained attention module $\cal A$. These regions are
removed by multiplicative gating with the binary mask from
$\cal A$ and the masked regions inpainted by module $\cal I$.
The translated result is fed to final depth predictor module
$\cal D$ which is trained to estimate depth from a mix of
synthetic and (translated) real data.
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig: system diagram}
\end{figure*}
\section{Attend, Remove, Complete (ARC)}
\label{sec:main}
Recent methods largely focus on how to leverage
synthetic data (and their annotations) along with real-world images (where no annotations are available) to train a model that performs well on real images later~\cite{hoffman2017cycada, zheng2018t2net}.
We consider a more relaxed (and we believe realistic) scenario in
which there is a small amount of real-world ground-truth data available during training.
More formally, given a set of real-world labeled data
$X^r=\{{\bf x}^r_i, {\bf y}^r_i\}_{i=1}^M$ and
a large amount of synthetic data $X^s=\{{\bf x}^s_j, {\bf y}^s_j\}_{j=1}^N$,
where $M \ll N$,
we would like to train a monocular depth predictor $\cal D$,
that accurately estimates per-pixel depth on real-world test images.
The challenges of this problem are two-fold.
First, due to the synthetic-real domain gap,
it is not clear when including synthetic training data improves the
test-time performance of a depth predictor on real images.
Second, assuming the model does indeed benefit from synthetic training data,
it is an open question as to how to best leverage the knowledge of domain
difference between real and synthetic.
Our experiments positively answer the first question:
synthetic data can be indeed exploited for learning better depth models,
but in a non-trivial way as shown later through experiments.
Briefly, real-world images contain complex regions (\eg, rare objects),
which do not appear in the synthetic data. Such complex regions may negatively affect depth prediction by a model
trained over large amounts of synthetic, clean images.
Figure~\ref{fig: system diagram} demonstrates
the inference flowchart of {\bf ARC},
which learns to \emph{attend}, \emph{remove} and
\emph{ complete} challenging
regions in real-world test images in order to better
match the low- and high-level domain statistics of
synthetic training data.
In this section, we elaborate each component module,
and finally present the training pipeline.
\subsection{Attention Module $\cal A$}
How might we automatically discover the existence and appearance of ``hard regions'' that negatively affect
depth learning and prediction? Such regions are not just those which are rare in the real images,
but also include those which are common in real images but absent from our pool of synthetic training data.
Finding such ``hard regions'' thus relies on both the depth predictor itself and synthetic data distribution.
To discover this complex dependence, we utilize an attention module $\cal A$
that learns to automatically detect such ``hard regions'' from the real-world input images.
Given a real image ${\bf x}^r \in {\mathbb R}^{H\times W\times 3}$ as input, the attention module produces a binary
mask ${\bf M} \in {\mathbb R}^{H\times W}$ used for erasing the ``hard regions'' using simple Hadamard product
${\bf M}\odot {\bf x}^r$ to produce the resulting masked image.
One challenge is that producing a binary mask typically involves a hard-thresholding operation
which is non-differentiable and prevents from end-to-end training using backpropagation. To solve this, we turn to the Gumbel-Max trick~\cite{gumbel2012statistics}
that produces quasi binary masks using a continuous
relaxation~\cite{jang2016categorical, maddison2016concrete}.
We briefly summarize the ``Gumbel max trick''~\cite{jang2016categorical, maddison2016concrete, veit2018convolutional}. A random variable $g$ follows a Gumbel distribution
if $g = -\log( -\log (u))$, where $u$ follows a uniform distribution $U(0, 1)$.
Let $m$ be a discrete binary random variable\footnote{A binary variable $m=0$ indicates the current pixel will be removed.} with probability $P(m = 1) \propto \alpha$, and let $g$ be a Gumbel random variable.
Then, a sample of $m$ can be obtained by sampling $g$ from the Gumbel distribution and computing:
\begin{equation}
{m} = \text{sigmoid}((\log(\alpha) + g)/\tau),
\end{equation}
where the temperature $\tau \rightarrow 0$ drives the ${m}$ to take on binary values and
approximates the non-differentiable argmax operation.
We use this operation to generate a binary mask of size ${\bf M} \in {\mathbb R}^{H\times W}$.
To control the sparsity of the output mask ${\bf M}$, we penalize the empirical
sparsity of the mask $\xi = \frac{1}{H*W} \sum_{i, j}^{H, W} {\bf M}_{i,j}$
using a KL divergence loss term~\cite{kong2019pixel}:
\begin{equation}
\ell_{KL} = \rho \log(\frac{\rho}{\xi}) + (1 - \rho) \log(\frac{1 - \rho}{1 - \xi}).
\end{equation}
where hyperparameter $\rho$ controls the sparsity level (portion of pixels to keep).
We apply the above loss term $\ell_{KL}$ in training our whole system,
forcing the attention module $\cal A$ to identify the hard regions in an ``intelligent''
manner to target a given level of sparsity while still remaining the fidelity of
depth predictions on the translated image.
We find that training in conjunction with the other modules results in attention masks
that tend to remove regions instead of isolated pixels (see Fig.~\ref{fig:visual_results})
\subsection{Inpainting Module $\cal I$}
The previous attention module $\cal A$
removes hard regions in ${\bf x}^r$\footnote{Here, we present the inpainting module as a standalone piece. The final pipeline is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: system diagram}} with sparse, binary mask ${\bf M}$,
inducing holes in the image with the operation ${\bf M}\odot {\bf x}^r$.
To avoid disrupting depth prediction we would like to fill in some
reasonable values (without changing unmasked pixels).
To this end,
we adopt an inpainting module $\cal I$
that learns to fill in holes by leveraging knowledge from synthetic data distribution as well as the depth prediction loss.
Mathematically we have:
\begin{equation}
\Tilde{{\bf x}} = (1 - {\bf M}) \odot {\cal I}({\bf M} \odot {\bf x}^r) + {\bf M} \odot {\bf x}^r.
\end{equation}
To train the inpainting module $\cal I$,
we pretrain with a self-supervised method by learning
to reconstruct randomly removed regions using the reconstruction loss $\ell_{rec}^{rgb}$:
\begin{equation}
\ell_{rec}^{rgb} =
\mathbb{E}_{x^r \sim X^r}[||{\cal I}({\bf M} \odot {\bf x}^r)
- {\bf x}^r||_1]
\end{equation}
As demonstrated in~\cite{shetty2018adversarial}, $\ell_{rec}^{rgb}$ encourages the model to learn remove objects instead of reconstructing the original images since removed regions are random.
Additionally,
we use two perceptual losses~\cite{zhang2018unreasonable}.
The first penalizes feature reconstruction:
\begin{equation}
\ell^f_{rec} = \sum\limits_{k=1}^K \mathbb{E}_{{\bf x}^r \sim X^r}
[|| \phi_k({\cal I}({\bf M} \odot {\bf x}^r)) - \phi_k({\bf x}^r)||_1],
\end{equation}
where $\phi_k(\cdot)$ is the output feature
at the $k^{th}$ layer of a VGG16 pretrained model~\cite{simonyan2014very}.
The second perceptual loss is a style reconstruction loss that penalizes the differences in colors, textures, and common patterns.
\begin{equation}
\ell_{style} = \sum\limits_{k=1}^K \mathbb{E}_{x^r \sim X^r} [|| \sigma^{\phi}_k({\cal I}({\bf M} \odot {\bf x}^r)) - \sigma^{\phi}_k({\bf x}^r)||_1],
\end{equation}
where function $\sigma^{\phi}_k(\cdot)$ returns a Gram matrix.
For the feature
$\phi_k({\bf x})$ of size $C_k \times H_k \times W_k$,
the corresponding Gram matrix $ \sigma^{\phi}_k({\bf x}^r) \in {\mathbb R}^{C_k \times C_k}$
is computed as:
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\phi}_k({\bf x}^r) = \frac{1}{C_k H_k W_k} R(\phi_k({\bf x}^r)) \cdot R(\phi_k({\bf x}^r))^T,
\end{equation}
where $R(\cdot)$ reshapes the feature $\phi_k({\bf x})$ into $C_k \times H_k \ W_k$.
Lastly,
we incorporate an adversarial loss $\ell_{adv}$
to force the inpainting module $\cal I$ to fill in
pixel values that follow the {\em synthetic} data distribution:
\begin{equation}
\label{adversarial}
\ell_{adv} = \mathbb{E}_{x^r \sim X^r}[\log(D(\Tilde{{\bf x}}))] + \mathbb{E}_{{\bf x}^s \sim X^s}[\log(1 - D({\bf x}^s)],
\end{equation}
where $D$ is a discriminator with learnable weights that is trained on the fly.
To summarize,
we use the following loss function to train our inpainting module $\cal I$:
\begin{equation}
\ell_{inp} = \ell_{rec}^{rgb}
+ \lambda_f \cdot \ell^f_{rec}
+ \lambda_{style} \cdot \ell_{style}
+ \lambda_{adv} \cdot \ell_{adv},
\end{equation}
where we set weight parameters as $\lambda_f = 1.0$, $\lambda_{style}=1.0$, and $\lambda_{adv}=0.01$ in our paper.
\subsection{Style Translator Module $\cal T$}
The style translator module $\cal T$ is the final piece
to translate the real images into the synthetic data domain.
As the style translator adapts low-level feature
(\eg, color and texture) we apply it prior to inpainting.
Following the literature,
we train the style translator in a standard CycleGAN~\cite{zhu2017unpaired} pipeline,
by minimizing the following loss:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ell_{cycle} &= \mathbb{E}_{x^r \sim X^r}[|| G_{s2r}(G_{r2s}(x^r)) - x^r ||_1] \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{x^s \sim X^s}[|| G_{r2s}(G_{s2r}(x^s)) - x^s ||_1],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\cal T$ = $G_{r2s}$ is the translator from direction real to synthetic domain;
while $G_{s2r}$ is the other way around.
Note that we need two adversarial losses $\ell^r_{adv}$ and $\ell^s_{adv}$ in the form of Eqn.(\ref{adversarial}) along with the cycle constraint loss $\ell_{cycle}$.
We further exploit the identity mapping constraint to encourage translators to preserve the geometric content and color composition between original and translated images:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ell_{id} &= \mathbb{E}_{x^r \sim X^r}[|| G_{s2r}(x^r) - x^r ||_1] \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{x^s \sim X^s}[|| G_{r2s}(x^s) - x^s ||_1].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To summarize,
the overall objective function for training the style translator $\cal T$ is:
\begin{equation}
\ell_{trans} = \lambda_{cycle} \cdot \ell_{cycle} + \lambda_{id} \cdot \ell_{id} + (\ell^r_{adv} + \ell^s_{adv}),
\end{equation}
where we set the weights $\lambda_{cycle}=10.0$, $\lambda_{id}=5.0$.
\subsection{Depth Predictor $\cal D$}
We train our depth predictor $\cal D$ over the combined set of translated real
training images $\Tilde{{\bf x}}^r$ and synthetic images ${\bf x}^s$ using a
simple $L_1$ norm based loss:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ell_d = &\mathbb{E}_{({\bf x}^r, {\bf y}^r) \sim X^r}
||{\cal D}(\tilde{{\bf x}}^r) - y^r||_1 \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{({\bf x}^s, {\bf y}^s) \sim X^s} ||{\cal D}({\bf x}^s) - {\bf y}^s||_1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Training by Modular Coordinate Descent}
In principle, one might combine all the loss terms to train the ARC
modules jointly. However, we found such practice difficult
due to several reasons:
bad local minima,
mode collapse within the whole system,
large memory consumption, etc.
Instead,
we present our proposed training pipeline
that trains each module individually,
followed by a fine-tuning step over the whole system.
We note such a modular coordinate descent training protocol
has been exploited in prior work,
such as block coordinate descent methods~\cite{mairal2009online, aharon2006k},
layer pretraining in deep models~\cite{hinton2006reducing, simonyan2014very},
stage-wise training of big complex systems~\cite{barshan2015stage, chen2018universal}
and those with
modular design~\cite{andreas2016neural, fang2019modularized}.
Concretely,
we train the depth predictor module $\cal D$ by feeding the
original images from either the synthetic set,
or the real set or the mix of the two as a pretraining stage.
For the synthetic-real style translator module $\cal T$,
we first train it with CycleGAN.
Then we insert the attention module $\cal A$ and the depth predictor
module $\cal D$ into this CycleGAN,
but fixing $\cal D$ and $\cal T$,
and train the attention module $\cal A$ only.
Note that after training the attention module $\cal A$,
we fix it without updating it any more and switch
the Gumbel transform to output real binary maps,
on the assumption that it has already
learned what to attend and remove with the help of depth loss
and synthetic distribution.
We train the inpainting module $\cal I$ over
translated real-world images and synthetic images.
The above procedure yields good initialization for all the modules,
after which we may keep optimizing them one by one while fixing
the others.
In practice,
simply fine-tune the whole model
(still fixing $\cal A$)
with the depth loss term only, by removing all the adversarial losses.
To do this,
we alternate between minimizing the following two losses:
\begin{equation}
\label{update I, F, T}
\begin{split}
\ell^1_d &= \mathbb{E}_{({\bf x}^r, {\bf y}^r) \sim X^r} ||{\cal D}({\cal I}({\cal T}({\bf x}^r)\odot{\cal A}({\bf x}_r)))) - {\bf y}^r||_1 \\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{({\bf x}^s, {\bf y}^s) \sim X^s} ||{\cal D}({\bf x}^s) - {\bf y}^s||_1,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{update F}
\ell^2_d = \mathbb{E}_{({\bf x}^r, {\bf y}^r) \sim X^r} ||{\cal D}({\cal I}({\cal T}({\bf x}^r)\odot {\cal A}({\bf x}_r)))) - {\bf y}^r||_1.
\end{equation}
We find in practice that
such fine-tuning better exploits synthetic data to avoid overfitting
on the translated real images,
and also avoids catastrophic
forgetting~\cite{french1999catastrophic, kirkpatrick2017overcoming} on the real images
in face of overwhelmingly large amounts of synthetic data.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
We carry out extensive experiments
to validate our ARC model in leveraging synthetic data
for depth prediction.
We provide systematic ablation study to
understand the contribution of each module
and the sparsity of the attention module $\cal A$.
We further visualize the intermediate results
produced by ARC modules,
along with failure cases,
to better understand the whole ARC model
and the high-level domain gap.
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.5em}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{A list of metrics used for evaluation in experiments,
with their calculations,
denoting by $y$ and $y^{*}$ the predicted and ground-truth
depth in the validation set.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\centering
\scriptsize
{
\begin{tabular}{| l | l l | }
\hline
Abs Relative diff. (Rel) & & $\frac1{|T|}\sum_{y\in T}|y - y^*| / y^*$ \\
Squared Relative diff. (Sq-Rel) & & $\frac1{|T|}\sum_{y\in T}||y - y^*||^2 / y^*$ \\
RMS & & $\sqrt{\frac1{|T|}\sum_{y\in T}||y_i - y_i^*||^2}$ \\
RMS-log & & $\sqrt{\frac1{|T|}\sum_{y\in T}||\log y_i - \log y_i^*||^2}$ \\
Threshold $\delta^i$, \ \ $i$$\in$$\{1,2,3\}$ & & \% of $y_{i}$ s.t. $\max(\frac{y_i}{y_i^*},\frac{y_i^*}{y_i})$$<$$1.25^i$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:metrics}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{table}
}
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\noindent \textbf{Network Architecture}.
Every single module in our ARC framework is implemented
by a simple encoder-decoder architecture as used in ~\cite{zhu2017unpaired},
which also defines our discriminator's architecture.
We modify the decoder to output a single channel to train
our attention module $\cal A$.
As for the depth prediction module,
we further add skip connections that help output
high-resolution depth estimate~\cite{zheng2018t2net}.
\noindent \textbf{Training}.
We first train each module individually for 50 epochs using the Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2014adam},
with initial learning rate 5$e$-5 (1$e$-4 for discriminator if adopted) and coefficients 0.9 and 0.999
for computing running averages of gradient and its square.
Then we fine-tune the whole ARC model with the proposed modular coordinate descent scheme with the same learning parameters.
\noindent\textbf{Datasets}.
We evaluate on indoor scene and outdoor scene datasets.
For indoor scene depth prediction,
we use the real-world NYUv2~\cite{silberman2012indoor} and synthetic Physically-based Rendering (PBRS)~\cite{zhang2016physically} datasets.
NYUv2 contains video frames captured using Microsoft Kinect,
with 1,449 test frames and a large set of video (training) frames.
From the video frames,
we randomly sample 500 as our small amount of labeled real data (no overlap with the official testing set).
PBRS contains large-scale synthetic images generated using the Mitsuba renderer and SUNCG CAD models~\cite{song2016ssc}.
We randomly sample 5,000 synthetic images for training.
For outdoor scene depth prediction,
we turn to the Kitti~\cite{geiger2013vision} and virtual Kitti (vKitti)~\cite{gaidon2016virtual} datasets.
In Kitti, we use the Eigen testing set to evaluate~\cite{zhou2017unsupervised, godard2019digging} and the first 1,000 frames as the small amount of real-world labeled data for training~\cite{eigen2014depth}.
With vKitti,
we use the split $\{$clone, 15-deg-left, 15-deg-right, 30-deg-left, 30-deg-right$\}$ to form
our synthetic training set consisting of 10,630 frames.
Consistent with previous work,
we clip the maximum depth in vKitti to 80.0m for training,
and report performance on Kitti by capping at 80.0m for a fair comparison.
\noindent\textbf{Comparisons and Baselines}. We compare four
classes of models.
Firstly we have three baselines that train a single depth
predictor on only synthetic data, only real data, or the
combined set.
Secondly we train state-of-the-art domain adaptation
methods (T$^2$Net~\cite{zheng2018t2net},
CrDoCo~\cite{chen2019crdoco} and GASDA~\cite{zhao2019geometry})
with their released code.
During training, we also modify them
to use the small amount of annotated real-world data
in addition to the large-scale synthetic data.
We note that these methods originally perform unsupervised
domain adaptation,
but they perform much worse than our modified baselines which leverage some real-world training data.
This supports our suspicion that multiple losses involved
in these methods (\eg, adversarial loss terms)
do not necessarily contribute to reducing the depth loss.
Thirdly,
we have our ARC model and ablated variants to evaluate
how each module helps improve depth learning.
The fourth group includes a few top-performing fully-supervised
methods which were trained specifically for the dataset
over annotated real images only,
but at a much larger scale
For example,
DORN~\cite{fu2018deep} trains over more than 120K/20K frames
for NYUv2/Kitti, respectively.
This is 200/40 times larger than the
labeled real images for training our ARC model.
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation metrics}.
for depth prediction are standard and widely adopted in literature,
as summarized in Table~\ref{tab:metrics},
\subsection{Indoor Scene Depth with NYUv2 \& PBRS}
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.08em}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\tiny
\caption{\small \textbf{Quantitative comparison} over
NYUv2 testing set~\cite{silberman2012indoor}.
We train the state-of-the-art domain adaptation methods with the small amount
of annotated real data in addition to the large-scale synthetic data.
We design three baselines that only train a single depth predictor directly over synthetic or real images.
Besides report \emph{full} ARC model,
we ablate each module or their combinations.
We set $\rho$=0.85 in the attention module $\cal A$ if any,
with more ablation study in Fig.~\ref{fig: rho curve nyu}.
Finally, as reference,
we also list a few top-performing methods that
have been trained over several orders more annotated real-world frames.
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l| c c c c | c c c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Model/metric} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\cellcolor{col1} \texttt{$\downarrow$ lower is better}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} \texttt{$\uparrow$ better}} \\
& \cellcolor{col1} { Rel} & \cellcolor{col1} { Sq-Rel} & \cellcolor{col1} { RMS} & \cellcolor{col1} { RMS-log}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0}{$\delta^1$}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0}{$\delta^2$}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0}{$\delta^3$} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
State-of-the-art domain adaptation methods (\emph{w/ real labeled data})} \\
\hline
T$^2$Net~\cite{zheng2018t2net} & {0.202} & {0.192} & {0.723} & {0.254} & {0.696} & {0.911} & {0.975} \\
CrDoCo~\cite{chen2019crdoco} & {0.222} & {0.213} & {0.798} & {0.271} & {0.667} & {0.903} & {0.974} \\
GASDA~\cite{zhao2019geometry} & {0.219} & {0.220} & {0.801} & {0.269} & {0.661} & {0.902} & {0.974} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
Our (baseline) models.} \\
\hline
syn only & 0.299 & 0.408 & 1.077 & 0.371 & 0.508 & 0.798 & 0.925 \\
real only & 0.222 & 0.240 & 0.810 & 0.284 & 0.640 & 0.885 & 0.967 \\
mix training & 0.200 & 0.194 & 0.722 & 0.257 & 0.698 & 0.911 & 0.975 \\
\hline
ARC: $\cal T$ & {0.226} & {0.218} & {0.805} & {0.275} & {0.636} & {0.892} & {0.974} \\
ARC:$\cal A$ & {0.204} & {0.208} & {0.762} & {0.268} & {0.681} & {0.901} & {0.971} \\
ARC: $\cal A$\&$\cal T$ & {0.189} & {0.181} & {0.726} & {0.255} & {0.702} & {0.913} & {0.976} \\
ARC: $\cal A$\&$\cal I$ & {0.195} & {0.191} & {0.731} & {0.259} & {0.698} & {0.909} & {0.974} \\
ARC: \emph{full} & {\bf 0.186} & {\bf 0.175} & {\bf 0.710} & {\bf 0.250} & {\bf 0.712} & {\bf 0.917} & {\bf 0.977} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
Training over large-scale NYUv2 video sequences ($>$120K)} \\
\hline
DORN~\cite{fu2018deep} & 0.115 & -- & 0.509 & 0.051 & 0.828 & 0.965 & 0.992 \\
Laina~\cite{laina2016deeper} & 0.127 & -- & 0.573 & 0.055 & 0.811 & 0.953 & 0.988 \\
Eigen~\cite{eigen2015predicting} & {0.158} & {0.121} & {0.641} & 0.214 & 0.769 & 0.950 & 0.988 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:indoor}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{table}
}
Table~\ref{tab:indoor} lists detailed comparison for indoor scene depth prediction.
We observe that ARC outperforms other unsupervised domain adaptation methods by a substantial margin.
This demonstrates two aspects.
First, these domain adaptation methods have adversarial losses that force translation between
domains to be more realistic,
but there is no guarantee that ``more realistic'' is beneficial for depth learning.
Second, removing ``hard'' regions in real images makes the real-to-synthetic translation easier and
more effective for leveraging synthetic data in terms of depth learning.
The second point will be further verified through qualitative results.
We also provide an ablation study
adding in the attention module $\mathcal{A}$
leads to better performance than merely adding the synthetic-real style translator $\mathcal{T}$.
This shows the improvement brought by $\cal A$.
However, combining $\cal A$ with either $\cal T$ or $\cal I$
improves further,
while $\cal A$ \& $\cal T$ is better as removing the hard real regions
more closely matches the synthetic training data.
\subsection{Outdoor Scene Depth with Kitti \& vKitti}
We train the same set of domain adaptation methods and baselines on
the outdoor data,
and report detailed comparisons in Table~\ref{tab:outdoor}.
We observe similar trends as reported in the indoor scenario in Table~\ref{tab:indoor}.
Specifically,
$\cal A$ is shown to be effective in terms of better performance prediction;
while combined with other modules (\eg, $\cal T$ and $\cal I$)
it achieves even better performance.
By including all the modules, our ARC model (the \emph{full} version)
outperforms by a clear margin the other domain adaptation methods and the baselines.
However,
the performance gain here is not as remarkable as that in the indoor scenario.
We conjecture this is due to several reasons:
1) depth annotation by LiDAR are very sparse while vKitti have annotations everywhere;
2) the Kitti and vKitti images are far less diverse than indoor scenes (e.g., similar
perspective structure with vanishing point around the image center).
{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.08em}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\tiny
\caption{\small \textbf{Quantitative comparison} over
Kitti testing set~\cite{geiger2013vision}.
The methods we compare are the same as described in Table~\ref{tab:indoor},
including three baselines, our ARC model and ablation studies,
the state-of-the-art domain adaptation methods trained on both synthetic and real-world annotated data,
as well as some top-performing methods on this dataset,
which have been trained over three orders more annotated real-world frames from
kitti videos.
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c c c c | c c c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Model/metric}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\cellcolor{col1}\texttt{$\downarrow$ lower is better}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0}\texttt{$\uparrow$ better}} \\
& \cellcolor{col1} { Rel} & \cellcolor{col1} { Sq-Rel}
& \cellcolor{col1} { RMS} & \cellcolor{col1} { RMS-log}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} { $\delta^1$}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} { $\delta^2$}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} { $\delta^3$} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
State-of-the-art domain adaptation methods (\emph{w/ real labeled data})} \\
\hline
T$^2$Net~\cite{zheng2018t2net} & {0.151} & {0.993} & {4.693} & {0.253} & {0.791} & {0.914} & {0.966} \\
CrDoCo~\cite{chen2019crdoco} & {0.275} & {2.083} & {5.908} & {0.347} & {0.635} & {0.839} & {0.930} \\
GASDA~\cite{zhao2019geometry} & {0.253} & {1.802} & {5.337} & {0.339} & {0.647} & {0.852} & {0.951} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
Our (baseline) models.} \\
\hline
syn only & 0.291 & 3.264 & 7.556 & 0.436 & 0.525 & 0.760 & 0.881 \\
real only & 0.155 & 1.050 & 4.685 & 0.250 & 0.798 & 0.922 & 0.968 \\
mix training & 0.152 & 0.988 & 4.751 & 0.257 & 0.784 & 0.918 & 0.966 \\
\hline
ARC: $\cal T$ & {0.156} & {1.018} & {5.130} &
{0.279} & {0.757} & {0.903} & {0.959} \\
ARC: $\cal A$ & {0.154} & {0.998} & {5.141} & {0.278} & {0.761} & {0.908} & {0.962} \\
ARC: $\cal A$\&$\cal T$ & {0.147} & {0.947} & {4.864} & {0.259} & {0.784} & {0.916} & {0.966} \\
ARC: $\cal A$\&$\cal I$ & {0.152} & {0.995} & {5.054} & {0.271} & {0.766} & {0.908} & {0.962} \\
ARC: \emph{full} & {\bf 0.143} & {\bf 0.927} & {\bf 4.679} & {\bf 0.246} & {\bf 0.798} & {\bf 0.922} & {\bf 0.968} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
Training over large-scale kitti video frames ($>$20K)} \\
\hline
DORN~\cite{fu2018deep} & 0.071 & 0.268 & 2.271 & 0.116 & 0.936 & 0.985 & 0.995 \\
DVSO \cite{yang2018deep} & 0.097 & 0.734 & 4.442 & 0.187 & 0.888 & 0.958 & 0.980\\
Guo \cite{guo2018learning} & 0.096 & 0.641 & {4.095} & {0.168} & {0.892} & {0.967} &0.986 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:outdoor}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{table}
}
\subsection{Ablation Study and Qualitative Visualization}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.999\linewidth]{imgs/rho_curve_plot_nyu.pdf}
\vspace{-7mm}
\caption{Ablation study of the sparsity factor $\rho$ of the ARC model on NYUv2 dataset.
We use ``Abs-Rel'' and ``or $\delta^1$''
to measure the performance (see Table~\ref{tab:metrics} for their definition). Note that the sparsity level $\rho$ cannot be exact 1.0 due to KL loss during training, so we present an approximate value with $\rho = 0.99999$.}
\label{fig: rho curve nyu}
\end{figure}
{
\begin{table*}[t]
\vspace{-3mm}
\centering
\tiny
\caption{\small \textbf{Quantitative comparison} between ARC and mix training baseline inside and outside of the mask region on NYUv2 testing set~\cite{silberman2012indoor}, where $\Delta$ represents the performance gain of ARC over mix training baseline under each metric.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\resizebox{0.98\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c c c c | c c c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Model/metric}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\cellcolor{col1}\texttt{$\downarrow$ lower is better}}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0}\texttt{$\uparrow$ better}} \\
& \cellcolor{col1} { Rel} & \cellcolor{col1} { Sq-Rel}
& \cellcolor{col1} { RMS} & \cellcolor{col1} { RMS-log}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} { $\delta^1$}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} { $\delta^2$}
& \cellcolor[rgb]{0.0,0.8,1.0} { $\delta^3$} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
Inside the mask (e.g., removed/inpainted)} \\
\hline
mix training & 0.221 & 0.259 & 0.870 & 0.282 & 0.661 & 0.889 & 0.966 \\
ARC: \emph{full} & {0.206} & {0.232} & {0.851} &
{0.273} & {0.675} & {0.895} & {0.970} \\
{\qquad $\Delta$} & $\downarrow$0.015 & $\downarrow$0.027 & $\downarrow$0.019 & $\downarrow$0.009 & $\uparrow$0.014 & $\uparrow$0.006 & $\uparrow$0.004 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\cellcolor{lightgrey}
Outside the mask} \\
\hline
mix training & 0.198 & 0.191 & 0.715 & 0.256 & 0.700 & 0.913 & 0.976 \\
ARC: \emph{full} & {0.185} & {0.173} & {0.703} &
{0.249} & {0.713} & {0.918} & {0.977} \\
{\qquad $\Delta$} & $\downarrow$0.013 & $\downarrow$0.018 & $\downarrow$0.012 & $\downarrow$0.007 & $\uparrow$0.013 & $\uparrow$0.005 & $\uparrow$0.001 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:inside outside}
\vspace{-1mm}
\end{table*}
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{imgs/error_distribution_RMSE_log_gain.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{Sorted per-sample error reduction of ARC over the mix training baseline on NYUv2 dataset w.r.t the RMS-log metric. The error reduction is computed as RMS-log(ARC) $-$ RMS-log(mix training). The blue vertical line represents the index separating negative and positive error reduction.
}
\label{fig: per-sample-improvement}
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.995\textwidth]{imgs/visual_result_low_quality.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{\small
Qualitative results list
some images over which our ARC model
improves the depth prediction remarkably,
as well as failure cases. (Best viewed in color and zoomed in.) More visualizations of ARC on Kitti and NYUv2 dataset are shown in the Appendices.
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig:visual_results}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Sparsity level $\rho$} controls
the percentage of pixels to remove in the binary attention map.
We are interested in studying how the hyperparameter $\rho$
affects the overall depth prediction.
We plot in Fig.~\ref{fig: rho curve nyu}
the performance vs. varied $\rho$ on
two metrics (Abs-Rel and $\delta^1$).
We can see that the overall depth prediction
degenerates slowly with smaller $\rho$ at first;
then drastically degrades when $\rho$ decreases to 0.8,
meaning $\sim20\%$ pixels are removed for a given image.
We also depict our three baselines,
showing that over a wide range of $\rho$.
Note that ARC has slightly worse performance when $\rho=1.0$ (strictly speaking, $\rho=0.99999$) compared to $\rho=0.95$. This observation shows that remove a certain amount of pixels indeed helps depth predictions.
The same analyses on Kitti dataset are shown in the Appendices.
\noindent\textbf{Per-sample improvement study} to understand where our ARC model performs better over
a strong baseline. We sort and plot the per-image error reduction of ARC over the mix training baseline on NYUv2 testing set according to the RMS-log metric, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: per-sample-improvement}. The error reduction is computed as RMS-log(ARC) $-$ RMS-log(mix training). It's easy to observe that ARC reduces the error for around 70\% of the entire dataset. More importantly, ARC decreases the error over 0.2 at most when the average error of ARC and our mix training baseline are 0.252 and 0.257, respectively.
\noindent \textbf{Masked regions study} analyzes how ARC differs from mix training baseline on ``hard" pixels and regular pixels. For each sample in the NYUv2 testing set, we independently compute the depth prediction performance inside and outside of the attention mask. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:inside outside}, ARC improves the depth prediction not only inside but also outside of the mask regions on average. This observation suggests that ARC improves the depth prediction globally without sacrificing the performance outside of the mask.
\noindent\textbf{Qualitative results} are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:visual_results},
including some random failure cases (measured by performance drop when using ARC).
These images are from NYUv2 dataset.
Kitti images and their results can be found in the Appendices.
From the good examples,
we can see ARC indeed removes some cluttered regions that are intuitively challenging:
replacing clutter with simplified contents, \eg,
preserving boundaries and
replacing bright windows with wall colors.
From an uncertainty perspective, removed pixels are places where models are less confident. By comparing with the depth estimate over the original image, ARC's learning strategy of “learn to admit what you don’t know” is superior to making confident but often catastrophically poor predictions.
It is also interesting to analyze the failure cases.
For example,
while ARC successfully removes and inpaints
rare items like the frames and cluttered books in the shelf,
it suffers from over-smooth areas that provide little cues to infer the
scene structure.
This suggests future research directions,
\eg improving modules with the unsupervised real-world images,
inserting a high-level understanding of the scene with partial labels (\eg easy
or sparse annotations) for tasks in which real annotations are expensive or even
impossible (\eg, intrinsics).
\vspace{-5pt}
\section{Conclusion}
\vspace{-7pt}
We present the ARC framework which learns to attend,
remove and complete ``hard regions'' that depth predictors
find not only challenging but detrimental to overall depth prediction performance.
ARC learns to carry out completion over these removed regions in order to
simplify them and bring them closer to the distribution of the synthetic domain.
This real-to-synthetic translation ultimately makes better use of synthetic
data in producing an accurate depth estimate.
With our proposed modular coordinate descent training protocol,
we train our ARC system and demonstrate its effectiveness
through extensive experiments:
ARC outperforms other state-of-the-art methods in depth prediction,
with a limited amount of annotated training data
and a large amount of synthetic data.
We believe our ARC framework is also applicable of boosting performance on
a broad range of other pixel-level prediction tasks, such as surface normals
and intrinsic image decomposition, where per-pixel annotations are similarly
expensive to collect.
Moreover, ARC hints the benefit of uncertainty estimation that requires special attention
to the ``hard'' regions for better prediction.
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements} This research was supported by NSF grants IIS-1813785, IIS-1618806, a research gift from Qualcomm, and a hardware donation from NVIDIA.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec-intro}
Given two weighted point sets $A$ and $B$ in the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^d$, the weight of each point in $A$ represents its {\em supply}, and the weight of each point in $B$ represents its {\em demand}. The {\em Earth Mover's Distance (EMD)} is the minimum transportation cost from $A$ to $B$. We can build a complete bipartite graph $A\times B$ where each pair of points $(a_i, b_j)\in A\times B$ is connected by an edge with the weight being equal to their Euclidean distance (or some other specified distance); so the EMD between $A$ and $B$ can be obtained by computing the {\em minimum cost flow}~\cite{ahuja1993network} in the bipartite graph. Actually, the transportation problem is a discrete version of the {\em Monge-Kantorovich} problem that has been extensively studied in Mathematics~\cite{Villani08references}. EMD has many applications in real world. In particular, it has been widely used for computing the similarity between two patterns in pattern recognition and image retrieval problems~\cite{rubner2000earth,DBLP:conf/cvpr/GraumanD04,pele2009fast}. Most of these applications consider the EMD in terms of low dimensional patterns, such as 2D images and 3D shapes. In recent years, several important applications of EMD in high-dimensional Euclidean space have been studied in the fields of machine learning and data mining. Below, we introduce two examples briefly.
\textbf{\rmnum{1}. Computing similarity between different datasets.}
{\em Crowdsourcing} is an emerging topic in the big data era~\cite{DBLP:journals/sigkdd/LiGMLSZFH15,ZCZ}. We often receive different datasets from various sources and want to quickly estimate their values. For example, we can perform evaluation or classification on the received datasets by comparing them with our own reliable datasets. In practice, a dataset ({\em e.g.,} an image dataset) is often represented as a set of high-dimensional vectors, and therefore the task can be modeled as computing the similarity between two point sets in a \textbf{high-dimensional} Euclidean space (this is the key difference with the problem of computing the EMD between two images, which are in fact two \textbf{2D point sets}~\cite{cohen1999earth}). Similar applications also arise in biological network alignment~\cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/LiuDC017} and unsupervised cross-lingual learning~\cite{DBLP:conf/emnlp/ZhangLLS17}.
\textbf{\rmnum{2}. Domain adaptation.}
In supervised learning, our task usually is to learn the knowledge from a given labeled training dataset. However, in many scenarios, labeled data could be very limited. We can generate the labels for an unlabeled dataset by exploiting an existing annotated dataset, that is, transfer the knowledge from a source domain to a target domain. Thus the problem is called ``domain adaptation'' in the field of transfer learning~\cite{DBLP:journals/tkde/PanY10}. Due to its importance to many machine learning applications, the problem has received a great amount of attention in the past years~\cite{DBLP:conf/nips/BlitzerCKPW07,DBLP:journals/ml/Ben-DavidBCKPV10}. Recently, Courty {\em et al.} \cite{DBLP:journals/pami/CourtyFTR17} modeled the domain adaptation problem as a transportation problem of computing the EMD between the source and target domains. Similar to the first application, the datasets are often represented as high-dimensional point sets and therefore we need to compute their EMD in high dimension.
In many practical scenarios, we usually only need to \textbf{quickly answer the question that whether the EMD between the given point sets is larger or smaller than a threshold}, instead of returning the exact EMD value or the EMD induced map in the bipartite graph $A\times B$. For example, given two large-scale datasets, we may just want to know that whether they are similar enough and do not care about the detailed map of the data items; for the domain adaptation problem, we may want to quickly determine that whether the given annotated dataset is a suitable source for the unlabeled dataset before conducting the expensive computation for the transportation problem. Thus, it is critical to design a fast algorithm to satisfy these applications. However, existing methods for computing EMD or estimating EMD bounds often suffer from the issues like high complexity or high distortion in high dimensions (a detailed discussion on existing methods is given in Section~\ref{sec-relate}).
In this paper, we study the \textbf{EMD query problem}: given a value $T\geq 0$, we want to quickly determine that whether the EMD between $A$ and $B$ is larger or smaller than it. In particular we consider the data having low doubling dimension (we will provide the formal definition of doubling dimension in Section~\ref{sec-pre}). The doubling dimension is a measure that has been widely adopted in machine learning community for describing the intrinsic dimensionality of data~\cite{DBLP:journals/jcss/BshoutyLL09,DBLP:journals/talg/ChanGMZ16}. Note that real-world high-dimensional data often reveals small intrinsic dimension. For example, an image set can be represented as a set of vey high-dimensional vectors, while the vectors may be distributed nearby a low-dimensional manifold; thus their intrinsic dimension could be much smaller than the dimension of the Euclidean space~\cite{belkin2003problems}.
\textbf{Our contribution.}
In this paper, we develop a ``data-dependent'' algorithm for solving the EMD query problem. Our algorithm relies on a hierarchical structure that can be viewed as a simplified {\em net tree} in doubling metrics~\cite{har2006fast}. In particular, the height of the structure depends on how close the exact EMD and $T$ are. Specifically, the lager the difference between the two values, the lower the structure (and the lower the running time).
Besides the low complexity, our algorithm also enjoys the following two advantages. \textbf{(1).} Our algorithm does not need to build any complicated data structure and is easy to implement in practice. Also, our method can be easily modified to handle the case that the doubling dimension of the data is not given in advance. \textbf{(2).} Our algorithm actually is a general framework for solving the EMD query problem, that is, any existing EMD algorithm can be plugged as the black box for computing the EMD of an ``easy'' instance in each round of our framework. Hence the efficiency of our framework can be always improved if any new EMD algorithm is proposed in future.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Existing Methods for Computing EMD}
\label{sec-relate}
\vspace{-0.1in}
A number of minimum cost flow algorithms have been developed in the past decades~\cite{ahuja1993network,orlin1993polynomial,orlin1997polynomial,DBLP:journals/combinatorica/Tardos85,DBLP:journals/jacm/GoldbergT89}.
Suppose $n$ and $m$ are the numbers of vertices and edges in the bipartite graph respectively, and $U$ is the maximum weight.
Orlin~\cite{DBLP:conf/stoc/Orlin88} developed a strongly polynomial algorithm with the time complexity $O(n\log n (m+n\log n))$.
Lee and Sidford~\cite{DBLP:conf/focs/LeeS14} designed a novel linear solver and one can apply it to solve the minimum cost flow problem in $O(n^{2.5} poly(\log U))$ time.
Using the idea of preconditioning, Sherman~\cite{DBLP:conf/soda/Sherman17} provided a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm with the running time $O(n^{2+o(1)}\epsilon^{-2})$.
For the instances in Euclidean space, a sequence of faster algorithms have been proposed in the community of computational geometry. For example, Khesin {\em et al.}~\cite{DBLP:conf/compgeom/KhesinNP19} applied the idea of preconditioning~\cite{DBLP:conf/soda/Sherman17} to design two randomized $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation nearly linear time algorithms (if the dimension $d$ is a constant number).
Several practical EMD algorithms for low-dimensional patterns, like 2D images, were proposed before~\cite{ling2007efficient,DBLP:conf/cvpr/ShirdhonkarJ08,pele2009fast,DBLP:journals/pvldb/TangUCMC13,Chan2019ThePO}.
In the community of machine learning, Cuturi~\cite{DBLP:conf/nips/Cuturi13} proposed a new objective called ``Sinkhorn Distance'' that smoothes the transportation problem with an entropic regularization term, and it can be solved much faster than computing the exact EMD; Li {\em et al.}~\cite{DBLP:journals/jscic/LiROYG18} designed a parallel method for computing EMD. Following Cuturi's work, several improved Sinkhorn algorithms have been proposed~\cite{DBLP:conf/nips/AltschulerWR17,DBLP:conf/nips/AltschulerBRN19,DBLP:conf/nips/MuzellecC19} very recently. Kusner {\em et al.}~\cite{kusner2015word} modified the objective of EMD and proposed a new distance called ``Relaxed Word Mover's Distance (RWMD)'' which is easier to compute; Atasu and Mittelholzer~\cite{DBLP:conf/icml/AtasuM19} further showed a linear time parallel RWMD algorithm.
Several efficient algorithms have been developed for estimating the EMD without computing the induced map between the given point sets. For example, Indyk~\cite{indyk2007near} gave a near linear time constant factor approximation algorithm by using the importance sampling technique; Cabello {\em et al.}~\cite{cabello2008matching} showed that it is possible to achieve a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation in $O(\frac{n^2}{\epsilon^2}\log^2 n)$ time by constructing the geometric spanner; Andoni {\em et al.}~\cite{DBLP:conf/stoc/AndoniNOY14} gave a streaming algorithm that can return a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation estimate in $O(n^{1+o(1)})$ time.
However, most of these algorithms rely on the geometric techniques in low-dimensional space, and their complexities are exponential in the dimensionality $d$. Li~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1002-4034} generalized the method of~\cite{indyk2007near} and proposed an $O(\rho)$-approximate estimate of EMD where $\rho$ is the doubling dimension of the given data; however, the algorithm needs a $O(n^2 poly(\log n))$ preprocessing time that could be too high when $n$ is large.
Another natural approach for computing EMD is {\em metric embedding}
~\cite{DBLP:conf/soda/AndoniIK08,IT03}. However, this approach often has a large distortion ({\em e.g.,} $O(\log n\cdot \log d)$ in~\cite{DBLP:conf/soda/AndoniIK08}), and thus is not suitable for solving our problem with large $n$ and $d$.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{sec-pre}
We introduce several important definitions that will be used throughout this paper.
\begin{definition}[Earth Mover's Distance (EMD)]
\label{def-emd}
Let $A=\{a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_{n_A}\}$ and $B=\{b_1, b_2, \cdots, b_{n_B}\}$ be two sets of weighted points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with nonnegative weights $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j$ for each $a_i\in A$ and $b_j\in B$, and $\sum^{n_A}_{i=1}\alpha_i=\sum^{n_B}_{j=1}\beta_j=W$. Their earth mover's distance is
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)=\frac{1}{W}\min_{F}\sum^{n_A}_{i=1}\sum^{n_B}_{j=1}f_{ij}||a_i-b_j||, \label{for-emd}
\end{eqnarray}
where $||\cdot||$ indicates the Euclidean distance and $F=\{f_{ij}\mid 1\leq i\leq n_A, 1\leq j\leq n_B\}$ is a feasible flow from $A$ to $B$, i.e., each $f_{ij}\geq 0$, $\sum^{n_A}_{i=1}f_{ij}=\beta_j$, and $\sum^{n_B}_{j=1}f_{ij}=\alpha_i$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[EMD Query]
\label{def-query}
Given two weighted point sets $A$ and $B$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $T\geq 0$, the problem of EMD Query is to answer the question that whether $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\geq T$ or $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\leq T$.
\end{definition}
For any point $p\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $r\geq 0$, we use $Ball(p, r)=\{q\in \mathbb{R}^d\mid ||q-p||\leq r\}$ to indicate the ball of radius $r$ around $p$. Usually, the doubling dimension is defined for an abstract metric space~\cite{DBLP:journals/talg/ChanGMZ16}. In this paper, since we focus mainly on the applications for high-dimensional data with low intrinsic dimensions, we directly describe the doubling dimension for point sets in Euclidean space.
\begin{definition}[Doubling Dimension]
\label{def-dd}
The doubling dimension of a point set $P\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ is the smallest number $\rho$, such that for any $p\in P$ and $r\geq 0$, $P\cap Ball(p, 2r)$ is always covered by the union of at most $2^\rho$ balls with radius $r$.
\end{definition}
The doubling dimension describes the expansion rate of $P$. For example, imagine a set of points uniformly distributed in a $d'$-dimensional flat in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and then the doubling dimension is $O(d')$ but the Euclidean dimension $d$ can be much higher.
\begin{claim}
\label{cla-dd}
Let $A$ and $B$ be two point sets in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with each one having the doubling dimension $\rho>0$. Then the set $A\cup B$ has the doubling dimension at most $\rho+1$.
\end{claim}
This claim is easy to verify. Given any ball $Ball(p, 2r)$, we have $\big(A\cup B\big)\cap Ball(p, 2r)=\big(A\cap Ball(p, 2r)\big)\cup \big(B\cap Ball(p, 2r)\big)$. So $\big(A\cup B\big)\cap Ball(p, 2r)$ is covered by at most $2^\rho+2^\rho=2^{\rho+1}$ balls with radius $r$. Therefore, Claim~\ref{cla-dd} is true.
\textbf{The rest of the paper is organized as follows.} In Section~\ref{sec-bc}, we introduce a simplified variant of the net tree method to hierarchically decompose a given set of points in the space.
By using the algorithm proposed in Section~\ref{sec-bc}, we introduce our method for solving the EMD query problem (approximately) in Section~\ref{sec-match}. Finally, we evaluate the experimental performances in Section~\ref{sec-exp}.
\section{Hierarchical Gonzalez's algorithm}
\label{sec-bc}
In this section, we propose a hierarchical algorithm to decompose the point set from coarse to fine. Roughly speaking, given a set $P$ of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, we partition it to be covered by a set of balls where the number of the balls is bounded; then we recursively perform the same strategy for the points inside each individual ball until the radius becomes small enough. It is easy to see that this approach will yield a tree, where each node of the tree corresponds to an individual ball and its children form a decomposition of the points inside the ball.
The structure actually can be realized by constructing the {\em net tree} which has been particularly studied in the context of doubling metrics. Har-Peled and Mendel~\cite{har2006fast} showed that the net tree can be constructed in $2^{O(\rho)}nd\log n$ expected time if the point set has the doubling dimension $\rho$; their idea is based on a fast implementation of the well-known $k$-center clustering algorithm~\cite{gonzalez1985clustering} and the method of {\em hierarchically well-separated tree (HST)}~\cite{DBLP:conf/focs/Bartal96}.
However, their method needs to maintain and update some auxiliary data structures that are not very efficient for handling large-scale datasets in practice. Moreover, the method takes an extra $O(2^{O(\rho)}n)$ space for maintaining the data structures (besides the original $O(nd)$ for storing the input data).
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{\textsc{Hierarchical Gonzalez's algorithm}}
\label{alg-hg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} A set $P$ of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, a parameter $h>0$, and the doubling dimension $\rho$.
\STATE
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize an empty tree $\mathcal{H}$, and each node $v$ of $\mathcal{H}$ is associated with a point $p_v$ and a subset $P_v$ of $P$.
\item Arbitrarily select a point $p_0\in P$. Let the root node of $\mathcal{H}$ be $v_0$. Also, set $p_{v_0}=p_0$ and $P_{v_0}=P$. The root $v_0$ is labeled as the $0$-th level node.
\item Starting from $v_0$, recursively grow each node $v$ of $\mathcal{H}$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose the level of $v$ is $i\geq 0$. If $i=h$ or $P_v$ contains only one point, $v$ will be a leaf and stop growing it.
\item Else, run the Gonzalez's algorithm $2^{2\rho}$ rounds on $P_v$, and obtain the $2^{2\rho}$ clusters with their cluster centers; add $2^{2\rho}$ children nodes to $v$, where each child is associated with an individual cluster of $P_v$ and the corresponding cluster center. Each child is labeled as a $(i+1)$-level node.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\vskip -0.05in
\end{algorithmic}
\vskip -0.05in
\end{algorithm}
\textbf{Our approach and high-level idea.}
In a standard net tree, the nodes at the same level are required to satisfy two key properties: the ``covering property'' and ``packing property''. Informally speaking, at each level of the net tree, the covering property requires that each point of $P$ should be covered by a ball centered at one node (each node has a ``representative'' point from $P$) with a specified radius; the packing property requires that the representatives of the nodes are ``well separated'' ({\em i.e.,} their inter distances should be large enough).
We observe that the ``packing property'' is not a necessary condition to solve our EMD query problem. Hence our proposed algorithm can be viewed as a simplified variant of the net tree method, which only keeps the covering property and takes only a $O(nd)$ space complexity.
Our algorithm also relies on the Gonzalez's $k$-center clustering algorithm~\cite{gonzalez1985clustering}, and we briefly introduce it for the sake of completeness. Initially, it selects an arbitrary point, say $c_1$, from the input $P$ and lets $S=\{c_1\}$; then it iteratively selects a new point that has the largest distance to $S$ among the points of $P$ and adds it to $S$, until $|S|=k$ (the distance between a point $q$ and $S$ is defined as $dist(q, S)=\min\{||q-p||\mid p\in S\}$); suppose $S=\{c_1, \cdots, c_k\}$, and then $P$ is covered by the $k$ balls $Ball(c_1, r), \cdots, Ball(c_k, r)$ with $r\leq\min\{||c_i-c_j||\mid 1\leq i\neq j\leq k\}$. It is easy to know that the running time of the Gonzalez's algorithm is $O(|S|nd)$.
Our main idea is to hierarchically decompose the given point set and run the Gonzalez's algorithm locally, and therefore we name the algorithm as {\em \textsc{Hierarchical Gonzalez's algorithm}} (see Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg}). Denote by $\Delta$ the radius of the minimum enclosing ball of $P$. Initially, the whole point set $P$ is covered by a ball with radius $\Delta$. By applying Definition~\ref{def-dd} twice, we know that $P$ is covered by $2^{2\rho}$ balls $\mathbb{B}=\{\mathcal{B}_1, \cdots, \mathcal{B}_{2^{2\rho}}\}$ with radius $\Delta/4$ (note that we can only claim these balls exist, but cannot find these balls explicitly). If running the Gonzalez's algorithm $2^{2\rho}$ rounds, we obtain $2^{2\rho}$ points, say $\{s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_{2^{2\rho}}\}$, and consider two cases: the points separately fall into different balls of $\mathbb{B}$ or not. For the first case, through the triangle inequality we know that $P$ is covered by $\cup^{2^{2\rho}}_{j=1}Ball(s_j, \Delta/2)$. For the other case ({\em i.e.,} there exist two points, say $s_{j_1}$ and $s_{j_2}$, falling into one ball, and thus the distance $||s_{j_1}-s_{j_2}||\leq \Delta/2$), due to the nature of the Gonzalez's algorithm, we know that for each point $p\in P$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\min_{1\leq j\leq 2^{2\rho}}||p-s_j||\leq \min_{1\leq j<j'\leq 2^{2\rho}}||s_j-s_{j'}||\leq ||s_{j_1}-s_{j_2}||\leq \Delta/2. \label{for-tree1}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, for the second case, $P$ is also covered by $\cup^{2^{2\rho}}_{j=1}Ball(s_j, \Delta/2)$. Namely, we decompose $P$ into $2^{2\rho}$ parts and each part is covered by a ball with radius $\Delta/2$. In the following steps, we just recursively run the Gonzalez's algorithm on each part locally. If we perform $\log\frac{\Delta}{r}$ rounds with a specified value $r>0$, each point of $P$ will be covered by a ball with radius $r$. Moreover, we can imagine that the algorithm generates a hierarchical tree $\mathcal{H}$ with height $h=\log\frac{\Delta}{r}+1$, where the root ($0$-th level) corresponds to the set $P$ and each node at the $i$-th level, $1\leq i\leq \log\frac{\Delta}{r}$, corresponds to a subset of $P$ that is covered by a ball with radius $\Delta/2^i$. Obviously, each leaf node is covered by a ball with radius $r$, and the total number of leaves is $\min\{n, (2^{2\rho})^{\log\frac{\Delta}{r}}\}=\min\{n,(\frac{\Delta}{r})^{2\rho}\}$ (we stop growing the node if its corresponding subset has only one point).
\textbf{Running time.}
For the $i$-th level of $\mathcal{H}$, denote by $n_1, n_2, \cdots, n_{2^{2\rho i}}$ the number of points covered by the $2^{2\rho i}$ nodes, respectively (obviously, $\sum^{2^{2\rho i}}_{j=1}n_j=n$). For each node, we run the Gonzalez's algorithm $2^{2\rho}$ rounds locally. Therefore, the total running time cost at the $i$-th level is
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum^{2^{2\rho i}}_{j=1}O(2^{2\rho}n_j d)=O(2^{2\rho}n d). \label{for-tree2}
\end{eqnarray}
Consequently, the total running time of Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg} is $O(2^{2\rho} (\log \frac{\Delta}{r})nd)$ if $h=\log \frac{\Delta}{r}+1$.
\textbf{Space complexity.}
In Section~\ref{sec-match}, we will show that we actually do not need to store the whole $\mathcal{H}$. Instead, we conduct the computation from top to bottom along $\mathcal{H}$. The space used for the $i$-th level can be released when the nodes at the $(i+1)$-th level all have been generated. That is, we just need to store at most two levels when constructing the tree $\mathcal{H}$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg}. Also, the space used for storing each level is always $O(nd)$. Therefore, the space complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg} is $O(nd)$.
Overall, we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{the-tree}
Let $r>0$ be a given number. If we set $h=\log \frac{\Delta}{r}+1$, the \textsc{Hierarchical Gonzalez's algorithm} (Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg}) generates a set of $\min\{n, (\frac{\Delta}{r})^{2\rho}\}$ balls covering $P$ with radius $r$, in $O(2^{2\rho} (\log \frac{\Delta}{r})nd)$ time. The space complexity is $O(nd)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} [\textbf{If $\rho$ is not given}]
\label{rem-tree}
In Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg}, we require to input the doubling dimension $\rho$. Actually this is not necessary. Assume we know the value of $\Delta$ ({\em i.e.,} the radius of the minimum enclosing ball of $P$). Then, for each node
$v$ at the $i$-th level of $\mathcal{H}$, we just run the Gonzalez's algorithm $k$ rounds until the obtained $k$ clusters have radius at most $\Delta/2^{i+1}$; by the same manner of our previous analysis, we know that $k$ should be no larger than $2^{2\rho}$. Therefore, we have the same time and space complexities as Theorem~\ref{the-tree}.
But it is expensive to compute the exact value of $\Delta$. One solution is to compute an approximate minimum enclosing ball of $P$ ({\em e.g.,} the $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}nd)$ time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm of \cite{badoiu2003smaller}). Actually, we can solve this issue by a much simpler way. We can arbitrarily select a point $p$ and its farthest point $p'$ from $P$ (this step takes only linear time), and it is easy to see that $||p-p'||\in [\Delta, 2\Delta]$; then we just replace $\Delta$ by the value $\tilde{\Delta}=||p-p'||$ in the algorithm. Since $\tilde{\Delta}\leq 2 \Delta$, the height of the tree $\mathcal{H}$ will be at most $\log\frac{\tilde{\Delta}}{r}+1\leq \log\frac{\Delta}{r}+2$ (so we just increase the height by one).
\end{remark}
\vspace{-0.07in}
\section{EMD Query Algorithm}
\label{sec-match}
\vspace{-0.07in}
The recent hardness-of-approximation result reveals that it is quite unlikely to achieve an algorithm being able to solve the EMD query problem with a low time complexity.
Under the Hitting Set Conjecture,
Rohatgi~\cite{DBLP:conf/approx/Rohatgi19} proved that there is no truly subquadratic time algorithm yielding an approximate EMD in high dimensions. In this section, we consider solving the EMD query problem in a more efficient way. To better understand our algorithm, we introduce the high-level idea first.
\textbf{High-level idea of Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd}.} To avoid directly solving the challenging EMD problem, we relax the requirement of Definition~\ref{def-query} slightly. Our intuition is similar to the relaxation for the nearest-neighbor search problem by {\em Locality-Sensitive Hashing}, which distinguishes the cases that the distance is smaller than $R$ or larger than $cR$ for some $R>0$ and $c>1$~\cite{DBLP:journals/cacm/AndoniI08}. Let $(A, B, T)$ be an instance of Definition~\ref{def-query}. Suppose $\epsilon>0$ is a given small parameter, and for simplicity we let $\Delta$ be the maximum radius of the minimum enclosing balls of $A$ and $B$. Our idea is to distinguish the instances ``$\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)> T+ \epsilon \Delta$'' and ``$\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)<T- \epsilon \Delta$''; the term ``$\epsilon \Delta$'' can be viewed as the induced approximation error. To realize this goal, we use the hierarchical structure $\mathcal{H}$ constructed in Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg} to estimate the value of $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ from coarse to fine, until these two instances can be distinguished. At each level, we just need to compute an easy instance, $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)$, where the sizes of $A_i$ and $B_i$ are much smaller; then we use the obtained value $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)$ to determine whether we need to go deeper (see Step 2(a)-2(d)).
For ease of presentation, we name
the following three cases:
\textbf{case 1:} $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)> T$;
\textbf{case 2:} $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)< T$;
\textbf{case 3:} $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\in T\pm \epsilon \Delta$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{the-hemd}
There are $4$ possible events in total.
\textbf{(\rmnum{1})} If $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)> T+ \epsilon \Delta$, Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd} will return ``case 1''. \textbf{(\rmnum{2})} If $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)<T- \epsilon \Delta$, the algorithm will return ``case 2''. \textbf{(\rmnum{3})} If $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\in [T, T+ \epsilon \Delta]$, the algorithm will return ``case 1'' or ``case 3''. \textbf{(\rmnum{4})} If $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\in [ T- \epsilon \Delta, T]$, the algorithm will return ``case 2'' or ``case 3''.
The height of the tree $\mathcal{H}$ built in Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd} is at most $\min\{\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}, \log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}\}+5$ where $\delta=\big|\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)-T\big|$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-the-hemd}
(\rmnum{1}) The algorithm relies on Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg}, and thus it can be also easily modified for solving the case that the doubling dimension is not given (see our analysis in Remark~\ref{rem-tree}).
(\rmnum{2}) The \textbf{running time} of Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd} is data-dependent. The height of the tree $\mathcal{H}$ depends on how close $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ and $T$ are and how accurate we require the solution to be. Specifically, the closer the values or the smaller the error parameter $\epsilon$, the higher the structure (and the higher the running time). As the sub-routine, we can apply any existing EMD algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ to compute $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)$ at the $i$-th level of $\mathcal{H}$ (see Step 2(d)). Suppose the time complexity of $\mathcal{A}$ is $\Gamma(n_A, n_B)$ for computing the original instance $(A, B)$. Since the time function $\Gamma(\cdot, \cdot)$ usually is super-linear and the total size $|A_i|+|B_i|$ increases at a geometric rate over $i$, the complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd} will be dominated by the running time at the last $h$-th level of $\mathcal{H}$ plus the complexity of constructing $\mathcal{H}$, {\em i.e.,}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma\big(|A_h|,|B_h|\big)+O\big(2^{2(\rho+1)}\cdot h\cdot (n_A+n_B)\cdot d\big), \label{for-rem-the-hemd-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $|A_h|$ and $|B_h|$ are at most $2^{2(\rho+1)h}$. The height $h$ is at most $\min\{\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}, \log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}\}+5$ due to Theorem~\ref{the-hemd}. If $n_A$ and $n_B$ are much larger than $2^{2(\rho+1)h}$, the complexity (\ref{for-rem-the-hemd-1}) is linear in the input size. Note that $\Gamma(n_A, n_B)$ usually is at least $\Omega(n_A\cdot n_B\cdot d)$, and thus our method can save a substantial amount of the running time especially when the data sizes and dimensionality are large.
(\rmnum{3}) The recent work~\cite{Chan2019ThePO} also considered outputting the bounds of EMD. However, it requires the pairwise ground distances to be given, which need $\Omega(n_A\cdot n_B\cdot d)$ time to compute, before computing the EMD. It could be very expensive when the data sizes and $d$ are large. On the other hand, our method avoids this by using the hierarchical structure. Also, the method of~\cite{Chan2019ThePO} is not always guaranteed to output the desired bounds of EMD (the algorithm may fail to generate a tight enough bound), while our method has a strict guarantee of the correctness as Theorem~\ref{the-hemd}.
\end{remark}
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{\textsc{Hierarchical EMD Query Algorithm}}
\label{alg-hemd}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} Two point sets $A$ and $B$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and the doubling dimension $\rho$. $T>0$ and $\epsilon\in (0,1)$.
\STATE
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute the approximate radius of the minimum enclosing balls of $A$ and $B$ (via the method mentioned in Remark~\ref{rem-tree}), and denote them as $\tilde{\Delta}_{A}$ and $\tilde{\Delta}_{B}$ respectively. Let $\tilde{\Delta}=\max\{\tilde{\Delta}_{A},\tilde{\Delta}_{B}\}$.
\item Let $P=A\cup B$. Construct the tree $\mathcal{H}$ level by level (from top to bottom) via Algorithm~\ref{alg-hg} (replace $\rho$ by $\rho +1$ according to Claim~\ref{cla-dd}).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $i$ be the index of the current level at $\mathcal{H}$. If $i=\log \frac{1}{\epsilon}+5$, stop the loop and output ``\textbf{Case 3}''.
\item Let $v^1_i, v^2_i, \cdots, v^{N}_i$ be the nodes at the $i$-th level ($N=2^{2(\rho+1) i}$). Correspondingly, each node $v^j_i$ is associated with a point $p_{v^j_i}$ and a subset $P_{v^j_i}$ of $P$. Let $n^j_i=$ the total weight of $A\cap P_{v^j_i}$ and $m^j_i=$ the total weight of $B\cap P_{v^j_i}$.
\item Initialize two empty sets of points $A_i$ and $B_i$. For each $v^j_i$, $1\leq j\leq N$, if $n^j_i\geq m^j_i$, add $p_{v^j_i}$ to $A_i$ and assign a weight $n^j_i-m^j_i$ to it; else, add $p_{v^j_i}$ to $B_i$ and assign a weight $m^j_i-n^j_i$ to it.
\item Compute $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)$ by an existing EMD algorithm. If $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)\geq T+\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}$, stop the loop and output ``\textbf{Case 1}''; else if $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)\leq T-\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}$, stop the loop and output ``\textbf{Case 2}''.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
To prove Theorem~\ref{the-hemd}, we need to prove the following Lemma~\ref{lem-phemd} and \ref{lem-hemd} first.
We let $\Delta_A$ and $\Delta_B$ be the radii of the minimum enclosing balls of $A$ and $B$, respectively, and thus $\Delta=\max\{\Delta_A, \Delta_B\}$.
Note that the radius of the minimum enclosing ball of $P=A\cup B$ could be much larger than $\Delta$. But Lemma~\ref{lem-phemd} tells us that after the first level, the approximation error only depends on $\Delta$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-phemd}
(\rmnum{1}) The value $\tilde{\Delta}$ obtained in Step 1 of Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd} is between $\Delta$ and $2\Delta$. (\rmnum{2}) At the first level of $\mathcal{H}$, the set $P$ is decomposed into $2^{2(\rho+1)}$ balls where each ball has the radius at most $2\Delta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to prove the statement (\rmnum{1}). Since $\tilde{\Delta}_{A}\in [\Delta_A, 2\Delta_A]$ and $\tilde{\Delta}_{B}\in [\Delta_B, 2\Delta_B]$, we directly have $\tilde{\Delta}=\max\{\tilde{\Delta}_A, \tilde{\Delta}_B\}\in [\Delta, 2\Delta]$.
We can view the set $P=A\cup B$ as an instance of $2$-center clustering where each of $A$ and $B$ can be covered by a ball with radius $\leq \Delta$. So if we run the Gonzalez's algorithm $2^{2(\rho+1)}\geq 2$ rounds, we obtain a set of $2^{2(\rho+1)}$ balls with radius $\leq 2\Delta$ (since the Gonzalez's algorithm yields a $2$-approximation of $k$-center clustering). Thus the statement~(\rmnum{2}) is true.
\end{proof}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-hemd}
In Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd}, for each $1\leq i\leq \log \frac{2}{\epsilon}+5$, $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)\in \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\pm \frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\Delta$.
\end{lemma}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{proof}
First, we consider another two sets of points $\tilde{A}_i$ and $\tilde{B}_i$, where each of them contains the same set of points $\{p_{v^1_i}, p_{v^2_i}, \cdots, p_{v^N_i}\}$. To differentiate the points in $\tilde{A}_i$ and $\tilde{B}_i$, we denote each point $p_{v^j_i}$ as $a^j_i$ ({\em resp.,} $b^j_i$) in $\tilde{A}_i$ ({\em resp.,} $\tilde{B}_i$). For the set $\tilde{A}_i$, each point $a^j_i$ is associated with the weight $n^j_i$; similarly, each point $b^j_i$ of $\tilde{B}_i$ has the weight $m^j_i$. We can imagine that each $a^j_i$ is a set of $n^j_i$ unit-weight overlapping points; namely, there is a bijection between ``$a^j_i$'' and $A\cap P_{v^j_i}$. The similar bijection also exists between ``$b^j_i$'' and $B\cap P_{v^j_i}$. Moreover, since the whole set $P_{v^j_i}$ is covered by a ball with radius $\frac{\Delta}{2^{i-2}}$, through the triangle inequality, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{EMD}(\tilde{A}_i, \tilde{B}_i)\in \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\pm \frac{1}{2^{i-2}}\Delta\times 2
=\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\pm \frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\Delta. \label{for-hemd1}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we only need to prove $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)=\mathcal{EMD}(\tilde{A}_i, \tilde{B}_i)$.
\vspace{-0.05in}
\begin{claim}
\label{cla-hemd}
There exists a set of flows $\tilde{F}=\{\tilde{f}_{jl}\mid 1\leq j, l\leq N\}$ yielding the optimal EMD from $\tilde{A}_i$ to $\tilde{B}_i$, such that for any $1\leq j\leq N$, $\tilde{f}_{jj}=\min\{n^j_i, m^j_i\}$.
\end{claim}
\vspace{-0.05in}
The proof of Claim~\ref{cla-hemd} is placed to our supplement. Claim~\ref{cla-hemd} indicates that the flow from $a^j_i$ to $b^j_i$ is $\min\{n^j_i, m^j_i\}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $n^j_i\leq m^j_i$; then we can safely delete the point $a^j_i$ and replace $m^j_i$ by $m^j_i-n^j_i$ without changing the value of $\mathcal{EMD}(\tilde{A}_i, \tilde{B}_i)$. If we perform this change for each pair $(a^j_i, b^j_i)$ for $1\leq j\leq N$, the point sets $\tilde{A}_i$ and $\tilde{B}_i$ will become $A_i$ and $B_i$ eventually. Therefore, $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)=\mathcal{EMD}(\tilde{A}_i, \tilde{B}_i)$, and consequently (\ref{for-hemd1}) implies Lemma~\ref{lem-hemd} is true.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}
(\textbf{of Theorem~\ref{the-hemd}})
At the $i$-th level in the tree $\mathcal{H}$, we have $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)\in \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\pm \frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\Delta$ via Lemma~\ref{lem-hemd}. Also, since $\tilde{\Delta}/2\leq\Delta\leq \tilde{\Delta}$, we know that
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)-\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}\leq \mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)\leq \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)+\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}. \label{for-hemd2}
\end{eqnarray}
If the first event or third event happens, the left hand-side of (\ref{for-hemd2}) implies
$\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)>T-\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}$.
So the algorithm will never output ``case 2''. Moreover, for the first event ``$\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)> T+ \epsilon \Delta$'', the bound of the height $\min\{\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}, \log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}\}+5=\log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}+5$; when $i$ reaches $\log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}+5$
, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)&\geq&\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)-\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}=T+\delta-\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}\label{for-the-hemd1}\\
\text{and }\hspace{0.1in}\delta&=&\frac{\Delta}{2^{i-5}}\geq\frac{\tilde{\Delta}}{2^{i-4}}.\label{for-the-hemd2}
\end{eqnarray}
The inequality of (\ref{for-the-hemd1}) comes from the left hand-side of (\ref{for-hemd2}). Combining (\ref{for-the-hemd1}) and (\ref{for-the-hemd2}), we have $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)\geq T+\frac{1}{2^{i-3}}\tilde{\Delta}$. That is, the algorithm will output ``case 1'' before $i$ exceeds $\log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}+5$.
Similarly, for the second event ``$\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)< T- \epsilon \Delta$'', the algorithm will output ``case~2'' before $i$ exceeds $\log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}+5$.
For the third event ``$\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\in [T, T+ \epsilon \Delta]$'', the bound of the height $\min\{\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}, \log\frac{\Delta}{\delta}\}+5=\log\frac{1}{\epsilon}+5$. The algorithm could output ``case~1'' before $i$ reaches $\log \frac{1}{\epsilon}+5$. It is also possible that the algorithm keeps running until $i=\log \frac{1}{\epsilon}+5$, and then it will output ``case~3''. Similarly, we can prove the output for the fourth event ``$\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)\in [ T- \epsilon \Delta, T]$''.
\end{proof}
\vspace{-0.15in}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec-exp}
All the experimental results were obtained on a server equipped with 2.4GHz Intel CPU and 8GB main memory; the algorithms are implemented in Matlab R2019a.
As discussed in Remark~\ref{rem-the-hemd} (\rmnum{2}), we can apply any existing EMD algorithm as the sub-routine to compute $\mathcal{EMD}(A_i, B_i)$ in Step 2(d) of our Algorithm~\ref{alg-hemd}.
In our experiments, we use two widely used EMD algorithms, the \textbf{\textsc{Network Simplex}} algorithm~\cite{ahuja1993network} and the \textbf{\textsc{Sinkhorn}} algorithm~\cite{DBLP:conf/nips/Cuturi13}, as the sub-routine algorithms. In fact, we also considered the well-known EMD algorithm \textbf{\textsc{FastEMD}}~\cite{pele2009fast}, but it runs very slowly for high-dimensional data ({\em e.g.,} it takes several hours for computing the EMD over the datasets considered in our experiments).
Given an instance $(A, B, T)$, we let $\mathtt{time_{our}}$ be the running time of our algorithm, and $\mathtt{time_{net}}$ ({\em resp.,} $\mathtt{time_{sin}}$) be the running time of computing $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ by using \textsc{Network Simplex} ({\em resp.,} \textsc{Sinkhorn}); we use the ratios $\mathtt{time_{our}/time_{net}}$ and $\mathtt{time_{our}/time_{sin}}$ to measure the performance of our algorithm (the lower the ratio, the better the performance).
\textbf{Datasets.} We implement our proposed algorithm and study its performances on both the synthetic and real datasets as listed in Table~\ref{datasets info}.
To construct a synthetic dataset, we take the random samples from two randomly generated manifolds in $\mathbb{R}^{500}$, where each manifold is represented by a polynomial function with low degree ($\leq 50$).
Note that it is challenging to achieve the exact doubling dimensions of the datasets, so we use the degree of the polynomial function as a ``rough indicator'' for the doubling dimension (the higher the degree, the larger the doubling dimension). We also use two popular benchmark datasets, the \textbf{MNIST} dataset~\cite{lecun1998gradient} and \textbf{CIFAR-10} dataset~\cite{krizhevsky2009learning}.
Following Remark~\ref{rem-tree} and Remark~\ref{rem-the-hemd}(\rmnum{1}), our algorithm does not require that the doubling dimension $\rho$ is given.
\begin{table}
\caption{The Datasets.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
\cmidrule(r){1-4}
Datasets & Data size & Dimension & Type \\
\midrule
SYNTHETIC & $80,000$ & $500$ & Synthetic \\
MNIST & $60,000$ & $784$ & Image \\
CIFAR-10 & $60,000$ & $3072$ & Image \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{datasets info}
\end{table}
\textbf{Setup.} We set the threshold $T=2^\theta\cdot \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ and vary the parameter $\theta$ from $-10$ to $10$; we set $\epsilon$, as the error parameter, to be $0.01, 0.03$, and $0.05$. For each instance $(A, B, T)$, we first use \textsc{Network Simplex} and \textsc{Sinkhorn} to compute their EMD and obtain $\mathtt{time_{net}}$ and $\mathtt{time_{sin}}$, respectively.
\textbf{Results and analysis.}
We illustrate the experimental results in Figure~\ref{fig-syn}, ~\ref{fig-minist}, ~\ref{fig-cifar}, and ~\ref{fig-synid} .
\begin{itemize}
\item We can see that the running time ratios are lower than $0.3$ on the synthetic datasets and $0.38$ on the real datasets, which indicates that our algorithm can save respectively at least $70\%$ and $62\%$ of the running time on the synthetic and real datasets, comparing with directly computing the EMD. Furthermore, when we tune the parameter $\theta$ to be close to $0$ ({\em i.e.,} the threshold $T$ is close to $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$), the running time increases because the height of the tree $\mathcal{H}$ becomes high. When $T$ is far from $\mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$, the curves become flat, because $\mathcal{H}$'s height remains the same and the running time is dominated by the construction time of $\mathcal{H}$.
\item We show the average running time ratio and standard deviation of $\mathtt{time_{our}/time_{net}}$ and $\mathtt{time_{our}/time_{sin}}$ in Figure~\ref{fig-syn}-\ref{fig-cifar}'s (b) and (d). When the size $n$ increases, the ratios substantially decrease, which indicates that our method enjoys better scalability for large-scale datasets. This is also in agreement with our theoretical analysis on the running time in Remark~\ref{rem-the-hemd}(\rmnum{2}).
\item We also vary the degree of the polynomial function for the synthetic datasets (with fixed $\epsilon=0.03$). From Figure~\ref{fig-synid} we can see that the running time of small $\theta$ increases as the degree increases, because the complexity is largely affected by the value of $\rho$ when the tree $\mathcal{H}$ is high. On the other hand, when $\theta$ is large, $\mathcal{H}$ is low and the complexity is dominated by the running time for constructing $\mathcal{H}$ (so the curves become flat).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{synFNS}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{synFNSebar}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{synSKH}
\end{minipage}
}%
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{synSKHebar}
\end{minipage}
}%
\centering
\caption{The running time ratios on the synthetic datasets with varying the threshold $T=2^\theta\cdot \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ and the number of points $n=|A|+|B|$.}
\label{fig-syn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{ministFNS}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{ministFNSebar}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{ministSKH}
\end{minipage}
}%
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{ministSKHebar}
\end{minipage}
}%
\centering
\caption{The running time ratios on the MNIST dataset with varying the threshold $T=2^\theta\cdot \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ and the number of points $n=|A|+|B|$.}
\label{fig-minist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{cifarFNS}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{cifarFNSebar}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{cifarSKH}
\end{minipage}
}%
\subfigure[]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.23\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.35in]{cifarSKHebar}
\end{minipage}
}%
\centering
\caption{The running time ratios on the CIFAR-10 dataset with varying the threshold $T=2^\theta\cdot \mathcal{EMD}(A, B)$ and the number of points $n=|A|+|B|$.}
\label{fig-cifar}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{synFNSid}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\subfigure[$n=20,000$]{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{synSKHid}
\end{minipage}
}%
\centering
\caption{The running time ratios on the synthetic datasets with varying the degree.}
\label{fig-synid}
\end{figure}
We also compute the precisions of our method on the synthetic datasets and real datasets, where the precision measures the frequency that our method returns correct results with respect to the three cases defined in Section~\ref{sec-match}. Our method can achieve the average precision $\geq$ $97.6\%$ on the synthetic datasets and $\geq 88.8\%$ on the real datasets over all the instances.
\vspace{-0.08in}
\section{Future Work}
\vspace{-0.08in}
In this paper, we propose a novel data-dependent algorithm for fast solving the EMD query problem. Our algorithm enjoys several advantages in practice. For example, it is very easy to implement and any existing EMD algorithm can be plugged as the black box to the framework.
Following this work, it is interesting to consider generalizing our method for other measures instead of EMD ({\em e.g.,} Kullback–Leibler divergence).
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
The \textit{Fermi} Gamma-Ray Space Telescope has detected a robust gamma-ray excess surrounding the Galactic Center (GC)~\cite{Goodenough:2009gk, Hooper:2010mq, Hooper:2011ti, TheFermi-LAT:2015kwa}. This Galactic Center Excess (GCE) is peaked at energies $\sim 1-3$ GeV, and extends out to 10$^\circ$ from the Galactic Center~\cite{Hooper:2013rwa}. A number of studies have found that its morphology is broadly consistent with a signal of dark matter (DM) annihilation~\cite{Daylan:2014rsa,Calore:2014xka,Karwin:2016tsw}, being approximately spherically symmetric around the GC (with axis ratios within $20\%$ of unity), and scaling as $r^{-2\gamma}$ --- consistent with a generalized NFW profile with index $\gamma\sim1.1-1.4$~\cite{Gordon:2013vta, Zhou:2014lva}. More recent analyses have shown that, depending on the diffuse gamma-ray background model and region over which the fit is performed, the GCE morphology can be more consistent with tracing stellar mass in the Galactic bulge and nuclear stellar cluster~\cite{Macias:2016nev, Bartels:2017vsx, Macias:2019omb}. In either case, the GCE could potentially be explained by a new population of millisecond pulsars
(MSPs)~\cite{Abazajian:2014fta, Abazajian:2012pn, Hooper:2013nhl, Mirabal:2013rba, Calore:2014oga, Cholis:2014lta, Yuan:2014yda, OLeary:2015qpx,Ploeg:2017vai,Bartels:2018xom}.
The GCE was first discovered using template fitting methods~\cite{Goodenough:2009gk}, which build up a model for the gamma-ray sky as a linear combination of spatial ``templates'' for distinct physical contributions to the gamma-ray emission. Gamma-ray source templates can have Poissonian statistics (i.e. a DM signal, or backgrounds from cosmic-ray interactions with the gas and starlight, or contributions from known point sources (PSs); in all cases the template is fully characterized by the expected emission in each pixel, and only its overall normalization is floated), or non-Poissonian (i.e., characterizing populations of astrophysical point-sources (PSs), such as pulsars, when their individual positions are unknown). We will loosely refer to these two cases as ``smooth'' and ``point-like'' / ``PS'' contributions, although templates with Poissonian statistics can still have sharp variations in the expected flux from pixel to pixel. To distinguish smooth and PS contributions with identical spatial morphologies, the template fitting method has been extended to include non-Poissonian template fitting (NPTF)~\cite{Lee:2015fea}, which exploits the differences in photon statistics between the two cases~\cite{Malyshev:2011zi,Lee:2014mza}.
In 2015, two papers claimed strong statistical evidence for the presence of unresolved gamma-ray PSs (with angular extension below the resolution of the detector) in the Inner Galaxy, using NPTF methods~\cite{Lee:2015fea} and a complementary technique employing wavelets~\cite{Bartels:2015aea}, and inferred that the GCE was dominantly comprised of PSs. More recently, two independent studies have demanded reconsideration of both the wavelet~\cite{Zhong:2019ycb} and NPTF~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} results. This article will focus on the NPTF-based evidence; let us briefly discuss the status of the wavelet argument.
The evidence for GCE PSs from wavelet methods, as presented in Ref.~\cite{Bartels:2015aea}, consisted of a detection of numerous wavelet peaks which did not appear to be associated with the thick disk of the Milky Way, and whose rate appeared consistent with explaining the bulk of the GCE under the assumption of a rather typical luminosity function for the PSs ($dN/dL \propto L^{-1.5}$ up to a cutoff, where $L$ indicates the source luminosity and $N$ the number of sources). However, a recent re-analysis~\cite{Zhong:2019ycb} has demonstrated that these wavelet peaks appear to almost entirely correspond to PSs in the recently released 4FGL \textit{Fermi}-LAT source catalog \cite{Fermi-LAT:2019yla}, and that a significant fraction of these sources cannot be part of the GCE. The remaining sources cannot contribute more than a small fraction of the GCE flux, and masking out all the 4FGL sources does not appear to measurably affect the intensity of the GCE~\cite{Zhong:2019ycb}. Thus while the methods of Ref.~\cite{Bartels:2015aea} appear to have successfully detected a number of PSs or candidate PSs several years earlier than the official catalog, Ref.~\cite{Zhong:2019ycb} highlights that the presence of additional PSs is expected in the region of the sky where the GCE is found, and their existence does not guarantee they are contributing to the GCE. Indeed, in a similar vein to Ref.~\cite{Zhong:2019ycb}, an earlier study~\cite{Bartels:2017xba} using a previous PS catalog (2FIG)~\cite{Fermi-LAT:2017yoi} found that a number of newly detected pulsar-like sources in the inner Galaxy did not contribute significant flux to the GCE, in that masking them out did not affect the GCE signal.
The NPTF approach explicitly seeks to separate PSs in the inner Galaxy into different physical contributions, from the Galactic disk, extragalactic isotropic PSs, and the GCE itself. In this sense it is less prone than the wavelet analysis to misinterpretation based on the detection of PSs that are real but not associated with the GCE; however, possible systematics from errors in the spatial templates have always been a concern \cite{Lee:2015fea}. Our companion paper~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} argues that in a $10^\circ$ radius region of interest (ROI) around the Galactic Center, there is apparent strong evidence for GCE PSs, but this evidence is spurious, with the data being better explained by a smooth GCE with a pronounced north-south asymmetry.
In this article, we aim to place this result in the context of previous studies of possible systematic effects in NPTF analyses, and then to build up an understanding of how an unmodeled asymmetry can drive a convincing-looking but spurious PS detection, using analytic estimates and simplified simulations. We will then explore the degree to which the mechanism we have identified persists under variations of the analysis, and discuss the implications for previous and future NPTF studies. We begin in Section~\ref{sec:methods} by summarizing our data selection, priors, template choices, and regions of interest, and then discuss key aspects of previous NPTF analyses in Section~\ref{sec:previous}. In Section~\ref{sec:analytic} we provide a simple analytic description of the NPTF, in the limit where the likelihoods can be approximated as Gaussian, and use this to understand how an overly-rigid signal template for a smooth population can drive a preference for PSs. In Section~\ref{sec:smooth} we validate the analytic description by considering simulations of scenarios where a north-south asymmetric smooth component is incorrectly modeled as symmetric, and no PSs are simulated at all; this is a simpler version of the realistic NPTF analysis where the fit contains templates for Galactic and extragalactic PS populations. Having understood how asymmetry can drive a spurious PS preference, in Section~\ref{sec:variations} we explore how much our results change under variations to the Galactic diffuse emission model, the cuts on the photon dataset, the prior on the SCF, the ROI, and the particular asymmetry under study. In Section~\ref{sec:discussion} we compare the SCFs preferred by the various analyses and discuss the implications of our results for current and future NPTF analyses, before presenting our conclusions in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Methodology and Data Selection}
\label{sec:methods}
\tocless\subsection{NPTF Implementation}
To employ the NPTF method, we use the NPTF package \texttt{NPTFit} \cite{Mishra-Sharma:2016gis}, interfaced with the Bayesian interference tool \texttt{MultiNest}~\cite{Feroz:2008xx}. The total number of live points for all \texttt{MultiNest} runs is \mbox{\texttt{nlive = 500}} unless specified otherwise.
\tocless\subsection{Fermi Data Selection}
We use the \texttt{Pass 8} \textit{Fermi} data, in the energy range $2-20$ GeV and collected over 573 weeks, from August 4th 2008 to June 19th 2019. We employ only events from the \textsc{UltracleanVeto} (1024) class, which has the most stringent cosmic-ray rejection cuts. This is further restricted to the top three quartiles of events graded by angular reconstruction (PSF1$-$PSF3), with quality cuts \texttt{DATA\_QUAL==1 \&\& LAT\_CONFIG==1}. The maximum zenith angle is $90^\circ$.
\tocless\subsection{Simulated Data}
Simulated contributions from Poissonian templates are generated by taking a random Poisson draw in \texttt{Python} of the product of the template and a predetermined normalization. Mock data for PS populations are generated using \texttt{NPTFit-Sim}~\cite{NPTFSim}.
When creating simulated data, we first perform a fit on the real data using templates as defined in the relevant section. We then calculate the medians of the posterior distributions for the various model parameters, and simulate data based on those parameter values.
Table~\ref{tab:sim_values_one} describes the parameters used in simulations throughout this work, taken from the posterior medians in the fit to the real data when the smooth GCE template is broken into independently-floated northern and southern components, and no template for GCE PSs is included.
To facilitate direct comparison with Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, we define a ``baseline mock dataset'', which is based on the simulated realization shown in Fig.~3 of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.2pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textsc{Simulation Parameters}}\Tstrut\Bstrut \\
\hline
Parameter & Simulation Value (using \texttt{p6v11}) & Simulation Value (using \texttt{Model A}) \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
\hline
\hline
$\log_{10}A_\text{iso}$ & ${-1.49}$ & $0.21$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{dif}$ & ${1.15}$& $-$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{ics}$ & $-$ & $0.56$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{pibrem}$ & $-$ & $0.98$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{bub}$ & ${-1.20}$ & $-0.73$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{GCE}^\text{north}$ & ${0.67}$& $0.60$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{GCE}^\text{south}$ & ${0.34}$& $0.44$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{PS}^\text{disk}$ & $-1.53$ & $-0.92$ \Tstrut\\
$S_b^\text{disk}$ & $12.95$ & $6.83$ \\
$n_1^\text{disk}$ & $2.55$ & $2.50$ \\
$n_2^\text{disk}$ & $-1.18$ & $-0.37$ \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{PS}^\text{iso}$ & $-4.63$ & $-4.66$ \Tstrut\\
$S_{b,1}^\text{iso}$ & $31.06$ & $30.18$ \\
$n_1^\text{iso}$ & $3.60$ & $3.67$ \\
$n_2^\text{iso}$ & $-0.52$ & $-0.60$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameter values used to generate the simulated data from Poissonian and non-Poissonian templates for the case where the smooth GCE template is broken into northern and southern components which are floated independently (normalizations controlled by $A_\text{GCE}^\text{north,south}$), and no GCE PS template is included in the simulation. These values are taken from the posterior medians in the corresponding fit to real data.}
\label{tab:sim_values_one}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5.2pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c }
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textsc{Prior Ranges}}\Tstrut\Bstrut \\
\hline Parameter & \textit{Fermi} \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model & Models A, F \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
\hline
\hline
$\log_{10}A_\text{iso}$ & $[-3,1]$ & $[-3,1]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{dif}$ & $[0,2]$ & $-$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{GCE}^\text{north}$ & $[-3,1]$ & $[-3,1]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{GCE}^\text{south}$ & $[-3,1]$ & $[-3,1]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{GCE}$ & $[-3, 1]$ & $[-3, 1]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{ics}$ & $-$ & $[-2,2]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{pibrem}$ & $-$ & $[-2,2]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{bub}$ & $[-3, 1]$ & $[-3, 1]$\Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$\log_{10}A_\text{PS}$ & $[-6, 1]$ & $[-6, 1]$ \Tstrut\\
$S_b^\text{PS}$ & $[0.05 ,80]$ & $[0.05 ,80]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$n_1^\text{PS}$ & $[2.05, 5]$ & $[2.05, 5]$ \Tstrut\Bstrut \\
$n_2^\text{PS}$ & $[ -3 ,1.95]$ & $[ -3 ,1.95]$ \Bstrut\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Parameters and associated prior ranges used in all analyses unless explicity stated otherwise in the text. If the GCE Smooth normalization is allowed to go negative, the prior range used is $A_{\rm GCE}=[-9,9$].}
\label{tab:priors}
\end{table*}
\tocless\subsection{Template Modeling}
Our model of the gamma-ray sky includes Poissonian templates for the Galactic diffuse emission, isotropic emission (``Iso''), emission in the \textit{Fermi} Bubbles (``Bub''), and the GCE (``GCE Smooth''), and non-Poissonian templates for PSs tracing the Galactic disk (``Disk PS''), isotropic emission (``Iso PS''), and the GCE (``GCE PS''). These are the same templates defined in Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} (up to a factor of the difference in exposure between the datasets), although the templates we label as ``GCE Smooth'' and ``GCE PS'' are labeled respectively as ``NFW DM'' and ``NFW PS'' in that work. ``NFW'' stands for Navarro-Frenk-White~\cite{Navarro:1995iw}, a commonly-employed prescription for the DM density profile; we use a generalized NFW profile with inner slope 1.25, which has previously been found to be a good description of the GCE. For GCE PSs, the assumed PS distribution is technically NFW$^2$, to match the morphology of an annihilating DM signal.
For the diffuse model, we use the \textit{Fermi} \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model as a baseline (to facilitate comparison with earlier NPTF analyses that found evidence for GCE-correlated PSs), and check results with the GALPROP-based~\cite{Strong:1998pw} Galactic diffuse emission models denoted \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F} in Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka}. We do not employ the more recent \textit{Fermi} \texttt{Pass 7} and \texttt{Pass 8} diffuse models because choices were made in their construction that render them unsuited for studies of extended diffuse emission (see \cite{Leane:2019xiy} for further discussion). In the figures
that follow, we use the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model unless
noted otherwise. When testing the spatial morphology of various components, templates may be broken into sub-regions, as described below. For all non-Poissonian templates, we assume a broken power-law form for the SCF.
Table~\ref{tab:priors} details the priors used in our analyses. Unless specified otherwise, all components are restricted to have non-negative fluxes. The SCF for non-Poissonian templates is parameterized as $dN/dF = A (F/F_b)^{-n_2}$ for $F < F_b$, $dN/dF = A (F/F_b)^{-n_1}$ for $F \ge F_b$. By convention we state our prior on $F_b$ in terms of the average counts at the break; the conversion factor from $F_b$ to the average counts $S_b$ is the average exposure in the ROI ($2.79 \times10^{11}$ cm$^2$ s in our default dataset). $A$ is the normalization of the relevant template.
\tocless\subsection{Bayes Factors (BFs)}
When testing for the presence of PSs, we compare the best fits with and without the GCE PS template; the BF between two fits with and without GCE PS thus describes the strength of evidence in favor of NFW-distributed (GCE) PSs. A BF is the ratio of Bayesian evidences for two models, and hence can be understood as the ratio of probabilities for the models, given the data. For example, a BF of 100 can be broadly compared to a $99\%$ confidence limit; assuming a Gaussian distribution, this would correspond to $\sim2.6\sigma$. A BF of 1 means no model is favored over the other, and a BF of less than one means the preference has swapped to the other model under study.\\
\tocless\subsection{Regions of Interest}
We will consider three different regions of interest (ROI):
\begin{enumerate}
\item A 10$^\circ$ radius circle of the Galactic Center, excluding the band with $|b|< 2^\circ$ along the Galactic plane. This is the same as our companion paper Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}.
\item A 30$^\circ$ radius circle of the Galactic Center, excluding the band with $|b|< 2^\circ$ along the Galactic plane. This is the same as previous NPTF studies~\cite{Lee:2015fea,Leane:2019xiy,Chang:2019ars}.
\item A 40 by 40 square, with $|b|< 2^\circ$ masked along the Galactic plane. This facilitates comparison with Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka}.
\end{enumerate}
As previous studies have found the GCE extends out to at least 10$^\circ$ from the Galactic Center~\cite{Daylan:2014rsa}, the 10$^\circ$ radius is a well-motivated choice. At the same time, there is reason to think that systematic effects from the mis-modeling of the Galactic diffuse emission are likely to be less severe in smaller ROIs~\cite{bennick,Daylan:2014rsa,Chang:2018bpt}. Nonetheless, we will investigate the effects of mismodeling in larger ROIs.
\section{Summary of Selected NPTF Analyses of the GCE}
\label{sec:previous}
To place the rest of this paper in context, we now briefly summarize relevant analyses performed in previous NPTF studies of the GCE, and the inferences drawn from those studies regarding the likely effect of systematic uncertainties on a GCE PS detection.
\subsection{Summary of Relevant Results from Lee et al (2016) (Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea})}
The NPTF-based evidence for a GCE-correlated PS population, presented by Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea}, used \textit{Fermi} \texttt{Pass 7} data and the top half of events according to a cut designed to select events with good angular resolution, in a $30^\circ$ radius region of interest (ROI), and employed the \textit{Fermi} \texttt{p6v11} model for the Galactic diffuse gamma-ray emission. The authors of that work noted the possibility for systematic errors in the templates to affect their results, and consequently they also tested a range of other diffuse models, including \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F}. They found a strong and generic preference for a GCE PS population, with a Bayes factor (BF) in favor of PSs ranging from $10^6-10^9$ across the various diffuse models; in the same analysis the use of the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model led to a BF of $10^7$. In all analyses, the posterior probability distribution for the flux associated with the different templates consistently assigned the flux of the GCE to the PS population.
Another potentially important output of the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea} was the posterior probability distribution for the source count function (SCF), the number of inferred PSs as a function of their flux (denoted $dN/dF$, where $F$ is the photon flux in the energy band of interest). The SCF was modeled as a broken power law, and was consistently found to have a rather peaked shape, with the photon flux being dominated by sources near the break in $dN/dF$. However, the position of the break could differ by a factor of $\sim 2-3$ between analyses using different diffuse models. (It is perhaps worth noting that in the analysis of alternate diffuse models, while the 3FGL sources were masked, no models were included for the faint counterparts of known source populations, and so the GCE might have picked up unrelated unresolved sources; it is possible that including other PS populations would produce wider variation in the GCE population inferred with different diffuse models.)
Furthermore, Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea} tested the effect of simulating the data with an alternate diffuse model, and then fitting with \texttt{p6v11}; they found that within the range of diffuse models tested, the GCE PS population was always successfully recovered with a BF comparable to real data, and that when a smooth GCE was simulated, the BF in preference of PSs was not more than $\mathcal{O}(10)$. When the GCE was part smooth and part PSs, the simulations could not reliably reconstruct the SCF, but the BF in preference of PSs was substantially lower than when the GCE was entirely PSs.
That work also tested a range of other systematics which are less relevant to our present analysis and which we will not detail here. Putting all this together, tentative conclusions from Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea} included:
\begin{itemize}
\item Within the range of diffuse models tested, the differences between models were not sufficient to produce a spurious high-significance detection of GCE PSs.
\item The SCF should not be trusted well below the break in the power law, especially in cases where it was suspected there might be both a smooth and PS-like component.
\item The BF in favor of PSs was relatively stable under variations of the ``true'' background model, and could potentially be used to accurately exclude scenarios where the GCE had a significant smooth component.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Summary of Relevant Results from Leane et al (2019) (Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy})}
More recently~\cite{Leane:2019xiy}, we demonstrated that large DM signals (several times greater than the GCE) injected into the real data were misattributed to PSs using the NPTF pipeline described in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea} and implemented as publicly-available code in Ref.~\cite{Mishra-Sharma:2016gis}. The pipeline worked well on simulated data, implying that the origin of the misattribution was a systematic mismatch between one or more of the spatial templates and the real gamma-ray data they were meant to describe (and not, for example, a bug in the code or breakdown of the statistical method). The misattribution we observed can also be understood as the DM template preferring a large unphysical negative coefficient in the original gamma-ray data; until a large enough DM signal is added to overcome this negative coefficient, the best-fit coefficient for the DM signal will not rise above zero.
Whatever systematic effect was responsible for the misattribution of injected signals, it seemed plausible that if a DM signal were in fact powering the GCE (in whole or in part), it could potentially have been misidentified as originating from PSs due to the same systematic. Furthermore, changing the prior on the smooth GCE component (to allow it to run negative) or injecting a smooth GCE-like signal modified the bright end of the SCF, not only the faint end, suggesting that correcting this mismodeling could potentially affect the SCF beyond just the faint sources. We also showed in real data that the severity of the problem -- e.g. parameterized by the degree to which the DM template coefficient preferred to run negative -- varied between different choices of modeling for the diffuse gamma-ray background, suggesting that errors in the diffuse model could contribute significantly to this behavior~\cite{Leane:2019xiy}.
Using simulated data, we provided a proof-of-principle example of one way that this behavior could arise, as a consequence of additional unresolved PS populations that are not well-modeled by the chosen spatial templates. We showed that such an unmodeled source population could cause a high-significance spurious detection of GCE PSs, although the proof-of-principle example did not correspond to a real detection of a new PS population in the data, and it was not clear if a similar example could be found that would match all aspects of the apparent GCE PS detection. This proof-of-principle example also involved positing a new population of PSs with a SCF comparable to the SCF extracted for GCE PSs in the real data; thus it was still unclear if the bright end of the SCF observed in real data could be reproduced without actually positing a new PS population with fluxes in the relevant range.
\subsection{Summary of Relevant Results from Chang et al (2019) (Ref.~\cite{Chang:2019ars})}
Even more recently, the degree to which biases in the NPTF method could result in a misattribution of the GCE to PSs was explored~\cite{Chang:2019ars} using simulated data. That work argued that the bright end of the SCF was likely to be more robust to errors than the faint end, and that inherent biases in the NPTF pipeline and errors in the diffuse background models -- while present -- were unlikely to provide strong evidence for a population of bright GCE PSs where none exist. However, the simulations in question did not quantitatively reproduce the behavior observed in real data in Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy}, and left open the question of whether systematics capable of reproducing the results of Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} would have the same inability to generate a preference for a spurious source population with the observed SCF (see Appendix~\ref{sec:chang} for further discussion).
\subsection{Summary of Relevant Results from Leane et al (2020) (Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105})}
In the light of these previous results, the new contribution of our companion paper~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} is to present for the first time an explicit example, realized in the \textit{Fermi} data, of a form of mismodeling that gives rise to a spurious high-significance detection of GCE PSs with a SCF consistent with fits to the real data. Specifically, the companion paper demonstrates that in a $10^\circ$ radius ROI surrounding the Galactic Center, allowing for north-south asymmetry in the GCE removes a previously strong apparent preference for a GCE PS population, and furthermore that this behavior can be understood in detail using simulated data containing no GCE PSs. In contrast to previously studied forms of mismodeling/bias (which may also plausibly exist in real analyses), we have shown that:
\begin{itemize}
\item The entire SCF is affected, not only the faint end, even though no GCE PSs are simulated.
\item The BF for spurious GCE PSs can be very large, greater than or equal to that expected if the spurious PS population were genuine.
\end{itemize}
To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an explicit mechanism for producing such a convincing but spurious signal, where accounting for the systematic removes the preference for GCE PSs in an analysis of real data. We also found for the first time a marked north-south asymmetry for the GCE in real data. However, in this work we will show that it is unclear at this stage if the asymmetry is also an artifact of mismodeling, as it does not appear consistently across all ROIs and Galactic diffuse emission models.
\section{Point Sources as a Proxy for Higher Variance}
\label{sec:analytic}
Let us first develop an understanding of how a mismodeling of a signal (or background) template can lead to spurious evidence for PSs. For this purpose, it is helpful to work in the limit of a large number of counts and sources, where we can approximate all Poisson distributions as Gaussian distributions with mean equal to their variance. This approximation will not be universally valid for the signals we are interested in, but it suffices to provide a simple and analytically tractable picture of the problems that can arise due to mismodeling.
\subsection{Probability Distribution for Counts from an Unresolved Source Population}
Consider the probability to obtain $N$ photons from a source population, in the case where the expected number of sources is $n_0$, and the expected number of counts per source is $s$. Suppose first that the number of sources $n$ is fixed, while the number of counts per source is drawn from a Poisson distribution with mean $s$. Since the sum of variables drawn from Poisson distributions also follows a Poisson distribution, which can be approximated by a Gaussian for $n s \gg 1$, the total number of photons from the source population approximately follows the distribution:
\begin{equation} P(N|\{n, s\}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi n s}} e^{-(n s-N)^2/(2 n s)}.\end{equation}
Now to obtain the probability of obtaining $N$ photons given that the number of sources is Poisson-distributed with mean $n_0$, this distribution needs to be convolved with $P(n|n_0)$, i.e. the probability of drawing exactly $n$ sources when we expect $n_0$. We can approximate this probability distribution by a Gaussian with expectation value and variance equal to $n_0$. Thus we obtain:
\begin{align}
P(N|\{n_0, s\}) &= \int dn P(N|\{n, s\}) P(n|n_0)\nonumber \\
&\approx \int dn \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi N}} e^{-(n s-N)^2/(2 N)} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi n_0}} e^{-(n_0-n)^2/(2 n_0)}.
\end{align}
This expression can be simplified by the further approximation that $n s \approx N$ in regions where the integrand is large, and so we can approximately replace $n s \rightarrow N$ in the variance and normalization prefactor for $P(N|\{n, s\})$. With this replacement the integral can be done analytically, yielding:
\begin{align}
P(N|\{n_0, s\}) &\approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi (N + n_0 s^2)}} e^{-(N - n_0 s)^2/(2 (N + n_0 s^2))}\nonumber\\
&\approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi n_0 s (1+s)}} e^{-(N - n_0 s)^2/(2 n_0 s (1+s))}
\end{align}
where the second approximation holds for $N \approx n_0 s$, i.e. where the total number of photons is not too far from its expected value, so that the variance in the model can be approximated by the variance expected from the data. We see that the resulting distribution is Gaussian, with mean $\langle N \rangle = n_0 s$ as expected, and variance $n_0 s (1+s)$ -- that is, compared to a Poisson distribution which has equal mean and variance, the variance is inflated by a factor of $1+s$. We see that in the limit of $s \ll 1$, so that the sources are all very faint, we recover the usual (Gaussian approximation to the) Poisson distribution. Within these approximations, the characteristic feature of a source population is an inflated pixel-to-pixel variance, with the factor of inflation relative to the expectation value being $1+s$, where $s$ is the expected number of photons per source. Of course, when the number of sources/pixel or photons/pixel is small, the large-number approximation will break down, and the probability distribution can have a more complicated non-Gaussian form.
We have so far assumed that the SCF is a delta function, with all sources having the same expected flux $s$. We can treat the case with a broader SCF as the sum of several source populations with different values of $s$. Summing variables drawn from Gaussian distributions, both the means and variances simply add; thus if a given population with counts/source $s_i$ contributes an expected $n_{0,i}$ sources, its contribution to the mean will be $n_{0,i} s_i$, and to the variance $n_{0,i} s_i (1 + s_i)$. Taking the continuum limit, and expressing the SCF as $f(s) = dn_0/ds$, we can write the expected number of photons as $\int ds s f(s)$, and the variance as $\int ds s f(s) (1+s)$. If the signal model also contains a smooth Poissonian component with an expected number of counts $s_0$, the contribution to both the mean and variance will be $s_0$.
\subsection{Effects of a Mismatch in Total Count Number on Inferred Variance}
Now suppose we have a signal that is drawn (in each pixel) from a Gaussian probability distribution with expectation value $X$ and variance $\sigma$. Suppose we try to fit an ensemble of such pixels with a model governed by a Gaussian distribution with mean $Y$ and variance $\tau$. For a single pixel, where the draw from the true distribution has yielded a value of $x$ for the number of counts, the likelihood (probability of drawing $x$ given the model) is then
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=P(x|\{Y,\tau\}) = e^{-(x-Y)^2/(2\tau^2)} / \sqrt{2 \pi \tau^2}.
\end{equation}
When we combine the likelihoods from many pixels, we will sum their log likelihoods; as the number of pixels becomes large, this sum should converge on the number of pixels multiplied by the expected log likelihood. We can compute the expectation value of the pixel log likelihood by integrating over the distribution of $x$:
\begin{align} \langle \ln \mathcal{L} \rangle & = \int dx e^{-(x-X)^2/(2 \sigma^2)}/\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2} \left[-(x-Y)^2/2\tau^2 - (1/2) \ln (2\pi\tau^2)\right] \nonumber \\
& = -[(X-Y)^2 + \sigma^2]/2\tau^2 -(1/2) \ln (2\pi\tau^2), \end{align}
which can be exponentiated to give an effective ``average'' likelihood:
\begin{align} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\tau^2}} e^{-[(X-Y)^2 + \sigma^2]/(2\tau^2)}.\end{align}
This probability is maximized for $Y=X$, $\tau=\sigma$, as should be the case. However, if for some reason it is not possible to achieve $X=Y$ -- for example, this can occur when the model requires the same value of $Y$ in two pixels, but their $X$ values are very different -- then $\mathcal{L}$ is maximized for
\begin{equation}
\tau^2 \rightarrow \sigma^2 + (X-Y)^2.
\end{equation}
If the true distribution is the large-number limit of a Poisson distribution, we will have $\sigma^2=X$ (mean=variance), and thus
\begin{equation}
\tau^2 \rightarrow X + (X-Y)^2.
\end{equation}
Thus the effect of $X\ne Y$ is to inflate the reconstructed variance of the model, relative to its expectation value. As discussed above, this is exactly the signature of a PS population with multiple photons per source, where the variance is a factor of $1+s$ larger than the expectation value. Thus we expect that an asymmetry which forces $Y \ne X$ in some pixels will drive a preference for $s > 0$, and we see the preferred value of $s$ will be $s \rightarrow (X-Y)^2/X$.
\subsection{The Effect of Multiple Signal/Background Components}
Now suppose in addition to the mis-modeled signal component, there is a well-modeled Poissonian background with expectation value $B$ counts (within the same spatial region where the signal expectation is $Y$ counts). As the sum of variables drawn from Gaussian distributions also follows a Gaussian distribution, the model expectation value and variance in this case will be $(B+Y, B+\tau^2)$ respectively. If the true signal normalization (in this region) is $X$ and the background normalization is $B$, the best-fit variance will be given by
\begin{equation}
B + \tau^2 \rightarrow B + X + (B + X - (B+Y))^2
\end{equation}
and thus as previously we expect
\begin{equation}
\tau^2 \rightarrow X + (X-Y)^2.
\end{equation}
This suggests that the presence of a well-modeled smooth background should not affect the spurious preference for PSs, or their preferred SCF.
In the case of a broader SCF, we expect that the non-Poissonian enhancement to the variance -- played by the factor $1+s$ above -- will generalize to a factor of
\begin{equation}
1 + \frac{\int ds s^2 f(s) }{ \int ds s f(s)},
\end{equation}
the preferred value for $s$ discussed above will translate to a preferred value for the integrated quantity
\begin{equation}
\bar{s} \equiv \frac{ \int ds s^2 f(s)}{\int ds s f(s)}.
\end{equation}
Suppose the SCF is a power law,
\begin{equation}
f(s)=A (s/s_b)^{-\alpha},
\end{equation}
for $s < s_b$, with a sharp cutoff at $s=s_b$; then we would obtain
\begin{equation}
\bar{s} = \frac{2-\alpha}{3-\alpha} s_b
\end{equation}
assuming $\alpha < 2$. Thus $\bar{s}$ is mostly controlled by $s_b$ in this case, but there is some degeneracy between $s_b$ and $\alpha$, especially when $\alpha \rightarrow 2$.
If the signal model also contains a smooth component contributing $s_0$ counts, then the mean will be
\begin{equation}
s_0 + \int ds s f(s)
\end{equation}
and the variance
\begin{equation}
s_0 + \int ds s f(s) (1+s) \equiv (1+\bar{s}) (s_0 + \int ds s f(s)),
\end{equation}
and thus we expect to find a preference for an effective average number of counts/source of
\begin{equation}
\bar{s} = \int s^2 f(s) ds/(s_0 + \int ds s f(s)).
\end{equation}
Under the same sharply-cutoff power-law model for the SCF, and writing the total counts produced by the PS population as $s_\text{PS}$ for convenience, we find
\begin{equation}
\bar{s} = \frac{2-\alpha}{3-\alpha} s_b s_\text{PS}/(s_0 + s_\text{PS}).
\end{equation}
Thus at this level of approximation, there is a degeneracy between the properties of the SCF and the fraction of flux associated with PSs vs smooth emission; a preference for a particular value of $\bar{s}$ can be accommodated by a wide range of values of $s_b$ and $\alpha$, as the fraction of counts in sources vs smooth emission,
\begin{equation}
s_\text{PS}/(s_0 + s_\text{PS}),
\end{equation}
is varied. Breaking this degeneracy requires going beyond the approximations used in this section, most likely by taking into account the non-Gaussianity of the probability distributions. (In a real analysis, the choice of priors may also play a role in how this degeneracy is broken.) However, if there is a preference for a non-zero $\bar{s}$, there will always be a preference for some PS population; as the fraction of the flux attributed to this source population is decreased, the individual brightness of the required sources will increase.
\section{Spurious Point Source Signals from Only Smooth Templates}
\label{sec:smooth}
Given these results, we expect that it should be possible to see a preference for spurious PSs even in simpler simulations that include no simulated PSs at all, in contrast to the simulations of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} which included the full set of templates used to analyze the real data. For this section, we first perform a fit to the real data using all smooth/Poissonian templates, including separate north and south templates for the GCE, and templates for the isotropic and disk PS populations; the resulting posterior median values for the parameters are provided in Table~\ref{tab:sim_values_one}. However, we then generate realizations that include only the asymmetric smooth GCE and (optionally) the Galactic diffuse emission model; the normalizations of all other components are set to zero.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_onlyDMdif_flux}}
\hspace{1mm}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_onlyDMdif_scf}}
\caption{Results of an analysis using single GCE templates (smooth and PS) over the whole ROI, with a simulated dataset containing only smooth GCE and Galactic diffuse emission models (no PS templates are included in the simulation). The smooth GCE template is separated into northern and southern components which have different normalizations. \textbf{Left panel:} flux posteriors; the GCE Smooth component is constrained to have positive coefficient. \textbf{Right panel:} SCF for the (spurious) GCE PS component. Spurious PSs are still found, albeit the peak of the SCF is at lower flux than when the isotropic and disk PSs are simulated.}
\label{fig:10deg_dmdiff}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_onlyDM_flux}}
\hspace{1mm}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_onlyDM_scf}}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:10deg_dmdiff}, but only the smooth north and south GCE templates are included in the simulation; the Galactic diffuse emission is not simulated.}
\label{fig:10deg_dm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_scf}}
\hspace{1mm}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_onlyDMdif_scf}}
\hspace{1mm}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_onlyDM_scf}}
\caption{SCF comparison across scenarios, for the illustrative realizations previously presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:10deg_dmdiff} and \ref{fig:10deg_dm}, as well as the real data and the baseline mock dataset. All template normalizations in simulated data are based on the posterior median for the fit to the real data with no GCE PS template, but separately floated north and south components for the GCE Smooth template. \textbf{Top-Left:} Real data, analyzed with all background templates (see text) and single symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates. \textbf{Top-Right:} Simulated data including all background models and north-south-asymmetric smooth GCE (and no GCE PSs). Analyzed with same templates as top-left. \textbf{Bottom-Left:} Simulated Galactic diffuse emission and north-south-asymmetric smooth GCE. Analyzed with single symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates, plus the Galactic diffuse emission template. \textbf{Bottom-Right:} Simulated north-south-asymmetric smooth GCE only. Analyzed with single symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates.}
\label{fig:scf_compare}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Simulating a Signal + Diffuse Background}
We first simulate data containing an asymmetric smooth GCE and the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse background model, and analyze 25 resulting realizations with a symmetric GCE Smooth template, a symmetric GCE PS template, and the \texttt{p6v11} template.
Figure~\ref{fig:10deg_dmdiff} shows the results for an illustrative realization of this scenario. Even though there are zero PSs (GCE-correlated or otherwise) in the simulated data, spurious GCE PS populations are reconstructed for all of the 25 realizations. The BFs for GCE PSs range from $\sim10^{16}-10^{33}$. The realization shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:10deg_dmdiff} is fairly typical and has a BF $\sim10^{26}$ in favor of GCE PSs. The break in the reconstructed SCF corresponds to $11.4_{-3.5}^{+5.6}$ photons/source (or a flux of $\sim 3-4\times 10^{-11}$ photons/cm$^2$/s). Across 25 realizations, the break varies between $\sim2-7\times 10^{-11}$ photons/cm$^2$/s. This cutoff value is mildly lower than observed in simulations including the full range of templates, described in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}; this could indicate that more complicated fits drive the peak of the SCF for the spurious PSs to higher values, or alternatively that when simulated disk or isotropic PSs are present, they may be mis-allocated to the spurious source population. The latter mechanism does appear to occur in the baseline mock dataset of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, as the reconstructed flux assigned to the disk PSs is considerably lower than its simulated value; likewise, in the real data, the reconstructed flux in disk PSs is higher when the GCE is allowed to be asymmetric. This behavior contrasts with the ``Bubbles PSs'' scenario explored in Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} in that the driver of the mis-allocation would be errors in the smooth emission templates, not a mismodeled novel PS distribution.
\subsection{Signal Only Simulations (Background Free)}
We can go beyond the case with only smooth templates and consider the extreme scenario where we simulate no backgrounds at all, only a north-south-asymmetric smooth GCE, which is analyzed with symmetric GCE Smooth and GCE PS templates.
Figure~\ref{fig:10deg_dm} shows the results for an illustrative realization; again a spurious point source population is reconstructed, and the SCF in this case has a cutoff corresponding to $10.1_{-1.3}^{+1.4}$ photons/source. In this case, over 25 simulations, the BF in favor of including a PS template is always huge ($\sim10^{224}-10^{306}$). We will discuss why the BF is so large in the zero-background case later in this section, via a quantitative comparison to the results of Section~\ref{sec:analytic}.
\subsection{Source Count Function Comparisons}
Figure~\ref{fig:scf_compare} summarizes the reconstructed SCFs for the realizations we have previously plotted and the baseline mock dataset taken from Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, as well as the real data.
In all cases the (simulated or real) data are analyzed with a pipeline containing a single set of north-south-symmetric GCE templates; the other templates match those used for the simulation, or in the case of the real data, they match the templates used to simulate the baseline mock dataset. We see that failing to allow enough freedom to model the asymmetry leads to spurious PS populations, containing sources with photons/source well above the degeneracy limit, mimicking the apparent detection of PSs in the real data. The flux corresponding to the peak of the SCF depends on which sources of background are simulated, but is $\sim 10$ photons/source even when no background templates are simulated at all.
\subsection{Comparison with Analytic Results from Sec.~\ref{sec:analytic}}
Suppose there is a 2:1 asymmetry in expectation value for number of counts/pixel, between the northern and southern hemispheres of a Poissonian signal (i.e. $X_\text{north} = 2 X_\text{south}$); this is approximately the level of asymmetry found in the real data by Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}. Suppose further that the model we are fitting to the data assumes north/south symmetry (expectation value $Y$ independent of whether the pixel is in the north or south). The overall best-fit choice of $Y$ is expected to be approximately the mean of the northern and southern values, $Y \approx 1.5 X_\text{south}$. Thus the fit will prefer $\tau^2 \approx \sigma^2 + 0.25 X_\text{south}^2$; since the true distribution is Poissonian, $\sigma^2 = X$, and so we expect on average $\tau^2 \rightarrow 1.5 X_\text{south} + 0.25 X_\text{south}^2 \approx 1.5 X_\text{south} (1 + 0.17 X_\text{south})$, thus suggesting a preferred value for the averaged number of counts/source of $\bar{s} \approx 0.17 X_\text{south}$.
Within the $10^\circ$ region of interest and with the plane masked for $|b|<2^\circ$, the average number of counts per pixel in the southern half of the ROI in the simulation of Fig.~\ref{fig:10deg_dm} is roughly 10. Thus we would expect a preferred number of counts/source of $\bar{s} \approx 2$. A more careful analysis, computing the estimated likelihood in each pixel as a function of $s$ within the approximations of this section (assuming a delta-function SCF) and taking the product of pixel likelihoods, finds that the best fit is obtained for $\bar{s}=3$, and that this corresponds to an improvement in the likelihood relative to $\bar{s}=0$ of $\Delta \ln \mathcal{L} \approx 700$, or a likelihood ratio of $\sim 10^{300}$.
In the analysis depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:10deg_dm}, the BF in favor of a PS population is always very large, $\sim10^{224}-10^{306}$; we see from the analytic estimate that this is to be expected in the zero-background case. (Note that the faintest pixels in the region of interest have an expected number of photon counts of $\sim 4$, so we do not expect the Gaussian approximation to be especially accurate for these pixels.) The break in the preferred SCF corresponds to $s_b=10.1_{-1.3}^{+1.4}$, and the preferred slope is $\alpha = -1.75_{-0.9}^{+1.2}$.
The peak of the posterior attributes roughly 40\% of the counts to a smooth component and 60\% to PSs; by our reasoning above, this corresponds to a preference for $\bar{s} \approx 0.8 \times 0.6 \times 10 \approx 5$ in the Gaussian approximation, which is similar to the preference for $\bar{s} \approx 3$ we predicted from our analytic estimates. We note that a similar SCF is observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:10deg_dmdiff}, where a template for the diffuse background is included in both the simulations and the fit; within our approximations, we would not expect a large difference in the preferred value of $\bar{s}$ between the cases with and without a (well-known) diffuse model. Of course, mismodeling in the diffuse background could contribute to the discrepancy that sources the preference for non-zero $\bar{s}$, and increase the preferred value of $\bar{s}$.
It is beyond the scope of this simplified analysis to explore the impact of adding additional PS populations with a different morphology to the signal, although from the simulations it seems that the presence of such PS populations has the potential to increase the value of $s$ corresponding to the peak in the SCF.
\section{Point Sources vs Asymmetry under Variations of the Analysis of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}}
\label{sec:variations}
Now that we have demonstrated both analytically and via simulations that an unaccounted-for asymmetry can generate a spurious preference for GCE PSs, we will explore the circumstances under which this situation is realized in the \textit{Fermi} gamma-ray data. In the companion paper \cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} we demonstrated that in the $10^\circ$ radius ROI and using the \text{p6v11} model with the top three quartiles of data by angular resolution, there is an apparent strong preference for GCE PSs (BF $\sim 10^{15}$) that becomes insignificant (BF $<10$) when the GCE is allowed to be north-south asymmetric. In this section we will consider the impact of alternate signal and background models, different photon selection, variations to the SCF priors, and larger ROIs.
\subsection{Analyses in the 10$^\circ$ ROI with Alternate Diffuse Models}
\begin{figure}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth]{Plots/Run_1a_flux} \hspace{3mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth]{Plots/Run_1f_flux}
\caption{Selected flux posteriors demonstrating the impact of providing a smooth GCE template with additional freedom, in the real data, with diffuse model \texttt{Model A} (\textit{left}) and \texttt{Model F} (\textit{right}). No GCE PSs are included in the fit; the smooth GCE template is divided into independent north and south regions. The GCE in the northern hemisphere is found to be nearly twice as bright as the south with diffuse models \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F}.}
\label{fig:10degasymAF}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2a_flux}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2a_flux_neg}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2a_scf}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6a_flux}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6a_flux_neg}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6a_scf_withlinesA}}\\
\caption{Results using diffuse model \texttt{Model A}. Comparison of real (\textit{top row}) and simulated (\textit{bottom row}) data; in all cases the analyses used symmetric GCE templates (smooth and PS). The simulated dataset is based on the posterior medians from the fit to the real data (fluxes shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:10degasymAF}) using separate Poissonian templates for the northern and southern GCE; no GCE PSs were simulated. The Bayes factors in favor of PSs in the real and simulated data are both $\sim 4\times10^{2}$.
\textbf{Left column:} Flux posteriors for various templates in the fit where the GCE Smooth component is constrained to have positive coefficient. \textbf{Middle column:} Flux posteriors for various templates in the fit where the GCE Smooth component is allowed to float to negative values. \textbf{Right column:} SCF corresponding to the left column. The dashed lines show the simulated disk SCF (pink) and simulated Iso PS SCF (brown).}
\label{fig:10degA}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6a_flux_spread}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.34\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6a_scf_spread}}
\caption{Spread of analysis results over 100 simulated-data realizations (for diffuse model \texttt{Model A}), extending Fig.~\ref{fig:10degA}. In all cases, the analyses use symmetric GCE templates (PS and Smooth). The simulated dataset is based on the posterior medians (fluxes shown in left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:10degasymAF}) from the fit to real data using separate GCE Smooth templates for the northern and southern GCE; no GCE PSs were simulated. \textbf{Left:} Flux fraction posteriors. Fainter blue (red) lines correspond to the GCE PS (GCE Smooth) posteriors for simulated realizations, bold darker lines are the real data. \textbf{Right:} the SCF obtained in the real data using one symmetric GCE PS template is shown in blue, the posterior median values of the reconstructed SCFs for GCE PSs, in the simulations, are shown in green.}
\label{fig:10degAspread}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{Plots/BF_modelA}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_16a_scf_spread}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_9a_scf_spread}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6a_scf_spread}}
\caption{Spread of analysis results over 100 simulated-data realizations (for diffuse model \texttt{Model A}). \textbf{Top:} Histogram of $\log_{10}$(BF) for each of three simulated scenarios: (1) where the GCE is $100\%$ smooth and symmetric (parameters based on analysis of real data with no GCE PSs) (2) where the GCE is $100\%$ PSs (parameters based on analysis of real data including both GCE Smooth and GCE PS templates), and (3) where the GCE is smooth and asymmetric (parameters based on analysis of real data, with only a GCE Smooth template, subdivided into independent north and south components). In all cases, the analyses use symmetric GCE templates (PS and Smooth). \textbf{Bottom:} The SCF obtained based on the three simulated scenarios shown in the BF plot. The SCF obtained in the real data using one symmetric GCE PS template is shown in blue, the posterior median values of the reconstructed SCFs for GCE PSs, in the simulations, are shown in green.}
\label{fig:10degAspread2}
\end{figure*}
In this subsection we show results for the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI used in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, but using the diffuse models \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F} instead of \texttt{p6v11}. These models provide a better fit to the data at high energies than \texttt{p6v11}, and have additional freedom, as they have separate templates for gas-correlated emission and gamma rays from inverse Compton scattering (ICS).
Figure~\ref{fig:10degasymAF} shows the preference for flux asymmetry that appears when the Galactic diffuse emission is modeled with \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F}, and the GCE is assumed to be smooth but allowed to be asymmetric. In this figure, no GCE PSs have been simulated -- this is the analogue of Fig.~3 in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}.
We found in the companion paper \cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} that \texttt{Model F} does not prefer any GCE PSs in the real data in this ROI. Consequently, despite the preference for asymmetry, we would not expect detectable spurious PSs to be generated in the scenario with an asymmetric smooth component matching the best fit to real data. We test this explicitly by generating 30 realizations based on the posterior median parameter values from a fit to real data, where the GCE is assumed to be smooth but allowed to be asymmetric (fluxes shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:10degasymAF}), and fitting the simulated data with symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates, along with background templates. As expected, we find in simulations that the realizations generally do not find PSs, with the BF in favor of GCE PSs varying from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{2}$, and the BF being $\sim1$ or less in the majority of realizations.
In contrast, the analysis with \texttt{Model A} in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} found modest evidence in favor of GCE PSs in the real data (BF $\sim 400$). We simulate 100 realizations based on the posterior median parameter values from a fit to the real data, in an analysis where the GCE is assumed to be smooth but allowed to be asymmetric (fluxes shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:10degasymAF}). We then fit these simulated datasets using symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates, along with background templates.
Figure~\ref{fig:10degA} shows the results for a selected realization with BF $\sim 400$ in favor of GCE PSs, demonstrating that spurious GCE PSs can be created in simulations with \texttt{Model A} as well, with BF, SCF and flux posteriors that are very similar to the real data. Note that as the BF for GCE PSs in this scenario (and in the real data) is not nearly as large as when the \texttt{p6v11} model is employed, the posterior fluxes are more sensitive to prior choices; in particular, choosing a linear or log prior for the GCE normalization parameter changes the size of the uncertainty bands on the posterior fluxes.
Figure~\ref{fig:10degAspread} shows the spread of results in 100 simulated datasets for \texttt{Model A}, extending the one realization shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:10degA}. Compared to the \texttt{p6v11} results, there is more spread in both the recovered flux posteriors and SCFs, although behavior similar to that observed in the real data remains quite frequent. Over the set of 100 realizations, the BF in favor of GCE PSs in this case ranges from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{3}$, consistent with the flux posteriors ranging from assigning very little flux to PSs to assigning the entire GCE to PSs. The SCF for GCE PSs commonly has a shape very similar to that observed in the real data, but (in other realizations) can also have a shape more similar to the SCFs for the disk and isotropic PSs.
Figure~\ref{fig:10degAspread2} compares the distribution of BFs and SCFs in three simulated scenarios for \texttt{Model A}: (1) where the GCE is smooth and symmetric (parameters based on analysis of real data with no GCE PSs) (2) where the GCE is 100\% PSs (parameters based on analysis of real data including both GCE Smooth and GCE PS templates), and (3) where the GCE is smooth and asymmetric (parameters based on analysis of real data, with only a GCE Smooth template, subdivided into independent north and south components). In all cases, the analyses use symmetric GCE templates (PS and Smooth). From the BF plot, all scenarios (symmetric GCE PSs or smooth, or asymmetric smooth GCE) appear to overlap with the real data. However, for the symmetric smooth simulations, while some BFs may be as high as observed in the real data, the inferred GCE PS SCFs in these cases do not (over 100 realizations) ever resemble the GCE PS SCF in the real data (as shown in the lower left panel); instead, it appears the GCE PS template may be picking up bright PSs that were simulated as part of the disk. As such, the SCF can serve as a diagnostic that the data (with this background model) do not appear to be well-described by simulations with only a symmetric smooth template. The expected BF distribution for symmetric PSs overlaps with the result in real data and extends to significantly higher BF values -- although the higher-BF realizations often recover incorrect SCFs for all three PS templates, e.g. with the GCE picking up bright disk or isotropic PSs. The results for an asymmetric smooth GCE overlap with the real data (although the BF is on the high end), and while there is a range of SCFs as discussed above, the SCFs matching the results on real data also often coincide with high BFs similar to what is observed in the data.
We see that the BFs in favor of spurious PSs are expected to be smaller with \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F} than with \texttt{p6v11}, even though there is manifestly no difference between the true GCE PS populations in these scenarios (in all cases, no GCE PSs are simulated). One might ask if this is because of a difference in the preferred asymmetry or the posterior values for other model parameters, when the diffuse model is changed, but instead it seems to just reflect a difference in sensitivity between the pipeline using \texttt{p6v11} and \texttt{Models A/F}.
To demonstrate this point, we use the baseline mock dataset (obtained by fitting the real data using the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model, allowing for a smooth asymmetric GCE but no GCE PSs), and fit this mock dataset assuming symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates, with \texttt{Model A} or \texttt{Model F} as the diffuse model.
Figure~\ref{fig:modelsSCF} shows the SCF recovered in these cases, when the \texttt{p6v11} asymmetric GCE simulated data is analyzed using diffuse models \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F}, and the comparison with the fit using \texttt{p6v11}; we also show the comparison to the results of identical analyses performed on the real data. The take-away point when comparing these SCF is that our baseline simulation, which was
created using \texttt{p6v11}, appears to reproduce the behavior of the real data in detail. The upper panel and its corresponding lower panel appear to produce comparable SCF. The BFs in favor of (spurious) GCE PSs are $\sim10^2$ (\texttt{Model A}) and $7$ (\texttt{Model F}), compared to $\sim 4\times10^{12}$ with \texttt{p6v11}. This highlights the point that these diffuse models are expected to give lower BFs in favor of spurious PSs even in identical datasets (note this is clearly not a matter of these models being ``better'' matches to the data and hence less likely to be fooled by spurious PSs, as the lower BFs are seen in simulations where they are actually the \textit{wrong} diffuse models relative to the simulated data). Interestingly, these BFs are comparable to the BFs found for GCE PSs when analyzing the real data with these diffuse models. Furthermore, the SCFs recovered when analyzing this simulated realization with different diffuse models, with symmetric GCE PS and Smooth templates, are very similar to the SCFs obtained with identical analyses on the real data. This suggests that the baseline mock dataset provides a good match to the real data in many respects.
We caution that the smaller preference for PSs when using \texttt{Model A} or \texttt{Model F} means that prior choices can have a larger impact, and it is not as clear-cut that the loss of significance for PSs when asymmetry is allowed is well beyond what one would expect just from the extra degree of freedom in the model. However, the results obtained with \texttt{Model A} or \texttt{Model F} in the real data are completely consistent with what we would expect for a smooth asymmetric GCE capable of mimicking a high-significance spurious GCE PS population in the analysis with the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model.
\begin{figure}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_scf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2a_scf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2f_scf}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_withlinesp6v11}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_withlinesA}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_withlinesF}}\\
\caption{\textbf{Top row:} Comparison of SCFs found in the real data in analyses with symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates, for diffuse models \texttt{p6v11} (\textit{left}), \texttt{Model A} (\textit{middle}), and \texttt{Model F} (\textit{right}). \textbf{Bottom row:} SCFs recovered in the identical analysis on the baseline mock dataset, again using diffuse models \texttt{p6v11} (\textit{left}), \texttt{Model A} (\textit{middle}) and \texttt{Model F} (\textit{right}). Recall the baseline mock dataset does not contain any GCE PSs. The dashed lines show the simulated disk SCF (pink) and simulated Iso PS SCF (brown).}
\label{fig:modelsSCF}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_flux_bestpsf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_scf_bestpsf}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.41\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_flux_spread_bestpsf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_spread_bestpsf}}
\caption{Summary of results using only the top quartile of data by angular resolution. All simulations include a smooth north-south asymmetric GCE; they are analyzed with symmetric GCE Smooth and GCE PS templates, plus backgrounds. {\bf Top-Left:} flux posteriors for analysis of the real data with symmetric GCE Smooth and GCE PS templates. {\bf Top-Right:} SCFs for PS populations from analysis of the real data with symmetric GCE Smooth and GCE PS templates. {\bf Bottom-Left:} flux posteriors from 100 realizations of the simulated data (fainter lines) and for the real data (solid lines), for GCE PSs (blue) and GCE Smooth (red). {\bf Bottom-Right:} posterior median SCFs from 100 realizations of the simulated data (green lines) and the posterior SCF for the real data (blue band). }
\label{fig:bestpsf}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analyses with Highest Angular Resolution Quartile Only}
Previous NPTF results have generally used only the top quartile of data by angular resolution (with the exception of Ref.~\cite{Linden:2016rcf}), sacrificing statistics in favor of improved discrimination between point sources and diffuse emission. While by default we have used the top three quartiles, in this subsection, we explore the robustness of the main results of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} to using only the highest-resolution quartile.
Figure~\ref{fig:bestpsf} summarizes our results. We find comparable results to Ref~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}; an unmodeled asymmetry also generates a spurious GCE PS population with features that are generically comparable to the real data, in the flux fraction allocated to GCE PSs and in the SCF of the inferred PSs. The BF preference in favor of PSs decreases modestly (compared to the three-quartile result) when using the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model, both in the real data and in simulations built from the posterior medians of that fit. Specifically, the BF in favor of (symmetric) GCE PSs in the real data is $\sim 10^{10}$ (vs $10^{15}$ with three quartiles), whereas across 100 realizations of simulated data, we find a range of BFs from $\sim 1-10^{10}$ (compared to $\sim 1-10^{20}$ with three quartiles).
We also tested the preference for GCE PSs when the two GCE templates are broken into northern and southern pieces; in this case we find the preference for GCE PSs is $\sim1$, consistent with the three quartile analysis.
Lastly, we repeated the analysis on real data using the top angular resolution quartile and \texttt{Model A} rather than \texttt{p6v11}. We find that the BF preference for (symmetric) GCE PSs is $\sim10^3$ when no asymmetry is allowed (i.e. in this case we do not see a degradation in BF from restricting to the top quartile), but decreases to $\sim1$ when asymmetry is permitted, consistent with our other results.
\subsection{Effects of Increasing the GCE Source Count Function Slope Prior}
\begin{figure}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_scf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_scf_slope}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_withlines}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_slope_withlines}}
\caption{SCFs obtained for the real data (\textit{top row}) and baseline mock dataset (\textit{bottom row}) in our default analysis (\textit{left column}) and when the SCF slope above the break for GCE PSs is allowed to be steeper (\textit{right column}, see text for details). The fits employ symmetric GCE PS and GCE Smooth templates, plus other background templates. Recall that the simulated data includes no GCE PSs. In the bottom row, the dashed lines show the simulated disk SCF (pink) and simulated Iso PS SCF (brown).}
\label{fig:slopes}
\end{figure}
By default in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} and this work, we impose a prior on the high-flux slope of the SCF for GCE PSs of $n_1 < 5$, where $dN/dF \propto F^{-n_1}$ above the break in the SCF. We make this choice in order to reduce computation time, and because this is already an extremely steep slope compared to known astrophysical luminosity functions. However, previous NPTF studies allowed larger values of $n_1$, and indeed these larger values are nominally preferred by the data. To ensure that our results are not being sculpted by this choice of prior, and to more easily compare the SCFs we extract to results from previous studies, in this section we test the effects from increasing the prior range on the slope of the GCE PS SCF above the break.
Figure~\ref{fig:slopes} shows the different SCFs recovered when the prior range on $n_1$ for GCE PSs is increased from [2.05,5] to [2.05,30]. We show how the SCF changes in the fit on real data under this change in priors, as well as how the reconstructed SCF changes when considering the baseline mock dataset. We see that in both cases the SCF break moves up slightly; this is to be expected, as increasing $n_1$ means the SCF cuts off more quickly and there are fewer events directly above the break. Again we see that the baseline mock dataset behaves very similarly to the real data under this change of prior; while the SCFs for the reconstructed PS population change noticeably with the variation in prior in both cases, they change in much the same way. It is interesting that the simulation with an asymmetric smooth GCE predicts that the SCF will prefer a very steep slope above the cutoff, as observed in real data.
For the real data, increasing the prior range for the slope induces a small decrease in the BF in favor of PSs, from $\sim10^{15}$ to $\sim10^{12}$. In the baseline mock dataset, the BF preference for GCE PSs slightly increases with this change, from $\sim10^{12}$ to $\sim10^{13}$. Both of these changes are much smaller than the scatter in BF between different realizations, as discussed earlier. Thus the similarity of the SCFs and BFs between the real data and the baseline mock dataset does not appear to be prior-dependent.
\subsection{Analyses with a 30$^\circ$ circle, 2$^\circ$ plane mask ROI}
Previous NPTF analyses of the GCE have employed a larger ROI, extending to 30$^\circ$ from the Galactic Center \cite{Lee:2015fea,Leane:2019xiy}. We have previously demonstrated that in this large region, the smooth component of the GCE will converge to a very negative normalization if such is allowed \cite{Leane:2019xiy}, with the GCE PS contribution picking up a very large positive normalization to compensate. We suggested that mis-modeling of the PS populations in this large ROI could be one contributor to this behavior \cite{Leane:2019xiy}. It could also reflect the diffuse emission model being too bright in some relevant subregions because its normalization is fitted over the whole large ROI, leading to oversubtraction (\cite{bennick}; this effect has been discussed in the context of Poissonian template fitting in Refs.~\cite{Daylan:2014rsa,Chang:2018bpt}). Our choice of a 10$^\circ$ radius ROI in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} and the previous sections, is partly because this choice should mitigate the effects of fitting the diffuse model over too large a region, and does markedly reduce the degree to which the smooth GCE component prefers a negative coefficient. Consequently, it should not be surprising if results in the 30$^\circ$ radius ROI are not consistent with those in the 10$^\circ$ ROI. Nonetheless, we here present the results of allowing the GCE to possess north/south asymmetry in this larger ROI. We still mask the Galactic plane for $|b|<2^\circ$.
Figure~\ref{fig:asym30} shows the flux posteriors for a selection of templates in the 30$^\circ$ ROI; as in the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI, the GCE is brighter in the north than in the south. Using the \texttt{p6v11} Galactic diffuse emission model, we still find a significant preference for north-south asymmetry of the smooth GCE, with a BF of $\sim10^{23}$ in favor of asymmetry.
\begin{figure*}[t]
{\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{Plots/Run_1_flux_30}}
\caption{Flux posteriors when floating north and south smooth GCE templates separately in the $30^\circ$ radius ROI.}
\label{fig:asym30}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_flux_30}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_flux_neg_30}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_2_scf_30}}\\
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_flux_30}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_flux_neg_30}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_30_withlines}}\\
\caption{Comparison of real (\emph{top row}) and simulated (\emph{bottom row}) data in a 30$^\circ$ radius ROI; in all cases the analyses used single GCE templates (smooth and PS) over the whole ROI. The simulated dataset is based on the best fit model (fluxes shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:asym30}) using separate Poissonian templates for the northern and southern GCE; no GCE PSs were simulated.
\textbf{Left column:} Flux posteriors for the fit where the GCE Smooth component is constrained to have positive coefficient. \textbf{Middle column:} Flux posteriors for the fit where the GCE Smooth component is allowed to float to negative values. \textbf{Right column:} SCF corresponding to the left column. The dashed lines show the simulated disk SCF (pink) and simulated Iso PS SCF (brown).}
\label{fig:30deg}
\end{figure*}
We then perform 20 simulations based on the posterior median parameters from a fit to real data, where the GCE is assumed to be smooth but allowed to be asymmetric.
Figure~\ref{fig:30deg} compares the real data to a selected realization (again, where no GCE PSs are simulated), but for the 30$^\circ$ radius ROI. As discussed above, we see that when the smooth GCE component is allowed to float negative, it achieves quite negative values in the real data for this ROI. This is particularly noticeable when the negativity of the smooth component is expressed as a fraction of the total GCE flux (in the fit where all GCE components are forced to be non-negative); the posterior median for the GCE Smooth flux peaks at around $-2\times$ the total GCE flux in this ROI, whereas in the $10^\circ$ ROI the preferred magnitude of the negative GCE Smooth component is smaller than the total flux in the GCE.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_flux_30_spread}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.34\textwidth]{Plots/Run_6_scf_30_spread}}
\caption{Spread of analysis results on 20 simulated-data realizations (for diffuse model \texttt{p6v11}) in the 30$^\circ$ radius ROI, extending Fig.~\ref{fig:30deg}. In all cases, the analyses use symmetric GCE templates (PS and Smooth). The simulated dataset is based on the best fit model (fluxes shown in left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:asym30}) using separate GCE Smooth templates for the northern and southern GCE; no GCE PSs were simulated. \textbf{Left:} Flux fraction posteriors. Fainter blue (red) lines correspond to the GCE PS (GCE Smooth) posteriors for simulated realizations, bold darker lines are the real data. \textbf{Right:} the SCF obtained in the real data using one symmetric GCE PS template is shown in blue, the posterior median values of the reconstructed SCFs for GCE PSs, in the simulations, are shown in green.}
\label{fig:30degspread}
\end{figure*}
We see in our simulated data that while unmodeled north-south asymmetry in the $10^\circ$ ROI could fully explain the observed degree of negativity in the GCE Smooth component, this is not true in the $30^\circ$ ROI. We do not observe the same preference for large negative normalizations of the smooth GCE when we simulate an asymmetric GCE and then fit it with symmetric GCE templates, at least within the realizations we have tested. The realization shown has a BF of $10^4$, while fitting the real data in this ROI yields a BF of $\sim10^{36}$ in favor of GCE PSs.
Figure~\ref{fig:30degspread} shows the spread of the results over the 20 realizations in the 30$^\circ$ ROI. The reconstructed flux posteriors overlap with the results in real data, albeit with a wide spread. Across the 20 realizations we observe a range of SCFs, all which contain sources well above the one-photon threshold; however, within this set of realizations, the peak of the SCF is consistently at a lower flux than observed in the real data. Note that across these realizations, the BF for PSs ranges from $\sim1-10^{14}$; just as in the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI, we see that failure to correctly model asymmetry of the GCE is expected to lead to a spurious preference for PSs. However, the larger BF for PSs in data, compared to simulations, is another indication that modeling the GCE as smooth and asymmetric does not fully explain the results in this larger ROI; this is not unexpected, as whatever effect is driving the smooth GCE deeply negative may well have the effect of producing a spuriously large preference for GCE PSs.
We can compare the SCFs for the GCE PS population found in real data, between the 10$^\circ$ and 30$^\circ$ radius ROIs. They are fairly similar but not identical; the best fit for the break is found to be $35_{-4.8}^{+5.3}$ photons/source in the 30$^\circ$ radius ROI, but $22.1_{-3.7}^{+4.2}$ photons/source in the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI (roughly $2\sigma$ discrepant). A significant discrepancy between the two would be further evidence in favor of a non-physical origin for the apparent source population, but is not apparent at this stage; it is also possible that the choice of SCF parameterization is obscuring differences or similarities between the two SCFs.
\subsection{Analyses with a 40$^\circ$ by 40$^\circ$ square, 2$^\circ$ plane mask ROI}
Previous studies of the morphology of the GCE have not detected the same north/south asymmetry that we find; in particular, Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka} explored the effects of subdividing the GCE into subregions, in the context of a Poissonian template analysis, and found the GCE appeared quite symmetric (depending only on Galactocentric distance). The authors of that work used a 40$^\circ$ by 40$^\circ$ square ROI centered on the Galactic center, masking the plane for $|b|<2^\circ$. They employed a range of Galactic diffuse emission models, finding comparable results across the board; thus we will focus on \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F}. They also modeled known sources based on the 2FGL point source catalog, the \textit{Fermi} Bubbles, and isotropic emission. They combined the gas-correlated bremsstrahlung and $\pi^0$ emission templates for the Galactic diffuse emission models into a single template (as we also do in our analyses), but gave additional freedom to the inverse Compton scattering (ICS) component, subdividing it into nine latitude strips with boundaries at $|b| =$ 2.0, 2.6, 3.3, 4.3, 5.6, 7.2, 9.3, 12.0, 15.5 and 20 degrees. The normalization of strips that are symmetric under $b \rightarrow -b$ are constrained to float to equal values.
Reproducing the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka} (with the exception that we use a 3FGL PS model instead of 2FGL) and focusing on \texttt{Model F}, we find that for this ROI there is not any significant difference in the amount of flux attributed to north vs. south GCE templates, in agreement with the results of Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka} (we also confirm this result for \texttt{Model A}). We find that this conclusion holds even when the additional freedom in the ICS template is removed (i.e. we fit with a single ICS template rather than latitude strips), although there is a statistical preference for these additional degrees of freedom. Accordingly, the degree of asymmetry preferred in the GCE appears to depend on the combination of ROI and background modeling. (We have tested that other changes in the analysis, such as use of the 3FGL PS model rather than disk and isotropic PS templates, do not change the preference for asymmetry; it appears to be the change in ROI that drives the change in preference.)
Since \texttt{Model F} prefers a GCE asymmetry when the fit is performed in the $10^\circ$ radius ROI but not in this larger ROI, it is reasonable to ask whether perhaps this could reflect a preference that the \textit{core} of the GCE be north-south asymmetric, while its outskirts are more symmetric. However, the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka} attempted to measure the GCE spectrum in symmetric regions north and south of the Galactic plane, with support only within $10^\circ$ of the GC, and found no indication of asymmetry. If this result persists in current data, and the discrepancy is significant (both questions which we leave for future studies), it would suggest that the small- and large-ROI analyses differ in their preference for the central region of the GCE to be asymmetric (despite using the same photons from that region), which in turn would imply that this difference is driven by the preferred normalizations of \textit{other} templates in the two fits. Accordingly, it seems very plausible that the apparent asymmetry of the GCE could be driven by cross-talk with the other templates. It is also, of course, possible that the GCE is truly asymmetric, and its apparent symmetry in earlier studies was a function of the same kind of cross-talk. However, it seems more coincidental to obtain an apparently symmetric signal via cross-talk with highly asymmetric templates, than to obtain an apparently asymmetric signal in the same way. Resolving this question will require a dedicated study which is beyond the scope of this work.
Since there is no preference for asymmetry in the large-ROI case for this background model, we have tested the preference for inclusion of GCE PSs, using a single (north-south-symmetric) template for both smooth and PS GCE components; in this case, we also replace the 3FGL PS model with templates for disk and isotropic source populations. We find that there is a preference for PSs in this case, with a modest BF of 200 when we use a single ICS template, and 400 when we subdivide the ICS template into strips. Thus this case serves as another existence proof (along with the 30$^\circ$ radius region) that a preference for PSs may persist once the possibility of north-south asymmetry of the GCE is taken into account, although of course similar unmodeled morphological errors may be present in this case, and even if taken at face value, the preference for PSs is not highly significant (comparable to a $3\sigma$ signal).
\subsection{Additional Template Variations}
We also test breaking the GCE template into four regions within the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI, consistent with the northern and southern inner ($<5^\circ$ from the Galactic Center) and outer ($5-10^\circ$ from the Galactic Center, $|b|>|l|$) regions in Ref.~\cite{Balaji:2018rwz}. We test floating the inner two regions as one template, and the outer two regions as one template (which effectively translates to allowing more freedom in the GCE profile slope), and find this is not preferred over the case with a single GCE template.
As such, in this work we focus on the effects of unmodeled north-south asymmetry in the signal template, rather than freedom in the profile slope (parameterized by separate inner and outer templates). However, we briefly consider other template variations.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\leavevmode
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Plots/Run_11_flux}}
\hspace{1mm}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Plots/Run_11a_flux}}
\hspace{1mm}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.31\textwidth]{Plots/Run_11f_flux}}
\caption{Flux posteriors when the GCE template is allowed to have separate East-West pieces, for diffuse models \texttt{p6v11} (\textit{left}), \texttt{Model A} (\textit{middle}), and \texttt{Model F} (\textit{right}).}
\label{fig:eastwest}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:eastwest} shows the impact of allowing east-west asymmetry in the signal template (within the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI). For \texttt{p6v11}, there is no preference for east-west asymmetry, and the BF for GCE PS when using east-west GCE pieces remains roughly consistent ($1\times10^{16}$) with one GCE template over the whole region (which yields $4\times10^{15}$). For \texttt{Model A} there is a preference for east-west asymmetry with BF of $\sim10^4$, and the BF for GCE PS when using east-west GCE pieces is $\sim10^3$. For \texttt{Model F}, there is a preference for east-west asymmetry with BF of $\sim10^3$, and the BF for GCE PS when using east-west GCE pieces is $\sim1$. Note for all diffuse models we test, the east-west GCE asymmetry is preferred less by the data than the north-south asymmetry.
It could also be interesting to test the effects of allowing further variations to the diffuse background model, and allowing asymmetry in the \textit{Fermi} Bubbles model. The modeling of the \textit{Fermi} Bubbles near the Galactic plane is highly uncertain; it would be an interesting direction for future studies to explore the impact of changing the Bubbles model and allowing it to have additional freedom. Certainly the north-south asymmetry explored in this work and Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} does not exhaust the possibilities for systematic errors in the chosen templates to affect the PS preference.
\section{Implications}
\label{sec:discussion}
We have seen that allowing for one specific form of mismodeling (north-south asymmetry) removes the evidence for GCE PSs in some but not all NPTF analyses. In particular, while the behavior we have observed in the $10^\circ$ radius ROI appears quite stable over variations in the diffuse model, different prior choices, and different photon data selections, in larger ROIs a GCE PS preference can persist, and there is not always a significant north-south asymmetry. Since there is evidence for mismodeling in large ROIs that is not absorbed simply by allowing north-south asymmetry in the signal \cite{Leane:2019xiy}, there is some argument to simply dismiss these remaining PS preferences. The systematic mismodeling we have identified has proved capable of generating a spurious high-significance preference for PSs, with a SCF matching what is observed in real data, and consequently serves as a counterexample to a number of earlier arguments (summarized in Section~\ref{sec:previous}) for the robustness of NPTF-based GCE PS detections to mismodeling.
However, one might still ask if it is likely that the GCE PSs nominally detected in the main analysis of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105} (when GCE asymmetry is not allowed) are spurious, but also unrelated to the GCE PSs detected in other NPTF analyses. For example, a true GCE PS population could be fainter than the spurious sources we have identified, and beneath the sensitivity of our analysis in the $10^\circ$ ROI, but detectable when the background templates are informed by a larger ROI.
To explore the possibility that previous studies have found a true GCE PS population unrelated to the spurious PS signal identified in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, let us examine the consistency of the SCFs obtained in the various analyses.
\subsection{Source Count Function Consistency Across NPTF Analyses}
In all NPTF analyses of which we are aware, the preferred SCF implies a population of PSs where most of the photons originate from sources with fluxes very close to a break in the power-law index, $F_b$. The posterior SCF generally declines very steeply with increasing flux, above the break (often encountering the edge of prior ranges unless the prior is allowed to be very wide), but rises quite steeply in $F^2 dN/dF$ below the break as well -- for example, the original NPTF analysis in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2015fea} found a low-flux slope of $dN/dF \propto F^{0.66^{+0.90}_{-0.98}}$. For this reason, the SCF can largely be characterized by the location of $F_b$ (or the highest break, if multiple breaks are allowed), combined with an overall normalization.
\subsubsection{Source Count Functions in Past and Current NPTF Studies}
The original claim to detect a GCE-correlated population of PSs \cite{Lee:2015fea} found a flux break of $F_b = 1.76^{+0.44}_{-0.35} \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s for the analysis where 3FGL sources were not masked, and a consistent but slightly lower value of $F_b = 1.62^{+0.45}_{-0.32} \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s when the 3FGL sources were masked. Note that this analysis used a slightly different energy range than later studies using the public \texttt{NPTFit} package, $1.893-11.943$ GeV rather than $2-20$ GeV. However, using the broken-power-law spectrum for the GCE taken from Ref.~\cite{Calore:2014xka}, the difference in photon flux from GCE sources between these two bands is expected to be only $8\%$ (with the $2-20$ GeV band having slightly more photons), which is small compared to the statistical uncertainties on $F_b$.
The later analysis of Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy}, using the top quartile by angular resolution of the \textit{Fermi} \texttt{Pass 8} data, and again a $30^\circ$ radius ROI, found a flux at the break of $F_b = 1.94^{0.34}_{-0.30} \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s when the 3FGL sources were masked, and $F_b = 2.90^{+0.57}_{-0.46} \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s when they were not masked.
Both of these analyses allowed the slope of the SCF above the break to be very steep, yielding essentially a sharp cutoff. In our $10^\circ$ radius region (where we always unmask the 3FGL sources), using the top three quartiles in angular resolution, and allowing a sharp cutoff in the SCF, we obtain $F_b = 1.15^{+0.20}_{-0.17} \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s. All of these results are quoted for the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model. For \texttt{Model A}, the (unmasked) analysis of Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} yielded $F_b = 1.07^{+0.20}_{-0.16} \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s .
We see that all of these results are broadly consistent with a break around $F_b=1-3 \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s, but our smaller-ROI, three-quartile result, and the \texttt{Model A} result, prefer values on the low end of this range ($\sim 1 \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s), while studies using \texttt{p6v11} in the $30^\circ$ radius ROI prefer higher values ($\sim 2-3 \times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s). This higher value may reflect whatever systematic mismodeling causes the smooth GCE component to prefer a very negative value in the $30^\circ$ radius ROI (although Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} found that \texttt{Model A} also prefers a negative value, albeit at not at the same level of significance).
\subsubsection{Sensitivity of the GCE SCF to Other Analysis Changes}
As discussed above, in the current work by default we have modified the prior on the slope above the break to reduce the sharpness of the cutoff, and this gives rise to a lower value of $F_b$ (as the contribution from sources with fluxes just above $F_b$ is substantially increased), $F_b = 0.79^{+0.15}_{-0.13}\times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s. Unlike the changes to the analysis discussed in the previous paragraphs, this does not represent a difference in the dataset or background models, just a change in the parameterization of the SCF.
With this alternative prior choice, we can explore the effects on $F_b$ of other changes to the analysis. Using \texttt{Model A} instead of \texttt{p6v11} yields $F_b = 0.49^{+0.14}_{-0.11}\times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s; using a $30^\circ$ ROI instead of $10^\circ$ yields $1.25^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$; using a single angular resolution quartile instead of three quartiles yields (in the $10^\circ$ ROI) $F_b = 1.25^{+0.28}_{-0.23}\times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s for \texttt{p6v11} and $F_b = 1.02^{+0.29}_{-0.22}\times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s for \texttt{Model A}. We see that with this prior, essentially all the results are consistent with our baseline analysis ($F_b = 0.79^{+0.15}_{-0.13}\times 10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s) within the uncertainties (at the $2\sigma$ level).
The most significant change is the effect of going to a larger ROI (while using the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model); this variation creates an apparent preference for slightly brighter PSs that are not found by the fit in the smaller ROI. The $F_b$ values for \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{p6v11} in our current analysis are more consistent (less than $2\sigma$ discrepant, corresponding to a factor of 1.6 between median values of $F_b$), than in the ($30^\circ$ ROI) analysis of Ref.~\cite{Leane:2019xiy} (roughly 3.5$\sigma$ discrepant, corresponding to a factor of 2.7 between median values), and they are even more consistent in the case where only a single quartile is used ($\sim 20\%$ difference in median values, less than $1\sigma$ discrepant). Aside from the large-ROI analyses with \texttt{p6v11}, all the $F_b$ values from this and previous analyses seem broadly ($2\sigma$) consistent with each other, after accounting for the effect of the change in prior.
\subsubsection{Implications of Source Count Function Consistency}
It would be a coincidence if the SCF of a real GCE PS population, undetectable in the $10^\circ$ radius ROI, happened to agree so closely with the spurious SCF induced by the asymmetry we have identified. Furthermore, the fact that the preferred SCF corresponds to \textit{brighter} sources in the larger ROIs is the opposite of one would expect if a true GCE PS population was present in both large and small ROIs, but being masked by a brighter spurious population (as identified in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}) in the smaller ROI. Of course, a real but fainter GCE PS population could still be present in any of these analyses, but it would not dominate the bright end of the extracted SCF.
\subsection{Comment on the Source Count Function Shape}
We note that the tendency for the SCF to prefer a source population within a narrow flux range itself contrasts somewhat with typical estimates for the pulsar luminosity function (e.g. Ref.~\cite{Bartels:2015aea} assumed $dN/dF \propto F^{-1.5}$, based on Refs.~\cite{Petrovic:2014xra,Cholis:2014noa, Strong:2006hf,Venter:2014zea}). This in itself might be viewed as evidence that the inferred signal is not physical. However, the uncertainties are large, and Ref.~\cite{Chang:2019ars} has demonstrated that in simulations, the NPTF has a systematic tendency to reconstruct source count functions with less power at lower flux than the truth (albeit usually within the uncertainties). For these reasons, the very peaked shape of the SCF preferred by NPTF fits has not generally been thought to pose a problem in interpreting the results as evidence for a physical PS population.
However, in this work we have demonstrated explicitly that just such a steeply peaked SCF is automatically preferred in the presence of an overly rigid signal template, in simulations where no GCE PSs exist. We thus find it very suggestive that all NPTF analyses to date appear to prefer this type of SCF.
\subsection{Can We Exclude Hypotheses for the Origin of the GCE?}
Taking these results together, while we have not constructed explicit models that remove the GCE PS preference for all combinations of diffuse model and ROI, we observe that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item All ROIs tested in previous analyses include our $10^\circ$ radius region.
\item Previous analyses have found that the significance for the GCE dominantly comes from that subregion \cite{Daylan:2014rsa,Calore:2014xka}.
\item As we have shown, the SCFs reconstructed in those analyses are similar both qualitatively and quantitatively to the inferred SCF for a population we have demonstrated to be \textit{spurious} in the $10^\circ$ radius subregion.
\end{enumerate}
For this reason, we do not currently consider the detection of GCE-correlated PSs in those analyses, or the attribution of the bulk of the GCE flux to those PSs, to be convincing. Of course, future analyses with the ability to identify and control for such systematic effects may change this conclusion.
We emphasize that we are not claiming to robustly exclude GCE-correlated PS populations with comparable SCFs to those found in previous works. That would be a much stronger claim than the one we make, which is that we do not think the hypothesis of a dominantly-smooth GCE can currently be discarded based on NPTF results. A robust exclusion of certain SCFs for a GCE PS population would require an analysis dedicated to that goal, with a careful study of systematic uncertainties, which we have not attempted to conduct here. While we have shown explicitly that systematic errors in the signal model can give rise to a spurious preference for PSs that mimics what is seen in the real data, it is also plausible that errors in various templates could conceal a true PS population.
Similarly, we do not currently claim robust evidence that the GCE is intrinsically north-south asymmetric, given that this conclusion is not even uniform across the analysis variations we have tested (i.e., in larger ROIs it does not appear with all background models). It is plausible the asymmetry could arise from background mismodeling, given its dependence on the ROI and diffuse model. However, if a firm detection of north-south asymmetry in the GCE was established in future work, that would immediately provide significant constraints on its possible origin. In particular, it seems unlikely that a 2:1 asymmetry could be easily explained by simple DM annihilation models.
Finally, we should emphasize that none of the issues we have identified imply that the NPTF method or its \texttt{NPTFit} implementation is wrong in a mathematical/statistical sense; it has passed all tests of this type that we have conducted. It is in fact completely correct that if one has a strong prior that the underlying physical mechanism for the GCE is symmetric and there is no meaningful cross-talk with other templates that could induce an apparent asymmetry, then identifying a highly significant asymmetry serves as strong evidence for a GCE PS population -- it is much easier to generate an asymmetry with a higher-variance population. However, such a strong prior is hard to justify given the uncertainties in the background and signal models.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
The physical origins of the GCE remain an enigma, in large part because of our lack of detailed knowledge of other contributions to the gamma-ray flux from the inner Galaxy. Novel analysis techniques, including NPTF, have aimed to shed light on this question, but run the risk of giving unreliable or deceptive results due to assumptions about the signal and backgrounds that are not borne out in reality. In this work and the companion paper~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, we have investigated the degree to which signal mismodeling can skew the conclusions of NPTF analyses.
In our companion paper~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}, we demonstrated that in a 10$^\circ$ radius region around the Galactic Center, apparent NPTF evidence for GCE PSs is an artifact of unmodeled north-south asymmetry. We showed that expanding the signal model by allowing this asymmetry renders the preference for PSs insignificant, and the behavior of the real data is what would be expected from simulations which include an asymmetric but entirely smooth GCE.
In this work, we have built upon these results, aiming to understand why this behavior occurs, and to characterize its implications for NPTF analyses more broadly. We have developed an analytic approximation that allows for a simple intuitive understanding of the effect; in short, the presence of PSs can be thought of as a proxy for higher variance away from the signal expectation value (at least in the limit where the relevant likelihoods can be approximated as Gaussian). However, higher variance can be induced by mismodeling as well as PS populations, and so excess variance from a wide range of possible types of mismodeling -- e.g., in detector acceptance, energy / angular resolution, or template morphology -- could be interpreted instead as evidence for PSs. This approximation appears to work well to explain the observed preference for PSs, and the average brightness of those PSs, in the case of a very simplified simulation containing \textit{only} a smooth asymmetric GCE (with no backgrounds), when the NPTF analysis is performed assuming a symmetric GCE. A strong preference for PSs was also present when we simulated a smooth asymmetric GCE and a smooth background model only. These tests confirmed that higher variance from signal mismodeling could lead to a high-significance but spurious preference for a GCE PS population, even in the unrealistic case where there are no PSs present in the data at all.
We have explored the degree to which this behavior -- the preference for north-south asymmetry, and the disappearance of the preference for GCE PSs once it is included -- occurs consistently in the real gamma-ray data, under a number of variations to the baseline analysis presented in the companion paper. When testing alternate diffuse models in the 10$^\circ$ radius ROI, we found comparable behavior to Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.125.121105}: spurious GCE PSs can be created with the same significance as those found in the real data, by having an unmodeled smooth GCE asymmetry present. For the diffuse models we tested, the preference for a smooth GCE asymmetry persisted, as did the disappearance of any significant evidence for GCE PSs (although in one model there was no preference for GCE PSs to begin with). Restricting our photon dataset to the quartile of photons with the best angular resolution, we found very similar results, though including the top three quartiles led to higher expected sensitivity. Modifying the priors for the SCF for GCE PSs, in a way that changed its preferred shape, did not change the consistency between the results on real data and the results expected from simulations with an asymmetric smooth GCE.
In larger ROIs, we found that the GCE asymmetry persisted with \texttt{p6v11}, but that it could disappear with other diffuse models \texttt{Model A} and \texttt{Model F}. These results highlight why we do not claim the asymmetry is necessarily an intrinsic feature of the GCE. Instead, given the ROI and diffuse model dependence, it seems plausible that the asymmetry is itself an artifact of background mismodeling, where an unmodeled asymmetry in the backgrounds is transferred to the preferred signal model. However, if future analyses were to demonstrate that the central part of the GCE does indeed possess a robust and pronounced north-south asymmetry, that would strongly constrain possible GCE origins; for example, we expect it would be challenging to obtain a large asymmetry in a DM annihilation signal.
We provided an example (\texttt{Model F} in a $40\times 40^\circ$ ROI) of a case where no north-south asymmetry is preferred and a modest preference for GCE PSs remains in the data (although we caution that other forms of mismodeling may be present in that case, and our analysis has demonstrated that mismodeling can have severe implications for the interpretation of apparent PSs). Likewise, when using the \texttt{p6v11} diffuse model in a $30^\circ$ radius region, we found that not all the behavior observed in the real data seems to be explained by accounting for the north-south GCE asymmetry; it is plausible that multiple mismodeling effects may contribute to the results in these larger ROIs.
We explored the consistency between the (apparently spurious) SCFs for GCE PSs obtained in analyses of our $10^\circ$ radius ROI with those obtained in larger ROIs, where a PS preference can persist even when asymmetry is allowed, and with previous NPTF analyses. We found that the SCFs were broadly consistent with a peak around $10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s, although studies in the smaller ROI tended to prefer slightly fainter PSs than the larger ROIs, when other analysis choices were held constant. This seems to disfavor the possibility that the studies of larger ROIs are detecting a true GCE PS population that is concealed by a brighter spurious population in the $10^\circ$ radius subregion. Instead, it suggests (albeit does not prove) that the SCFs detected in large ROIs may be as spurious as the very similar SCFs shown explicitly to be an artifact of signal mismodeling in the smaller ROI. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude the presence of GCE-correlated PSs; a GCE PS population dominated by sources much fainter than $10^{-10}$ photons/cm$^2$/s would almost certainly go undetected in our analysis, but even brighter GCE PSs could potentially be hidden by systematic errors.
Our principal conclusion is thus that NPTF studies do not currently provide a clear and convincing argument for (or against) a PS-dominated GCE. While systematic uncertainties have always been a concern in NPTF studies, this work and our accompanying paper have for the first time demonstrated that mismodeling can produce a convincing but spurious PS signal at high significance, and furthermore that this scenario is realized in the inner-Galaxy gamma-ray data. We have shown that the NPTF approach, of matching the photon statistics of the model to those of the real data, implies this potential for confusion; both PS populations and signal mismodeling lead to inflated variance relative to the expectation value, and consequently the level of mismodeling directly correlates with the brightness of the inferred PS population. Our simulations show that this type of mismodeling can yield an apparent preference for PSs comparable to what one would expect from a true PS population, and a SCF very consistent with results on the real data (both in our study and in previous work), which is then quite stable under a range of variations to the analysis.
Despite what might seem to be a frustratingly inconclusive situation, our understanding of the GCE continues to actively improve. For example, recent work using wavelet methods \cite{Zhong:2019ycb} placed an upper limit on the contribution to the GCE from wavelet peaks previously attributed to GCE PSs \cite{Bartels:2015aea}. This suggests a large fraction of the GCE should originate from either relatively faint sources or smooth emission, as opposed to point sources that are bright enough to already appear as the faintest members of up-to-date source catalogs. As we have argued in this work, apparent NPTF evidence for a GCE dominated by relatively bright PSs may be due to signal mismodeling, in which case there is no inconsistency with an approximately smooth GCE. If this is the case, it remains to be understood whether the GCE originates from faint pulsars, cosmic ray interactions with gas or starlight, annihilating DM, or some other source.
\tocless \section{Acknowledgments}
We thank M. Buckley, M. Buschmann, L. Chang, G. Collin, R. Crocker, D. Curtin, D. Finkbeiner, P. Fox, D. Hooper, S. Horiuchi, T. Linden, M. Lisanti, O. Macias, S. McDermott, S. Mishra-Sharma, S. Murgia, K. Perez, N. Rodd, B. Safdi, T. Tait, and J. Thaler for helpful discussions. We thank the \textit{Fermi} Collaboration for the use of \textit{Fermi} public data. The work of RKL was performed in part at the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by NSF grant PHY-1607611. RKL and TRS are supported by the Office of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-SC00012567 and DE-SC0013999, as well as the NASA Fermi Guest Investigator Program under Grant No. 80NSSC19K1515.
\\
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
A \emph{polymatrix game} is a succinctly represented many-player game. The
players are represented by vertices in an \emph{interaction graph}, where each
edge of the graph specifies a two-player game that is to be played by the
adjacent vertices. Each player picks a \emph{pure strategy}, or {\em action}, and
then plays that action in all of the edge-games that they are involved with.
They then receive the
\emph{sum} of the payoffs from each of those games. A \emph{Nash equilibrium}
prescribes a mixed strategy to each player, with the property that no player has
an incentive to unilaterally deviate from their assigned strategy.
Constant-action polymatrix games have played a central role in the study of
equilibrium computation. The classical \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hardness result for finding Nash
equilibria in bimatrix games~\cite{CDT} uses constant-action polymatrix games as
an intermediate step in the reduction~\cite{DGP,CDT}. Rubinstein later showed
that there exists a constant $\ensuremath{\epsilon}>0$ such that computing an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-approximate
Nash equilibrium in two-action bipartite polymatrix games is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard~\cite{Rub16}, which
was the first result of its kind to give hardness for constant $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
These hardness results create polymatrix games whose interaction
graphs contain cycles. This has lead researchers to study \emph{acyclic} polymatrix
games, with the hope of finding tractable cases. Kearns, Littman, and Singh
claimed to produce a polynomial-time algorithm for finding a Nash equilibrium in
a two-action tree \emph{graphical game}~\cite{LKS01}, where graphical games are a
slight generalization of polymatrix games.
However, their algorithm does not work, which was pointed out by Elkind,
Goldberg, and Goldberg~\cite{EGG}, who also showed that the
natural fix gives an exponential-time algorithm.
Elkind, Goldberg, and Goldberg also
show that a Nash equilibrium can be found in polynomial time for two-action
graphical games whose interaction graphs contain only paths and cycles. They
also show that finding a Nash equilibrium is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard when the interaction
graph has pathwidth at most four, but there appears to be some issues with their
approach (see Appendix~\ref{app:issue}).
Later work of Barman, Ligett, and Piliouras~\cite{BLP} provided a QPTAS for
constant-action tree polymatrix games, and then Ortiz and Irfan~\cite{OI} gave
an FPTAS for this case.
All three papers,~\cite{EGG,BLP,OI}, leave as a main open problem the question
of whether it is possible to find a Nash
equilibrium in a tree polymatrix in polynomial time.
\myparagraph{Our contribution.}
In this work we show that finding a Nash equilibrium in twenty-action tree
polymatrix games is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard.
Combined with the known \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace containment of
polymatrix games~\cite{DGP}, this implies that the problem is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-complete.
This is the first hardness result for polymatrix
(or graphical) games in which the interaction graph is acyclic, and decisively
closes the open question raised by prior work: tree polymatrix games cannot be solved
in polynomial time unless \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace is equal to $\mathtt{P}$.
Our reduction produces a particularly simple class of interaction graphs: all of
our games are played on \emph{caterpillar} graphs (see
Figure~\ref{fig:structure}) which consist of a single path with small one-vertex
branches affixed to every node. These graphs have pathwidth $1$, so
we obtain a stark contrast with prior work: two-action path polymatrix games can
be solved in polynomial time~\cite{EGG}, but twenty-action pathwidth-1-caterpillar
polymatrix games are \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard.
Our approach is founded upon Mehta's proof that \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard~\cite{Meh18}. We show that her reduction can be implemented by a
synchronous arithmetic circuit with \emph{constant width}. We then embed the
constant-width circuit into a caterpillar polymatrix game, where each player in
the game is responsible for simulating all gates at a particular level of the
circuit. This differs from previous hardness results~\cite{DGP,Rub16}, where
each player is responsible for simulating exactly one gate from the circuit.
Along the way, we also substantially strengthen Mehta's hardness result for
\ensuremath{\mathtt{LinearFIXP}}\xspace. She showed \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hardness for finding an exact fixed point of a
\texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace instance, and an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed point of a \texttt{kD-LinearFIXP}\xspace instance, where
$\ensuremath{\epsilon}$ is polynomially small. We show \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hardness for finding an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed
point of a \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace instance when $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$ is any constant less than
$(\sqrt{2} - 1)/2 \approx 0.2071$. So we have lifted the hardness regime from
polynomially small approximations in $k$-dimensions to constant approximations
in two-dimensions, and our constant is substantial when compared to the trivial
upper bound of $0.5$.
\myparagraph{\bf Related work.} The class
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace was defined by Papadimitriou~\cite{Pap94}.
Years later, Daskalakis, Goldberg, and
Papadimitriou (DGP)~\cite{DGP} proved \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hardness for graphical games and 3-player
normal form games. Chen, Deng, and Teng (CDT)~\cite{CDT} extended this result to
2-player games and proved that there is no FPTAS for the problem unless
$\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\mathtt{P}}\xspace$. The observations made by CDT imply that
DGP's result also holds for polymatrix games with constantly-many actions
(but with cycles in the interaction graph) for an exponentially small $\epsilon$.
More recently, Rubinstein~\cite{Rub18} showed
that there exists a \emph{constant} $\ensuremath{\epsilon}>0$ such that computing an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}-NE$ in
binary-action bipartite polymatrix games is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard (again with
cycles in the interaction graph).
Etessami and Yiannakakis~\cite{EY} defined the classes \ensuremath{\mathtt{FIXP}}\xspace and \ensuremath{\mathtt{LinearFIXP}}\xspace and
they proved that $\ensuremath{\mathtt{LinearFIXP}}\xspace=\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace$. Mehta~\cite{Meh18} strengthened these
results by proving that two-dimensional \ensuremath{\mathtt{LinearFIXP}}\xspace equals \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace,
building on the result of Chen and Deng who proved that 2D-discrete Brouwer is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard~\cite{CD}.
On the positive side, Cai and Daskalakis~\cite{CD11}, proved that NE can be
efficiently found in polymatrix games where every 2-player game is zero-sum.
Ortiz and Irfan~\cite{OI} and Deligkas, Fearnley, and Savani~\cite{DFS}
produced QPTASs for polymatrix games of bounded treewidth (in addition to the
FPTAS of~\cite{OI} for tree polymatrix games mentioned above). For general
polymatrix games, the only positive result to date is a polynomial-time
algorithm to compute a $(\frac{1}{2}+\delta)$-NE~\cite{DFSS}. Finally, an
empirical study on algorithms for exact and approximate NE in polymatrix games
can be found in~\cite{DFIS}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec: preliminaries}
\myparagraph{Polymatrix games.}
An $n$-player \emph{polymatrix game} is defined by an undirected
\emph{interaction graph} $G=(V, E)$ with~$n$ vertices, where each vertex
represents a player, and the edges of the graph specify which players interact
with each other.
Each player in the game has $m$ actions, and each edge $(v, u) \in E$ of
the graph is associated with two $m \times m$ matrices $A^{v,u}$ and $A^{u,v}$
which specify a bimatrix game that is to be played between the two players,
where $A^{v, u}$ specifies the payoffs to player $v$ from their interaction with
player $u$.
Each player in the game selects a single action, and then plays that action in
\emph{all} of the bimatrix games with their neighbours in the graph. Their
payoff is the \emph{sum} of the payoffs that they obtain from each of the
individual bimatrix games.
A \emph{mixed strategy} for player $i$ is a probability distribution over
the $m$ actions of that player,
a \emph{strategy profile} is a vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace = (s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_n)$ where $s_i$
is a mixed strategy for player $i$.
The \emph{vector of expected payoffs} for player $i$ under strategy profile $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace$
is
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\xspace_i(\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace) := \sum_{(i, j) \in E}A^{i,j}s_j$.
The \emph{expected payoff} to player $i$ under $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace$ is $s_i \cdot
\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\xspace_i(\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace)$.
A strategy profile is a \emph{mixed Nash equilibrium} if $s_i \cdot \ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\xspace_i(\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace)
= \max_{s_i} \ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\xspace_i(\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace)$ for all $i$, which means that no player can unilaterally
change their strategy in order to obtain a higher expected payoff.
In this paper we are interested in the problem of computing a Nash equilibrium
of a \emph{tree} polymatrix game, which is a polymatrix game in which the
interaction graph is a tree.
\myparagraph{Arithmetic circuits.}
For the purposes of this paper, each gate in an arithmetic circuit will operate
only on values that lie in the range $[0, 1]$. In our construction, we will use
four specific gates, called \emph{constant introduction} denoted by $c$,
\emph{bounded addition} denoted by \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace, \emph{bounded subtraction} denoted by
\ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, and \emph{bounded multiplication by a constant} denoted by $\ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c$. These gates are
formally defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item $c$ is a gate with no inputs that outputs some fixed constant $c \in [0, 1]$.
\item Given inputs $x, y \in [0,1]$ the gate $x \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace y := \min \left(x+y ,1\right)$.
\item Given inputs $x, y \in [0,1]$ the gate $x \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace y := \max \left(x-y ,0\right)$.
\item Given an input $x \in [0, 1]$, and a constant $c \ge 0$, the gate $x
\ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c := \min \left(x * c, 1 \right)$.
\end{itemize}
These gates perform their operation, but also clip the output value so that it
lies in the range~$[0, 1]$. Note that the constant $c$ in the $\ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c$ gate is
specified as part of the gate. Multiplication of two inputs is not allowed.
We will build arithmetic circuits that compute functions of the form $[0,
1]^d \rightarrow [0,1]^d$. A circuit $C = (I, G)$ consists of a set $I = \{
\ensuremath{\texttt{in}}\xspace_1, \ensuremath{\texttt{in}}\xspace_2, \dots, \ensuremath{\texttt{in}}\xspace_d \}$ containing $d$ input nodes, and a set $G = \{
g_1, g_2, \dots, g_k \}$ containing $k$ gates. Each gate $g_i$ has a type from
the set $\{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c\}$, and if the gate has one or more inputs,
these are taken from the set $I \cup G$. The connectivity structure of the gates
is required to be a directed acyclic graph.
The \emph{depth} of a gate, denoted by $d(g)$ is the length of the longest path
from that gate to an input. We will build
\emph{synchronous} circuits, meaning that all gates of the form $g_x = g_y \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace g_z$
satisfy $d(g_x) = 1 + d(g_y) = 1 + d(g_z)$, and likewise for gates of the form
$g_x = g_y \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace g_z$.
There are no restrictions on $c$-gates, or $\ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c$-gates.
The \emph{width} of a particular level $i$ of the circuit is defined to be $w(i)
= | \{ g_j \; : \; d(g_j) = i \} |$, which is the number of gates at that level.
The \emph{width} of a circuit is defined to be $w(C) = \max_{i} w(i)$, which is
the maximum width taken over all the levels of the circuit.
\myparagraph{\bf Straight line programs.}
A convenient way of specifying an arithmetic circuit is to write down a straight
line program (SLP)~\cite{EY}.
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.3\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ 0.5}\;
\texttt{z $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{+}^b}\xspace in1}\;
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 0.5}\;
\texttt{out1 $\leftarrow$ z \ensuremath{\texttt{+}^b}\xspace x}\;
\caption{Example}
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.25\textwidth}
\mbox{}
\end{minipage}%
}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{\texttt{if} and \texttt{for} example}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ in1 \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 1}\;
\For{\texttt{i in $\{1, 2, \dots, 10\}$}}{
\If{\texttt{i is even}}{
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{+}^b}\xspace 0.1}\;
}
}
\texttt{out1 $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 1}\;
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\noindent Each line of an SLP consists of a statement of the form \verb+v+
$\leftarrow$ \verb+op+, where \verb+v+ is a \emph{variable}, and \verb+op+
consists of exactly one arithmetic operation from the set
set $\{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c\}$.
The inputs to the gate can be any variable that is defined before the line, or
one of the inputs to the circuit. We permit variables to be used on the left
hand side in more than one line, which effectively means that we allow variables
to be overwritten.
It is easy to turn an SLP into a circuit. Each line is turned into a gate, and
if variable \verb+v+ is used as the input to gate $g$, then we set the
corresponding input of $g$ to be the gate $g'$ that corresponds to the
line that most recently assigned a value to \verb+v+. SLP 1
above specifies a circuit with four gates, and the output of the circuit will be
$0.75$ \ensuremath{\texttt{+}^b}\xspace $\ensuremath{\texttt{in}}\xspace_1$.
For the sake of brevity, we also allow \texttt{if} statements and \texttt{for}
loops in our SLPs.
These two pieces of syntax can be thought of as macros that help us specify a
straight line program concisely. The arguments to an \texttt{if} statement or a
\texttt{for} loop must be constants that do not depend on the value of any gate
in the circuit. When we turn an SLP into a circuit, we unroll every \texttt{for}
loop the specified number of times, and we resolve every \texttt{if} statement
by deleting the block if the condition does not hold. So the example above
produces a circuit with seven gates: two gates correspond to the lines \texttt{x
$\leftarrow$ in1 \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 1} and \texttt{out1 $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 1}, while
there are five gates corresponding to the line \texttt{x $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{+}^b}\xspace
0.1}, since there are five copies of the line remaining after we unroll the loop
and resolve the \texttt{if} statements. The output of the resulting circuit will
be $0.5$ \ensuremath{\texttt{+}^b}\xspace $\ensuremath{\texttt{in}}\xspace_1$.
\myparagraph{\bf Liveness of variables and circuit width.}
Our ultimate goal will be to build circuits that have small width. To do this,
we can keep track of the number of variables that are \emph{live} at any one
time in our SLPs. A variable \texttt{v} is live at line $i$ of an SLP if both of
the following conditions are met.
\begin{itemize}
\item There exists a line with index $j \le i$ that assigns a value
to \texttt{v}.
\item There exists a line with index $k \ge i$ that uses the value
assigned to \texttt{v} as an argument.
\end{itemize}
The number of variables that are live at line $i$ is denoted by $\live(i)$, and
the number of variables \emph{used by} an SLP is defined to be $\max_i
\live(i)$, which is the maximum number of variables that are live at any point
in the SLP.
The following is proved in Appendix~\ref{app:sync}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:width}
An SLP that uses $w$ variables can be transformed into a polynomial-size
synchronous circuit of width~$w$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Hardness of \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace}
In this section, we consider the following problem. It is a variant
of two-dimensional Brouwer that uses only our restricted set of bounded gates.
\begin{definition}[\texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace]
Given an arithmetic circuit $F : [0, 1]^2 \rightarrow [0, 1]^2$ using gates from
the set \{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c\}, find $x \in [0, 1]^2$ such that $F(x) = x$.
\end{definition}
As a starting point for our reduction, we will show that this problem is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard. Our proof will follow the work of Mehta~\cite{Meh18},
who showed that the closely related \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace problem is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard.
There are two differences between \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace and \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace.
\begin{itemize}
\item In \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace,
all internal gates of the circuit take and return values from $\mathbb{R}$
rather than $[0, 1]$.
\item \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace takes a circuit that uses gates from the set $\{c, +, -, * c,
\max, \min\}$,
where none of these gates bound their outputs to be in $[0, 1]$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent In this section, we present an altered version of Mehta's reduction,
which will show that finding an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-solution to \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard for a constant $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\myparagraph{\bf Discrete Brouwer.}
The starting point for Mehta's reduction is the two-dimensional discrete Brouwer
problem, which is known to be \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard~\cite{CD}. This problem is defined over
a discretization of the unit square $[0, 1]^2$ into a grid of points
$G = \{0, 1/2^n, 2/2^n, \dots, (2^n - 1)/2^n\}^2$.
The input to the problem is a Boolean circuit $C : G
\rightarrow \{1, 2, 3\}$ the assigns one of three colors to each point. The
coloring will respect the following boundary conditions.
\begin{itemize}
\item We have $C(0, i) = 1$ for all $i$.
\item We have $C(i, 0) = 2$ for all $i > 0$.
\item We have $C(\frac{2^n-1}{2^n}, i) = C(i, \frac{2^n-1}{2^n}) = 3$ for all $i > 0$.
\end{itemize}
These conditions can be enforced syntactically by modifying the circuit.
The problem is to find a grid square that is \emph{trichromatic}, meaning that
all three colors appear on one of the four points that define the square.
\begin{definition}[\texttt{DiscreteBrouwer}\xspace]
Given a Boolean circuit $C : \{0, 1\}^n \times \{0, 1\}^n \rightarrow \{1, 2,
3\}$ that satisfies the boundary conditions, find
a point $x, y \in \{0, 1\}^n$ such that, for each color $i \in
\{1,2,3\}$, there exists a point $(x', y')$ with $C(x', y') = i$
where
$x' \in
\{x, x + 1\}$ and $y' \in \{y, y+1\}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.5\linewidth}
\centering
\raisebox{0.75cm}
\scalebox{0.25}{
\input figures/borders.tex
}}%
\caption{Our stronger boundary conditions.}\label{fig:boundary}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.5\linewidth}
\centering
\scalebox{0.4}{
\input figures/colors_to_vectors.tex
}
\caption{The mapping from colors to vectors.}
\label{fig:colors}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Reducing \texttt{$\eps$-ThickDisBrouwer}\xspace to \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace.}\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
Our first deviation from Mehta's reduction is to insist on the following
stronger boundary condition, which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:boundary}.
\begin{itemize}
\item We have $C(i, j) = 1$ for all $i$, and for all $j \le \ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\item We have $C(i, j) = 2$ for all $j > \ensuremath{\epsilon}$, and for all $i \le \ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\item We have $C(i, j) = C(j, i) = 3$ for all $i > \ensuremath{\epsilon}$, and all $j \ge 1 -
\ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\end{itemize}
The original boundary conditions placed constraints only on the outermost grid
points, while these conditions place constraints on a border of width $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
We call this modified problem
\texttt{$\eps$-ThickDisBrouwer}\xspace, which is the same as \texttt{DiscreteBrouwer}\xspace,
except that the function is syntactically required to satisfy the new boundary
conditions.
It is not difficult to produce a polynomial time reduction from \texttt{DiscreteBrouwer}\xspace to
\texttt{$\eps$-ThickDisBrouwer}\xspace. It suffices to increase the number of points in the grid,
and then to embed the original \texttt{DiscreteBrouwer}\xspace instance into the $[\ensuremath{\epsilon},
1-\ensuremath{\epsilon}]^2$ square in the middle of the instance.
The proof of the following lemma can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:thick}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:thick}
\texttt{DiscreteBrouwer}\xspace can be reduced in polynomial time to
\texttt{$\eps$-ThickDisBrouwer}\xspace.
\end{lemma}
\myparagraph{\bf Embedding the grid in $[0,1]^2$.}
We now reduce \texttt{$\eps$-ThickDisBrouwer}\xspace to \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace.
One of the keys steps of the reduction is to map points from the continuous
space $[0, 1]^2$ to the discrete grid $G$. Specifically, given a point $x \in
[0, 1]$, we would like to determine the $n$ bits that define the integer
$\lfloor x \cdot 2^n \rfloor$.
Mehta showed that this mapping from continuous points to discrete points can be
done by a linear arithmetic circuit. Here we give a slightly different
formulation that uses only gates from the set $\{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace,
\ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c\}$. Let $L$ be a fixed constant that will be defined later.
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\mathtt{ExtractBit(x, b)}$}
\label{slp:extract}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ 0.5}\;
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{-}^b}\xspace b}\;
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ b \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace L}\;
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}%
}%
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.2\textwidth}
\mbox{}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\mathtt{ExtractBits(x, b_1, b_2, \dots, b_n)}$}
\label{slp:extract-multi}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\For{i in $\{1, 2, \dots, n\}$}{
\texttt{ExtractBit(x, b$_i$)}\;
\texttt{y\phantom{$_i$} $\leftarrow$ b$_i$ \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 0.5}\;
\texttt{x\phantom{$_i$} $\leftarrow$ x\phantom{$_i$} \ensuremath{\texttt{-}^b}\xspace y}\;
\texttt{x\phantom{$_i$} $\leftarrow$ x\phantom{$_i$} \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 2}\;
}
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
SLP~\ref{slp:extract} extracts the first bit of the number $x \in [0, 1]$. The first
three lines of the program compute the value $b = (x \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace 0.5) \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace L$.
There are three possibilities.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $x \le 0.5$, then $b = 0$.
\item If $x \ge 0.5 + 1/L$, then $b = 1$.
\item If $0.5 < x < 0.5 + 1/L$, then $b$ will be some number strictly between
$0$ and $1$.
\end{itemize}
The first two cases correctly decode the first bit of $x$, and we call these
cases \emph{good decodes}.
We will call the third case a \emph{bad decode}, since the bit has not been
decoded correctly.
SLP~\ref{slp:extract-multi} extracts the first $n$ bits of $x$, by
extracting each bit in turn, starting with the first bit. The three lines
after each extraction erase the current first bit of $x$, and then multiply $x$
by two, which means that the next extraction will give us the next bit of $x$.
If any of the bit decodes are bad, then this procedure will break, meaning that
we only extract the first $n$ bits of $x$ in the case where all decodes are
good. We say that $x$ is \emph{well-positioned} if the procedure succeeds,
and \emph{poorly-positioned} otherwise.
\myparagraph{\bf Multiple samples.}
The problem of poorly-positioned points is common in \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hardness reductions.
Indeed, observe that we cannot define an SLP that always correctly extracts the
first $n$ bits of $x$, since this would be a discontinuous function, and all
gates in our arithmetic circuits compute continuous functions.
As in previous works, this is resolved by taking multiple samples around a given
point. Specifically, for the point $p \in [0, 1]^2$, we sample $k$ points $p_1$,
$p_2$, \dots, $p_{k}$ where
$p_i = p + (i - 1)\left(\frac{1}{(k + 1) \cdot 2^{n+1}}, \frac{1}{(k + 1) \cdot
2^{n+1}} \right).$
Mehta proved that there exists a setting for $L$ that ensures that there are at
most two points that have poorly positioned coordinates. We have changed several
details, and so we provide our own statement and proof here.
The proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:positioned}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:positioned}
If $L = (k+2) \cdot 2^{n+1}$, then at most two of the points $p_1$ through $p_{k}$
have poorly-positioned coordinates.
\end{lemma}
\myparagraph{\bf Evaluating a Boolean circuit.}
Once we have decoded the bits for a well-positioned point, we have a sequence of
0/1 variables. It is easy to simulate a Boolean
circuit on these values.
\begin{itemize}
\item The operator $\lnot \; x$ can be simulated by $1 \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace x$.
\item The operator $x \lor y$ can be simulated by $x \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace y$.
\item The operator $x \land y$ can be simulated by applying De Morgan's laws
and using $\lor$ and $\lnot$.
\end{itemize}
Recall that $C$ outputs one of three possible colors. We also assume, without loss of generality, that $C$ gives its output as a \emph{one-hot vector}. This means that
there are three Boolean outputs $x_1, x_2, x_3 \in \{0, 1\}^3$ of the circuit.
The color $1$ is represented by the vector $(1, 0, 0)$, the color $2$ is
represented as $(0, 1, 0)$, and color $3$ is represented as $(0, 0, 1)$. If the
simulation is applied to a point with well-positioned coordinates, then the
circuit will output one of these three vectors, while if it is applied to a
point with poorly positioned coordinates, then the circuit will output some
value $x \in [0, 1]^3$ that has no particular meaning.
\myparagraph{\bf The output.}
The key idea behind the reduction is that each color will be mapped to a
displacement vector, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:colors}. Here we again deviate
from Mehta's reduction, by giving different vectors that will allow us to prove
our approximation lower bound.
\begin{itemize}
\item Color $1$ will be mapped to the vector $(0, 1) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\item Color $2$ will be mapped to the vector $(1, 1 -\sqrt{2}) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\item Color $3$ will be mapped to the vector $(-1, 1 -\sqrt{2}) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$.
\end{itemize}
These are irrational coordinates, but in our proofs we argue that
a suitably good rational approximation of these vectors will suffice.
We average the displacements over the $k$ different sampled points to get
the final output of the circuit.
Suppose that $x_{ij}$ denotes output $i$ from sampled point $j$.
Our circuit will compute
$$
\ensuremath{\texttt{disp}}\xspace_x = \sum_{j = 1}^k \frac{(x_{2j} - x_{3j}) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}}{k}, \quad
\ensuremath{\texttt{disp}}\xspace_y = \sum_{j = 1}^k \frac{\left(x_{1j} + (1 - \sqrt{2} ) (x_{2j} + x_{3j}) \right) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}}{k}.
$$
Finally, we specify
$F : [0, 1]^2 \rightarrow [0, 1]^2$ to compute
$F(x, y) = (x + \ensuremath{\texttt{disp}}\xspace_x \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}, y + \ensuremath{\texttt{disp}}\xspace_y \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon})$.
\myparagraph{\bf Completing the proof.}
To find an approximate fixed point of $F$, we must find a point where both
$\ensuremath{\texttt{disp}}\xspace_x$ and $\ensuremath{\texttt{disp}}\xspace_y$ are close to zero.
The dotted square in Figure~\ref{fig:colors}
shows the set of displacements that satisfy $\| x - (0, 0) \|_\infty \le
(\sqrt{2} - 1) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$, which correspond to the displacements that would be
$(\sqrt{2} - 1) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed points.
The idea is that, if we do not sample points of all three colors, then we cannot
produce a displacement that is strictly better than an $(\sqrt{2} - 1) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed point. For
example, if we only have points of colors 1 and 2, then the displacement will be
some point on the dashed line between the red and blue vectors in
Figure~\ref{fig:colors}. This line touches the box of $(\sqrt{2} - 1) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed points, but
does not enter it. It can be seen that the same property holds for the other
pairs of colors: we specifically chose the displacement vectors in order to
maximize the size of the inscribed square shown in Figure~\ref{fig:colors}.
The argument is complicated by the fact that two of our sampled points may have
poorly positioned coordinates, which may drag the displacement towards $(0, 0)$.
However, this effect can be minimized by taking a large number of samples. We show
show the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ksamples}
Let $\ensuremath{\epsilon}' < (\sqrt{2} - 1) \cdot \ensuremath{\epsilon}$ be a constant. There is a sufficiently
large constant $k$ such that, if $\| x - F(x) \|_{\infty} < \ensuremath{\epsilon}'$, then $x$ is
contained in a trichromatic square.
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:ksamples} can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:ksamples}.
Since $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$ can be fixed to be any constant strictly less than $0.5$, we obtain
the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:2dhardness}
Given a \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace instance, it is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard to find a point $x \in [0, 1]^2$ s.t.
$\|x - F(x) \|_\infty < (\sqrt{2} - 1)/2 \approx 0.2071$.
\end{theorem}
Reducing \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace to \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace is easy, since the gates $\{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace,
\ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace c\}$ can be simulated by the gates $\{c, +, -, * c, \max, \min\}$.
This implies that it is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard to find an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed point of a
\texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace instance with $\ensuremath{\epsilon} < (\sqrt{2} - 1)/2$.
It should be noted that an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-approximate fixed point can be found in
polynomial time if the function has a suitably small Lipschitz constant, by
trying all points in a grid of width $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$. We are
able to obtain a lower bound for constant $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$ because our functions have
exponentially large Lipschitz constants.
\section{Hardness of \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace with a constant width circuit}
\label{sec:thincircuit}
In our reduction from \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace to tree polymatrix games, the number of
actions in the game will be determined by the width of the circuit.
This means that the hardness proof from the previous section is not a sufficient
starting point,
because it
produces \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace instances that have circuits with high width. In
particular, the circuits will extract $2n$ bits from the two inputs, which means
that the circuits will have width at least $2n$.
Since we desire a constant number of actions in our tree polymatrix game, we
need to build a hardness proof for \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace that produces a circuit with
constant width. In this section we do exactly that, by reimplementing the
reduction from the previous section using gadgets that keep the width small.
\myparagraph{\bf Bit packing.}
We adopt an idea of Elkind, Goldberg, and Goldberg~\cite{EGG}, to store many
bits in a single arithmetic value using a \emph{packed} representation. Given
bits $b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k \in \{0, 1\}$, the packed representation of these
bits is the value
$\packed(b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k) := \sum_{i = 1}^k b_i/2^i$.
We will show that the reduction from
the previous section can be performed while keeping all Boolean values in a
single variable that uses packed representation.
\myparagraph{\bf Working with packed variables.}
We build SLPs that work with this packed representation, two of which are shown
below.
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\mathtt{FirstBit(x, b)}$ \quad +0 variables}
\label{slp:firstbit}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\tcp{Extract the first bit of x into \texttt{b}}
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ 0.5}\;
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{-}^b}\xspace b}\;
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ b \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace L}\;
\;
\tcp{Remove the first bit of \texttt{x}}
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ b \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 0.5}\;
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{-}^b}\xspace b}\;
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 2}\;
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ b \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 2}\;
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
}%
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\mathtt{Clear(I, x)}$ \quad +2 variables}
\label{slp:clear}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\texttt{x' $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace 1} \;
\For{\texttt{i in $\{1, 2, \dots, k\}$}}{
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ 0} \;
\texttt{FirstBit(x', b)} \;
\If{\texttt{i $\in$ I}}{
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ b \ensuremath{\texttt{*}^b}\xspace $\frac{1}{2^i}$ }\;
\texttt{x $\leftarrow$ x \ensuremath{\texttt{-}^b}\xspace b }\;
}
}
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
The \texttt{FirstBit} SLP
combines the ideas from SLPs~\ref{slp:extract} and~\ref{slp:extract-multi} to
extract the first bit from a value $x \in [0, 1]$. Repeatedly applying this SLP
allows us to read out each bit of a value in sequence.
The \texttt{Clear} SLP uses this to set some bits of a packed variable
to zero. It takes as input a set of indices $I$, and a packed variable $x =
\packed(b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k)$. At the end of the SLP we have $x = \packed(b'_1,
b'_2, \dots, b'_k)$ where $b'_i = 0$ whenever $i \in I$, and $b'_i = b_i$
otherwise.
It first copies $x$ to a fresh variable $x'$. The bits of $x'$
are then read-out using \texttt{FirstBit}. Whenever a bit $b_i$
with $i \in I$ is decoded from $x'$, we subtract $b_i/2^{i}$ from $x$. If $b_i =
1$, then this sets the corresponding bit of $x$ to zero, and if $b_i = 0$, then
this leaves $x$ unchanged.
We want to minimize the the width of the circuit that we produce, so we keep track of
the number of \emph{extra} variables used by our SLPs.
For \texttt{FirstBit},
this is zero, while for
\texttt{clear} this is two, since that SLP uses the fresh variables $x'$ and $b$.
\myparagraph{Packing and unpacking bits.}
We implement two SLPs that manipulated packed variables.
The \texttt{Pack(x, y, S)} operation allows us to extract bits from $y \in [0,
1]$, and store them in $x$, while the
\texttt{Unpack(x, y, S)} operation allows us to extract bits from $x$ to create
a value $y \in [0, 1]$. This is formally specified in the following lemma, which
is proved in Appendix~\ref{app:packunpack}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:packunpack}
Suppose that we are given $\mathtt{x} = \packed(b_1, b_2, \dots,
b_k)$, a variable $\mathtt{y} \in [0, 1]$, and a sequence of indices $S = \langle s_1,
s_2, \dots, s_j \rangle.$ Let $y_j$ denote the $j$th bit of $y$. The following SLPs can be implemented using at most
two extra variables.
\begin{itemize}
\item \texttt{Pack(x, y, S)} modifies $\mathtt{x}$ so that $\mathtt{x} =
\packed(b'_1, b'_2, \dots, b'_k)$ where $b'_{i} = y_{j}$ whenever there exists
an index $s_j \in S$ with $s_j = i$, and $b'_{i} = b_i$ otherwise.
\item \texttt{Unpack(x, y, S)} modifies \texttt{y} so that $\mathtt{y} = \mathtt{y} \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace \sum_{i = 1}^j b_{s_i}/2^i$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\myparagraph{\bf Simulating a Boolean operations.}
As described in the previous section, the reduction only needs to simulate or-
and not-gates.
Given $\mathtt{x} = \packed(b_1, b_2, \dots, b_k)$, and three indices $i_1, i_2, i_3$, we
implement two SLPs, which both modify $x$ so that
$\mathtt{x} = \packed(b'_1, b'_2, \dots, b'_k)$.
SLP~\ref{slp:or} implements $\mathtt{Or(x, i_1, i_2, i_3)}$, which ensures that
$b'_{i_3} = b_{i_1} \lor
b_{i_2}$, and $b'_i = b_i$ for $i \ne i_3$.
SLP~\ref{slp:not} implements $\mathtt{Not(x, i_1, i_2)}$, which ensures that
$b'_{i_2} = \lnot b_{i_1}$, and $b'_i = b_i$ for $i \ne i_2$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.42\textwidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\mathtt{Or(x, i_1, i_2, i_3)}$ +3 variables}
\label{slp:or}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\texttt{a $\leftarrow$ 0} \;
\texttt{Unpack(x, a, $\langle \mathtt{i_1} \rangle$)} \;
\texttt{Unpack(x, a, $\langle \mathtt{i_2} \rangle$)} \;
\texttt{Pack(x, a, $\langle \mathtt{i_3} \rangle$)} \;
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}\hskip 1cm%
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.42\textwidth}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{$\mathtt{Not(x, i_1, i_2)}$ +3 variables}
\label{slp:not}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\texttt{a $\leftarrow$ 0} \;
\texttt{Unpack(x, a, $\langle \mathtt{i_1} \rangle$)} \;
\texttt{b $\leftarrow$ 1} \;
\texttt{a $\leftarrow$ b \ensuremath{\texttt{-}^b}\xspace a} \;
\texttt{Pack(x, a, $\langle \mathtt{i_2} \rangle$)} \;
\end{algorithm}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
These two SLPs simply unpack the input bits, perform the operation, and then
pack the result into the output bit. The \texttt{Or} SLP uses the
\texttt{Unpack} operation to set $\mathtt{a} = b_{i_1} \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace b_{i_2}$.
Both SLPs use three extra variables: the fresh variable \texttt{a} is live
throughout, and the pack and unpack operations use two extra variables. The
variable \texttt{b} in the \texttt{Not} SLP is not live concurrently with a pack
or unpack, and so does not increase the number of live variables.
These two SLPs can be used to simulate a Boolean circuit using at most three
extra variables.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:circuit}
Let $C$ be a Boolean circuit with $n$ inputs and $k$ gates. Suppose that $x =
\packed(b_1, \dots, b_n)$, gives values for the inputs of the circuit. There is
an SLP \texttt{Simulate(C, x)} that uses three extra variables, and modifies $x$
so that $x = \packed(b_1, \dots, b_n, b_{n+1}, \dots, b_{n+k})$, where $b_{n+i}$
is the output of gate $i$ of the circuit.
\end{lemma}
\myparagraph{\bf Implementing the reduction.}
Finally, we can show that the circuit built in Theorem~\ref{thm:2dhardness} can
be implemented by an SLP that uses at most 8 variables. This SLP
cycles through each sampled point in turn, computes the $x$ and $y$ displacements by
simulating the Boolean circuit, and then adds the result to the output.
The following theorem is proved in Appendix~\ref{app:reduction}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:2dhardness-lw}
Given a \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace instance, it is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard to find a point $x \in [0, 1]^2$ with
$\| x - F(x) \|_\infty < \frac{\sqrt{2} - 1}{2}$
even for a synchronous circuit of width eight.
\end{theorem}
\section{Hardness for tree polymatrix games}
Now we show that finding a Nash equilibrium of a tree polymatrix
game is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard. We reduce from the low-width \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace
problem, whose hardness was shown in Theorem~\ref{thm:2dhardness-lw}. Throughout
this section, we suppose that we have a \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace instance defined by a synchronous
arithmetic circuit $F$ of width eight and depth $n$. The gates of this circuit will be
indexed as $g_{i,j}$ where $1 \le i \le 8$ and $1 \le j \le n$, meaning that
$g_{i,j}$ is the $i$th gate on level $j$.
\myparagraph{\bf Modifying the circuit.}
The first step of the reduction is to modify the circuit.
First, we modify the circuit so that all gates operate on values in
$[0, 0.1]$, rather than $[0, 1]$. We introduce the operators $\ensuremath{+^b}\xspace_{0.1}$,
$\ensuremath{-^b}\xspace_{0.1}$, and $\ensuremath{*^b}\xspace_{0.1}$, which bound their outputs to be in
$[0, 0.1]$.
The following lemma, proved in Appendix~\ref{app:dividebyten}, states that we
can rewrite our circuit using these new gates.
The
transformation simply divides all $c$-gates in the circuit by ten.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:dividebyten}
Given an arithmetic circuit $F : [0, 1]^2 \rightarrow [0, 1]^2$ that uses gates
from
$\{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace\}$,
we can construct a circuit $F' : [0, 0.1]^2
\rightarrow [0, 0.1]^2$ that uses the gates from
$\{c, \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace_{0.1}, \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace_{0.1}, \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace_{0.1}\}$, so that $F(x, y)
= (x, y)$ if and only if $F'(x/10, y/10) = (x/10, y/10)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\input figures/loopback_circuit.tex
}
\caption{Extra equalities to introduce feedback of $g_{7,n}$ and $g_{8,n}$ to
$g_{7,1}$ and $g_{8,1}$ respectively.}
\label{fig:loopback}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Next we modify the structure of the circuit by connecting the
two outputs of the circuit to its two inputs.
Suppose, without loss of generality, that
$g_{7,1}$ and $g_{8,1}$ are the inputs and that $g_{7,n}$
and $g_{8,n}$ are outputs. Note that the equality $x = y$ can be
implemented using the gate $x = y \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace_{0.1} 1$. We add the following extra
equalities, which are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:loopback}.
\begin{itemize}
\item We add gates $g_{9,n-1} = g_{7,n}$ and $g_{10, n-1} = g_{8,n}$.
\item
For each $j$ in the range $2 \le j < n-1$, we add $g_{9,j} = g_{9,j+1}$
and $g_{10,j} = g_{10,j+1}$.
\item
We modify $g_{7,1}$ so that $g_{7,1} = g_{9,2}$, and we modify $g_{8,1}$
so that $g_{8,1} = g_{10, 2}$.
\end{itemize}
Note that these gates are backwards: they copy values from higher levels in the
circuit to lower levels, and so the result is not a circuit, but a system of
constraints defined by gates, with
some structural properties. Firstly,
each gate $g_{i,j}$ is only involved in constraints with gates of the form
$g_{i',j+1}$ and $g_{i',j-1}$.
Secondly, finding values for the gates that satisfy all of the constraints is
\ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard, since by construction such values would yield a fixed point of $F$.
\myparagraph{\bf The polymatrix game.}
The polymatrix game will contain three types of players.
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $i= 1,\ldots,n$, we have a \emph{variable} player $v_i$.
\item For each $i= 1,\ldots,n-1$, we have a \emph{constraint}
player $c_i$, who is connected to $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$.
\item For each $i=1,\ldots,2n-1$, we have a \emph{mix} player
$m_i$. If $i$ is even, then $m_i$ is connected to~$c_{i/2}$. If $i$ is odd, then
$m_i$ is connected to $v_{(i+1)/2}$.
\end{itemize}
The structure of this game is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:structure}.
Each player has twenty actions, which are divided into ten pairs,
$x_i$ and $\ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_i$ for $i = 1,\ldots,10$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node [state] (v1) {$v_1$};
\node [state,below of=v1] (m1) {$m_1$};
\node [state,right of=v1] (c1) {$c_1$};
\node [state,below of=c1] (m2) {$m_2$};
\node [state,right of=c1] (v2) {$v_2$};
\node [state,below of=v2] (m3) {$m_3$};
\node [state,right of=v2] (c2) {$c_2$};
\node [state,below of=c2] (m4) {$m_4$};
\node [state,right of=c2] (v3) {$v_3$};
\node [state,below of=v3] (m5) {$m_5$};
\node [right of=v3,node distance=2cm,minimum size=2cm] (mid) {$\dots$};
\node [state,right of=v3,node distance=4cm] (vn) {$v_n$};
\node [state,below of=vn] (mn) {$m_{2n-1}$};
\path
(v1) edge (m1)
(c1) edge (m2)
(v2) edge (m3)
(c2) edge (m4)
(v3) edge (m5)
(vn) edge (mn)
(v1) edge (c1)
(c1) edge (v2)
(v2) edge (c2)
(c2) edge (v3)
(v3) edge (mid)
(mid) edge (vn)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\end{center}
\caption{The structure of the polymatrix game.}
\label{fig:structure}
\end{figure}
\myparagraph{\bf Forcing mixing.}
The role of the mix players is to force the variable and constraint players to
play specific mixed strategies: for every
variable or constraint
player $j$, we want $s_j(x_i) + s_j(\ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_i) = 0.1$ for all $i$,
which means that the same amount of probability is assigned to each pair of
actions.
To force this, each mix player plays a high-stakes hide-and-seek against their
opponent, which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:hide-and-seek}. This zero-sum game is defined by a $20 \times 20$
matrix $Z$ and a constant $M$. The payoff $Z_{ij}$ is defined as follows.
If $i \in \{x_a, \ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_a\}$ and $j \in \{x_a, \ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_a\}$ for some $a$, then
$Z_{ij} = M$.
Otherwise, $Z_{ij} = 0$.
For each $i$ the player $m_i$ plays against player $j$, which is either a
constraint player $c_{i'}$ or a variable player $v_{i'}$. We define the payoff
matrix $A^{m_i, j} = Z$ and $G^{j, m_i} = -Z$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{
\input figures/hide_and_seek.tex
}
\caption{The hide and seek game that forces $c_{j/2}$ to play an appropriate
mixed strategy. The same game is
used to force $v_{(j-1)/2}$ mixes appropriately.}
\label{fig:hide-and-seek}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The following lemma, proved in Appendix~\ref{app:mixing}, shows that if $M$ is
suitably large, then the variable and constraint players must allocate
probability $0.1$ to each of the ten action pairs.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:mixing}
Suppose that all payoffs in the games between variable and constraint players
use payoffs in the range $[-P, P]$. If $M > 40 \cdot P$ then in every mixed Nash
equilibrium $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace$, the action $s_j$ of every variable and constraint player
$j$ satisfies $s_j(x_i) + s_j(\ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_i) = 0.1$ for all $i$.
\end{lemma}
\myparagraph{\bf Gate gadgets.}
We now define the payoffs for variable and constraint players. Actions $x_i$
and $\ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_i$ of variable player $v_j$ will represent the output of gate
$g_{i,j}$. Specifically, the probability that player $v_j$ assigns to action
$x_i$ will be equal to the output of $g_{i, j}$. In this way, the strategy of
variable player $v_j$ will represent the output of every gate at
level $j$ of the circuit. The constraint player $c_j$ enforces all constraints
between the gates at level $j$ and the gates at level $j+1$. To simulate each
gate, we will embed one of the gate gadgets from Figure~\ref{fig:gadgets}, which
originated from the reduction of DGP~\cite{DGP}, into the bimatrix games that
involve $c_j$.
\setboolean{main}{true}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{
\input figures/combined_gadgets.tex
}
\caption{DGP polymatrix game gadgets.}
\label{fig:gadgets}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The idea is that, for the constraint player to be in equilibrium, the
variable players must play $x_i$ with probabilities that exactly
simulate the original gate.
Lemma~\ref{lem:mixing} allows us to treat each gate independently:
each pair of actions $x_i$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace_i$ must receive probability $0.1$ in
total, but the split of probability between $x_i$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace_i$ is
determined by the gate gadgets.
Formally, we construct the payoff matrices $A^{v_i, c_i}$ and $A^{c_i, v_{i+1}}$
for all $i < n$ by first setting each payoff to $0$. Then, for each gate, we
embed the corresponding gate gadget from Figure~\ref{fig:gadgets} into the
matrices.
For each gate $g_{a,j}$, we take the corresponding game from
Figure~\ref{fig:gadgets}, and embed it into the rows $x_a$ and
$\ensuremath{\bar{x}}\xspace_a$ of a constraint player's matrix. The diagrams specify
specific actions of the constraint and variable players that should be
modified.
For gates that originated in the circuit, the gadget is always embedded into
the matrices $A^{v_{j-1}, c_{j-1}}$ and $A^{c_{j-1}, v_j}$, the synchronicity of
the circuit ensures that the inputs for level $j$ gates come from level $j-1$
gates. We have also added extra multiplication gates that copy values from the
output of the circuit back to the input. These gates are of the form $g_{i,j} =
g_{i', j+1}$, and are embedded into the matrices $A^{v_{j}, c_{j}}$ and
$A^{c_{j}, v_{j+1}}$.
The following lemma, proved in Appendix~\ref{lem:simulation}, states that, in
every Nash equilibrium, the
strategies of the variable players exactly simulate the gates that have been
embedded.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:simulation}
In every mixed Nash equilibrium $\ensuremath{\mathbf{s}}\xspace$ of the game,
the following are satisfied for each gate $g_{i,j}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $g_{i,j} = c$, then $s_{v_j}(x_i) = c$.
\item If $g_{i,j} = g_{i_1, j-1} \; \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace_{0.1} \; g_{i_2, j-1}$, then $s_{v_j}(x_i) = s_{v_{j-1}}(x_{i_1}) \; \ensuremath{+^b}\xspace_{0.1} \; s_{v_{j-1}}(x_{i_2})$.
\item If $g_{i,j} = g_{i_1, j-1} \; \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace_{0.1} \; g_{i_2, j-1}$, then
$s_{v_{j}}(x_i) =
s_{v_{j-1}}(x_{i_1}) \; \ensuremath{-^b}\xspace_{0.1} \; s_{v_{j-1}}(x_{i_2})$.
\item If $g_{i,j} = g_{i_1, j'} \; \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace_{0.1} \; c$, then $s_{v_j}(x_i) =
s_{v_{j'}}(x_{i_1}) \; \ensuremath{*^b}\xspace_{0.1} \; c$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lem:simulation} says that, in every Nash equilibrium of the game, the
strategies of the variable players exactly simulate the gates, which by
construction means that they give us a fixed point of the circuit $F$.
Also note that it is straightforward to give a path decomposition for our
interaction graph, where each node in the decomposition contains exactly two
vertices from the game, meaning that the graph has pathwidth 1.
So we have proved the following.
\begin{theorem}
It is \ensuremath{\mathtt{PPAD}}\xspace-hard to find a Nash equilibrium of a tree polymatrix game, even when
all players have at most twenty actions and the interaction graph has
pathwidth~1.
\end{theorem}
\section{Open questions}
For polymatrix games, the main open question is to find the exact boundary
between tractability and hardness. Twenty-action pathwidth-1
tree polymatrix games are hard, but two-action path polymatrix games can be
solved in polynomial time~\cite{EGG}. What about
two-action tree polymatrix games, or path-polymatrix games with more than two
actions?
For \texttt{2D-Brouwer}\xspace and \texttt{2D-LinearFIXP}\xspace, the natural question is: for which $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$ is
it hard to find an $\ensuremath{\epsilon}$-fixed point? We have shown that it is hard for $\ensuremath{\epsilon} =
0.2071$, while the case for $\ensuremath{\epsilon}=0.5$ is trivial, since the point $(0.5, 0.5)$
must always be a $0.5$-fixed point. Closing the gap between these two numbers
would be desirable.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\indent
Let $D$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with a $C^3$ boundary $\partial D$ and $b(t,x)$ a measurable $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued function bounded on $[0,T]\times D$ for every $T>0$. In this paper, we are concerned with the strong solutions to reflecting stochastic differential equations (SDEs) on the domain $D$ with the singular drift $b$. The purpose is to give an affirmative answer to the longstanding problem of the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions.
More rigorously, given a probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, (\mathcal{F})_{t\ge 0}, P)$ satisfying the usual assumptions and a $d$-dimensional standard Bronwian motion $W_t, t\geq 0$ on the probability space. Denote by $n(x)$ the unit inward normal to the boundary $\partial D$. We aim to show that for any $x\in \bar D$, there exists a unique pair of continuous adapted processes $(X_t,L_t)$ solving the reflecting stochastic differential equation below, namely, $X_t \in \overline{D}$ for all $t \ge 0$, $P$-$a.e.$, $L_t$ is a continuous process of bounded variation with values in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and the following equation holds:
\begin{align} \label{1.1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& X_{t}=x+W_{t}+\int_{0}^{t} b (s, X_{s} ) d s+L_{t}, \\
& |L|_{t}=\int_{0}^{t} I_{ \{X_{s} \in \partial D \}} d |L|_{s}, \\
& L_{t}=\int_{0}^{t} n(X_{s}) d |L|_{s}, \\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
where $|L|_t$ is the total variation of $L_t$.
\vskip 0.5cm
Reflecting SDEs have been investigated by many authors when the coefficients are smooth /lipschitz. H. Tanaka in \cite{Tanaka} obtained the strong solutions of the reflecting SDEs in a convex domain based on solving the corresponding Skorokhod problem. P.L. Lions and A.S. Sznitman in \cite{Lions} studied the reflecting SDEs by a penalized method in a $C^3$-domain. P. Dupuis and H. Ishii in \cite{Dupuis3} obtained the existence and uniqueness of the strong solutions to reflecting SDEs in a general domain, which only requires the directions of reflection to be $C^2$.
In one-dimensional case, T.S. Zhang in \cite{Zhang} obtained the strong solution to reflecting SDEs with
locally bounded drifts using crucially the comparison theorem. In multidimensional case,
P. Mar\'{\i}n-Rubio and J. Real in \cite{Marin} obtained the strong solutions to
reflecting SDEs when the drifts satisfy a certain monotonicity condition.
\vskip 0.4cm
On the other hand, strong solutions have been studied by many people for stochastic differential equations with singular drift. In the celebrated work \cite{Zvonkin}, Zvonkin introduced a quasi-isometric transformation of the phase space that can convert a stochastic differential equation with a non-zero singular drift into a SDE without drift. This method is now called Zvonkin transformation. There are many papers (particularly in recent years) devoted to extending the Zvonkin transformation in various ways to obtain the strong solutions of stochastic differential equations with singular coefficients. We mention \cite{Gyongy}, \cite{Krylov2}, \cite{Veretennikov}, \cite{ZhangX2} and \cite{ZhangX1}.
\vskip 0.5cm
The purpose of this paper is to establish the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions of reflecting SDEs with drifts which are merely measurable. The existence of weak solutions of the reflecting SDE (\ref{1.1}) is clear by using the Girsanov transform. To get the pathwise strong solution, the key is to prove the pathwise uniqueness of the equation (\ref{1.1}). Because of the singularity of the drifts we could not rely on solving the deterministic Skorohod problem, see for instance \cite{Dupuis3} and \cite{Lions}. We will use the Zvonkin transformation. However difficulties immediately arise. Zvonkin transformation maps the domain $D$ into a family of time-dependent domains which are not as regular as the original one. Thus, after the transformation we are bound to establish the pathwise uniqueness of reflecting SDEs in time dependent, non-smooth domains. Moreover, the reflecting directions of the transformed process are not as smooth as the original inward normal and also the coefficients of the transformed reflecting SDEs are not Lipschitz. The existing results on reflecting SDEs in time dependent domains can not be applied. A large part of our work is to carry out a careful analysis of the transformed, time dependent domains and the time dependent reflecting directions to establish the necessary regularities required. To get the pathwise uniqueness, eventually we also need to construct a family of auxiliary test functions. This is done in a similar way as that in \cite{Dupuis3} and \cite{Lundstrom}.
\vskip 0.5cm
Throughout this paper, we assume $b(t,x)$ is bounded on $[0,T] \times D$ for every $T>0$.
\vskip 0.5cm
Now we describe the content and organization of the paper in more details. In Section 2, we consider the following parabolic partial differential equation (PDE) associated with the singular drift on the domain $(0, T) \times D$, equipped with the Neumann boundary condition:
\begin{align} \nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} u^T(t,x)+\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{x} u^T(t,x)+b(t,x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u^T(t,x)=0,&&\forall (t,x) \in (0, T) \times D, \\
& \frac{\partial u^T}{\partial n}(t, x)=n(x),&&\forall (t,x) \in (0, T) \times \partial D, \\
& u^T(T, x)=x, && \forall x \in D.\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
We provide regularities of the solution $u^T(t,x)$, which will be used in subsequent sections. Especially, we show that there exists an open set $G \supset \bar D$ such that the extension of $u^T(t,\cdot)$ on $G$ is a homeomorphism for $t \in [0, T]$ and $\tilde u^T(t,x):=(t, u^T(t,x))$ is an open mapping on $(0,T)\times G$.
\vskip 0.4cm
In Section 3, we study the time dependent domains $u^T(t, D), \ t \in [0, T]$, the images of domain $D$ under the solution mappings $u^T(t, \cdot)$, $t\in [0, T]$. Among other things, we showed that the domains $u^T(t, D)$ satisfy the exterior and interior cone conditions when $T$ is sufficiently small. Regularities of the time dependent vector fields, $\gamma(t,x):=n((u^T)^{-1}(t,x))$, of the reflecting directions are also established. Here $(u^T)^{-1}(t,x)$ denotes the inverse function of $u^T(t,x)$.
\vskip 0.4cm
In Section 4, we consider the flows associated with the time dependent vector fields of reflecting directions:
\begin{align} \nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& y(t, x, 0)=x, \\
& \partial_{r} y(t,x, r)=\gamma(t, y(t, x,r)), \ r \in \mathbb{R}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
We will provide a number of regularity results of the hitting times $\Gamma(t,x)$ of the flows on certain hyperplane. These hitting times will be used to construct test functions for proving the pathwise uniqueness of the transformed reflecting SDEs. Roughly speaking, since $\gamma$ only belongs to some Sobolev space on $\tilde D:=\tilde u^T((0,T)\times D)$, to ensure the regularity of the hitting times $\Gamma(t,x)$, we need to prove that if $(t,x) \in \tilde D$, then $(t,y(t,x,r))$ lies in $\tilde D$ before $y(t,x,r)$ hits the hyperplane ($i.e.$ for $r \in (0,\Gamma(t,x)]$). At the end of this section, we will establish some smooth approximations of $\Gamma(t,x)$, which will be used later to show that $y(\cdot,\cdot ,\Gamma(\cdot,\cdot))$ belongs to some Sobolev space on $\tilde D$.
\vskip 0.4cm
In Section 5, a family of auxiliary functions is constructed. We first construct the functions locally in some neighborhoods of the points on the boundary of the domain $\tilde D$ and then piece them together through a finite cover of the boundary. These test functions will be used to prove the pathwise uniqueness of the solutions of reflecting stochastic differential equations. We also introduce the stochastic Gronwall's inequality and Krylov's estimate.
\vskip 0.4cm
In Section 6, we will establish the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions to the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}). The existence of a weak solution follows from the Girsanov theorem. The strong solution is obtained by proving the pathwise uniqueness of the solutions. To this end, we first establish a generalized It\^o's formula for the solution $X_t$ of the reflecting SDEs using the Krylov's estimate. Then we will use the auxiliary functions to eliminate the local times of the transformed processes $u^T(t,X_t)$. Finally, with the help of the stochastic Gronwall's inequality, the pathwise uniqueness is proved for the transformed processes and hence the pathwise uniqueness of the solutions $X_t$ follows.
\vskip 0.4cm
The last part of the paper is the appendix which provides the proofs for some of the results in Section 4.
\vskip 0.5cm
We close this introduction by mentioning some conventions used throughout this
paper: $|\cdot|$ or $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^d$. $\cdot$ denotes the inner product in $\mathbb{R}^d$. Use $B(x,r)$ to denote the ball in $\mathbb{R}^d$ centered at $x$ with radius $r$, and use $n^i(x)$ to denote the $i$-th component of the unit inward normal $n(x)$ for $1 \le i \le d$.
For $d \times d$ matrix $A$, we use $|A|$ to denote the determinant of $A$ and define $\|A\|_2:=\sup_{x\in B(0,1)}|Ax|$,
$\|A\|:=\sup_{1\le i,j\le d}|a_{ij}|$.
Let $D_xf(x)$ stand for the vector $(\partial_{x_1}f(x),...,\partial_{x_d}f(x))$ if $f:\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$, and $D_xf(x)$ stand for the Jacobian matrix of $f$ if $f:\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}^d$. For $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, a unite vector $\gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\theta,r>0$, define $C(x, \gamma, \theta ,r):=\{y\in \mathbb{R}^d: 0<|y-x|<r \ \mbox{and} \ (y-x)\cdot \gamma > \cos \theta |y-x|\}$.
For $-\infty<b<a<\infty$, we stile use the symbol $(a,b]$ to stand for $\{t\in \mathbb{R}^d:b\le t<a\}$
when there is no danger of causing ambiguity. For an open set $O \subset \mathbb{R}^d $ and measurable function $f: O \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$, denote $\| f\|_{L^{2d+2}(O)}:=\| |f| \|_{L^{2d+2}(O)}$.
For a bounded domain $ \mathcal{O} \subset (0,T)\times \mathbb{R}^d$, $W_{2d+2}^{1,2}( \mathcal{O})$ ($W_{2d+2}^{1,2}( \mathcal{O}; \mathbb{R}^d)$) is a Sobolev space of functions $f(t,x)$ (with value in $\mathbb{R}^d$) such that
$$\|f\|_{W_{2d+2}^{1,2}( \mathcal{O})}:=\|f\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O})}+\| \partial_tf(t,x)\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O})}+\sum_{1\le i,j \le d}\|\partial_{x_i}\partial_{x_j}f(t,x)\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O})}<\infty.$$
Where $\partial_tf(t,x)$ stands for the first order weak derivative with respect to ($w.r.t.$) $t$ and $\partial_{x_i}\partial_{x_j}f(t,x)$ stands for the second order weak derivative $w.r.t.$ $x$.
In the sequel, we will also write $W_{2d+2}^{1,2}( \mathcal{O})$ for $W_{2d+2}^{1,2}( \mathcal{O}; \mathbb{R}^d)$ with no danger of ambiguity.
$c$ will denote a generic positive constant which may be different from line to line, and $a \lesssim b$ means $a \le cb$ for some unimportant $c>0$.
\section{Parabolic PDEs associated with the singular drift}
In this section, we consider parabolic PDEs associated with the singular drift on the domain $D$, equipped with the Neumann boundary condition. We will provide some results on the regularity of the solutions, which will be used in subsequent sections.
\vskip 0.4cm
Since $\partial D \in C^3$ satisfies a uniform interior sphere condition and a uniform exterior sphere condition, we can find a positive constant $\delta_0$ such that for each point $y \in \partial D$ there exist balls $B$ and $B'$, with the radii being bounded from below by $\delta_0$, satisfying $\overline{B} \cap D^c=\overline{B'} \cap \overline D=\{y\}$. Set $\Gamma_{c}:=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^d: d(x, \partial D)<c\}$ for $c>0$.
Following the argument of Lemma 14.16 in \cite{Gilbarg}, we see that for any $x \in \Gamma_{\delta_0}$, there exists a unique $\varphi(x) \in \partial D$ such that $|x-\varphi(x)|=d(x, \partial D)$, moreover $\varphi\in C^2(\Gamma_{\delta_0})$. Thus we can extend $n(x)$ to the whole space $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $n \in C_0^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with $|n(x)| \le 1$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $|n(x)|= 1$ on $\Gamma_{\frac{\delta_0}{2}}$ (for example, take $n(x):=n(\varphi(x))\phi(x)$ for some real function $\phi \in C_0^2(\Gamma_{\delta_0})$ with $\phi(x)= 1$ on $\Gamma_{\frac{\delta_0}{2}}$).
\vskip 0.4cm
From Chapter 4 (Section 9) in \cite{Lady}, it is known that for any $T>0$, there exists a unique weak solution $u^T\in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}((0, T) \times D)$ to the following boundary value problem:
\begin{align}\label{1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} u^T(t,x)+\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{x} u^T(t,x)+b(t,x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u^T(t,x)=0,&&\forall (t,x) \in (0, T) \times D, \\
& \frac{\partial u^T}{\partial n}(t, x)=n(x),&&\forall (t,x) \in (0, T) \times \partial D, \\
& u^T(T, x)=x, && \forall x \in D.\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
We now consider smooth approximations of the drift vector field $b(t,x)$. \vskip 0.3cm
Fix a nonnegative smooth function $\psi$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ with compact support such that
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d+1}} \psi(t,x)dtdx=1.$$
For any positive integer $n$, let $\psi_n(t,x):=2^{n(d+1)}\psi(2^nt,2^nx)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.4} \nonumber
\begin{split}
b_n(t,x):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d+1}}b(s,y)\psi_n(t-s,x-y)dsdy.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $b_n(t,x)$ is smooth, according to Theorem 5.18 in \cite{Lieberman} there exists a unique \\
$u_n^T \in C^{1,2}_b([0, T]\times \bar{D})$, that is the solution to the following boundary value problem:
\begin{align} \nonumber
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} u_n^T(t,x)+\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{x} u_n^T(t,x)+b_n(t,x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u_n^T(t,x)=0,&&\forall (t,x) \in (0, T) \times D, \\
& \frac{\partial u_n^T}{\partial n}(t, x)=n(x),&&\forall (t,x) \in (0, T) \times \partial D, \\
& u_n^T(T, x)=x, && \forall x \in D.\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
Moreover, by Theorem 7.20 in \cite{Lieberman}
we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.77}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \| u_n^{T}- u^{T}\|_{W_{2d+2}^{1,2}((0,T)\times D)}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Set $G:=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^d, d(x,D)< \frac{\delta_0}{2}\}$ and $G':=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^d, d(x,D)< \delta_0\}$.
We have the following result.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.1.1}
There exist constants $M_0>0$ and $0< \alpha_0 <1$, such that for any $n\ge 1$, $0<T\le 1$, we can extend $u^T$ and $u^T_n$ to $[0,T] \times G'$, such that $u^T \in C^{0,1}([0,T]\times G')$, $u^T_n \in C^{1,1}([0,T]\times G')$, $u^T(T,x)=u^T_n(T,x)=x$ on $G'$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n\to \infty}\sup_{(t,x)\in [0,T]\times G'} (| u_n^{T}(t, x)- u^{T}(t, x)|+\|\nabla_{x}u_n^{T}(t, x)-\nabla_{x}u^{T}(t, x)\|)=0. \label{3.64}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, if $0\le s \le t \le T$ and $x \in G'$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
|u^{T}(t, x)-u^{T}(s, x)|+\|\nabla_{x}u^{T}(t, x)-\nabla_{x}u^{T}(s, x)\| \leqslant M_0|t-s|^{\alpha_0}, \label{3.1}\\
\|\nabla_{x}u_n^{T}(t, x)-\nabla_{x}u_n^{T}(s, x)\| \leqslant M_0|t-s|^{\alpha_0}. \label{2.38}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By (\ref{3.77}) and Sobolev inequality (see Lemma II.3.3 in \cite{Lady}), we know that
$$u^T \in C^{0,1}([0,T] \times \bar D),$$
and (\ref{3.64})-(\ref{2.38}) hold if $G'$ is replaced by $\bar D$.
Now we define the extensions of $u^T$ and $u^T_n$ on $[0,T] \times G' \setminus \bar D$ by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.42}
\begin{split}
u^T(t,x):=2u^T(t,\varphi(x))-u^T(t,2\varphi(x)-x),\\
u^T_n(t,x):=2u^T_n(t,\varphi(x))-u^T_n(t,2\varphi(x)-x).
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\varphi\in C^2(\Gamma_{\delta_0})$, it is easy to see that $u^T(T,x)=u^T_n(T,x)=x$ on $G'$ and
$$u^T \in C^{0,1}([0,T]\times G' \setminus \bar D), \ u^T_n \in C^{1,1}([0,T]\times G' \setminus \bar D).$$
Now we show that for any $x_0 \in \partial D$, $u^T(t,\cdot)$ and $u^T_n(t,\cdot)$ are differentiable in a neighborhood of $x_0$.
Since $\partial D \in C^3$, for $x_0 \in \partial D$ there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $x_0$ and a $C^3$-diffeomorphism $\Psi$ that maps $U$ onto $B(\Psi(x_0),r)$ for some $r>0$, such that $\Psi^{-1}(B^-(\Psi(x_0),r)=U \setminus D$, where $\Psi^{-1}$ is the inverses of $\Psi$ and $B^-(\Psi(x_0),r):=\{x=(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_d) \in B(\Psi(x_0),r) : x_d\le 0\}$.
Set $v(t,x):=u^T(t,\Psi^{-1}(x))$ and $v_n(t,x):=u^T_n(t,\Psi^{-1}(x))$. Then for $x \in B^-(\Psi(x_0),r)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
v(t,x)=2v(t,\Psi(\varphi(\Psi^{-1}(x)) ))-v(t,\Psi(2\varphi(\Psi^{-1}(x))-\Psi^{-1}(x))), \nonumber\\
v_n(t,x)=2v_n(t,\Psi(\varphi(\Psi^{-1}(x)) ))-v_n(t,\Psi(2\varphi(\Psi^{-1}(x))-\Psi^{-1}(x))). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
One can verify that $v \in C^{0,1}([0,T]\times B(\Psi(x_0),r))$ and $v_n \in C^{1,1}([0,T] \times B(\Psi(x_0),r))$. Hence, we have
$$u^T(t,x)=v(t,\Psi(x)) \in C^{0,1}([0,T]\times U),$$
and
$$u_n^T(t,x)=v_n(t,\Psi(x)) \in C^{1,1}([0,T]\times U).$$
Note that $2\varphi(x)-x \in D$ for $x \in G' \setminus \bar D$, from the definition of $u^T$ and $u^T_n$ in (\ref{2.42}), clearly (\ref{3.64})-(\ref{2.38}) hold.
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Set $\tilde u^T(t,x):=(t,u^T(t,x))$ and $\tilde u_n^T(t,x):=(t,u_n^T(t,x))$. Then we have the following proposition:
\begin{prp} \label{C3.2}
There exists a constant $T_0 \in (0, 1]$ such that for any $T\in (0, T_0]$, $\tilde u^T $, $\tilde u_n^T $ are open mappings on $(0,T) \times G$. Moreover, there exist positive constants $M_1,M_2,M_3$, such that for any $n\ge 1$, $0 \le t\le T \le T_0$ and $x,y \in G$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{2} \le |D_x u^T(t,x)|\le 2, \ \frac{1}{2} \le |D_xu_n^T(t,x)|\le 2, \label{3.63}\\
M_1|x-y|\le |u^T(t,x)-u^T(t,y)|\le M_2|x-y|, \label{3.2} \\
M_1|x-y|\le |u_n^T(t,x)-u_n^T(t,y)|\le M_2|x-y|. \label{3.73}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, if $|x-y|< \frac{\delta_0}{2}$, then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.24}
|u^T(t,x)-u^T(t,y)| \wedge |u_n^T(t,x)-u_n^T(t,y)|\ge (1-M_3T^{\alpha_0})|x-y|,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_0$ is the constant defined in Lemma \ref{L3.1.1}.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
\textcolor[rgb]{1.00,0.00,0.00}
}
We only give the proof of the properties of $u^T$ because the corresponding proof for $u_n^T$ is similar.
\vskip 0.3cm
Since $D_x u^T(T,x)$ is the identity matrix, by Lemma \ref{L3.1.1} one can see that (\ref{3.63})
holds if $T_0$ is sufficiently small. Without loss of generality, we assume $T_0 < (\frac{1}{dM_0})^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}} \wedge(\frac{\delta_0}{8M_0})^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}} $.
\vskip 0.3cm
To show that $\tilde u^T $ is an open mapping on $(0,T) \times G$, it is sufficient to show that for any open set $A_1 \subset G$ and $(t_0,x_0) \in (0,T) \times A_1$, there exist constants $\eta,\delta>0$ such that if $t \in (t_0-\eta, t_0+\eta)$, then
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.39}
B(u^T(t_0,x_0), \delta) \subset u^T(t , A_1).
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{3.63}) and the implicit function theorem, $u^T(t_0,\cdot)$ is an open mapping on $ G$. Hence there exist a constant $\delta>0$ and an open set $A_2 \subset A_1$ such that $u^T(t_0,A_2)=B(u^T(t_0,x_0), \delta)$ and $B(u^T(t_0,x_0), 2\delta) \subset u^T(t_0, A_1)$. By (\ref{3.1}), there exists a constant $\eta>0$ such that for any $t \in (t_0-\eta, t_0+\eta)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.40}
|u^T(t,x)-u^T(t_0,x)| < \frac{\delta}{4}, \ \forall x \in G'.
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose $B(u^T(t_0,x_0), \delta) \nsubseteq u^T(t , A_1)$ for some $t\in (t_0-\eta, t_0+\eta)$. Then there exists a point $x \in A_2 $ such that $u^T(t_0,x) \in u^T(t,A_1)^c$. Since
$u^T(t,x) \in u^T(t, A_1)$ and since $u^T(t,A_1)$ is an open set,
we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.41}
\begin{split}
d(u^T(t_0,x),u^T(t,\partial A_1)) &\le |u^T(t_0,x)-u^T(t,x)| <\frac{\delta}{4}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, by (\ref{2.40}),
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
d(u^T(t_0,x),u^T(t,\partial A_1)) &\ge d(u^T(t_0,x),u^T(t_0,\partial A_1))-d(u^T(t_0,\partial A_1),u^T(t,\partial A_1)) \\
&\ge d(B(u^T(t_0,x_0), \delta),u^T(t_0,\partial A_1))-d(u^T(t_0,\partial A_1),u^T(t,\partial A_1)) \\
& \ge \delta-\frac{\delta}{4}=\frac{3\delta}{4},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which contradicts (\ref{2.41}). Hence we have (\ref{2.39}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Now we show (\ref{2.24}).
For $0 \le t\le T \le T_0$ and $x,y \in G$ with $|x-y|< \frac{\delta_0}{2}$, we have $\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y \in G'$ for any $\lambda \in (0,1)$. Hence by (\ref{3.1}) and the fact that $\| \cdot \|_2 \le d\| \cdot \|$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ |u^T(t,x) -u^T(t,y)| \\
&\ge |u^T(T,x) \! - \! u^T(T,y)|-|\int_0^1 (D_x u^T(T,\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y) \! - \! D_x u^T(t,\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y)) \cdot (x-y)d \lambda | \\
&\ge |u^T(T,x) \! - \! u^T(T,y)|-\int_0^1 d \| D_x u^T(T,\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y) \! - \! D_x u^T(t,\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y)) \| |x-y| d \lambda \\
&\ge |x-y|-dM_0|T-t|^{\alpha_0} |x-y| \ge (1-dM_0 T^{\alpha_0}) |x-y|.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray*}
\vskip 0.3cm
Finally we show (\ref{3.2}). Let $0 \le t\le T \le T_0$ and $x,y \in G$. When $|x-y|\ge \frac{\delta_0}{2}$, notting that $T_0 <(\frac{\delta_0}{8M_0})^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}$, by (\ref{3.1}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.43}
\begin{split}
|u^T(t,x)-u^T(t,y)| \le 2 \sup_{(t,x)\in [0,T]\times G} |u^T(t,x) | \le \frac{4}{\delta_0}\sup_{(t,x)\in [0,T]\times G} |u^T(T,x) | |x-y|,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.67}
\begin{split}
|u^T(t,x)-u^T(t,y)| &=|u^T(t,x)-u^T(T,x)-u^T(t,y) +u^T(T,y)+x-y| \\
& \ge |x-y|-|u^T(t,x)-u^T(T,x)|-|u^T(t,y) -u^T(T,y)|\\
& \ge |x-y|-2M_0T^{\alpha_0}\\
&\ge \frac{|x-y|}{2}-(\frac{\delta_0}{4}- 2M_0T^{\alpha_0})\\
&> \frac{|x-y|}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
When $|x-y|\le \frac{\delta_0}{2}$, then $\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y \in G'$ for any $\lambda \in (0,1)$. Using the Lagrange mean value theorem and the boundness of $\|D_xu^T(t,x)\|$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.68}
\begin{split}
|u^T(t,x)-u^T(t,y)| \le M_2 |x-y|.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence combining (\ref{2.24}) with (\ref{2.43})-(\ref{2.68}), we get (\ref{3.2}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
\section{Domain transformation and regularity of the reflecting directions }
In this section we study the time dependent domains which are the images of domain $D$ under the solution mappings $u^T(t, \cdot)$, $t\in [0, T]$. Regularities of the time dependent vector field of the reflecting directions will be established.
\vskip 0.3cm
We start by showing the exterior and interior cone conditions for $u^T(t,D)$ for sufficiently small $T$.
Set
$$\delta_1:= M_1 d( \partial D , \partial G)=\frac{M_1\delta_0}{2},$$
$$\tilde G_1^T:=\{(t,x):0 \le t \le T , \ d(x,u^T(t,D))<\frac{\delta_1}{2}\},$$
and
$$\tilde G_2^T:=\{(t,x):0 \le t \le T , \ d(x,u^T(t,D))<\frac{3\delta_1}{4}\}.$$
Recall the constant $T_0$ defined in the statement of Proposition 2.1. We first have the following Lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.1}
There exists an integer $N_0>0$ such that for $n\ge N_0$, $0<T\le T_0$,
$$\tilde u^T_n([0,{T}]\times \bar D) \bigcup \tilde u^T([0,{T}]\times \bar D) \subset \tilde G_1^T \subset \tilde G_2^T \subset \tilde u^T_n([0,{T}]\times G) \bigcap \tilde u^T([0,{T}]\times G). $$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By (\ref{3.64}), there exists an integer $N_0>0$ such that for $n\ge N_0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\sup_{(t,x)\in [0,T] \times G}|u^T_n(t,x)-u^T(t,x)|<\frac{\delta_1}{8},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies $\tilde u^T_n([0,{T}]\times \bar D) \bigcup \tilde u^T([0,{T}]\times \bar D) \subset \tilde G_1^T \subset \tilde G_2^T$.
Noting that $u^T(t,G)$ is an open set by Proposition \ref{C3.2} and the fact that $\inf_{0 \le t \le T}d(u^T(t, D), u^T(t, \partial G))\ge M_1 d( \partial D , \partial G)= \delta_1$, we have $ \tilde G_2^T \subset \tilde u^T([0,{T}]\times G)$.
Now we show that $\tilde G_2^T \subset \tilde u^T_n([0,{T}]\times G)$ for $n \ge N_0$. Suppose there exists a point $(t,x)$ belonging to $\tilde G_2^T \setminus \tilde u^T_n([0,{T}]\times G)$. Then $d(x,u^T_n(t,D))\le d(x,u^T(t,D))+\frac{\delta_1}{8}<\frac{7\delta_1}{8}$. Therefore there exists a $y_1 \in u^T_n(t,D)$ such that $|x-y_1|< \frac{7\delta_1}{8}$. On the other hand, since $x\in u^T_n(t,G)^c$, $y_1 \in u^T_n(t,D)$ and since $u_n^T(t,G)$ is an open set, there exists a $\lambda \in (0,1)$ such that $y_2:=\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y_1 \in u^T_n(t, \partial G)$. Hence $|y_1-y_2|<|x-y_1|< \frac{7\delta_1}{8}$,
which contradicts the fact that $d(u^T_n(t,D),u^T_n(t, \partial G))\ge M_1d( D , \partial G)=\delta_1$ by (\ref{3.73}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
The next result shows that $u^T(t,D)$ fulfils the exterior and interior cone conditions for sufficiently small $T$.
\begin{prp} \label{P2.2}
There exist constants $T_1 \in (0, T_0)$, $\theta_0 \in (0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ and $\delta_2 \in (0, \frac{ \delta_1}{2} ]$ such that for any $t \in [0,{T_1}]$ and $x\in \partial D$,
\begin{eqnarray}
C(u^{T_1}(t,x),-n(x),\theta_0,\delta_2) \subset u^{T_1}(t,\bar D)^c, \label{3.59} \\
C(u^{T_1}(t,x),n(x),\theta_0,\delta_2) \subset u^{T_1}(t, D). \label{3.60}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We only prove (\ref{3.59}). (\ref{3.60}) can be proved similarly.
Since $\partial D$ is smooth, there exist constants $\theta \in (0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ and $ r > 0$ such that for $x \in \partial D$, $C(x, -n(x), \theta, r) \! \subset \! \bar D^c$.
Choose $T_1 \! \in \! (0, T_0)$ to be sufficiently small so that $\frac{\cos \theta \! + \! dM_0 T_1^{\alpha_0}}{1 \! - \! M_3 T_1^{\alpha_0}} \! \in \! (0,1)$. \\
Set $\theta_0:=\arccos \frac{\cos \theta + dM_0 T_1^{\alpha_0}}{1 - M_3 T_1^{\alpha_0}}$ and $\delta_2 := \frac{ \delta_1}{2} \wedge ( M_1r) $. Now we show that for $t \in [0,{T_1}]$ and $x \in \partial D$, (\ref{3.59}) holds.
Take $y \in C(u^{T_1}(t,x),-n(x),\theta_0,\delta_2)$. Since $(t,y) \in \tilde G_1^T$, by (\ref{3.2}) and Lemma \ref{L3.1} there exists a $y'\in G$ such that $y=u^{T_1}(t,y')$ and
$$|x-y'|\le \frac{1}{M_1}|u^{T_1}(t,x)-u^{T_1}(t,y')|<\frac{\delta_0}{4}\wedge r,$$
which implies $d(\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y',x)<\frac{\delta_0}{4}$ for $\lambda \in (0,1)$. From the definition of $G$, we see that $\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y' \in G$. Together with (\ref{3.1}) and (\ref{2.24}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ (x-y') \cdot n(x)\\
&=(u^{T_1}(t,x)-u^{T_1}(t,y'))\cdot n(x)+(x-u^{T_1}(t,x)-(y'-u^{T_1}(t,y')))\cdot n(x)\\
&> \cos \theta_0|u^{T_1}(t,x)-u^{T_1}(t,y')|-|u^{T_1}(T_1,x)-u^{T_1}(t,x)-(u^{T_1}(T_1,y')-u^{T_1}(t,y'))|\\
&\ge \cos \theta_0|u^{T_1}(t,x)-u^{T_1}(t,y')|\\
&\quad \ -\int_0^1 \|\nabla_x u^{T_1}(T_1,\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y')-\nabla_x u^{T_1}(t,\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y') \|_2 |x-y'|d\lambda\\
&\ge (1-M_3 T_1^{\alpha_0}) \cos \theta_0 |x-y'|-dM_0 T_1^{\alpha_0}|x-y'|= \cos \theta |x-y'|, \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies $y' \in C(x,-n(x),\theta,r) \subset \bar D^c$. Hence $y=u^{T_1}(t,y')\in u^{T_1}(t,\bar D)^c$, which implies (\ref{3.59}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Here and below, we fix $T_1>0$ as defined in Proposition \ref{P2.2}. Denote $u(t,x):=u^{T_1}(t,x)$, $u_n(t,x):=u^{T_1}_n(t,x)$, $\tilde u (t,x):=\tilde u^{T_1}(t,x)$, $\tilde u_n(t,x):=\tilde u_n^{T_1}(t,x)$, $\tilde G_1:=\tilde G_1^{T_1}$, $\tilde G_2:=\tilde G_2^{T_1}$ and $\tilde D :=\tilde u((0,{T_1})\times D)$.
\vskip 0.3cm
By Proposition \ref{C3.2} and Lemma \ref{L3.1}, the inverses of $u$ and $u_n$ exist, denoted by $u^{-1}$ and $u_n^{-1}$. Moreover, it is easy to see that $u^{-1}, u_n^{-1}$ are continuous in $\tilde G_2$ w.r.t. $(t,x)$ for $n\ge N_0$. Take a smooth function $\phi(t,x) \in C_b^{\infty}([0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $\phi(t,x)=1$ on $\tilde G_1$ and $\phi(t,x)=0$ on $[0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d \diagdown \tilde G_2$. For $n\ge N_0$,
set
$$\gamma_n(t,x):=(\gamma_n^1(t,x),\gamma_n^2(t,x), \cdots,\gamma_n^d(t,x)):=n(u_n^{-1}(t,x))\phi(t,x),$$
$$\gamma(t,x):=(\gamma^1(t,x),\gamma^2(t,x),\cdots,\gamma^d(t,x)):=n(u^{-1}(t,x))\phi(t,x).$$
Then $\gamma_n$ and $\gamma$ are well defined in $[0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d$.
$\gamma$ will be the directions of reflection of the transformed reflecting SDEs. To obtain the regularity of $\gamma$, we need to study the convergence of $u_n^{-1}$, which is the content of the next lemma.
\vskip 0.4cm
Set
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
D(t,c):=\{x:d(x,u(t,D)^c)> c \}, \label{2.19-1}
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
$\tilde {D}_{c}:=\{(t,x):t\in (0,T_1),\ x \in D(t, c)\}$ and $\tilde {D}_{c}':= \{(t,x):t\in (0,T_1),\ d(x,D^c)> c \}$ for $c>0$. Then we have the following result.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.2.2}
For $n\ge N_0$, we have $u^{-1}_n \in C_b^{1,1}(\tilde G_2)$, $u^{-1} \in C^{0,1}_b(\tilde G_2)$ and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.87}
\begin{split}
\lim_{n \to \infty}\|u^{-1}_n-u^{-1}\|_{C^{0,1}_b(\tilde G_2)}=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for any constants $\varepsilon,p>0$ and functions $f \in L^p((0,T_1) \times D )$ and $g_k,g \in L^p( \tilde D)$ with $\lim_{k \to \infty} \|g_k-g\|_{L^p( \tilde D)}=0$, $\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}$ is an open set in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ and there exists an integer $N_0(\varepsilon) \ge N_0$ such that for any $n\ge N_0(\varepsilon)$, we have $\tilde u_n^{-1}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}) \subset \tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2M_2}}'$, $u_n^{-1} \in C_b^{1,2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})$, $|D_x u^{-1}_n(t,x)| \ge \frac{1}{2}$ for $(t,x)\in \tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n \to \infty}\|f(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x) )-f(t,u^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}=0, \label{3.88} \\
\lim_{n \to \infty}\|g(t,u_n(t,x) )-g(t,u(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}')}=0, \label{3.89} \\
\lim_{k \to \infty}\|g_k(t,u_n(t,x) )-g(t,u_n(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}')}=0, \ \forall n \ge N_0(\varepsilon) , \label{3.91}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde u_n^{-1}$ is the inverse of $\tilde u_n$ and $M_2$ was the constant defined in Proposition \ref{C3.2}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First we show (\ref{3.87}). For any $n\ge N_0$ and $(t,x)\in \tilde G_2$, we have $u_n^{-1}(t,x), u^{-1}(t,x) \in G$ by Lemma \ref{L3.1}. Hence by (\ref{3.64}) and (\ref{3.2}), for $n\ge N_0$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.62}
\begin{split}
\sup_{(t,x)\in \tilde G_2}|u^{-1}_n(t,x)-u^{-1}(t,x)|&\le \sup_{(t,x)\in \tilde G_2} \frac{1}{M_1}|u(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-u(t,u^{-1}(t,x))|\\
&=\frac{1}{M_1}\sup_{(t,x)\in \tilde G_2}|u(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-x|\\
&=\frac{1}{M_1}\sup_{(t,x)\in \tilde G_2}|u(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-u_n(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))|\\
&\le \frac{1}{M_1}\sup_{(t,y)\in [0,T_1]\times G}|u(t,y)-u_n(t,y)| \to 0,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
as $n \to \infty$.
On the other hand, by (\ref{3.63}) and the implicit function theorem, it is easy to see that $u^{-1} \in C_b^{0,1}(\tilde G_2)$, $u^{-1}_n \in C_b^{1,1}(\tilde G_2) \cap C_b^{1,2}(\tilde u_n((0,T_1)\times D))$ and for any $(t,x) \in \tilde G_2$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.66}
\begin{split}
D_x u^{-1}(t,x)=[(D_x u) (t, u^{-1}(t,x))]^{-1}, \\
D_x u_n^{-1}(t,x)=[(D_x u_n)(t, u_n^{-1}(t,x))]^{-1}, \\
\partial_t u_n^{-1}(t,x)=-D_x u_n^{-1}(t,x) \cdot (\partial_t u_n)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x)).\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with (\ref{3.64}), (\ref{3.63}) and (\ref{3.62}), we obtain
$$\lim_{n \to \infty}\sup_{(t,x)\in \tilde G_2}\|D_xu^{-1}(t,x)-D_xu^{-1}_n(t,x)\|=0.$$
Hence we proved (\ref{3.87}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Given $\varepsilon>0$, now we show that $\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}$ is an open set.
By Proposition \ref{C3.2}, we know that $\tilde D$ is open in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. Take $(t_0,x_0) \in \tilde {D}_{\varepsilon} \subset \tilde D$, then there exist constants $\eta,\delta>0$ such that $(t_0-\eta,t_0+\eta) \! \times \! B(x_0, 2\delta) \! \subset \! \tilde D$ and $d( B(x_0, 2\delta), \! u(t_0,\partial D) ) \! > \! \varepsilon$. By (\ref{3.1}), there exists a positive constant $\eta'<\eta$ such that for any $(t, y) \in (t_0-\eta',t_0+\eta') \times G'$, $|u(t,y)-u(t_0,y)| < \frac{\delta}{2}$. Hence for $t \in (t_0-\eta',t_0+\eta')$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
d(B(x_0, \delta), u(t,\partial D) ) \ge d(B(x_0, \delta), u(t_0, \partial D) )-d(u(t_0, \partial D), u(t,\partial D) ) > \delta+\varepsilon -\frac{\delta}{2} >\varepsilon.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence we have $(t_0-\eta',t_0+\eta')\times B(x_0, \delta) \subset \tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}$, which proves that $\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}$ is open.
\vskip 0.3cm
Noting that $\tilde u(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}') \subset \tilde {D}_{M_1\varepsilon} $ and $\tilde u^{-1}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}) \subset \tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{M_2}}'$ by (\ref{3.2}), together with (\ref{3.64}) and (\ref{3.62}), there exists an integer $N_0(\varepsilon) \ge N_0$ such that for any $n\ge N_0(\varepsilon)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.92}
\begin{split}
\tilde u_n(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}') \subset \tilde {D}_{\frac{M_1\varepsilon}{2}} \subset \tilde {D}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.90}
\begin{split}
\tilde u_n^{-1}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}) \subset \tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2M_2}}' \subset (0,T_1)\times D.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence by (\ref{3.63}), (\ref{3.66}) and (\ref{3.90}) we have $u_n^{-1} \in C_b^{1,2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})$ and for any $(t,x)\in \tilde {D}_{\varepsilon}$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.93}
\begin{split}
|D_x u^{-1}_n(t,x)|=|[(D_x u_n)(t, u^{-1}_n(t,x))]^{-1}| \ge \frac{1}{2}, \\
|D_x u^{-1} (t,x)|=|[(D_x u)(t, u^{-1} (t,x))]^{-1}| \ge \frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
By (\ref{3.63}) and (\ref{3.92}), it is easy to see that (\ref{3.91}) holds.
Now we show (\ref{3.88}).
For any $\varepsilon_1>0$, there exists a function $\tilde f \in C_b(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $\|f-\tilde f \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2M_2}}')} < \varepsilon_1$.
Combining this with (\ref{3.62}), (\ref{3.90}), (\ref{3.93}) and a change of variable, we see that
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \lim_{n \to \infty}\|f(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x) )-f(t,u^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\le \lim_{n \to \infty}\|f(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x) )-\tilde f(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})} +\lim_{n \to \infty}\|f(t,u^{-1}(t,x) )-\tilde f(t,u^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\ \ \ \ + \lim_{n \to \infty}\|\tilde f(t,u^{-1}_n(t,x) )-\tilde f(t,u^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\le \lim_{n \to \infty} 2 \| |f(t,u^{-1}_n(t,x) )-\tilde f(t,u^{-1}_n(t,x))| |D_x u^{-1}_n(t,x) | \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\ \ \ \ +\lim_{n \to \infty} 2 \| |f(t,u^{-1}(t,x) )-\tilde f(t,u^{-1}(t,x))| |D_x u^{-1}(t,x) | \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\le \lim_{n \to \infty} 4 \| |f(t,x)-\tilde f(t,x)| \|_{L^p(\tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2M_2}}')} <4\varepsilon_1.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\varepsilon_1$ is arbitrary, (\ref{3.88}) follows. By a similar argument, we can show (\ref{3.89}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
The following result provides the regularities of the reflecting directions $\gamma_n$ and $\gamma$.
\begin{prp} \label{P3.3}
For $n\ge N_0$, we have
$$\gamma_n\in C_b^{1,1}([0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d) , \ \gamma \in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(\tilde D) \bigcap C^{0,1}_b([0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d),$$
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-17-2}
\begin{split}
\lim_{n \to \infty}\|\gamma_n-\gamma\|_{C^{0,1}_b([0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d)}=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for any $\varepsilon >0$ and $n\ge N_0(\varepsilon)$, we have $\gamma_n\in C_b^{1,2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty}\|\gamma_n- \gamma_m\|_{W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}=0, \label{3.68} \\
\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\sup_{n\ge N_0(\varepsilon)} \|\gamma_n\|_ {W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty, \label{3.79}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_0(\varepsilon)$ was defined in Lemma \ref{L3.2.2}.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is evident that $\gamma \in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(\tilde D)$ if (\ref{2-17-2})-(\ref{3.79}) hold. Hence by Lemma \ref{L3.2.2} we only need to prove (\ref{3.68}) and (\ref{3.79}).
\vskip 0.3cm
First we show (\ref{3.68}). By (\ref{3.77}), Lemma \ref{L3.2.2} and a change of variable, we see that for any $1\le i,j \le d$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.71} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \lim_{n \to \infty}\|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,u^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\le \lim_{n \to \infty}\| (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}\\
& \ \ \ \ +\lim_{n \to \infty}\| (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,u^{-1}(t,x))\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&= \lim_{n \to \infty}\| (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\le 2\lim_{n \to \infty}\||(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))-(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))| |D_xu_n^{-1}(t,x)|\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\le 2 \lim_{n \to \infty}\| |\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n(t,x)-(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u)(t,x)| \|_{L^{2d+2}( \tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2 M_2}}')}=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with (\ref{3.63}), (\ref{3.87}) and (\ref{3.66}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.67}
\begin{split}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty}\|\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i}\partial\gamma_n- \partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i}\gamma_m\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{3.66}), similar to the proof of (\ref{3.67}), we also have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.69} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty}\|\partial_t \gamma_n- \partial_t \gamma_m\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence (\ref{3.68}) follows.
\vskip 0.3cm
Now we show (\ref{3.79}). Note that by Lemma \ref{L3.2.2} and a change of variable,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \sup_{ \varepsilon>0,n\ge N_0(\varepsilon)}(\|\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n(t,u_n^{-1}(t,x))\|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})}+\|\partial_t u_n (t,u_n^{-1}(t,x)) \|_{L^{2d+2}(\tilde {D}_{\varepsilon})})\\
&\le 2 \sup_{\varepsilon>0,n\ge N_0(\varepsilon)}(\| \partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} u_n(t,x) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2 M_2}}' )}+\|\partial_t u_n (t,x) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \tilde {D}_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2 M_2}}' )})\\
&\le 2 \sup_{n \ge 1}\|u_n(t,x) \|_{W^{1,2}_{2d+2}( (0,T_1) \times D )}<\infty,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
combining this with (\ref{3.63}), (\ref{3.66}) and the boundness of $\| \nabla _x u_n^{-1}(t,x)\|$, we obtain (\ref{3.79}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
{As $u_n$ is not in $C^{1,2}((0,T_1) \times G)$, $\gamma_n$ does not belong to $C^{1,2}(\tilde D)$.}
\end{remark}
\vskip 0.4cm
By (\ref{3.89}), (\ref{3.91}) and Theorem 7.9 in \cite{Gilbarg}, the following lemma is immediate.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.5}
For any $F \in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(\tilde D) \bigcap C^{0,1}_b(\tilde D)$, we have
$$F(t,u(t,x))\in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}((0,T_1)\times D),$$
and moreover the chain rule of weak differentiation holds for $F(t,u(t,x))$.
\end{lem}
\vskip 0.5cm
We close this section by showing the following Lemma. The estimates listed will be used in later sections.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.2}
Fix $\theta_1 \in (0,\frac{\theta_0}{2} \wedge \arctan \frac{1}{24} )$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos^2 \theta_1 +(\frac{\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} }{1+12 \tan \theta_1 }-(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} )^2\ge 1, \label{2.5} \\
\frac{\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} }{1+12 \tan \theta_1 }-(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \ge \cos \frac{\theta_0}{2},\label{2.6} \\
\frac{ (1-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 - 2 \tan \theta_1 -\frac{1}{2}}{(\frac{5}{4}+ 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +2 \tan \theta_1 - (1-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} } >\cos \theta_0, \label{2.17} \\
\frac{ (1-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 -2 \tan \theta_1 +\frac{1}{2} \cos \theta_1 }{(\frac{9}{4}+4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +2 \tan \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}}} >\cos \theta_0. \label{2-3}
\end{eqnarray}
Then there exist constants $0<\delta_3< \delta_2,\eta_0>0$ and an integer $N_1\ge N_0$ such that for any $t_0\in [0,{T_1}]$, $z_0 \in u(t_0,\partial D)$ and $n\ge N_1$, if $t,t'\in [(t_0-\eta_0)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_0)\wedge T_1]$ and $x,x'\in B(z_0,\delta_3)$, then $|\gamma_n(t,x)|=|\gamma(t,x)|=1$ and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.4}
\begin{split}
\gamma(t,x)\cdot \gamma_n(t',x') \ge \cos \theta_1 , \ \gamma(t,x)\cdot \gamma(t',x') \ge \cos \theta_1 , \ \gamma_n(t,x)\cdot \gamma_n(t',x') \ge \cos \theta_1 .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $\Gamma_{c}=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^d: d(x, \partial D)<c\}$ for $c>0$ and $|n(x)|=1$ on $\Gamma_{\frac{\delta_0}{2}}$.
By (\ref{3.2}) and (\ref{3.87}), there exists a constant $\delta \in(0, \delta_2)$ such that for sufficiently large $n$ and for $t\in [ 0, T_1]$, if $d(x,u(t,\partial D))<\delta$, then $(t,x) \in \tilde G_1$ and $u^{-1}_n(t,x) \in \Gamma_{\frac{\delta_0}{2}}$. It implies that $|\gamma_n(t,x)|=|\gamma(t,x)|=1$ by the definition of $\gamma_n$ and $\gamma$. (\ref{3.4}) follows from (\ref{2-17-2}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
\section{Flows associated with the time dependent reflecting directions }
In this section, we consider the flows associated with the time dependent vector fields of reflecting directions. We will provide a number of regularity results of the hitting times of the flows on certain hyperplane. These hitting times will be used to construct test functions
in next section for proving the pathwise uniqueness of the transformed reflecting SDEs.
\vskip 0.4cm
Let $N_0$ and $T_1$ be fixed as in Section 3. For $(t,x) \in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d$ and $n \ge N_0$, let $y(t,x, \cdot)$ be the solution of the following ordinary differential equation:
\begin{align}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& y(t, x, 0)=x, \nonumber\\
& \partial_{r} y(t,x, r)=\gamma(t, y(t, x,r)), \ r \in \mathbb{R}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
and
$y_{n}(t,x, \cdot)$ the solution of the following ordinary differential equation:
\begin{align}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& y_{n}(t, x, 0)=x, \nonumber\\
& \partial_{r} y_{n}(t,x, r)=\gamma_{n}(t, y_{n}(t, x,r)), \ r \in \mathbb{R}. \nonumber\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
Since $\gamma \in C^{0,1}_b([0,T_1] \times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\gamma_n \in C^{1,1}_b([0,T_1] \times \mathbb{R}^d)$ by Proposition \ref{P3.3}, we see that $y(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ belongs to $C^{0,1,1}([0,T_1] \times \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R})$ and $y_n(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ belongs to $C^{1,1,1}([0,T_1] \times \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R})$. Moreover, $\psi_i^j(t,x,r):=\partial_{x_i}y^j(t,x,r)$ is the solution to the following equation:
\begin{align} \label{3.7}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \psi_i^j(t, x, 0)=\delta_i(j),\\
& \partial_{r} \psi_i^j(t,x, r)=\sum_{1\le k \le d}\partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t, y(t, x,r))\psi_i^k(t,x, r), \ r \in \mathbb{R},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
$\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x,r):=\partial_{x_i}y_n^j(t,x,r)$ is the solution to the following equation:
\begin{align} \label{4.53}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \psi_{n,i}^j(t, x, 0)=\delta_i(j),\\
& \partial_{r} \psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, r)=\sum_{1\le k \le d}\partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t, y_n(t, x,r))\psi_{n,i}^k(t,x, r), \ r \in \mathbb{R},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
and $\Lambda_n(t,x,r):=\partial_{t}y_n(t,x,r)$ is the solution to the following equation:
\begin{align} \label{3.10}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \Lambda_{n}(t, x, 0)=0,\\
& \partial_{r} \Lambda_{n}(t, x, r)= (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, r) )+D_{y} \gamma_{n} (t, y_{n}(t, x, r) )\cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, r), \ r \in \mathbb{R},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
where $y^j(t,x,r)$ and $y_n^j(t,x,r)$ are the $j$-th components of $y(t,x,r)$ and $y_n(t,x,r)$ respectively, $\delta_i(j):=1$ if $i=j$ and $\delta_i(j):=0$ otherwise. By (\ref{2-17-2}) and the Gronwall's inequality, it is easy to see that for any $c>0$ and $1 \le i,j \le d$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup _{(t, x)\in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d , r \in (-c,c), n \ge N_0} | \psi_{n,i}^j(t, x, r)| <\infty , \label{4.4} \\
\lim_{n\to \infty}\sup_{(t,x)\in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d , r \in (-c,c)}|y_n(t,x,r)-y(t,x,r)|=0, \label{2.29} \\
\lim_{n \to \infty}\sup _{(t, x)\in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d , r \in (-c,c)} | \psi_{n,i}^j(t, x, r)-\psi_{i}^j(t, x, r)| =0. \label{3.30}
\end{eqnarray}
First we have the following simple lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{L4.2}
There exists a constant $\rho_0 \in (0,1)$ such that for any $n\ge N_0$, $r \in (-\rho_0,\rho_0)$, bounded measurable function $f(x)$ and open set $A \subset \mathbb{R}^d$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.16}
\begin{split}
\int_{A}f(y_n(t, x ,r))dx \le 2 \int_{y_n(t,A,r)}f(x)dx.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By (\ref{4.53}), it is easy to see that for $n\ge N_0$ and $r \in (-1,1)$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.16-1}
\begin{split}
\sup_{(t, x)\in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d}|\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x,r)-\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x,0)|\le d |r| \|\gamma_n\|_{C^{0,1}_b( [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d)} \sup_{(t, x)\in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d,\atop |\tau|< 1,1\le k \le d} |\psi^{k}_{n,i}(t, x, \tau)|.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $(\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x,0))_{1\le i,j\le d}$ is the identity matrix, it follows from (\ref{4.4}) and (\ref{3.16-1}) that there exists a constant $\rho_0 \in (0,1)$ such that for any $n\ge N_0$, $(t,x)\in [0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d$, and $r \in (-\rho_0,\rho_0)$, $|(\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x,r))_{1\le i,j\le d}|\ge \frac{1}{2}$.
Since $(\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x,r))_{1\le i,j\le d}$ is the Jacobian matrix of $y_n(t,\cdot,r)$, by a change of variable, we get (\ref{3.16}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.5cm
From now on, we fix $t_0\in [0,{T_1}]$ and $z_0 \in u(t_0,\partial D)$.
Set
$$\rho_1:=\frac{\delta_3}{4} \wedge \rho_0 , $$
$$H_{t_0,z}:=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^d:(x-z)\cdot\gamma(t_0,z)=0\},$$
for some $z \in \mathbb{R}^d$. Recall $N_1$ is the constant defined in Lemma \ref{L3.2}. The next lemma states that in a neighborhood of $z_0$, $y(t,x,r)$ hits the hyperplane $H_{t_0,z}$ at a unique point $r=\Gamma^z(t,x)$, and so does $y_n(t,x,r)$ for $n \ge N_1$.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.3}
There exist constants $\eta_1\in(0,\eta_0 )$ and $\delta_4\in(0,\frac{\delta_3}{2})$ such that for any $n\ge N_1$, $(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)$ and $z\in B(z_0,\delta_4)$, there exist unique $\Gamma^z(t,x),\Gamma_n^z(t,x) \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1)$ such that $y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)),y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x))\in H_{t_0,z}$. Moreover
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Gamma_n^z(\cdot , \cdot) \in C_b^{1,1}(((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)), \label{4.10}\\
&&\Gamma^z(\cdot , \cdot) \in C_b^{0,1}(((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)), \label{4.11}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\partial_{x_i}\Gamma_n^z(t,x)= \! - \! \left( \gamma_n (t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x))) \! \cdot \! \gamma (t_0,z) \right)^{-1} \! \! \sum_{1 \! \le \! j \! \le \! d} \! \psi_{n, i}^j(t,x, \! \Gamma_n^z(t,x))\gamma^j(t_0,z), \label{3.49}\\
&&\partial_t\Gamma_n^z(t,x)=- \left( \gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z) \right)^{-1} \Lambda_n(t,x,\Gamma^z_n(t,x)) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z), \label{3.14} \\
&&\partial_{x_i}\Gamma^z(t,x)=-\left( \gamma (t,y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z)\right)^{-1} \! \! \sum_{1 \le j\le d}\psi_i^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\gamma^j(t_0,z), \label{3.29}\\
&& \gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z) \ge \cos \theta_1, \label{3.13} \\
&&\lim_{n \to \infty}\sup_{(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)}|\Gamma^z_n(t,x)-\Gamma^z(t,x)|=0. \label{3.17}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For $n\ge N_1$, set $H_{n,t}(x,z,r):=(y_n(t,x,r)-z)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z)$. Then for any $x,z\in B(z_0,\frac{\delta_3}{2})$,
$t\in ((t_0-\eta_0)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_0)\wedge T_1)$ and $r \in (-\frac{\delta_3}{2},\frac{\delta_3}{2})$, we have $|y_n(t,x,r)-z_0|<\delta_3$. Therefore by Lemma \ref{L3.2}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_r H_{n,t}(x,z,r)=\gamma_n(t, y_n(t, x, r)) \cdot \gamma (t_{0}, z )\ge \cos \theta_1 >0. \label{2.93}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $H_{n,t}(z_0,z_0, 0)=0$, hence applying the implicit function theorem to $H_{n,t}(\cdot, \cdot ,\cdot)$, there exist constants $\eta_1\in(0,\eta_0 )$ and $\delta_4 \in(0,\frac{\delta_3}{2})$ sufficiently small, such that for any $n\ge N_1$ and $t \in \! (( t_0 \! - \! \eta_1 ) \vee 0, ( t_0 \! + \! \eta_1 ) \wedge T_1)$, there exists a unique $g_{n , t}(\cdot,\cdot) \! \in \! C^{1 , 1} (B(z_0, \delta_4 )\times B(z_0, \delta_4 ))$, such that
$H_{n, t}(x,z, g_{n , t}(x, z)) \! = \! 0$
and $g_{n,t}(x,z) \in (-\rho_1, \rho_1)$ for $(x,z)\in B(z_0, \delta_4 )\times B(z_0, \delta_4 )$. Denote $\Gamma_n^z(t,x):=g_{n,t}(x,z)$. Then it is easy to see that (\ref{4.10}), (\ref{3.49}) and (\ref{3.14}) hold for any $n \ge N_1$ and $z \in B(z_0, \delta_4 )$.
Since $|\Gamma_n^z(t,x)|< \rho_1< \frac{\delta_3}{2}$, by (\ref{2.93}) we get (\ref{3.13}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Applying the implicit function theorem to $H_t(x,z,r):=(y(t,x,r)-z)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z)$, we can choose common constants $\eta_1,\delta_4>0$, such that for $(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)$ and $z\in B(z_0,\delta_4)$, there exists a unique $ \Gamma^z(t,x)\in (-\rho_1,\rho_1)$ such that $ y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))\in H_{t_0,z}$. Moreover (\ref{4.11})
and (\ref{3.29}) hold.
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we prove (\ref{3.17}).
By (\ref{2.29}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.18}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \lim_{n \to \infty}\sup_{(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)}|H_{t}(x,z,\Gamma^z_n(t,x)) -H_{t}(x,z,\Gamma^z(t,x))| \\
&=\lim_{n \to \infty}\sup_{(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)}|H_{t}(x,z,\Gamma^z_n(t,x)) -H_{n,t}(x,z,\Gamma_n^z(t,x))|=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, for $(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4)$ and $r \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1)$, since $|y(t,x,r)-z_0| \le |r|+|x-z_0|<\delta_3$, together with Lemma \ref{L3.2} we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \sup_{(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4) \atop r \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1), n\ge N_1} |\partial_r H_{t}(x,z,r)|\\
&=\sup_{(t,x)\in ((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)\times B(z_0,\delta_4) \atop r \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1), n\ge N_1} |\gamma(t,y(t,x,r))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z)| \ge \cos \theta_1 .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, taking into account (\ref{2.18}),
$$|\Gamma^z_n(t,x)-\Gamma^z(t,x)|\leq \frac{1}{\cos \theta_1}|H_{t}(x,z,\Gamma^z_n(t,x)) -H_{t}(x,z,\Gamma^z(t,x)) |,$$
which yields (\ref{3.17}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Define
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.19}
\begin{split}
C(z,\delta):=\bigcup_{c\in \mathbb{R}}B(z-c\gamma(t_0,z),2\delta \tan \theta_1 )\bigcap B(z,\delta).
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
We have the following relationship.
\begin{lem} \label{L2.7}
For any $\delta\in(0,\frac{\delta_4}{2}]$, $t\in((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)$ and $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta}{2})$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2-201}
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z| < 3\delta \tan \theta_1 , \ \forall x\in C(z,\delta),
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\{x\in B(z,\delta): y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))\in B(z,\delta \tan \theta_1 ) \}\subset C(z,\delta). \label{3.83}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\delta\in(0,\frac{\delta_4}{2}]$, $t\in((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)$, $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta}{2})$ and $x\in B(z,\delta)$. Define $P(\alpha):=(\alpha \cdot \gamma(t_0,z))\gamma(t_0,z)$ and $Q(\alpha):=\alpha-P(\alpha)$ for $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^d$. It is easy to see that for any $r \in (0,\Gamma^z(t,x)]$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,r)-z_0| & \le|y(t,x,r)-x|+|x-z|+|z-z_0| \\
&\le |r|+\delta+\frac{\delta}{2}<\delta_3.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore by Lemma \ref{L3.2} and the fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
P(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z)=0, \label{4.6}
\end{eqnarray}
we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-4} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|Q(\gamma(t,y(t,x,r)))|^2&=|\gamma(t,y(t,x,r))-(\gamma(t,y(t,x,r))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z))\gamma(t_0,z)|^2\\
&= |\gamma(t,y(t,x,r))|^2- (\gamma(t,y(t,x,r))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z))^2\\
&\le 1- \cos^2 \theta_1 \\
&= \cos^2 \theta_1 \tan^2 \theta_1 \\
&\le (\gamma(t,y(t,x,r))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z))^2 \tan^2 \theta_1 \\
&= |P(\gamma(t,y(t,x,r)))|^2 \tan^2 \theta_1 ,\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-5} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|P(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-x)|&= |P(z-x)+P(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z)|\\
&= |P(z-x)| \\
&\le |z-x| < \delta.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence it follows that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.26}
\begin{split}
|Q(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-x)|&\le |\int_{0}^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|Q(\gamma(t,y(t,x,r)))|dr|\\
&\le |\int_{0}^{\Gamma^z(t,x)} |P(\gamma(t,y(t,x,r)))|\tan \theta_1 dr| \\
&= |\int_{0}^{\Gamma^z(t,x)} \gamma(t,y(t,x,r)) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z) dr| \tan \theta_1 \\
&= |( \int_{0}^{\Gamma^z(t,x)} \gamma(t,y(t,x,r)) dr \cdot \gamma(t_0,z))| \tan \theta_1 \\
&= |P(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-x)| \tan \theta_1 \\
&< \delta \tan \theta_1 .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
For $x \in C(z,\delta)$, we easily see that $|Q(z-x)|< 2\delta \tan \theta_1 $. Hence by (\ref{4.6}) and (\ref{2.26}) we get that
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z|&= |Q(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z)|\\
&\le |Q(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-x)|+|Q(z-x)|\\
&< \delta \tan \theta_1+2\delta \tan \theta_1 =3\delta \tan \theta_1 .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which is (\ref{2-201}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we prove (\ref{3.83}).
If $x\in B(z,\delta) \setminus C(z,\delta)$, then we have
$$|Q(z-x)|\ge 2\delta \tan \theta_1 .$$
Hence by (\ref{4.6}) and (\ref{2.26}) we get that
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z|&= |Q(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z)|\\
&\ge |Q(z-x)|-|Q(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-x)|\\
&> 2\delta \tan \theta_1 -\delta \tan \theta_1 =\delta \tan \theta_1 ,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies (\ref{3.83}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
The following Lemma plays an important role in the proofs of Proposition \ref{P4.1.1} and Proposition \ref{P4.2.1}, which establish the convergence of $\Gamma^z_n(t,x)$ and $y_n(t,x,\Gamma^z_n(t,x))$ in some Sobolev spaces and provide further regularities of $y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))$. Recall that
$$D(t,c)=\{x:d(x,u(t,D)^c)> c \},$$
$\theta_0$ and $N_0(\varepsilon)$ were defined in Proposition \ref{P2.2} and Lemma \ref{L3.2.2} respectively.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.4}
There exist constants $\delta_5\in(0, \delta_4 )$ and $\eta_2\in (0,\eta_1)$ such that for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N_1(\varepsilon)>N_1 \vee N_0(\varepsilon)$ satisfying that for $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta_5}{2})$, $n,m\ge N_1(\varepsilon)$, $t\in((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)$ and $x\in C(z,\delta_5)\bigcap D(t,\varepsilon)$, if $\Gamma^z(t,x)\neq 0$, then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
y(t,x,r)\in D(t,(\varepsilon \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{\delta_5}{16}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2})) \ \mbox{for} \ r\in (0, \Gamma^z(t,x)], \label{3.46}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
y_n(t,x,r)\in D(t,(\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{\delta_5}{32}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2})), \label{3.48}
\end{eqnarray}
for $r\in (0, \Gamma_n^z(t,x) ] \cup (\Gamma^z_n(t,x),\Gamma^z_m(t,x)]\cup (\Gamma^z_m(t,x),\Gamma^z(t,x)]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\delta_5:= \frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{16} $ and $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta_5}{2})$.
First we show that for
$t\in((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1)$ and $x\in C(z,\delta_5)$, if $\Gamma^z(t,x)\le 0$ and $r\in [\Gamma^z(t,x),0]$, then $d(y(t,x,r), u(t_0,D)^c)> \frac{\delta_5}{8}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}$.
\vskip 0.3cm
By (\ref{2-201}), we get
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.25}
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0|\le |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z|+|z-z_0|\le 3\delta_5 \tan \theta_1 + |z-z_0|.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{L3.2} and the fact that $\cos \theta_1 > \frac{1}{4}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.27}
\begin{split}
|z-z_0|^2&=\int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,r)) \cdot (z-z_0)dr\\
&=\int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}dr \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}} \gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,r)) \cdot \gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau))d\tau\\
&> \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}dr \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}} \frac{1}{4} d\tau = \frac{\delta_5^2}{16},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., $\frac{\delta_5}{|z-z_0|}< 4$. By Lemma \ref{L3.2} and (\ref{2.25}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-16-1}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ (y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&=(z-z_0)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)+(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&=\int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau)) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)d\tau+(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z)\cdot (\gamma(t_0,z_0)-\gamma(t_0,z))\\
&\ge \frac{\delta_5}{2} \cos \theta_1 -|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z| |\gamma(t_0,z_0)-\gamma(t_0,z)|\\
&\ge |z-z_0| \cos \theta_1 -|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z| (2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
&\ge |z-z_0| (\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} )-|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0| (2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
&\ge (\frac{|z-z_0| (\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} )}{|z-z_0|+3\delta_5 \tan \theta_1 }-(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} )|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0| \\
&> (\frac{\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} }{1+12 \tan \theta_1 }-(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} )|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0|,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where the fact $\frac{\delta_5}{|z-z_0|}< 4$ has been used in the last inequality.
Note that for $\tau \in [\Gamma^z(t,x),0]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\tau)-z_0|\le |y(t,x,\tau)-x|+|x-z |+|z-z_0|< \delta_3, \label{4.7}
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that $\gamma(t,y(t,x,\tau))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\ge \cos \theta_1 $ by Lemma \ref{L3.2}. Together with (\ref{2.5}) and (\ref{2-16-1}) we get $ \gamma(t,y(t,x,\tau)) \cdot(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0) \ge 0$. Hence
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.28}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ |y(t,x,r)-z_0|^2\\
&=|y(t,x,r)-y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))|^2+|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0|^2\\
&\ \ \ \ +2(y(t,x,r)-y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))) \cdot (y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0)\\
&\ge |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0|^2+2\int_{\Gamma^z(t,x)}^{r} \gamma(t,y(t,x,\tau)) \cdot (y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0)d\tau\\
&\ge |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0|^2. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining (\ref{2-201}), (\ref{2.27}), (\ref{2.28}) and the fact that $\theta_1< \arctan \frac{1}{24}$, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.8}
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,r)-z_0|& \ge |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0| \\
& \ge |z-z_0|-|y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z| \\
& > \frac{\delta_5}{4}-3\delta_5 \tan \theta_1 > \frac{\delta_5}{8}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{L3.2}, (\ref{2-16-1}) and (\ref{4.7}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-16-2}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ (y(t,x,r)-z_0)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&=(y(t,x,r)-y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)+(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&> \int_{\Gamma^z(t,x)}^{r} \gamma(t,y(t,x,\tau))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)d\tau + (\frac{\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} }{1+12 \tan \theta_1 }-(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} ) \\
&\ \ \ \ \times |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0| \\
&\ge (r-\Gamma^z(t,x))\cos \theta_1 + (\frac{\cos \theta_1 - (2 - 2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} }{1+12 \tan \theta_1 } - (2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} ) \\
&\ \ \ \ \times |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0| \\
&\ge |y(t,x,r)-y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))|\cos \theta_1 + (\frac{\cos \theta_1 -(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} }{1+12 \tan \theta_1 }-(2-2\cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} ) \\
&\ \ \ \ \times |y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))-z_0| \\
&> |y(t,x,r)-z_0| \cos \frac{\theta_0}{2},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_1<\frac{\theta_0}{2}$ and (\ref{2.6}) have been used for the last inequality. Now, (\ref{4.7}) and (\ref{2-16-2}) implies that
$$y(t,x,r) \in C(z_0,\gamma(t_0,z_0), \frac{\theta_0}{2},\delta_2)\subset u(t_0,D).$$
Combining this with (\ref{2.8}) we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.8}
\begin{split}
d(y(t,x,r), u(t_0,D)^c)\ge d(y(t,x,r), \partial C(z_0,\gamma(t_0,z_0),\theta_0,\delta_2))> \frac{\delta_5}{8} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
Note that $\tilde {D}_{\frac{\delta_5}{16} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}}=\{(t,y):t\in (0,T_1),\ y \in D(t, \frac{\delta_5}{16} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2})\}$ is an open set in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ by Lemma \ref{L3.2.2}, and $\{ t_0 \} \times \bar A \subset \tilde {D}_{\frac{\delta_5}{16} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}}$ by (\ref{4.8}), where
$$A:=\{y(t,x,r): \ t\in((t_0-\eta_1)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_1)\wedge T_1), \ x\in C(z,\delta_5),\ \Gamma^z(t,x)\le 0, \ r\in [\Gamma^z(t,x),0]\}. $$
Hence there exists a $\eta_2 \in (0,\eta_1 \wedge (\frac{\delta_4\sin \theta_0}{8M_0})^{1/a_0})$ such that
$$ ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1) \times A \subset \tilde {D}_{\frac{\delta_5}{16} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}}.$$
Obviously, for $t\in((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)$, $x\in C(z,\delta_5)$, if $\Gamma^z(t,x)\le 0$ and $r\in [\Gamma^z(t,x),0]$, then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2.12}
\begin{split}
d(y(t,x,r), u(t,D)^c)> \frac{\delta_5}{16}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we will prove (\ref{3.46}). By (\ref{2.12}) we just need to show that for $\varepsilon>0$, \\
$t\in((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)$ and $x\in C(z,\delta_5)\bigcap D(t,\varepsilon)$, if $\Gamma^z(t,x)>0$ and $r \in (0, \Gamma^z(t,x)]$, then $d(y(t,x,r) , u(t,D)^c)> \varepsilon \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2} $.
\vskip 0.3cm
Set $z_0':=u(t,u^{-1}(t_0,z_0))\in u(t, \partial D)$ and $F(a):=x+a\gamma(t,z_0')$ for $a \in \mathbb{R}$.
Obviously, there exists a constant $a_1 <0$ such that $F(a_1) \in \partial \cup_{r>0}C(z_0',-\gamma(t,z_0'),\theta_0,r))$. Noting $\eta_2<(\frac{\delta_4\sin \theta_0}{8M_0})^{1/a_0}$ and $\delta_5=\frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{16}$, by (\ref{3.1}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.9}
\begin{split}
|z_0-z_0'|&= |u(t_0,u^{-1}(t_0,z_0))-u(t,u^{-1}(t_0,z_0))|\\
&\le M_0|t_0-t|^{\alpha_0}< \frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{8},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|x-z_0'|&\le |x-z|+|z-z_0|+|z_0-z_0'|\\
&< 2\delta_5 +\frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{8}=\frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{4}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|F(a_1)-z_0'|=\frac{d(z_0',\{F(a):a\in \mathbb{R}\})}{\sin \theta_0} \le \frac{|x-z_0'|}{\sin \theta_0} <\frac{\delta_4 }{4},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that $F(a_1) \in \bar C(z_0',-\gamma(t,z_0'),\theta_0,\delta_2) \subset u(t,D)^c$.
Since
$$F(a_1)\in u(t,D) ^c \cap B(z_0',\frac{\delta_4 }{4})$$
and
$$F(0)=x\in u(t,D) \cap B(z_0', \frac{\delta_4 }{4}),$$
there eixsts a constant $a_2\in (a_1,0)$ such that $F(a_2)\in u(t,\partial D) \cap B(z_0',\frac{\delta_4 }{4})$.
For any $\tau \in (0, \Gamma^z(t,x)]$, since $\tau <\rho_1 \le \frac{\delta_3}{4}$ and $\delta_4 < \frac{\delta_3 }{2}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.10}
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\tau)-F(a_2)|&\le |y(t,x,\tau)-x|+|x-F(a_2)| \\
&\le \tau+|x-F(a_2)|\\
&\le \tau+|x-F(a_1)| \\
&\le \tau+|x-z_0'|+|F(a_1)-z_0'|\\
&< \tau+\frac{\delta_4\sin \theta_0}{4}+\frac{\delta_4 }{4}< \frac{\delta_3}{2},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.9}
\begin{split}
|y(t,x,\tau)-z_0| &\le|y(t,x,\tau)-F(a_2)|+|F(a_2)-z_0'|+|z_0'-z_0| \\
&<\frac{\delta_3}{2}+\frac{\delta_4 }{4}+\frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{8}<\delta_3.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Together with Lemma \ref{L3.2}, (\ref{2.9}) and the fact that $x \in D(t,\varepsilon)$, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.11}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ |y(t,x,r)-F(a_2)|^2\\
&=|y(t,x,r)-x|^2+|x-F(a_2)| ^2+2(-a_2)\int_0^r\gamma(t,y(t,x,\tau))\cdot \gamma(t,z_0') d\tau\\
&\ge |x-F(a_2)| ^2\ge d(x, u(t,D)^c)^2> {\varepsilon}^2.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, note that $|F(a_2)-z_0|\le |F(a_2)-z_0'|+|z_0'-z_0|< \frac{\delta_4 }{4}+ \frac{\delta_4 \sin \theta_0}{8}<\delta_3$. Combining this with Lemma \ref{L3.2}, (\ref{2.9}) and (\ref{4.9}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ (y(t,x,r)-F(a_2))\cdot \gamma(t,F(a_2))\\
&= (y(t,x,r)-x)\cdot \gamma(t,F(a_2))+(x-F(a_2))\cdot \gamma(t,F(a_2))\\
&=\int_0^r \gamma(t,y(t,x,\tau)) \cdot \gamma(t,F(a_2)) d\tau+(-a_2) \gamma(t,z_0') \cdot \gamma(t,F(a_2)) \\
&\ge r \cos \theta_1 +(-a_2)\cos \theta_1 \\
&\ge \cos \theta_1 |y(t,x,r)-x|+\cos \theta_1 |x-F(a_2)| \\
&\ge \cos \theta_1 |y(t,x,r)-F(a_2)|> \cos \frac{\theta_0}{2} |y(t,x,r)-F(a_2)|.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Together with (\ref{2.10}), we have $y(t,x,r) \in C(F(a_2),\gamma(t,F(a_2)), \frac{\theta_0}{2},\delta_2) \subset u(t,D)$. Hence combining this with (\ref{2.11}) we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
d(y(t,x,r) , u(t, D)^c) &\ge d(y(t,x,r) , \partial C(F(a_2),\gamma(t,F(a_2)),\theta_0,\delta_2)) \\
&\ge|y(t,x,r) -F(a_2)| \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2} > \varepsilon \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2} .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
Finally we prove (\ref{3.48}). By (\ref{2.29}), there exists an integer $\tilde N(\varepsilon)>N_1 \vee N_0(\varepsilon)$ such that for $n>\tilde N(\varepsilon)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|y_n(t,x,r)-y(t,x,r)| < (\frac{\varepsilon}{4} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{\delta_5}{64}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \ \mbox{for} \ r\in (0, \Gamma^z(t,x) ].
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Using this and (\ref{3.46}), we see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
y_n(t,x,r) \in D(t,(\frac{3\varepsilon}{4} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{3\delta_5}{64}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) ) \ \mbox{for} \ r\in (0, \Gamma^z(t,x) ]. \label{3.47} \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{3.17}), (\ref{3.47}) and noting
$$\sup_{(t,x)\in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d,\atop \tau \in(-\rho_1,\rho_1),n\ge N_0}|\partial_r y_n(t,x,\tau)|<\infty,$$
for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an integer $N_1(\varepsilon)>\tilde N(\varepsilon)$ such that for $n,m>N_1(\varepsilon)$ and \\
$r \in (\Gamma^z (t,x),\Gamma^z_n(t,x)]\bigcup (\Gamma^z_n (t,x),\Gamma_m^z(t,x)]$, we have
$$|y_n(t,x,r)-y_n(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))|< (\frac{\varepsilon}{4} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{\delta_5}{64}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}),$$
and $d(y_n(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)),u(t,D)^c)> (\frac{3\varepsilon}{4} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{3\delta_5}{64}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) $. Hence
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
d(y_n(t,x,r),u(t,D)^c)& \ge d(y_n(t,x,\Gamma^z_n(t,x)),u(t,D)^c)-|y_n(t,x,r)-y_n(t,x,\Gamma^z_n(t,x))|\\
&> (\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{\delta_5}{32}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}).
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Together with (\ref{3.47}), we obtain (\ref{3.48}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
From now on, we fix $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta_5}{2})$.
Recall that $\psi_i^j$ and $\Lambda_n$ were defined in (\ref{3.7}) and (\ref{3.10}) respectively, $D(t,\varepsilon)$ and $C(z,\delta_5)$ were defined in (\ref{2.19-1}) and (\ref{2.19}) respectively. Set
$$ \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}:=\{(t,x): t\in ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1), \ x\in C(z,\delta_5) \bigcap D(t,\varepsilon)\}. $$
\vskip 0.4cm
The regularity of $\Gamma^z(t,x)$ and the convergence of $\Gamma_n^z(t,x)$ are stated in the following two propositions. The proofs of theses results are quite lengthy. They are put in the appendix.
\begin{prp} \label{P4.1.1}
For any $1\le i,j\le d$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.48}
\psi_{i}^j(\cdot , \cdot , \Gamma^z( \cdot , \cdot ))\in W_{2d+2}^{0,1}((((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times C(z,\delta_5))\bigcap \tilde D),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.49}
\Gamma^z ( \cdot , \cdot ) \in W_{2d+2}^{0,2}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times C(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prp}
\begin{prp} \label{P4.2.1}
Let $N_1(\varepsilon)$ be given in Lemma \ref{L3.4}, then
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.50}
\begin{split}
\sup_{\varepsilon>0} \sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)} \| \Lambda_n(\cdot,\cdot,\Gamma_n^z(\cdot,\cdot)) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for any $\varepsilon>0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \| \Lambda_n (\cdot, \cdot, \Gamma_{n}^{z}(\cdot, \cdot) ) -\Lambda_m (\cdot, \cdot, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(\cdot, \cdot) ) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0, \label{4.51} \\
\lim_{n,m\to \infty} \|\partial_t\Gamma_n^z(\cdot,\cdot)-\partial_t\Gamma_m^z(\cdot,\cdot)\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0. \label{4.52}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prp}
\begin{remark}
From (\ref{3.14}), (\ref{3.13}), (\ref{4.49}), (\ref{4.50}) and (\ref{4.52}), we see that
$$\Gamma^z ( \cdot , \cdot )\in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times C(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D). $$
\end{remark}
\section{Construction of test functions}
In this section, we will construct a family of auxiliary functions which will be used to prove
the pathwise uniqueness of the solutions of reflecting stochastic differential equations. Recall that $\theta_1$ was defined in Lemma \ref{L3.2}. Let $t_0$, $z_0$, $\delta_5$, $\eta_2$ and $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta_5}{2})$ be defined as in Section 4.
\begin{lem} \label{L3.7}
Let $u_0 \in C_0^2(B(z,\delta_5 \tan \theta_1 ) \bigcap H_{t_0,z})$ be nonnegative with $u_0(z)=1$. Define $h(t,x):=u_0(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)))$. Then \\
$(\mathrm{i})$. $h(t_0,z_0)=1$, \\
$(\mathrm{ii})$. $B(z,\delta_5) \bigcap \mathrm{supp} \ h(t,\cdot) \subset C(z,\delta_5)$ for $t \in ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)$, \\
$(\mathrm{iii})$. $h$ belongs to the following space:
$$C_b^{0,1}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)) \bigcap W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{L2.7} , the choice of $u_0$ and the definition of $\Gamma^z(t,x)$, we see that
$$h(t_0,z_0)=h(t_0,z)=u_0(z)=1,$$
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.32}
\begin{split}
B(z,\delta_5) \bigcap \mathrm{supp} \ h(t,\cdot) \subset C(z,\delta_5), \ \forall t \in ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1),
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
hence (i) and (ii) are proved.
\vskip 0.3cm
By Lemma \ref{L3.3} and the fact that $\gamma \in C^{0,1}_b([0,{T_1}] \times \mathbb{R}^d)$, we have for $1 \le i \le d$,
$$h \in C_b^{0,1}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)),$$
and
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\partial_{x_i}h(t,x)=\sum_{1 \le j \le d}\partial_{y_j}u_0(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)))[\psi_i^j(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x))+\gamma^j(t,y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)))\partial_{x_i}\Gamma^z(t,x)].
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
From Proposition \ref{P4.1.1} and (\ref{2.32}), it follows that
$$h \in W_{2d+2}^{0,2}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D).$$
\vskip 0.3cm
Set $h_n(t,x):=u_0(y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)))$. Then $h_n(t,x)$ converges to $h(t,x)$ uniformly on $((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)$ and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-19-2}
\begin{split}
\partial_{t}h_n(t,x)&=\nabla_y u_0(y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x))) \cdot \Lambda_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)) \\
&\ \ \ \ + \nabla_y u_0(y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x))) \cdot \gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x))) \partial_t \Gamma_n^z(t,x).\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{3.14}), (\ref{3.13}) and (\ref{4.50}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-19-3}
\begin{split}
\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)}\|\partial_t\Gamma_n^z\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore by (\ref{4.50}), (\ref{2-19-2}) and (\ref{2-19-3}) we have $\sup\limits_{\varepsilon>0} \sup\limits_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)}\|\partial_{t}h_n \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty$. On the other hand, by (\ref{4.51}) and (\ref{4.52}), we have for any $\varepsilon>0$, $\lim\limits_{n,m \to \infty}\|\partial_{t}h_n-\partial_{t}h_m\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0$. Hence $h \in W_{2d+2}^{1,0}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D)$. The proof of (iii) is complete by combining the above statements about $h$ together.
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Now, we start to construct the first important class of test functions. The construction is inspired by \cite{Dupuis3} and \cite{Lundstrom}.
\begin{prp} \label{P3.5}
There exists a nonnegative function $H \in C^{0,1}_b([0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d) \bigcap W^{1,2}_{2d+2}(\tilde D)$ such that for any $t \in [0,{T_1}]$ and $x \in u(t,\partial D)$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.84}
\begin{split}
\nabla_{x}H(t,x) \cdot \gamma(t,x) \ge 1.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{L3.7}, we know that for any given $t_0\in [0,{T_1}]$ and $z_0 \in u(t_0,\partial D)$, there exists a nonnegative function $h(t,x):=u_0(y(t,x,\Gamma^z(t,x)))$ with $h(t_0,z_0)=1$ and $h $ belongs to the following space:
$$C_b^{0,1}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)) \bigcap W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D),$$
where $\delta_5, \eta_2$ are dependent of $(t_0,z_0)$, and $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta_5}{2})$.
Using the method of characteristics, we know that $h(t,x)$ is the solution to the following Cauchy problem:
\begin{align} \label{2.36}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nabla_x h(t,x) \cdot \gamma(t,x)=0, \\
& h(t,\cdot)|_{H_{t_0, z}}=u_0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
\vskip 0.3cm By (\ref{2.17}) and (\ref{2-3}), there exists a constant $\kappa \in (\frac{1}{2},1)$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-1}
\begin{split}
\frac{ (\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 - 2 \tan \theta_1 -\frac{1}{2}}{(\frac{5}{4}+ 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +2 \tan \theta_1 - (\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} } >\cos \theta_0,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-2}
\begin{split}
\frac{ (\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 -2 \tan \theta_1 +\frac{1}{2} \cos \theta_1 }{(\frac{9}{4}+4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +2 \tan \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}}} >\cos \theta_0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we show that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.22}
\begin{split}
u(t_0,\partial D) \bigcap (\bar C(z,\delta_5) \backslash B(z,\kappa \delta_5))= \emptyset,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C(z,\delta_5)$ was defined in (\ref{2.19}) and $\bar C(z,\delta_5)$ is the closure of $C(z,\delta_5)$.
Let $x\in \bar C(z,\delta_5) \backslash B(z,\kappa \delta_5)$, $\sigma:=(x-z)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z) $ and $\beta:=x-z-\sigma \gamma(t_0,z) $. Then it is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.21}
\begin{split}
|x-z_0|\le|x-z|+|z-z_0|\le \delta_5+\frac{\delta_5}{2}< \delta_2,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{5.11}
\begin{split}
|x-z_0|\ge|x-z|- |z-z_0|\ge \kappa \delta_5-\frac{\delta_5}{2}>0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $x \in \bar C(z,\delta_5)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.34}
\begin{split}
|\beta|\le 2 \delta_5 \tan \theta_1 .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence $\delta_5^2\ge |x-z|^2 \ge |\sigma|^2=|x-z|^2-|\beta|^2 \ge \kappa^2 \delta_5^2- 4 \delta_5^2 \tan ^2\theta_1 $, which means that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.33}
\begin{split}
\frac{|\sigma|}{\delta_5} \in [(\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} ,1].
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
If $\sigma \le 0$, then by (\ref{2.34}),
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ |x-z_0|^2 \\
&=|x-z|^2+|z-z_0|^2+2 \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}(x-z)\cdot\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau) d\tau\\
&\le \sigma^2+|\beta|^2 +|z-z_0|^2+2 \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}} |\beta| |\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau)| d\tau +2\sigma \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}\gamma(t_0,z) \cdot\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau) d\tau\\
&\le \sigma^2+ 4 \delta_5^2 \tan^2 \theta_1 + \frac{\delta_5^2}{4}+ 2 \delta_5^2 \tan \theta_1 - |\sigma| \delta_5 \cos \theta_1 ,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-19-4} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\frac{ |x-z_0|^2}{\delta_5^2} \le \frac{\sigma^2}{\delta_5^2} + 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +\frac{1}{4}+ 2 \tan \theta_1 - \frac{|\sigma| }{\delta_5} \cos \theta_1 . \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with (\ref{2-1}), (\ref{2.34}) and (\ref{2.33}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.23}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ (x-z_0)\cdot (-\gamma(t_0,z_0))\\
&= -\sigma \gamma(t_0,z) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)-\beta \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)-(z-z_0) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&\ge |\sigma| \gamma(t_0,z) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0) -|\beta|-|z-z_0| \\
&\ge (\frac{|\sigma| }{\delta_5} \cos \theta_1 - 2 \tan \theta_1 -\frac{1}{2})\delta_5 \\
&\ge \frac{\frac{|\sigma| }{\delta_5} \cos \theta_1 - 2 \tan \theta_1 -\frac{1}{2}}{(\frac{\sigma^2}{\delta_5^2} + 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +\frac{1}{4}+ 2 \tan \theta_1 - \frac{|\sigma| }{\delta_5} \cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} } |x-z_0|\\
&\ge \frac{ (\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 - 2 \tan \theta_1 -\frac{1}{2}}{(\frac{5}{4}+ 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +2 \tan \theta_1 - (\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} } |x-z_0| \\
& >|x-z_0| \cos \theta_0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
(\ref{2.21}), (\ref{5.11}) and (\ref{2.23}) show that $x \in C(z_0,-\gamma(t_0,z_0),\delta_2,\theta_0)\subset u(t_0, \bar D)^c$, which in particular implies $x \not\in u(t_0,\partial D)$.
If $\sigma > 0$, then by (\ref{2.34})
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ |x-z_0|^2\\
&=|x-z|^2+|z-z_0|^2+2 \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}(x-z)\cdot\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau) d\tau\\
&\le \sigma^2+|\beta|^2+|z-z_0|^2+2 \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}} |\beta| |\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau)| d\tau + 2\sigma \int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}}\gamma(t_0,z) \cdot\gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau) d\tau\\
&\le \sigma^2+ 4 \delta_5^2 \tan^2 \theta_1 + \frac{\delta_5^2}{4}+ 2 \delta_5^2 \tan \theta_1 + \sigma \delta_5,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\frac{ |x-z_0|^2}{\delta_5^2} \le \frac{\sigma^2}{\delta_5^2} + 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +\frac{1}{4}+ 2 \tan \theta_1 + \frac{\sigma}{\delta_5} . \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with (\ref{2-2}), (\ref{2.34}) and (\ref{2.33}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ (x-z_0)\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&= \sigma \gamma(t_0,z) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)+\beta \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)+(z-z_0) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&\ge \sigma \gamma(t_0,z) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0) -|\beta|+\int_0^{\frac{\delta_5}{2}} \gamma(t_0,y(t_0,z_0,\tau))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0) d \tau\\
&\ge ( \frac{\sigma}{\delta_5} \cos \theta_1 - 2 \tan \theta_1 +\frac{1}{2} \cos \theta_1 )\delta_5 \\
&\ge \frac{ \frac{\sigma}{\delta_5} \cos \theta_1 -2 \tan \theta_1 +\frac{1}{2} \cos \theta_1 }{(\frac{\sigma^2}{\delta_5^2} + 4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +\frac{1}{4}+ 2 \tan \theta_1 + \frac{\sigma}{\delta_5} )^{\frac{1}{2}} } |x-z_0|\\
& \ge \frac{ (\kappa^2-4 \tan^2 \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \cos \theta_1 -2 \tan \theta_1 +\frac{1}{2} \cos \theta_1 }{(\frac{9}{4}+4 \tan^2 \theta_1 +2 \tan \theta_1 )^{\frac{1}{2}}}|x-z_0|\\
& >|x-z_0| \cos \theta_0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Together with (\ref{2.21}) and (\ref{5.11}) we see that $x \in C(z_0, \gamma(t_0,z_0),\delta_2,\theta_0)\subset u(t_0, D) $, which again implies $x \not\in u(t_0,\partial D)$. Hence we obtain (\ref{2.22}).
\vskip 0.3cm
By (\ref{3.1}) and (\ref{2.22}), there exists a $\eta_3\in (0,\eta_2)$ such that for
$t\in ((t_0-\eta_3)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_3)\wedge T_1)$, we have $u(t,\partial D) \bigcap (\bar C(z,\delta_5) \backslash B(z,\kappa \delta_5))= \emptyset$. Together with Lemma \ref{L3.7} we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.35}
\begin{split}
u(t,\partial D) \bigcap B(z,\delta_5) \bigcap (\mathrm{supp} \ h(t,\cdot) \backslash B(z,\kappa \delta_5))= \emptyset. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Now take a nonnegative function $\chi_1 \in C_0^{1,2}(((t_0-\eta_3)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_3)\wedge T_1) \times B(z,\delta_5))$ such that $\chi_1 =1$ on $((t_0-\frac{\eta_3}{2})\vee 0,(t_0+\frac{\eta_3}{2})\wedge T_1) \times B(z,\kappa \delta_5)$, and choose a constant $M>0$ large enough, such that $\chi_2(x):=(x-z_0) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)+M$ is nonnegative on $B(z,\delta_5)$. Set $h_{t_0,z_0}(t,x):=h(t,x) \chi_1(t,x) \chi_2(x)$. We see that $h_{t_0,z_0}$ belongs to the following space:
$$ C_0^{0,1}(((t_0-\eta_3)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_3)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)) \bigcap W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(((t_0-\eta_3)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_3)\wedge T_1)\times B(z,\delta_5)\bigcap \tilde D).$$ Note that by (\ref{2.35}), $\chi_1=1$ on the neighborhood of
$$\{(t,x):t \in ((t_0-\frac{\eta_3}{2})\vee 0,(t_0+\frac{\eta_3}{2})\wedge T_1), \ x \in u(t, \partial D) \cap B(z,\delta_5)\cap \mathrm{supp} \ h(t,\cdot)\}.$$
Using the above fact, Lemma \ref{L3.2} and (\ref{2.36}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\nabla_x h_{t_0,z_0}(t_0,z_0) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)&=\chi_2(z_0) \nabla_x h(t_0,z_0) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)+h(t_0,z_0) \nabla_x \chi_2(z_0) \cdot \gamma(t_0,z_0)\\
&=1,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
\nabla_x h_{t_0,z_0}(t,x) \cdot \gamma(t,x)&=\chi_2(x) \nabla_x h(t,x) \cdot \gamma(t,x)+h(t,x) \nabla_x \chi_2(x) \cdot \gamma(t,x)\\
&\ge 0,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
for $t \in ((t_0-\frac{\eta_3}{2})\vee 0,(t_0+\frac{\eta_3}{2})\wedge T_1)$ and $x \in u(t, \partial D) \cap B(z,\delta_5)$. Now, by a standard compactness argument we can construct a nonnegative function $H \in C^{0,1}_b([0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d) \bigcap W^{1,2}_{2d+2}(\tilde D)$ such that (\ref{3.84}) holds for any $t \in [0,{T_1}]$ and $x \in u(t,\partial D)$.
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Following exactly the argument of Lemma 4.4 in \cite{Dupuis1}, we have the next result.
\begin{lem}
There exist a function $g\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2d})\bigcap C^{2}((\mathbb{R}^d \setminus \{0\}) \times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and positive constants $M_4,M_5$, satisfying that for any $\rho,\xi \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $|\xi| \le 1$ the following conditions hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
& (\mathrm{i}).& g(0,\xi)=0, \label{5.15}\\
& (\mathrm{ii}).& g(\rho,\xi)\ge M_4 |\rho|^{2}, \label{2.37} \\
& (\mathrm{iii}).& \nabla_{\rho}g(\rho,\xi)\cdot \xi \ge 0, \ \mbox{for} \ \rho \cdot \xi \ge -\cos \theta_0 |\rho| \ \mbox{and} \ |\xi|=1, \label{3.40}\\
& (\mathrm{iv}). & \nabla_{\rho}g(\rho,\xi)\cdot \xi \le 0, \ \mbox{for} \ \rho \cdot \xi \le \cos \theta_0 |\rho| \ \mbox{and} \ |\xi|=1, \label{3.55}\\
& (\mathrm{v}).& |\nabla_{\rho}g(\rho,\xi)| \le M_5 |\rho|, \ |\nabla_{\xi}g(\rho,\xi)| \le M_5 |\rho|^{2}, \ \mbox{for} \ |\rho| \neq 0 , \label{3.56}\\
& (\mathrm{vi}). & |\partial_{\rho_i}\partial_{\rho_j} g(\rho,\xi) | \le M_5, \ |\partial_{\xi_i} \partial_{\rho_j}g(\rho,\xi) | \le M_5 |\rho|, \nonumber \\
& & | \partial_{\xi_i}\partial_{\xi_j}g(\rho,\xi) | \le M_5|\rho|^{2}, \ \mbox{for} \ |\rho| \neq 0, \label{3.58}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_0$ was defined in Proposition \ref{P2.2}.
\end{lem}
\vskip 0.4cm
Take $\sigma \in C^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $\sigma(t)=1$ for $t \le \frac{1}{2}$, $\sigma(t)=t$ for $t \ge 2$ and $\sigma'(t)\ge 0, \sigma(t)\ge t$ for $t \in \mathbb{R}$. It is easy to see that $\omega(\rho,\xi):=\sigma(g(\rho,\xi)) \in C^2(\mathbb{R}^{2d})$. Now we introduce the second important class of test functions. For $\varepsilon>0$, define
\begin{eqnarray} \label{5.20}
\begin{split}
f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y):=\varepsilon \omega(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)).
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
The following result holds.
\begin{prp}
There exist positive constants $M_6$ and $M_7$, which are independent of $\varepsilon$, such that for $t\in [0,T_1]$ and $\rho,\xi \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $|\xi|\le 1$,
\begin{eqnarray}
& (\mathrm{i}).&|\nabla_{\rho}\omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|, \ |\nabla_{\xi}\omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|^2, \label{3.61}\\
& (\mathrm{ii}).&|\partial_{\rho_i} \partial_{\rho_j}\omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6, \ |\partial_{\xi_i} \partial_{\rho_j}\omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|, |\partial_{\xi_i} \partial_{\xi_j} \omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|^2, \label{3.38}\\
& (\mathrm{iii}).&M_7\frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}\le f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \le \varepsilon+\frac{M_6|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon} ,\ \mbox{for} \ x,y \in \bar{D} , \label{3.36}\\
& (\mathrm{iv}). & \nabla_x f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \cdot n(x)\le M_6 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}, \ \mbox{for} \ x\in \partial D \ \mbox{and} \ y\in \bar{D}, \label{3.53} \\
& (\mathrm{v}). & \nabla_y f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \cdot n(y)\le M_6 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}, \ \mbox{for} \ x\in \bar{D} \ \mbox{and} \ y\in \partial D. \label{3.54}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $\rho,\xi \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $|\xi|\le 1$, then by (\ref{3.56}) and the boundedness of $\sigma'(t)$,
it is easy to see that $|\nabla_{\rho}\omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|$ and $|\nabla_{\xi} \omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|^2$
for some positive constant $M_6$.
\vskip 0.3cm
By (\ref{2.37}), (\ref{3.56}) and (\ref{3.58}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
|\partial_{\rho_i} \partial_{\rho_j}\omega(\rho,\xi)|&=|\sigma''(g(\rho,\xi))\partial_{\rho_i}g(\rho.\xi )\partial_{\rho_j}g(\rho,\xi )+\sigma'(g(\rho,\xi ))\partial_{\rho_i}\partial_{\rho_j}g(\rho,\xi)|\\
&\lesssim |\rho|^2I_{g(\rho,\xi)\le 2}(\rho,\xi)+1\\
&\le |\rho|^2I_{M_4|\rho|^2 \le 2}(\rho,\xi)+1\\
&\le M_6,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we also have $|\partial_{\xi_i} \partial_{\rho_j}\omega(\rho,\xi)| \le M_6 |\rho|$ and $|\partial_{\xi_i} \partial_{\xi_j} \omega(\rho,\xi)|\le M_6|\rho|^2$.
\vskip 0.3cm
Now we show (\ref{3.36}). Let $x,y \in \bar{D}$.
By (\ref{3.2}), (\ref{2.37}) and the fact that $\sigma(t)\ge t$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y)\ge \varepsilon (g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)))\ge \varepsilon M_4 |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}|^2 \ge M_7\frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon},
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
for some constant $M_7>0$. By (\ref{3.2}), (\ref{5.15}) and (\ref{3.56}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y)\\
&= \varepsilon \sigma((g(0,n(x))))\\
&\ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \int_0^1\sigma'(g(\frac{\lambda (u(t,x)-u(t,y))}{\varepsilon},n(x)))\nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{\lambda (u(t,x)-u(t,y))}{\varepsilon},n(x))\cdot \frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}d\lambda \\
&\le \varepsilon+\varepsilon \int_0^1 c |\frac{\lambda (u(t,x)-u(t,y))}{\varepsilon}| |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}|d\lambda \le \varepsilon+\frac{M_6|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we show (\ref{3.53}). When $x\in \partial D$ and $y \in \bar D$ satisfying that $|x-y|< \frac{\delta_2}{M_2}$, by (\ref{3.2}) we have $|u(t,x)-u(t,y)|< \delta_2$. Combining this with (\ref{3.59}) we deduce that
$$\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon} \cdot n(x) \le \cos \theta_0 |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}|.$$
In view of (\ref{3.2}), (\ref{3.55}), (\ref{3.56}), taking into consideration of the facts $\nabla_x u^i(t,x)\cdot n(x)=n^i(x)$ and $\sigma'(t)\ge 0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \nabla_x f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \cdot n(x)\\
&= \sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)))\sum_{1 \le i \le d}[\partial_{\rho_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x u^i(t,x)\cdot n(x)\\
&\ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \partial_{\xi_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x n^i(x)\cdot n(x)] \\
&\le \sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))) \nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \cdot n(x) \\
&\ \ \ \ + \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \sigma'(t) \varepsilon \sum_{1 \le i \le d} |\partial_{\xi_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x n^i(x)\cdot n(x)| \\
&\le \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \sigma'(t) \varepsilon M_5 |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}|^2 \sum_{1 \le i \le d}|\nabla_x n^i(x)| \le M_6 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
When $x\in \partial D$ and $y \in \bar D$ satisfying that $|x-y| \! \ge \! \frac{\delta_2}{M2}$, noting that $\nabla_x u^i(t,x)\cdot n(x)=n^i(x)$, by (\ref{3.2}) and (\ref{3.56}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \nabla_x f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \cdot n(x)\\
&= \sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)))\sum_{1 \le i \le d}[\partial_{\rho_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x u^i(t,x)\cdot n(x)\\
&\ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \partial_{\xi_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x n^i(x)\cdot n(x)] \\
&\le \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \sigma'(t)[ |\nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))| + \varepsilon \sum_{1 \le i \le d} | \partial_{\xi_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))| | \nabla_x n^i(x)|] \\
&\lesssim |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}| + \varepsilon |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}|^2 \\
&\le M_2 \frac{|x-y|}{\varepsilon}+ M_2^2 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}\\
&\le \frac{M_2^2}{\delta_2} \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon} + M_2^2 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon} \le M_6 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
Finally we prove (\ref{3.54}).
When $x\in \bar D$ and $y \in \partial D$ satisfying that $|x-y|< \frac{\delta_2}{M_2}$, by (\ref{3.2}) we have $|u(t,x)-u(t,y)|< \delta_2$. Combining this with (\ref{3.59}) gives
$$\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon} \cdot n(y) \ge -\cos \theta_0 |\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon}|.$$
By (\ref{3.2}), (\ref{3.40}), (\ref{3.58}), and the facts that $\nabla_x u^i(t,y)\cdot n(y)=n^i(y)$ and $\sigma'(t)\ge 0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \nabla_y f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \cdot n(y)\\
&= -\sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)))\sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\rho_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x u^i(t,y)\cdot n(y) \\
&= \sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x) \! - \! u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))) (\nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x) \! - \! u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(y)) \! - \! \nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x) \! - \! u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))) \cdot n(y) \\
&\ \ \ \ - \sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))) \nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(y)) \cdot n(y)\\
&\le \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \sigma'(t) |\nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(y))-\nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))| \le M_6 \frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
When $x\in \bar D$ and $y \in \partial D$ satisfying that $|x-y|\ge \frac{\delta_2}{M2}$, by (\ref{3.2}), (\ref{3.56}) and using the fact that $\nabla_x u^i(t,y)\cdot n(y)=n^i(y)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \nabla_y f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y) \cdot n(y)\\
&= -\sigma'(g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)))\sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\rho_i}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x)) \nabla_x u^i(t,y)\cdot n(y) \\
&\le \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \sigma'(t) |\nabla_{\rho}g(\frac{u(t,x)-u(t,y)}{\varepsilon},n(x))| \\
& \lesssim \frac{|x-y|}{\varepsilon}\le \frac{M_2}{\delta_2}\frac{|x-y|^2}{\varepsilon}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Now we recall the stochastic Gronwall's inequality. See Theorem 4 in \cite{Scheutzow} or Lemma 2.8 in \cite{ZhangX}.
\begin{lem}\label{L3.11}
Let $\xi_t$ and $\eta_t$ be two nonnegative c\`{a}dl\`{a}g adapted processes, $A_t$ a continuous nondecreasing adapted process
with $A_0 = 0$, $M_t$ a local martingale with $M_0 = 0$. Suppose that
$$\xi_t \le \eta_t +\int_0^t\xi_sdA_s+M_t,\ \forall \ t>0.$$
Then for any $0 < q < p < 1$ and stopping time $\tau > 0$, we have
$$[E(\xi^*_{\tau})^q]^{1/q}\le (\frac{p}{p-q})^{1/q}(Ee^{pA_{\tau}/(1-p)})^{(1-p)/p}E(\eta^*_{\tau}),$$
where $\xi^*_{\tau}:=\sup_{s\in [0,\tau]}\xi_s$ and $\eta^*_{\tau}:=\sup_{s\in [0,\tau]}\eta_s$.
\end{lem}
\vskip 0.4cm
Using the Krylov's estimate established in Lemma 5.1 in \cite{Krylov}, and following the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 4.1 in \cite{Gyongy}, we have the following estimates:
\begin{lem} \label{L3.12}
Assume $(X_t,L_t)$ and $(\tilde X_t,\tilde L_t)$ are solutions to the reflecting
SDEs (\ref{1.1}) with $E[|L|_T]<\infty$ and $E[|\tilde L|_T]<\infty$ for $T>0$.
Then there exists a positive constant $M_8$ depending only on $T$, $E[|L|_T]$, $E[|\tilde L|_T]$ and $\|b \|_{L^{d+1}((0,T)\times D)}$, such that for any $f \in L^{d+1}((0,T)\times D)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.85}
\begin{split}
E[\int_0^T|f(t, X_t)|dt]\le M_8 \|f\|_{L^{d+1}((0,T) \times D)}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, there exists a positive constant $M_9$ depending only on $T$, $E[|L|_T]$, $E[|\tilde L|_T]$ and $\|b \|_{L^{d+1}((0,T)\times D)}$, such that for any $f \in L^{d+1}((0,T)\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\alpha \in [0,1]$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.86}
\begin{split}
E[\int_0^T|f(t,\alpha X_t+(1-\alpha)\tilde X_t)|dt]\le M_9 \|f\|_{L^{d+1}((0,T)\times \mathbb{R}^d)}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\section{Existence and uniqueness }
In this section, we will establish the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions to the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}) with singular coefficients. The existence of a weak solution follows from the Girsanov theorem. The strong solution is obtained by proving the pathwise uniqueness of the solutions.
\vskip 0.3cm
When the drift $b$ vanishes, the solution of equation (\ref{1.1}) is the so called reflecting Brownian motion. The existence and uniqueness of reflecting Brownian motion $(X_t,L_t)$ is now well known (see e.g. \cite{Hsu}). Then using the Girsanov transformation, we easily obtain the following result.
\begin{prp} \label{P4.1}
For any $x\in \bar D$, there exists a unique weak solution $(X_t,L_t)$ to the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}) with $X_0=x$, Moreover, $E_x[|L|_T]<\infty$.
\end{prp}
\vskip 0.4cm
To obtain the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions of the reflecting SDEs, according to the Yamada-Watanabe theorem it is sufficient to prove the pathwise uniqueness of the equation (\ref{1.1}). The rest of this section is devoted to this goal.
\vskip 0.4cm
Using the Krylov's estimate in Lemma \ref{L3.12}, we have the following generalized It\^o's formula:
\begin{lem} \label{L4.1}
Let $F \in W^{1,2}_{q}((0,T)\times D)$ for some $T>0$ and $q>d+2$. Let $X_t$ be a solution to the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}). Then we have for any $0 \le t\le T$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.2}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ F (t,X_t)\\
&=F (0,X_0)+\int_0^t\partial_t F (s,X_s)ds+\sum_{1 \le i \le d}\int_0^t\partial_{x_i} F (s,X_s)dW^i_s\\
& \ \ \ \ +\int_0^t \nabla_{x} F (s,X_s) \cdot b(s,X_s)ds+\int_0^t \nabla_{x} F (s,X_s)\cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s+\frac{1}{2}\ \int_0^t \Delta_{x} F (s,X_s )ds.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $F \in W^{1,2}_{q}((0,T)\times D)$ and the boundary of $D$ is smooth, there exists a sequence of functions $\{F_n \}_{n\ge 1} \subset C_b^{1,2} ([0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $F_n $ converges to $F $ in $W^{1,2}_{q} ((0,T)\times D)$. By the It\^o's formula, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4.3}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ F_n(t,X_t)\\
&=F_n(0,X_0)+\int_0^t\partial_t F_n (s,X_s)ds+\sum_{1 \le i \le d}\int_0^t\partial_{x_i} F_n (s,X_s)dW^i_s\\
& \ \ \ \ +\int_0^t \nabla_{x} F_n (s,X_s) \cdot b(s,X_s)ds+\int_0^t \nabla_{x} F_n (s,X_s)\cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s+\frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \Delta_{x} F_n (s,X_s )ds.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $F_n(t,x)$ and $ \nabla_{x} F_n(t,x)$ converges to $F(t,x)$ and $ \nabla_{x} F(t,x)$ uniformly on $[0,T]\times \bar D$ respectively by Sobolev inequality. Combining this with Lemma \ref{L3.12}, letting $n\to \infty$ in (\ref{4.3}), we get (\ref{4.2}).
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
Recall that the constant $T_1$ was defined in Proposition \ref{P2.2}, and the functions $H$ and $f_{\varepsilon}$ were defined in Proposition \ref{P3.5} and (\ref{5.20}) respectively.
For $0\le t \le T_1$, set
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
F_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y):=Z_t f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y):=e^{-\lambda[H(t,u(t,x))+H(t,u(t,y))]}f_{\varepsilon}(t,x,y),
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$ are some positive constants, and
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \ M_t\\
&:=- \lambda \int_0^t Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) [\sum_{1 \le i \le d}(\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \cdot dW_s\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \sum_{1 \le i \le d}(\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \nabla_{x} u^i(s,\tilde X_s) \cdot dW_s ]\\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))(\nabla_{x}u^i(s,X_s)-\nabla_{x}u^i(s,\tilde X_s)) \cdot dW_s \\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))\nabla_{x}n^i(X_s) \cdot dW_s,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \ A^1_t\\
&:=- \lambda \int_0^t Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) [(\nabla_{x} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s+(\nabla_{x} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))\cdot n(\tilde X_s)d|\tilde L|_s ]\\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t Z_s \nabla_{\rho}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))\cdot (n(X_s)d|L|_s-n(\tilde X_s)d|\tilde L|_s) \\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) \nabla_x n^i(X_s)\cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \ A^2_t\\
&:=- \lambda \int_0^t Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) [(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))ds+(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))ds]\\
& \ \ \ \ - \frac{\lambda }{2} \int_0^t Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s)\sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \nabla_{x}u^i(s,X_s)\cdot \nabla_{x}u^j(s,X_s)ds\\
& \ \ \ \ - \frac{\lambda }{2} \int_0^t Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s)\sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \nabla_{x}u^i(s,\tilde X_s)\cdot \nabla_{x}u^j(s,\tilde X_s)ds\\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))[\nabla_x n^i(X_s) \cdot b(s,X_s)+\frac{1}{2}\Delta_x n^i(X_s)]ds\\
& \ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{2 \varepsilon} \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}\partial_{\rho_j}\partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times (\nabla_x u^i(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^i(s,\tilde X_s)) \cdot (\nabla_x u^j(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^j(s,\tilde X_s))ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}\partial_{\xi_j}\partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times (\nabla_x u^i(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^i(s,\tilde X_s)) \cdot \nabla_x n^j(X_s)ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}\partial_{\xi_j}\partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))\nabla_x n^i(X_s) \cdot \nabla_x n^j(X_s)ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \! \frac{\lambda^2}{2} \! \! \int_0^t \! \! Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) \! \! \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \! \! (\partial_{x_i} \! H)(s,u(s,X_s)) (\partial_{x_j} \! H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \nabla_{x} \! u^i(s,X_s) \! \cdot \! \nabla_{x} \! u^j(s,X_s)ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \! \lambda^2 \! \! \int_0^t \! \! Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) \! \! \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \! \! (\partial_{x_i} \! H)(s,u(s,X_s)) (\partial_{x_j} \! H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \nabla_{x} \! u^i(s,X_s) \! \cdot \! \nabla_{x} \! u^j(s,\tilde X_s)ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \! \frac{\lambda^2}{2} \! \! \int_0^t \! \! Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) \! \! \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \! \! (\partial_{x_i} \! H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) (\partial_{x_j} \! H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \nabla_{x} \! u^i(s,\tilde X_s) \! \cdot \! \nabla_{x} \! u^j(s,\tilde X_s)ds \\
& \ \ \ \ -\lambda \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}(\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \partial_{\rho_j}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \cdot (\nabla_x u^j(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^j(s,\tilde X_s)) ds \\
& \ \ \ \ - \! \lambda \varepsilon \! \! \int_0^t \! \! Z_s \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} (\partial_{x_i} \! H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \partial_{\xi_j} \! \omega (\frac{u(s,X_s) \! - \! u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) \nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \! \cdot \! \nabla_x n^j(X_s) ds\\
& \ \ \ \ -\lambda \int_0^t Z_s \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}(\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \partial_{\rho_j}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \nabla_{x} u^i(s,\tilde X_s) \cdot (\nabla_x u^j(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^j(s,\tilde X_s)) ds \\
& \ \ \ \ - \! \lambda \varepsilon \! \! \int_0^t \! \! Z_s \! \! \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \! \! (\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \partial_{\xi_j}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s) \! - \! u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) \nabla_{x} u^i(s,\tilde X_s) \! \cdot \! \nabla_x n^j(X_s) ds.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\newpage
\begin{thm} \label{T4.1}
Assume $(X_t,L_t)$ and $(\tilde X_t,\tilde L_t)$ are two solutions to the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}).
Then we have for any $0 \le t\le T_1$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{4.1}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ F_{\varepsilon}(t,X_t,\tilde X_t)=F_{\varepsilon}(0,X_0,\tilde X_0)+M_t+A^1_t+A^2_t.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Assume $(X_t,L_t)$ and $(\tilde X_t,\tilde L_t)$ are two solutions to reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}). Applying Lemma \ref{L4.1}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
u(t,X_t)=u(0,X_0)+\int_0^t \nabla_xu(s,X_s) \cdot dW_s+\int_0^tn(X_s)d|L|_s, \\
u(t,\tilde X_t)=u(0,\tilde X_0)+\int_0^t \nabla_xu(s,\tilde X_s) \cdot dW_s+\int_0^tn(\tilde X_s)d|\tilde L|_s. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\omega \in C^2(\mathbb{R}^{2d})$, using the It\^o's formula
we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.50}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ f_{\varepsilon}(t,X_t,\tilde X_t)\\
&=f_{\varepsilon}(0,X_0,\tilde X_0) \! + \! \int_0^t \! \! \sum_{1 \le i \le d} \! \! \partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s) \! - \! u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) (\nabla_x u^i(s,X_s) \! - \! \nabla_x u^i(s,\tilde X_s)) \! \cdot \! dW_s \\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t \sum_{1 \le i \le d}\partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) (n^i(X_s)d|L|_s-n^i(\tilde X_s)d|\tilde L|_s) \\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \! \int_0^t \! \sum_{1 \le i \le d} \! \partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s) \! - \! u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))(\nabla_x n^i(X_s) \cdot dW_s \! + \! \nabla_x n^i(X_s) \! \cdot \! b(s,X_s)ds)\\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \! \int_0^t \! \sum_{1 \le i \le d} \! \partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) (\nabla_x n^i(X_s) \cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s+\frac{1}{2}\Delta_x n^i(X_s)ds) \\
& \ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{2\varepsilon} \int_0^t \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}\partial_{\rho_j}\partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times (\nabla_x u^i(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^i(s,\tilde X_s)) \cdot (\nabla_x u^j(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u^j(s,\tilde X_s))ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \! \int_0^t \! \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \! \partial_{\xi_j}\partial_{\rho_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s) \! - \! u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s)) (\nabla_x u^i(s,X_s) \! - \! \nabla_x u^i(s,\tilde X_s)) \! \cdot \! \nabla_x n^j(X_s)ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \int_0^t \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}\partial_{\xi_j}\partial_{\xi_i}\omega (\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon},n(X_s))\nabla_x n^i(X_s) \cdot \nabla_x n^j(X_s)ds. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, since $\tilde H(t,x):=H(t,u(t,x))\in W^{1,2}_{2d+2}((0,T_1) \times D)$ by Lemma \ref{L3.5}, we can apply (\ref{1}) and Lemma \ref{L4.1} to get
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.51}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ H(t,u(t,X_t))\\
&=H(0,u(0,X_0))+ \int_0^t \partial_s \tilde H(s, X_s)ds+ \int_0^t \nabla_x \tilde H(s,X_s) \cdot dX_s+ \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \Delta_x \tilde H(s, X_s)ds\\
&=H(0,u(0,X_0))+ \int_0^t [(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))+\sum_{1 \le i \le d} (\partial_{x_i} H) (s,u(s,X_s)) \partial_s u^i(s,X_s)]ds\\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t \sum_{1 \le i \le d} (\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) [ \nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \cdot dW_s+\nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \cdot b(s,X_s)ds\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s]\\
& \ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t [\sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \nabla_{x}u^i(s,X_s)\cdot \nabla_{x}u^j(s,X_s)\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\sum_{1 \le i \le d} (\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \Delta_{x}u^i(s,X_s)]ds\\
&=H(0,u(0,X_0))+ \int_0^t \! (\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))ds+ \int_0^t \! \sum_{1 \le i \le d} \! (\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) [ \nabla_{x} u^i(s,X_s) \! \cdot \! dW_s\\
& \ \ \ \ + n^i(X_s)d|L|_s]+ \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s)) \nabla_{x}u^i(s,X_s)\cdot \nabla_{x}u^j(s,X_s)ds,\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.52}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ H(t,u(t,\tilde X_t))\\
&=H(0,u(0,\tilde X_0))+ \int_0^t \! (\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))ds+ \int_0^t \! \sum_{1 \le i \le d} \! (\partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) [ \nabla_{x} u^i(s,\tilde X_s) \! \cdot \! dW_s\\
& \ \ \ \ + n^i(\tilde X_s)d|\tilde L|_s]+ \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} (\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s)) \nabla_{x}u^i(s,\tilde X_s)\cdot \nabla_{x}u^j(s,\tilde X_s)ds.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{3.50}), (\ref{3.51}), (\ref{3.52}) and the integration by parts, we easily deduce (\ref{4.1}).
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove the main result of the paper:
\begin{thm}
For any $x \in \bar D$, the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}) has a unique strong solution $(X_t,L_t)$ with $X_0=x$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{P4.1}, we know that the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}) has a unique weak solution. Hence
by the Yamada-Watanabe theorem, it is sufficient to prove the pathwise uniqueness of the reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}).
Assume $(X_t,L_t)$ and $(\tilde X_t,\tilde L_t)$ are two solutions to reflecting SDEs (\ref{1.1}) with $X_0=\tilde X_0=x$. Let $A^1_t$, $A_t^2$ be defined as in (\ref{4.1}).
Then by Proposition \ref{P3.5}, (\ref{3.36}), (\ref{3.53}) and (\ref{3.54}), we have for $t \in [0, T_1]$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-20-2}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ A^1_t\\
&=- \lambda \int_0^t \! Z_s f_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) [\nabla_{x}H(s,u(s,X_s)) \cdot n(X_s)d|L|_s \! + \! \nabla_{x} H(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))\cdot n(\tilde X_s)d|\tilde L|_s ]\\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t Z_s \nabla_xf_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) \cdot n(X_s) d|L|_s+\int_0^t Z_s \nabla_yf_{\varepsilon}(s,X_s,\tilde X_s) \cdot n(\tilde X_s) d|\tilde L|_s \\
&\le \int_0^t Z_s (M_6\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}- \lambda M_7\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}) d|L|_s\\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t Z_s (M_6\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}- \lambda M_7\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}) d|\tilde L|_s.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence we can take $\lambda:=\frac{M_6}{M_7}$ so that $A^1_t \le 0$ for any $\varepsilon>0$.
For the term $A^2_t$, note that $n \in C^2_0( \mathbb{R}^d), \ H \in C^{0,1}_b([0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d)$,
$u \in C^{0,1}_b([0,T_1]\times G')$. By (\ref{3.2}), (\ref{3.61}), (\ref{3.38}), (\ref{3.36}) and the H\"{o}lder inequality, we have for $t \in [0, T_1]$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-20-3}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ A^2_t\\
&\lesssim \lambda \int_0^t (\varepsilon+\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}) [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\\
& \ \ \ \ + \lambda \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}\int_0^t (\varepsilon+\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}) [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \int_0^t |\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon}|^2 [|b(s,X_s)|+\frac{1}{2}|\Delta_x n^i(X_s)|]ds\\
& \ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{ \varepsilon} \int_0^t \|\nabla_x u(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u(s,\tilde X_s)\|^2ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \int_0^t |\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon}| \|\nabla_x u(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u(s,\tilde X_s)\|ds \\
& \ \ \ \ + \varepsilon(1+\lambda ) \int_0^t |\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon}|^2ds + \lambda^2 \int_0^t (\varepsilon+\frac{|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2}{\varepsilon}) ds\\
&\ \ \ \ +\lambda \int_0^t |\frac{u(s,X_s)-u(s,\tilde X_s)}{\varepsilon}| \|\nabla_x u(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u(s,\tilde X_s)\| ds \\
&\lesssim \varepsilon \int_0^t [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|+1]ds\\
&\ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \int_0^t [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\\
&\ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^t |X_s-\tilde X_s|^2 [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|+| b(s,X_s)|+1] ds \\
& \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \int_0^t |X_s-\tilde X_s|^2 [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\\
& \ \ \ \ +\frac{1}{ \varepsilon} \int_0^t \|\nabla_x u(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u(s,\tilde X_s)\|^2ds.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\partial D$ is smooth, there exist a function $v \in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}((0,T_1)\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and a sequence of functions $\{v_n\}_{n \ge 1} \subset C^{1,2}_b((0,T_1)\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $v(t,x)=u(t,x)$ on $(0,T_1)\times D$ and $v_n$ converges to $v$ in $W_{2d+2}^{1,2}((0,T_1)\times \mathbb{R}^d)$. Therefore, $\nabla_x v_n$ converges to $\nabla_x v$ uniformly on $(0,T_1)\times \mathbb{R}^d$ by Sobolev inequality. Hence by (\ref{3.86}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-20-4}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \int_0^t \|\nabla_x u(s,X_s)-\nabla_x u(s,\tilde X_s)\|^2ds \\
&=\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_0^t \|\nabla_x v_n(s,X_s)-\nabla_x v_n (s,\tilde X_s)\|^2ds \\
&\le \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{1 \le i \le d} \int_0^t|\int_0^1 \nabla_{x} \partial_{x_i}v_n(s,\alpha X_s+(1-\alpha)\tilde X_s)\cdot (X_s-\tilde X_s)d\alpha|^2ds\\
&\le \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \int_0^t |X_s-\tilde X_s|^2 \int_0^1 |\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i}v(s,\alpha X_s+(1-\alpha)\tilde X_s)|^2d\alpha ds,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
and $\int_0^t \int_0^1 |\nabla_x \partial_{x_i}v(s,\alpha X_s+(1-\alpha)\tilde X_s)|^2d\alpha ds<\infty$, $P$-$a.e.$.
Combing this with (\ref{3.36}), (\ref{2-20-2}), (\ref{2-20-3}), (\ref{2-20-4}) and Theorem \ref{T4.1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{5.10}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}|X_s-\tilde X_s|^2 \\
&\lesssim F_{\varepsilon}(t,X_t,\tilde X_t) \\
&\lesssim \varepsilon+ M_t+ \varepsilon \int_0^t [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|+1]ds\\
&\ \ \ \ + \varepsilon \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} \int_0^t [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\\
&\ \ \ \ + \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^t |X_s-\tilde X_s|^2dC_t ,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
C_t:=&\int_0^t [ 1+| b(s,X_s)|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))| \\
&+\sum_{1 \le i,j \le d}( |(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))| \\
&+\int_0^1 |\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i}v(s,\alpha X_s+(1-\alpha)\tilde X_s)|^2d\alpha) ] ds.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Set $\tau_R:=\inf \{t\ge 0:C_t\ge R\} \wedge T_1$. Applying Lemma \ref{L3.11} to (\ref{5.10}) with $p=2q=\frac{1}{2}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{6.11}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ [E(\sup_{s\in [0,\tau_R]}|X_s-\tilde X_s|^{1/4})]^{4}\\
&\lesssim 16\varepsilon^2 {Ee^{ C_{\tau_R}}}\left (1+E\int_0^{T_1} [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\right.\\
&\ \ \ \ + \left.\sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} E\int_0^{T_1} [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\right)\\
&\le 16\varepsilon^2 e^{R}\left(1+E\int_0^{T_1} [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\right. \\
&\ \ \ \ \left.+ \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} E\int_0^{T_1} [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds\right).
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,x)),(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,x))\in L^{2d+2}([0,T_1]\times D)$. Hence by (\ref{3.85}),
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&E\int_0^{T_1} [|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_s H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds \\
&+ \sum_{1 \le i,j \le d} E\int_0^{T_1} [|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,X_s))|+|(\partial_{x_j} \partial_{x_i} H)(s,u(s,\tilde X_s))|]ds<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Letting $\varepsilon \to 0$ and $R \to \infty$ in (\ref{6.11}), we get $E(\sup_{s\in [0,T_1]}|X_s-\tilde X_s|^{1/4})=0$, which implies $X_t=\tilde X_t$ for all $0\le t\le T_1$, $P$-$a.e.$. Since $T_1$ is independent of the initial value $x$, using a standard procedure, we can conclude $X_t=\tilde X_t$ for all $t>0$, $P$-$a.e.$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.4cm
\section{Appendix}
In this part, we provide the proofs of Proposition \ref{P4.1.1} and \ref{P4.2.1}.
Fix $z:=y(t_0,z_0,\frac{\delta_5}{2})$.
Recall that $D(t,\varepsilon)$ and $C(z,\delta)$ were respectively defined in (\ref{2.19-1}) and (\ref{2.19}), and
$$ \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}=\{(t,x): t\in ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1), \ x\in C(z,\delta_5) \bigcap D(t,\varepsilon)\}.$$
Set $\varrho(\varepsilon):=(\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \sin \frac{\theta_0}{2}) \wedge (\frac{\delta_5}{32}\sin \frac{\theta_0}{2})$ and
$$ \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}':=\{(t,x): t\in ((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1), \ x\in D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))\}.$$
Before giving the proofs of Proposition \ref{P4.1.1} and \ref{P4.2.1}, we need a simple Lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{L7.1}
For any constant $p>0$ and function $f \in L^p(\tilde D)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{7.1}
\begin{split}
& \lim\limits_{n_1,n_2 \to \infty} \| \int_{- \rho_0}^{\rho_0} | f(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r) ) - f(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r) ) | I_{u(t,D)} (y_{n_1}(t, x, r) ) \\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{u(t,D)} (y_{n_2}(t, x, r) ) dr \|_{ L^p (\tilde D)} = 0 .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a function $\tilde f \in C_b((0,T_1)\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $\| f - \tilde f \|_{L^p(\tilde D)}^p<\varepsilon$. Then by (\ref{2.29}) and
Lemma \ref{L4.2} we have for $n_1,n_2 \ge N_0$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\lim_{n_1,n_2 \to \infty} \|\int_{-\rho_0}^{\rho_0} |f(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r) )-f(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r))| I_{u(t,D)}(y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) I_{u(t,D)}(y_{n_2}(t, x, r)) dr \|^p_{L^p(\tilde D)} \\
& \lesssim \lim_{n_1,n_2 \to \infty} \int_{-\rho_0}^{\rho_0} \int_{\tilde D} |f(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r) )-\tilde f(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r))|^p I_{u(t,D)}(y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) dxdt dr \\
& \ \ \ \ + \lim_{n_1,n_2 \to \infty} \int_{-\rho_0}^{\rho_0} \int_{\tilde D} |f(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r) )-\tilde f(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r))|^p I_{u(t,D)}(y_{n_2}(t, x, r)) dxdt dr \\
& \ \ \ \ + \lim_{n_1,n_2 \to \infty} \int_{-\rho_0}^{\rho_0} \int_{\tilde D} |\tilde f(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r) )-\tilde f(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r))|^p dxdt dr \\
& \le 4 \int_{-\rho_0}^{\rho_0} \int_{\tilde D} |f(t,x)-\tilde f(t,x)|^p dxdt dr \le 8 \rho_0 \varepsilon.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, (\ref{7.1}) follows.
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.5cm
\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{P4.1.1}}
\vskip 0.3cm
By Proposition \ref{P3.3} and (\ref{3.29}), to show (\ref{4.49}), we need only to show (\ref{4.48}), $i.e.$ for any $1\le i,j\le d$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.13}
\psi_{i}^j ( \cdot ,\cdot, \Gamma^z(\cdot,\cdot))\in W_{2d+2}^{0,1}((((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times C(z,\delta_5))\bigcap \tilde D).
\end{eqnarray}
For any given $\varepsilon>0$, recall that $N_1(\varepsilon)$ is given in Lemma \ref{L3.4}.
Firstly, we show that for $n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)$, $\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\in C_b^{0,1}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})$.
When $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$ with $\Gamma^z(t,x)\neq 0$, by (\ref{3.48}), we have $y_n(t,x,r)\in D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))$ for $r\in (0, \Gamma^z(t,x)]$. Hence together with Proposition \ref{P3.3} and Lemma \ref{L3.3}, we can see that $\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\in C_b^{0,1}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})$ and for $1\le m \le d$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.33}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{d x_{m}} \psi_{n, i}^{j}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)&= \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} \sum_{1 \leqslant k, l \leqslant d}\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n}^{j}(t, y_n(t, x, r))\psi_{n, m}^{l}(t, x, r) \psi_{n, i}^{k}(t, x, r) d r\\
&\ \ \ \ + \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)}\sum_{1 \leq k \leq d} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n}^{j}(t, y_n(t, x, r)) \partial_{x_{m}} \psi_{n, i}^{k}(t, x, r) d r\\
&\ \ \ \ +\sum_{ 1 \le k \leq d} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n}^{j}\left(t, y_n\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)\right)\psi_{n,i}^{k}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}\left(t, x\right)\right)\partial_{x_{m}} \Gamma^{z}(t, x),\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\frac{d}{d x_{m}} \psi_{n, i}^{j}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)$ stands for the partial derivative of $\psi_{n, i}^{j}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)$ $w.r.t.$ $x_m$.
\vskip 0.3cm
Now we show that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.80}
\sup_{\varepsilon >0} \sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)} \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\nabla_x \psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, r)|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}< \infty.
\end{eqnarray}
For $n \ge N_1(\varepsilon)$ and $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$, by Lemma \ref{L4.2} and (\ref{3.48}) we have for $1 \le m,k \le d$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t,y_n(t,x,r))|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\lesssim (\int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} | \int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)} |\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t,y_n(t,x,r))|^{2d+2} I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_n(t,x,r)) dr | dxdt)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}}\\
&\le (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}\int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t,y_n(t,x,r))|^{2d+2} I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_n(t,x,r)) dxdtdr)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}}\\
&\lesssim (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}\int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t,x)|^{2d+2} I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(x)dxdtdr)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\lesssim \| \gamma_n^j \|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,2}( \mathcal{O}_\varepsilon')}.\\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Together with (\ref{3.79}), we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{7.2}
\begin{split}
\sup_{\varepsilon >0} \sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)} \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t,y_n(t,x,r))|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}< \infty.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the Gronwall's inequality to equation (\ref{4.53}), it is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \sup_{\varepsilon >0} \sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)} \sum_{1\le j\le d}|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)} \|\nabla_x \psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, r)|dr \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\lesssim \sup_{\varepsilon >0} \sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)} \sum_{1\le j,m,k\le d} \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_n^j(t,y_n(t,x,r))|dr \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} <\infty.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we show that for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.81}
\sup_{n_1,n_2 \to \infty } \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\nabla_x \psi_{n_1,i}^j(t,x, r)-\nabla_x \psi_{n_2,i}^j(t,x, r)|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
In view of the boundness of $|\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, r)|$ and $|\nabla_x\gamma_n^j(t,x)|$, Lemma \ref{L4.2} and (\ref{3.48}), using the Gronwall's inequality we have for $n_1,n_2\ge N_1(\varepsilon)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \sum_{1\le j \le d} \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\nabla_x \psi_{n_1,i}^j(t,x, r)-\nabla_x \psi_{n_2,i}^j(t,x, r)|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\lesssim \sum_{1\le j,m,k\le d} \|\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_{n_1}^j(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r))-\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r)) |\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_1}(t,x,r))dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le j,m,k\le d} \|\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r))-\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r)) |\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_1}(t,x,r))I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_2}(t,x,r))dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le j,m,k\le d} \|\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r)) |I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_2}(t,x,r))dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \sup_{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon},\atop |r|< \rho_1,1\le k \le d}|\psi_{n_1,i}^k(t,x, r)-\psi_{n_2,i}^k(t,x, r)|\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le j,m,k\le d} \|\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma_{n_2}^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r))-\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r)) | \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_2}(t,x,r))dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le k\le d} \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\nabla_x \psi_{n_1,i}^k(t,x, r)|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \sup_{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon},\atop |r|< \rho_1,1\le j \le d}|\nabla_y \gamma_{n_1}^j(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r))-\nabla_y \gamma_{n_2}^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r))|\\
&\lesssim \sum_{1\le j \le d} ( \|\gamma_{n_1}^j-\gamma^j\|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')}+ \|\gamma_{n_2}^j-\gamma^j\|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')})\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le j,m,k\le d} \|\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}|\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r))-\partial_{y_m} \partial_{y_k}\gamma^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r)) |\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_1}(t,x,r))I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_2}(t,x,r))dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le j \le d} \| \gamma^j \|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')}\sup_{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon},\atop |r|< \rho_1,1\le k \le d}|\psi_{n_1,i}^k(t,x, r)-\psi_{n_2,i}^k(t,x, r)|\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{1\le k \le d} \|\int_0^{\Gamma^z(t,x)}|\nabla_x \psi_{n_1,i}^k(t,x, r)|dr\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \sup_{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon},\atop |r|< \rho_1,1\le j \le d}|\nabla_y \gamma_{n_1}^j(t,y_{n_1}(t,x,r))-\nabla_y \gamma_{n_2}^j(t,y_{n_2}(t,x,r))|,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Then by Proposition \ref{P3.3}, (\ref{2.29}), (\ref{3.30}), (\ref{3.80}) and Lemma \ref{L7.1}, we get (\ref{3.81}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we show that
\begin{eqnarray} \label {3.34}
\lim_{n_1,n_2\to \infty} \|\psi_{n_1,i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))- \psi_{n_2,i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,1}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{4.4}), (\ref{3.48}), (\ref{3.33}), the boundness of $|\nabla_x \Gamma^z(t,x)|$ and $|\nabla_x \gamma_n(t,x)|$, for $n_1,n_2\ge N_1(\varepsilon)$ and $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$, we have for $1 \le m \le d$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ | \frac{d}{d x_{m}} \psi_{n_1, i}^{j}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)-\frac{d}{d x_{m}} \psi_{{n_{2}, i}}^{j}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)|\\
&\le | \! \! \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} \! \! \! \sum_{1 \leqslant k, l \leqslant d} \! |\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{1}}^{j}(t, y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) \! - \! \partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) | dr| \! \! \sup _{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}, |r|< \rho_1, \atop n\ge N_1,1\le m,l \le d} \! \left|\psi_{n, m}^{l}(t, x, r)\right|^2 \\
&\ \ \ \ +| \! \! \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} \! \! \! \! \sum_{1 \leqslant k, l \leqslant d} \! \! |\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \! \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) \! - \! \partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \! \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_2}(t, x, r)) | dr | \! \! \sup _{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}, |r|< \rho_1, \atop n\ge N_1,1\le m,l \le d} \! \! \left|\psi_{n, m}^{l}(t, x, r)\right|^2 \\
&\ \ \ \ +| \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} \sum_{1 \leqslant k, l \leqslant d} |\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_2}(t, x, r))| dr | \sup _{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}, |r|< \rho_1, \atop 1\le m,l \le d} | \psi_{n_1, m}^{l}(t, x, r)-\psi_{n_2, m}^{l}(t, x, r)| \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \sup _{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}, |r|< \rho_1, \atop n\ge N_1,1\le m,k \le d}\left|\psi_{n, m}^{k}(t, x, r)\right|\\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} \sum_{1\le k \le d} |\nabla_{x} \psi_{n_{1}, i}^{k}(t, x, r) | d r | \sup _{(t, y)\in \tilde D} | \nabla_{y}\gamma_{n_{1}}^{j}(t, y)-\nabla_{y} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y) | \\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} \sum_{1\le k \le d} |\nabla_{x} \psi_{n_{1}, i}^{k}(t, x, r)-\nabla_{x} \psi_{n_{2}, i}^{k}(t, x, r) | d r | \sup_{(t,y)\in \tilde D,n\ge N_1} | \nabla_{y}\gamma_{n}^{j}(t, y)|\\
&\ \ \ \ +\sum_{ 1 \le k \leq d} |\partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_1}^{j}\left(t, y_{n_1}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)\right)\psi_{n_1,i}^{k}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}\left(t, x\right)\right)\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_2}^{j}\left(t, y_{n_2}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)\right)\psi_{n_2,i}^{k}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}\left(t, x\right)\right)| |\partial_{x_{m}} \Gamma^{z}(t, x)|\\
&\lesssim \int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \sum_{1 \le k, l \le d} |\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{1}}^{j}(t, y_{n_1}(t, x, r))- \partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) | I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) dr \\
&\ \ \ \ +\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \sum_{1 \leqslant k, l \leqslant d} |\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_1}(t, x, r))- \partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_2}(t, x, r)) | \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_1}(t, x, r)) I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_2}(t, x, r)) dr \\
&\ \ \ \ +\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \sum_{1 \leqslant k, l \leqslant d} |\partial_{y_{l}} \partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y_{n_2}(t, x, r))| I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n_2}(t, x, r)) dr \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \sup _{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}, |r|< \rho_1, \atop 1\le m,l \le d} | \psi_{n_1, m}^{l}(t, x, r)-\psi_{n_2, m}^{l}(t, x, r)|\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{ 1 \le k \leq d} | \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} |\nabla_{x} \psi_{n_{1}, i}^{k}(t, x, r) | d r | \sup _{(t,y)\in \tilde D} | \nabla_{y}\gamma_{n_{1}}^{j}(t, y)-\nabla_{y} \gamma_{n_{2}}^{j}(t, y) | \\
&\ \ \ \ + \sum_{ 1 \le k \leq d} | \int_{0}^{\Gamma^{z}(t, x)} |\nabla_{x} \psi_{n_{1}, i}^{k}(t, x, r)-\nabla_{x} \psi_{n_{2}, i}^{k}(t, x, r) | d r | \\
&\ \ \ \ +\sum_{ 1 \le k \leq d} |\partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_1}^{j}\left(t, y_{n_1}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)\right)\psi_{n_1,i}^{k}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}\left(t, x\right)\right)\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\partial_{y_{k}} \gamma_{n_2}^{j}\left(t, y_{n_2}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}(t, x)\right)\right)\psi_{n_2,i}^{k}\left(t, x, \Gamma^{z}\left(t, x\right)\right)|. \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with Proposition \ref{P3.3}, Lemma \ref{L4.2}, Lemma \ref{L7.1}, (\ref{2.29}), (\ref{3.30}), (\ref{3.80}) and (\ref{3.81}), we obtain (\ref{3.34}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Finally we show (\ref{2.13}).
From (\ref{4.4}), (\ref{3.33}), (\ref{3.80}) and (\ref{7.2}), we have
$$\sup_{\varepsilon>0}\sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)}\|\psi_{n,i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,1}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty.$$
Together with (\ref{3.30}) and (\ref{3.34}), we see that $\psi_{i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\in {W_{2d+2}^{0,1}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}$ and
$$\sup_{\varepsilon>0} \|\psi_{i}^j(t,x, \Gamma^z(t,x))\|_{W_{2d+2}^{0,1}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty.$$
Since $\bigcup_{\varepsilon>0} \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}=(((t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0,(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1)\times C(z,\delta_5))\bigcap \tilde D$, we have (\ref{2.13}).
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\vskip 0.6cm
\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{P4.2.1}}
\vskip 0.3cm
We first show that for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.45}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty}\|\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} |(\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )| d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
By Lemma \ref{L4.2}, (\ref{3.48}) and the H\"{o}lder inequality, we have for any $M>0$ and $n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \|\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} |(\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )| d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
& \le \|\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )- (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )| d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
& \ \ \ \ +\|\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}| (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )| d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
& \le \|\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )- (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )|I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
& \ \ \ \ +\|\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}| (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )| d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\lesssim \|\partial_{t} \gamma_n - \partial_{t} \gamma \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')} \\
& \ \ \ \ + (\int_{(t_{0}-\eta_{2})\vee 0}^{(t_{0}+\eta_{2}) \wedge T_1} \int_{C(z, \delta_5) \bigcap D(t,\varepsilon)} | \int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}| (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )|^{2d+2} d \tau | d x d t)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\le \| \partial_{t} \gamma_n- \partial_{t} \gamma \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')}+M (\int_{(t_{0}-\eta_{2})\vee 0}^{(t_{0}+\eta_{2}) \wedge T_1} \int_{C(z, \delta_5)} |\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}d\tau | d x d t)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\ \ \ \ + (\int_{(t_{0}-\eta_{2})\vee 0}^{(t_{0}+\eta_{2}) \wedge T_1} \int_{C(z, \delta_5) \bigcap D(t,\varepsilon)} \int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} | (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )I_{| (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )|>M} |^{2d+2} \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau))d \tau d x d t )^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\lesssim \|\partial_{t} \gamma_n-\partial_{t} \gamma \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')}+M (\int_{(t_{0}-\eta_{2})\vee 0}^{(t_{0}+\eta_{2}) \wedge T_1} \int_{C(z, \delta_5)}|\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)-\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)| d x d t )^{2d+2} \\
&\ \ \ \ +(\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}\int_{(t_{0}-\eta_{2})\vee 0}^{(t_{0}+\eta_{2}) \wedge T_1} \int_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}| (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, x) I_{|(\partial_t \gamma(t,x))|\ge M}|^{2d+2} d x d t d \tau)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with Proposition \ref{P3.3} and (\ref{3.17}), we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.22}
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ \lim_{n,m \to \infty}\|\int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} |(\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )| d \tau\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\lesssim (\int_{(t_{0}-\eta_{2})\vee 0}^{(t_{0}+\eta_{2}) \wedge T_1} \int_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}| (\partial_{t} \gamma ) (t, x) I_{|(\partial_t \gamma(t,x))|\ge M}|^{2d+2} d x d t)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} .
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\gamma \in W_{2d+2}^{1,2}(\tilde D)$, letting $M \to \infty$ in (\ref{3.22}), we get (\ref{3.45}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we show that for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2.31}
\begin{split}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \| \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) \! -\! (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau \|_{L^{2d+2}(\! \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}\! )}\!=\!0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
For $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$ and $n,m \ge N_1(\varepsilon)$, by (\ref{3.48}) we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ | \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) \! -\! (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau |\\
&\le |\int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n}) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau))|d\tau |\\
&\ \ \ \ + |\int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d\tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ + |\int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d\tau | \\
&\le \int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n}) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau))|I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) d\tau \\
&\ \ \ \ + \int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{m}) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))|I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{m}(t, x, \tau)) d\tau \\
&\ \ \ \ + \int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} | (\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{m}(t, x, \tau)) d\tau, \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \| \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) - (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon} )}\\
&\lesssim (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau) )-(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau))| ^{2d+2} \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau))dxdtd\tau)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\ \ \ \ + (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{m} ) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau) )-(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| ^{2d+2} \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{m}(t, x, \tau))dxdtd\tau)^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\ \ \ \ + (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}| (\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))|^{2d+2}\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{m}(t, x, \tau))dxdtd\tau )^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\lesssim \|\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} -\partial_{t} \gamma \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')}+\|\partial_{t} \gamma_{m} -\partial_{t} \gamma \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}')} \\
&\ \ \ \ + (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}| (\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) -(\partial_{t} \gamma) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))|^{2d+2}\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{m}(t, x, \tau))dxdtd\tau )^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \to 0, \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
as $n,m \to \infty$ by Proposition \ref{P3.3}, Lemma \ref{L4.2} and Lemma \ref{L7.1}.
\vskip 0.3cm
Now we show (\ref{4.50}), $i.e.$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{7.2.1}
\begin{split}
\sup_{\varepsilon>0} \sup_{n\ge N_1(\varepsilon)} \| \Lambda_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}<\infty.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the Gronwall's inequality to (\ref{3.10}), we get that for $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$ and $n \ge N_1(\varepsilon)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.18}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \| \sup_{\tau \in (0,\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)]\cup(\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x), \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)]} |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)| \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\lesssim \| \sup_{\tau \in (0,\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)]\cup(\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x), \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)]} | \int_0^\tau| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau') )| d\tau' | \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\le \| \int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau') )| I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau')) d\tau'\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\lesssim (\int_{-\rho_1}^{\rho_1} \int_{(t_0-\eta_2)\vee 0}^{(t_0+\eta_2)\wedge T_1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}| (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau') )|^{2d+2} I_{D(t,\varrho(\varepsilon))}(y_{n}(t, x, \tau')) dxdtd\tau')^{\frac{1}{2d+2}} \\
&\lesssim \| \partial_{t} \gamma_{n} \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}'_{\varepsilon})} , \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where the last inequality follows from Lemma \ref{L4.2}. Together with (\ref{3.79}), we have (\ref{7.2.1}).
\vskip 0.3cm
Next we show that for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-17-3}
\begin{split}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \| \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x))-\Lambda_m(t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Since for $ r \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, r)-\Lambda_m(t, x, r)|\\
&\le | \int_0^r | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) \! -\! (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_0^r |(\nabla_y \gamma_n(t,y_n (t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t,x,\tau))) \cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|d\tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_0^r|(\nabla_y \gamma_m(t,y_m (t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_m(t,x,\tau))) \cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|d\tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_0^r |(\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_{m}(t, x, \tau))) \cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|d\tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ +\sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1] \times \mathbb{R}^d} |\nabla_y \gamma_m(t,y)| | \int_0^r|(\Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)-\Lambda_m(t, x, \tau))| d\tau |,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
by the Gronwall's inequality and Lemma \ref{L3.4}, we see that for $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$ and $n,m \ge N_1(\varepsilon)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.42}
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x))-\Lambda_m(t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x))|\\
&\lesssim | \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) \! -\! (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ + |\int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}|(\nabla_y \gamma_n(t,y_n (t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t,x,\tau))) \cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|d\tau|\\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}|(\nabla_y \gamma_m(t,y_m (t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_m(t,x,\tau))) \cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|d\tau|\\
&\ \ \ \ + | \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)}|(\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_{m}(t, x, \tau))) \cdot \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|d\tau | \\
&\le | \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) \! -\! (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau | \\
&\ \ \ \ + \rho_1 \sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d}|\nabla_y \gamma_n(t,y)-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y)| \sup_{\tau \in (0, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)]} |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|\\
&\ \ \ \ + \rho_1 \sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d}|\nabla_y \gamma_m(t,y)-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y)| \sup_{\tau \in (0, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)]} |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)| \\
&\ \ \ \ + \rho_1 \sup_{(t,x) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d , \atop \tau \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1)} | \nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t, x, \tau)) - \nabla_y \gamma(t,y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| \sup_{\tau \in (0, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) ]} |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, \tau)|.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence by Proposition \ref{P3.3}, (\ref{2.29}), (\ref{2.31}), (\ref{3.18}) and (\ref{3.42}),
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.41} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \| \Lambda_{n}(t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x))-\Lambda_m(t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\lesssim \| \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) - (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon} )} \\
&\ \ \ \ + \sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d}|\nabla_y \gamma_n(t,y)-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y)| \| \partial_{t} \gamma_{n} \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}'_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\ \ \ \ + \sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d}|\nabla_y \gamma_m(t,y)-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y)| \| \partial_{t} \gamma_{n} \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}'_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\ \ \ \ + \sup_{(t,x) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d, \atop \tau \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1)}| \nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| \| \partial_{t} \gamma_{n} \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}'_{\varepsilon})} \\
&\lesssim \| \int_0^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} | (\partial_{t} \gamma_n) (t, y_{n}(t, x, \tau)) - (\partial_{t} \gamma_m) (t, y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| d \tau \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon} )} \\
&\ \ \ \ + \sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d}|\nabla_y \gamma_n(t,y)-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y)|+ \sup_{(t,y) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d}|\nabla_y \gamma_m(t,y)-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y)|\\
&\ \ \ \ + \sup_{(t,x) \in [0,T_1]\times \mathbb{R}^d, \atop \tau \in (-\rho_1,\rho_1)}| \nabla_y \gamma(t,y_n(t, x, \tau))-\nabla_y \gamma(t,y_{m}(t, x, \tau))| \to 0, \\
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
as $n,m \to \infty$.
\vskip 0.3cm
Now we show (\ref{4.51}), $i.e.$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \| \Lambda_n (t, x, \Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x) ) -\Lambda_m (t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) ) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0. \label{2-18-1}
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{2-17-3}), to prove (\ref{2-18-1}), we need only to prove that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{2-18-2} \nonumber
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \| \Lambda_n (t, x, \Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x) ) -\Lambda_n (t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) ) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
By the definition of $\Lambda_n (t,x,r)$, (\ref{3.17}), (\ref{3.45}) and (\ref{3.18}), we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\begin{split}
& \ \ \ \ \ \| \Lambda_n (t, x, \Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x) ) -\Lambda_n (t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) ) \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} \\
&=\| \int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} ( (\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, r) )+\partial_{y} \gamma_{n} (t, y_{n}(t, x, r) )\Lambda_{n}(t, x, r) )dr \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}\\
&\lesssim \| \int_{\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)}^{\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)} |(\partial_{t} \gamma_{n} ) (t, y_{n}(t, x, r) ) |dr \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} \\
& \ \ \ \ \ +\| \sup_{r \in (\Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x), \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x)] } |\Lambda_{n}(t, x, r) | \|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})} \sup_{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}} | \Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x)-\Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) | \to 0,
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
as $n,m \to \infty$.
\vskip 0.3cm
Finally we show (\ref{4.52}), $i.e.$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.76}
\lim_{n,m\to \infty} \|\partial_t\Gamma_n^z(t,x)-\partial_t\Gamma_m^z(t,x)\|_{L^{2d+2}( \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon})}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
By (\ref{3.14}) and (\ref{3.13}), we have for $(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}$ and $n,m \ge N_1$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{3.27} \nonumber
\begin{split}
&\ \ \ \ |\partial_t\Gamma_n^z(t,x)-\partial_t\Gamma_m^z(t,x)|\\
&\le|\frac{\Lambda_n (t,x,\Gamma^z_n(t,x)) - \Lambda_m(t,x,\Gamma^z_m(t,x))}{\gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z)}|\\
&\ \ \ \ +|(\frac{1}{\gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z)}-\frac{1}{\gamma_m(t,y_m(t,x,\Gamma_m^z(t,x)))\cdot \gamma(t_0,z)}) \Lambda_m(t,x,\Gamma^z_m(t,x))|\\
&\le \cos ^{-1} \theta |\Lambda_{n} (t, x, \Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x) )-\Lambda_{m} (t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) ) | \\
& \ \ \ \ + \cos ^{-2}\theta | \gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma_n^z(t,x)))-\gamma_m(t,y_m(t,x,\Gamma_m^z(t,x))) | | \Lambda_{m}(t,x,\Gamma^z_m(t,x))| \\
& \lesssim |\Lambda_{n} (t, x, \Gamma_{n}^{z}(t, x) )-\Lambda_{m} (t, x, \Gamma_{m}^{z}(t, x) ) | \\
& \ \ \ \ + |\Lambda_{m} (t,x,\Gamma^z_m(t,x))| \sup_{(t,x)\in \mathcal{O}_{\varepsilon}} | \gamma_n(t,y_n(t,x,\Gamma^z_n(t,x))) - \gamma_m(t,y_m(t,x,\Gamma^z_m(t,x)))|.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
So together with (\ref{2-17-2}), (\ref{2.29}), (\ref{3.17}), (\ref{7.2.1}) and (\ref{2-18-1}), we obtain (\ref{3.76}).
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\vskip 0.4cm
\vskip 0.4cm
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgement.}\ This work is partly
supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11671372, No. 11971456, No. 11721101).
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Moon-Earth neutrino long-base experiments}
\label{sec:neutrinoexperiment}
Main focus of this memo is discussion of particles source facility to set-up at the Moon. This source is proposed to produce neutrinos for very long-base experiment although one can find other applications as well. Lunar environment providing unique conditions for accelerator setup is described. Two types of experiments measuring neutrino oscillations and its mass are evaluated. Various particle sources, like particle accelerators or reactors, for experiments performed on the Moon or in the Space are mentioned.
The below should be considered as a high level description of ideas for potential extraterrestrial particle experiments. It is believed that when such projects become a reality more ideas will come. Nowadays many projects about extraterrestrial colonization are generated on the global scale. Government agencies and private companies are challenging these goals in competitive manner. So, it is reasonable to assume that the idea to build lunar particle accelerator or nuclear reactor for scientific purpose is not very remote.
\subsection{Past and existing space projects in particle and astro-physics}
The proposal to setup accelerators outside the Earth is not the first of its kind and must be considered within the global trend of space exploration by humans.
BEAR (Beam Experiment Aboard a Rocket) project~\cite{BEAR} is the very first known accelerator in space. The respective team designed and actually launched Neutral Particle Beam linac into the space. It is reported~\cite{NPB} that this project has produced 1 MeV of neutral hydrogen beam at the height of 100 km above the Earth. RFQ-cavities, the heart of accelerator, weighted only 55 kg \cite{BEARCERN}.
Another example is DALI ("The Dark Ages Lunar Interferometer") project, which was proposed in 2007 \cite{DALI}. This is "a Moon-based radio telescope concept aimed at imaging highly-redshifted neutral hydrogen signals from the first large scale structures formed during the Universe’s “Dark Ages” and “Epoch of Reionization". The telescope will comprise of array of antennas distributed over round area with 50 km diameter. This project is still in the stage of technical development and is supported by NASA.
Costs associated with similar proposals are still high. However, if set-up the Linear Accelerator on the Moon (LAM) should be the cheapest of its kind because:
\begin{itemize}
\item The Moon is the closest object to Earth;
\item It has no atmosphere and is surrounded by deep vacuum and, therefore, does not require complex vacuum pumping techniques;
\item The temperature in the shadow around poles riches cryogenic levels, making it possible to use energy-saving technologies;
\item The Moon is always turned towards the Earth with one side\footnote{This occurs due to tidal locking effect}. This feature is exploited in Moon-to-Earth experiments.
\end{itemize}
Let us discuss these properties in their order.
\subsection{Lunar environment}
\label{sec:lunarspecs}
Modern acceleration technique requires low temperatures and deep vacuum. These are naturally present on the Moon for free.
On a surface of the Moon temperatures vary. It ranges from $-137$~\textdegree~C during the night to $+120$~\textdegree~C during the daylight. However, because of deep vacuum, simple artificial shadow system, like tranches, roofs and other screens will be effective measures to keep temperatures low always. It is reported by the Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) \cite{LRO} that some places around lunar poles~\footnote{lunar poles will be mentioned later in the search of optimal position for accelerators} are permanently in shadow and the temperatures there can reach -249\textdegree~C (or $+27$\textdegree~K). Such cryogenic temperatures help to transfer the electricity without dissipation.
The Moon has no atmosphere. For comparison, the vacuum at the surface is deeper than that inside the LHC vacuum tube by an order of magnitude. This allows better beam collimation and quality.
Deep vacuum and cryogenic temperatures allow for light design of experiments requiring much less energy budget compared to one at Earth due to no dissipation and no need for vacuum pumping.
Likely, Lunar quakes will pose the largest problem for any setup on the Moon. They happen quite regularly~\cite{MOONQUAKE}. Four types of quakes are known: 1) caused by meteorite crashes, 2) deep-moon (700 km deep) caused by tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon, 3) thermal quakes caused by heating-cooling cycles coming from day-night changes (every $\approx29$ earth days), and finally, 4) shallow (20-30 km deep) quakes which are the strongest, up to 5.5 Richter scale, and are long-lasting for hours. Quakes is a major concern and 1) will require additional knowledge whether they evenly occur over the satellite and 2) as result, special measures to protect any lunar constructions have to be taken.
Although the construction of accelerators can be light-weight the protection against secondary radiation induced by accelerated particles will be still needed.
All these measures will require experimental and simulation studies to optimize final design of the potential experiments and equipment.
\section{Lunar neutrino experiments}
\label{sec:lamtoearth}
\subsection{Moon-Earth experiment}
\label{sec:moonexperiment}
Moon is always turned to Earth by one side. Hence, our planet is always pinned to one point of the lunar sky. Therefore, the neutrino beam should be set-up at the border between the Front and the Far (Dark) sides of the Moon, where the Earth is visible at the horizon. Our planet occupies about 1.9 degrees of lunar sky. Orbital movement of Moon translates into back and forth movement of Earth with respect lunar reference frame. Therefore, movement of detector as a target should not exceed 2 degrees in angular size and can be targeted by the beam smoothly.
Moon has elliptic orbit around the Earth with distances, $L_{\leftmoon}$, between 363,104 and 405,696~km. In addition, Earth rotation adds another 6371 km. Detector traveling between these point will perform measurement at different distances. This corresponds to the maximum variation of source-to-detector distance of ${\sim}55,000$~km with relative change of about $14.4$~\% of the entire distance. North and South poles at Earth experience minimal distance variations and slowly change their position on lunar sky with 1 month period. This implies that, for example, existing IceCube detector~\cite{IceCube} in Antartica will be moving with minimal angular speed across lunar sky.
\subsubsection{Artificial sources of neutrino}
\label{sec:sources}
\paragraph{Accelerators}
\label{sec:accelerators}
Most of the existing accelerators use Radio-Frequency (RF) acceleration technique. They permit high energy and high intensities, however, with complex multistage system of intermediate accelerators, which accumulate particles and inject them by bunches into the main accelerator. These systems are large in size, use a lot of energy and as result are costly.
Recent advances in Plasma and Laser Wakefield Acceleration techniques (PLWA), \cite{LASERNEUTR} and \cite{LASERPOSITR}, would allow more simple and compact architecture.
PLWA's are compact, sometimes table scale devices, with expected high energy, high luminosity, excellent collimation and quasi-mono-energetic beams. Due to their size, PLWA has a better chance to be transported to the Moon and to be setup there.
PLWA uses plasma wakefield formed by initially accelerated electron, proton beams or laser photons. Such wakefield is used to boost charged particles including (beta-)ions (see \cite{AWAKE} and \cite{JSATO}). PLWA's are developed with ambition in mind to achieve multi-TeV energies and beyond. However, neutrino experiments proposed below require the energy of few tens of GeV at maximum.
As it is already discussed, deep vacuum is required to maintain stability of the beam. Significant energy resources are spent to function vacuum pumps. This comes for free at Moon. Both, RF accelerators and PLWA, share the same features like pion beam formation \cite{ACCNEUTBEAM}.
\paragraph{Reactors}
\label{sec:reactors}
Reactors produce electron anti-neutrinos of low energy spanning from zero to few MeV at very high intensity. They are very attractive for long-base experiments discussed here. Nevertheless, there are negative points to operate it on the Moon. For example, nuclear reactor is active device, which is difficult to shut down when problems occur, and, therefore, it requires a lot of care. Cooling system uses water (or other liquid), which circulates under high temperature and pressure. Additional problem is energy dissipation in vacuum which is also complicated. Therefore, reactor operation must be more complex than that at the Earth. The level of complexity of usage of nuclear reactors in space is difficult to evaluate in such short memo, however, such projects already exist since about 1970~\footnote{For example, soviet TOPAZ projects or even nuclear propulsion engines}. Another potential problem, Moonquakes, adds more requirements to safety. Overall conclusion is that the construction of nuclear reactors on the Moon is complex but feasible.
\subsection{Neutrino oscillations}
\label{sec:neutrino}
\subsubsection{Basic idea}
Oscillations are result of the interference of mass and flavour diagrams. Standard Model embeds three lepton generations, where their interactions are described with weak currents proportional to neutrino mixing matrix~\cite{NEUTRINOMIX}.
Neutrino beams produced in mixture from neutron, pion (kaon) or muon decays of known intensity at one end (at Moon) are registered by detectors at the other end (at Earth). During flight superposition of mass eigenstates evolves. This can be registered through the measurement of flavour eigenstates as function of ratio between distance and energy of neutrino, $L/E_{\nu}$. Event rate of flavour registered in detectors while conditioned on the initial tagged flavour state is proportional to survival probability ($P_\text{surv}$), which are driven by similar sinusoidal term:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:oscillation}
\sin^2 \Big(\frac{1.267 \cdot \Delta m^2_{ij} \cdot L_{\leftmoon}}{E_\nu}\Big)
\end{equation}
where $\Delta m^2_{ij}$ mass squared difference for neutrino mass eigenstates, $E_\nu \text{ (GeV)}$ is energy of neutrino and $L_{\leftmoon} \text{(km)}$ is distance between the Moon and the Earth. Angles coming from parameterization of Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix~\cite{NEUTRINOMIX} govern the amplitude of rate of observed events.
Fig.\ref{fig:oscillations} shows example oscillations between flavour-eigenstates of electron neutrino:
\begin{equation}
P_\text{surv}(\nu_e \to \nu_{\bar{e}}; L_{\leftmoon}/E_\nu) = 1-\sin^2(2\theta_{12})\cdot \sin^2\Big(\frac{1.267 \cdot \Delta m^2_{12} \cdot L_{\leftmoon}}{E_\nu}\Big)
\label{eq:prob_survival}
\end{equation}
where $\sin^2(2\theta_{12})=0.86$ and $\Delta m_{12}^2 = 7.6 \cdot 10^{-5}$~eV$^2$ are chosen. The plot is made over the distance between the Moon and the Earth, $L_{\leftmoon}$, with fixed energies of neutrino: $E_\nu=0.5$, $1, 3$ and $5$~$\text{GeV}$. Oscillations due to $\Delta m_{13}^2 \approx \Delta m_{23}^2 = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ require larger energy by factor of 33 to produce similar dependency in $P_\text{surv}(L_{\leftmoon})$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{surv-prob-dm12}
\caption{The $\nu_{e}(\bar{\nu_{e}})$-survival probability as a function of distance, $L_{\leftmoon}$. $\Delta m^2_{12}=7.6\cdot10^{-5}~\text{eV}^2$ and $\sin^2 (2\theta_{12}) = 0.86$, see \cite{PDG}. Neutrino energies are assumed $E_{\nu} =$~0.5, 1, 3 and 5~GeV.}
\label{fig:oscillations}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Precision of measurement}
\paragraph{Estimations of event rate}
\label{sex:hitrate}
Let us define event rate ($R_{ev}$) of accelerator neutrinos at detector as:
\begin{equation}
R_{ev} = f \times \sigma \times T
\end{equation}
where $f$ is neutrino flux at detector, $\sigma$ is cross section of interaction of neutrino with detector through $\nu + N \to \mu + X$ process and $T$ is total number of protons and neutrons in the target. For on-axis neutrino beam of $E_{\nu}=10~\text{GeV}$ it is estimated that $f \sim 10^{-15}~\nu/(\text{cm}^2\cdot\text{POT})$. Then, with $\sigma \sim 0.7 \cdot 10^{-38} \text{cm}^{-2} (E_{\nu}/\text{GeV})$ and $T \sim 6 \cdot 10^{38}$ (e.g. water detector of $1~\text{km}^3$ or $10^9~\text{kt}$) the event rate is $R_{ev} \sim 4.2\cdot 10^{-14}~\nu/\text{POT}$. Annual intensity of proton beam of $10^{20}~\text{POT}/\text{year}$ gives:
\begin{equation}
R_{ev} \sim 4.2\cdot 10^{6}~\nu/\text{year}
\end{equation}
Neutrino beam with energy $3~\text{GeV}$ will produce $4.2\cdot 10^{4}~\nu/\text{year}$ events. See details of flux calculations in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix}.
This estimation is really rough and is aimed to illustrate only feasibility of such project. Some optimal experiment design has to be found as a result of interplay between statistics and resolution of measured physics parameters. Estimated event rate does not include detection probability. Let's use this information further.
\paragraph{Distance and Energy resolution}
Measurement of oscillations requires knowledge of distance, $L_{\leftmoon}$, and energy $E_{\nu}$.
Any moment in time, the distance between centers of the Moon and the Earth, $L_{\leftmoon}$, can be known with precision up to 1 mm (or with relative error $2.5\cdot 10^{-12}$) and hence is assumed to be precise. Such distance measurement is possible due to the existence of several retro-reflectors placed on the Moon, which are used to measure and monitor the movement of the satellite.
For the illustration of effect of energy resolution, toy Monte Carlo is built to simulate 10k neutrinos with energy normally distributed and centered at $E_\nu=\{3,~5,~10\}$~GeV with precise energy measurement and then with measurement uncertainty of $\Delta E_{\nu} \approx \{0.2, 0.35, 0.7\}$~GeV~\footnote{Calculated with $\Delta E_{\nu} / E_{\nu} = 0.070 + 0.033/\sqrt{E_{\nu}}$ (from \cite{DUNEDE}), where $[E_{\nu}]=[\text{GeV}]$}.
Fig.\ref{fig:oscillations500mev} shows how original oscillation pattern dilutes due to energy measurement error, where the amplitude of oscillation is sensitive to $\sin^2(2\theta_{12})$ and the period of oscillation is sensitive to $\Delta m^2_{21}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{surv-prob-registered}
\caption{The $\nu_e$($\bar{\nu_e}$) survival probability as a function of distance, $L_{\leftmoon}$. Theoretical and 'measured' (marked with '(E)') probabilities are presented. The same physics parameters are taken as were used in Fig.~\ref{fig:oscillations}. Neutrino energies shown are $E_{\nu} = 5.2,~5.8,~6.8,~8.0$~GeV. Similar choice should maximise the measurement precision.}
\label{fig:oscillations500mev}
\end{figure}
Narrow band energy neutrino beam will improve this result:
\begin{itemize}
\item Off-beam neutrinos have narrow energy bandwidth, however, at the cost of production intensity.
\item Magnet system can select specific energy band. Intensity in this case is even smaller than in the previous one;
\end{itemize}
Of course, narrow band energy neutrinos are registered with the same energy resolution as mentioned above, but in such experiments the signal events can be selected with energy around the known one, thus reducing the background neutrinos. If done, the dependency of survival probability as function of distance to the Moon will show more pronounced oscillations and, therefore, will be more sensitive to $\Delta m$'s.
\subsubsection{Experimental aspects and systemic effects}
The existing long-baseline experiments share similar systemic problems:
\begin{itemize}
\item the necessity to normalize "near" and "far" fluxes of neutrinos;
\item the necessity to normalize fluxes and cross section at different energies. This is needed to correctly translate visible event rate into survival probability and then into the measurement of oscillations.
\end{itemize}
Same problems exist for experiments with accelerator and nuclear sources. Moon-to-Earth experiment will be free from such systematic errors because oscillation scan can be done with neutrino beam with same energy spectrum, while the target (Earth detector) moves alongside the beam. Moreover, in this case the measurement of $\Delta m^2$ does not require absolute normalization, while for the measurement of PMNS-matrix elements it is still required.
Through the formula (\ref{eq:prob_survival}) one can see that the precision of $|\Delta m^2|$ measurement is sensitive to the precision of $E_\nu / L_{\leftmoon}$ measurement. Keeping that in mind one can use Table 14.4 in \cite{PDG} as a reference. This table quotes $|\Delta m^2|$-sensitivity potential as ratio $E_{\nu}/L_{\leftmoon}~\text{(MeV/m)}$, which indicates that the lunar experiment has sensitivity to $|\Delta m^2|$ at $\sim10^{-5}$~$eV^2$. This level of precision is next to solar neutrino studies, which have best potential sensitivity. However, although Sun produces huge amount of neutrinos, they have low energy and more difficult to detect, their flavour mix is not known at the source and have broad energy spectrum. Respective results have systematic error due to (solar) model dependency. The same is true about atmospheric neutrinos as one gets dependent on cosmology physics models. This limits the sensitivity to sinusoidal structure of oscillations measured from solar or atmospheric sources.
\subsection{Neutrino mass measurement with time of flight technique}
\subsubsection{Basic idea}
Another possible application of neutrino beam directed to earthly detector is the measurement of neutrino mass by using Time of Flight (ToF) technique. This technique applied to neutrino was first proposed by G.Zatsepin in 1968 \cite{ZATSEPIN} to measure time-energy dependence of these particles emitted by supernovae. This idea led to observation of SN1987a~\cite{SN1987A} neutrinos and the measurement of upper limit on neutrino mass.
The same idea can be used to measure ToF difference between neutrino and synchronized at source photon, $\delta t_{\gamma,\nu} = t_{\gamma} - t_{\nu}$. This allows the measurement of the mass of neutrino as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:neutmasstof}
m_{\nu} = \frac{p_{\nu}}{c}\cdot\sqrt{\Big(\frac{\delta t_{\gamma,\nu} \cdot c}{L_{\leftmoon}}+1\Big)^2-1}
\end{equation}
By changing momentum, $p_\nu$, and $t_{\gamma,\nu}$ one can estimate the limits of mass measurement at Moon-Earth distance. Such scatter plot is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:tof_mass_scatter}, where neutrino with $p_{\nu}=1$~keV, $L_{\leftmoon}(max)=405,696$~km and delay of $\delta t_{\gamma,\nu} \sim 1$~ns will produce the limit on neutrino mass estimation at $m_\nu \leq 38.7$ meV. The same limit can be achieved for 10 keV neutrino, but in this case the time precision must be at $\delta t_{\gamma,\nu} \sim 10$~ps. Therefore, ToF measurement of neutrino mass puts very strict constrains on detector properties, which has to be sensitive to neutrinos with $\sim1~\text{keV}$ momentum and with time resolution of the order of nanoseconds to achieve mass limit of $0.1~\text{eV}$. Plastic scintillators are capable to respond to the electron within few hundreds picoseconds, however, they are not that sensitive to the keV electrons. Some hope can be attributed to germanium detectors which demonstrate sensitivity to neutrinos in sub-keV region and give time resolution at microseconds scale~\cite{GERMANIUM}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{tof-mass-scatter}
\caption{Scatter plot shows relationship between ToF (X-axis), momentum (Y-axis) and mass of neutrino (color map).}
\label{fig:tof_mass_scatter}
\end{figure}
Source of low energy neutrinos is also a challenge because these neutrinos should be time tagged at the source. It can be done by measurement of time difference between leading photon and delayed neutrino, $\delta t_{\gamma,\nu}$, which are produced within same bunch. One example is Laser wakefield accelerators emitting beta-ions and laser photons in synchronicity. Another example is nuclear reactor equipped with selection of monochromatic neutron beam and Fermi-chopper~\cite{TOFREACTOR} to strobe neutrons.
High time precision involving leading photon might require some interferometer schema (see \cite{FEMTOSEC}). It can have certain complications for time periods when detector is on the other side of the Earth and is not directly visible from the Moon. Small satellites with reflectors positioned at Lagrange points within Earth-Moon system could solve this particular problem.
Nuclear reactors produced neutrinos at high rates of $10^{20}~\bar{\nu_e}/\text{s}$ per $1~\text{GWt}$ of power. With acceptance of $1/(4\pi\cdot L_{\leftmoon})^2\sim 4\cdot10^{-20}$ one can expect only 4 neutrinos to pass through $1~\text{m}^3$ detector per second or $\sim10^{8}~\bar{\nu_e}/\text{year}$. Only fraction of these from $\sim0.1-5~\text{keV}$ energy band can be used in this ToF experiment. Estimation of respective flux is obscured by the absence of measurements of reactor flux in area of sub-MeV neutrinos. Additionally, at these energies cross section of neutrino interaction with detector material is low. Nevertheless, the feeling is the flux arriving at Earth should be very small.
These arguments suggest the use of accelerator technique as a better alternative. For example, plasma/Laser wakefield accelerators could serve this purpose. But in general, it is likely that such sources do not exist, because of natural limitations of neutrino production as they have small mass (from beta-decay) or because slow protons do not have enough energy to generate pions. The expectation is that this proposal for neutrino mass measurement with ToF technique will produce respective ideas about how to produce highly intense beam of slow neutrinos.
\subsection{Other experiments}
\subsubsection{Calibration of cosmic rays physics models}
Lunar accelerator can produce particles of known ID (electrons, positrons, protons, neutron, neutrinos or ions) and with energy of known profile or even mono-energetic one. By shooting them into Earth one can better study the physics of atmospheric showers and calibrate respective models \cite{COSMICRAYS} which are key part of cosmic rays physics.
For example, Laser induced electron beam can have an energy of 0.01-1 GeV. $3$~mrad beam will create 1200 km radius spot on Earth surface. Of course, beam intensity of $10^{15}-10^{20}$ electrons per second will be extremely high for the living species, but it can be lowered down to the level sufficient to calibrate the models.
\subsubsection{Lightnings as spark chamber} Another interesting potential application of particle accelerator with electrons is the existence and progressing development of "World Wide Lightning Location Network" \cite{WWLLN}. Again, by shooting charged particles at locations with potential lightning can give us a possibility to model and calibrate the response. If done so, this network can help to develop better lightning models used as a global spark chamber with capacity still to explore for high energy and cosmic rays physics.
\subsubsection{Accelerator and detector on the Moon}
Any other setup will require detectors placed locally at the Moon. Note, that since the Moon is in the vacuum there is no need to make detector setup compact which is required at Earth due to space limitations in the experimental cave. Detectors can be positioned quite sparsely with a long arm even on purpose, for example, in order to improve spacial measurements.
Large circular collider can be placed at the bottom of the large enough crater circus. Similar artificial trench and crater boundaries will be the protection for outside lunar environment possibly inhabited with people.
\subsubsection{Orbiting particle sources}
One such experiment was mentioned at the beginning of the memo. However, it is difficult to use such device as it has to constantly point to the detector on Earth. Alternatively, accelerator can be positioned either in geo-stationary points in space or orbiting around the Moon. In the latter case the study of the Moon structure is possible through the scan with neutrinos.
\section{Conclusions}
Starting this memo author had an impression that lunar project is very remote in time and is not possible to execute. However, by making these simple estimations and observing determination of various governments and entrepreneurs this project seems to become feasible in the foreseeable future. Among many other possibilities, the Moon is quite suitable place for studies of neutrino and atmospheric showers as a link to cosmic rays physics.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Author is grateful to Dmitry Naumov, (Dubna, JINR) for challenging results and more clear explanations about the physics. Peter Hristov is aknowledged for critical views and suggestions to look plasma/laser wakefield accelerator technologies.
My daughter Valentina helped me to streamline my English in the very first version. At the end I would like to mention that, the work on this piece has forced me to refresh some 20 years old knowledge about high energy physics which is a reward by itself. This work is written at the own initiative of author without any support.
\newpage
\begin{appendices}
\section{Flux estimation}
\label{sec:appendix}
Total neutrino flux at detector, $f$, can be factorised into two parts: flux of neutrino produced from single pion, $\Phi_{\nu}$, on top of flux of pions produced from single proton, $\eta(E_{\pi},\theta_{\pi})$:
\begin{equation}
f = \eta \cdot \Phi_{\nu}
\label{eq:totalflux}
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is taken constant as an approximation. Flux $\Phi_{\nu}$ captures dependence on energy of pion decayed into neutrino and muon, size of one dimension of detector, $D$, distance to it, $L$, and off-beam axis, $\theta$:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\nu} (D, L, \gamma_{\pi},\theta) = \frac{\gamma_{\pi}^2 \cdot D}{\pi \cdot L} \cdot
\int_{\theta}^{\theta+D/L} \frac{(1+\tan^2 \alpha)^{3/2}}{(1+\gamma_{\pi}^2\cdot \tan^2 \alpha)^2} d \cos \theta
\label{eq:flux}
\end{equation}
which holds for relativistic pions with $1 \ll \gamma_{\pi}$. This relationship comes from kinematics (see (9) in \cite{ACCNEUTBEAM} or (10) in \cite{RAMM}). The kinematic relationship between energy of pion and neutrino is also used:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:energy_pion}
E_{\nu} =
\frac{m_{\pi}^2 - m_{\mu}^2}{m_{\pi}^2} \cdot \frac{E_{\pi}}{1+(\gamma_{\pi}\theta)^2} = \frac{m_{\pi}^2 - m_{\mu}^2}{m_{\pi}} \cdot \frac{\gamma_{\pi}}{1+(\gamma_{\pi}\theta)^2}
\end{equation}
These expressions are used to extrapolate reported experimental data to estimate flux in lunar experiment. For this purpose we choose MiniBooNE~\cite{MBNE} and T2K~\cite{T2K} experiments. Their respective parameters are listed in Table~\ref{table:experiments}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
Experiment & $L$, km & $A$, $\text{m}^2$ & $\theta, \text{degr}$ & $\overline{E_{\nu}}, \text{GeV} $ & $\overline{E_{\pi}}, \text{GeV} $ \\
\hline
MiniBooNE & 0.56 & $\sim 100$ & 0 & 0.8 & 2.2 \\
T2K & 295 & 1600 & 2.5 & 0.6 & 1.9-5.4 \\
MOON10 & $3.82\cdot 10^{5}$ & $10^{6}$ & 0 & 10 & 23.4 \\
MOON3 & $3.82\cdot 10^{5}$ & $10^{6}$ & 0 & 3 & 7 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c| }
Experiment & $\Phi_{\nu}, \nu/\pi$ & $f_{\text{exp}}$,~$\frac{\nu}{\text{cm}^2\cdot \text{POT}}$ & $\eta$,~$\frac{\pi}{\text{cm}^2\cdot \text{POT}}$ \\
\hline
MiniBooNE & $3.17\cdot 10^{-2}$& $5.19\cdot 10^{-10}$& $2.0\cdot 10^{-8}$ \\
T2K & $5.82\cdot 10^{-7}$& $1.59\cdot 10^{-14}$& $2.7\cdot 10^{-8}$ \\
MOON10 & $6.1\cdot 10^{-8}$& - & - \\
MOON3 & $5.5\cdot 10^{-9}$& - & - \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of parameters used in calculations, where $L_{\text{det}}$ is distance to detector, $A$ is effective area of detector frontal to the beam, $\theta$ is off-axis angle, $\overline{E_{\nu}}$ is average energy of neutrino, $\overline{E_{\pi}}$ is average energy of parent pion implied with use of (\ref{eq:energy_pion}), $\Phi_{\nu}$ is flux estimated from (\ref{eq:flux}), $f_{\text{exp}}$ is flux reported by experiments and $\eta$ is pion flux estimated from (\ref{eq:totalflux}). MOON10 and MOON3 are flux projections with $E_{\nu}=10~\text{GeV}$ and $3~\text{GeV}$, respectively.}
\label{table:experiments}
\end{table} \\
MiniBooNE value, $\eta_{MBNE} = 2\cdot 10^{-8}~\pi/(\text{cm}^2\cdot \text{POT})$, is chosen further. These estimations are rough and suffer from the following assumptions related to specifics of formation of neutrino beam:
\begin{itemize}
\item energy spectrum of pions from $p+X_{\text{fix}} \to N\pi + X_{\text{out}}$ and their angular spread are neglected and replaced with single average energy and setting $\theta_{\pi}=0$;
\item dependency of proton-to-pion conversion on target material and energy is also neglected.
\end{itemize}
Impact of angular diversion of pion beam, $\psi$, on flux estimation is calculated. Its typical spread is about $3\sigma_{\psi} \approx 1.2$~mrad~\cite{BEAM_ANGLE}. This effect on flux is checked via simulation of pion beam with zero and non-zero diversions as a function of $\theta$ off-axis angle. For typical beam imperfections of $\sigma_{\psi}<2~\text{mrad}$ no significant impact is found. It starts to be visible at $\sigma_{\psi}>10~\text{mrad}$, see \ref{fig:pion_beam}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{flux-by-pion-beam}
\caption{Neutrino flux, $\Phi_{\nu}$, as a function of $\theta$ off-axis for lunar experiment. Different pion beam diversions are assumed, $\sigma_{psi} = 0,~0.4,~2,~10,~333$~mrad. Dots are connected with linear interpolation. $E_{\nu}=10~\text{GeV}$.}
\label{fig:pion_beam}
\end{figure} \\
Therefore, total neutrino flux estimations for detector of Moon-Earth experiment are:
\begin{equation}
f(E_{\nu} = 3~\text{GeV}) = 5.5 \cdot 10^{-9} \cdot 2 \cdot 10^{-8} \approx 10^{-16}, \frac{\nu}{\text{cm}^2\cdot \text{POT}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
f(E_{\nu} = 10~\text{GeV}) = 6.1 \cdot 10^{-8} \cdot 2 \cdot 10^{-8} \approx 10^{-15}, \frac{\nu}{\text{cm}^2\cdot \text{POT}}
\end{equation} \\
Note, that with increase of pion energy, $E_{\pi}$, the beam collimation improves with Lorentz boost quadratically.
\end{appendices}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{P}{hysical} layer security (PLS) has attracted increasing attention as an alternative of cryptography-based techniques for wireless communications [1], where PLS exploits the wireless channel characteristics by using signal processing designs and channel coding to support secure communication services without relying on a shared secret key [1], [2]. So far, a variety of approaches have been reported to improve PLS in wireless communication systems, e.g., cooperative relaying strategies [3], [4], artificial noise-assisted beamforming [5], [6], and cooperative jamming [7], [8]. However, employing a large number of active antennas and relays in PLS systems incurs an excessive hardware cost and the system complexity. Moreover, cooperative jamming and transmitting artificial noise require extra transmit power for security guarantees.
To tackle these shortcomings of the existing approaches [3]-[8], a new paradigm, called intelligent reflecting surface (IRS) [9]-[13], has been proposed as a promising technique to achieve high spectrum efficiency and energy efficiency, and enhance secrecy rate in the fifth generation (5G) and beyond wireless communication systems. In particular, IRS is a uniform planar array which is comprised of a number of low-cost passive reflecting elements, where each of elements adaptively adjusts its reflection amplitude and/or phase to control the strength and direction of the electromagnetic wave, hence IRS is capable of enhancing and/or weakening the reflected signals at different users [9]. As a result, the reflected signal by IRS can increase the received signal at legitimate users while suppressing the signal at the eavesdroppers [9]-[13]. Hence, from the PLS perspective, some innovative studies have been recently devoted to performance optimization for IRS-aided secure communications [14]-[25].
\subsection{Related Works}
Initial studies on IRS-aided secure communication systems have reported in [14]-[17], where a simple system model with only a single-antenna legitimate user and a single-antenna eavesdropper was considered in these works. The authors in [14] and [15] applied the alternative optimization (AO) algorithm to jointly optimize the transmit beamforming vector at the base station (BS) and the phase elements at the IRS for the maximization of the secrecy rate, but they did not extend their models to multi-user IRS-assisted secure communication systems. To minimize the transmit power at the BS subject to the secrecy rate constraint, the authors in [18] utilized AO solution and semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxation to address the optimization problem with the objective to jointly optimize the power allocation and the IRS reflecting beamforming. In addition, Feng $et~al$. [19] also studied the secure transmission framework with an IRS to minimize the system transmit power in cases of rank-one and full-rank BS-IRS links, and derived a closed-form expression of beamforming matrix. Different from these studies [14]-[19] which considered only a single eavesdropper, secure communication systems comprising multiple eavesdroppers were investigated in [20]-[22]. Chen $et~al$. [20] presented a minimum-secrecy-rate maximization design to provide secure communication services for multiple legitimate users while keeping them secret from multiple eavesdroppers in an IRS-aided multi-user multiple-input single-output (MISO) system, but the simplification of the optimization problem may cause a performance loss. The authors in [23] and [24] studied an IRS-aided multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel, where a multi-antenna BS transmits data stream to a multi-antenna legitimate user in the presence of an eavesdropper configured with multiple antennas, and a suboptimal secrecy rate maximization approach was presented to optimize the beamforming policy. In addition to the use of AO or SDP in the system performance optimization, the minorization-maximization (MM) algorithm was recently utilized to optimize the joint transmit beamforming at the BS and phase shift coefficient at the IRS [16], [23].
Moreover, the authors in [22] and [25] employed the artificial noise-aided beamforming for IRS-aided MISO secure communication systems to improve the system secrecy rate, and an AO based solution was applied to jointly optimize the BS's beamforming, artificial noise interference vector and IRS's reflecting beamforming with the goal to maximize the secrecy rate. All these existing studies [14]-[20], [22]-[25] assumed that perfect channel state information (CSI) of legitimate users or eavesdroppers is available at the BS, which is not a practical assumption. The reason is that acquiring perfect CSI at the BS is challenging since the corresponding CSI may be outdated when the channel is time-varying due to the transmission delay, processing delay, and high mobility of users. Hence, Yu $et~al$. [21] investigated an optimization problem with considering the impacts of outdated CSI of the eavesdropping channels in an IRS-aided secure communication system, and a robust algorithm was proposed to address the optimization problem in the presence of multiple eavesdroppers.
The above mentioned studies [14]-[25] mainly applied the traditional optimization techniques e.g., AO, SDP or MM algorithms to jointly optimize the BS's beamforming and the IRS's reflecting beamforming in IRS-aided secure communication systems, which are less efficient for large-scale systems. Inspired by the recent advances of artificial intelligence (AI), several works attempted to utilize AI algorithms to optimize IRS's reflecting beamforming [26]-[29]. Deep learning (DL) was exploited to search the optimal IRS reflection matrices that maximize the achievable system rate in an IRS-aided communication system, and the simulation demonstrated that DL significantly outperforms conventional algorithms. Moreover, the authors in [28] and [29] proposed deep reinforcement learning (DRL) based approach to address the non-convex optimization problem, and the phase shifts at the IRS are optimized effectively. However, the works [26]-[29] merely considered to maximize the system achievable rate of a single user without considering the scenario of multiple users, secure communication and imperfect CSI in their models. The authors in [30] and [31] applied reinforcement learning (RL) to achieve smart beamforming at the BS against an eavesdropper in complex environments, but the IRS-aided secure communication system needs to optimize the IRS's reflect beamforming in addition to the BS's transmit beamforming. To the best of our knowledge, RL or DRL has not been explored yet in prior works to optimize both the BS's transmit beamforming and the IRS's reflect beamforming in dynamic IRS-aided secure communication systems, under the condition of multiple eavesdroppers and imperfect CSI, which thus motivates this work.
\subsection{Contributions}
In this paper, we investigate an IRS-aided secure communication system with the objective to maximize the system secrecy rate of multiple legitimate users in the presence of multiple eavesdroppers under realistic time-varying channels, while guaranteeing quality of service (QoS) requirements of legitimate users. A novel DRL-based secure beamforming approach is firstly proposed to jointly optimize the beamforming matrix at the BS and the reflecting beamforming matrix (reflection phases) at the IRS in dynamic environments. The major contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item The physical secure communication based on IRS with multiple eavesdroppers is investigated under the condition of time-varying channel coefficients in this paper. In addition, we formulate a joint BS's transmit beamforming and IRS's reflect beamforming optimization problem with the goal of maximizing the system secrecy rate while considering the QoS requirements of legitimate users.
\item An RL-based intelligent beamforming framework is presented to achieve the optimal BS's beamforming and the IRS's reflecting beamforming, where the central controller intelligently optimizes the beamforming policy by using a Markov decision process (MDP) according to the instantaneous observations from dynamic environment. Specifically, a QoS-aware reward function is constructed by covering both the secrecy rate and users' QoS requirements into the learning process.
\item A DRL-based secure beamforming approach is proposed to improve the learning efficiency and secrecy performance by fully exploiting the information of complex structure of the beamforming policy domain, where a modified post-decision state (PDS) learning is presented to trace the channel dynamic against channel uncertainty, and prioritized experience replay (PER) is applied to enhance the learning efficiency.
\item Extensive simulation results are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed deep PDS-PER leaning based secure beamforming approach in terms of improving the secrecy rate and the QoS satisfaction probability, compared with other existing approaches. For instance, the proposed learning approach achieves the secrecy rate and QoS satisfaction level improvements of 17.21\% and 8.67\%, compared with the approach [14] in time-varying channel condition.
\end{itemize}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the system model and problem formulation. The optimization problem is formulated as an RL problem in Section III. Section IV proposes a deep PDS-PER based secure beamforming approach. Section V provides simulation results and Section VI concludes the paper.
Notations: In this paper, vectors and matrices are represented by
Boldface lowercase and uppercase letters, respectively.
${\rm{Tr}}( \cdot )$, ${( \cdot )^ * }$ and ${( \cdot )^H}$
denote the trace, the conjugate and the conjugate transpose
operations, respectively. $| \cdot |$ and $|| \cdot ||$ stand for
the absolute value of a scalar and the Euclidean norm of a vector
or matrix, respectively. $\mathbb{E}[ \cdot ]$ denotes the
expectation operation. ${\mathbb{C}^{M \times N}}$ represents the
space of complex-valued matrices.
\section{System Model and Problem Formulation}
\subsection{System Model}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.82\columnwidth]{fig1}
\caption{{IRS-aided secure communication under multiple
eavesdroppers.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
We consider an IRS-aided secure communication
system, as shown in Fig. 1, where the BS is equipped with $N$
antennas to serve $K$ single-antenna legitimate mobile users (MUs)
in the presence of $M$ single-antenna eavesdroppers. An IRS with $L$
reflecting elements is deployed in the system to assist secure
wireless communications from the BS to the MUs. The IRS is
equipped with a controller to coordinate with the BS. For the ease of
practical implementation, the maximal reflection without power loss at the IRS
is considered since the reflecting elements are designed to
maximize the reflected desired signal power to the MUs [13]-[23].
In addition, unauthorized eavesdroppers aim to eavesdrop any of
the data streams of the MUs. Hence, the use of
reflecting beamforming at IRS is also investigated to improve the
achievable secrecy rate at the MUs while suppressing the
wiretapped data rate at the eavesdroppers. In addition, we explicitly state that the eavesdroppers cannot collide [5], [6], [18]-[21].
Let $\mathcal{K} = \{
1,2,\ldots,K\} $, $\mathcal{M} = \{ 1,2,\ldots,M\} $ and $\mathcal{L}
= \{ 1,2,\ldots,L\} $ denote the MU set, the eavesdropper set and the
IRS reflecting element set, respectively. Let ${\bf{H}_{{\rm{br}}}}
\in {\mathbb{C}^{L \times N}}$, ${\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu,}}k}^H \in
{\mathbb{C}^{1 \times N}}$, ${\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru,}}k}^H \in {\mathbb{C}^{1
\times L}}$, ${\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be,}}m}^H \in {\mathbb{C}^{1 \times N}}$,
and ${\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re,}}m}^H \in {\mathbb{C}^{1 \times L}}$ denote the
channel coefficients from the BS to the IRS, from the BS to the
$k$-th MU, from the IRS to the $k$-th MU, from the BS to the
$m$-th eavesdropper, and from the IRS to the $m$-th eavesdropper,
respectively. All the above mentioned channel coefficients in the
system are assumed to be small-scale fading with path loss which follows the
Rayleigh fading model [11]-[14], [21]. Let ${\bf{\Psi }} =
{\rm{diag}}({\chi _1}{e^{j{\theta _1}}},{\chi _2}{e^{j{\theta
_2}}},\ldots,{\chi _L}{e^{j{\theta _L}}})$ denote the reflection
coefficient matrix associated with effective phase shifts at the
IRS, where ${\chi _l} \in [0,1]$ and ${\theta _l} \in [0,2\pi ]$
denote the amplitude reflection factor and the phase shift
coefficient on the combined transmitted signal, respectively.
As each phase shift is desired to be designed to achieve full reflection, we consider that ${\chi
_l} = 1$, $\forall l \in \mathcal{L}$ in the sequel of the paper.
At the BS side, the beamforming vector for the $k$-th MU is
denoted as ${{\bf{v}}_k} \in {\mathbb{C}^{N \times 1}}$, which is
the continuous linear precoding [11]-[16], [23]. Thus, the
transmitted signal for all MUs at the BS is written as ${\bf{x}} =
\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^K {{{\bf{v}}_k}{s_k}} $, where ${s_k}$ is
the transmitted symbol for the $k$-th MU which can be modelled as independent
and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with zero mean and
unit variance [11]-[16], [23], and ${s_k} \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,1)$. The total transmit power at the BS
is subject to the maximum power constraint:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}[||{\bf{x}}{||^2}] = {\rm{Tr(}}{\bf{V}}{\bf{V}}^{H}{\rm{)}} \le {P_{\max }}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf{V}} \buildrel \Delta \over =
[{{\bf{v}}_1},{{\bf{v}}_2},\ldots,{{\bf{v}}_K}] \in {\mathbb{C}^{M
\times K}}$, and ${P_{\max }}$ is the maximum transmit power
at the BS.
When the BS transmits a secret message to the $k$-th MU, the MU
will receive the signal from the BS and the reflected signal from
the IRS.
Accordingly, the received signal at MU $k$ can be given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
{y_k} = \underbrace {\left( {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru,}}k}^H{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu,}}k}^H} \right){{\bf{v}}_k}{s_k}}_{{\rm{desired}}\;{\rm{signal}}}\\
\;\;\;\; + \underbrace {\sum\limits_{i \in {\mathcal{K}},i \ne k} {\left( {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru,}}k}^H{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu,}}k}^H} \right){{\bf{v}}_i}{s_i}} }_{{\rm{inter - user interference}}} + {n_k}
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${n_k}$ denotes the additive complex Gaussian noise (AWGN)
with the with zero mean and variance $\delta _k^2$ at the $k$-th
MU. In (2), we observe that in addition to the received desired
signal, each MU also suffers inter-user interference (IUI) in the
system. In addition, the received signal at eavesdropper $m$ is
expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{y_m} = \left( {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re,}}m}^H{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be,}}m}^H} \right)\sum\limits_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} {{{\bf{v}}_k}{s_k}} + {n_m}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${n_m}$ is the AWGN of eavesdropper $m$ with the variance
$\delta _m^2$ .
{\color{blue}}
In practical systems, it is not easy for the BS and the IRS to
obtain perfect CSI [9], [21]. This is due to the fact that both the
transmission delay and processing delay exist, as well as the
mobility of the users. Therefore, CSI is outdated at the time
when the BS and the IRS transmit the data stream to MUs [21].
Once this outdated CSI is employed for beamforming, it will lead
to a negative effect on the demodulation at the MUs, thereby
leading to substantial performance loss [21]. Therefore, it is necessary to
consider outdated CSI in the IRS-aided secure communication
system.
Let ${T_{{\rm{delay}}}}$ denote the delay between the outdated CSI
and the real-time CSI. In other words, when the BS receives the
pilot sequences sent from the MUs at the time slot $t$, it will
complete the channel estimation process and begin to transmit data
stream to the MUs at the time slot $t + {T_{{\rm{delay}}}}$.
Hence, the relation between the outdated channel vector ${\bf{h}}(t)$ and the
real-time channel vector ${\bf{h}}(t +
{T_{{\rm{delay}}}})$ can be expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\bf{h}}(t + {T_{{\rm{delay}}}}) = \rho {\bf{h}}(t) + \sqrt {1 - {\rho ^2}}
\hat {\bf{h}}(t + {T_{{\rm{delay}}}}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In (4), $\hat {\bf{h}}(t + {T_{{\rm{delay}}}})$ is independent
identically distributed with ${\bf{h}}(t)$ and ${\bf{h}}(t +
{T_{{\rm{delay}}}})$, and it is with zero-mean and unit-variance
complex Gaussian entries. $\rho $ is the autocorrelation function
(outdated CSI coefficient) of the channel gain ${\bf{h}}(t)$ and $0 \le
\rho \le 1$, which is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rho = {J_0}(2{\pi _{{\rm{pi}}}}{f_D}{T_{{\rm{delay}}}})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${J_0}( \cdot )$ is the zeroth-order Bessel function of the
first kind, ${f_D}$ is the Doppler spread which is generally a
function of the velocity ($\upsilon $) of the transceivers, the
carrier frequency (${f_c}$) and the speed of light $(c)$, i.e.,
${f_D} = \upsilon {f_c}/c$. Note that $\rho = 1$ indicates the
outdated CSI effect is eliminated, whereas $\rho = 0$ represents
no CSI.
As the outdated CSI introduces the channel uncertainty in practical dynamic systems, the actual channel coefficients can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}} = {{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}},\;\forall k \in \mathcal{K},\\
{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}} = {{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}},\;\forall k \in \mathcal{K},\\
{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be}},m}} = {{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{be}},m}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be}},m}},\;\forall m \in \mathcal{M},\\
{{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re}},m}} = {{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{re}},m}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re}},m}},\;\forall m \in \mathcal{M},
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${{\bf{\tilde h}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}}$, ${{\bf{\tilde h}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}}$, ${{\bf{\tilde h}}_{{\rm{be}},m}}$ and ${{\bf{\tilde h}}_{{\rm{re}},m}}$ denote the estimated channel vectors; $\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}}$, $\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}}$, $\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be}},m}}$ and $\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re}},m}}$ are the corresponding channel error vectors. In the paper, generally, the channel error vectors of each MU and each eavesdropper can be bounded with respect to the Euclidean norm by using norm-bounded error model, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{bu}}}})^2},\;\;||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{ru}}}})^2},\\
||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{be}}}})^2},\;\;||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{re}}}})^2},
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\varsigma _{{\rm{bu}}}}$, ${\varsigma _{{\rm{ru}}}}$, ${\varsigma _{{\rm{be}}}}$, and ${\varsigma _{{\rm{re}}}}$ refer to the radii of the deterministically bounded error regions.
Under the channel uncertainty model, the achievable rate of the $k$-th MU is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
R_k^{\rm{u}} = {\log _2}\left( {1 + \frac{{{{\left|
{({\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru,}}k}^H{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} +
{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu,}}k}^H){{\bf{v}}_k}} \right|}^2}}}{{{{|
{\sum\limits_{i \in {\mathcal{K}},i \ne k} {({\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru,}}k}^H{\bf{\Psi
}}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu,}}k}^H){{\bf{v}}_i}} } |}^2}
+ \delta _k^2}}} \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\iffalse
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
R_k^{\rm{u}} = {\log _2}\left( {1 + \frac{{{{\left| {\left( {{{{{{\bf{h}}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}}}^H}{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {{({{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}})}^H}} \right){{\bf{v}}_k}} \right|}^2}}}{{\sum\limits_{i \in \mathcal{K},i \ne k} {{{\left| {\left( {{{({{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}},k}})}^H}{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {{({{{\bf{\tilde h}}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}} + \Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}},k}})}^H}} \right){{\bf{v}}_i}} \right|}^2} + \delta _k^2} }}} \right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\fi
If the $m$-th eavesdropper attempts to eavesdrop the signal of the $k$-th MU, its achievable rate can be expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
R_{m,k}^{\rm{e}} = \\
{\log _2}\left( {1 + \frac{{{{\left|
{({\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re,}}m}^H{\bf{\Psi }}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} +
{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be,}}m}^H){{\bf{v}}_k}} \right|}^2}}}{{{{|
{\sum\limits_{i \in {\mathcal{K}}, i \ne k} {({\bf{h}}_{{\rm{re,}}m}^H{\bf{\Psi
}}{{\bf{H}}_{{\rm{br}}}} + {\bf{h}}_{{\rm{be,}}m}^H){{\bf{v}}_i}} } |}^2}
+ \delta _m^2}}} \right).
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since each eavesdropper can eavesdrop any of the $K$ MUs' signal,
according to [14]-[25], the achievable individual secrecy
rate from the BS to the $k$-th MU can be expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
R_k^{\sec } = {\left[ {R_k^{\rm{u}} - \mathop {\max
}\limits_{\forall m} R_{m,k}^{\rm{e}}} \right]^ + }
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${[z]^ + } = \max (0,z)$.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
Our objective is to jointly optimize the robust BS's transmit beamforming matrix ${\bf{V}}$ and the robust IRS's reflecting beamforming matrix ${\bf{\Psi }}$ from the system beamforming codebook $\mathcal{F}$ to maximize the worst-case secrecy rate with the worst-case secrecy rate and data rate constraints, the total BS transmit power constraint and the IRS reflecting unit constraint. As
such, the optimization problem is formulated
as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathop {\max }\limits_{{\bf{V}},{\bf{\Psi }}} \mathop {\min }\limits_{\{ \Delta {\bf{h}}\} } \sum\limits_{k \in \mathcal{K}} {R_k^{\sec }} \\
s.t.\;\;({\rm{a}}):\;R_k^{\sec } \ge R_k^{\sec ,\min },\;\forall k \in \mathcal{K},\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\rm{b}}):\;\mathop {\min }\limits_{\scriptstyle||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{bu}}}})^2},\hfill\atop
\scriptstyle||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{ru}}}})^2}\hfill} (R_k^{\rm{u}}) \ge R_k^{\min },\;\forall k \in \mathcal{K},\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\rm{c}}):\;{\rm{Tr}}\left( {{\bf{V}}{{\bf{V}}^H}} \right) \le {P_{\max }},\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\rm{d}}):\;|\chi {e^{j{\theta _l}}}| = 1,\;0 \le {\theta _l} \le 2\pi ,\;\forall l \in \mathcal{L},
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $R_k^{\sec {\rm{,min}}}$ is the target secrecy rate of the
$k$-th MU, and $R_k^{{\rm{min}}}$ denotes its target data rate.
The constraints in (11a) and (11b) are imposed to satisfy the worst-case secrecy rate and data rate requirements,
respectively. The constraint in (11c) is set to satisfy the BS's maximum power
constraint. The constraint in (11d) is the constraint of the
IRS reflecting elements.
Obviously, it is challenging to obtain an optimal solution to
the optimization (11), since the objective function in (11) is
non-concave with respect to either ${\bf{V}}$ or ${\bf{\Psi }}$,
and the coupling of the optimization variables (${\bf{V}}$ and
${\bf{\Psi }}$) and the unit-norm constraints in (11d) are
non-convex. In addition, we would consider the robust beamforming design to maximize the worst-case achievable secrecy rate of the system while guaranteeing the worst-case constraints.
\section{Problem Transformation Based on RL}
The optimization problem given in (11) is difficult to address
as it is a non-convex problem. In
addition, in realistic IRS-aided secure communication systems, the
capabilities of MUs, the channel quality, and the service
applications will change dynamically. Moreover, the problem in
(11) is just a single time slot optimization problem, which may
converge to a suboptimal solution and obtain the greedy-search
like performance due to the ignorance of the historical system
state and the long term benefit. Hence, it is generally infeasible
to apply the traditional optimization techniques (AO, SDP, and MM)
to achieve an effective secure beamforming policy in uncertain
dynamic environments.
Model-free RL is a dynamic programming tool which can be adopted
to solve the decision-making problem by learning the optimal
solution in dynamic environments [32]. Hence, we model the secure
beamforming optimization problem as an RL problem. In RL, the
IRS-aided secure communication system is treated as an
environment, the central controller at the BS
is regarded as a learning agent. The key elements of RL are
defined as follows.
\textbf{State space:} Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ denote the
system state space. The current system state $s \in
{\mathcal{S}}$ includes the channel information of all users, the secrecy rate, the transmission data rate of the last
time slot and the QoS satisfaction level, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
s = \left\{ {{{\{ {{\bf{h}}_k}{\rm{\} }}}_{k \in{\mathcal{K}}}},{{\{ {{\bf{h}}_m}{\rm{\} }}}_{m \in {\mathcal{M}}}},{{{\rm{\{ }}R_k^{\sec }{\rm{\} }}}_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}}},{{\{ {R_k}\} }_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}}},} \right.\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\left. {{{\{ {\rm{Qo}}{{\rm{S}}_k}\} }_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}}}} \right\}
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${{\bf{h}}_k}$ and ${{\bf{h}}_m}$ are the channel
coefficients of the $k$-th MU and $m$-th eavesdropper,
respectively. ${\rm{Qo}}{{\rm{S}}_k}$ is the feedback QoS satisfaction level of the $k$-th
MU, where the QoS satisfaction level consists of both the minimum secrecy rate satisfaction level in (11a) and the minimum data rate satisfaction level in (11b). Other parameters in (12) are already defined in Section II.
\textbf{Action space:} Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ denote the
system action space. According to the observed system state $s$,
the central controller chooses the beamforming vector ${\{
{{\bf{v}}_k}\} _{k \in {\mathcal{K}}}}$ at the BS and the IRS
reflecting beamforming coefficient (phase shift) ${\{ {\theta
_l}\} _{l \in {\mathcal{L}}}}$ at the IRS. Hence, the action $a
\in {\mathcal{A}}$ can be defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
a = \left\{ {{{\{ {{\bf{v}}_k}\} }_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}}},{{\{
{\theta _l}\} }_{l \in {\mathcal{L}}}}} \right\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Transition probability:} Let ${\mathcal{T}}(s'|s,a)$
represent the transition probability, which is the probability of
transitioning to a new state $s' \in {\mathcal{S}}$, given the
action $a$ executed in the sate $s$.
\textbf{Reward function:} In RL, the reward acts as a signal
to evaluate how good the secure beamforming policy is when the
agent executes an action at a current state. The system
performance will be enhanced when the reward function at each
learning step correlates with the desired objective. Thus, it is
important to design an efficient reward function to improve the
MUs' QoS satisfaction levels.
In this paper, the reward function represents the optimization
objective, and our objective is to maximize the system secrecy
rate of all MUs while guaranteeing their QoS requirements. Thus,
the presented QoS-aware reward function is expressed as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
r = \underbrace {\sum\limits_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} {R_k^{\sec }}
}_{{\rm{part}}\;{\rm{1}}} - \underbrace {\sum\limits_{k \in
{\mathcal{K}}} {{\mu _1}p_k^{\sec }} }_{{\rm{part}}\;2} -
\underbrace {\sum\limits_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} {{\mu
_2}p_k^{\rm{u}}} }_{{\rm{part}}\;3}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_k^{\sec } = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1,\;{\rm{if}}\;R_k^{\sec } < R_k^{\sec {\rm{,min}}},\forall k \in {\mathcal{K}},\\
0,\;{\rm{otherwise}}{\rm{,}}
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_k^{\rm{u}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1,\;{\rm{if}}\;{R_k} < R_k^{{\rm{min}}},\forall k \in {\mathcal{K}},\\
0,\;{\rm{otherwise}}{\rm{.}}
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In (14), the part 1 represents the immediate utility (system
secrecy rate), the part 2 and the part 3 are the cost functions
which are defined as the unsatisfied secrecy rate requirement and
the unsatisfied minimum rate requirement, respectively. The
coefficients ${\mu _1}$ and ${\mu _2}$ are the positive constants
of the part 2 and the part 3 in (14) , respectively, and they are used to balance
the utility and cost [33]-[35].
The goals of (15) and (16) are to impose the QoS satisfaction
levels of both the secrecy rate and the minimum data rate
requirements, respectively. If the QoS requirement is satisfied in
the current time slot, then $p_k^{\sec } = {\rm{0}}$ or
$p_k^{\rm{u}} = {\rm{0}}$, indicating that there is no
punishment of the reward function due to the successful QoS
guarantees.
The goal of the learning agent is to search for an optimal policy
${\pi ^ * }$ ($\pi $ is a mapping from states in ${\mathcal{S}}$
to the probabilities of choosing an action in ${\mathcal{A}}$:
$\pi (s):{\mathcal{S}} \to {\mathcal{A}}$) that maximizes the
long-term expected discounted reward, and the cumulative
discounted reward function can be defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{U_t} = \sum\limits_{\tau = 0}^\infty {{\gamma _\tau }{r_{t +
\tau + 1}}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma \in (0,1]$ denotes the discount factor. Under a
certain policy $\pi $, the state-action function of the agent
with a state-action pair ($s$, $a$) is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{Q^\pi }({s_t},{a_t}) = {\mathbb{E}_\pi }\left[ {{U_t}|{s_t} =
s,{a_t} = a} \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The conventional Q-Learning algorithm can be adopted to learn the
optimal policy. The key objective of Q-Learning is to update
Q-table by using the Bellman's equation as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
{Q^\pi }({s_t},{a_t}) = {\mathbb{E}_\pi }\left[ {{r_t} + \gamma \sum\limits_{{s_{t + 1}} \in {\mathcal{S}}} {{\mathcal{T}}({s_{t + 1}}|{s_t},{a_t})} } \right.\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\left. {\sum\limits_{{a_{t + 1}} \in {\mathcal{A}}} {\pi ({s_{t + 1}},{a_{t + 1}}){Q^\pi }({s_{t + 1}},{a_{t + 1}})} } \right]
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The optimal action-value function in (17) is equivalent to the
Bellman optimality equation, which is expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{Q^ * }({s_t},{a_t}) = {r_t} + \gamma \mathop {\max
}\limits_{{a_{t + 1}}} {Q^*}({s_{t + 1}},{a_{t + 1}})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and the state-value function is achieved as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V({s_t}) = \mathop {\max }\limits_{{a_t} \in {\mathcal{A}}}
Q({s_t},{a_t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In addition, the Q-value is updated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
{Q_{t + 1}}({s_t},{a_t}) = (1 - {\alpha _t}){Q_t}({s_t},{a_t}) +
{\alpha _t}\left( {{r_t} + \gamma {V_t}({s_{t{\rm{ + 1}}}})}
\right)
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\alpha _t} \in (0,1]$ is the learning rate. Q-Learning
generally constructs a lookup Q-table $Q(s,a)$, and the agent
selects actions based on the greedy policy for each learning step
[32]. In the $\varepsilon - $greedy policy, the agent chooses the
action with the maximum Q-table value with probability ${\rm{1}} -
\varepsilon $, whereas a random action is picked with probability
$\varepsilon $ to avoid achieving stuck at non-optimal policies
[32]. Once the optimal Q-function ${Q^ * }(s,a)$ is achieved, the
optimal policy is determined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\pi ^ * }(s,a) = \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{a \in
{\mathcal{A}}} {Q^ * }(s,a).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\section{Deep PDS-PER Learning Based Secure Beamforming}
The secure beamforming policy discussed in Section III can be
numerically achieved by using Q-Learning, policy gradient, and
deep Q-Network (DQN) algorithms [32]. However, Q-Learning is not
an efficient learning algorithm because it cannot deal with
continuous state space and it has slow learning convergence speed.
The policy gradient algorithm has the ability to handle continuous
state-action spaces, but it may converge to a suboptimal
solution. In addition, it is intractable for Q-learning and policy
gradient algorithms to solve the optimization problem under
high-dimensional input state space. Although DQN performs well in
policy learning under high-dimensional state
space, its non-linear Q-function estimator may lead to unstable learning process.
Considering the fact that the IRS-aided secure communication
system has high-dimensional and high-dynamical characteristics
according to the system state that is defined in (12) and
uncertain CSI that is shown in (4) and (6), we propose a deep PDS-PER
learning based secure beamforming approach, as shown in Fig. 2,
where PDS-learning and PER mechanisms are utilized to enable the
learning agent to learn and adapt faster in dynamic environments.
In detail, the agent utilizes the observed state (i.e, CSI,
previous secrecy rate, QoS satisfaction level), the feedback
reward from environment as well as the historical experience from
the replay buffer to train its learning model. After that, the
agent employs the trained model to make decision (beamforming
matrices ${\bf{V}}$ and ${\bf{\Psi }}$) based on its learned
policy. The procedures of the proposed learning based secure
beamforming are provided in the following subsections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.925\columnwidth]{fig2}
\caption{{Deep PDS-PER learning based beamforming for IRS-aided
secure communications.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
Note that the policy optimization (in terms of the BS's
beamforming matrix ${\bf{V}}$ and the RIS's reflecting beamforming
matrix ${\bf{\Psi }}$) in the IRS-aided secure communication
system can be performed at the BS and that the optimized
reflecting beamforming matrix can be transferred in an offline manner to the IRS by the
controller to adjust the corresponding reflecting elements
accordingly.
\subsection{Proposed Deep PDS-PER Learning}
As discussed in Section II, CSI is unlikely to be known accurately
due to the transmission delay, processing delay, and
mobility of users. At the same time, beamforming with outdated CSI
will decrease the secrecy capacity, and therefore, a fast optimization
solution needs to be designed to reduce processing delay.
PDS-learning as a well-known algorithm has been used to improve
the learning speed by exploiting extra partial information (e.g.,
the previous location information and the mobility velocity of MUs
or eavesdroppers that affect the channel coefficients) and search for an optimized policy in dynamic
environments [33]-[35]. Motivated by this, we devise a modified
deep PDS-learning to trace the environment dynamic characteristics, and then adjust the transmit beamforming at the BS and the reflecting elements at the IRS accordingly, which can speed up the learning efficiency in dynamic
environments.
PDS-learning can be defined as an immediate system state ${\tilde
s_t} \in {\mathcal{S}}$ happens after executing an action
${a_t}$ at the current state ${s_{t}}$ and before the next time state ${s_{t + 1}}$ .
In detail, the PDS-learning agent takes an action ${a_t}$ at
state ${s_t}$, and then will receive known reward
${r^{\rm{k}}}({s_t},{a_t})$ from the environment before
transitioning the current state ${s_t}$ to the PDS state
${\tilde s_t}$ with a known transition probability
${{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{k}}}({\tilde s_t}|{s_t},{a_t})$. After that,
the PDS state further transform to the next state ${s_{t + 1}}$
with an unknown transition probability ${{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{u}}}({s_{t +
1}}|{\tilde s_t},{a_t})$ and an unknown reward
${r^{\rm{u}}}({s_t},{a_t})$, which corresponds to the wireless CSI
dynamics. In PDS-learning, ${s_{t + 1}}$ is independent of
${s_t}$ given the PDS state ${\tilde s_t}$, and the reward
$r({s_t},{a_t})$ is decomposed into the sum of
${r^{\rm{k}}}({s_t},{a_t})$ and ${r^{\rm{u}}}({s_t},{a_t})$ at
${\tilde s_t}$ and ${s_{t + 1}}$, respectively. Mathematically,
the state transition probability in PDS-learning from ${s_t}$ to
${s_{t + 1}}$ admits
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal{T}}({s_{t + 1}}|{s_t},{a_t}) = \sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde
s}_t}} {{{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{u}}}({s_{t + 1}}|{{\tilde
s}_t},{a_t}){{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{k}}}({{\tilde s}_t}|{s_t},{a_t})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Moreover, it can be verified that the reward of the current
state-action pair $({s_t},{a_t})$ is expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
r({s_t},{a_t}) = {r^{\rm{k}}}({s_t},{a_t}) +
\sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde s}_t}} {{{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{k}}}({{\tilde
s}_t}|{s_t},{a_t}){r^{\rm{u}}}({{\tilde s}_t},{a_t})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
At the time slot $t$, the PDS action-value function $\tilde
Q({\tilde s_t},{a_t})$ of the current PDS state-action pair
$({\tilde s_t},{a_t})$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\tilde Q({\tilde s_t},{a_t}) = {r^{\rm{u}}}({\tilde s_t},{a_t}) +
\gamma \sum\limits_{{s_{t + 1}}} {{{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{u}}}({s_{t +
1}}|{{\tilde s}_t},{a_t})V({s_{t + 1}})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By employing the extra information (the known transition
probability ${{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{k}}}({\tilde s_t}|{s_t},{a_t})$
and known reward ${r^{\rm{k}}}({s_t},{a_t})$), the Q-function
$\hat Q({s_t},{a_t})$ in PDS-learning can be further expanded
under all state-action pairs $(s,a)$, which is expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat Q({s_t},{a_t}) = {r^{\rm{k}}}({s_t},{a_t}) +
\sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde s}_t}} {{{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{k}}}({{\tilde
s}_t}|{s_t},{a_t})\tilde Q({{\tilde s}_t},{a_t})}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The state-value function in PDS-learning is defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\hat V_t}({s_t}) = \sum\nolimits_{{s_{t + 1}}}
{{{\mathcal{T}}^{\rm{k}}}({s_{t + 1}}|{s_t},{a_t})\tilde V({s_{t +
1}})}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\tilde V_t}({s_{t + 1}}) = \mathop {\max }\limits_{{a_t}
\in {\mathcal{A}}} {\tilde Q_t}({\tilde s_{t + 1}},{a_t})$. At
each time slot, the PDS action-value function $\tilde Q({\tilde
s_t},{a_t})$ is updated by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
{{\tilde Q}_{_{t + 1}}}({{\tilde s}_t},{a_t}) = (1 - {\alpha _t}){{\tilde Q}_t}({{\tilde s}_t},{a_t})\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; + {\alpha _t}\left( {{r^{\rm{u}}}({{\tilde s}_t},{a_t}) + \gamma {{\hat V}_t}({s_{t + 1}})} \right)
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
After updating ${\tilde Q_{_{t + 1}}}({\tilde s_t},{a_t})$, the
action-value function ${\hat Q_{_{t + 1}}}({s_t},{a_t})$ can be
updated by plugging ${\tilde Q_{_{t + 1}}}({\tilde s_t},{a_t})$
into (27).
After presenting in the above modified PDS-learning, a deep PDS
learning algorithm is presented. In the presented learning
algorithm, the traditional DQN is adopted to estimatete the
action-value Q-function $Q(s,a)$ by using $Q(s,a;{\bm{\theta
}})$, where ${\bm{\theta }}$ denote the DNN parameter. The objective
of DQN is to minimize the following loss function at each time slot
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
{\mathcal{L}}({{\bm{\theta }}_t}) = \left[ {{{\{ {{\hat V}_t}({s_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}) - \hat Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t})\} }^2}} \right] = \left[ {\{ r({s_t},{a_t})} \right.\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\left. { + \gamma \mathop {\max }\limits_{{a_{t + 1}} \in {\mathcal{A}}} {{\hat Q}_t}({s_{t + 1}},{a_{t + 1}};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}) - \hat Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}){\} ^2}} \right]
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\hat V_t}({s_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}) = r({s_t},{a_t}) +
\gamma \mathop {\max }\limits_{{a_{t + 1}} \in {\mathcal{A}}}
{\hat Q_t}({s_{t + 1}},{a_{t + 1}};{{\bm{\theta }}_t})$ is the
target value. The error between ${\hat V_t}({s_t};{{\bm{\theta
}}_t})$ and the estimated value $\hat Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta
}}_t})$ is usually called temporal-difference (TD) error, which is
expressed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\delta _t} = {\hat V_t}({s_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}) - \hat
Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The DNN parameter ${\bm{\theta }}$ is achieved by taking the
partial differentiation of the objective function (30) with
respect to ${\bm{\theta }}$, which is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{{\bm{\theta }}_{t + 1}} = {{\bm{\theta }}_t} + \beta \nabla
{\mathcal{L}}({{\bm{\theta }}_t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\beta $ is the learning rate of
${\bm{\theta }}$, and $\nabla ( \cdot )$ denotes the first-order
partial derivative.
Accordingly, the policy ${\hat \pi _t}(s)$ of the modified deep PDS-learning algorithm is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\hat \pi _t}(s) = \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{{a_t} \in
{\mathcal{A}}} \hat Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Although DQN is capable of performing well in policy learning with
continuous and high-dimensional state space, DNN may learn
ineffectively and cause divergence owing to the nonstationary
targets and correlations between samples. Experience replay is
utilized to avoid the divergence of the RL algorithm. However,
classical DQN uniformly samples each transition ${e_t} = \langle
{s_t},{a_t},{r_t},{\tilde s_t},{s_{t + 1}}\rangle $ from the
experience replay, which may lead to an uncertain or negative
effect on learning a better policy. The reason is that different
transitions (experience information) in the replay buffer have
different importance for the learning policy, and sampling every
transition equally may unavoidably result in inefficient usage of
meaningful transitions. Therefore, a prioritized experience replay
(PER) scheme has been presented to address this issue and enhance
the sampling efficiency [36], [37], where the priority of transition is
determined by the values of TD error. In PER, a transition with
higher absolute TD error has higher priority in the sense that is
has more aggressive correction for the action-value function.
In the deep PDS-PER learning algorithm, similar to classical DQN,
the agent collects and stores each experience ${e_t} = \langle
{s_t},{a_t},{r_t},{\tilde s_t},{s_{t + 1}}\rangle $ into its
experience replay buffer, and DNN updates the parameter by
sampling a mini-batch of tuples from the replay buffer. So far,
PER was adopted only for DRL and Q-learning, and has never been
employed with the PDS-learning algorithm to learn the dynamic
information. In this paper, we further extend this PER scheme to
enable prioritized experience replay in the proposed deep PDS-PER
learning framework, in order to improve the learning convergence rate.
The probability of sampling transition $i$ (experience $i$) based
on the absolute TD-error is defined by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p(i) = {{|\delta (i){|^{{\eta _1}}}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{|\delta (i){|^{{\eta _1}}}} {\sum\nolimits_{j'} {|\delta (j'){|^{{\eta _1}}}} }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\sum\nolimits_{j'} {|\delta (j'){|^{{\eta _1}}}} }}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the exponent ${\eta _1}$ weights how much prioritization is
used, with ${\eta _1} = 0$ corresponding to being uniform
sampling. The transition with higher $p(i)$ will be more likely
to be replayed from the replay buffer, which is associated with
very successful attempts by preventing the DNN from being
over-fitting. With the help of PER, the proposed deep PDS-PER
learning algorithm tends to replay valuable experience and hence
learns more effectively to find the best policy.
It is worth noting that experiences with high absolute TD-error
are more frequently replayed, which alters the visitation
frequency of some experiences and hence causes the training
process of the DNN prone to diverge. To address this problem,
importance-sampling (IS) weights are adopted in the calculation of
weight changes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
W(i) = {\left( {D \cdot p(i)} \right)^{ - {\eta _2}}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the size of the experience replay buffer, and the
parameter ${\eta _2}$ is used to adjust the amount of correction
used.
Accordingly, by using the PER scheme into the deep PDS-PER
learning, the DNN loss function (30) and the corresponding parameters are rewritten
respectively as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal{L}}\left( {{{\bm{\theta }}_t}} \right) = \frac{1}{H}\sum\limits_{i =
1}^H {\left( {{W_i}{{\mathcal{L}}_i}({{\bm{\theta }}_t})} \right)}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{{\bm{\theta }}_{t + 1}} = {{\bm{\theta }}_t} + \beta {\delta
_t}{\nabla _{\bm{\theta }}}{\mathcal{L}}({{\bm{\theta }}_t}))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\emph{Theorem 1:} The presented deep PDS-PER learning can converge
to the optimal $\hat Q({s_t},{a_t})$ of the MDP with probability
1 when the learning rate sequence ${\alpha _t}$ meets the
following conditions ${\alpha _t} \in [0,1)$, $\sum\nolimits_{t =
0}^\infty {{\alpha _t}} = \infty $ and $\sum\nolimits_{t =
0}^\infty {\alpha _t^2} < \infty $, where the aforementioned
requirements have been appeared in most of the RL algorithms [32] and they
are not specific to the proposed deep PDS-PER learning algorithm
[32].
\emph{Proof:} If each action can be executed with an infinite
number of learning steps at each system state, or in other words, the
learning policy is greedy with the infinite explorations, the
Q-function $\hat Q({s_t},{a_t})$ in PDS-learning and its
corresponding policy strategy $\pi (s)$ will converge
to the optimal points, respectively, with probability of 1
[33]-[35]. The existing references [34] and [35] have provided the
proof.
\subsection{Secure Beamforming Based on Proposed Deep PDS-PER Learning}
Similar to most DRL algorithms, our proposed deep PDS-PER learning
based secure beamforming approach consists of two stages, i.e., the training stage
and implementation stage. The training process of the proposed approach
is shown in \textbf{Algorithm 1}. A central controller at the BS
is responsible for collecting environment information and making
decision for secure beamforming.
In the training stage, similar to RL-based policy control, the
controller initializes network parameters and observes the
current system state including CSI of all users, the previous
predicted secrecy rate and the transmission data rate. Then, the
state vector is input into DQN to train the learning model. The
$\varepsilon $-greedy scheme is leveraged to balance both the
exploration and exploitation, i.e., the action with the maximum
reward is selected probability 1- $\varepsilon $ according to the current information (exploitation, which is known knowledge), while a random action is chosen with probability
$\varepsilon $ based on the unknown knowledge (i.e., keep trying new actions, hoping it brings even higher reward (exploration, which is unknown knowledge) ). After executing the
selected action, the agent receives a reward from the environment
and observes the sate transition from ${s_t}$ to PDS state
${\tilde s_t}$ and then to the next state ${s_{t + 1}}$. Then,
PDS-learning is used to update the PDS action-value function
$\tilde Q({\tilde s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t})$ and Q-function
$\hat Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t})$, before collecting and
storing the transition tuple (also called experience) ${e_t} =
\langle {s_t},{a_t},{r_t},{\tilde s_t},{s_{t + 1}}\rangle $ into
the experience replay memory buffer ${\mathcal{D}}$, which
includes the current system state, selected action, instantaneous
reward and PDS state along with the next state. The experience in
the replay buffer is selected by the PER scheme to generate
mini-batches and they are used to train DQN. In detail, the
priority of each transition $p(i)$ is calculated by using (34) and
then get its IS weight $W(i)$ in (35), where the priorities
ensure that high-TD-value ($\delta (i)$) transitions are replayed
more frequently. The weight $W(i)$ is integrated into deep PDS
learning to update both the loss function ${\mathcal{L}}({\bf{\theta }})$ and
DNN parameter ${\bm{\theta }}$. Once DQN converges, the deep
PDS-PER learning model is achieved.
After adequate training in \textbf{Algorithm 1}, the learning model is
loaded for the implementation stage. During the implementation stage, the
controller uses the trained learning model to output its selected
action $a$ by going through the DNN parameter ${\bm{\theta }}$,
with the observed state $s$ from the IRS-aided secure
communication system. Specifically, it chooses an action $a$, with
the maximum value based on the trained deep PDS-PER learning
model. Afterwards, the environment feeds back an instantaneous
reward and a new system state to the agent. Finally, the
beamforming matrix ${{\bf{V}}^ * }$ at the BS and the phase shift
matrix ${{\bf{\Psi }}^ * }$ (reflecting beamforming) at the IRS
are achieved according to the selected action.
We would like to point out that the training stage needs a powerful
computation server which can be performed offline at the BS while
the implementation stage can be completed online. The trained learning
model requires to be updated only when the environment (IRS-aided
secure communication system) has experienced greatly changes,
mainly depending on the environment dynamics and service requirements.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\begin{small}
\caption{\normalsize Deep PDS-PER Learning Based Secure Beamforming}
1:$~$ \textbf{Input:} IRS-aided secure communication simulator and QoS requirements of all MUs (e.g., minimum secrecy rate and transmission rate).\\
2:$~$ \textbf{Initialize:} DQN with initial Q-function $Q(s,a;{\bm{\theta }})$, parameters ${\bm{\theta }}$, learning rate $\alpha $ and $\beta $. \\
3: $~$\textbf{Initialize:} experience replay buffer ${\mathcal{D}}$
with size $D$, and mini-batch size $H$.\\
4: $~$ \textbf{for} each episode =1, 2, \dots, ${N^{{\rm{epi}}}}$
\textbf{do}\\
5: $~~$ Observe an initial system state $s$;\\
6: $~~$ \textbf{for} each time step $t$=0, 1, 2, \dots, $T$ \textbf{do}\\
7: $~~~~$ Select action based on the $\varepsilon $-greedy policy at
current state ${s_t}$: choose a random action ${a_t}$ with
probability $\varepsilon $;\\
8: $~~~~$ Otherwise, ${a_t} = \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{{a_t} \in {\mathcal{A}}} Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bf{\theta }}_t})$;\\
9: $~~~~$ Execute action ${a_t}$, receive an immediate reward
${r^{\rm{k}}}({s_t},{a_t})$ and observe the sate transition
from ${s_t}$ to PDS state ${\tilde s_t}$ and then to the next state ${s_{t + 1}}$;\\
10: $~~~$ Update the reward function $r({s_t},{a_t})$ under PDS-learning using (25);\\
11: $~~~$ Update the PDS action-value function $\tilde Q({\tilde s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta }}_t})$ using (29); \\
12: $~~~$ Update the Q-function $\hat Q({s_t},{a_t};{{\bm{\theta}}_t})$ using (25);\\
13: $~~~$ Store PDS experience ${e_t} = \langle
{s_t},{a_t},{r_t},{\tilde s_t},{s_{t + 1}}\rangle $ in experience
replay buffer ${\mathcal{D}}$,
if ${\mathcal{D}}$ is full, remove least used experience from ${\mathcal{D}}$;\\
14: $~~~$ \textbf{for} $i$= 1, 2, \dots, $H$ \textbf{do} \\
15: $~~~~~$ Sample transition $i$ with the probability $p(i)$ using (34);\\
16: $~~~~~$ Calculate the absolute TD-error $|\delta (i)|$ in (31);\\
17: $~~~~~$ Update the corresponding IS weight ${W_i}$ using (35);\\
18: $~~~~~$ Update the priority of transition $i$ based on $|\delta
(i)|$;\\
19: $~~~$ \textbf{end for} \\
20: $~~~$ Update the loss function ${\mathcal{L}}\left( {\bm{\theta }}
\right)$ and parameter ${\bm{\theta }}$ of DQN using (36) and
(37), respectively; \\
21: $~~$ \textbf{end for}\\
22: $~$ \textbf{end for} \\
23: \textbf{Output:} Return the deep PDS-PER learning model.\\
\end{small}
\label{alg_lirnn}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Computational Complexity Analysis}
For the training stage, in DNN, let $L$, ${Z_0}$ and ${Z_l}$
denote the training layers, the size of the input layer (which is
proportional to the number of states) and the number of neurons in
the $l$-th layer, respectively. The computational complexity in
each time step for the agent is $O({Z_0}{Z_l} + \sum\nolimits_{l
= 1}^{L - 1} {{Z_l}{Z_{l + 1}}} )$. In the training phase, each
mini-batch has ${N^{{\rm{epi}}}}$ episodes with each episode being
$T$ time steps, each trained model is completed iteratively until convergence. Hence, the total computational
complexity in DNN is $O\left( {{N^{{\rm{epi}}}}T({Z_0}{Z_l} +
\sum\nolimits_{l = 1}^{L - 1} {{Z_l}{Z_{l + 1}}} )} \right)$. The
high computational complexity of the DNN training phase can be
performed offline for a finite number of episodes at a centralized
powerful unit (such as the BS).
In our proposed deep PDS-PER learning algorithm, PDS-learning and
PER schemes are utilized to improve the learning efficiency and
enhance the convergence speed, which requires extra computational
complexity. In PDS-learning leaning, since the set of PDS states is
the same as the set of MDP states ${\mathcal{S}}$ [30]-[32], the
computational complexity of the classical DQN algorithm and the
deep PDS-learning algorithm are $O(|{\mathcal{S}}{|^2} \times
|{\mathcal{A}}|)$ and $O(2|{\mathcal{S}}{|^2} \times
|{\mathcal{A}}|)$, respectively. In PER, since the relay buffer
size is $D$, the system requires to make both updating and
sampling $O\left( {{{\log }_2}D} \right)$ operations, so the
computational complexity of the PER scheme is $O\left( {{{\log
}_2}D} \right)$.
According the above analysis, the complexity of the classical DQN
algorithm and the proposed deep PDS-PER learning algorithm are
respectively $O\left( {I{N^{{\rm{epi}}}}T({Z_0}{Z_l} +
\sum\nolimits_{l = 1}^{L - 1} {{Z_l}{Z_{l + 1}}} ) + |{\mathcal{S}}{|^2}
\times |{\mathcal{A}}|} \right)$ and $O\left( {I{N^{{\rm{epi}}}}T({Z_0}{Z_l}
+ \sum\nolimits_{l = 1}^{L - 1} {{Z_l}{Z_{l + 1}}} ) + 2|{\mathcal{S}}{|^2}
\times |{\mathcal{A}}| + {{\log }_2}D} \right)$, indicating that the
complexity of the proposed algorithm is slightly higher than the
classical DQN learning algorithm. However, our proposed algorithm
achieves better performance than that of the classical DQN algorithm,
which will be shown in the next section.
\subsection{Implementation Details of DRL }
This subsection provides extensive details regarding the generation of training, validation, and testing dataset production.
\textbf{Generation of training:} As shown in Fig. 3, $K$ single-antenna MUs and $M$ single-antenna eavesdroppers are randomly located in the $100 m \times 100 m$ half right-hand side rectangular of Fig. 3 (light blue area) in a two-dimensional x-y rectangular grid plane. The BS and the IRS are
located at (0, 0) and (150, 100) in meter (m), respectively. The x-y grid has dimensions 100m$\times$100m with a resolution of 2.5 m, i.e., a total of 1600 points.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig3}
\caption{{Simulation setup.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
In the presented IRS-assisted system, the system beamforming codebook ${\mathcal{F}}$ includes the BS's beamforming codebook ${\mathcal{{F_{{\rm{BS}}}}}}$ and the IRS's beamforming codebook ${\mathcal{{F_{{\rm{IRS}}}}}}$. Both the BS's beamforming matrix ${\bf{V}}$ and the IRS's reflection beamforming matrix ${\bf{\Psi }}$ are picked from the pre-defined codebook ${\mathcal{{F_{{\rm{BS}}}}}}$ and ${\mathcal{{F_{{\rm{IRS}}}}}}$, respectively. The data points of sampled channel vector and the corresponding reward vector $\left\langle {{\bf{h}},{\bf{r}}} \right\rangle$ is added into the DNN training data set ${\mathcal{D}}$. The sampled channel, ${\bf{h}}$, is the input to DQN. All the simples are normalized by using the normalization scheme to realize a simple per-dataset scaling. After training, the selected BS's beamforming matrix ${\bf{V}}$ and IRS's beamforming matrix ${\bf{\Psi }}$ with the highest achievable reward are used to reflect the security communication performance.
The DQN learning model is trained using empirically hyper-parameter, where DNN trained for 1000 epochs with 128 mini-batches being utilized in each epoch. In the training process, 80\% and 20\% of all generated data are selected as the training and validation (test) datasets, respectively. The experience replay buffer size is 32000 where the corresponding samples are randomly sampled from this number of the most recently experiences.
\textbf{DQN structure:} The DQN model is designed as a Multi-Layer Perceptron network, which is also referred to as the feedforward Fully Connected network. Note here that Multi-Layer Perceptron network is widely used to build an advanced estimator, which fulfills the relation between the environment descriptors and the beamforming matrices (both the BS's beamforming matrix and the IRS's reflecting beamforming matrix).
The DQN model is comprised of $L$ layers, as illustrated in Fig. 2, where the first layer is input layer, the last layer is output layer and the remaining layers are the hidden layers. The $l$-th hidden layer in the network has a stack of neurons, each of which connects all the outputs of the previous layer. Each unit operates on a single input value outputting another single value. The input of the input layer consist of the systems states, i.e., channel samples, the achievable rate and QoS satisfaction level information in the last time slot, while the output layer outputs the predicted reward values with beamforming matrices in terms of the BS's beamforming matrix and the IRS's reflecting beamforming matrix. The DQN construction is used for training stability. The network parameters will be provided in the next section.
\textbf{Training loss function:} The objective of DRL model is to find the best beamforming matrices, i.e., ${\bf{V}}$ and ${\bf{\Psi }}$, from the beamforming codebook with the highest achievable reward from the environment. In this case, having the highest achievable reward estimation, the regression loss function is adopted to train the learning model, where DNN is trained to make its output, ${\bf{\hat r}}$, as close as possible to the desired normalized reward, ${\bf{\bar r}}$. Formally, the training is driven by minimizing the loss function, ${\mathcal{L}}({\bm{\theta }})$, defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal{L}}({\bm{\theta }}) = MSE\left( {{\bf{\hat r}},{\bf{\bar r}}} \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{\theta }}$ is the set of all DNN parameters, $MSE(\cdot)$ denotes the mean-squared-error between ${\bf{\hat r}}$ and ${\bf{\bar r}}$. Note that the outputs of DNN, ${\bf{\hat r}}$ can be acted as functions of ${\bm{\theta }}$ and the inputs of DNN are the system states shown in (12) in the paper.
\section{Simulation Results and Analysis}
This section evaluates the performance of the IRS-aided secure
communication system. The background noise power of MUs and
eavesdroppers is equal to -90 dBm. We set the number of antennas
at the BS is $N=4$, the number of MUs is $K=2$ and the number of
eavesdroppers is $M=2$. The transmit power ${P_{\max }}$ at the
BS varies between 15 dBm and 40 dBm, the number of IRS elements
$L$ varies between 10 and 60, and the outdated CSI coefficient
$\rho $ varies from 0.5 to 1 for different simulation settings.
The minimum secrecy rate and the minimum transmission data rate
are 3 bits/s/Hz and 5 bits/s/Hz, respectively. The
path loss model is defined by $PL = \left( {P{L_0} - 10\varsigma
\log 10(d/{d_0})} \right)$ dB, where $P{L_0} = 30\;{\rm{dB}}$
is the path loss at the reference distance ${d_0} =
1\;{\rm{m}}$ [9], [38], $\varsigma = 3$ is the path loss exponent, and
$d$ is the distance from the transmitter to the receiver. The
learning model consists of three connected hidden layers,
containing 500, 250, and 200 neurons [39], respectively. The learning
rate is set to $\alpha = 0.002$ and the discount factor is set to
$\gamma = 0.95$. The the exploration rate $\varepsilon$ is linearly annealed from
0.8 to 0.1 over the beginning 300 episodes and remains
constant afterwards. The parameters ${\mu _1}$ and ${\mu _2}$ in (12) are set to
${\mu _1} = {\mu _2} = 2$ to balance the utility and cost
[33]-[35]. Similar to the IRS-aided communication systems [9], [13] and [17], the path loss exponents from the BS to the UEs is set to 3.2, from BS to IRS is set to 2.2, and from IRS to UEs is set to 2.2.
The selection of the network parameters decide the learning convergence speed and efficiency. Here, we take the network parameters, i.e., the learning rate, as an example to demonstrate the importance of the network parameters selection. Fig. 4 shows the average system reward versus training episodes under different learning rates, i.e., $\alpha = \{ 0.1,0.01,0.001,0.0001\}$. It can be observed that different learning rates have different effect on the performance of the deep reinforcement learning algorithm. Specifically, there exits oscillations in behavior for the too-large learning rate of $\alpha = 0.1$, and its reward performance is much lower than that of $\alpha = 0.001$. In addition, if we set the too-small learning rate of $\alpha = 0.0001$, it requires the longer time to achieve the convergence. We can see that the model is able to learn the problem well with the learning rate of $\alpha = 0.001$. Hence, we select a suitable learning rate, neither too large nor too small, and the value can be around 0.001 in our test.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig4}
\caption{{Average reward performance versus episodes under different learning rates.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
To analyze the loss function of the presented DRL shown in Section IV.D, Fig. 5 illustrates the training/validation loss value during training versus the number of epochs. We can observe that the training/validation loss value decreases significantly in the first few decades epochs and then tend to be approximately at a horizontal level after 150 epochs. Furthermore, the validation loss is only slightly higher than the training loss, which demonstrates that the DNN weights designed have the ability to provide a good fit in terms of the mapping between input samples and output samples. It is worth noting that Fig. 5 is used to investigate how well the DNN weight parameters are designed. If the validation loss is high while the training loss is low, this means that the DQN model is over-fitting and thus the regularization factors may need to be adjusted; if both the validation and training loss values are high, this shows that the DQN model is under-fitting and hence the number of neurons may require to be adjusted.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig5}
\caption{{The training and validation losses of DNN employed.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
In addition, simulation results are
provided to evaluate the performance of the proposed deep PDS-PER learning based
secure beamforming approach (denoted as deep PDS-PER beamforming)
in the IRS-aided secure communication system, and compare the
proposed approach with the following exiting approaches:
\begin{itemize}
\item The classical DQN based secure
beamforming approach (denoted as DQN-based beamforming), where DNN
is employed to estimate the Q-value function, when acting and
choosing the secure beamforming policy corresponding to the
highest Q-value.
\item The existing secrecy rate maximization
approach which optimizes the BS's transmit beamforming and the
IRS's reflect beamforming by fixing other parameters as the constants by using the iterative algorithm, which is similar to the suboptimal solution [14] (denoted as Baseline 1 [14]).
\item The optimal BS's transmit
beamforming approach without IRS assistance (denoted as optimal BS
without IRS). Without IRS, the optimization problem (11) is transformed as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathop {\max }\limits_{{\bf{V}}} \mathop {\min }\limits_{\{ \Delta {\bf{h}}\} } \sum\limits_{k \in {\mathcal{K}}} {R_k^{\sec }} \\
s.t.\;\;({\rm{a}}):\;R_k^{\sec } \ge R_k^{\sec ,\min },\;\forall k \in {\mathcal{K}},\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\rm{b}}):\;\mathop {\min }\limits_{\scriptstyle||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{bu}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{bu}}}})^2},\hfill\atop
\scriptstyle||\Delta {{\bf{h}}_{{\rm{ru}}}}|{|^2} \le {({\varsigma _{{\rm{ru}}}})^2}\hfill} (R_k^{\rm{u}}) \ge R_k^{\min },\;\forall k \in {\mathcal{K}},\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\rm{c}}):\;{\rm{Tr}}\left( {{\bf{V}}{{\bf{V}}^H}} \right) \le {P_{\max }},\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;({\rm{d}}):\;|\chi {e^{j{\theta _l}}}| = 1,\;0 \le {\theta _l} \le 2\pi ,\;\forall l \in {\mathcal{L}}.
\end{array}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From the optimization problem (39), they system only needs to optimize the BS's transmit beamforming matrix . Problem (39) is non-convex due to the rate constraints, and hence we consider semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxation to solve it. After transforming problem (39), into a convex optimization problem, we can use CVX to obtain the solution [12]-[16].
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig6}
\caption{{Performance comparisons versus the maximum transmit power
at the BS.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
Fig. 6 shows the average secrecy rate and QoS satisfaction probability (consists of the secrecy rate satisfaction probability (11a) and the minimum rate satisfaction probability (11b))
versus the maximum transmit power ${P_{\max }}$, when $L=40$ and
$\rho = 0.95$. As expected, both the secrecy rate and QoS
satisfaction probability of all the approaches enhance monotonically
with increasing ${P_{\max }}$. The reason is that when ${P_{\max
}}$ increases, the received SINR at MUs improves, leading to the
performance improvement. In addition, we find that our proposed
learning approach outperforms the Baseline1 approach. In fact, our
approach jointly optimizes the beamforming matrixes ${\bf{V}}$ and
${\bf{\Psi }}$, which can simultaneously facilitates more
favorable channel propagation benefit for MUs and impair
eavesdroppers, while the Baseline1 approach optimizes the
beamforming matrixes in an iterative way. Moreover, our proposed
approach has higher performance than DQN in terms of both secrecy
rate and QoS satisfaction probability, due to its efficient learning
capacity by utilizing PDS-learning and PER schemes in the dynamic
environment. From Fig. 6, we also find that the three IRS assisted
secure beamforming approaches provide significant higher secrecy
rate and QoS satisfaction probability than the traditional system
without IRS. This indicates that the IRS can effectively guarantee
secure communication and QoS requirements via reflecting
beamforming, where reflecting elements (IRS-induced phases) at the
IRS can be adjusted to maximize the received SINR at MUs and
suppress the wiretapped rate at eavesdroppers.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig7}
\caption{{Performance comparisons versus the number of IRS elements.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
In Fig. 7, the achievable secrecy rate and QoS satisfaction level
performance of all approaches are evaluated through changing the
IRS elements, i.e., from $L=10$ to 60, when ${P_{\max }} =
30\;{\rm{dBm}}$ and $\rho = 0.95$. For the secure beamforming
approaches assisted by the IRS, their achievable secrecy rates and
QoS satisfaction levels significantly increase with the number of
the IRS elements. The improvement results from the fact that more
IRS elements, more signal paths and signal power can be reflected
by the IRS to improve the received SINR at the MUs but to decrease
the received SINR at the eavesdroppers. In addition, the
performance of the approach without IRS remains constant under the
different numbers of the IRS elements.
From Fig. 7(a), it is found that the secrecy rate of the proposed
learning approach is higher than those of the Baseline 1 and DQN
approaches, especially, their performance gap also obviously
increases with $L$, this is because that with more reflecting
elements at the IRS, the proposed deep PDS-PER learning based
secure communication approach becomes more flexible for optimal
phase shift (reflecting beamforming) design and hence achieves
higher gains. In addition, from Fig. 7(b) compared with the
Baseline 1 and DQN approaches, as the reflecting
elements at the IRS increases, we observe that the proposed
learning approach is the first one who attains 100\% QoS
satisfaction level. This superior achievements are based on the
particular design of the QoS-aware reward function shown in (14)
for secure communication.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig8}
\caption{{Performance comparisons versus outdated CSI coefficient $\rho$.} } \label{fig:Schematic}
\end{figure}
In Fig. 8, we further analyze how the system secrecy rate and QoS
satisfaction level performances are affected by the outdated CSI
coefficient $\rho$ in the system, i.e., from $\rho =0.5$ to 1, when
${P_{\max }} = 30\;{\rm{dBm}}$ and $L=40$. Note that as $\rho$
decreases, the CSI becomes more outdated as shown in (4) and (6),
and $\rho =1$ means non-outdated CSI. It can be observed from all
beamforming approaches, when CSI becomes more outdated (as $\rho $
decreases), the average secrecy rate and QoS satisfaction level
decrease. The reason is that a higher value of $\rho $ indicates
more accurate CSI, which will enable all the approaches to
optimize secure beamforming policy to achieve higher average
secrecy rate and QoS satisfaction level in the system.
It can be observed that reducing $\rho $ has more effects on the
performance of the other three approaches while our proposed
learning approach still maintains the performance at a favorable
level, indicating that the other three approaches are more
sensitive to the uncertainty of CSI and the robust of the proposed
learning approach. For instance, the proposed learning approach achieves the secrecy rate and QoS satisfaction level improvements of 17.21\% and 8.67\%, compared with the Baseline 1 approach when $\rho=0.7$. Moreover, in comparison, the proposed learning
approach achieves the best performance among all approaches against channel uncertainty. The
reason is that the proposed learning approach considers the
time-varying channels and takes advantage of PDS-learning to
effectively learn the dynamic environment.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have investigated the joint BS's beamforming and IRS's
reflect beamforming optimization problem under the time-varying
channel conditions. As the system is highly dynamic and complex, we
have exploited the recent advances of machine learning, and
formulated the secure beamforming optimization problem as an RL
problem. A deep PDS-PER learning based secure beamforming approach
has been proposed to jointly optimize both the BS's beamforming
and the IRS's reflect beamforming in the dynamic IRS-aided secure
communication system, where PDS and PER schemes have been
utilized to improve the learning convergence rate and efficiency. Simulation
results have verified that the proposed learning approach
outperforms other existing approaches in terms of enhancing the
system secrecy rate and the QoS satisfaction probability.
|
\section{Introduction}
Topological photonics has made rapid strides in the past years \cite{ozawa2019}, investigating effects of gain and loss on the topology of photonic energy bands \cite{martinezalvarez2018,zhao2019,cerjan2019}, topology in synthetic dimensions \cite{yuan2016,ozawa2016,lustig2019,dutt2020}as well as the interplay of topology and nonlinear optics phenomena \cite{smirnova2020}. Lasing in topological photonic structures has recently attracted a lot of attention not only because it allows studying topology in a novel nonlinear non-Hermitian regime but also because topological structures can offer a new design of laser devices. First, lasing of zero-dimensional edge modes has been demonstrated in one-dimensional photonic arrays \cite{st-jean2017,parto2018,zhao2018}. These pioneering works have been followed by experiments reporting lasing of one-dimensional chiral edge modes in two-dimensional photonic arrays \cite{bahari2017b,bandres2018,klembt2018,zeng2020}. In a two-dimensional array, lasing of a single edge mode extending over the whole edge of the photonic array has been demonstrated \cite{bandres2018}. The single-mode laser operation is robust against on-site disorder in contrast to topologically trivial laser arrays \cite{harari2018}. For this reason, topological lasers are a promising candidate for highly-efficient lasers with a robust emission spectrum. The rich dynamics of topological lasers are subject to current theoretical investigation \cite{longhi2018,secli2019}. However, the theory for coherence properties of topological lasers, which would be relevant for recent experiments demonstrating stable laser operation \cite{bandres2018}, has been still missing.
One essential characteristic of lasers is their large temporal coherence of the emitted light field, which is required for practical applications \cite{haken1985}. The coherence is fundamentally limited by the phase diffusion of the light field caused by the intrinsic noise due to spontaneous emission \cite{gardiner2004}. Phase diffusion leads to a finite linewidth of the emitted light field, which, in the absence of other noise sources, is determined by the Schawlow-Townes formula \cite{schawlow1958}.
In realistic lasers, the coherence of the emitted light is affected by the dynamics of gain medium as well as the presence of multiple lasing modes, leading to an additional broadening of the laser linewidth \cite{pick2015}.
In this manuscript, we study how the coherence of the light field emitted by a topological laser is affected by the elementary excitations around the mean-field steady state, which are excited by intrinsic noise. To focus on the effects of the elementary excitations, we neglect the dynamics of the gain medium assuming the gain medium instantaneously responds to the dynamics of the light field.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Mean-field steady state of topological laser. (a) The honeycomb photonic array with photon tunneling described by the Haldane model pumped in the blue region. The color scale shows the mean-field steady state occupations $|\bar{c}_j|^2$ of local optical sites. (b) Unit cell of the Haldane model consisting of the sublattice $A$ (gray points), the sublattice $B$ (black points), the nearest-neighbor hopping with a real tunneling $t_1$ and the next-nearest-neighbor hopping with a complex amplitude $t_2 e^{\phi_{jk}}$. (c) Band structure of the passive Haldane model (no gain no loss) with bulk modes (black lines), topological band gap (orange region) and topological edge modes (blue lines) for an infinite strip with zig-zag edges. (d) The overlap $p_m$ of the mean-field steady-state solution with normal modes $\mathbf{e}^{(m)}$ of the passive system (no gain no loss) for the mode with frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$ lasing. (Parameters: $t_2/t_1=0.15$, $\phi=\pi/2$, $\gamma/t_1=0.01$, $g/t_1=0.05$, $N=61$)}
\label{steady}
\end{figure*}
We consider the Haldane model based on a two-dimensional photonic array pumped along the edge. On the mean-field level neglecting quantum and thermal fluctuations in the laser, we obtain lasing of a single edge mode. Depending on initial conditions, lasing of edge modes with different lasing frequencies can be achieved as it was described in Ref.~\cite{secli2019}. We take fluctuations into account using nonlinear semiclassical Langevin equations. We linearize the Langevin equations around the mean-field steady-state solution to study elementary excitations. We consider weak gain and loss in comparison to the coupling of optical sites in the array and a moderate size of the array such that the frequency separation of edge modes is larger that the linewidth of these modes. This regime is relevant for recent experiments on arrays of micron-scale ring resonators \cite{hafezi2013,bandres2018}. We study how normal modes of elementary excitations are formed from the normal modes of a passive system, which does not experience either gain or loss. We show that the hybridization of edge modes gives rise to long-lived elementary excitations, which lead to large phase fluctuations and a decreased coherence of the emitted light field.
The emergence of long-lived elementary excitations is not a unique feature of topological lasers as they generically appear in laser arrays with a linear frequency dispersion.
However, the fact that the long-lived elementary excitations in a topological laser are formed from topological edge modes makes them robust against disorder. We show that, in contrast to long-lived elementary excitations in a trivial laser, the life-time and the oscillation frequency of these topological long-lived elementary excitations are robust against moderate on-site disorder.
The lifetime of elementary excitations strongly depends on the dispersion of edge-mode frequencies around the lasing frequency. Any deviation from a linear dispersion leads to a detuning for normal modes of elementary excitations, which can obstruct their hybridization and, as a consequence, reduce their lifetime. For lasing at frequencies, which do not lie in the middle of the passive-system band gap, the deviation from a linear dispersion is sufficient to reduce the lifetime of elementary excitations by at least one order of magnitude. This leads to a large suppression of phase fluctuations and an increase of light coherence. On the other hand, amplitude fluctuations of the emitted light field are increased resulting in a moderately larger second-order autocorrelation function. We confirm our results by numerical simulations of full Langevin equations, which take nonlinear noise dynamics into account.
\section{Model}
We consider an array of optical sites, whose complex amplitudes $c_j$, $j=1,...,N$, are described by the semiclassical Langevin equations
\begin{equation}\label{full eq}
i \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d} t}c_j = \left[ \nu_j - i \gamma + i \frac{\mathbb{P}_j g}{1 + \frac{|c_j|^2}{I_{\rm sat}}} \right]c_j + \sum^{N}_{k=1} H_{jk} c_k + Q_{jj} c_{j,{\rm in}},
\end{equation}
where $\hbar=1$, $\nu_j$ are the frequencies of the optical sites, the Hamiltonian $H_{jk}$ describes the coupling of these sites, and $N$ is the number of the optical sites in the array. Intrinsic optical losses lead to a decay at rate $\gamma$. Incoherent pumping of optical sites is described by a saturable gain $g$, where $I_{\rm sat}$ is the saturation intensity. We allow for a spatial pump profile where $\mathbb{P}_j = 1$ for pumped sites and $\mathbb{P}_j = 0$ for not pumped sites.
Incoherent pumping is associated with intrinsic noise due to spontaneous emission at rate $q$, which is the dominant source of fluctuations at the pumped sites. At sites without pumping, the dominant source of fluctuations is shot noise at rate $2\gamma$. Both intrinsic noise due to spontaneous emission and shot noise can be described by Gaussian white noise $\langle c_{j,{\rm in}}(t)c^*_{k,{\rm in}}(t')\rangle = \delta_{jk} \delta(t-t')$ with a correlation matrix $\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{Q}^{\dagger}$, where $\mathbf{Q}$ is a diagonal matrix, $Q_{jk} = \delta_{jk}\left[\sqrt{2\gamma}(1-\mathbb{P}_j) + \sqrt{q}\mathbb{P}_j\right]$, and $\delta_{jk}$ is the Kronecker delta.
We focus on the Haldane Hamiltonian $\hat{H} = t_1\sum_{\rm n.n.} \hat{c}^{\dagger}_j \hat{c}_k + t_2\sum_{\rm n.n.n.} e^{i\phi_{jk}} \hat{c}^{\dagger}_j \hat{c}_k$ based on a honeycomb array (see Fig~\ref{steady}b) including the nearest-neighbor hopping with a real amplitude $t_1$ and the next-nearest-neighbor hopping with a complex amplitude $t_2 e^{i\phi_{jk}}$ \cite{haldane1988,jotzu2014}. $\phi_{jk}=\phi$ for hopping in the directions shown by green arrows in Fig~\ref{steady}b and $\phi_{jk}=-\phi$ in the reverse directions, where $\phi$ is the Haldane flux. In Fig.~\ref{steady}c, we plot the band structure of the passive Haldane model (black lines) for no gain and no loss in the photonic array.
For $\phi \neq0,\pi$, the time-reversal symmetry of the system is broken and a topological band gap opens (orange region). Cutting the array in a form of an infinite strip, chiral edge modes (blue lines) appear at the boundaries of the array. Frequencies of the chiral edge modes lie in the topological band gap.
\section{Mean-field steady state}
We first find steady states of the mean-field dynamical equations for optical amplitudes, which are obtained by omitting stochastic terms in the Langevin equations (\ref{full eq}). We consider a finite array depicted in Fig.~\ref{steady}a, where optical sites in the blue region are pumped. We assume that gain and loss are weak in comparison to the hopping amplitudes, i.e.~$g,\gamma\ll t_1,t_2$. In this regime, lasing of a single topological edge mode is achieved, which was theoretically shown in Ref.~\cite{harari2018} and experimentally demonstrated in Ref.~\cite{bandres2018}. In Fig.~\ref{steady}d, we show the overlap $p_m=|\sum_{j=1}^N\bar{c}_j^*e_j^{(m)}|/\sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^N |\bar{c}_j|^2}$ of the mean-field steady state solution $\bar{c}_j$ with the normal modes $\mathbf{e}^{(m)}$ of the passive system (no gain no loss). Depending on the initial conditions, one of the edge modes wins the gain competition. Since all edge modes extend across the whole pump region, a single edge mode saturates gain at all pumped optical sites and prevents lasing of other edge modes. As a result, the overlap of the mean-field steady state with a single edge mode is close to unity and the overlaps with the remaining passive-system normal modes is very small. Lasing of different edge modes leads to different lasing frequencies and different steady-state distributions of optical phases $\bar{\theta}_j$ along the edge of the array (see Fig.~\ref{excitations}a and \ref{excitations}b). However, the occupation of optical sites, $|\bar{c}_j|^2$, (see Fig.~\ref{steady}a) is almost identical for lasing of any edge mode, since all edge modes have very similar spatial profile $|e_j^{(m)}|^2$. The mean-field dynamics of complex amplitudes $c_j/\sqrt{I_{\rm sat}}$ and the mean-field steady state $\bar{c}_j/\sqrt{I_{\rm sat}}$ are independent of the absolute scaling $I_{\rm sat}$.
\section{Elementary excitations}\label{sec elm}
In this section, we describe elementary excitations around the mean-field steady state. We show how the normal modes of elementary excitations are formed from the passive-system normal modes.
To study elementary excitations around the mean-field steady state, we decompose optical amplitudes $c_j = \left(\bar{c}_j + \delta c_j \right)e^{-i\Omega t}$ into the mean-field steady-state solution $\bar{c}_j $ and a modulation $\delta c_j$, where $\Omega$ is the frequency of the lasing mode. Considering small modulations around the mean-field steady state, we derive linear Langevin equations
\begin{equation}\label{bog eq}
i\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d} t}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta\mathbf{ c} \\
\delta\mathbf{ c}^*
\end{pmatrix}
=
\mathbf{\mathcal{D}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta \textbf{c} \\
\delta \textbf{c}^*
\end{pmatrix}
+
\mathcal{Q}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{ c}_{\rm in}e^{i\Omega t} \\
\mathbf{ c}^*_{\rm in}e^{-i\Omega t}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{D}$ is the dynamical matrix for elementary excitations around the mean-field steady state, $\mathcal{Q} = \mathbf{Q}\otimes\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_z$ is the Pauli matrix.
The dynamical matrix
\begin{equation}\label{dyn m}
\mathcal{D} = \mathcal{H} + \mathcal{A}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{H} - \Omega\,\mathbb{1} & 0 \\
0 & -\mathbf{H}^* + \Omega\,\mathbb{1}
\end{pmatrix}
+
i\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{\Gamma} & \mathbf{\Delta} \\
\mathbf{\Delta}^* & \mathbf{\Gamma}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
can be decomposed into the Hermitian part $\mathcal{H}$ and the anti-Hermitian part $\mathcal{A}$, where $H_{jk}$ is the Hamiltonian of the passive system,
$\mathbb{1}$ is the $N\times N$ identity matrix,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{jj} = -\gamma + \frac{\mathbb{P}_{j}\,g}{\left(1 + \frac{|\bar{c}_{j}|^2}{I_{\rm sat}}\right)^2},\,\,\,\,\Delta_{jj} = - \frac{\mathbb{P}_{j}\,g\,\frac{\bar{c}_{j}^2}{I_{\rm sat}}}{\left(1 + \frac{ |\bar{c}_{j}|^2}{I_{\rm sat}}\right)^2},
\end{equation}
and $\Gamma_{jk}=\Delta_{jk}=0$ for $j\neq k$. The dynamical matrix depends only on rescaled mean-field optical amplitudes $\bar{c}_j/\sqrt{I_{\rm sat}}$. As a result, elementary excitations do not depend on the absolute scaling, $I_{\rm sat}$, of the mean-field optical amplitudes.
For elementary excitations, the number of normal modes is doubled compared to the number of the passive-system normal modes. The dynamical matrix $\mathcal{D}$ exhibits the following symmetry
$\mathcal{X}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{X}=-\mathcal{D}^*$, where $\mathcal{X} = \mathbb{1}\otimes\sigma_x $ and $\sigma_x$ is the Pauli matrix. Due to this symmetry, the complex frequencies $\epsilon^{(\alpha)}$, $\alpha = 1,...,2N$, of elementary excitations are purely imaginary or appear in pairs $\left(\epsilon^{(\alpha)}, \tilde{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}\right)$, where $\tilde{\epsilon}^{(\alpha)}= - \left(\epsilon^{(\alpha)}\right)^*$.
We first diagonalize the Hermitian part $\mathcal{H}$ by switching to the basis of passive-system normal modes $\mathcal{E}_p^{(m)} = \mathbf{e}^{(m)}\otimes\left(1,0\right)^{T}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{(m)} = \left(\mathbf{e}^{(m)}\right)^*\otimes\left(0,1\right)^{T}$, where $\mathbf{e}^{(m)}$, $m=1,...,N$, are eigenmodes of $\mathbf{H}$. The eigenfrequencies of the Hermitian part are directly formed from the passive-system eigenfrequencies $\omega_m$ , giving rise to two branches $\epsilon_p^{(m)}=\omega_m - \Omega$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_p^{(m)} = - \omega_m + \Omega$. The anti-Hermitian part
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal{A}} =
i\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{\mathbf{\Gamma}} & \tilde{\mathbf{\Delta}} \\
\tilde{\mathbf{\Delta}}^* & \tilde{\mathbf{\Gamma}}^*
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
introduces coupling between passive-system normal modes, where $\tilde{\mathbf{\Gamma}} = \mathbf{U}^{\dagger}\, \mathbf{\Gamma}\,\mathbf{U}$, $\tilde{\mathbf{\Delta}} = \mathbf{U}^{\dagger}\, \mathbf{\Delta}\,\mathbf{U}^{*}$. Columns of the transformation matrix $\mathbf{U}$ are eigenmodes $\mathbf{e}^{(m)}$. Due to the anti-Hermitian coupling, the passive-system normal modes hybridize.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Elementary excitations for lasing of different edge modes. (a) and (b) Mean-field steady-state distribution of optical phases along the top edge of the photonic array for the lasing frequency $\Omega/t_1 = 0$ and $\Omega/t_1=0.25$, respectively. (c) and (d) Complex spectrum of elementary excitations with band gap (orange region), bulk modes (black points) as well as edge modes (blue points) for the lasing frequency $\Omega/t_1 = 0$ and $\Omega/t_1=0.25$, respectively. Gray and blue lines show the splitting in imaginary parts of complex frequencies due to the hybridization of bulk modes and edge modes, respectively. (e) and (f) Real part and imaginary part, respectively, of complex frequencies $\epsilon_{\pm}$ for two hybridized modes as a function of the detuning $\delta\omega$ for different values of the decay-rate difference $\delta \Gamma/\tilde{\Delta} = 0.02$ (full lines), $\delta \Gamma/\tilde{\Delta} = 0.6$ (dashed lines) and $\delta \Gamma/\tilde{\Delta} = 2$ (dot-dashed lines). (Parameters: (a-d) $t_2/t_1=0.15$, $\phi=\pi/2$, $\gamma//t_1=0.01$, $g/t_1=0.05$, $N=61$; (e) and (f) $ \bar{\omega}/\tilde{\Delta} = 0$, $ \bar{\Gamma}/\tilde{\Delta} = -2$)}
\label{excitations}
\end{figure*}
We now discuss the coupling of modes, $\mathcal{E}_p^{(m)}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{(n)}$, from the two different branches due to the off-diagonal blocks $\tilde{\mathbf{\Delta}} $ and $\tilde{\mathbf{\Delta}}^*$ of the dynamical matrix. The coupling between modes $\mathcal{E}_p^{(m)}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{(n)}$ is described by the $2\times2$ dynamical matrix
\begin{equation}\label{dyn 2}
\mathcal{\tilde{D}}^{(m,n)} = \begin{pmatrix}
\omega_m - \Omega & 0 \\
0& -\omega_n + \Omega
\end{pmatrix}
+
i \begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{\Gamma}_{mm} & \tilde{\Delta}_{mn} \\
\tilde{\Delta}_{nm}^* & \tilde{\Gamma}_{nn}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
if their frequencies are isolated from the rest of the passive-system spectrum, i.e.~$|\omega_{m/n}+\omega_q-2\Omega|\gg|\tilde{\Delta}_{m/nq}|$, $|\omega_{m/n}-\omega_q|\gg\tilde{\Gamma}_{m/nq}$ for all $q\neq m,n$.
The frequencies of the edge modes in the band gap of the passive system satisfy this condition for moderate system sizes and for $t_1,t_2\gg g,\gamma$ as considered in this manuscript. Diagonalizing the $2\times2$ dynamical matrix, we obtain complex frequencies of hybridized modes
\begin{equation}\label{hyb e}
\epsilon_{\pm}^{(m,n)} = \bar{\omega}_{mn} - i \bar{\Gamma}_{mn} \pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\left(\delta\omega_{mn} + i \delta\Gamma_{mn} \right)^2 - 4|\tilde{\Delta}_{mn} |^2},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\omega}_{mn} = \left(\omega_m - \omega_n\right)/2$, $\delta\omega_{mn} = \omega_m + \omega_n -2\Omega$, $\bar{\Gamma}_{mn} = - \left(\tilde{\Gamma}_{mm} + \tilde{\Gamma}_{nn}\right)/2$, and
$\delta\Gamma_{mn} = \tilde{\Gamma}_{mm}-\tilde{\Gamma}_{nn}$.
The real parts of complex frequencies correspond to oscillation frequencies and the imaginary parts of complex frequencies correspond to decay rates or amplification rates. The real part and the imaginary part of the complex frequencies $\epsilon^{(m,n)}_{\pm}$ are shown in Figs.~\ref{excitations}e and \ref{excitations}f, respectively, as a function of the detuning $\delta\omega_{mn}$. One can see that due to the anti-Hermitian coupling of passive-system normal modes, the real parts of the complex frequencies are attracted to each other, $\textrm{Re}\left(\epsilon^{(m,n)}_{+} - \epsilon^{(m,n)}_{-}\right)< |\delta\omega_{mn}|$. On the other hand, the imaginary parts of the complex frequencies split. This is an example of level attraction, which is a general concept appearing in various physical platforms \cite{savvidis2001,bernier2014,bernier2018}. For $2\bar{\Gamma}_{mn} > \sqrt{\delta\Gamma_{mn}+4|\tilde{\Delta}|^2}$, both hybridized modes decay as the imaginary parts of the complex frequencies are negative. The splitting in the imaginary parts of the complex frequencies is large for small detunings $\delta\omega$ leading to a slowly-decaying mode and a fast-decaying mode. For a large detuning $|\delta\omega_{mn}| \gg |\tilde{\Delta}_{mn}|$, the hybridization is negligible and the frequencies of uncoupled modes $\epsilon_{+}^{(m,n)} \approx \omega_m -\Omega + i \tilde{\Gamma}_{mm}$ as well as $\epsilon_{-}^{(m,n)} \approx - \omega_n +\Omega + i \tilde{\Gamma}_{nn}$ are recovered.
The hybridization of two edge modes from the two different branches described by the $2\times2$ dynamical matrix $\mathcal{\tilde{D}}^{(m,n)} $ will be shown in the next section to have important consequences for the complex spectrum of elementary excitations.
\section{Spectrum of elementary excitations}\label{sec spectrum}
We now investigate the complex spectrum of elementary excitations in the regime $t_1,t_2 \gg g,\gamma$. In Fig.~\ref{excitations}d, we plot the complex spectrum of elementary excitations for lasing of the edge mode with the frequency $\Omega/t_1 = 0.25$. This spectrum reveals generic features of elementary excitations in topological lasers.
Normal modes of elementary excitations are formed from either bulk modes (black points) or edge modes (blue points) of the passive system. In the regime $t_1,t_2 \gg g,\gamma$, the oscillation frequencies (real parts of complex frequencies) of elementary excitations are predominantly determined by the eigenfrequencies of the Hermitian part $\mathcal{H}$, which consists of two branches $\epsilon_p^{(m)} = \omega_m - \Omega$ and $ \tilde{\epsilon}_p^{(m)} = - \omega_m + \Omega$ formed from the passive system frequencies $\omega_m$. These two branches are shifted in respect to each other by the lasing frequency $\Omega$. Since the lasing frequency lies in the passive-system band gap, the band gaps of the two branches overlap, giving rise to a band gap in the spectrum of elementary excitations (orange region in Fig.~\ref{excitations}d). The band gap in the spectrum of elementary excitations represents a range of frequencies, within which no bulk modes are excited by elementary excitations. As the lasing frequency $\Omega/t_1=0.25$ does not lie in the middle of the passive-system band gap, the band gaps of the two branches overlap only partially. As a result, the band gap in the spectrum of elementary excitations is smaller than that of the passive system.
All imaginary parts of complex frequencies are negative (except from a single frequency with a vanishing imaginary part discussed later) confirming the stability of the steady state. For moderate system sizes that we consider here, $|\omega_m - \omega_n|\gg g,\gamma$ for all $m\neq n$ and edge-mode frequencies $\omega_m$ lying in the band gap of the passive system. As a result, every edge mode $\mathcal{E}_p^{(m)}$ can significantly hybridize only with a single mode $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{(n)}$ from the other branch and their coupling is described by the $2\times2$ dynamical matrix (\ref{dyn 2}). Due to the large spatial overlap of edge modes in the pumped region $\mathbb{P}_j$, the coupling $|\tilde{\Delta}_{mn}|$ between edge modes overcomes the detuning of their passive-system frequencies $|\delta\omega_{mn}|$. This leads to a large hybridization of edge modes and to a distinctive splitting in the imaginary parts of their complex frequencies (blue lines in Fig.~\ref{excitations}d).
Two passive-system normal modes formed from the lasing mode $\mathbf{e}^{(l)}$ are always degenerate at frequency $\epsilon_p^{(l)}=\tilde{\epsilon}_p^{(l)} = 0$. The hybridization of these two modes gives rise to a non-decaying mode with the complex frequency $\epsilon^{(l,l)}_{+} = 0 $ and a fast-decaying mode with the complex frequency $\epsilon^{(l,l)}_{-} = -2i\bar{\Gamma}_{ll}$ (see Appendix~B for more details). These non-decaying and fast-decaying excitations correspond to undamped fluctuations in the phase of the lasing mode and largely-damped fluctuations in the amplitude of the lasing mode, respectively, which are characteristic for a laser driven above threshold \cite{gardiner2004}.
Note that the hybridization of edge modes $\mathcal{E}_p^{(m)}$ and $\mathcal{E}_p^{(n)}$ from the same branch is negligible because the detuning of passive-system frequencies $|\delta\omega_{mn}|=|\omega_m - \omega_n|$ is always larger than the coupling term $|\tilde{\Gamma}_{mn}|$ between these modes.
Since couplings $\tilde{\Delta}_{nm}$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}_{nm}$ between bulk modes are small, the hybridization of bulk modes is typically also negligible. Complex frequencies of non-hybridized bulk modes (black points in Fig.~\ref{excitations}d) acquire imaginary parts $\textrm{Im}\, \epsilon^{(m)} \approx -\gamma$ and $\textrm{Im} \,\tilde{\epsilon}^{(m)} \approx -\gamma$ due to the diagonal term $\tilde{\Gamma}_{mm}\approx-\gamma$ in the anti-Hermitian part of the dynamical matrix.
Note that for the value of the Haldane flux $\phi=\pi/2$, a small hybridization of bulk modes occurs for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$ (see Fig.~\ref{excitations}c), because bulk modes are pairwise degenerate due to the symmetry, $\mathbf{S} \,\mathbf{H}\,\mathbf{S} = - \mathbf{H}^*$, of the passive-system Hamiltonian $\mathbf{H}$, where $\mathbf{S}$ is a unitary and $\mathbf{S}^2=\mathbb{1}$ (see Appendix~C for more details). However, the splitting in imaginary parts of complex frequencies for bulk modes is small in comparison to the splitting for edge modes and the hybridization of bulk modes does not appear for other values of the Haldane flux $\phi\neq\pi/2$ or for other lasing frequencies $\Omega/t_1\neq0$.
\section{Long-lived elementary excitations}\label{llee}
We now discuss long-lived elementary excitations, which occur in the Haldane model for lasing at a frequency lying in the middle of the passive-system band gap (vicinity of $\Omega/t_1=0$ for $\phi\approx\pi/2$).
In Fig.~\ref{excitations}c, we plot the complex spectrum of elementary excitations for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$, which lies in the middle of the passive-system band gap. Long-lived elementary excitations with decay rates, which are orders of magnitude smaller than any other energy scale in the system ($\gamma$, $g$, $t_1$ and $t_2$), appear due to a large hybridization of edge modes.
The very slow decay of long-lived elementary excitations leads to an ultra slow relaxation of the topological laser towards the mean-field steady state, which was numerically observed in Ref.~\cite{secli2019}. In contrast to lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$, decay rates of slowly-decaying modes are comparable to $\gamma$ for the lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0.25$ (see Fig.~\ref{excitations}d).
To understand the dependence of the spectrum for elementary excitations on the selection of a lasing edge mode, we can expand the edge-mode frequencies $\omega_m = \Omega + v_1 \left( m - l \right) + v_2 \left(m-l\right)^2 + \mathcal{O}\left(\left(m-l\right)^3\right)$ around the lasing frequency $\Omega$, where the index $l$ labels the lasing mode. For $|v_1|\gg |v_2|$, the frequency of edge mode $m$ is close to the frequency of edge mode $2l-m$ from the other branch of passive-system normal modes and their detuning is $\delta \omega_{m(2l-m)} = 2 v_2\left(m-l\right)^2 + \mathcal{O}\left(\left(m-l\right)^4\right)$. If the nonlinear coefficient $|v_2|$ and, as a consequence, also the detuning $\delta \omega_{m(2l-m)}$ are small compared to the coupling $|\tilde{\Delta}_{m(2l-m)}|$ between the edge modes, the edge modes significantly hybridize giving rise to a large splitting in the imaginary part of the complex frequencies, see Eq.~(\ref{hyb e}) and Fig.~\ref{excitations}f. On the other hand, if the nonlinear coefficient $|v_2|$ is comparable to or larger than the coupling $|\tilde{\Delta}_{m(2l-m)}|$, the resulting detuning $\delta \omega_{m(2l-m)}$ obstructs the hybridization and the splitting in the imaginary parts of edge-mode frequencies is reduced.
For the Haldane model, the dispersion of edge-mode frequencies is linear in the middle of the passive-system band gap for any $\phi\neq0,\pi$. As $v_2$ is very small for lasing at a frequency lying in the middle of the passive-system band gap, long-lived elementary excitations, whose decay rate is orders of magnitude smaller than any other energy scale in the system ($\gamma$, $g$, $t_1$ and $t_2$), appear for any value of the Haldane flux. This can be seen in Fig.~\ref{coherence}c, where we plot the smallest decay rate $\textrm{min}_{\alpha\neq\eta}|\textrm{Im}\,\epsilon^{(\alpha)}|$ (index $\eta$ labels the non-decaying mode) as a function of the lasing frequency $\Omega$ for different values of the Haldane flux. On the other hand, for lasing at any frequency, which does not lie in the middle of the passive-system band gap, the nonlinear coefficient $v_2$ is large enough to give rise to a considerable detuning of edge mode frequencies compared to the coupling of edge modes. The hybridization of edge modes is then obstructed and the smallest decay rate is comparable to $\gamma$, see Fig.~\ref{coherence}c.
Long-lived elementary excitations are not unique to topological lasers.
They generically appear in one-dimensional arrays if the dispersion of the passive frequencies is linear around the lasing frequency, see Appendix~D for more details. However, in contrast to topological lasers, long-lived elementary excitations in topologically trivial lasers are sensitive to disorder. Even moderate disorder in the on-site frequencies $\nu_j$ can obstruct or enhance the hybridization of the passive-system normal modes, leading to a large change in the decay rate of the long-lived elementary excitations as well as in their oscillation frequency, see Appendix~G.
On the other hand, long-lived elementary excitations in a topological laser ($\phi\neq0,\pi$) are robust against moderate on-site disorder. Their decay rate is only marginally affected and thus it remains orders of magnitude smaller than $\gamma$ in the presence of disorder (see Appendix~F for more details). The oscillation frequency of long-lived elementary excitations is unaffected by the disorder. The long-lived elementary excitations are robust against disorder since they appear due to the hybridization of topological edge modes, which are protected against disorder as long as disorder is not strong enough to close the topological band gap \cite{hafezi2013,harari2018}.
In general, long-lived elementary excitations appear due to the hybridization of edge modes for any topological model with a linear dispersion of edge-mode frequencies. The lifetime of elementary excitations can be suppressed by selecting a lasing frequency around which the dispersion of edge-mode frequencies is no longer linear. The long-lived elementary excitations will be shown in the next section to have crucial consequences for light coherence.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Coherence properties of topological laser. (a) and (b) Optical spectrum of a pumped optical site lying at the edge of the topological array for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1 =0 $ and at the frequency $\Omega/t_1 =0.25 $, respectively. Linearization of Langevin equations around the mean-field steady state (black line) and numerical simulations of nonlinear Langevin equations (purple line). The orange region shows the band gap in the spectrum of elementary excitations. (d) and (e) Second-order autocorrelation function of a pumped optical site lying at the edge of the topological array for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1 =0 $ and at the frequency $\Omega/t_1 =0.25 $, respectively. Linearization of Langevin equations around the mean-field steady state (black line) and numerical simulations of nonlinear Langevin equations (green line). (c) Smallest decay rate of elementary excitations $\textrm{min}_{\alpha\neq\eta}|\textrm{Im}\,\epsilon^{(\alpha)}|$ as a function of the lasing frequency $\Omega$ for Haldane flux $\phi=\pi/2$ (squares), $\phi=\pi/2.25$ (circles) and $\phi = \pi/2.5$ (diamonds). (f) Equal-time second-order autocorrelation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of the lasing frequency $\Omega$ for Haldane flux $\phi=\frac{\pi}{2}$ (squares), $\phi=\frac{\pi}{2.25}$ (circles) and $\phi = \frac{\pi}{2.5}$ (diamonds). (Parameters: $t_2/t_1=0.15$, $\gamma/t_1=0.01$, $g/t_1=0.05$, $I_{\rm sat}\gamma/q=25$; (a), (b), (d) and (e) $\phi=\pi/2$)
}
\label{coherence}
\end{figure*}
\section{Coherence properties}
We now discuss coherence properties of topological lasers and how they are influenced by long-lived elementary excitations, investigating the emission spectrum of pumped optical sites and the second-order autocorrelation function.
We start by studying the autocorrelation of complex optical amplitudes $\langle c_j(t) c_j^*(t+\Delta t)\rangle$. The dominant contribution in this autocorrelation is determined by phase fluctuations $\delta \theta_j$, where $c_j = \left(\bar{C}_j + \delta C \right)\,e^{i\left(-\Omega t + \bar{\theta}_j + \delta\theta_j\right)}$ and $\bar{c}_j = \bar{C}_j e^{i\bar{\theta}_j}$ (see Appendix~E for more details). The amplitude fluctuations $\delta C_j$ are negligible in comparison to the large mean-field occupation $\bar{C}_j^{2}$ \cite{gardiner2004}. Amplitude fluctuations $\delta C_j$ and phase fluctuations $\delta \theta_j$ are linearly related to the fluctuations of complex amplitudes $ \delta c_j $ and $ \delta c_j^* $ as well as to the normal modes of elementary excitations
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta\mathbf{ C} \\
\delta \mathbf{\Theta}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\mathcal{W} \mathcal{N},
\end{equation}
where $\delta\Theta_j = \bar{C}_j\,\delta\theta_j $, the vector $\mathcal{N}$ contains the complex amplitudes of the normal modes and $\mathcal{W}$ is the transformation matrix. This allows us to express the autocorrelations of complex optical amplitudes
\begin{gather}
\langle c_j(t) c_j^*(t + \Delta t)\rangle \approx \bar{C}_j^{2}\,e^{i\Omega\Delta t - |\Delta t|/\tau_c} \nonumber \\
+ \sum_{\alpha\neq\eta}n_{\alpha}|\mathcal{W}_{(j+N)\alpha}|^2\,e^{i\left(\textrm{Re}\,\epsilon^{(\alpha)}+\Omega\right)\Delta t + \textrm{Im}\,\epsilon^{(\alpha)}|\Delta t|}\label{spec ee}
\end{gather}
in terms of the complex frequencies of elementary excitations $\epsilon^{(\alpha)}$ and the occupations $n_{\alpha} = \frac{1}{2|\textrm{Im}\,\epsilon^{(\alpha)}|}\left(\mathcal{R}\mathcal{R}^{\dagger}\right)_{\alpha\alpha}$ of the corresponding normal modes, where $\tau_c = 2\bar{C}_j^2|\mathcal{W}_{(j+N)\eta}|^{-2}/\left(\mathcal{R}\mathcal{R}^{\dagger}\right)_{\eta\eta}$ is a coherence time, the index $\eta$ labels the non-decaying mode, and $\mathcal{R}\mathcal{R}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{2} \mathcal{W}^{-1}\mathcal{Q}\mathcal{Q}^{\dagger}\left(\mathcal{W}^{-1}\right)^{\dagger}$ is the correlation matrix for the normal modes (see Appendix~E for a detailed derivation).
The optical spectrum $S_{c_j}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation $\langle c_j(t) c_j^*(t+\Delta t)\rangle$. The light field emitted by optical sites is proportional to the complex amplitudes of the optical sites as described by input-output formalism \cite{gardiner2004}. As a result, the emission spectrum is proportional to the optical spectrum $S_{c_j}(\omega)$. The optical spectrum of a pumped optical site located at the edge of the array is shown in Figs.~\ref{coherence}a and \ref{coherence}b for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$ and $\Omega/t_1=0.25$, respectively. We find a good quantitative agreement between the optical spectrum determined from the linearized Langevin equations (black lines), see Eq.~(\ref{spec ee}), and the optical spectrum obtained from numerical simulations (purple line) of the nonlinear Langevin equations (\ref{full eq}). The ensemble average $\langle c_j(t) c_j^*(t + \Delta t)\rangle$ can be replaced by a time average for a steady-state laser operation.
For lasing at both frequencies, the optical spectrum contains a central peak at the lasing frequency corresponding to the first term in Eq.~(\ref{spec ee}). Undamped fluctuations in the phase of the lasing mode associated with the non-decaying normal mode of elementary excitations lead to a phase diffusion of light field, giving rise to a Lorentzian shape of the central peak with a linewidth $2/\tau_c$ \cite{gardiner2004}. The linewidth is proportional to the strength of fluctuations $q$ as well as inversely proportional to the number of pumped sites and the occupation of the pumped optical site $\bar{C}_j^2$. The linewidth is approximately constant for lasing of any edge mode. Small deviations in the linewidth occur due to moderate discrepancies in the spatial profile $|\mathcal{W}_{j\alpha}|^2$ of individual edge modes.
For lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$ lying in the middle of the passive-system band gap, the optical spectrum contains also satellite peaks (see Fig.~\ref{coherence}a). The satellite peaks appear due to the incoherent population of normal modes for elementary excitations, corresponding to the terms on the second line of Eq.~(\ref{spec ee}). The occupation $n_{\alpha}$ of normal modes for elementary excitations is inversely proportional to the decay rate $|\textrm{Im}\,\epsilon^{(\alpha)}|$ and proportional to the strength of noise $q$.
As a result, long-lived elementary excitations with a very small decay rate are largely populated giving rise to the satellite peaks in the optical spectrum. This large incoherent population of normal modes for elementary excitations leads to large phase fluctuations in the emitted light field decreasing its coherence.
Since elementary excitations are not dependent on the absolute scaling, $I_{\rm sat}$, of the mean-field steady-state solution, the occupation of normal modes $n_{\alpha}$ does not depend on the mean number of photons in the lasing mode $\bar{n}$. As a result, the height of the satellite peaks is also independent of the the mean number of photons in the lasing mode $\bar{n}$.
Our results show that large phase fluctuations and the decreased light coherence of emitted light field persist even when moderate on-site disorder is introduced (see Appendix~F). This is due to the robustness of edge modes and their frequencies against disorder. As a result, long-lived elementary excitations with a very small decay rate and a large occupation $n_{\alpha}$ of the corresponding normal modes occur even if moderate on-site disorder is considered.
On the other hand, the incoherent population of elementary excitations and corresponding phase fluctuations can be suppressed by selecting a different lasing frequency. As it was shown in the previous section, the lifetime of elementary excitations is reduced by at least one order of magnitude for lasing at a frequency, which does not lie in the middle of the passive-system band gap, see Fig.~\ref{coherence}c. As a result, the incoherent population of elementary excitations and the corresponding satellite peaks in the optical spectrum are suppressed (see Fig.~\ref{coherence}b) leading to a larger coherence of emitted light than for $\Omega/t_1 = 0$.
The second-order autocorrelation function $g^{(2)}_j$ describes correlations in the intensity of emitted light at different times \cite{gardiner2004}. For a laser, it is desired that these intensity correlations vanish corresponding to $g^{(2)}_j=1$. The second-order autocorrelation function is determined by amplitude fluctuations \cite{gardiner2004}
\begin{gather}
g^{(2)}_j (\Delta t)= \frac{\langle c_j(t) c_j(t+\Delta t)c^*_j(t+\Delta t)c^*_j(t) \rangle}{\langle c_j(t) c^*_j(t)\rangle\langle c_j(t + \Delta t)c^*_j(t + \Delta t)\rangle}\nonumber\\
= 1 + \frac{4}{\bar{C}^2_j}\langle \delta C_j (t) \delta C_j(t + \Delta t) \rangle + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\bar{C}^{4}_j}\right). \label{g2 eq}
\end{gather}
Amplitude autocorrelations $\langle \delta C_j (t) \delta C_j(t + \Delta t) \rangle$ can be expressed in terms of normal modes’ correlations (see Appendix~E).
The second-order autocorrelation function $g^{(2)}_j (\Delta t)$ for a pumped optical site located at the edge of the array is shown in Figs.~\ref{coherence}d and \ref{coherence}e for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1=0$ and $\Omega/t_1=0.25$, respectively. We compare the results determined from the linearized Langevin equations (black line) to numerical simulations (green line) of the nonlinear Langevin equations (\ref{full eq}). The ensemble average $\langle c_j(t) c_j(t + \Delta t)c^*_j(t + \Delta t)c^*_j(t) \rangle$ can be replaced by a time average for a steady-state laser operation.
For lasing at both frequencies, the equal-time second-order autocorrelation function $g^{(2)}_j (0)$ is close to unity as expected for a laser, which is driven well above threshold. With the time difference $\Delta t$, $g^{(2)}_j (\Delta t)$ decays to unity at time comparable to $1/\gamma$. This shows that amplitude fluctuations correspond to fast-decaying elementary excitations. We can see that $g^{(2)}_j (0)$ and temporal oscillations of $g^{(2)}_j (\Delta t)$ are larger for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1 = 0.25$ than for lasing at the frequency $\Omega/t_1 = 0$ lying in the middle of the band gap.
In Fig.~\ref{coherence}f, we plot $g^{(2)}_j (0)$ as a function of the lasing frequency $\Omega$ for different values of the Haldane flux. One can see that $g^{(2)}_j (0)$ is, in general, moderately larger for lasing at a frequency which does not lie in the middle of the band gap for all values of the Haldane flux. This shows that lasing at these frequencies leads to moderately larger amplitude fluctuations.
\section{Experimental parameters}
We estimate parameters of our model (\ref{full eq}) to be relevant for recent experiments \cite{bandres2018}. Typical parameters for arrays of coupled microring resonators are the decay rate $\gamma\sim1\,\textrm{GHz}$ and the hopping amplitude $t_1\sim100\,\textrm{GHz}$ with a feasible ratio $\gamma/t_1\sim0.01$ \cite{hafezi2013}. Based on the Haldane model (see Fig.~\ref{steady}a) with the group velocity of edge modes $v_g/t_1 \sim 1$ (in units of the lattice constant), we can estimate that the frequency separation $|\omega_m-\omega_n|\sim\gamma,g$ of edge modes $m\neq n$ is comparable to their linewidth $\gamma$ and gain $g$ for a total number of microring resonators $N\sim10^4$. For $N\sim100$ (as implemented in Ref.~\cite{bandres2018}), $|\omega_m-\omega_n|\gg g,\gamma$.
As a result, each edge mode can distinctively hybridize only with one edge mode from the other branch of passive-system frequencies as the anti-Hermitian coupling to all other modes is negligible compared to their large frequency separation.
The dominant source of noise
is the spontaneous emission at rate $q\sim 100\,{\rm GHz}$ \cite{hodaei2014}. A typical circulating power in the lasing mode of a single microring resonator is $P_c \sim 1 \,{\rm mW}$ which corresponds to a typical number of photons $\bar{n} \sim 10^3$ in the lasing mode \cite{hodaei2014}. We conclude that our model with $I_{\rm sat}\gamma/q\sim10$ describes an experimentally-relevant relative strength of noise compared to the number of photons in the lasing mode.
\section{Conclusions}
We have demonstrated that long-lived elementary excitations, which emerge due to the hybridization of topological edge modes, lead to large phase fluctuations and a decrease in the coherence of the emitted light field. In contrast to long-lived elementary excitations in a trivial laser, the decay rate and the oscillation frequency of long-lived elementary excitations in a topological laser are robust against disorder. Even though we focus in our manuscript on the Haldane model, long-lived elementary excitations appear for any topological model if the dispersion of edge-mode frequencies is approximately linear around the lasing frequency.
Our results for the Haldane model show that the deviation from a linear dispersion around lasing frequencies, which do not lie in the middle of the passive-system band gap, is sufficient to obstruct the hybridization of edge modes. As a result, the lifetime of elementary excitations is reduced by orders of magnitude and the phase fluctuations are largely suppressed. On the other hand, this leads to a moderate increase of amplitude fluctuations and the second-order autocorrelation function. However, the second-order autocorrelation function still remains close to unity. In the future, different topological models can be studied to provide insight into how elementary excitations in topological lasers are affected by the presence of several topological band gaps supporting edge modes with opposite chirality \cite{ozawa2019}, a pseudospin degree of freedom in pseudo quantum spin Hall systems \cite{hafezi2011,hafezi2013} or topological lasing in synthetic dimensions \cite{lustig2019}.
|
\section{Background and Motivation}
\label{sec:Motivation}
The availability of large-scale labeled training data, such as ImageNet, has enabled deep neural networks (DNNs) to achieve remarkable success in many learning tasks, ranging from computer vision to natural language processing. For example, the classification error of the ``Classification + localization with provided training data'' task in the Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge has reduced from 0.28 in 2010 to 0.0225 in 2017\footnote{\url{http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2017}}, outperforming even human classification. However, in many practical applications, obtaining labeled training data is often expensive, time-consuming, or even impossible. For example, in fine-grained recognition, only the experts can provide reliable labels~\cite{gebru2017fine}; in semantic segmentation, it takes about 90 minutes to label each Cityscapes image~\cite{cordts2016cityscapes}; in autonomous driving, it is difficult to label point-wise 3D LiDAR point clouds~\cite{wu2019squeezesegv2}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\centering \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{DomainShiftSingleSource.pdf}
\caption{An example of \emph{domain shift} in the single-source scenario. The models trained on the labeled source domain do not perform well when directly transferring to the target domain.}
\label{fig:SingleDomainShift}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
One potential solution is to transfer a model trained on a separate, labeled source domain to the desired unlabeled or sparsely labeled target domain. But as Figure~\ref{fig:SingleDomainShift} demonstrates, the \textbf{direct transfer of models across domains leads to poor performance}. Figure~\ref{fig:SingleDomainShift}(a) shows that even for the simple task of digit recognition, training on the MNIST source domain~\cite{lecun1998gradient} for digit classification in the MNIST-M target domain ~\cite{ganin2015unsupervised} leads to a digit classification accuracy decrease from 96.0\% to 52.3\% when training a LeNet-5 model~\cite{lecun1998gradient}. Figure~\ref{fig:SingleDomainShift}(b) shows a more realistic example of training a semantic segmentation model on a synthetic source dataset GTA~\cite{richter2016playing} and conducting pixel-wise segmentation on a real target dataset Cityscapes~\cite{cordts2016cityscapes} using the FCN model~\cite{long2015fully}. If we train on the real data, we obtain a mean intersection-over-union (mIoU) of 62.6\%; but if we train on synthetic data, the mIoU drops significantly to 21.7\%.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\centering \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{DomainShiftMultiSource.pdf}
\caption{An example of \emph{domain shift} in the multi-source scenario. Combining multiple sources into one source and directly performing single-source domain adaptation on the entire dataset does not guarantee better performance compared to just using the best individual source domain.}
\label{fig:MultiDomainShift}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The poor performance from directly transferring models across domains stems from a phenomenon known as \emph{domain shift}~\cite{torralba2011unbiased,zhao2018emotiongan}: whereby the joint probability distributions of observed data and labels are different in the two domains.
Domain shift exists in many forms, such as from dataset to dataset, from simulation to real-world, from RGB images to depth, and from CAD models to real images.
The phenomenon of domain shift motivates the research on domain adaptation (DA), which aims to learn a model from a labeled source domain that can generalize well to a different, but related, target domain. Existing DA methods mainly focus on the single-source scenario. In the deep learning era, recent single-source DA (SDA) methods usually employ a conjoined architecture with two approaches to respectively represent the models for the source and target domains. One approach aims to learn a task model based on the labeled source data using corresponding task losses, such as cross-entropy loss for classification. The other approach aims to deal with the domain shift by aligning the target and source domains. Based on the alignment strategies, deep SDA methods can be classified into four categories:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Discrepancy-based methods} try to align the features by explicitly measuring the discrepancy on corresponding activation layers, such as maximum mean discrepancy (MMD)~\cite{long2015learning}, correlation alignment~\cite{sun2017correlation}, and contrastive domain discrepancy~\cite{kang2019contrastive}.
\item \emph{Adversarial generative methods} generate fake data to align the source and target domains at pixel-level based on Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)~\cite{goodfellow2014generative} and its variants, such as CycleGAN~\cite{zhu2017unpaired,zhao2019cycleemotiongan}.
\item \emph{Adversarial discriminative methods} employ an adversarial objective with a domain discriminator to align the features~\cite{tzeng2017adversarial,tsai2018learning}.
\item \emph{Reconstruction based methods} aim to reconstruct the target input from the extracted features using the source task model~\cite{ghifary2016deep}.
\end{enumerate}
In practice, \textbf{the labeled data may be collected from multiple sources with different distributions}~\cite{sun2015survey,bhatt2016multi}.
In such cases, the aforementioned SDA methods could be trivially applied by combining the sources into a single source: an approach we refer to as \emph{source-combined DA}. However, source-combined DA oftentimes results in a poorer performance than simply using one of the sources and discarding the others. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:MultiDomainShift}, the accuracy on the best single source digit recognition adaptation using DANN~\cite{ganin2016domain} is 71.3\%, while the source-combined accuracy drops to 70.8\%. For segmentation adaptation using CyCADA~\cite{hoffman2018cycada}, the mIoU of source-combined DA (37.3\%) is also lower than that of SDA from GTA (38.7\%). Because the domain shift not only exists between each source and target, but also exists among different sources, the source-combined data from different sources may interfere with each other during the learning process~\cite{riemer2019learning}. Therefore, multi-source domain adaptation (MDA) is needed in order to leverage all of the available data.
The early MDA methods mainly focus on shallow models~\cite{sun2015survey},
either learning a latent feature space for different domains~\cite{sun2011two,duan2012exploiting} or combining pre-learned source classifiers~\cite{schweikert2009empirical}. Recently, the emphasis on MDA has shifted to deep learning architectures. In this paper, we systematically survey recent progress on deep learning based MDA, summarize and compare similarities and differences in the approaches, and discuss potential future research directions.
\section{Problem Definition}
\label{sec:Definition}
In the typical MDA setting, there are multiple source domains $S_1,S_2,\cdots,S_M$ ($M$ is the number of sources) and one target domain $T$. Suppose the observed data and corresponding labels\footnote{The label could be any type, such as object classes, bounding boxes, semantic segmentation, \textit{etc}.} in the $i^{\text{th}}$ source $S_i$ are drawn from distribution $p_i(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ are $\textbf{X}_i=\{\textbf{x}_i^j\}_{j=1}^{N_i}$ and $Y_i=\{\mathbf{y}_i^j\}_{j=1}^{N_i}$, respectively, where $N_i$ is the number of source samples. Let $X_T=\{\mathbf{x}_T^j\}_{j=1}^{N_T}$ and $Y_T=\{\mathbf{y}_T^j\}_{j=1}^{N_T}$ denote the target data and corresponding labels drawn from the target distribution $P_T(\textbf{x},\mathbf{y})$, where $N_T$ is the number of target samples.
Suppose the number of labeled target samples is $N_{TL}$, the MDA problem can be classified into different categories:
\begin{itemize
\item \emph{unsupervised MDA}, when $N_{TL}=0$;
\item \emph{fully supervised MDA}, when $N_{TL}=N_T$;
\item \emph{semi-supervised MDA}, otherwise.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}
{c c cccccc}
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\textbf{Area} & \textbf{Task} & \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Reference} & \textbf{\#D} & \textbf{\#S} & \textbf{Labels} & \textbf{Short description}\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{CV} & \multirow{2}{*}{digit recognition} & \multirow{2}{*}{Digits-five (D)} & \citeauthor{lecun1998gradient,netzer2011reading} & \multirow{2}{*}{5} & \multirow{2}{*}{145,298} & \multirow{2}{*}{10 classes} & \multirow{2}{*}{handwritten, synthetic, and street-image digits} \\
& & & \citeauthor{hull1994database,ganin2015unsupervised} & & & & \\
\hhline{~|-|-|-|-|-|-|-}
& \multirow{6}{*}{object classification} & Office-31 (O) & \citeauthor{saenko2010adapting} & 3 & 4,110 & 31 classes & images from amazon and taken by different cameras \\
& & Office-Caltech (OC) & \citeauthor{gong2013connecting} & 4 & 2,533 & 10 classes & overlapping categories from Office-31 and \textbf{C} \\
& & Office-Home (OH) & \citeauthor{venkateswara2017deep} & 4 & 15,500 & 65 classes & artistic, clipart, product, and real objects \\
& & ImageCLEF (IC) & Challenge\textsuperscript{\ref{ImageCLEF}} & 3 & 1,800 & 12 classes & shared categories from 3 datasets \\
& & PACS (P) & \citeauthor{li2017deeper} & 4 & 9,991 & 7 classes & photographic, artistic, cartoon, and sketchy objects \\
& & DomainNet (DN) & \citeauthor{peng2019moment} & 6 & 600,000 & 345 classes & \tiny{clipart, infographic, artistic, quickdrawn, real, and sketchy objects} \\
\hhline{~|-|-|-|-|-|-|-}
& \multirow{2}{*}{sentiment classification} & \multirow{2}{*}{SentiImage (SI)} & \citeauthor{machajdik2010affective} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{25,986} & \multirow{2}{*}{2 classes} & \multirow{2}{*}{artistic and social images on visual sentiment} \\
& & & \citeauthor{you2016building,you2015robust,borth2013large} & & & & \\
\hhline{~|-|-|-|-|-|-|-}
& vehicle counting & WebCamT (W) & \citeauthor{zhang2017understanding} & 8 & 16,000 & vehicle counts & each camera used as one domain \\
\hhline{~|-|-|-|-|-|-|-}
& \multirow{2}{*}{semantic segmentation} & \multirow{2}{*}{Sim2RealSeg (S2R)} & \citeauthor{cordts2016cityscapes,yu2018bdd100k} & \multirow{2}{*}{4} & \multirow{2}{*}{49,366} & \multirow{2}{*}{16 classes} & simulation-to-real adaptation \\
& & & \citeauthor{richter2016playing,ros2016synthia} & & & & for pixel-wise predictions \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{NLP} & \multirow{2}{*}{sentiment classification} & AmazonReviews (AR) & \citeauthor{chen2012marginalized} & 4 & $\approx$12,000 & 2 classes & reviews on four kinds of products \\
& & MediaReviews (MR) & \citeauthor{liu2017adversarial} & 5 & 6897 & 2 classes & reviews on products and movies \\
\hhline{~|-|-|-|-|-|-|-}
& part-of-speech tagging & SANCL (S) & \citeauthor{petrov2012overview} & 5 & 5250 & tags & part-of-speech tagging in 5 web domains \\
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Released and freely available datasets for MDA, where `\#D' and `\#S' represent the number of domains and the total number of samples usually used for MDA, respectively.}
\label{tab:Dataset}
\end{table*}
Suppose $\textbf{x}_i^j\in \mathds{R}^{d_i}$ and $\textbf{x}_T^j\in \mathds{R}^{d_T}$ are an observation in source $S_i$ and target $T$, we can classify MDA into:
\begin{itemize
\item \emph{homogeneous MDA}, when $d_1=\cdots=d_M=d_T$;
\item \emph{heterogeneous MDA}, otherwise.
\end{itemize}
Suppose $\mathcal{C}_i$ and $\mathcal{C}_T$ are the label set for source $S_i$ and target $T$, we can define different MDA strategies:
\begin{itemize
\item \emph{closed set MDA}, when $\mathcal{C}_1=\cdots=\mathcal{C}_M=\mathcal{C}_T$;
\item \emph{open set MDA}, for at least one $\mathcal{C}_i$, $\mathcal{C}_i \cap \mathcal{C}_T \subset \mathcal{C}_T$;
\item \emph{partial MDA}, for at least one $\mathcal{C}_i$, $\mathcal{C}_T \subset \mathcal{C}_i$;
\item \emph{universal MDA}, when no prior knowledge of the label sets is available;
\end{itemize}
where $\cap$ and $\subset$ indicate the intersection set and proper subset between two sets.
Suppose the number of labeled source samples is $N_{iL}$ for source $S_i$, the MDA problem can be classified into:
\begin{itemize
\item \emph{strongly supervised MDA}, when $N_{iL}=N_i$ for $i=1\cdots M$;
\item \emph{weakly supervised MDA}, otherwise.
\end{itemize}
When adapting to multiple target domains simultaneously, the task becomes multi-target MDA. When the target data is unavailable during training~\cite{yue2019domain}, the task is often called multi-source domain generalization or zero-shot MDA.
\section{Datasets}
\label{sec:Datasets}
The datasets for evaluating MDA models usually contain multiple domains with different styles, such as \textit{synthetic} vs. \textit{real}, \textit{artistic} vs. \textit{sketchy}, which impose large domain shift among different domains. Here we summarize the commonly employed datasets in both computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP) areas, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:Dataset}.
\textbf{Digit recognition.} Digits-five includes 5 digit image datasets sampled from different domains, including \emph{handwritten} MNIST (\textbf{mt})~\cite{lecun1998gradient}, \emph{combined} MNIST-M (\textbf{mm})~\cite{ganin2015unsupervised} from MNIST and randomly extracted color patches, \emph{street image} SVHN (\textbf{sv})~\cite{netzer2011reading}, Synthetic Digits (\textbf{sy})~\cite{ganin2015unsupervised} generated from Windows fonts by various conditions, and \emph{handwritten} USPS (\textbf{up})~\cite{hull1994database}. Usually, 25,000 images are sampled for training and 9,000 for testing in \textbf{mt}, \textbf{mm}, \textbf{sv}, and \textbf{sy}. The entire 9,298 images in \textbf{up} are selected.
\textbf{Object classification.} Office-31~\cite{saenko2010adapting} contains 4,110 images in 31 categories collected from office environments in 3 domains: Amazon (\textbf{A}) with 2,817 images downloaded from amazon.com, Webcam (\textbf{W}) and DSLR (\textbf{D}) with 795 and 498 images taken by web camera and digital SLR camera with different photographical settings.
Office-Caltech~\cite{gong2013connecting} consists of the 10 overlapping categories shared by Office-31~\cite{saenko2010adapting} and Caltech-256 (\textbf{C})~\cite{griffin2007caltech}. Totally there are 2,533 images.
Office-Home~\cite{venkateswara2017deep} consists of about 15,500 images from 65 categories of everyday objects in office and home settings. There are 4 different domains: Artistic images (\textbf{Ar}), Clip Art (\textbf{Cl}), Product images (\textbf{Pr}) and Real-World images (\textbf{Rw}).
ImageCLEF, originated from ImageCLEF 2014 domain adaptation challenge\footnote{\url{http://imageclef.org/2014/adaptation}\label{ImageCLEF}}, consists of 12 object categories shared by ImageNet ILSVRC 2012 (\textbf{I}), Pascal VOC 2012 (\textbf{P}), and \textbf{C}. Totally there are 600 images for each domain with 50 for each category.
PACS~\cite{li2017deeper} contains 9,991 images of 7 object categories extracted from 4 different domains: Photo (\textbf{P}), Art paintings (\textbf{A}), Cartoon
(\textbf{C}) and Sketch (\textbf{S}).
DomainNet~\cite{peng2019moment}, the largest DA dataset to date for object classification, contains about 600K images from 6 domains: Clipart, Infograph, Painting, Quickdraw, Real, and Sketch. There are totally 345 object categories.
\textbf{Sentiment classification of images.} SentiImage~\cite{lin2020multi} is a DA dataset with 4 domains for binary sentiment classification of images: \textit{social} Flickr and Instagram (\textbf{FI})~\cite{you2016building}, \textit{artistic} ArtPhoto (\textbf{AP})~\cite{machajdik2010affective}, \textit{social} Twitter I (\textbf{TI})~\cite{you2015robust}, and \textit{social} Twitter II (\textbf{TII})~\cite{borth2013large}. There are 23,308, 806, 1,269, and 603 images in these 4 domains, respectively.
\textbf{Vehicle counting.} WebCamT~\cite{zhang2017understanding} is a vehicle counting dataset from large-scale city camera videos with low resolution, low frame rate, and high occlusion. Totally there are 60,000 frames with vehicle bounding box and count annotations. For MDA, 8 cameras located in different intersections are selected, each with more than 2,000 labeled images. We can view each camera as a domain.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\centering \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{OverallFramework.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of widely employed framework for MDA. The solid arrows and dashed dot arrows indicate the training of latent space transformation and intermediate domain generation, respectively. The dashed arrows represent the reference process. Most existing MDA methods can be obtained by employing different component details, enforcing some constraints, or slightly changing the architecture. Best viewed in color.}
\label{fig:Framework}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Scene segmentation.} Sim2RealSeg contains 2 synthetic datasets (GTA, SYNTHIA) and 2 real datasets (Cityscapes, BDDS) for segmentation. Cityscapes (CS)~\cite{cordts2016cityscapes} contains vehicle-centric urban street images collected from a moving vehicle in 50 cities from Germany and neighboring countries. There are 5,000 images with pixel-wise annotations into 19 classes. BDDS~\cite{yu2018bdd100k} contains 10,000 real-world dash cam video frames with a compatible label space with Cityscapes. GTA~\cite{richter2016playing} is a vehicle-egocentric image dataset collected in the high-fidelity rendered computer game GTA-V. It contains 24,966 images (video frames) with 19 classes as Cityscapes. SYNTHIA~\cite{ros2016synthia} is a large synthetic dataset. To pair with Cityscapes, a subset, named SYNTHIA-RANDCITYSCAPES, is designed with 9,400 images which are automatically annotated with 16 compatible Cityscapes classes, one void class, and some unnamed classes. The common 16 classes are used for MDA.
\textbf{Sentiment classification of natural languages.} Amazon Reviews~\cite{chen2012marginalized} is a dataset of reviews on four kinds of products: Books (\textbf{B}), DVDs (\textbf{D}), Electronics (\textbf{E}), and Kitchen appliances (\textbf{K}). Reviews are encoded as 5,000 dimensional feature vectors of unigrams and bigrams and are labeled with binary sentiment. Each source has 2,000
labeled examples, and the target test set has 3,000 to 6,000 examples.
Media Reviews~\cite{liu2017adversarial} contains 16 domains of product reviews and movie reviews for binary sentiment classification. 5 domains with 6,897 labeled samples are usually employed for MDA, including Apparel, Baby, Books, Camera taken from Amazon and MR from Rotten Tomato.
\textbf{Part-of-speech tagging.} The SANCL dataset~\cite{petrov2012overview} contains part-of-speech tagging annotations in 5 web domains: Emails (\textbf{E}), Weblogs (\textbf{W}), Answers (\textbf{A}), Newsgroups (\textbf{N}), and Reviews (\textbf{R}). 750 sentences from each source are used for training.
Unless otherwise specified, each domain is selected as the target and the rest domains are considered as the sources. For WebCamT, 2 domains are randomly selected as the target. For Sim2RealSeg, MDA is often performed using the simulation-to-real setting~\cite{zhao2019multi}, \textit{i.e.} from synthetic GTA, SYNTHIA to real Cityscapes, BDDS. For SANCL, \textbf{N}, \textbf{R}, and \textbf{A} are used as target domains, while \textbf{E} and \textbf{W} are used as target domains~\cite{guo2018multi}.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}
{ccccccccccc}
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Reference}} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Classifier} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\#C}} & \textbf{Classifier} & \textbf{Task} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Result}} \\
& \textbf{extractor} & \textbf{alignment method} & \textbf{alignment loss} & \textbf{alignment domains} & \textbf{alignment} & & \textbf{weight} & \textbf{backbone} & & \\
\hline
\cite{mancini2018boosting} & shared & --- & --- & --- & CT loss & 1 & --- & AlexNet & O, OC, P & 83.6, 91.8, 85.3 \\
\cite{guo2018multi} & shared & discrepancy & MMD & target and each source & --- & $M$ & PoS metric & AlexNet & AR, S & 84.8, 90.1 \\
\cite{hoffman2018algorithms} & shared & discrepancy & R\'enyi-divergence & target and each source & CT loss & 1 & --- & AlexNet & O & 87.6 \\
\cite{zhu2019aligning} & shared & discrepancy & MMD & target and each source & $\mathcal{L}1$ loss & $M$ & uniform & ResNet-50 & O, OH, IC & 90.2, 89.4, 74.1 \\
\cite{rakshit2019unsupervised} & unshared & discrepancy & $\mathcal{L}2$ distance & pairwise all domains & CT loss & 1 & --- & ResNet-50 & O, OC, IC & 88.3, 97.5, 91.2 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{peng2019moment}} & \multirow{3}{*}{shared} & \multirow{3}{*}{discrepancy} & \multirow{3}{*}{moment distance} & \multirow{3}{*}{pairwise all domains} & \multirow{3}{*}{$\mathcal{L}1$ loss} & \multirow{3}{*}{$M$} & \multirow{3}{*}{relative error} & LeNet-5 & D & 87.7 \\
& & & & & & & & ResNet-101 & OC & 96.4 \\
& & & & & & & & ResNet-101 & DN & 42.6\\
\hline
\cite{guo2020multi} & shared & discrepancy & mixture distance & target and each source & CT loss & 1 & --- & BiLSTM & MR & 79.3 \\
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\cite{xu2018deep} & shared & discriminator & GAN loss & target and each source & --- & $M$ & perplexity score & AlexNet & D, O, IC & 74.2, 83.8, 80.8 \\
\cite{li2018extracting} & shared & discriminator & Wasserstein & pairwise all domains & CT loss & 1 & --- & AlexNet & D & 79.9 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\cite{zhao2018adversarial}} & \multirow{3}{*}{shared} & \multirow{3}{*}{discriminator} & \multirow{3}{*}{$\mathcal{H}$-divergence} & \multirow{3}{*}{target and each source} & \multirow{3}{*}{CT loss} & \multirow{3}{*}{1} & \multirow{3}{*}{---} & BiLSTM & AR & 82.7 \\
& & & & & & & & AlexNet & D & 76.6\\
& & & & & & & & FCN8s & W & 1.4\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\cite{wang2019tmda}} & \multirow{2}{*}{shared} & \multirow{2}{*}{discriminator} & \multirow{2}{*}{Wasserstein} & \multirow{2}{*}{pairwise all domains} & \multirow{2}{*}{CT loss} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{---} & BiLSTM & AR & 84.5 \\
& & & & & & & & AlexNet & D & 83.4 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\cite{zhao2020multi}} & \multirow{2}{*}{unshared} & \multirow{2}{*}{discriminator} & \multirow{2}{*}{Wasserstein} & \multirow{2}{*}{target and each source} & \multirow{2}{*}{---} & \multirow{2}{*}{$M$} & \multirow{2}{*}{Wasserstein} & LeNet-5 & D& 88.1 \\
& & & & & & & & AlexNet & O & 84.2\\
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Comparison of different latent space transformation methods for MDA, where `\#C', `CT loss', and `MMD' are short for the number of classifiers during reference ($M$ is the number of source domains), combined task loss, and maximum mean discrepancy, respectively. `Result' is the average performance of all target domains measured by accuracy for classification and counting error for vehicle counting.
}
\label{tab:LatentSpace}
\end{table*}
\section{Deep Multi-source Domain Adaptation}
\label{sec:MDA}
Existing methods on deep MDA primarily focus on the unsupervised, homogeneous, closed set, strongly supervised, one target, and target data available settings. That is, there is one target domain, the target data is unlabeled but available during the training process, the source data is fully labeled, the source and target data are observed in the same data space, and the label sets of all sources and the target are the same. In this paper, we focus on MDA methods under these settings.
There are some theoretical analysis to support existing MDA algorithms. Most theories are based on the seminal theoretical model~\cite{blitzer2008learning,ben2010theory}. \citeauthor{mansour2009mda}~\shortcite{mansour2009mda} assumed that the target distribution can be approximated by a mixture of the $M$ source distributions. Therefore, weighted combination of source classifiers has been widely employed for MDA. Moreover, tighter cross domain generalization bound and more accurate measurements on domain discrepancy can provide intuitions to derive effective MDA algorithms. \citeauthor{hoffman2018algorithms}~\shortcite{hoffman2018algorithms} derived a novel bound using DC-programming and calculated more accurate combination weights.
\citeauthor{zhao2018adversarial}~\shortcite{zhao2018adversarial} extended the generalization bound of seminal theoretical model to multiple sources under both classification and regression settings. Besides the domain discrepancy between the target and each source~\cite{hoffman2018algorithms,zhao2018adversarial}, \citeauthor{li2018extracting}~\shortcite{li2018extracting} also considered the relationship between pairwise sources and derived a tighter bound on weighted multi-source discrepancy. Based on this bound, more relevant source domains can be picked out.
Typically, some task models (\textit{e.g.} classifiers) are learned based on the labeled source data with corresponding task loss, such as cross-entropy loss for classification. Meanwhile, specific alignments among the source and target domains are conducted to bridge the domain shift so that the learned task models can be better transferred to the target domain. Based on the different alignment strategies, we can classify MDA into different categories. \emph{Latent space transformation} tries to align the latent space (\textit{e.g.} features) of different domains based on optimizing the discrepancy loss or adversarial loss. \emph{Intermediate domain generation} explicitly generates an intermediate adapted domain for each source that is indistinguishable from the target domain. The task models are then trained on the adapted domain. Figure~\ref{fig:Framework} summarizes the common overall framework of existing MDA methods.
\subsection{Latent Space Transformation}
\label{ssec:SpaceTransformation}
The two common methods for aligning the latent spaces of different domains are discrepancy-based methods and adversarial methods. We discuss these two methods below, and Table~\ref{tab:LatentSpace} summarizes key examples of each method.
\textbf{Discrepancy-based methods} explicitly measure the discrepancy of the latent spaces (typically features) from different domains by optimizing some specific discrepancy losses, such as maximum mean discrepancy (MMD)~\cite{guo2018multi,zhu2019aligning}, R\'enyi-divergence~\cite{hoffman2018algorithms}, $\mathcal{L}2$ distance~\cite{rakshit2019unsupervised}, and moment distance~\cite{peng2019moment}. \citeauthor{guo2020multi}~\shortcite{guo2020multi} claimed that different discrepancies or distances can only provide specific estimates
of domain similarities and that each distance has its pathological cases. Therefore, they consider the mixture of several distances~\cite{guo2020multi}, including $\mathcal{L}2$ distance, Cosine distance, MMD, Fisher linear discriminant, and Correlation alignment. Minimizing the discrepancy to align the features among the source and target domains does not introduce any new parameters that must be learned.
\textbf{Adversarial methods} try to align the features by making them indistinguishable to a discriminator. Some representative optimized objectives include GAN loss~\cite{xu2018deep}, $\mathcal{H}$-divergence~\cite{zhao2018adversarial}, Wasserstein distance~\cite{li2018extracting,wang2019tmda,zhao2020multi}. These methods aim to confuse the discriminator's ability to distinguishing whether the features from multiple sources were drawn from the same distribution. Compared with GAN loss and $\mathcal{H}$-divergence, Wasserstein distance can provide
more stable gradients even when the target and source distributions do not overlap~\cite{zhao2020multi}. The discriminator is often implemented as a network, which leads to new parameters that must be learned.
There are many modular implementation details for both types of methods, such as how to align the target and multiple sources, whether the feature extractors are shared, how to select the more relevant sources, and how to combine the multiple predictions from different classifiers.
\textbf{Alignment domains.} There are different ways to align the target and multiple sources. The most common method is to pairwise align the target with each source~\cite{xu2018deep,guo2018multi,zhao2018adversarial,hoffman2018algorithms,zhu2019aligning,zhao2020multi,guo2020multi}. Since domain shift also exists among different sources, several methods enforce pairwise alignment between every domain in both the source and target domains~\cite{li2018extracting,rakshit2019unsupervised,peng2019moment,wang2019tmda}.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering\scriptsize
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}
{ccccccccccc}
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Reference}} & \textbf{Domain} & \textbf{Pixel} & \textbf{Feature} & \textbf{Feature} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{\#C}} & \textbf{Classifier} & \textbf{Task} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Task}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Result}} \\
& \textbf{generator} & \textbf{alignment domains} & \textbf{alignment loss} & \textbf{alignment domains} & & \textbf{weight} & \textbf{backbone} & & & \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\cite{russo2019towards}} & CoGAN & \multirow{2}{*}{target and each source} & \multirow{2}{*}{GAN loss} & \multirow{2}{*}{target and each source} & \multirow{2}{*}{$M$} & \multirow{2}{*}{uniform} & \multirow{2}{*}{DeepLabV2} & \multirow{2}{*}{S2R-CS} & \multirow{2}{*}{seg} & \multirow{2}{*}{42.8} \\
& shared & & & & & & & & & \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\cite{zhao2019multi}} & CycleGAN & \multirow{2}{*}{target and aggregated source} & \multirow{2}{*}{GAN loss} & \multirow{2}{*}{target and each source} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{---} & \multirow{2}{*}{FCN8s} & S2R-CS & \multirow{2}{*}{seg} & 41.4 \\
& shared & & & & & & & S2R-BDDS & & 36.3\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\cite{lin2020multi}} & VAE+CycleGAN & \multirow{2}{*}{target and combined source} & \multirow{2}{*}{---} & \multirow{2}{*}{---} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{---} & \multirow{2}{*}{ResNet-18} & \multirow{2}{*}{SI} & \multirow{2}{*}{cls} & \multirow{2}{*}{68.1} \\
& unshared & & & & & & & & & \\
\specialrule{1pt}{1pt}{1pt}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Comparison of different intermediate domain generation methods for MDA, where `\#C', `seg', and `cls' are short for the number of classifiers during reference ($M$ is the number of source domains), segmentation, and classification, respectively. `Result' is the average performance of all target domains measured by accuracy for classification and mean intersection-over-union (mIoU) for segmentation.}
\label{tab:IntermediateDomain}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Weight sharing of feature extractor.} Most methods employ shared feature extractors to learn domain-invariant features. However, domain invariance may be detrimental to discriminative power. On the contrary, \citeauthor{rakshit2019unsupervised}~\shortcite{rakshit2019unsupervised} adopted one feature extractor for each source and target pair with unshared weights, while \citeauthor{zhao2020multi}~\shortcite{zhao2020multi} first pre-trained one feature extractor for each source and then mapped the target into the feature space of each source. Correspondingly, there are $M$ and $2M$ feature extractors. Although unshared feature extractors can better align the target and sources in the latent space, this substantially increases the number of parameters in the model.
\textbf{Classifier alignment.} Intuitively, the classifiers trained on different sources may result in misaligned predictions for the target samples that are close to the domain boundary. By minimizing specific classifier discrepancy, such as $\mathcal{L}$1 loss~\cite{zhu2019aligning,peng2019moment}, the classifiers are better aligned, which can learn a generalized classification boundary for target samples mentioned above. Instead of explicitly training one classifier for each source, many methods focus on training a compound classifier based on specific combined task loss, such as normalized activations~\cite{mancini2018boosting} and bandit controller~\cite{guo2020multi}.
\textbf{Target prediction.} After aligning the features of target and source domains in the latent space, the classifiers trained based on the labeled source samples can be used to predict the labels of a target sample. Since there are multiple sources, it is possible that they will yield different target predictions. One way to reconcile these different predictions is to uniformly average the predictions from different source classifiers~\cite{zhu2019aligning}. However, different sources may have different relationships with the target, \textit{e.g.} one source might better align with the target, so a non-uniform, weighted averaging of the predictions leads to better results. Weighting strategies, known as a \emph{source selection process}, include uniform weight~\cite{zhu2019aligning}, perplexity score based on adversarial loss~\cite{xu2018deep}, point-to-set (PoS) metric using Mahalanobis distance~\cite{guo2018multi}, relative error based on source-only accuracy~\cite{peng2019moment}, and Wasserstein distance based weights~\cite{zhao2020multi}.
Besides the source importance, \citeauthor{zhao2020multi}~\shortcite{zhao2020multi} also considered the sample importance, \textit{i.e.} different samples from the same source may still have different similarities from the target samples. The source samples that are closer to the target are distilled (based on a manually selected Wasserstein distance threshold) to fine-tune the source classifiers. Automatically and adaptively selecting the most relevant training samples for each source remains an open research problem.
\subsection{Intermediate Domain Generation}
\label{ssec:DomainGeneration}
Feature-level alignment only aligns high-level information, which is insufficient for fine-grained predictions, such as pixel-wise
semantic segmentation~\cite{zhao2019multi}. Generating an intermediate adapted domain with pixel-level alignment, typically via GANs~\cite{goodfellow2014generative}, can help address this problem.
\textbf{Domain generator.} Since the original GAN is highly under-constrained, some improved versions are employed, such as Coupled GAN (CoGAN) in~\cite{russo2019towards} and CycleGAN in MADAN~\cite{zhao2019multi}. Instead of directly taking the original source data as input to the generator~\cite{russo2019towards,zhao2019multi}, \citeauthor{lin2020multi}~\shortcite{lin2020multi} used a variational autoencoder to map all source and target domains to a latent space and then generated an adapted domain from the latent space. \citeauthor{russo2019towards}~\shortcite{russo2019towards} then tried to align the target and each adapted domain, while \citeauthor{lin2020multi}~\shortcite{lin2020multi} aligned the target and combined adapted domain from the latent space. \citeauthor{zhao2019multi}~\shortcite{zhao2019multi} proposed to aggregate different adapted domains using a sub-domain aggregation discriminator and cross-domain cycle discriminator, where the pixel-level alignment is then conducted between the aggregated and target domains. \citeauthor{zhao2019multi}~\shortcite{zhao2019multi} and \citeauthor{lin2020multi}~\shortcite{lin2020multi} showed that the semantics might change in the intermediate representation, and that enforcing a semantic consistency before and after generation can help preserve the labels.
\textbf{Feature alignment and target prediction.} Feature-level alignment is often jointly considered with pixel-level alignment. Both alignments are usually achieved by minimizing the GAN loss with a discriminator. One classifier is trained on each adapted domain~\cite{russo2019towards} and the multiple predictions for a given target sample are averaged. Only one classifier is trained on the aggregated domain~\cite{zhao2020multi} or on the combined adapted domain~\cite{lin2020multi} which is obtained by a unique generator from the latent space for all source domains. The comparison of these methods are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:IntermediateDomain}.
\section{Conclusion and Future Directions}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
In this paper, we provided a survey of recent MDA developments in the deep learning era. We motivated MDA, defined different MDA strategies, and summarized the datasets that are commonly used for performing MDA evaluation. Our survey focused on a typical MDA setting, \textit{i.e.} unsupervised, homogeneous, closed set, and one target MDA. We classified these methods into different categories, and compared the representative ones technically and experimentally.
We conclude with several open research directions:
\textbf{Specific MDA strategy implementation.} As introduced in Section~\ref{sec:Definition}, there are many types of MDA strategies, and implementing an MDA strategy according to the specific problem requirement would likely yield better results than a one-size-fits-all MDA approach. Further investigation is needed to determine which MDA strategies work the best for which types of problems. Also, real-world applications may have a small amount of labeled target data; determining how to include this data and what fraction of this data is needed for a certain performance remains an open question.
\textbf{Multi-modal MDA.} The labeled source data may be of different modalities, such as LiDAR, radar, and image. Further research is needed to find techniques for fusing different data modalities in MDA. A further extension of this idea is to have varied modalities in defferent sources as well as partially labeled, multi-modal sources.
\textbf{Incremental and online MDA.} Designing incremental and online MDA algorithms remains largely unexplored and may provide great benefit for real-world scenarios, such as updating deployed MDA models when new source or target data becomes available.
\clearpage
\tiny\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1978, Wolfenstein firstly pointed out that when neutrinos travel in matter, the coherent forward scattering of them with electrons and nucleons must be considered and the induced matter potentials will change the neutrino oscillation behaviors \cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue}.
In 1985, Mikheev and Smirnov put forward that the effective mixing angle can be significantly amplified in matter (such as inside the sun) even if the corresponding mixing angle in vacuum is small. This is the wellknown Mikheev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effects, which successfully explain the flavor conversion behaviors of solar neutrinos in the sun \cite{Mikheev:1986wj}. Such matter effects have been proved very important in a number of reactor, solar, atmospheric, accelerator neutrino oscillation experiments aiming to
accurately extract the intrinsic neutrino oscillation parameters in vacuum \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}.
A lot of efforts have been made to make the neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter more
intuitive \cite{Freund:2001pn, Akhmedov:2004ny, He:2013rba,Xu:2015kma, He:2016dco,Xing:2016ymg,Denton:2016wmg, Li:2016txk,Li:2016pzm,Ioannisian:2018qwl,Li:2018jgd,Denton:2018fex, Petcov:2018zka,Wang:2019dal}. The language of renormalization-group equation was also introduced to describe
the effective neutrino masses and flavor mixing parameters in matter \cite{Zhou:2016luk, Chiu:2017ckv,Xing:2018lob,Wang:2019yfp}. In this paper, we mainly
focus on the neutrino flavor mixing in very dense matter, which has
been discussed in Refs. \cite{Blennow:2004js, Huang:2018ufu, Xing:2019owb,Luo:2019efb}.
We further include the radiative corrections in this connection.
In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the Hamiltonian responsible for the propagation of neutrinos
in matter can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{}_{\rm m} = \frac{1}{2E} U \left(\begin{matrix} m^2_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0
& m^2_2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m^2_3 \end{matrix}\right) U^\dagger +
\left(\begin{matrix} V^{}_{e} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 &
V^{}_{\mu} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & V^{}_{\tau} \end{matrix}\right)
\equiv \frac{1}{2E}\widetilde U \left(\begin{matrix} \widetilde{m}^2_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0
& \widetilde{m}^2_2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \widetilde{m}^2_3 \end{matrix}\right)
\widetilde U^\dagger \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $E$ is the neutrino beam energy, $m_i^{}$ (for $i=1,2,3$) and $U$ stand respectively for neutrino masses and Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) lepton flavor mixing matrix, $\widetilde m_i^{}$ (for $i=1,2,3$) and $\widetilde U$ denote effective neutrino masses and PMNS matrix in matter, respectively, and $V_{\alpha}^{}~(\alpha=e,\mu,\tau)$ represent the matter potentials arsing from
charged- and neutral-current coherent forward scattering of $\nu_{\alpha}^{}$ with electrons, protons and neutrons in matter.
Considering the one-loop radiative corrections to $V_{\alpha}$, we have \cite{Botella:1986wy}
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{e}^{} - V_{\mu}^{}&=& \sqrt{2} G_{\rm F}^{} N_e^{} \;,\nonumber\\
V_{\tau}^{} - V_{\mu}^{}&=& -\frac{ G_{\rm F}^{}}{\sqrt{2}} \cdot \frac{3\alpha}{2 \pi \sin^2 \theta_{W}^{}} \cdot \frac{m_{\tau}^2}{m_W^{2}} \left[\left(N_p^{} + N_n^{}\right) {\rm ln} \left(\frac{m_{\tau}^2}{m_W^2}\right)+ \left(N_p+\frac{2}{3} N_n^{}\right)\right] \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $G_{\rm F}^{}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant; $N_e^{}$, $N_p^{}$ and $N_n^{}$ denote the number density of electrons, protons and neutrons in matter, respectively; $m_\tau^{}$ and $m_W^{}$ are the masses of $\tau$ lepton and $W$ boson, respectively; and $\sin^2
\theta_{W}^{} \equiv 1- m_W^2/m_Z^2$ with $m_Z^{}$ being the $Z$ boson mass.
To be more intuitive, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{}_{\rm m} = \frac{1}{2E} \left[U \left(\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0
& \Delta^{}_{21} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \Delta^{}_{31} \end{matrix}\right) U^\dagger +
\left(\begin{matrix} A & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & A\epsilon \end{matrix}\right)\right]
\equiv \frac{1}{2E} \left[\widetilde{U} \left(\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0
& \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}
\end{matrix}\right) \widetilde{U}^\dagger + BI\right] \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta_{ij} \equiv m_i^2 - m_j^2$, $\widetilde\Delta_{ij} \equiv \widetilde m_i^2 - \widetilde m_j^2$, $A= 2 \sqrt{2} G_{\rm F}^{}N_e^{}E $, $B = \widetilde{m}^2_1 - m^2_1 - 2E V^{}_{\mu}$,
and $I$ denotes a $3\times 3$ identity matrix.
According to Eq. (2) and assuming $N_e^{}=N_{p}^{}=N_{n}$, $\epsilon\simeq 5 \times 10^{-5}$ is a small quantity but matters a lot in dense matter (i.e., A is very big).
On the other hand, given the implications of extra light sterile neutrinos in short-baseline neutrino oscillation
experiments \cite{Boser:2019rta}, we extend our discussion to the scheme of $(3+1)$ flavor mixing with one more
sterile neutrino $\nu_s^{}$. The corresponding Hamiltonian describing the propagation of neutrinos in a medium turns out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}^{s}_{\rm m} &=& \frac{1}{2E} \left[V \left(\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0&0 \\ 0
& \Delta^{}_{21}&0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \Delta^{}_{31} &0 \\0&0&0&\Delta_{41}\end{matrix}\right) V^\dagger +
\left(\begin{matrix} A & 0 & 0 &0\\ 0 & 0 & 0&0 \\ 0 & 0 & A\epsilon&0\\0&0&0&A^{\prime} \end{matrix}\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2E} \left[\widetilde{V} \left(\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0&0 \\ 0
& \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} & 0 &0\\ 0 & 0 & \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31}&0\\0&0&0&
\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{}
\end{matrix}\right) \widetilde{V}^\dagger + B I\right] \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $V$ and $\widetilde V$ denote the $4\times 4$ lepton flavor mixing matrix in
vacuum and matter, respectively, $A^{\prime}=-2 E V_{\mu}^{}=\sqrt{2} G_{\rm F}^{} N_n^{} E$, $\Delta_{41}^{} =m_4^2 -m_1^2$, and $\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{} =\widetilde m_4^2 - \widetilde m_1^2$ with $m_4^{}$ and $\widetilde m_4^{}$ being the sterile neutrino mass in vacuum and
matter, respectively. The existence of an extra sterile neutrino can make the neutrino flavor mixing in
dense matter very different from the standard three-flavor mixing scheme.
The remaining parts of this paper are organized as follows. In section 2, we include the
radiative corrections and derive the
corresponding expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$,
$|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ and $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}\widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ in matter in the standard three-flavor mixing scheme. The asymptotic behaviors of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ and neutrino oscillations in dense matter are analytically and numerically investigated in detail.
In section 3, we extend our discussion to the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme.
Section 4 is devoted to a brief summary.
\section{The standard three-flavor mixing scheme}
In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the exact formulas of $ \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{ij}$ without radiative corrections have been given in Refs. \cite{Barger:1980tf, Zaglauer:1988gz,Xing:2000gg}.
Considering radiative correction effects, we derive the eigenvalues of ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^{}$ in Eq. (3) and express the two independent effective mass-squared differences $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31$) as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} =
\frac{2}{3} \sqrt{x^2 -3 y} \sqrt{3 \left(1 - z^2\right)} \;\; ,
\nonumber \\
&& \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} =
\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 -3 y} \left[3z + \sqrt{3 \left(1 - z^2\right)}
\right] \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
for the case of normal mass ordering (NMO) with $m^{}_1 < m^{}_2 < m^{}_3$; or
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} =
\frac{1}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \left[3z - \sqrt{3 \left(1 - z^2\right)}\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
&& \widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} = -\frac{2}{3} \sqrt{x^2 - 3 y} \sqrt{3 \left(1 -
z^2\right)} \;\; ,
\end{eqnarray}
for the case of inverted mass ordering (IMO) case with
$m^{}_3 < m^{}_1 < m^{}_2$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
x & = & \Delta^{}_{21} + \Delta^{}_{31} + A (1+\epsilon)\; ,
\nonumber \\
y & = & \Delta^{}_{21} \Delta^{}_{31} + A \left\{\Delta^{}_{21} \left[1 -
|U^{}_{e2}|^2 +\epsilon\left(1-|U^{}_{\tau 2}|^2\right)\right] \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. +\Delta^{}_{31}\left[ \left(1- |U^{}_{e3}|^2\right)+\epsilon\left(1-|U^{}_{\tau 3}|^2\right)\right]\right\}+A^2\epsilon\; ,
\nonumber \\
z & = & \cos\left[\frac{1}{3}\arccos\frac{2 x^3 - 9 xy + 27 d}{2 \sqrt{\left(x^2 - 3y\right)^3}}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
with $d=A\Delta_{21}^{}\Delta_{31}^{}(|U_{e1}^{}|^2+ \epsilon |U_{\tau 1}^{}|^2)+A^2\epsilon(|U_{\mu2}^{}|^2\Delta_{21}^{} +|U_{\mu3}^{}|^2\Delta_{31}^{})$.
Taking the trace of ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^{}$ yields
\begin{eqnarray}
B = \frac{1}{3} \left[\Delta_{21}^{} + \Delta_{31}^{} + A\left(1 + \epsilon\right) -
\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} - \widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}\right] \; .
\end{eqnarray}
The unitarity conditions of $\widetilde U$ and the sum rules derived from ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^{}$ and ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^{2}$,
constitute a set of linear equations of $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}\widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ (for $\alpha,\beta=e,\mu,\tau$ and $i=1,2,3$):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum_i^{} \widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}= \delta_{\alpha\beta} \; ,
\nonumber \\
&&\sum_i^{} \widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{}\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}=
\sum_i^{} \Delta_{i1}^{}U_{\alpha i}^{} U_{\beta i}^{*} + {\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^{} - B \delta_{\alpha\beta}
\;, \nonumber \\
&&\sum_i^{} \widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{}\left(\widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{} + 2 B\right)\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}=
\sum_i^{} \Delta_{i1}^{}\left(\Delta_{i1}^{} + {\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha} + {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}\right)U_{\alpha i}^{} U_{\beta i}^{*} + {\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^2- B^2 \delta_{\alpha\beta} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ stand for the $(\alpha,~\beta)$ element of the matter potential matrix ${\cal A}\equiv{\rm Diag}\{A, 0, A\epsilon\}$. Taking $\alpha=\beta$ and solving Eq. (9),
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2 &=& \frac{1}{\prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i}\widetilde \Delta_{ik}^{}} \sum_j^{} \left(F_{\alpha}^{ij} |U_{\alpha j}^{}|^2 \right)
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\alpha}^{ij} &=& \prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i} \left( \Delta_{j1}^{} - \widetilde\Delta_{k1}^{} - B+{\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$ and $i,j,k=1,2,3$.
Similarly, in the case of $\alpha \neq\beta$, $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ can be derived
from Eq. (9):
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}&=& \frac{1}{\prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i}\widetilde \Delta_{ik}^{}} \sum_{m= 1,2}^{} \left(F_{\alpha\beta}^{im} U_{\alpha m}^{} U_{\beta m}^{*}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\alpha\beta}^{im} &=& \Delta_{3m}^{}\left(\Delta_{n1} - \widetilde \Delta_{i1} - B + {\cal A}_{\gamma\gamma}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ run over $(e, \mu,\tau)$ and $n\neq m=1,2$.
Note that $\widetilde U_{\alpha 1}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta 1}^{*}$, $\widetilde U_{\alpha 2}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta 2}^{*}$ and $\widetilde U_{\alpha 3}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta 3}^{*}$ for $\alpha\neq\beta$ constitute
the effective Dirac leptonic unitarity triangle in the complex plane.
From Eq. (12), it is straightforward to
check that the Naumov relation $\widetilde {\cal J}\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}\widetilde \Delta_{32}^{} = {\cal J}\Delta_{21}^{}\Delta_{31}^{} \Delta_{32}^{}$ \cite{Naumov:1991ju} still holds, where ${\cal J}$ and $\widetilde{\cal J}$ are the Jarlskog invariants \cite{Jarlskog:1985ht} in vacuum and in matter, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Im} (U^{}_{\alpha i} U^{}_{\beta j} U^*_{\alpha j} U^*_{\beta i})
& =& {\cal J} \sum_\gamma \varepsilon^{}_{\alpha \beta \gamma}
\sum_k \varepsilon^{}_{ijk} \; , \hspace{0.8cm}
\nonumber \\
{\rm Im} (\widetilde{U}^{}_{\alpha i} \widetilde{U}^{}_{\beta j}
\widetilde{U}^*_{\alpha j} \widetilde{U}^*_{\beta i})
& =& \widetilde{\cal J} \sum_\gamma \varepsilon^{}_{\alpha \beta \gamma}
\sum_k \varepsilon^{}_{ijk} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\varepsilon^{}_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ and $\varepsilon^{}_{ijk}$ being
three-dimension Levi-Civita symbols.
The only difference due to the radiative corrections in the exact formulas of $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$,
$|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ and $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ above is the appearance of the term ${\cal A}_{\tau\tau}=A\epsilon$. By setting $\epsilon=0$,
one can turn off the radiative corrections and get the corresponding expressions of
$\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$, $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ and $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ in the previous literature \cite{Xing:2000gg,Xing:2003ez,Zhang:2004hf,Xing:2005gk}.
With the help of Eqs. (5), (6) and (12), we can directly write out the probabilities of
the $\nu_{\alpha}^{} \to \nu_{\beta}^{}$ (for $\alpha,\beta=e,\mu,\tau$) oscillations in matter
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{} &=& \delta_{\alpha\beta} - \sum_{i<j}^{} {\rm Re} \left( \widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*} \widetilde U_{\alpha j}^{*} \widetilde U_{\beta j}^{}\right)
\sin^2 \left(\frac{\widetilde\Delta_{ji}^{} L}{4 E}\right) \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{i<j}^{} {\rm Im} \left( \widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*} \widetilde U_{\alpha j}^{*} \widetilde U_{\beta j}^{}\right)
\sin \left(\frac{\widetilde\Delta_{ji}^{} L}{2 E}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha ,\beta=e,\mu,\tau$; $i,j=1,2,3$; and $L$ is the neutrino oscillation length.
Note that the results in Eqs. (5)--(15) are only valid for a neutrino beam. When it comes to an antineutrino beam,
we need to do the replacements $U^{} \to {U}^{*}$ and $A\to -A$. According to the exact
expressions of $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$,
$|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ and $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ in Eqs. (5), (6)
(10) and (12), we study the neutrino flavor mixing in dense matter in the
standard three-flavor mixing scheme. Both neutrinos and antineutrinos with the normal or inverted mass ordering (i.e., cases (NMO, $\nu$), (IMO, $\nu$), (NMO, $\overline\nu$) and (IMO, $\overline\nu$)) will be considered separately. Numerically, we take the standard parametrization of $U$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{U} = \left(\begin{matrix}
{c}^{}_{12} {c}^{}_{13} &{s}^{}_{12}
{c}^{}_{13} & {s}^{}_{13} e^{-{\rm i} {\delta}}
\cr -{s}^{}_{12} {c}^{}_{23} - {c}^{}_{12}
{s}^{}_{13} {s}^{}_{23} e^{{\rm i} {\delta}} &
{c}^{}_{12} {c}^{}_{23} -
{s}^{}_{12} {s}^{}_{13} {s}^{}_{23}
e^{{\rm i} {\delta}} & {c}^{}_{13}
{s}^{}_{23} \cr {s}^{}_{12} {s}^{}_{23} -
{c}^{}_{12}{s}^{}_{13} {c}^{}_{23}
e^{{\rm i} {\delta}} & -{c}^{}_{12} {s}^{}_{23}
- {s}^{}_{12} {s}^{}_{13} {c}^{}_{23}
e^{{\rm i} {\delta}} & {c}^{}_{13} {c}^{}_{23} \cr
\end{matrix} \right) \; , \hspace{0.3cm}
\end{eqnarray}
and input the best-fit values of ($\theta_{12}^{},\theta_{13}^{},\theta_{23}^{},\delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{}$) in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc}:
\begin{itemize}
\item NMO: $\theta_{12}^{}=33.82^{\circ}$, $\theta_{13}^{}=8.60^{\circ}$, $\theta_{23}^{}=48.6^{\circ}$,
$\delta=221^{\circ}$, $\Delta_{21}^{} = 7.39 \times 10^{-5}~ {\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta_{31}^{} = 2.528 \times 10^{-3}~ {\rm eV}^2$;
\item IMO: $\theta_{12}^{}=33.82^{\circ}$, $\theta_{13}^{}=8.64^{\circ}$, $\theta_{23}^{}=48.8^{\circ}$,
$\delta=282^{\circ}$, $\Delta_{21}^{} = 7.39 \times 10^{-5}~ {\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta_{31}^{} = -2.436 \times 10^{-3}~ {\rm eV}^2$.
\end{itemize}
Analytically, we treat $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$
as small quantities and make perturbative expansions of $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$.
Thus the analytical approximations in this section only apply to the range $A\gg\Delta_{31}^{}$.
\subsection{ (NMO, $\nu$)}
Let us first consider the case of a neutrino beam with normal mass ordering.
The corresponding evolution of $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ with the matter effect parameter $A$ are illustrated in the upper left panel of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[]{figureMass.eps}}
\caption{In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the illustration of how the effective neutrino mass-squared differences $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ and $|\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}|$ evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
cases with or without radiative corrections, where the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} have been input.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVNOneu.eps}}
\caption{In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e, \mu, \tau~{\rm and}~ i=1,2,3$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm NMO},\nu)$ with or without radiative corrections, where the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} have been input.}
\end{figure}
\noindent We find that the radiative corrections may significantly affect the values of $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ only if $A$ is big enough (for example, $A>1~{\rm eV}^2$). This can be revealed more clearly by expanding the exact expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ in terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$. Only keeping the
first order of these quantities, we simplify $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ in Eq. (5) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} &\simeq& \xi\; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} &\simeq& A-\frac{1}{2}\left[
A \epsilon+ (1 - 3 |U_{e2}^{}|^2) \Delta_{21}^{}+ (1 - 3 |U_{e3}^{}|^2) \Delta_{31}^{} -\xi
\right]\; ,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi&=&\big\{
\left[\left( 1 - |U_{e2}^{}|^2 \right)\Delta_{21}^{}
+\left( 1 - |U_{e3}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{31}^{}+ A\epsilon\right]^2
-4 A \epsilon\left( |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \Delta_{21} + |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \Delta_{31} \right) \nonumber\\
&&- 4 |U_{e1}^{}|^2 \Delta_{21}^{} \Delta_{31}^{}
\big\}^{1/2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
According to Eq. (17), it becomes clear that if $A$ is big enough, $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}$ will increase with
$A$ instead of taking a fixed value in the case without radiative corrections. The reason why the radiation corrections to $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}$ are not significant is just that
the much smaller $A\epsilon$ term appears in the next-to-leading order with the leading order being $A$.
By performing perturbative expansions of Eq. (10) in terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$ and only keeping the leading order, $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ are approximately expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{U}_{e1}^{}|^2 & \simeq & |\widetilde{U}_{e2}^{}|^2 \simeq
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq 0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{U}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 & \simeq & |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} +\frac{ A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{A \epsilon + \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
This means that the neutrino flavor mixing in dense matter can be approximately described by only one degree of freedom, as having been pointed out in Ref. \cite{Xing:2019owb}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{U}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{31}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \cr \cos\theta & ~\sin\theta~ & 0 \cr
-\sin\theta & \cos\theta & 0 \end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta \in [0, \pi/2]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan^2\theta=\frac{|\widetilde U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 }{|\widetilde U_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 } \simeq
\frac{ \xi-A \epsilon- \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{\xi +A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly,
the neutrino oscillation probability ${\widetilde P}_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ in Eq. (15) can be approximately written as
\begin{align}
{\widetilde P}_{ee}^{}&\simeq 1, &{\widetilde P}_{e\mu}^{}&\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{e\tau}^{}&\simeq 0, \nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\mu e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\mu}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\tau}^{}&\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E}, \nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\tau e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\mu}^{} &\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\tau}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E},
\end{align}
where $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ is taken from Eq. (17) and $\sin^2 2\theta=4 |{\widetilde U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 (1 - |{\widetilde U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2)$ with $|{\widetilde U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2$ being taken from Eq. (19).
Note that Eq. (22) is similar to Eq. (8) in Ref. \cite{Luo:2019efb} except that we include radiative corrections in $\theta$ and $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}$. In order to numerically test the accuracies,
we define the absolute error of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ as
$\Delta\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}=| (\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{})_{\rm Exact}^{} - (\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{})_{\rm Approximate}^{}|$, where $(\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta})_{\rm Exact} ^{}$ stand for the exact results of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ and $(\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{})_{\rm Approximate}^{}$
represent the approximate results of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$. The absolute errors of $ \widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ in Eq. (22) with different $L/E$ and $A/\Delta_{31}$ are demonstrated in Fig. 3. Similar to the case without radiative corrections discussed in Ref. \cite{Luo:2019efb}, the analytical expressions of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{} $
in Eq. (22) are accurate enough in most of the parameter space. For the upper left part in each
subgraph of Fig. 3, we need to keep higher orders of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$, or just make perturbative expansions in terms of
$\Delta_{21}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$ to improve the accuracies of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{} $.
To be more explicit, if the $A\epsilon$ term is not bigger than the $\Delta_{21}^{}$ term in Eq. (19),
we can further simplify $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i=\mu 1, \mu2, \tau1,\tau2$) as $|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$ and
$|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$. This is equivalent to the asymptotic values of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i=\mu1,\mu2,\tau1,\tau2$) in the $A\to \infty$ limit when radiative corrections are not taken into account (the blue dashed line in Fig. 2).
As the increase of $A$, the $A\epsilon$ term in Eq. (19) becomes non-negligible. If
the $A\epsilon$ term and $\Delta_{31}^{}$ term are of the same order, the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{{\rm d }\left(|{\widetilde U}_{\mu 1}|^2\right)}{{\rm d} A}\simeq
-\frac{{\rm d }\left(|{\widetilde U}_{\mu 2}|^2\right)}{{\rm d} A}\simeq\frac{2\left(1 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2\right)|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \epsilon}{\Delta_{31}^{}} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
can be derived.
This means $\theta=\arctan(|\widetilde U_{\mu 2}^{}|/|\widetilde U_{\mu 1}^{}|)$ will decrease with the increase of $A$ due to the existence of the radiative correction parameter $\epsilon$.
In the $A\to \infty$ limit, it is easy to infer from Eqs. (19) and (21) that $|{\widetilde U}_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ trivially take $0$ or $1$ and $\theta$ is approaching zero, implying that all the three flavors do not oscillate into one another. Thus it makes no sense to discuss lepton flavor mixing in this extreme case.
Considering the four cases (NMO, $\nu$), (IMO, $\nu$), (IMO, $\overline\nu$) and (IMO, $\overline\nu$) separately, we summarize
the corresponding analytical expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31$) and $\widetilde U$ in
the $A\to \infty$ limit in Table 1 while the other three cases will be discussed later.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the analytical expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31$)
and $\widetilde U$ in the $A\to \infty$ limit, where we only show the terms of order ${\cal O} (A)$ for $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$.}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline
&(NMO, $\nu$)&(IMO, $\nu$)&(NMO, $\overline\nu$)&(IMO, $\overline\nu$)\\\hline
$\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$& $A\epsilon$&$A (1-\epsilon)$&$A (1-\epsilon)$&$A\epsilon$\\ \hline
$\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$&$A$& $-A\epsilon$&$A$&$-A(1-\epsilon)$\\\hline
$\widetilde U $&
$\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&1\cr
1&0&0\cr
0&1&0\cr
\end{pmatrix}$& $\begin{pmatrix}
0&1&0\cr
0&0&1\cr
1&0&0 \cr
\end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\cr
0&0&1\cr
0&1&0 \cr
\end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&1\cr
0&1&0\cr
1&0&0 \cr
\end{pmatrix}$\\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{ (IMO, $\nu$)}
Given a neutrino beam with inverted mass ordering, the evolution of
$\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ with $A$ are illustrated in the lower left panel of Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, respectively. Note that there is no intersections between $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$ in cases (IMO, $\nu$) and (IMO, $\overline\nu$) in Fig. 1 with $|\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}| = -\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$ being shown in fact.
In the case (IMO, $\nu$), we also note that $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}> |\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}|$ holds
when the matter effect parameter $A$ is big enough.
Analytically, expanding Eq. (6) in $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$
and $\epsilon$ directly leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} &\simeq& A-\frac{1}{2}\left[
A \epsilon+ (1 - 3 |U_{e2}^{}|^2) \Delta_{21}^{}+ (1 - 3 |U_{e3}^{}|^2) \Delta_{31}^{} +\xi
\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} &\simeq&-\xi
\; , \hspace{1cm}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\xi$ being defined in Eq. (18).
Consistent with Fig. 1, $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}$ approaches $-A \epsilon$ instead of a constant
value in the $A\to\infty$ limit. To understand the asymptotic behaviors of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ in the $A\to \infty$ limit shown in Fig. 4, we expand Eq. (10) and get
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{U}_{e1}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{U}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq 0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{U}_{e2}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 & \simeq & |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{ A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{A \epsilon + \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
So one can use only one parameter to approximately describe lepton flavor mixing,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{U}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{31}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 0 \cr \cos\theta & ~0~ & \sin\theta \cr
-\sin\theta & 0 & \cos\theta \end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{OsiNeuNO.eps}}
\caption{The absolute errors of our analytical approximations in Eq. (22), where
the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} and $\epsilon\simeq 5 \times 10^{-5}$ \cite{Botella:1986wy} have been input.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVIOneu.eps}}
\caption{In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e, \mu, \tau ~{\rm and}~ i=1,2,3$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm IMO},\nu)$ with or without radiative corrections, where the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} have been input.}
\end{figure}
\noindent where $\theta \in[0, \pi/2]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan^2\theta = \frac{|\widetilde U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2}{|\widetilde U_{\mu 1}^{}|^2}& \simeq &
\frac{ \xi + A \epsilon + \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{\xi - A \epsilon - \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
The analytical approximations of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ in Eq. (15) turn out to be
\begin{align}
{\widetilde P}_{ee}^{}&\simeq 1, &{\widetilde P}_{e\mu}^{}&\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{e\tau}^{}&\simeq 0, \nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\mu e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\mu}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{31}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\tau}^{}&\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{31}L}{4 E}, \nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\tau e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\mu}^{} &\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{31}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\tau}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{31}L}{4 E},
\end{align}
where $\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$ comes from Eq. (24) and $\sin^2 2\theta =4 |\widetilde U_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 (1 - |\widetilde U_{\mu 1}^{}|^2)$ with $|\widetilde U_{\mu 1}^{}|^2$ coming from Eq. (25). For simplicity, we do not show the accuracies of Eq. (28), which are very similar to the case (NMO, $\nu$) in Fig. 3.
Comparing Eq. (28) with Eq. (22), we find that it is impossible to discriminate the normal
mass ordering from the inverted mass ordering from neutrino oscillations if the matter density is very big.
We also notice that if the $\Delta_{21}$ term and $A\epsilon$ term in Eq. (25) are of the same order, one can omit them
and get $|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$ and
$|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$. This corresponds to the fixed values of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i=\mu1,\mu3,\tau1,\tau3$) in the $A\to \infty$ limit if radiative corrections are not taken into account (the blue dashed line in Fig. 4).
As the increase of $A$, the $A\epsilon$ term will gradually dominate and the neutrino oscillation
behaviors can be very sensitive to $A$.
In the limit of $A \to \infty$, $\theta$ approaches $\pi/2$ and there will be no
neutrino oscillation phenomenon.
\subsection{ (NMO, $\overline\nu$)}
Considering an antineutrino beam with normal mass ordering, we
make the replacements $A\to-A$ and $U\to-U^{*}$ in Eqs. (5) and (10), and
draw the corresponding evolution of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
with A in the upper right panel of Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, respectively. Note that we always have $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}>\widetilde
\Delta_{21}^{}$ in this case although the difference between them is too small to be shown clearly in
Fig. 1 if $A$ is big enough. The radiative corrections to both $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}$
are very small, which can be analytically understood. By performing perturbative expansions, $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$
(for $ij=21,31$) in Eq. (5) are reduced to
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVNOantineu.eps}}
\caption{In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e, \mu, \tau~{\rm and}~ i=1,2,3$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm NMO},\overline\nu)$ with or without radiative corrections, where the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} have been input.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} &\simeq& A-\frac{1}{2}\left[
A \epsilon- (1 - 3 |U_{e2}^{}|^2) \Delta_{21}^{}- (1 - 3 |U_{e3}^{}|^2) \Delta_{31}^{} +\xi
\right] \; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} &\simeq& A-\frac{1}{2}\left[
A \epsilon- (1 - 3 |U_{e2}^{}|^2) \Delta_{21}^{}- (1 - 3 |U_{e3}^{}|^2) \Delta_{31}^{} -\xi
\right]
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi&=&\big\{
\left[\left( 1 - |U_{e2}^{}|^2 \right)\Delta_{21}^{}
+\left( 1 - |U_{e3}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{31}^{} - A\epsilon\right]^2
+ 4 A \epsilon\left( |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \Delta_{21} + |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \Delta_{31} \right) \nonumber\\
&&- 4 |U_{e1}^{}|^2 \Delta_{21}^{} \Delta_{31}^{}
\big\}^{1/2}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq. (29), it is clear that
the leading order of $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}$ is $A$ and the
radiative corrections in the next-to-leading order do not matter a lot.
The only difference between Eq. (30) (the expression of $\xi$ in the case (NMO, $\overline\nu$)) and Eq. (18) (the expression of $\xi$ in the case (NMO, $\nu$)) is the sign of $\epsilon$. Similarly, $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ can be
expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{U}_{e2}^{}|^2 & \simeq & |\widetilde{U}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq 0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{U}_{e1}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 & \simeq & |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{ A \epsilon-\Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 & \simeq &|\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{A \epsilon - \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{U}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{31}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & \cos\theta & \sin\theta \cr
0 & -\sin\theta & \cos\theta \end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta \in [0,\pi/2]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan^2\theta =\frac{|\widetilde U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2}{|\widetilde U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2} & \simeq &
\frac{ \xi + A \epsilon - \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{\xi - A \epsilon + \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter are approximately
\begin{align}
{\widetilde P}_{ee}^{}&\simeq 1, &{\widetilde P}_{e\mu}^{}&\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{e\tau}^{}&\simeq 0, \nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\mu e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\mu}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{32}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\tau}^{}&\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{32}L}{4 E}, \nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\tau e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\mu}^{} &\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{32}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\tau}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{32}L}{4 E},
\end{align}
where $\sin^2 2 \theta=|\widetilde U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 (1 - |\widetilde U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2)$ and
$\widetilde \Delta_{32}^{} \simeq \xi$ from Eq. (29). The accuracies of ${\widetilde P}_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ in
Eq. (34)
are similar to the case (NMO, $\nu$) in Fig. 3.
If $A$ is small enough, we can ignore the smaller terms of $\Delta_{21}$ and $A\epsilon$ in Eq. (31),
and obtain $|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$ and
$|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$. This is consistent with the fixed values of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i=\mu2,\mu3,\tau2,\tau3$) in the $A\to \infty$ limit if radiative corrections are not included (the blue dashed line in Fig. 5).
If the term $A\epsilon$ too big to be abandoned, the neutrino flavor mixing can be significantly affected by $A$.
In the $A\to \infty$ limit, $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
trivially take 0 or 1 and $\theta$ approaches $\pi/2$, leading to no neutrino oscillations.
\subsection{(IMO, $\overline\nu$)}
Similarly, in the case (IMO, $\overline\nu$), i.e. an antineutrino beam with inverted mass
ordering, we illustrate the evolution of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ in
the lower right panel of Fig. 1 and Fig. 6, respectively. Through making perturbative expansions,
$\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ and $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ can be approximately expressed as
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVIOantineu.eps}}
\caption{In the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e, \mu, \tau~{\rm and} ~ i=1,2,3$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm IMO},\overline\nu)$ with or without radiative corrections, where the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} have been input.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{21} &\simeq& \xi
\; ,
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\Delta}^{}_{31} &\simeq& -A+\frac{1}{2}\left[
A \epsilon- (1 - 3 |U_{e2}^{}|^2) \Delta_{21}^{}- (1 - 3 |U_{e3}^{}|^2) \Delta_{31}^{} +\xi
\right]
\; , \hspace{1cm}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{U}_{e1}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{U}_{e2}^{}|^2 \simeq
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq 0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{U}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 & \simeq & |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{ A \epsilon-\Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{A \epsilon - \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{2 \xi} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi$ has been defined in Eq. (30). From either Fig. 1 or Eq. (35), it is clear that the radiative corrections to $\widetilde\Delta_{21}$
are very important in this case if the matter density is big enough. According to Eq. (36), the lepton flavor mixing matrix
can be approximately parametrized as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{U}\right|_{A \gg \Delta_{31}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & ~1 \cr \cos\theta & \sin\theta & ~0 \cr
-\sin\theta & \cos\theta & ~0 \end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta\in[0, \pi/2]$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan^2\theta & \simeq &
\frac{ \xi + A \epsilon - \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) -
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)}{\xi - A \epsilon + \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|U_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right)} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding analytical approximations of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ are the same as
Eq. (22) except that $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\sin^2 2\theta=
|\widetilde U_{\mu1}^{}|^2 (1 - |\widetilde U_{\mu1}^{}|^2)$ should be taken from Eq. (35) and Eq. (36),
respectively.
Comparing Eq. (22) and Eq. (34), we find that it is impossible to discriminate between the normal
mass ordering and the inverted mass ordering from antineutrino oscillations if the matter density is very big.
If the $\Delta_{21}$ term and the $A\epsilon$ term in Eq. (36) are of the same order, we can omit them and arrive at $|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$ and
$|\widetilde{U}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{U}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2/(|U_{\mu 3}^{}|^2+|U_{\tau 3}^{}|^2)$. This coincides with the fixed values of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i=\mu1,\mu2,\tau1,\tau2$) in the $A\to \infty$ limit if radiative corrections are not included (the blue dashed line in Fig. 6).
If the term $A\epsilon$ is too big to be omitted, it will affect the neutrino flavor mixing a lot.
In the $A \to \infty $, $\theta$ approaches $\pi/2$ and no neutrino oscillations between
$\nu_e^{}$, $\nu_\mu^{}$ and $\nu_\tau^{}$ will happen.
\section{The $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme}
Now we turn to the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme with one more light sterile neutrino.
The corresponding Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^s$ describing the propagation of neutrinos in matter has
been shown in Eq. (4). Analogous to Ref. \cite{Li:2018ezt}, the eigenvalues $\lambda$ of ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^s$
can be derived by solving the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^4 + b \lambda^3 + c \lambda^2 + d \lambda +e=0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where the expressions of the relevant coefficients are as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
b&=& -\sum_i^{} \Delta_{i1}^{} - A (1 + \epsilon) -A^{\prime} \;,
\nonumber \\
c &=& \sum_{i<j}^{} \Delta_{i1}^{} \Delta_{j1}
+ A \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1} (1 - |V_{e i}^{}|^2)
+ \epsilon A \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1} (1 - |V_{\tau i}^{}|^2)
\nonumber\\
&&+ A^{\prime} \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1} (1 - |V_{s i}^{}|^2)
+ A A^{\prime} (1 + \epsilon) + A^2 \epsilon \;,
\nonumber\\
d &=& -\Delta_{21}^{}\Delta_{31}^{}\Delta_{41}^{}
-\sum_{i,j,k}^{} \frac{\varepsilon^2_{ijk}}{2} \Delta_{i1}^{}
\Delta_{j1}^{} (A |V_{e k}^{}|^2 + \epsilon A |V_{\tau k}^{}|^2
+ A^{\prime} |V_{sk}^2|) \nonumber\\
&& -A A^{\prime} \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1}^{} (|V_{\mu i}^{}|^2 +|V_{\tau i}^{}|^2)-\epsilon A^{2} \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1}^{} (|V_{\mu i}^{}|^2 +|V_{s i}^{}|^2) \nonumber\\
&&- \epsilon A A^{\prime} \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1}^{} (|V_{e i}^{}|^2 +|V_{\mu i}^{}|^2) - \epsilon A^2 A^{\prime} \;,\nonumber\\
e &=& \Delta_{21}^{}\Delta_{31}^{}\Delta_{41}^{} (A |V_{e1}^{}|^2 + \epsilon
A |V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 + A^{\prime} |V_{s1}^{}|^2) + AA^{\prime} \sum_{i,j,k,l}^{} \frac{\varepsilon^2_{ijkl}}{4} \Delta_{i1}^{} \Delta_{j1}^{}
C_{es}^{kl} \nonumber \\
&& + \epsilon A^{2} \sum_{i,j,k,l}^{} \frac{\varepsilon^2_{ijkl}}{4} \Delta_{i1}^{} \Delta_{j1}^{}
C_{e\tau}^{kl}
+ \epsilon AA^{\prime} \sum_{i,j,k,l}^{} \frac{\varepsilon^2_{ijkl}}{4} \Delta_{i1}^{} \Delta_{j1}^{}
C_{s\tau}^{kl}
+ \epsilon A^2 A^{\prime} \sum_{i}^{} \Delta_{i1}^{} |V_{\mu i}^{}|^2
\end{eqnarray}
with $i,j,k,l=1,2,3,4$; $\varepsilon_{ijkl}^{}$ being four-dimension Levi-Civita symbol; and
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{\alpha\beta}^{ij} =
|V_{\alpha i}^{} V_{\beta j}^{} - V_{\alpha j}^{} V_{\beta i}^{}|^2
\end{eqnarray}
for $\alpha\beta=es, e\tau, s\tau$. By defining $\lambda_1^{}<\lambda_2^{}<\lambda_3^{}<\lambda_4^{}$ for the normal
mass ordering and $\lambda_3^{}<\lambda_1^{}<\lambda_2^{}<\lambda_4^{}$
for the inverted ordering, we have $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{} =\lambda_i^{} - \lambda_j^{}$.
After a tedious but straightforward calculation, the exact expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31,41$)
are \cite{Li:2018ezt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} &=& \sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p+\frac{q}{S}} \;, \nonumber\\
\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{} &=& 2S + \frac{1}{2} \left(\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p+\frac{q}{S}}-\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p -\frac{q}{S}}\right)\;, \nonumber\\
\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{} &=& 2S + \frac{1}{2} \left(\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p+\frac{q}{S}} + \sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p -\frac{q}{S}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
for the normal mass ordering ($ m_1 < m_2 <m_3 <m_4 $) and
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} &=& 2S - \frac{1}{2} \left(\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p+\frac{q}{S}} + \sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p -\frac{q}{S}}\right) \;, \nonumber\\
\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{} &=& -\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p+\frac{q}{S}}\;, \nonumber\\
\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{} &=& 2S - \frac{1}{2} \left(\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p+\frac{q}{S}}-\sqrt{-4 S^2 -2p -\frac{q}{S}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
for the inverted mass ordering ($ m_3 < m_1 <m_2 <m_4 $),
where
\begin{eqnarray}
p &=&c-\frac{ 3 b^2}{8}\;, \quad q=\frac{b^3}{8}-\frac{1}{2} b c + d \;,\nonumber\\
S&= &\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-\frac{2}{3} p +\frac{2}{3} \sqrt{c^2-3bd + 12 e } \cos \frac{1}{3}\left[ \arccos \left(\frac{2 c^3 -9 bcd +27 b^2 e +27 d^2 -72 ce}{ 2 (c^2-3bd + 12 e)^{3/2}}\right)\right]} \;.
\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the formulas of $\widetilde\Delta_{ij}^{}$ in Eq. (42) are the same as Eq. (3.4) in Ref. \cite{Li:2018ezt} except that
the coefficients $b,c,d$ and $e$ in Eq. (40) include radiative corrections.
By taking the trace of ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^s$, $B$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
B= \frac{1}{4} \left[\Delta_{21}^{} + \Delta_{31}^{} + \Delta_{41}^{} + A (1+\epsilon) +A^{\prime}-\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} - \widetilde\Delta_{31}^{} - \widetilde \Delta_{41}^{}\right].
\end{eqnarray}
By considering the unitarity conditions of $\widetilde V$ and the sum rules derived from ${\cal H}_{\rm m}^s$, $({\cal H}_{\rm m}^s)^2$ and
$({\cal H}_{\rm m}^s)^3$, we get a full set of linear equations of $\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}\widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}$ (for $i=1,2,3,4$ and $\alpha,\beta=e,\mu,\tau,s$),
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sum_i^{} \widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}= \delta_{\alpha\beta} \; ,
\nonumber \\
&&\sum_i^{} \widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{}\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}=
\sum_i^{} \Delta_{i1}^{}V_{\alpha i}^{} V_{\beta i}^{*} + {\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^{} - B \delta_{\alpha\beta}
\;, \nonumber \\
&&\sum_i^{} \widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{}\left(\widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{} + 2 B\right)\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}=
\sum_i^{} \Delta_{i1}^{}\left(\Delta_{i1}^{} + {\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha} + {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}\right)V_{\alpha i}^{} V_{\beta i}^{*} + {\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^2- B^2 \delta_{\alpha\beta} \;, \nonumber\\
&& \sum_i^{} \widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{}\left(\widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{2} + 3 B \widetilde \Delta_{i1}^{} + 3 B^2\right)\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*} = \sum_i^{}
\bigg[\Delta_{i1}^3 + \frac{3}{2} \Delta_{i1}^2 \left({\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{} + {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}^{}\right) + \Delta_{i1}^{} \left({\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{2}
\right.\nonumber\\&&\left. \hspace{7.15cm} + {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}^{2}
+{ \cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{} {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}^{}\right) +{\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^3\bigg]V_{\alpha i}^{} V_{\beta i}^{*} \nonumber\\&& \hspace{7.15cm}
-B^3 \delta_{\alpha\beta}^{} + C_{\alpha\beta}^{} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}^{} $ denotes the $(\alpha,\beta)$ element of the matter potential matrix ${\cal A}={\rm Diag} \{A, 0, A\epsilon, A^{\prime}\}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{\alpha\beta}^{} &=& -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{m,n,\gamma}^{} \Delta_{mn}^2 V_{\alpha m}^{} V_{\gamma m}^{*} V_{\gamma n}^{} V_{\beta n}^{*} {\cal A}_{\gamma\gamma}^{}
\end{eqnarray}
with $m,n=1,2,3,4$ and $\alpha,\beta,\gamma=e,\mu,\tau,s$.
According to Eq. (46), one can directly derive the exact expressions of $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
and $\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}$, which have been given in Refs. \cite{Li:2018ezt, Zhang:2006yq}. We rewrite them as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2 &=& \frac{1}{\prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i}\widetilde \Delta_{ik}^{}} \sum_j^{} \left(F_{\alpha}^{ij} |V_{\alpha j}^{}|^2 +C_{\alpha\alpha} \right) \;
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\alpha}^{ij} &=& \prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i} \left( \Delta_{j1}^{} - \widetilde\Delta_{k1}^{} - B+{\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{}\right)\nonumber\\ \;.
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}&=& \frac{1}{\prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i}\widetilde \Delta_{ik}^{}} \sum_j^{} \left(F_{\alpha\beta}^{ij} V_{\alpha j}^{} V_{\beta j}^{*}+C_{\alpha\beta}^{}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\alpha\beta}^{ij} &=& \frac{1}{2}\bigg[- \left( \Delta_{j1}^{} - \widetilde\Delta_{i1}^{} - B\right) \left({\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^2 +{\cal A}_{\beta\beta}^{2} + 4 {\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{} {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}^{}\right)\nonumber\\&& +\prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i} \left( \Delta_{j1}^{} - \widetilde\Delta_{k1}^{} - B + {\cal A}_{\alpha\alpha}^{} + {\cal A}_{\beta\beta}^{}\right) + \prod \limits^{}_{k\neq i} \left( \Delta_{j1}^{} - \widetilde\Delta_{k1}^{} - B\right) \bigg]\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha,\beta=e,\mu,\tau,s$; $i,j,k=1,2,3,4$, $B$ is taken from Eq. (45). Comparing with the formulas of
$|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
and $\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*}$ in Refs. \cite{Li:2018ezt, Zhang:2006yq}, we get rid of the uneasy terms $m_i^2 - \widetilde m_j^2$ and include the radiative correction effects in Eqs. (48) and (50).
With the help of Eqs. (42), (43) and (50), we can directly write out the probability of $\nu_{\alpha}^{} \to \nu_{\beta}^{}$ (for $\alpha,\beta=e,\mu,\tau,s$) in a medium:
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{} &=& \delta_{\alpha\beta} - \sum_{i<j}^{} {\rm Re} \left( \widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*} \widetilde V_{\alpha j}^{*} \widetilde V_{\beta j}^{}\right)
\sin^2 \left(\frac{\widetilde\Delta_{ji}^{} L}{4 E}\right) \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{i<j}^{} {\rm Im} \left( \widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{} \widetilde V_{\beta i}^{*} \widetilde V_{\alpha j}^{*} \widetilde V_{\beta j}^{}\right)
\sin \left(\frac{\widetilde\Delta_{ji}^{} L}{2 E}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
with $i,j=1,2,3,4$.
Note that the results in Eq. (4) and Eqs. (39)--(52) only apply to a neutrino beam propagating in matter. When considering an antineutrino beam, we need to do the replacements $A \to -A$, $A^{\prime} \to -A^{\prime}$ and $V\to V^{*}$. Similar to the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, we discuss the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing in dense matter by considering the following four cases separately:
case (NMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$), case (IMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$), case (NMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$) and case (IMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$). In the following discussion, $N_e^{}=N_n^{}=N_p^{}$ (i.e., $A^{\prime }=-A/2$ and $\epsilon \simeq 5 \times 10^{-5}$) is assumed and $V$ is
parametrized as
\begin{eqnarray}
V=R_{34}^{} (\theta_{34}^{}, \delta_{34}) \cdot R_{24}^{} (\theta_{24}^{}, \delta_{24})\cdot
R_{14}^{} (\theta_{14}^{}, \delta_{14})\cdot U\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{ij}^{} (\theta_{ij}^{}, \delta_{ij}^{})$ (for $ij=13, 24,34$) represent the $4\times 4$ two-dimension rotation matrices
in the $(i, j)$ complex plane with the mixing angle $\theta_{ij}^{}$ and the CP-violating phase
$\delta_{ij}^{}$, and $U$ has been defined in Eq. (16). Numerically, we typically take
the best-fit values of $(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta, \Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{})$ shown below Eq. (16), and $(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0^{\circ})$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$ and $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt} for the active-sterile mixing part. Analytically, we expand the
exact expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31,41$) and $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s$ and $i=1,2,3,4$) in Eqs. (42), (43) and (48) in terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{41}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$. Thus the analytical approximations in
this section are only valid for the $A\gg\Delta_{41}^{}$ range.
\subsection{(NMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$)}
Considering a neutrino beam with inverted mass ordering in the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme, we illustrate how $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31,41$) and $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s$ and $i=1,2,3,4$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the upper left panel of Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively.
Note that we always have
$\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{} > \widetilde \Delta_{31}^{} >\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} $ in cases (NMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$) and (NMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$), implying that there is no
intersection in the upper row of Fig. 7.
Comparing Fig. 2 and Fig. 7,
the evolutions of $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$ and $i=1,2,3$) with $A$ in the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme are similar to those of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$ and $i=1,2,3$) in the standard three-flavor mixing scheme if $A$ is not big enough (for example, $A<10^{-2}~{\rm eV}^2$). And it is the same case for $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31$). However, if the matter density is very big, the neutrino flavor mixing in $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme can be very different from that in the standard three-flavor mixing scheme discussed in the last section.
By making perturbative expansions of Eq. (42) in terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{41}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$, we get
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[]{figureMassSte.eps}}
\caption{In the $(3+1)$ mixing scheme, the illustration of how the effective neutrino mass-squared differences $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$, $|\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}|$ and $\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{}$ evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case with or without radiative corrections, where we typically take the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ \cite{Esteban:2018azc}, and for the active-sterile neutrino mixing part $(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0)$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$, $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVNOneuSte.eps}}
\caption{In the $(3+1)$ mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
(for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s~ {\rm and} ~i=1,2,3,4$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm NMO}, \nu_{3+1}^{})$ with or without radiative corrections, where we typically take the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ \cite{Esteban:2018azc}, and for the active-sterile neutrino mixing part $(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0)$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$, $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{} &\simeq& \xi_{s}^{} \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{} &\simeq& \frac{A}{2} -\frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon - \xi_{s}^{}
+ \left(1 - |V_{e2}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left(1 - |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
+ \left(1 - |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{41}^{} &\simeq& A - \frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon - \xi_{s}^{}
+ \left(1 -3 |V_{e2}^{}|^2 - |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left(1 -3 |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
+\left(1 -3 |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right]\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{s}^{}&=&
\Big\{\left[ \left(|V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left(|V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{31}^{}
+ \left(|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{41}^{} + A \epsilon\right]^2
\nonumber\\&&
-4 A\epsilon \left( |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \Delta_{21}^{}
+|V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \Delta_{31}^{} + |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2\Delta_{41}^{} \right)
\nonumber\\&&
- 4 \left(\Delta_{21}^{} \Delta_{31}^{} C_{es}^{14}
+ \Delta_{21}^{} \Delta_{41}^{} C_{es}^{13} + \Delta_{31}^{} \Delta_{41}^{} C_{es}^{12}\right)
\Big\}^{1/2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
From Eqs. (54) and (55), one can see that there are significant radiative corrections to $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$
for the appearance of $A\epsilon$ in the leading order. Thus $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ will
approximately approach $A\epsilon$ instead of a constant value if $A$ is big enough.
We also notice that $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}$ has a minimum value by observing the
quadratic function of $A$ inside the brace of Eq. (55). The corresponding expression of $A$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
A &\simeq& \frac{1}{\epsilon} \left[\left( |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left( |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{}
+\left( |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}
\right]\;
\end{eqnarray}
which can be simplified as $A \simeq \left( |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}/\epsilon \simeq 481 ~{\rm eV}^2$ by
considering $\Delta_{41}^{}\gg \Delta_{31}^{}\gg\Delta_{21}^{}$ and the numerical input in Fig. 7.
By expanding Eq. (48) in terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{41}^{}/A$ and $\epsilon$, we approximately express $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{V}_{e1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{e2}^{}|^2 &\simeq & |\widetilde{V}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{s1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s4}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{e4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s3}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} +\frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right. \nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 4}^{}|^2\simeq 0 \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Namely, the neutrino flavor mixing matrix $\widetilde V$
can be approximately described by one degree of freedom,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{V}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{41}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0& 1 \cr
\cos\theta_s^{} & ~\sin\theta_s^{}~ & 0 &0\cr
-\sin\theta_s^{} & \cos\theta_s^{} & 0& 0 \cr
0&0&1&0
\end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_s^{} \in [0, \pi/2]$ and
$\tan^2\theta_s^{}\simeq|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 /|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 $ with
$|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2$ being taken from Eq. (57).
The corresponding neutrino oscillation probabilities $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ (for $\alpha \beta =e,\mu,\tau,s$) in Eq. (52) are reduced to
\begin{align}
{\widetilde P}_{ee}^{}&\simeq 1, &{\widetilde P}_{e\mu}^{}&\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{e\tau}^{}&\simeq 0,
&{\widetilde P}_{es}^{}&\simeq 0 \;,
\nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\mu e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\mu}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta_s^{} \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\mu\tau}^{}&\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta_s^{} \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E},
&{\widetilde P}_{\mu s}^{}&\simeq 0 \;,
\nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{\tau e}^{} &\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\mu}^{} &\simeq \sin^2 2 \theta_s^{} \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E}, &{\widetilde P}_{\tau\tau}^{} &\simeq 1 - \sin^2 2 \theta_s^{} \sin^2 \frac{\widetilde\Delta_{21}L}{4 E},
&{\widetilde P}_{\tau s}^{}&\simeq 0 \;,\nonumber\\
{\widetilde P}_{se}^{}& \simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{s\mu}^{}&\simeq 0, &{\widetilde P}_{s\tau}^{}&\simeq 0,
&{\widetilde P}_{ss}^{}&\simeq 1\;,
\nonumber\\
\end{align}
where $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ has been given in Eq. (54) and $\sin^2 2\theta_s^{} = |\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{} |^2
(1- |\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{} |^2)$ with $ |\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{} |^2$ being derived in Eq. (57). The absolute errors
of $\widetilde P_{\alpha\beta}^{}$ are illustrated in Fig. 9, from which
we can see that Eq. (59) is a good approximation in a wide range of $L/E$ and $A/\Delta_{41}^{}$. For the
upper left part in each subgraph of Fig. 9, the accuracies are not good enough and the largest errors
in $\Delta \widetilde P_{\mu\mu}^{}$, $\Delta \widetilde P_{\mu\tau}^{}$, $\Delta \widetilde P_{\tau\mu}^{}$ and $\Delta \widetilde P_{\tau\tau}^{}$ appear around the minimum of $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ ($A/\Delta_{41}\sim 4 \times 10^2$). This can be improved by
keeping higher orders of $\Delta_{21}/A$, $\Delta_{31}/A$, $\Delta_{41}/A$ and $\epsilon$ or
just making perturbative expansions in terms of $\Delta_{21}/A$, $\Delta_{31}/A$ and $\epsilon$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{steOsiNeuNO.eps}}
\caption{The absolute errors of our analytical approximations in Eq. (59), where
the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ in Ref. \cite{Esteban:2018azc} have been input,
$(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0)$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$, $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt} and $\epsilon\simeq 5 \times 10^{-5}$ \cite{Botella:1986wy}.}
\end{figure}
Specifically, if $A\epsilon$ is negligible in Eqs. (54) and (57), one may abandon the smaller terms
of $\Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\Delta_{31}^{}$, and get
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} &\simeq& \left(|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\;,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq \frac{|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }
\;,
\nonumber\\ |\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq\frac{|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2=\cos^2 \theta_{14}^{} \sin^2 \theta_{24}$, $|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2=\cos^2 \theta_{14}^{} \cos^2 \theta_{24}^{}\sin^2 \theta_{34}$ from the parametrization of $V$ in Eq. (53).
This is equivalent to the asymptotic behaviors of $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ and $
|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i =\mu 1,\mu 2,\tau 1,\tau 2$) in very dense matter in the case without radiative corrections (i.e. the blue dashed lines in Fig. 8). Due to the typical value $\theta_{34}^{}=0$ inputted in Fig. 8,
we get $|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ and $
|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$. By choosing a non-zero value of $\theta_{34}^{}$, the neutrino flavor mixing can be very different. With the increase of $A$,
the $A \epsilon$ term in Eqs. (54) and (57) will become dominate. In the $ A \to \infty$ limit,
$|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$ and $
|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ can be derived from Eq. (57).
Considering this extreme case, we summarize the corresponding analytical expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ji}^{}$ (for $ji=21,31, 41$) and $\widetilde V$ in Table 2, where the four cases (NMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$), (IMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$), (NMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$) and (IMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$) are all considered separately.
With $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ taking 0 or 1 (or $\theta_s^{}\to 0$ or $\pi/2$), there will be no neutrino oscillation between the four flavors and it makes no sense to discuss lepton flavor mixing.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{In the $(3+1)$ mixing scheme, the analytical expressions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ji}^{}$ (for $ji=21,31, 41$)
and $\widetilde V$ in the $A\to \infty$ limit, where we only show the terms of order ${\cal O} (A)$ for $\widetilde \Delta_{ji}^{}$.}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline\hline
&(NMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$)&(IMO, $\nu_{3+1}^{}$)&(NMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$)&(IMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$)\\\hline
$\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$& $A\epsilon$&$ A/2-A\epsilon$&$A/2$&$A/2-A\epsilon$\\ \hline
$\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$&$A/2$& $-A\epsilon$&$A-A\epsilon$&$-A/2$\\\hline
$\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{}$&$A$& $A-A\epsilon$&$A$&$A/2$\\\hline
$\widetilde V $&
$\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0&1\cr
1&0&0&0\cr
0&1&0&0\cr
0&0&1&0\cr
\end{pmatrix}$&$\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0&1\cr
0&0&1&0\cr
1&0&0&0\cr
0&1&0&0\cr
\end{pmatrix}$& $\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0&0\cr
0&0&0&1\cr
0&0&1&0\cr
0&1&0&0\cr
\end{pmatrix}$& $\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&1&0\cr
0&0&0&1\cr
0&1&0&0\cr
1&0&0&0\cr
\end{pmatrix}$\\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{(IMO, $\nu^{}_{3+1}$)}
Given a neutrino beam with inverted mass ordering in the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme, the evolutions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31,41$)
and $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e, \mu,\tau,s$ and $i=1,2,3,4$) with $A$ are demonstrated
in the lower left panel of Fig. 7 and Fig. 10, respectively.
In this case, $\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{} < 0 <\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} <\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{} $ always holds from Fig. 7. By making perturbative expansions of Eq. (43), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{} &\simeq& \frac{A}{2} -\frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon + \xi_{s}^{}
+ \left(1 - |V_{e2}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left(1 - |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
+ \left(1 - |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{} &\simeq& - \xi_{s}^{} \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{} &\simeq& A - \frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon +\xi_{s}^{}
+ \left(1 -3 |V_{e2}^{}|^2 - |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left(1 -3 |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
+\left(1 -3 |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \xi_{s}^{} $ has been defined in Eq. (55). From Eq. (61), it is easy to see
that there are significant radiative corrections to $\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$ with the $\epsilon$
term appearing in the leading order.
There are a minimum of $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}$ corresponding to $A$ in Eq. (56).
Similarly, Eq. (48) can be reduced to
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVIOneuSte.eps}}
\caption{In the $(3+1)$ mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
(for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s~ {\rm and} ~i=1,2,3,4$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm IMO}, \nu_{3+1}^{})$ with or without radiative corrections, where we typically take the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ \cite{Esteban:2018azc}, and for the active-sterile neutrino mixing part $(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0)$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$, $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{V}_{e1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{e2}^{}|^2 &\simeq & |\widetilde{V}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{s1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s4}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{e4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s2}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} +\frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 4}^{}|^2\simeq 0 \;.
\end{eqnarray}
This means $\widetilde V$ can be approximately parametrized as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{V}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{41}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0& 1 \cr
\cos\theta_s^{} &0& \sin\theta_s^{}&0 \cr
-\sin\theta_s^{} &0& \cos\theta_s^{} & 0 \cr
0&1&0&0
\end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_s^{} \in [0, \pi/2]$ and $\tan^2\theta_s^{}=|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2/ |\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 $ with $|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2$ having been shown in Eq. (62).
One can derive the corresponding approximate neutrino oscillation probability by substituting $\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$ for $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ in Eq. (59).
Similar to the standard three-flavor mixing scheme, it is impossible to discriminate between the normal
mass ordering and the inverted mass ordering from neutrino oscillations in the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme if the matter density is very big.
Note that if the $A\epsilon$ term in Eqs. (61) and (62) is negligible, we omit the smaller terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\Delta_{31}^{}$
and obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{} &\simeq& -\left(|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\;,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq \frac{|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }
\;,
\nonumber\\ |\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq\frac{|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }\;,
\end{eqnarray}
which is consistent with the asymptotic behaviors of $\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}$ and $
|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i =\mu 1,\mu 3,\tau 1,\tau 3$) in very dense matter in the case without radiative corrections (i.e. the blue dashed line in Fig. 10).
By inputting $\theta_{34}^{} =0$ (i.e., $|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 =0$), we directly get $|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq1$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ from Eq. (64).
If the limit of $A \to \infty$ is taken,
one can infer from Eq. (62) that $|\widetilde V_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$, leading to no neutrino oscillations.
\subsection{(NMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$)}
When it comes to a neutrino beam with normal mass ordering in the (3+1) flavor mixing scheme,
the corresponding evolutions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31,41$) and $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha =e,\mu,\tau,s$ and $i=1,2,3,4$) with the matter effect parameter $A$ are illustrated in the upper right panel of Fig. 7 and Fig. 11, respectively. Analytically, we perform perturbative expansions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij=21,31,41$) in
Eq. (42) and get
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVNOantineuSte.eps}}
\caption{In the $(3+1)$ mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
(for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s~ {\rm and} ~i=1,2,3,4$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm NMO},\overline \nu_{3+1}^{})$ with or without radiative corrections, where we typically take the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ \cite{Esteban:2018azc}, and for the active-sterile neutrino mixing part $(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0)$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$, $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{} &\simeq& \frac{A}{2} -\frac{1}{2} \left[
\left(|V_{e2}^{}|^2 - |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left( |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{}
+ \left( |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{} &\simeq& A -\frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon + \xi_{s}^{}
- \left(1 -3 |V_{e2}^{}|^2 - |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
- \left(1 -3 |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
-\left(1 -3 |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{41}^{} &\simeq& A - \frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon - \xi_{s}^{}
- \left(1 -3 |V_{e2}^{}|^2 - |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
-\left(1 -3 |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
-\left(1 -3 |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{s}^{}&=&
\Big\{\left[ \left(|V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+ \left(|V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{31}^{}
+ \left(|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \right) \Delta_{41}^{} - A \epsilon\right]^2
\nonumber\\&&
+ 4 A\epsilon \left( |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2\Delta_{21}^{}
+|V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \Delta_{31}^{} + |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2\Delta_{41}^{} \right) \nonumber\\
&&- 4 \left(\Delta_{21}^{} \Delta_{31}^{} C_{es}^{14}
+ \Delta_{21}^{} \Delta_{41}^{} C_{es}^{13} + \Delta_{31}^{} \Delta_{41}^{} C_{es}^{12}\right)
\Big\}^{1/2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that there are no significant radiative corrections to $\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{}$, $\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{}$
and $\widetilde\Delta_{41}^{}$ with the $A\epsilon$ term appearing in the next-to-leading order or higher order.
Similarly, $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ can be reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{V}_{e2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{e3}^{}|^2 &\simeq & |\widetilde{V}_{e4}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{s1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s4}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{e1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s2}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} +\frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[-A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[-A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2\simeq 0 \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{V}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{41}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0& 0\cr
0 &0&\cos\theta_s^{}& \sin\theta_s^{} \cr
0&0&-\sin\theta_s^{} & \cos\theta_s^{} \cr
0&1&0&0
\end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_s^{} \in [0, \pi/2]$ and $\tan^2\theta_s^{}=|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2/ |\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 $ with $|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2$ being expressed in Eq. (67).
The corresponding approximate formulas of neutrino oscillation probabilities can be obtained by doing the replacement $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{} \to \widetilde \Delta_{43}^{}$ in Eq. (59). And we have
$\widetilde \Delta_{43}^{} \simeq \xi_s^{}$ from Eq. (65).
If the $A\epsilon$ term is not dominant in Eq. (65), one can ignore the smaller terms of $A\epsilon$, $\Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\Delta_{31}^{}$
and get
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \simeq \frac{|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }
\;, \nonumber\\
|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq\frac{|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 } \;,
\end{eqnarray}
which are equivalent to the fixed values of $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha i = \mu 3, \mu 4,\tau 3,\tau 4$) in the $A\to\infty$ limit when the radiative corrections are not included.
By inputting $\theta_{34}^{}=0$ (i.e., $|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 =0$), Eq. (69) turns into $|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$.
In the $A\to \infty$ limit, we also have the same results: $|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$ with $\xi_s^{} \to
A \epsilon$ in Eq. (67). Thus there will be no neutrino
oscillations in the $A \to \infty $ limit with $\theta_s^{}\simeq \arctan(|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|/|\widetilde V_{\mu 3}^{}|) \simeq\pi/2 $.
Note that there is no distinguishable difference between the cases with or without
radiative corrections in Fig. 11. However, by inputting a non-zero value of $\theta_{34}^{}$, one may see significant
radiative corrections to neutrino flavor mixing matrix elements, especially to $\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}$ (for $\alpha i = \mu 3, \mu 4,\tau 3,\tau 4$) when $A$ is big enough.
\subsection{(IMO, $\overline\nu_{3+1}^{}$)}
Similarly, let us discuss the case of an antineutrino beam with inverted mass ordering in the (3+1) flavor mixing scheme.
The evolutions of $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}^{}$ (for $ij =21,31,41$) and $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ (for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s$
and $i=1,2,3,4$) with
the matter effect parameter $A$ in this case are illustrated in the lower right panel of Fig. 7 and Fig. 12,
respectively. Expanding Eq. (43) in terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{31}^{}/A$, $\Delta_{41}^{}/A$ and
$\epsilon$, we arrive at
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{figureVIOantineuSte.eps}}
\caption{In the $(3+1)$ mixing scheme, the illustration of how $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
(for $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau,s~ {\rm and} ~i=1,2,3,4$) evolve with the matter effect parameter $A$ in the
case $({\rm IMO}, \overline\nu_{3+1}^{})$ with or without radiative corrections, where we typically take the best-fit values of
$(\theta_{12}^{}, \theta_{13}^{}, \theta_{23}^{}, \delta,\Delta_{21}^{}, \Delta_{31}^{} )$ \cite{Esteban:2018azc}, and for the active-sterile neutrino mixing part $(\theta_{14}^{}, \theta_{24}^{},\theta_{34}^{})=(6.66^{\circ}, 7.81^{\circ}, 0)$, $\delta_{14}^{}=\delta_{24}^{}=\delta_{34}^{}=0$, $\Delta_{41}^{}=1.32~ {\rm eV^2}$ \cite{Diaz:2019fwt}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde\Delta_{21}^{} &\simeq& \frac{A}{2} -\frac{1}{2} \left[ A\epsilon + \xi_{s}^{} -
\left(1-|V_{e2}^{}|^2 -3 |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
- \left( 1-|V_{e3}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.
- \left( 1- |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right] \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{31}^{} &\simeq& -\frac{A}{2}
+ \left(|V_{e2}^{}|^2 - |V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
+\left(|V_{e3}^{}|^2 - |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{}
+ \left( |V_{e4}^{}|^2 - |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{} \nonumber\;,\\
\widetilde\Delta_{41}^{} &\simeq& \frac{A}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \left[ A \epsilon - \xi_{s}^{}
- \left(1 -|V_{e2}^{}|^2 - 3|V_{s2}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{21}^{}
-\left(1 - |V_{e3}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s3}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{31}^{} \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.
-\left(1 -|V_{e4}^{}|^2 - 3 |V_{s4}^{}|^2\right) \Delta_{41}^{}\right]\;,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\xi_{s}^{} $ being defined in Eq. (66). According to Fig. 7 and Eq. (70), we always have
$\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}<0<\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}<\widetilde \Delta_{41}^{}$ and in the
$A \to \infty$ limit, $|\widetilde \Delta_{31}^{}|\simeq \widetilde \Delta_{41}^{}>\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ holds.
Similarly, the analytical approximations of $|\widetilde V_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$
read as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde{V}_{e1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{e2}^{}|^2 &\simeq & |\widetilde{V}_{e4}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{s2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s4}^{}|^2 \simeq
0 \; ,
\quad |\widetilde{V}_{e3}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{s1}^{}|^2 \simeq 1 \; ,
\nonumber \\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} +\frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[-A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \nonumber\right.\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,
\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \xi_{s}^{}}\left[-A \epsilon+ \Delta_{21}^{} \left(
|V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \right) +
\Delta_{31}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 3}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 3}^{}|^2
\right) \right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+
\Delta_{41}^{} \left(|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 - |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2
\right)\right] \; ,\nonumber\\
|\widetilde{V}_{\mu 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\mu 3}^{}|^2 & \simeq& |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 1}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde{V}_{\tau 3}^{}|^2\simeq 0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
which implies
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. \widetilde{V}\right|_{A\gg\Delta_{41}^{}} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\cr
0 &\cos\theta_s^{}&0& \sin\theta_s^{} \cr
0&-\sin\theta_s^{}&0& \cos\theta_s^{} \cr
1&0 &0&0
\end{pmatrix} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_s^{} \in [0, \pi/2]$ and $\tan^2\theta_s^{}=|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2/ |\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 $ with $|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2$ being expressed in Eq. (71).
One can directly write out the corresponding approximations of neutrino oscillation probability by replacing $\widetilde \Delta_{21}^{}$ in Eq. (59) with $\widetilde \Delta_{42}^{} \simeq \xi_s^{}$ from Eq. (70).
If the smaller terms of $A\epsilon$ in Eq. (71) is negligible, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \simeq \frac{|V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }
\;, \nonumber\\
|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 &\simeq& |\widetilde V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq\frac{|V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2}{ |V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 + |V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 }
\end{eqnarray}
after throwing out the smaller terms of $\Delta_{21}^{}$ and $\Delta_{31}^{}$. By inputting
$\theta_{34}^{} =0$ taken in Fig. 12, Eq. (73) turns out to be $|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$.
In the $A \to \infty$ limit, we get $|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 4}^{}|^2 \simeq 0$ and $|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|^2 \simeq |\widetilde V_{\tau 2}^{}|^2 \simeq 1$ no matter which value $\theta_{34}^{}$ takes.
Thus no neutrino oscillations between the four flavors will happen with $\theta_s^{}\simeq \arctan(|\widetilde V_{\mu 4}^{}|/|\widetilde V_{\mu 2}^{}|) \simeq \pi/2 $.
Note that the neutrino flavor mixing with radiative corrections can be very different from the case without radiative corrections if $\theta_{34}^{}$ is non-zero.
\section{Summary}
With the coming of the precision measurement era of neutrino physics,
we are committed to digging the underlying physics behind the lepton flavor mixing \cite{Xing:2019vks}
and on the other hand to conducting cosmological and astronomical researches with neutrinos being
a good probe. As preliminarily discussed in Ref. \cite{Luo:2019efb}, it is possible to explore the density and size of a hidden compact object in the universe by observing its effects on the neutrino flavor mixing. In this paper, we point out that radiative corrections to the matter potentials can significantly
affect the neutrino flavor mixing in dense matter. Considering the standard three-flavor mixing scheme with radiative corrections, we derive the exact expressions of the effective neutrino mass-squared differences $\widetilde \Delta_{ij}$, the moduli square of the nine lepton flavor mixing matrix elements $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$, the vector sides of the Dirac leptonic unitarity triangles $\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}\widetilde U_{\beta i}^{*}$ in a medium. From these exact formulas, the neutrino flavor mixing in dense matter are numerically
and analytically discussed. Different from the fixed value of $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ in dense matter in
the case without radiative corrections, $|\widetilde U_{\alpha i}^{}|^2$ can be very sensitive to
the value of $A$ and trivially approach 0 or 1 in the $A\to\infty$ limit if radiative corrections are taken into
account. When it comes to the $(3+1)$ flavor mixing scheme, the neutrino flavor mixing will be very different from the standard three-flavor scheme if A is big enough but not infinite. However it is meaningless
to discuss the lepton flavor mixing in both schemes in the $A\to\infty$ limit.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Prof. Zhi-zhong Xing and Prof. Shun Zhou for their inspirations on this topic.
We are also indebted to Di Zhang for useful discussions.
This work is supported partly by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 11835005 and No. 11947227.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The average global temperature over a century, the amount of rainfall in a given area throughout one year, or the price of a stock during a trading day are only few of several quantities whose maximal observed value within a fixed period of time $T$ plays a central role. Understanding extremal properties of the underlying stochastic processes is therefore of fundamental importance in a variety of disciplines -- for a recent review see \cite{EVS_review}. These include several applications in e.g., climate studies \cite{katz02,katz05,RP06,WK10,RC2011,Christ13,WHK14}, finance \cite{BP2000,yor01,embrechts13,Challet17, zou14} and computer science \cite{coffman98,KM2000,M05}. For instance, extreme natural events, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, or hurricanes, have often devastating consequences. The statistics of records of such extremal events have been extensively studied in statistics and mathematics literature~\cite{Resnick_book,ABN_book,nevzorov_book}, and more recently in statistical physics~\cite{Krug07,MZ08,MSW12,GMS16,record_review,MBK19}.
Thus, understanding statistical fluctuations of these calamities is a problem of great practical importance. Moreover, in many situations it is not only important to ask what is the intensity of the maximum value but also at what time $t_{\max}$ this maximum value is attained within the time interval $[0,T]$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:brownian_1}). This time $t_{\max}$ is extremely relevant in several applications. For instance, in finance it is important to estimate the time at which the price of a stock will reach the maximum value during a fixed period \cite{dale80,baz04}. Similarly, it is also natural to study the time $t_{\min}$ at which the global minimum is reached.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure1.pdf}
\caption{Typical realisation of a Brownian motion $x(t)$ vs $t$ with time $t \in [0,T]$. The global maximum $x_{\max}$ is reached at time $t_{\max}$, while the global minimum $x_{\min}$ is attained at time $t_{\min}$. The time between the global maximum and the global minimum is $\tau=t_{\max}-t_{\min}$.}
\label{fig:brownian_1}
\end{figure}
The time $t_{\max}$ of the maximum has been studied for a variety of stochastic processes. For instance, the probability distribution $P(t_{\max}|T)$ of $t_{\max}$, for a given $T$, is exactly known for one-dimensional Brownian motion (BM), one of the most ubiquitous and paradigmatic stochastic processes. Indeed, if we consider a BM $x(t)$ of total duration $T$, then
~\cite{levy40,feller50,SA53,morters10}
\begin{equation}\label{levy}
P(t_{\max}|T)=\frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{t_{\max}(T-t_{\max})}} \;,
\end{equation}
where $t_{\max}\in [0,T]$.
In the case of BM, $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ have, by symmetry, the same probability distribution (\ref{levy}).
Moreover, the distribution of $t_{\max}$ has been computed for several generalisations of BM. For instance,
$P(t_{\max}|T)$ is known for BM with additional constraints
\cite{randon-furling07,randon-furling08,schehr10,PLDM03}, drifted BM \cite{majumdar08,drift}, fractional BM
\cite{delorme16,tridib18} and Bessel processes \cite{schehr10}. The many body case has also been considered,
both for $N$ independent BM's \cite{comtet10} and $N$ non-crossing Brownian walkers \cite{rambeau11}. The
statistics of $t_{\max}$ has been investigated for more general stochastic processes such as L\'evy flights
\cite{SA53,majumdar10}, random acceleration process \cite{rosso10}, and run-and-tumble particles
\cite{anupam_rtp}. Moreover, $t_{\max}$ has been studied in a wide range of applications including disordered
systems \cite{MRZ10}, stochastic thermodynamics \cite{barato18} and sports \cite{clauset15}.
Despite this increasing interest in the statistical properties of $t_{\max}$ or $t_{\min}$, their joint
probability distribution $P(t_{\max},\,t_{\min}|T)$ was computed only recently, in the case of BM, in our
recent Letter \cite{mori2019}. Indeed, due to the strong correlations between $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$, this
joint probability density function (PDF) is not just the product of the two marginals $P(t_{\max}|T)$ and
$P(t_{\min}|T)$, each of which is given by the expression (\ref{levy}).
To see that $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ are strongly correlated, it suffices to consider the following fact.
Since the process occurs in continuous time,
it is clear that
if the maximum occurs at a given time, it is highly unlikely that
the minimum occurs immediately before or after the maximum.
Thus $t_{\rm max}$ and $t_{\rm min}$ are strongly anti-correlated and the occurrence of one
forbids the occurrence of the other nearby in time.
Furthermore, computing $P(t_{\max},\,t_{\min}|T)$ is not
only relevant to quantify the anti-correlations of $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ but also to investigate observables
that depend on both $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$. One relevant example is the time difference between maximum and
minimum: $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:brownian_1}). Note that $\tau\in[-T,T]$ can be positive or
negative. This quantity $\tau$ has a natural application in finance. Let us consider the price of a stock in a
period of time $T$. Then if $t_{\max}<t_{\min}$, as in Fig. \ref{fig:brownian_1}, an agent would try to sell
his/her shares at time $t_{\max}$ when the price is the highest and then wait up to time $t_{\min}$ to re-buy at
the best price. Thus, $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ represents the time the agent has to wait before re-buying his/her
shares in order to maximise the gain. Notably, similar quantities, for instance the time between a local maximum
and a local minimum, have been empirically investigated for stock market data \cite{zou14}. Consequently,
computing $P(t_{\max},t_{\min}|T)$ and $P(\tau|T)$ is a problem of fundamental relevance, with broad
interdisciplinary applications.
The main goal of this paper is to compute these probabilities
$P(t_{\max},t_{\min}|T)$ and $P(\tau|T)$ for different one-dimensional stochastic processes. We will first
consider BM, finding an exact solution for the PDF of $\tau$. Then we will consider more general stochastic
processes and possible applications of our results. Some of the main results presented here were announced in
our previous Letter \cite{mori2019}. However, the details of the calculations, which are rather involved, were
not presented in \cite{mori2019}. Here we provide a detailed description of these techniques, which we
hope would be useful in other problems. In addition, we present new results for
discrete-time random walks including L\'evy flights, which can not be obtained directly by applying the
techniques used for the Brownian motion. They require different methods that are presented in detail in this
paper. We will see that our analysis of $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ for discrete-time random walks
also raises interesting mathematical questions that would be of interest to the probability theory community
in mathematics.\\
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{sec:main_results}, we briefly present our main
results. In Section \ref{sec:BM} we use a path-integral technique to compute the PDF of the time $\tau$ between
the maximum and the minimum of a BM. In Section \ref{sec:BB} we present two alternative derivations for the PDF
of $\tau$ in the case of a Brownian Bridge (BB), which is a periodic BM of period $T$. The first derivation is
based on a path-integral method, while the second exploits a mapping, known as Vervaat's construction, between
the BB and the Brownian excursion, i.e. a BB constrained to remain positive between the initial and final
positions. In Section \ref{sec:RW} we study $\tau$ in the case of discrete-time random walks (RWs). In
particular, we perform an exact computation in the cases of double-exponential jumps and of lattice walks. We
also present the results of numerical simulations for other jump distributions such as L\'evy flights.
In Section \ref{sec:universal}, we study the probability of the event ``$\tau = n$'' for discrete-time random
walks of $n$ steps and conjecture that it is universal, i.e., independent
of jump distributions as long as it is symmetric and continuous.
In Section \ref{sec:fluctuating} we apply our results to $(1+1)-$dimensional fluctuating interfaces. Finally, in
Section \ref{sec:conclusions} we conclude with a summary and related open problems. Some details of computations
are relegated to the appendices.
\section{Summary of the main results}
\label{sec:main_results}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=\linewidth]{Figure2.pdf}
\caption{ {\bf a)} The scaled distribution $T\, P(\tau|T)$ plotted as a function of $\tau/T$ for the BM (the solid line corresponds to the exact scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}), while the filled dots are the results of simulations).
{\bf b)} The same scaled distribution for the Brownian bridge where the exact scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bb}). Numerical simulations are obtained by averaging over $10^7$ samples.}
\label{fig:numeric}
\end{figure*}
Since this paper is rather long, it would be convenient and handy to the reader to have a summary
of our main results--this section does precisely that. This section is rather self-contained and readers not interested in details
may just read this section only.\\
\\
\noindent{\bf Probability distribution of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ for Brownian motion:}
We consider a BM $x(t)$, starting from some fixed initial position $x_0$ and evolving over a time interval $[0,T]$. By using a path-integral method we show that the PDF of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ has a scaling form for any $\tau$ and $T$:
\begin{equation}
P(\tau|T)=\frac{1}{T}f_{\rm BM}\left(\frac{\tau}{T}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f_bm}
f_{\rm BM}(y)=\frac{1}{|y| }\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\tanh^2\left(\frac{n\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{|y|}{1-|y|}}\right)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $-1\leq y\leq 1$. The function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is symmetric around $y=0$ and is non-monotonic as a function of $y$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric}a).
Moreover, $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ has the asymptotic behaviours
\begin{eqnarray}\label{asymptote_bm}
f_{\rm BM}(y) \underset{y \to 0^+}{\approx} \frac{8}{y^2} e^{-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{y}}} \;\;\; , \;\;\; f_{\rm BM}(y) \underset{y\to 1}{\approx} \frac{1}{2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
We also show that the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ satisfies the following integral relation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integral_BM}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{f_{\rm BM}(y)}{1+uy}=
\int_{0}^{\infty}dz \frac{1}{\sinh(z)}\tanh^2\left(\frac{z}{2\sqrt{1+u}}\right)\, .
\end{equation}
This integral identity turns out to be very useful to compute the moments
of $\tau$ explicitly in an efficient way. For example, for BM, the first few moments of $\tau$ are given
explicitly as :
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle |\tau|\rangle &=&\frac{4\log(2)-1}{3} \; T = (0.5908\ldots)\;T\,,\\ \nonumber \langle \tau^2\rangle &=& \frac{7\zeta(3)-2}{16}\; T^2 = (0.4009\ldots) \;T^2\,,\\ \nonumber
\langle |\tau|^3 \rangle &=& \frac{147\zeta(3)-34}{480}\; T^3 = (0.2972\ldots)\; T^3\,,\\ \nonumber \langle \tau^4\rangle &=&\frac{1701\zeta(3)-930\zeta(5)-182}{3840}\;T^4\\&= &(0.2339\ldots)\;T^4\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\zeta(z)$ is the Riemann zeta function.
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\noindent{\bf Probability distribution of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ for Brownian bridge:}
For a BB, which is a periodic BM of period $T$, we show that the PDF of $\tau$ has a scaling form for any value of $\tau$ and $T$:
\begin{equation}
P(\tau|T)=\frac{1}{T}f_{\rm BB}\left(\frac{\tau}{T}\right)\, ,
\end{equation}
where the scaling function is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f_bb}
f_{\rm BB}(y)=3\,(1-|y|)\sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2}{\left[m^2|y|+n^2(1-|y|)\right]^{5/2}} \, .
\end{equation}
This scaling function is again symmetric around $y=0$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric}b) and it has the asymptotic behaviours \footnote{Note that there were typos in the exponents of the pre-exponential factors in Eq. (5) of Ref. \cite{mori2019}.}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{asymptote_bb}
f_{\rm BB}(y)\underset{y \to 0^+}{\approx}\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi^2}{y^{\frac{9}{4}}}e^{-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{y}}} \;, \; f_{\rm BB}(y) \underset{y\to1}\approx\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\pi^2}{(1-y)^{\frac{5}{4}}}e^{-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{1-y}}} .
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, we show that the scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ satisfies the integral equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integral_BB}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\, \frac{f_{\rm BB}(y)}{\sqrt{1+ u y}}=
\int_{0}^{\infty}dz
\frac{\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+u}}\coth\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+u}}\right)-1}{\sinh(z)\sinh
\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+u}}\right)} \, .
\end{equation}
This integral relation for BB is the counterpart of Eq. (\ref{eq:integral_BM}) for BM. As in the case of BM,
the integral relation in Eq. (\ref{eq:integral_BB}) can be used to compute the moments of $\tau$ for~BB:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle |\tau|\rangle &=&\frac{\pi^2-6}{9}\;T = (0.4299\ldots)\;T\,,\\ \nonumber \langle \tau^2\rangle &=& \frac{\pi^2-6}{18}\; T^2 = (0.2149\ldots)\;T^2\,,\\ \nonumber
\langle |\tau|^3 \rangle &=& \frac{375\pi^2-14\pi^4-1530}{6750}\; T^3 = (0.1196\ldots)\; T^3\,,\\ \nonumber \langle \tau^4\rangle &=&\frac{125\pi^2-7\pi^4-390}{2250}\;T^4 = (0.0719\ldots)\; T^4\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\noindent{\bf Covariance of $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$:}
In the two cases of BM and BB we quantify the anti-correlation of $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$. Indeed, we compute exactly the covariance function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cov}
\operatorname{cov}(t_{\min},t_{\max}) = \langle t_{\min} t_{\max} \rangle - \langle t_{\min} \rangle \langle t_{\max}\rangle \, .
\end{equation}
In the case of BM we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
\operatorname{cov}_{\rm BM}(t_{\min},t_{\max})&=&-\frac{7\zeta(3)-6}{32} \;T^2 \\ & = & (-0.0754 \ldots)\textit{ } T^2\,, \nonumber \label{cov_BM_summ}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\zeta(z)$ is the Riemann zeta function. While for BB, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\operatorname{cov}_{\rm BB}(t_{\min},t_{\max})&=&-\frac{\pi^2-9}{36}\; T^2 \\ & = & (-0.0241 \ldots)\textit{ } T^2 \nonumber \label{cov_BB_summ} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
\\
\noindent{\bf Discrete-time random walks:}
We show that the result in (\ref{eq:f_bm}) is universal in the sense of the Central Limit Theorem. Indeed, let us consider a discrete-time stochastic process of $n$ steps, generated by the position of the~RW
\begin{equation}
x_k=x_{k-1}+\eta_k\,,
\end{equation}
where $x_0=0$ and $\eta_k$ are independent and identically distributed (IID) jumps drawn from the symmetric probability distribution $p(\eta)$. We show that in the limit of large $n$ the probability distribution of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ has a scaling form
\begin{equation}
P(\tau|n)\underset{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow}\frac{1}{n}f\left(\frac{\tau}{n}\right)\, ,
\end{equation}
where the scaling function $f(y)$ depends only on the tail behaviour of the
jump distribution $p(\eta)$. Moreover, we show that if the jump variance
$\sigma^2=\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\eta\,\eta^2\,p(\eta)$ is finite, $f(y)$ is given by the Brownian scaling
function (\ref{eq:f_bm}): $f(y)=f_{\rm BM}(y)$. We numerically verify this result for several choices of the
distribution $p(\eta)$. Moreover, we demonstrate exactly that $f(y)=f_{\rm BM}(y)$ for two particular
distributions $p(\eta)$ with a finite variance: the double-exponential distribution $p(\eta)=(1/2)e^{-|\eta|}$ and
the discrete distribution $p(\eta)=(1/2)\delta(|\eta|-1)$, which corresponds to lattice walks.
On the contrary, for L\'evy flights with divergent jump variance, i.e. for $p(\eta)\sim 1/|\eta|^{\mu+1}$ for
large $\eta$ with $0<\mu<2$, we verify numerically that the scaling function does depend on the
L\'evy exponent $\mu$ of $p(\eta)$, i.e. $f(y)=f_{\mu} (y)$.
Moreover, we uncover a very interesting fact. For an $n$-step discrete-time random walk on a line with IID increments,
we studied the event ``$\tau=t_{\rm min}-t_{\rm max}=n$'', i.e., the time between
the minimum and the maximum has the maximal possible value $n$. This corresponds to the event
that the maximum occurs at time $0$ and the minimum at step $n$, i.e., at the end of the interval.
Thus the event counts the probability that the walk, starting at the origin, stays below $0$ up to step
$n$ and that the last position at step $n$ is the global minimum.
For the double-exponential jump distribution, we proved that for any finite $n$, this probability
is given exactly by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:univ_prob}
P(\tau=n|n)=\frac{1}{2n}\,.
\end{equation}
Indeed, our numerical simulations suggest that this result, for any $n$, seems to
be valid for arbitrary symmetric and continuous jump distribution, and thus include L\'evy flights also.
This leads us to conjecture
that the result in Eq. (\ref{eq:univ_prob}) is actually super-universal, i.e, independent
of jump distributions as long as they are continuous and symmetric.
We could prove this conjecture for $n\le 3$ (the proof is given in the Appendix E) and
verified it numerically for higher $n$.
We suspect that there must be an elegant proof of this conjecture using some
generalisation of the Sparre Andersen theorem---but the mathematical proof of this conjecture for $n> 3$
has eluded us so far (rather frustratingly !). This remains an outstanding open problem.\\
\noindent{\bf Fluctuating interfaces:}
Finally, we show that our results can be directly applied to study similar quantities in the context of
fluctuating interfaces. We consider a one-dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ)~\cite{kpz86} or
Edwards-Wilkinson (EW)~\cite{edwads82} interface evolving over a substrate of finite length $L$.
Let $H(x,t)$ be the height of the interface at position $x$ and at time $t$.
We consider both free boundary conditions (FBC), where the endpoints $H(0,t)$ and $H(L,t)$ evolve freely,
and periodic boundary conditions (PBC), i.e. imposing $H(0,t)=H(L,T)$.
In order to use our results to study this system, we exploit a useful mapping between the fluctuating interface
in the stationary state and a BM, in the case of FBC, or a BB, in the case of PBC. More precisely, we identify
space with time, i.e. $x \Leftrightarrow t$, the height of the interface with the position of the Brownian
particle, i.e. $H\Leftrightarrow x$, and the substrate length with the total duration of the BM/BB, i.e. $L
\Leftrightarrow T$. The statistical properties of most observables of the interface height and of the BM/BB are
in general quite different, due to a specific constraint which will be discussed later. For instance, the
distribution of the maximal height of the interface with FBC/PBC is known to be different from the distribution
of the maximum value of an usual BM/BB \cite{majumdar04,comtet05}. Nevertheless, we show that, in the stationary
state, the position difference between the maximal and minimal height has the same PDF as $\tau$ for BM, in the
case of FBC, and for BB, in the case of PBC. In the case of KPZ interfaces with FBC, this result
is valid only in the large $L$ limit.
\section{Derivation of the distribution of $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$ for Brownian motion} \label{sec:BM}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption{Brownian motion $x(t)$ during the time interval $[0,T]$, starting from $x(0)=0$. The value of the global maximum is $x_{\max} - \epsilon$ (with $\epsilon>0$) and the value of the global minimum $-x_{\min} + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the cut-off needed to enforce absorbing boundary conditions at $x_{\max}$ and $x_{\min}$ (as explained in the text). The time at which the maximum (respectively the minimum) occurs is denoted by $t_{\max}$ (respectively $t_{\min}$). The final position $x(T)$, measured with respect to $-x_{\min}$ is denoted by $x_{\rm f}$. The total time interval $[0,T]$ is divided into three segments: $[0,t_{\max}]$ (I), $[t_{\max}, t_{\min}]$ (II) and $[t_{\min}, T]$ (III), for the case $t_{\min}>t_{\max}$.}
\label{fig:brownian}
\end{figure}
In this section, we derive the exact expression for the PDF of the time $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ between the maximum and the minimum of a one-dimensional BM. We consider a BM $x(t)$, starting from position $x(0)=x_0$ at initial time and evolving according to
\begin{equation}
\dot{x}(t)=\eta(t),
\end{equation}
where $\eta(t)$ is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean $\left\langle \eta(t) \right\rangle=0$ and correlator
$\left\langle\eta(t)\eta(t')\right\rangle=2D\,\delta\left(t-t'\right)$. For simplicity, we assume $D=1/2 $. The
probability distribution of the time difference $\tau$ will not depend on the initial position $x_0$. Indeed,
changing $x_0$ corresponds to a global shift in position but not in time. Hence, without loss of generality we
set $x_0=0$ in the rest of the paper. Let us define the amplitude of the maximum in $[0,T]$ as
$x_{\max}=x\left(t_{\max}\right)$ and the amplitude of the minimum as $x_{\min}=-x\left(t_{\min}\right)$ (see
Fig. \ref{fig:brownian}). Let $x_{\rm f}=x(T)+x_{\min}$ be the final position measured with respect to the
global minimum. First, we will compute the joint distribution $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$ of
these four random variables and then integrate out $x_{\max}$ and $x_{\min}$ to obtain the joint PDF
$P(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)$. Finally, from this joint PDF $P(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)$ we will obtain the marginal
PDF of $\tau$. Note that, integrating out $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$ in
$P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$, one could also obtain the joint distribution of $x_{\max}$ and
$x_{\min}$ that is already known in the literature \cite{KMS13,MSS16}. Notably, the joint distribution of the
extrema of a BM also plays an important role in disordered systems, such as the Sinai model, where the energy
landscape is modelled by a Brownian motion in space. In that context, the joint distribution of $x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$
was computed by using real space renormalisation group methods in Refs. \cite{PLDM03,schehr10}.
Indeed, the position and the depth of the energy minima as well as the height of the
energy barriers are quantities of fundamental importance in the description of disordered systems.
\subsection{Computation of the joint distribution of $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$}
For simplicity, we assume that $t_{\max}<t_{\min}$ (the complementary case $t_{\min} < t_{\max}$ can be studied in the same way).
Exploiting the Markovian property of the process, we can write the total probability $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$ as the product of the probabilities of the three individual time segments (see Fig. \ref{fig:brownian}): (I) $[0,t_{\max}]$, (II) $[t_{\max}, t_{\min}]$ and (III) $[t_{\min},T]$. We denote by $P_{\rm I}$, $P_{\rm II}$, and $P_{\rm III}$ the probability of the trajectory in the segments (I), (II), and (III), respectively. First of all, in each segment the trajectory has to stay inside the space interval $[-x_{\min},x_{\max}]$ because, by definition, it can never go above the global maximum $x_{\max}$ nor below the global minimum $-x_{\min}$. In the first segment (I), the particle goes from the origin at time $t=0$ to position $x_{\max}$ at time $t_{\max}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:brownian}). In the second segment (II), the trajectory starts at $x_{\max}$ at time $t_{\max}$ and arrives at $-x_{\min}$ at time $t_{\min}$. Finally, in the third segment (III), the trajectory starts at $-x_{\min}$ at time $t_{\min}$ and arrives at $x(T)$ at time $T$. We finally integrate over all possible values of $x(T)\in[-x_{\min}, x_{\max}]$. It is useful to define the amplitude of the space interval $[-x_{\min},x_{\max}]$
\begin{equation}
M = x_{\min} + x_{\max} \geq 0.
\label{eq:M}
\end{equation}
To avoid that the trajectory goes outside the interval $[-x_{\min},x_{\max}]$ we impose absorbing boundary
conditions at both $-x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$. However, since we are considering a continuous-time BM, we cannot
impose that the trajectory arrives exactly at the absorbing boundary at a certain time. Indeed, due to the
continuous nature of the process, if $x(t)$ arrives at position $x_{\max}$ at time $t_{\max}$ it will go above
$x_{\max}$ infinitely many times in the time interval $[t_{\max},t_{\max}+\delta]$ for any $\delta>0$
\cite{feller50}. Thus, it is impossible to satisfy the constraint $x(t)<x_{\max}$ while imposing
$x(t_{\max})=x_{\max}$. Analogously, one cannot impose that the BM arrives at position $-x_{\min}$ at time
$t_{\min}$ in the presence of an absorbing boundary at $-x_{\min}$. A way to avoid this issue is to introduce a
cut-off $\epsilon$ such that the actual values of $x(t)$ at $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ are respectively $x_{\max} -
\epsilon$ and $-x_{\min}+\epsilon$ \cite{randon-furling08,M05}, as in Fig. \ref{fig:brownian}. In this way, we
can compute the probability $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$ for a fixed $\epsilon$ and then take the
limit $\epsilon \to 0$ at the very end of the computation. \\
To compute the grand joint PDF $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$, we need, as a basic building block,
the Green's function $G_M(x,t|x_0,t_0)$ denoting the probability density for a BM, starting from $x_0$ at time
$t_0$, to arrive at $x$ at time $t$, while staying inside the box $[0,M]$ during the interval $[t_0,t]$. An explicit expression for this Green's function can be easily computed solving the
diffusion equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diffusion}
\partial_t G_M(x,t|x_0,t_0)=\frac{1}{2}\partial_x^2 G_M(x,t|x_0,t_0)\,,
\end{equation}
with absorbing boundary conditions both at $x=0$ and $x=M$. The solution of Eq. (\ref{eq:diffusion}) is given by (see e.g. \cite{Risken, Redner,bray13}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:g}
G_M=\frac{2}{M}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sin\left(\frac{n\pi x}{M}\right)\sin\left(\frac{n \pi x_0}{M}\right)e^{-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{2M^2}(t-t_0)}\;.
\end{equation}
To make use of this building-block, we first shift the origin in Fig. \ref{fig:brownian} to $-x_{\min}$. We start with the segment (I), where the probability $P_{\rm I}$ is just proportional to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PI_1}
P_{\rm I} \propto G_{M}(M-\epsilon,t_{\max}|x_{\min},0) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Using the expression (\ref{eq:g}), after shifting the origin to $-x_{\min}$, and expanding to leading order in $\epsilon$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{PI_2}
P_{\rm I} \propto -\frac{2 \pi \epsilon}{M^2} \sum_{n_1=1}^\infty (-1)^{n_1} n_1 \sin{\left(\frac{n_1 \pi \, x_{\min}}{M} \right)} \,e^{-\frac{n_1^2 \pi^2}{2M^2}\, t_{\max}}\;.
\end{equation}
We next consider the segment (II). Here the probability $P_{\rm II}$ is proportional to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PII_1}
P_{\rm II} \propto G_{M}(\epsilon,t_{\min}|M-\epsilon,t_{\max}) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Using again Eq. (\ref{eq:g}), and expanding to leading order for small $\epsilon$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PII_2}
P_{\rm II} \propto -\frac{2 \pi^2\,\epsilon^2}{M^3} \sum_{n_2=1}^\infty (-1)^{n_2} n_2^2 \, e^{-\frac{n_2^2 \pi^2}{2M^2}(t_{\min}-t_{\max})} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, for the third time segment (III), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PIII_1}
P_{\rm III} \propto \int_0^M G_{M}(x_{\rm f},T|\epsilon,t_{\min}) \, dx_{\rm f} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
after integrating over the final position $x_{\rm f} \in [0,M]$.
Using Eq. (\ref{eq:g}) and expanding for small $\epsilon$ we obtain (after integration over $x_{\rm f}$)
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PIII_2}
P_{\rm III} \propto \frac{2\epsilon}{M} \sum_{n_3=1}^\infty \left[1 - (-1)^{n_3} \right] \, e^{-\frac{n_3^2 \pi^2}{2M^2} (T-t_{\min})} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Taking the product of the three segments (\ref{PI_2}), (\ref{PII_2}) and (\ref{PIII_2}), we obtain that the total probability of the trajectory is proportional to
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{produc_1}
P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T) &\propto & P_{\rm I} P_{\rm II} P_{\rm III}\propto \frac{\epsilon^4}{M^6} \sum_{n_1=1}^\infty (-1)^{n_1} n_1 \sin{\left(\frac{n_1 \pi \, x_{\min}}{M} \right)} \,e^{-\frac{n_1^2 \pi^2}{2M^2}\, t_{\max}} \\ & \times & \sum_{n_2=1}^\infty (-1)^{n_2} n_2^2 \, e^{-\frac{n_2^2 \pi^2}{2M^2}(t_{\min}-t_{\max})} \sum_{n_3=1}^\infty \left[1 - (-1)^{n_3} \right] \, e^{-\frac{n_3^2 \pi^2}{2M^2} (T-t_{\min})} \,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $M=x_{\min}+x_{\max}$. As pointed out earlier, the result in Eq. (\ref{produc_1}) was derived in Ref.~\cite{schehr10} using real-space renormalisation group (RSRG) method. The method used here, using directly the constrained propagator, is rather different from the RSRG method used in Ref.~\cite{schehr10}.
Note that Eq. (\ref{produc_1}) is valid in the case $t_{\min}>t_{\max}$ and that by
`$\propto$', we have omitted the explicit dependence on the volume factors of the variables, i.e. $dt_{\max},
dt_{\min}, dx_{\max}$ and $dx_{\min}$, since $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$ is a probability
density, and not a probability. We now want to integrate $x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$ over $[0,+\infty)$, in order
to obtain the joint PDF $P(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)$ for $t_{\min} > t_{\max}$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Pminmax}
&& P(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T) \\
&=& \int_0^\infty dx_{\min} \, \int_0^\infty dx_{\max} P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T) \;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Plugging the expression for $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$ given in Eq. (\ref{produc_1}) into Eq. (\ref{Pminmax}) and performing the integral over $x_{\max}$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pminmax1}
&& P(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)\\ &\propto & \epsilon^4 \sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n_1+n_2}\left[1-(-1)^{n_3}\right]n_1 n_2^2 \,J(\alpha,\beta)\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined the double integral
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Iab}
J(\alpha, \beta)& =&\int_0^\infty dx_{\min} \int_0^\infty dx_{\max} e^{-\frac{\beta}{(x_{\min} + x_{\max})^2}}\\ &\times & \frac{1}{(x_{\min} + x_{\max})^6}\sin \left(\frac{\alpha \, x_{\min}}{x_{\min} + x_{\max}} \right) \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha = n_1 \pi\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\beta = \frac{\pi^2}{2} \Big( n_1^2\, t_{\max} + n_2^2\left(t_{\min} - t_{\max}\right) + n_3^2 \left(T-t_{\min}\right) \Big)\, .
\end{equation}
The integral (\ref{Iab}) can be explicitly evaluated (see Appendix \ref{app:Iab}) and we get
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Iab_2}
J(\alpha, \beta) = \frac{1-\cos \alpha}{2 \alpha \, \beta^2 } \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, using this result (\ref{Iab_2}) in Eq. (\ref{Pminmax1}), one obtains (for $t_{\max} < t_{\min}$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pminmax2}
&& P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T) = A_< \; \theta(t_{\min} - t_{\max}) \, \sum_{n_1, n_2, n_3 = 1}^\infty \nonumber \\ &\times &\frac{(-1)^{n_2+1} n_2^2 [1-(-1)^{n_1}] [1-(-1)^{n_3}]}{\left[n_1^2 t_{\max} + n_2^2 (t_{\min}-t_{\max})+ n_3^2 (T-t_{\min})\right]^2} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used $dt_{\max} dt_{\min} \propto \epsilon^4$ and the subscript `$<$' indicates $t_{\max} < t_{\min}$. Here $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside theta function. In arriving at this final form (\ref{Pminmax2}), we have used that $(-1)^{n_1} = -1$ since only the odd values of $n_1$ contribute to the sum. The overall proportionality constant $A_<$ has to be fixed from the normalisation condition
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:normalization<}
\int_0^T dt_{\min} \int_0^T dt_{\max} P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)\\ =P(t_{\max}<t_{\min}|T)=\frac{1}{2}\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, for the complementary case $t_{\max} > t_{\min}$, one can perform a similar computation and one obtains
\begin{eqnarray} \label{symmetry}
&&P_>(t_{\min},t_{\max}|T) = A_> \; \theta(t_{\max} - t_{\min}) \, \sum_{n_1, n_2, n_3 = 1}^\infty \nonumber\\ &\times & \frac{(-1)^{n_2+1} n_2^2[1-(-1)^{n_1}] [1-(-1)^{n_3}]}{\left[n_1^2 t_{\min} + n_2^2 (t_{\max}-t_{\min})+ n_3^2 (T-t_{\max})\right]^2} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_>$ is again a proportionality constant. This constant $A_>$ can be fixed from a normalisation condition similar to the one in Eq. (\ref{eq:normalization<}) but with $P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)$ replaced by $P_>(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)$.
Indeed, it is easy to see that $A_>$ and $A_<$ have to satisfy the same condition. This implies that
\begin{equation}
A_<=A_>=A\,.
\end{equation}
However, computing the exact value of $A$ from condition (\ref{eq:normalization<}) appears to be non-trivial. We will see later that the normalisation constant $A$ is given exactly by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{A_1}
A = \frac{4}{\pi^2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, one sees the symmetry
\begin{eqnarray} \label{symmetry2}
P_>(t_{\min},t_{\max}|T) = P_<(t_{\max}, t_{\min}|T) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
This non-trivial symmetry can be traced back to the fact that the BM is symmetric under the reflection $x \to -x$.\\
\subsection{Computation of the PDF of $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$}
To compute the PDF $P(\tau|T)$ of $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$, we focus on the case $t_{\min}>t_{\max}$, i.e. $\tau >0$. The complementary case $\tau<0$ is simply determined from the symmetry $P(-\tau|T) = P(\tau|T)$, obtained from exchanging $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ and using Eq. (\ref{symmetry2}). For $\tau >0$, one has
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ptau_1}
&&P(\tau|T) = \int_0^T dt_{\max} \int_0^T dt_{\min} P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T)\nonumber \\ &\times &\delta(t_{\min} - t_{\max}-\tau) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max},|T)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{Pminmax2}). Integrating over $t_{\min}$ gives
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Ptau_2}
P(\tau|T) &=& \int_0^{T-\tau} dt_{\max} P_<(t_{\max} + \tau, t_{\max}|T)\\ &=& A \sum_{n_1, n_2, n_3 =1}^\infty (-1)^{n_2+1} n_2^2 (1-(-1)^{n_1})(1-(-1)^{n_3}) \int_0^{T-\tau} dt_{\max}\, \frac{1}{\left( n_1^2 t_{\max} + n_2^2 \tau + n_3^2 (T-t_{\max}-\tau)\right)^2} \nonumber \\&=& A \; (T - \tau) \sum_{n_1, n_2, n_3 =1}^\infty (-1)^{n_2+1} n_2^2 \frac{(1-(-1)^{n_1})(1-(-1)^{n_3}) }{(n_1^2 (T-\tau) + n_2^2 \tau)(n_3^2 (T-\tau) + n_2^2 \tau)} \;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
Remarkably, the sums over $n_1$ and $n_3$ get decoupled and each yields exactly the same contribution. Hence we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PTau_5}
P(\tau |T) &=& A \; (T-\tau) \sum_{n_2=1}^\infty (-1)^{n_2+1}n_2^2\\ & \times & \left[ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1-(-1)^n}{n^2(T-\tau)+ n_2^2 \tau}\right]^2 \;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This sum over $n$ inside the parenthesis can be performed using the identity \cite{prudnikov}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{identity_Ptau}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1-(-1)^ n}{b+ n^2} = \frac{\pi}{2 \sqrt{b}} {\rm tanh}\left( \frac{\pi}{2} \sqrt{b}\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Using this identity (\ref{identity_Ptau}) into Eq. (\ref{PTau_5}) one obtains, for $\tau >0$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PTau_6}
P(\tau|T) = \frac{1}{T} f_{\rm BM}\left( \frac{\tau}{T}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f_BM_A}
f_{\rm BM}(y) = A \; \frac{\pi^2}{4y} \, \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} {\rm \tanh}^2 \left( \frac{n\pi}{2} \sqrt{\frac{y}{1-y}}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
which is only valid for $y>0$. However, the symmetry $\tau\to -\tau$ implies that $f_{\rm BM}(y)=f_{\rm BM}(-y)$ and hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f_BM_A2}
f_{\rm BM}(y) = A \; \frac{\pi^2}{4|y|} \, \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} {\rm \tanh}^2 \left( \frac{n\pi}{2} \sqrt{\frac{|y|}{1-|y|}}\right) \;,
\end{equation}
which is valid for $-1\leq y\leq 1$.
The constant $A$ can be determined from the normalisation condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normalization3}
\int_{-T}^{T}d\tau \, P(\tau|T)=1\,.
\end{equation}
Using the scaling form (\ref{PTau_6}) and changing variable $\tau\to y=\tau/T$, we get the equivalent condition on $f_{\rm BM}(y)$
\begin{equation}
\int_{-1}^{1}dy \, f_{\rm BM}(y)=1\,,
\end{equation}
which, using the symmetry $f_{\rm BM}(y)=f_{\rm BM}(-y)$, becomes
\begin{equation}
\int_{0}^{1}dy \, f_{\rm BM}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\,.
\end{equation}
Using the expression for $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_BM_A2}), we get the following condition for $A$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normalization_for_A}
A\frac{\pi^2}{4} \int_{0}^{1} \frac{dy}{y} \; \, \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} {\rm \tanh}^2 \left( \frac{n\pi}{2} \sqrt{\frac{y}{1-y}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\,.
\end{equation}
It turns out that the integral on the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:normalization_for_A}) can be
computed exactly (see Appendix \ref{app:integral}), yielding
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integral_1/2}
\int_{0}^{1} \frac{dy}{y} \; \, \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} {\rm \tanh}^2 \left( \frac{n\pi}{2}
\sqrt{\frac{y}{1-y}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, using Eqs. (\ref{eq:normalization_for_A}) and (\ref{eq:integral_1/2})
we get that $A=4/\pi^2$. Using this exact value of $A$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_BM_A}) gives us our
complete result for the scaling function
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f_bm_2}
f_{\rm BM}(y)=\frac{1}{|y| }\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\tanh^2\left(\frac{n\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{|y|}{1-|y|}}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
for $-1<y<1$, as given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}). A plot of the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:numeric}a, where we also compare it with numerical simulations, finding an excellent agreement. The scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is symmetric around $y=0$ and it is non-monotonic as a function of $y$. We numerically identify the values
\begin{equation}
y^*=\pm (0.5563\ldots)
\end{equation}
at which $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is maximal. This non-trivial value has a nice application in finance. Indeed, let us consider again the situation described in Section \ref{sec:intro} and let $x(t)$ represent the price of a stock during some fixed time window of duration $T$. Assume that $t_{\min}>t_{\max}$ and that an agent has sold her or his stock at time $t_{\max}$. In order to re-buy the stock at the best price, i.e. at time $t_{\min}$, then, the optimal time that the agent has to wait between selling and buying is exactly $y^* \,T$, which is the value of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ with the highest probability density.
\subsection{Asymptotic analysis of $f_{\rm BM}(y)$}
We consider the function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ given explicitly in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}) where $y \in [-1,1]$. Using the symmetry $f_{\rm BM}(-y) = f_{\rm BM}(y)$ it is sufficient to consider the case $y>0$. We first study the limit when $y \to 1$ (or equivalently $y \to -1$). In this limit, the term $\tanh^2\left(\frac{n\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{y}{1-y}}\right)$ can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\tanh^2\left(\frac{n\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{y}{1-y}}\right)\simeq \frac{1+e^{-\frac{n\pi}{\sqrt{1-y}}}}{1-e^{-\frac{n\pi}{\sqrt{1-y}}}}\simeq 1+2e^{-n\pi/\sqrt{1-y}}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ can be expanded, as $y\to 1$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&f_{\rm BM}(y)\simeq \left(1+(1-y)\right)\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\left(1+2e^{-n\pi/\sqrt{1-y}}\right) \nonumber \\
&&= \left(1+(1-y)\right)\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}+ \frac{2}{1+e^{\pi/\sqrt{1-y}}}\right)\nonumber \\
&& \simeq \left(1+(1-y)\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}+ 2\, e^{-\pi/\sqrt{1-y}}\right)\simeq
\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1-y}{2}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In going to the second to the third line above, we have used the equality
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^n=\frac{1}{2}\,.
\end{equation}
Of course, this sum is not convergent. However, one can interpret it in a regularised sense as follows \cite{randon-furling08}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{yto1_2}
\lim_{\alpha \to -1} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \alpha^{n+1} = \lim_{\alpha \to -1} \frac{\alpha^2}{1-\alpha} = \frac{1}{2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, in the limit $y\to 1$, we have verified that $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ goes to the value $1/2$. Moreover, in the vicinity of $y=1$, $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is linear with negative slope $-1/2$.
Next, we consider the limit $y \to 0^+$. In order to investigate this limit, it turns out that the representation given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}) is not convenient, since the series diverges strongly if one naively takes the limit $y\to 0^+$. Hence, it is convenient to derive an alternative representation of $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ which will allow us to obtain the $y \to 0^+$ behaviour correctly. To proceed, we use the Poisson summation formula. Consider the sum
\begin{eqnarray}\label{s_of_a}
s(a)&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\tanh^2(na)\\&=&-\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e^{i \pi n}\tanh^2(na)=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i\pi n}\tanh^2(na) \;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This sum can be re-written, using the Poisson summation formula, as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Poisson1}
s(a) = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \hat F(2\pi m) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat F(2\pi m) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{i 2 \pi m x} e^{i \pi x} \tanh^2(a x)\, dx \;.
\end{eqnarray}
This integral can be performed explicitly, using the identity \cite{gradshteyn}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Poisson2}
\int_{0}^\infty \cos{(b y)}\, \tanh^2(y) \, dy = - \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{b}{\sinh\left(\frac{\pi b}{2} \right)} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Using this, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Poisson3}
s(a) = \frac{\pi^2}{2a^2} \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{2m+1}{\sinh\left(\frac{\pi^2 (2m+1)}{2a}\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Using $a = \frac{\pi}{2} \sqrt{|y|/(1-|y|)}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm_2}) and Eq. (\ref{Poisson3}), we obtain an exact alternative representation of $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{Poisson4}
f_{\rm BM}(y) = \frac{2(1-|y|)}{|y|^2} \sum_{m = -\infty}^\infty \frac{2m+1}{\sinh \left( (2m+1) \pi \sqrt{\frac{1-|y|}{|y|}} \right)} \;.
\end{equation}
One can now take the $y \to 0^+$ limit in the last expression, where the terms $m=0$ and $m=-1$ dominate in this limit. This yields, to leading order,
\begin{equation}\label{asympt_y0}
f_{\rm BM}(y) \approx \frac{8}{y^2}e^{-{\pi}/{\sqrt{y}}} \;,
\end{equation}
Including also higher order corrections, one obtains
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm BM}(y) \approx \frac{8}{y^2}e^{-{\pi}/{\sqrt{y}}} -\frac{8}{y}e^{-{\pi}/{\sqrt{y}}} \;, \quad {\rm as} \quad y \to 0^+ \;.
\end{equation}
Hence, using the $y\to -y$ symmetry, the asymptotic behaviours of $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ can be summarised as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{summary_asymptotics}
f_{\rm BM}(y) \approx
\begin{cases}
&\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1-|y|}{2} \quad \; \quad \quad\quad \quad \quad \quad \; {\rm as} \quad y \to \pm 1 \\
& \\
& \dfrac{8}{y^2}\, e^{-{\pi}/{\sqrt{|y|}}} -\dfrac{8}{|y|}\, e^{-{\pi}/{\sqrt{|y|}}} \quad {\rm as} \quad y \to 0 \,.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Moments of $\tau$ for BM} \label{sec:moments}
Since the distribution $P(\tau|T)$ is symmetric in $\tau\in[-T,T]$, the odd moments of $\tau$ vanish by symmetry and
only the even moments are nonzero. Hence, it is more appropriate to compute the moments of the absolute value of $\tau$
\begin{equation}
\label{absolute_moment.BM}
\langle|\tau|^k\rangle=\int_{-T}^{T}d\tau\,P(\tau|T)\,|\tau|^k\, \quad k\ge 0\, .
\end{equation}
Using the scaling form $P(\tau|T)= (1/T)\, f_{\rm BM}(\tau/T)$, one obtains from Eq. (\ref{absolute_moment.BM})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau_k_1}
\langle|\tau|^k\rangle=T^k\,\int_{-1}^{1}dy\,f_{\rm BM}(y)\,|y|^k\,,=2T^k\,\int_{0}^{1}dy\,f_{\rm BM}(y)\,|y|^k\, ,
\end{equation}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm_2}).
However, evaluating the integral on the right hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:tau_k_1}) directly with the form of $f_{\rm BM}(y)$
in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm_2}) seems rather hard. Here we found an alternative way to evaluate the moments explicitly.
In fact, we found an integral identity satisfied by the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int_BM}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{f_{\rm BM}(y)}{1+uy}=\int_{0}^{\infty}dz \frac{1}{\sinh(z)}\tanh^2\left(\frac{z}{2\sqrt{1+u}}\right)\, .
\end{equation}
The proof of this identity is provided later in Section~V.A.1 in the context of discrete-time
random walks with exponential jump distribution, as it emerges quite naturally there.
It turns out that this identity in Eq. (\ref{eq:int_BM}) plays the role of a generating function of moments
and moments can be simply extracted by expanding both sides of this identity in powers of $u$. Let us just quote here
first four moments of $\tau$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:moments_BM}
\langle |\tau|\rangle &=&\frac{4\log(2)-1}{3}\,T=(0.5908\ldots)\,T\,,\\ \nonumber
\langle \tau^2\rangle &=& \frac{7\zeta(3)-2}{16}\,T^2=(0.4009\ldots)\,T^2\,,\\ \nonumber
\langle |\tau|^3 \rangle &=& \frac{147\zeta(3)-34}{480}\,T^3=(0.2972\ldots)\,T^3\,,\\
\nonumber \langle \tau^4\rangle &=&\frac{1701\zeta(3)-930\zeta(5)-182}{3840}\,T^4\\&=&(0.2339\ldots)\,T^4\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which are fully consistent with the estimates from simulation.\\
\noindent {\bf{Covariance of $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$:}} As an application of these results on the moments of $\tau$,
we show now that the covariance
of $t_{\rm min}$ and $t_{\rm max}$ can also be computed explicitly using the known second moment $\langle \tau^2\rangle $ above.
By definition, the covariance function is given by
\begin{equation} \label{def_cov}
\operatorname{cov}\left(t_{\min},t_{\max}\right)= \langle t_{\min} t_{\max}\rangle -
\langle t_{\min}\rangle \langle t_{\max}\rangle \;.
\end{equation}
While, in principle, one can evaluate the covariance exactly knowing the joint distribution
$P(t_{\min},t_{\max}|T)$ in Eq. (\ref{Pminmax2}), it turns out to be rather cumbersome.
A more elegant and much shorter method consists in using the moments of $\tau$ as we show now.
Since $\tau=t_{\rm min}-t_{\rm max}$, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{id_tau}
\langle \tau^2 \rangle = \langle t_{\min}^2 \rangle +
\langle t_{\max}^2 \rangle - 2 \langle t_{\min} \, t_{\max} \rangle \;.
\end{eqnarray}
We can now eliminate $\langle t_{\min} \, t_{\max} \rangle$ from Eqs. (\ref{def_cov}) and (\ref{id_tau})
and express the covariance in terms of $\tau^2$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{formula_covariance}
&&\operatorname{cov}\left(t_{\min},t_{\max}\right) \\ &=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\langle t_{\min}^2\rangle +
\langle t_{\max}^2\rangle -\langle \tau^2\rangle \right)-\langle t_{\min}\rangle \langle t_{\max}\rangle \;. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, we just need the first two moments of $t_{\min}$, $t_{\max}$ and $\tau$. In the case of the BM the marginal PDFs of
$t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$ are given by the expression in Eq. (\ref{levy}):
\begin{eqnarray} \label{arcsine_min}
&&P(t_{\min}|T)=\frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{t_{\min}(T-t_{\min})}} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
for $ 0\leq t_{\min} \leq T$, and similarly
\begin{eqnarray}\label{arcsine_max}
&&P(t_{\max}|T)=\frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{t_{\max}(T-t_{\max})}}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
for $0\leq t_{\max} \leq T $.
From Eqs. (\ref{arcsine_min}) and (\ref{arcsine_max}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle t_{\min} \rangle = \langle t_{\max} \rangle = \frac{T}{2} \label{av_tmin} \;, \\
&&\langle t_{\min}^2 \rangle = \langle t_{\max}^2 \rangle = \frac{3}{8}T^2 \;. \label{var_tmin}
\end{eqnarray}
The second moment of $\tau$ is computed in Eq. (\ref{eq:moments_BM}) above. Thus,
substituting the results from Eqs. (\ref{av_tmin}), (\ref{var_tmin}) and (\ref{eq:moments_BM}) in
Eq. (\ref{formula_covariance}), we get
\begin{equation} \label{cov}
\operatorname{cov}_{\rm BM}(t_{\min},t_{\max})=-\frac{7\zeta(3)-6}{32}\,T^2=-(0.0754\ldots) \, T^2.
\end{equation}
\section{Derivation of the distribution of $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$ for Brownian bridge} \label{sec:BB}
Here, we study the statistics of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ in the case of a BB, i.e. a periodic BM of fixed period $T$. The PDF of $\tau$ for BB will be directly applicable to study KPZ/EW interfaces with PBC in space (see Section \ref{sec:fluctuating}). In the case of the BB, $t_{\max}$ is uniformly distributed over the interval $[0,T]$ \cite{feller50}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:t_max_BB}
P(t_{\max}|T)=1/T\,.
\end{equation}
By the symmetry of the BB, $t_{\min}$ has the same distribution (\ref{eq:t_max_BB}). However, as explained below, the PDF of the time difference $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ for the BB has a scaling form $P(\tau|T)=(1/T)f_{\rm BB}(\tau/T)$ where $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ is the non-trivial scaling function given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bb}). In the next two sections we present two alternative derivations for the PDF $P(\tau | T)$. The first is based on a path-integral technique analogous to the one presented in Section \ref{sec:BM}, while the second is based on a useful mapping between the BB and the Brownian excursion, namely the Veervat construction.
\subsection{Derivation 1: path-integral method}\label{sec:BB_1}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure4.pdf}
\caption{A typical trajectory of a Brownian bridge $x(t)$ during the time interval $[0,T]$, starting from $x(0)=0$ and ending at $x(T)=0$. The value of the global maximum is $x_{\max} - \epsilon$ (with $\epsilon>0$) and the value of the global minimum $-x_{\min} + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the cut-off needed to enforce absorbing boundary conditions at $x_{\max}$ and $x_{\min}$ (as explained in the text). The time at which the maximum (respectively the minimum) occurs is denoted by $t_{\max}$ (respectively $t_{\min}$). The total time interval $[0,T]$ is divided into three segments: $[0,t_{\max}]$ (I), $[t_{\max}, t_{\min}]$ (II) and $[t_{\min}, T]$ (III), for the case $t_{\min}>t_{\max}$.}
\label{fig:bridge}
\end{figure}
The derivation in the case of BB follows more or less the same steps as in the BM case (Section \ref{sec:BM}). We consider a
typical trajectory going from $x_0=0$ at time $t=0$ to the final position $x(T)=0$ at time $T$, as in Fig. \ref{fig:bridge}.
Let $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$ denote the time of occurrences
of the minimum and the maximum respectively. The actual values of the minimum and the maximum are again denoted by $-x_{\min}$ and
$x_{\max}$. As in the BM case, we first compute the grand joint PDF $P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, t_{\min}, t_{\max} | T)$ by decomposing the interval $[0,T]$ into three segments I, II, III. While the probabilities $P_{\rm I}$ and $P_{\rm II}$ for the first two segments are exactly identical as in the BM case,
the probability for the last segment $P_{\rm III}$ is different, due to the bridge constraint $x(T)=0$.
Once again, in terms of the Green's equation
defined in Eq. (\ref{eq:g}), with the origin shifted to $-x_{\min}$ as in the BM case, this grand PDF can be written as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{jointPDF_BB}
&& P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, t_{\min}, t_{\max} | T)\\& \propto & G_M(M-\epsilon, t_{\max}|x_{\min},0) \, G_M(\epsilon, t_{\min}|M-\epsilon, t_{\max}) \, \nonumber\\ &\times & G_M(x_{\min}, T|\epsilon, t_{\min}) \;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we have again used the cut-off $\epsilon$, as explained in Section \ref{sec:BM} and $M=x_{\min}+x_{\max}$ as before. We recall that in Eq. (\ref{jointPDF_BB}) we measure all positions with respect to the global minimum $-x_{\min}$. Taking the $\epsilon \to 0$ limit and integrating over $x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$, we can obtain the joint PDF $P(t_{\min}, t_{\max} | T)$. The intermediate steps leading to the final result are very similar to the BM case, hence we do not repeat them here and just quote the final result. For $t_{\min} > t_{\max}$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{P>BB}
&& P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T) = B \sqrt{T} \, \theta(t_{\min}-t_{\max}) \\ &\times & \sum_{n,m=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{m+n}\, m^2 n^2}{\left[n^2 T+ (m^2-n^2) (t_{\min}-t_{\max})\right]^{5/2}} \;, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the constant $B$ can be fixed from the overall normalisation. The factor $\sqrt{T}$ in Eq. (\ref{P>BB}) comes from the fact that, since we are considering a BB, we are implicitly conditioning on the event ``$x(T) = 0$''. Thus, after integrating out the variables $x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$ from the joint distribution in Eq. (\ref{jointPDF_BB}), one has also to divide by the probability
\begin{equation}
P(x(T)=0|T)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi T}}\,,
\end{equation}
which gives the additional factor $\sqrt{T}$ in Eq. (\ref{P>BB}).
We recall that the subscript '$<$' in Eq. (\ref{P>BB}) indicates $t_{\max} < t_{\min}$. To compute the PDF $P(\tau|T)$ of $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$, we focus on the case $t_{\max}<t_{\min}$, i.e. $\tau >0$. The complementary case $\tau<0$ is simply determined from the symmetry $P(-\tau|T) = P(\tau|T)$, as in the BM case. For $\tau >0$, one has
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ptau_BB1}
&& P(\tau|T) = \int_0^T dt_{\max} \int_0^T dt_{\min} P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max}|T) \; \nonumber\\ &\times & \delta(t_{\min} - t_{\max}-\tau) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max},|T)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{P>BB}). Noting that $P_<(t_{\min}, t_{\max},|T)$ depends only on the difference $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$, we can first carry out the integral over $t_{\min}$ in Eq. (\ref{Ptau_BB1}) keeping $\tau$ fixed. This gives an additional factor $(T-\tau)$ and we get, for $\tau > 0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ptau_BB2}
P(\tau|T) = \frac{1}{T} f_{\rm BB}\left( \frac{\tau}{T}\right)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$, for $0 \leq y \leq 1$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{fBB_SM1}
f_{\rm BB}(y) = B\;(1-y) \sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2}{\left[m^2 \,y+n^2(1-y)\right]^{5/2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
For $\tau < 0$, using the symmetry $P(-\tau|T) = P(\tau|T)$, it follows that $P(\tau|T)$ takes exactly the same scaling form as in Eq. (\ref{Ptau_BB2}), with $y$ replaced by $-y$. Thus for all $-T \leq \tau \leq T$, $P(\tau|T) = (1/T) f_{\rm BB}(\tau/T)$ where $f_{\rm BB}(y)$, for all $-1 \leq y \leq 1$, is given by
\begin{equation} \label{fBB_SM2}
f_{\rm BB}(y) = B (1-|y|) \sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2}{\left[m^2 \,|y|+n^2(1-|y|)\right]^{5/2}} \;,
\end{equation}
The prefactor $B$ can, in principle, be fixed from the normalisation condition
\begin{equation}
\int_{-1}^1 f_{\rm BB}(y) dy = 1 \, .
\end{equation}
However, computing explicitly this integral appears to be challenging. An alternative way to obtain the constant $B$ is presented in the next section, where we show that
\begin{equation}
B=3\,.
\end{equation}
The scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$, shown in Fig. \ref{fig:numeric}b, is symmetric around $y=0$ and it is non-monotonic as a function of $y$. We numerically find that at the two points $y^*=\pm (0.3749\ldots )$ the scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ reaches its maximal value.
To confirm this result (\ref{fBB_SM2}) we have performed numerical simulations, using a simple algorithm for generating Brownian bridges \cite{majumdar15}. The results of simulations (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric}b) are in excellent agreement with the scaling function in Eq. (\ref{fBB_SM2}).
\subsection{Derivation 2: mapping to Brownian excursion}\label{sec:BB_2}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure5.pdf}
\caption{Schematic representation of the Vervaat transformation from a Brownian bridge $x(t)$ in panel a) to a Brownian excursion in panel b). On the left panel a), we have a Brownian bridge going from $x(0) = 0$ at time $t=0$ to the final position $x(T) = 0$ at time $t=T$. We first locate the time $t_{\min}$ at which the minimum of the bridge occurs with value $-x_{\min}$. We decompose the trajectory into two parts: the left of $t_{\min}$ (shown in yellow) and the right of $t_{\min}$ (shown in blue). Keeping the blue part of the trajectory fixed, we first slide forward the yellow part of the trajectory by an interval $T$ and glue this yellow part of the trajectory to the right end of the blue part. Next we shift the origin of the space to $-x_{\min}$. After these two transformations, the new trajectory on the right panel b) corresponds to a Brownian excursion path. Note that the time difference $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$ in the bridge configuration on the left (indicated by a double-arrowed red line) corresponds exactly to the time at which the maximum of the excursion occurs (measured from the right end of the interval) on the right panel (also shown by a double arrowed red line).}
\label{fig:vervaat}
\end{figure*}
We can derive the result for the BB in Eq. (\ref{fBB_SM2}) by using an alternative method based on a mapping between a BB trajectory and a Brownian excursion (BE) trajectory -- known as Vervaat construction in probability theory \cite{vervaat79} (see also \cite{majumdar15}). Let us first recall that a BE on the time interval $[0,T]$ is a BB with the additional constraint that the path remains positive at all intermediate times between $0$ and $T$ (for a typical trajectory of BE, see Fig. \ref{fig:vervaat}b). From any BB configuration, one can obtain a BE configuration by sliding and fusing as explained in the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:vervaat}. Additionally, Vervaat proved that the configurations of BE generated by this construction from a BB configuration occur with the correct statistical weight. Clearly, under this mapping, as also explained in the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:vervaat}, the time difference $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$ for a BB gets mapped onto $t^{\rm BE}_{\max}$ of a BE, measured from the right end of the interval $[0,T]$, where $t^{\rm BE}_{\max}$ denotes the time at which the maximum of a Brownian excursion occurs. This is a random variable, and let us denote its PDF by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{def_PBE}
P_{\rm BE}(\tau|T) = {\rm Prob.}\left(t_{\max}^{\rm BE} = \tau|T\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this mapping is one-to-one only if we fix the value of $t_{\min}$. Thus, focusing on the case where $\tau >0$, i.e. $t_{\min} > t_{\max}$ for BB, the Vervaat construction provides the exact identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BB_BE}
P_{\rm BB}(t_{\min}-t_{\max}|t_{\min},T) = P_{\rm BE}(t_{\min}-t_{\max}|T) \;,
\end{equation}
where the left-hand side denotes the PDF of $t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ for a BB, conditioned on $t_{\min}$ and on the total time $T$. For the BE, the PDF $P_{\rm BE}(\tau|T)$ was computed exactly in \cite{randon-furling08} and it reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PBE_explicit}
P_{\rm BE}(\tau|T)=3\, T^{3/2} \,\sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2 }{\left[m^2 \tau+n^2(T-\tau)\right]^{5/2}} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
The joint PDF of $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ for a BB can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:joint_BB}
P_{\rm BB}(t_{\max},t_{\min}|T)&=& P_{\rm BB}(t_{\max}-t_{\min}|t_{\min},T)P_{\rm BB}(t_{\min}|T)\nonumber\\
&=&P_{\rm BE}(t_{\min}-t_{\max}|T) P_{\rm BB}(t_{\min}|T)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used Eq. (\ref{eq:BB_BE}) in going from the first to the second line above. The distribution of the time $t_{\min}$ of the minimum of a BB is uniform over $[0,T]$ \cite{morters10}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prob_tmin}
P_{\rm BB}(t_{\min}|T)=\frac1T\,,
\end{equation}
Thus, plugging the expressions for $P_{\rm BE}(t_{\min}-t_{\max}|T)$ and $P_{\rm BB}(t_{\min}|T)$, given in Eqs. (\ref{PBE_explicit}) and (\ref{eq:prob_tmin}), into Eq. (\ref{eq:joint_BB}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:P_tmax_tmin_BB}
&& P_{\rm BB}(t_{\max},t_{\min}|T)=
3\, \sqrt{T} \,\\ &\times & \sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2 }{\left[m^2 (t_{\min}-t_{\max})+n^2(T-t_{\min}+t_{\max})\right]^{5/2}}\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, integrating Eq. (\ref{eq:P_tmax_tmin_BB}) over $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$, keeping $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ fixed, we obtain that the PDF of the time $\tau$ between the maximum and the minimum of a BB is given by
\begin{equation}
P(\tau|T)=\frac{1}{T}f_{\rm BB}(\frac{\tau}{T})
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{fBB_SM_4}
f_{\rm BB}(y) = 3 (1-|y|) \sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2}{\left[m^2 \,|y|+n^2(1-|y|)\right]^{5/2}} \;.
\end{equation}
Comparing this result (\ref{fBB_SM_4}) with Eq. (\ref{fBB_SM2}) we obtain that the correct normalisation constant in Eq. (\ref{fBB_SM2}) was indeed $B=3$. Moreover, the asymptotic behaviours of $P_{\rm BE}(\tau|T)$ was also computed in \cite{randon-furling08}. As before, due to the $y\to-y$ symmetry it is sufficient to consider only the case $y>0$. Thus, using Eq. (\ref{eq:BB_BE}), one finds that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{summary_asymptotics_BB}
f_{\rm BB}(y) \approx
\begin{cases}
&\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\pi^2}{(1-y)^{\frac{5}{4}}}e^{-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{1-y}}} \quad \; \quad \quad \quad \; {\rm as} \quad y \to 1 \\
& \\
& \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi^2}{y^{\frac{9}{4}}}e^{-\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{y}}} \quad \quad \quad \quad\quad \quad {\rm as} \quad y \to 0^+ \, .
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Moments of $\tau$ for BB}
As in case of BM, the moments of $\tau=t_{\min}-t_{\max}$ can be computed for the BB explicitly. Since $P(\tau|T)$ is
symmetric also for a BB, odd moments vanish and we compute the $k$-th moment of the absolute value $|\tau|$. In this case,
using the scaling form $P(\tau|T)= (1/T)\, f_{BB}(\tau/T)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:moments_definition}
\langle|\tau|^k\rangle=\int_{-T}^{T}d\tau\,|\tau|^k\,\frac{1}{T}f_{\rm BB}\left(\frac{\tau}{T}\right)=
2T^k\int_{0}^{1}dy\,y^k\,f_{\rm BB}\left(y\right)\,,
\end{equation}
As in the BM case, evaluating the integral on the right hand side using the explicit form of $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ from
Eq. (\ref{fBB_SM_4}) seems cumbersome. We need an integral identity satisfied by $f_{\rm BB}(y)$, just like
Eq. (\ref{eq:int_BM}) for the BM case. Fortunately, such an identity can be derived (see
Appendix D for the derivation)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integral_f_bb}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\, \frac{f_{\rm BB}(y)}{\sqrt{1+ u y}}=
\int_{0}^{\infty}dz \frac{\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+u}}\coth\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+u}}\right)-
1}{\sinh(z)\sinh \left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{1+u}}\right)} \,.
\end{equation}
Again expanding in powers of $u$ on both sides, we can extract the moments. The first four moments read
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:moments_BB}
\langle |\tau|\rangle &=&\frac{\pi^2-6}{9}\,T=(0.4299\ldots)\,T\,,\\ \nonumber \langle
\tau^2\rangle &=& \frac{\pi^2-6}{18}\,T^2=(0.2149\ldots)\,T^2\,,\\ \nonumber
\langle |\tau|^3 \rangle &=& \frac{375\pi^2-14\pi^4-1530}{6750}\,T^3=(0.1196\ldots)\,T^3\,,\\
\nonumber \langle \tau^4\rangle &=&\frac{125\pi^2-7\pi^4-390}{2250}\,T^4= (0.0719\ldots)\,T^4\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
These results are in good agreement with the estimates from numerical simulations.
The second moment $\langle \tau^2\rangle$ can also be derived explicitly using the Veervat construction discussed in
Section \ref{sec:BB} that links a BB to a BE. For a BE, the PDF of $t_{\max}$ has the scaling form
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm BE}(t_{\max}|T) = \frac1T f_{\rm BE}\left(\frac{t_{\max}}{T}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $f_{\rm BE}(y)$ is given by \cite{randon-furling08}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{fBE}
f_{\rm BE}(y) = 3 \sum_{m,n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{m+n}m^2n^2}{\left(m^2 y+n^2(1-y)\right)^{5/2}} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the two scaling functions $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ in Eq. (\ref{fBB_SM_4}) and $f_{\rm BE}(y)$ in Eq. (\ref{fBE}) are simply related via
\begin{eqnarray} \label{rel_BB_BE}
f_{\rm BB}(y) = (1-y) f_{\rm BE}(y) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Consequently, from Eq. (\ref{eq:moments_definition}) using $k=2$ and the relation in Eq. (\ref{rel_BB_BE}) we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{var_tau_BB2}
\langle \tau^2 \rangle = 2 T^2 \, \Big( \langle y^2\rangle_{\rm BE} - \langle y^3\rangle_{\rm BE} \Big)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{def_mom_BE}
\langle y^m \rangle_{\rm BE} = \int_0^1 dy \, y^m \, f_{\rm BE}(y) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
The first three moments, i.e. $\langle y^m \rangle_{\rm BE}$ for $m=1,2,3$, were computed in Ref. \cite{randon-furling08}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:moments}
\left\langle y\right\rangle _{\rm BE}= \frac{1}{2} ,\textit{ }\textit{
}\textit{ } \left\langle y^2\right\rangle _{\rm BE}=\frac{15-\pi^2}{18},
\textit{ }\textit{ }\textit{ }
\left\langle y^3\right\rangle _{\rm BE}=1-\frac{\pi^2}{12}.
\end{equation}
Substituting these results in Eq. (\ref{var_tau_BB2}) gives
\begin{equation}
\langle \tau^2\rangle= \frac{\pi^2-6}{18}\,T^2=(0.2149\ldots)\,T^2 \, ,
\label{var_second_BB}
\end{equation}
in perfect agreement with the first derivation in Eq. (\ref{eq:moments_BB}).\\
\noindent {\bf{Covariance of $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$:}} As in the case of BM, the covariance between $t_{\min}$ and
$t_{\max}$ can be computed from the general formula in Eq. (\ref{formula_covariance}), and
using the explicit knowledge of $\langle \tau^2 \rangle$ from Eq. (\ref{eq:moments_BB}). In addition,
we need the first two moments of $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$ for BB. The marginal PDFs of $t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$ for BB are
both uniform over $[0,T]$ \cite{morters10}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P(t_{\min}|T)=\frac{1}{T} \;, \;\; \quad \; 0\leq t_{\min} \leq T \;, \label{unif_min} \\
&&P(t_{\max}|T)=\frac{1}{T} \;, \; \quad 0\leq t_{\max} \leq T \;. \label{unif_max}
\end{eqnarray}
This gives the first two moments
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle t_{\min} \rangle = \langle t_{\max} \rangle = \frac{T}{2} \label{av_tmin_BB} \;, \\
&&\langle t_{\min}^2 \rangle = \langle t_{\max}^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{3}T^2 \;. \label{var_tmin_BB}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting these results in Eq. (\ref{formula_covariance}) and using $\langle \tau^2\rangle$ from
Eq. (\ref{eq:moments_BB}) we get
\begin{equation} \label{final_cov_BB}
\operatorname{cov}_{\rm BB}(t_{\min},t_{\max})=-\frac{\pi^2-9}{36}T^2 = - (0.0241 \ldots) T^2\;.
\end{equation}
Thus, by comparing Eqs. (\ref{cov}) and (\ref{final_cov_BB}), we see that
$t_{\min}$ and $t_{\max}$ are more strongly anti-correlated in the BM case than the BB case. \\
\section{Discrete-time random walks} \label{sec:RW}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1 \linewidth]{Figure6.pdf}
\caption{A typical trajectory of a discrete-time random walk $x_k$ versus $k$ up to $n$ steps, starting from $x_0=0$. The global maximum $x_{\max}$ occurs at step $n_{\max}$ and the global minimum $-x_{\min} \leq 0$ at step $n_{\min}$. For this trajectory $n_{\min} > n_{\max}$. The final position of the walker at step $n$ is denoted by $x_{\rm f}$, measured with respect to the global minimum $-x_{\min}$. The total duration of $n$ steps has been divided into three segments: $0\leq k \leq n_{\max}$ (I), $n_{\max}\leq k \leq n_{\min}$ (II) and $n_{\min} \leq k \leq n$ (III). The respective durations of these three segments are denoted by $l_1$, $l_2$ and $l_3$.}
\label{fig:exponential}
\end{figure}
In this section we investigate the time between the maximum and the minimum of discrete-time RWs. Let us consider a time series of $n$ steps generated by the positions of a random walker evolving via the Markov jump process
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{k} = x_{k-1}+\eta_k \;, \label{def_RW}
\end{eqnarray}
starting from $x_0=0$, where $\eta_k$'s are IID random variables, each drawn from a symmetric PDF $p(\eta)$ (for a typical realisation see Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}). Similarly to the continuous-time case described above, we can define the discrete time at which the maximum (minimum) value is reached as $n_{\max}$ ($n_{\min}$), as in Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}. Note that $\tau =n_{\min}-n_{\max}$ is now an integer and that $\tau \in [-n,n]$. Remarkably, under the additional hypothesis that the distribution $p(\eta)$ is continuous, the probability distribution of $n_{\max}$ is known to be universal, i.e. independent of the PDF $p(\eta)$ for all values of $n$, and not only asymptotically for large $n$. Indeed, Sparre Andersen showed that the probability distribution of $n_{\max}$, given the total number of steps $n$, is~\cite{SA53}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sa_max}
P(n_{\max}|n)=\binom{2 n_{\max}}{n_{\max}}\,
\binom{2 (n-n_{\max})}{(n-n_{\max})}\,2^{-2n}\,.
\end{equation}
Note that Eq. (\ref{eq:sa_max}) is exact for any $n$ and $n_{\max}\in[0,n]$.
By the symmetry of the jump distribution $p(\eta)$, the time of the minimum $n_{\min}$ is also distributed as (\ref{eq:sa_max}). Note, however, that Eq. (\ref{eq:sa_max}) holds only for continuous jump distributions, thus it is not valid for discrete-space RW, e.g. for lattice walks, which is also discussed below. Notably, using Stirling's formula, in the large $n$ limit the Eq. (\ref{eq:sa_max}) converges to the PDF of $t_{\max}$ for BM given in Eq. (\ref{levy}), with $t_{\max}$ and $T$ replaced by $n_{\max}$ and $n$.
One may ask whether this universality extends also to the time between maximum and minimum, i.e. to $\tau=n_{\min}-n_{\max}$.
In the case of finite jump variance $\sigma^2=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\eta\,\eta^2\,p(\eta)$, the Central Limit Theorem states that the random walk converges, when $n\to\infty$ to a Brownian motion. Thus, one may expect that, in the large $n$ limit, the probability distribution of any observable of the random walk (e.g. $n_{\max}$, $\tau$, $\ldots$) converges to its Brownian counterpart. However, directly verifying this convergence for a generic jump distribution is usually challenging. In this section, we demonstrate that the distribution of $\tau$ converges to the Brownian result (\ref{eq:f_bm}) for two particular jump distributions. Note however that the universal formula for the probability distribution of $n_{\max}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:sa_max}) is valid even when the variance is not well-defined. Thus a natural question is: ``Does the universality of $\tau$ also extend to jump distributions with a divergent variance?''
To proceed, it is useful to consider separately the cases of finite and divergent jump variance.
\subsection{Finite jump variance}
As stated above, for all jump distributions with a finite variance, one may expect that, for large $n$, the corresponding PDF of the time difference $\tau = t_{\min} - t_{\max}$ would converge for large $n$ to the distribution of $\tau$ for BM. In other words, for $n\to\infty$ we expect
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scaling}
P(\tau | n) \underset{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{n} f_{\rm BM} \left( \frac{\tau}{n}\right) \;.
\end{equation}
In this section, we first verify this universality analytically for the double-exponential distribution $p(\eta)=(1/2)e^{-|\eta|}$. Then, we show that the universality of the distribution of $\tau$ is also valid for discrete-space distributions by computing the asymptotic distribution of $\tau$ in the case of lattice walks.
However, apart from the two special cases discussed below, it turns out that the exact computation of $P(\tau|n)$ is very hard for a generic $p(\eta)$. Therefore, we verify (\ref{eq:scaling}) numerically for other jump distributions with a finite variance (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_rw}). In the case of random walk bridges, i.e. random walks with the additional constraint that they have to go back to the origin at the final step, a result equivalent to the one in Eq. (\ref{eq:scaling}) can be derived. Indeed, in Appendix \ref{app:rw_bridges} we show that, in the case of random walk bridges with double-exponential jumps, in the limit of large $n$
\begin{equation}
P(\tau | n) \underset{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{n} f_{\rm BB} \left( \frac{\tau}{n}\right) \,,
\end{equation}
where $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ is the scaling function in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bb}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figure7.pdf}
\caption{The distribution $n P(\tau|n)$ as a function of $\tau/n$ for discrete-time random walks (RWs) for different jump distributions. Jump distributions with a finite variance (lattice walks, Gaussian, uniform, double-exponential and Pareto) collapse onto the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ shown by the solid (green) line. For distributions with divergent variance, i.e. L\'evy flights with index $\mu = 3/2$ and $\mu = 1$ (Cauchy distribution), the scaling function $f_{\mu}(y)$ depends on $\mu$ (except at the endpoints $y = \pm 1$ where $f_{\mu}(\pm 1) = 1/2$ seems to be universal for all $0<\mu\leq 2$). The empirical curves are obtained by simulating $10^7$ RWs of $n=10^5$ steps for each jump distribution.}
\label{fig:numeric_rw}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Exact result for the double-exponential distribution}
\label{double_exp_jump}
In this section we compute the probability distribution of $\tau$ in the case of RWs with double-exponential jump distribution: $p(\eta)=(1/2)e^{-|\eta|}$.
The main ingredient needed to compute the probability distribution of $\tau$ is the restricted Green's function $G\left(x,l|M\right)$, defined as the probability that the walker goes from the origin to position $x$ in $l$ steps, while remaining always in the space interval $[0,M]$. Using the Markov property of the process with an arbitrary jump distribution $p(\eta)$, we can easily write down a recursion relation for $G\left(x,l|M\right)$
\begin{equation}
\label{recursive}
G\left(x,l | M \right)=\int_{0}^{M} dx' G\left(x',l-1|M \right)p(\eta = x-x') \;,
\end{equation}
valid for all $l \geq 1$ and starting from the initial condition $G(x,0|M) = \delta(x)$. This equation can be understood as follows. Let the walker arrive at $x' \in [0,M]$ at step $l-1$ (without leaving the box $[0,M]$ up to $l-1$ steps) and then it makes a jump from $x'$ to $x$ at the $l^{\rm th}$ step.
The probability of this jump is simply $p(\eta = x-x')$. Remarkably, this simple equation (\ref{recursive}) cannot be solved
exactly for arbitrary jump distribution $p(\eta)$. The reason is because the integral is defined over a finite range $[0,M]$. In the semi-infinite case $M \to \infty$, this reduces to Wiener-Hopf equation which can be solved for arbitrary symmetric and continuous
$p(\eta)$ \cite{majumdar10}. Although the solution in this case is not fully explicit for $G\left(x,l | M \to \infty \right)$, one can obtain an explicit expression for
its generating function in terms of the Fourier transform of the jump distribution $p(\eta)$. This is known as the Ivanov formula \cite{ivanov} (see also the Appendix A of Ref. \cite{mounaix} for a transparent derivation). Unfortunately, for finite $M$, no exact solution is known for arbitrary $p(\eta)$. However, for the double-exponential jump distribution, we can obtain an exact solution of Eq. (\ref{recursive}) for finite $l$, as shown below. \\ To proceed, we first consider the generating function
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:generating_G}
\tilde{G}(x,s|M)=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}G(x,l|M)\,s^l.
\end{eqnarray}
By multiplying Eq. (\ref{recursive}) by $s^l$, summing over $l$ and using the initial condition $G(x,0|M) = \delta(x)$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{g_tilde}
\tilde{G}\left(x,s|M\right)=s\int_{0}^{M} dx' \tilde{G}\left(x',s|M \right)\, p(x-x')+s\,p(x).
\end{equation}
The double-exponential distribution $p(\eta)=(1/2)e^{-|\eta|}$ has the special property that if we differentiate it twice, it satisfies a
simple differential equation
\begin{equation} \label{exp_relation}
p''(x)=p(x)-\delta(x) \;.
\end{equation}
Using this relation, we can then reduce the integral equation in (\ref{g_tilde}) into a differential equation, which then is easier to solve. Differentiating Eq. (\ref{g_tilde}) twice with respect to $x$, and using the identity (\ref{exp_relation}), we get
\begin{equation} \label{differential}
\frac{\partial^2 \tilde{G}\left(x,s|M \right) }{\partial x^2}= (1-s)\tilde{G}\left(x,s|M \right)-s\,\delta(x),
\end{equation}
for $0\leq x\leq M$. For $x>0$, the $\delta$-function in (\ref{differential}) disappears and the general
solution reads simply
\begin{equation} \label{solution_general}
\tilde{G}\left(x,s|M\right)=A(s,M)\,e^{-\sqrt{1-s}\,x}+B(s,M)\,e^{\sqrt{1-s}\,x} \;,
\end{equation}
where $A(s,M)$ and $B(s,M)$ are two arbitrary constants. In going from the integral (\ref{g_tilde}) to the differential (\ref{differential}) equation,
we have taken derivatives and hence one has to ensure that the solution of the differential equation also satisfies the integral equation. This condition fixes these unknown constants $A(s,M)$ and $B(s,M)$. Indeed, by substituting Eq. (\ref{solution_general}) into the integral equation (\ref{g_tilde}), it is straightforward to check that Eq. (\ref{g_tilde}) is verified only if
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace*{-0.5cm}&& A(s,M)=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1-\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}\right)^2 \, e^{-2\sqrt{1-s} \,M}}, \label{A} \\
\hspace*{-0.5cm}&& B(s,M)=-A(s,M)\frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}} \, e^{-2\sqrt{1-s}\,M} \;. \label{B}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the final exact solution reads
\begin{eqnarray}\label{g_solution}
&& \tilde{G}\left(x,s|M \right)= A(s,M)\\ &\times & \left[e^{-\sqrt{1-s}\,x}-\frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}e^{-\sqrt{1-s}\,(2M-x)}\right] \;\nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
with the amplitude $A(s,M)$ given in Eq. (\ref{A}).
We can now proceed with the computation of the probability distribution of $\tau$. As in the case of BM, our strategy will be to first compute the grand joint PDF $P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, n_{\min}, n_{\max} | n)$ of the four random variables $x_{\min}$, $ x_{\max}$, $n_{\min}$ and $n_{\max}$ and then integrate out $x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$ to obtain the joint distribution $P(n_{\min}, n_{\max} | n)$. To compute this grand PDF, we divide the interval $[0,n]$ into three segments of lengths $l_1=n_{\max}$, $l_2=n_{\min}-n_{\max}$ and $l_3=n-n_{\min}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}). Here again we consider the case $n_{\max} < n_{\min}$ (the complementary case can be then obtained using the symmetry of the process). The grand PDF can then be written as the product of
the probabilities $P_{\rm I}$, $P_{\rm II}$ and $P_{\rm III}$ of the three independent segments: $0\leq k \leq n_{\max}$ (${\rm I}$), $n_{\max}\leq k \leq n_{\min}$ (${\rm II}$) and $n_{\min} \leq k \leq n=l_1+l_2+l_3$ (${\rm III}$). To proceed, we first notice that the probability of each segment can be expressed in terms of the restricted Green's function $G\left(x,n| M \right)$. In order to do this, it is crucial to use the fact that the jump distribution $p(\eta)$ is symmetric, which makes the walk reflection-symmetric around the origin. This is best explained with the help of the Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}. Let us first set $M = x_{\min} + x_{\max}$. In segment I, the trajectory has to start at the origin and reach the level $x_{\max}$ at step $l_1$, while staying in the box $[-x_{\min},x_{\max}]$. Using the invariance under the reflection $x \to -x$, followed by a shift of the origin to the level $x_{\max}$, this probability is just
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PI}
P_{\rm I}=G\left(x_{\max},l_1 | M\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
For the second segment, the trajectory starts at $x_{\max}$ and ends at $- x_{\min}$ at step $l_2$, while staying inside the box $[-x_{\min}, x_{\max}]$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}). Using a similar argument as in the previous case, one gets
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PII}
P_{\rm II}=G\left(M,l_2 | M \right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
For the third segment, the trajectory starts at $-x_{\min}$ and stays inside the box $[-x_{\min}, x_{\max}]$ up to $l_3$ steps. Thus this probability is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{PIII}
P_{\rm III}=\int_0^M G\left(x_{\rm f},l_3 | M \right) dx_{\rm f} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{\rm f}$ is the final position of the trajectory measured with respect to $-x_{\min}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}) and we have integrated over the final position $x_{\rm f}$. The grand joint PDF $P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, n_{\min}, n_{\max} | n)$ is given by the product of the three segments
\begin{eqnarray}\label{product}
&& P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, n_{\min}, n_{\max} | n) = P_{\rm I} P_{\rm II} P_{\rm III} \\ &=& G\left(x_{\max},l_1 | M\right)\, G\left(M,l_2 | M \right) \int_0^M G\left(x_{\rm f},l_3 | M \right) dx_{\rm f} \nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
where we recall that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{def_l}
l_1 = n_{\max} \,, \quad l_2 = n_{\min} - n_{\max} \, , \quad l_3 = n-n_{\min} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
and that $M = x_{\max} + x_{\min}$.
Note that, unlike the BM, for the discrete-time RW, we do not need to put a cut-off $\epsilon$. It is now useful to express this grand PDF in terms of the intervals $l_1, l_2$ and $l_3$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}). Hence, we write
\begin{equation}\label{PDF_l1l2l3}
P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, n_{\min}, n_{\max} | n)\equiv P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, l_1, l_2, l_3) ,
\end{equation}
where $l_1, l_2$ and $l_3$ are given in Eq. (\ref{def_l}). It is convenient to take the generating function of the grand PDF $P(x_{\min}, x_{\max}, n_{\min}, n_{\max} | n)$, so we multiply Eq. (\ref{product}) by $s_1^{l_1}s_2^{l_2}s_3^{l_3}$ and sum over $l_1$, $l_2$ and $l_3$ to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{laplace}
&&\sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3=1}^{\infty}
P\left(x_{\min},x_{\max},l_1,l_2,l_3\right)s_1^{l_1}s_2^{l_2}s_3^{l_3}\\ &=&\tilde{G}\left(x_{\max},s_1|M \right)\tilde{G}\left(M,s_2|M \right)\, \int_0^M \, dx_{\rm f}\, \tilde{G}\left(x_{\rm f},s_3|M \right) \,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{G}(x,s|M)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{g_solution}).
To obtain the marginal joint distribution of $l_1$, $l_2$, and $l_3$, we still need to integrate over $x_{\min}$ and $x_{\max}$ in Eq. (\ref{laplace}). Let us first define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pl1l2l3}
&& P(l_1, l_2,l_3) \\&=& \int_{0}^\infty dx_{\min} \, \int_{0}^\infty dx_{\max} \, P\left(x_{\min},x_{\max},l_1,l_2,l_3\right) \;\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
We can perform this double integral by making a change of variables $(x_{\min}, x_{\max}) \to (x_{\max}, M = x_{\max} + x_{\min})$. Performing the double integral yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gen_fun_1}
&&\sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3=1}^{\infty}
P\left(l_1,l_2,l_3\right)s_1^{l_1}s_2^{l_2}s_3^{l_3}\\&=& \int_{0}^{\infty}dM\left[\int_{0}^{M}dx_{\max} \tilde{G}\left(x_{\max},s_1|M \right)\right]\nonumber\\\nonumber &\times & \tilde{G}\left(M,s_2|M \right)\left[\int_{0}^{M}dx_{\rm f} \tilde{G}\left(x_{\rm f},s_3|M \right)\right]\\\nonumber &=&\int_{0}^{\infty}dM\,I\left(M,s_1\right)\,\tilde{G}\left(M,s_2|M \right)\,I\left(M,s_3\right), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:def_I}
I\left(M,s\right)=\int_{0}^{M}dx \, \tilde{G}\left(x,s|M \right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We want to compute the PDF $P(\tau|n)$ of $\tau = n_{\min} - n_{\max}$, for a given total number of steps $n$. We can express $P(\tau|n)$ in terms of the joint PDF $P\left(l_1,l_2,l_3\right)$ computed above as follows
\begin{equation}\label{relation1}
P(\tau|n) = \sum_{l_1, l_3=1}^\infty P(l_1, l_2 = \tau, l_3) \, \delta(l_1+\tau +l_3-n) \;.
\end{equation}
Taking the double generating function of this expression (\ref{relation1}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{relation2}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\tau=1}^{n}P(\tau|n) s_2^\tau \, s^n= \sum_{l_1,\tau,l_3=1}^\infty P(l_1, \tau, l_3) s^{l_1} (s\, s_2)^{\tau}\, s^{l_3}\, .
\end{equation}
Notice that the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{relation2}) can be read off Eq. (\ref{eq:gen_fun_1}) by setting $s_1 \to s$, $s_2 \to s\, s_2$ and $s_3 \to s$. This yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relation3}
\sum_{\tau, n} P(\tau|n) s_2^\tau \, s^n =\int_{0}^{\infty}dM\,\tilde{G}\left(M,s\,s_2|M \right)I\left(M,s\right)^2.
\end{equation}
To use the relation (\ref{eq:relation3}), we also need to compute $I\left(M,s\right)$. Substituting Eq. (\ref{g_solution}) in Eq. (\ref{eq:def_I}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:I_explicit}
&& I\left(M,s\right)=\int_{0}^{M}dx \, \tilde{G}\left(x,s|M \right)
=\frac{A(s,M)}{\sqrt{1-s}}\\&\times & \left[1-\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}
e^{-\sqrt{1-s}M} + \frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}e^{-2\sqrt{1-s}M}\right]\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $A(s,M)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{A}). Using Eqs. (\ref{g_solution}) and (\ref{eq:I_explicit}), we can now write an explicit expression for the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:relation3}). This yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:relation4}
&& \sum_{ n,\tau} P(\tau|n) s_2^\tau \, s^n = \int_{0}^{\infty}dM\,A(s\, s_2,M) e^{-\sqrt{1-ss_2}M} \nonumber \\ & \times & \Big( 1-\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}
e^{-\sqrt{1-s}M} + \frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}e^{-2\sqrt{1-s}M} \Big)^2\,\nonumber \\ &\times &\Big(\frac{2\sqrt{1-ss_2}}{1+\sqrt{1-ss_2}}\Big)\Big(\frac{A(s,M)}{\sqrt{1-s}}\Big)^2
,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A(s,M)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{A}).
We now want to extract the asymptotic behavior of $P\left(\tau |n\right)$ for large $n$. In this limit, we expect that $P(\tau | n)$ approaches a scaling form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scaling_form}
P(\tau | n) \underset{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{n} f_{\rm exp} \left( \frac{\tau}{n}\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Our goal now is to extract this scaling function $f_{\rm exp}(y)$ from the exact formula (\ref{eq:relation4}) and show that $f_{\rm exp}(y) = f_{\rm BM}(y)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}). Since we are interested in the scaling limit $\tau, n \to \infty$ keeping the ratio $y = \tau/n$ fixed, we also need to investigate the generating function in Eq. (\ref{eq:relation4}) in the corresponding scaling limit. It is convenient to first parametrise the Laplace variables as $s=e^{-\lambda}$ and $s_2=e^{-\lambda_2}$. In these new variables, the scaling limit corresponds to
$\lambda,\lambda_2\rightarrow 0 $ with $\lambda_2/\lambda$ fixed. In this limit, the double sum in the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{eq:relation4}) can be replaced by a double integral. Thus, taking the limit $\lambda,\lambda_2\rightarrow 0$ keeping the ratio $\lambda_2/\lambda$ fixed on both sides of Eq. (\ref{eq:relation4}), we get
\begin{eqnarray} \label{scaling1}
&& \int_{0}^{\infty}dn \int_{0}^{n}d \tau \, P\left(\tau | n \right)\,e^{-\lambda_2 \tau}e^{-\lambda \, n} \approx
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda+\lambda_2}}{\lambda}\nonumber \\ &\times &\int_{0}^{\infty}dM
\frac{e^{-\sqrt{\lambda+\lambda_2} M}\left(1-e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}M}\right)^2}{\left(1+e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}M}\right)^2\left(1-e^{-2\sqrt{\lambda+\lambda_2}M}\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Rescaling $z=\sqrt{\lambda+\lambda_2}\,M$ in the integral on the right-hand side leads to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{integral1}
&& \int_{0}^{\infty}dn\int_{0}^{n}d \tau P\left(\tau | n\right)e^{-\lambda_2 \tau}e^{-\lambda n}\\ &\approx &
\frac{1}{\lambda} \int_{0}^{\infty}dz
\frac{\tanh^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+\lambda_2}}\frac{z}{2}\right)}{\sinh(z)}\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting the scaling form (\ref{scaling_form}) on the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{integral1}) gives
\begin{eqnarray} \label{integral1bis}
&&\int_{0}^{\infty}dn\int_{0}^{n}d \tau \frac{1}{n}f_{\rm exp} \left(\frac{\tau}{n}\right)\, e^{-\lambda_2 \tau}e^{-\lambda n}\\&=&
\int_{0}^{\infty}dn\int_{0}^{1}dy\, f_{\rm exp}(y)\,e^{-\lambda_2 y n}e^{-\lambda n}=\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{f_{\rm exp}(y)}{\lambda+\lambda_2 y}\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing this left-hand side (\ref{integral1bis}) with the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{integral1}), with $u=\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda}$ fixed, we get the identity
\begin{equation}\label{integral2}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{f_{\exp}(y)}{1+uy}=\int_{0}^{\infty}dz \frac{1}{\sinh(z)}\tanh^2\left(\frac{z}{2\sqrt{1+u}}\right).
\end{equation}
This representation of $f_{\rm exp}(y)$ in Eq. (\ref{integral2}) turns out to be useful to compute the moments of $\tau$ explicitly (see Section \ref{sec:moments}).
The next step is to invert this integral equation (\ref{integral2}) to obtain $f_{\rm exp}(y)$ explicitly. For this, it is convenient to first rewrite Eq. (\ref{integral2}) in terms of the variables $u=-\frac{1}{w}$ on the left-hand side and $t=\frac{z}{2\sqrt{1+u}}$ on the right-hand side. This gives
\begin{equation}\label{stieltjes}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{f_{\rm exp}(y)}{w-y}=\frac{2}{w}\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{w}}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt \frac{\tanh^2(t)}{\sinh \left(2t\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{w}}\right)} \;.
\end{equation}
We now recognise the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{stieltjes}) as the Stieltjes transform of the function $f_{\rm exp}(y)$. A Stieltjes transform of this type can be inverted using the so-called Sochocki-Plemelj formula (see for instance the book \cite{mushk_book}). Using this inversion formula we get (see Appendix \ref{app:integral} for the details of the computation):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scaling_fexp}
f_{\rm exp}(y)=\frac{1}{y}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n-1}\tanh^2\left(\frac{n\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{y}{1-y}}\right) \,.
\end{equation}
This result above has been derived assuming $\tau = n_{\min} - n_{\max} > 0$, i.e., when the minimum occurs after the maximum. In the complementary case $\tau < 0$, i.e. when the maximum occurs after the minimum, it is clear that $P(\tau|n) = P(-\tau|n)$ and this follows simply from the $x\to-x$ symmetry of the process. Hence, we get, for $\tau \in [-n, n]$, and in the scaling limit $\tau, n \to \infty$ keeping the ratio $y = \tau/n$ fixed
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scaling_form2}
P(\tau | n) \underset{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{n} f_{\rm exp} \left( \frac{\tau}{n}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm exp}(y)$ is given exactly by
\begin{equation}\label{scaling_fexp2}
f_{\rm exp}(y)=\frac{1}{|y|}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n-1}\tanh^2\left(\frac{n\pi}{2}\sqrt{\frac{|y|}{1-|y|}}\right) \,.
\end{equation}
Comparing with the Brownian case in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}), we see that $f_{\rm exp}(y) = f_{\rm BM}(y)$. This exact computation for the double-exponential jump distribution confirms explicitly the expectation based on the Central Limit Theorem. The asymptotics of $f_{\rm exp}(y)$ is thus given in Eq. (\ref{summary_asymptotics}). In particular, in the limit $y\to 1$, we get that $f(y)\to 1/2$. This limit value can be also computed directly for the double-exponential distribution $p(\eta)=(1/2)e^{-|\eta|}$ (see Section \ref{sec:universal}). This result is also confirmed by numerical simulations (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_rw}). Moreover, the fact that $f_{\rm exp}(y)=f_{\rm BM}(y)$ implies that Eq. (\ref{integral2}) is also satisfied by the Brownian scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$. This thus provides the derivation of the integral identity announced in Eq. (\ref{eq:int_BM}).
\subsubsection{Exact result for lattice walks}
We now consider a one-dimensional unbiased lattice walk. This corresponds to the discrete PDF
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:pdf_lattice}
p(\eta)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta\left(\eta-1\right)+\delta\left(\eta+1\right)\right).
\end{eqnarray}
At each step $k$, the position $x_k$ of the walker is increased or decreased by $1$ with equal probability. Contrary to the BM and double-exponential case, here we need to be careful when defining the times $n_{\max}$ and $n_{\min}$. Indeed, for such discrete-space walks there is a finite probability that the global maximum or the global minimum are not unique. Therefore, for simplicity we define $n_{\max}$ ($n_{\min}$) as the time at which the maximal (minimal) value is reached \emph{for the first time}. Even if this choice may seem arbitrary, we expect that, in the large $n$ limit, the final result will be independent of which particular global maximum (minimum) we consider.\\
As before, the main ingredient to compute the distribution of $\tau=n_{\min}-n_{\max}$ is the restricted Green's function $G(x,l|M)$, defined as the probability that the walker goes from the origin to position $x$ in exactly $l$ steps, without leaving the space interval $[0,M]$. Note that now $x$ and $M$ are integers. One can easily write a recursion relation for $G(x,l|M)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:recursive_G}
G(x,l|M) = \frac{1}{2}G(x+1,l-1|M)+\frac{1}{2}G(x-1,l-1|M) \;,
\end{equation}
valid for $l\geq 1$. Eq. (\ref{eq:recursive_G}) means that if the walker is at position $x\in(0,M)$ at time $l$, it either was at position $x-1$ at time $l-1$ and then, with probability $1/2$, it jumped up, or it was at position $x+1$ at time $l-1$ and then, with probability $1/2$, it jumped down. Note that this Eq. (\ref{eq:recursive_G}) can be also obtained substituting the expression for $p(\eta)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:pdf_lattice}) into Eq. (\ref{recursive}). One needs to impose appropriate boundary conditions. Since we are forcing the walker to remain always in the interval $[0,M]$, we impose:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:boundary_conditions}
G(-1,l|M)=0\,,\quad G(M+1,l|M)=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We recall that $G(x,l|M)$ is by definition the probability that the walker goes from the origin to position $x$ in $l$ steps, while remaining inside the interval $[0,M]$. Thus, the initial condition is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:initial_condition}
G(x,0|M)=\delta_{x,\,0}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta_{a,\,b}$ is the Kronecker delta function: $\delta_{a,\,b}=1$ if $a=b$ and $\delta_{a,\,b}=0$ otherwise.
To solve Eq. (\ref{eq:recursive_G}) we first multiply both sides by $s^l$ and sum over $l\geq 1$. This yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:recursive_G2}
&& \tilde{G}(x,s|M)\\&=& \delta_{x\,,0}+\frac{s}{2}\left(\tilde{G}(x+1,s|M)+\tilde{G}(x-1,s|M)\right)\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the generating function $\tilde{G}(x,s|M)$ is defined in Eq. (\ref{eq:generating_G}).
The boundary conditions for $\tilde{G}(x,s|M)$ are
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:boundary_conditions2}
\tilde{G}(-1,s|M)=0\,,\quad \tilde{G}(M+1,s|M)=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the recursion (\ref{eq:recursive_G2}) is non-homogeneous due to the term $\delta_{x\,,0}$. However, one can easily include this term in the lower boundary condition. In this way, we obtain the homogeneous relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:recursive_G3}
\tilde{G}(x,s|M)=\frac{s}{2}\left(\tilde{G}(x+1,s|M)+\tilde{G}(x-1,s|M)\right),
\end{equation}
with modified boundary conditions
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:boundary_conditions3}
\tilde{G}(-1,s|M)=\frac{2}{s}\,,\quad \tilde{G}(M+1,s|M)=0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This homogeneous recursion relation can now be solved for $x\in [-1,M+1]$, yielding, after a few steps of algebra
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:solution_G_tilde}
\tilde{G}(x,s|M)&=&\frac{2}{s}\Big(\frac{w(s)^{x+1}}{1-w(s)^{2(M+2)}}\\ &+& \frac{w(s)^{-(x+1)}}{1-w(s)^{-2(M+2)}}\Big)\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:definition_w}
w(s)=\frac{1}{s}\left(1-\sqrt{1-s^2}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Since the global maximum and the global minimum are in general not unique, we need to use a slightly different method with respect to the one presented at the beginning of this section. Indeed, we need to include the information that $n_{\max}$ and $n_{\min}$ are the times at which the global maximum and the global minimum are attained for the first time. Hence, we need to impose that $x_k < x_{\max}$ for $k\leq n_{\max}-1$ and that $x_k > x_{\min}$ for $k\leq n_{\min}-1$. As we will see, this additional condition slightly modifies the procedure described above. Considering the case $n_{\max}<n_{\min}$ (the complementary case $n_{\min}<n_{\max}$ can be studied analogously), we can factorize the grand probability distribution $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},n_{\min},n_{\max}|n)$ as the product of three factors: $P_{\rm I}$, $P_{\rm II}$ and $P_{\rm III}$, corresponding to the three segments defined above (see Fig. \ref{fig:exponential}).
In segment $I$ ($0\leq k\leq n_{\max}$), the walker needs to attain the maximum value $x_{\max}$ at time $n_{\max}$ for the first time, while remaining always above $-x_{\min}$. Thus, it has first to arrive at $x_{\max}-1$ at time $n_{\max}-1$ without leaving the interval $[-x_{\min}+1,x_{\max}-1]$ and then to jump to $x_{\max}$ at time $n_{\max}$. The probability weight of this last jump is $1/2$. Hence, using the reflection invariance $x\rightarrow-x$ the probability of the first segment can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:P_I}
P_{\rm I}=G(x_{\max}-1,l_1-1|M-2) \frac{1}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $l_1=n_{\max}$ and $M=x_{\min}+x_{\max}$. Note that after time $n_{\max}$ the walker is free to reach $x_{\max}$ again. For the second segment ($n_{\max}\leq k\leq n_{\min}$) we apply a similar reasoning: to reach the global minimum $-x_{\min}$ at time $n_{\min}$ for the first time, the RW first has to arrive at $-x_{\min}+1$ while remaining in the interval $[-x_{\min}+1,x_{\max}]$ and then to jump to $-x_{\min}$. Thus, the probability of the second segment is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:P_II}
P_{\rm II}=G(M-1,l_2-1|M-1) \frac{1}{2}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $l_2=\tau=n_{\min}-n_{\max}$.
Finally, the probability of the last segment is the probability to remain in the interval $[-x_{\min},x_{\max}]$ up to time $n$ starting from $-x_{\min}$. This is simply given by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:P_III}
P_{\rm III}=\sum_{x_{\rm f}=0}^{ M}G(x_{\rm f},l_3|M),
\end{eqnarray}
where $l_3=n-n_{\min}$ and $x_{\rm f}$ is the final position measured with respect to $-x_{\min}$.
Thus the grand joint probability $P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max})$ is given by the product of the three factors:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:grand_proba}
&& P(x_{\min},x_{\max},t_{\min},t_{\max}|n)=P_{\rm I}\,P_{ \rm II}\,P_{\rm III}\\&=&\frac{1}{4}G(x_{\max}-1,l_1-1|M-2)\,
G(M-1,l_2-1|M-1)\, \nonumber \\&\times & \sum_{x_{\rm f}=0}^{ M}G(x_{\rm f},l_3|M)\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Again it is convenient to express this probability in terms of the intervals $l_1$, $l_2$, $l_3$, as in Eq. (\ref{PDF_l1l2l3}). Summing over the position variables $x_{\max}$ and $x_{\min}$ we obtain the joint probability:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3}
&& P(l_1, l_2, l_3)\\ &=& \sum_{x_{\max}\,,x_{\min}=1}^\infty G(x_{\max}-1,l_1-1|M-2) \nonumber \\&
\times &\frac{1}{4} G(M-1,l_2-1|M-1)\, \sum_{x_{\rm f}=0}^{ M}G(x_{\rm f},l_3|M)\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Performing the change of variables $(x_{\max},\,x_{\min})\to(x_{\max},\,M)$ in the summations above, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_2}
&& P(l_1, l_2, l_3) \\ &=&\frac{1}{4} \sum_{M=2}^\infty\sum_{x_{\max}=1}^{ M-1}G(x_{\max}-1,l_1-1|M-2) \nonumber \\
&\times & G(M-1,l_2-1|M-1)\, \sum_{x_{\rm f}=0}^{ M}G(x_{\rm f},s_3|M)\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We multiply both sides by $s^{l_1}\,s^{l_2}\,s^{l_3}$ and we sum over $l_1$, $l_2$ and $l_3$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_3}&& \sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3=1}^\infty P(l_1, l_2, l_3) s_1^{l_1} s_2^{l_2} s_3^{l_3} =\frac{1}{4} \sum_{M=2}^\infty \sum_{x_{\max}=1}^{ M-1} \\& \times & s_1 \,\tilde{G}(x_{\max}-1,s_1|M-2)
\,s_2\,\tilde{G}(M-1,s_2|M-1)\nonumber \\ & \times &\sum_{x_{\rm f}=0}^{ M}\tilde{G}(x_{\rm f},s_3|M)\nonumber\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{G}(x,s|M)$ is the generating function of $G(s,l|M)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:solution_G_tilde}). Note that in Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_3}) we have used the initial condition $G(x,0|M)=\delta_{x\,,0}$. Rearranging the terms in Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_3}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_3_bis}&& \sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3=1}^\infty P(l_1, l_2, l_3) s_1^{l_1} s_2^{l_2} s_3^{l_3} =\frac{s_1\,s_2}{4} \sum_{M=2}^\infty \\ &\times & \tilde{I}(M-2,s_1)\tilde{G}(M-1,s_2|M-1) \tilde{I}(M,s_3)\nonumber\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:I_lattice}
\tilde{I}(M,s)=\sum_{x=0}^{ M}\tilde{G}(x,s|M)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Plugging the expression for $\tilde{G}(x,s|M)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:solution_G_tilde}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:I_lattice_2}
\tilde{I}(M,s)&=&\frac{2}{s}\Big(\frac{1}{1-w(s)^{2(M+2)}}\frac{w(s)^{M+1}-1}{1-\omega(s)^{-1}}\\ &+& \frac{1}{1-w(s)^{-2(M+2)}}\frac{w(s)^{-(M+1)}-1}{1-\omega(s)}\Big)\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is now useful to recall the expression (\ref{relation2}), which relates the probability distribution $P(\tau|n)$ to the distribution $P(l_1, l_2 = \tau, l_3)$ and is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{relation2bis}
&& \sum_{\tau, n=1}^{\infty}P(\tau|n) s_2^\tau \, s^n\\& =& \sum_{l_1,\tau,l_3=1}^\infty P(l_1, l_2 = \tau, l_3) s^{l_1} (s\, s_2)^{\tau}\, s^{l_3}\, .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to show that Eq. (\ref{relation2bis}) is still valid for a discrete-space RW. Thus, using Eqs. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_3_bis}) and (\ref{relation2bis}), we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}
\sum_{\tau,n=1}^\infty P(\tau|n)s_2^{\tau}s^n\, &=& \frac{s^2\,s_2}{4}\sum_{M=2}^\infty \tilde{I}(M-2,s)\\ &\times & \,\tilde{I}(M,s)\,G(M-1,s\,s_2|M-1)\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that this relation (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}) is exact and valid even for finite $n$. As for the case of double-exponential jumps, we are interested in the large $n$ limit. In this limit we expect the probability $P(\tau|n)$ to have a scaling form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scaling_form_lattice}
P(\tau | n) \underset{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{n} f_{\rm LW} \left( \frac{\tau}{n}\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, to investigate the limit $\tau,n\rightarrow\infty$ with $\tau/n$ fixed it is useful, as before, to parametrise the Laplace variables as $s\,=\,e^{-\lambda}$ and $s_2=e^{-\lambda_2}$ and to consider the limit $\lambda,\lambda_2 \rightarrow 0$, with $\lambda/\lambda_2$ fixed. In this limit, similarly to the case of the double-exponential distribution (see Eq. (\ref{integral1bis})), the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}) can be approximated, using Eq. (\ref{scaling_form_lattice}) and the replacing the sums by integrals, as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:approximation1}
\sum_{\tau,n}P(\tau|n)s_2^{\tau}s^n\,\approx \int_{0}^{1}\,dy\,\frac{f_{\rm LW}(y)}{\lambda+\lambda_2 \, y}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We now consider the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}) and we set $s\,=\,e^{-\lambda}$ and $s_2=e^{-\lambda_2}$. When $n$ is large, we expect the sum over $M$ to be dominated by terms with $M\gg 1$. Thus, we can approximate $M-2\approx M-1 \approx M$ and substitute the sum in Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}) with an integral. This gives
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rhs_approx}
&&\frac{s^2\,s_2}{4}\sum_{M=2}^\infty \tilde{I}(M-2,e^{-\lambda}) \,\tilde{I}(M,e^{-\lambda})\,\\ &\times & G(M-1,e^{-(\lambda+\lambda_2)}|M-1)\nonumber \\ &\approx & \frac{e^{-(2\lambda+\lambda_2)}}{4} \int_{0}^\infty dM\, \tilde{I}(M,e^{-\lambda})^2 G(M,e^{-(\lambda+\lambda_2)}|M)\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Expanding $\tilde{I}(M,e^{-\lambda})$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:I_lattice_2}) for small $\lambda$, we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:I_expanded}
\tilde{I}(M,e^{-\lambda})\approx\sqrt{\frac{2}{\lambda}}\tanh \left(M\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
The Green's function $G(M,e^{-(\lambda+\lambda_2)}|M)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:solution_G_tilde}) can be approximated, for $\lambda,\,\lambda_2\to 0$, as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:G_expanded}
G(M,e^{-(\lambda+\lambda_2)}|M)\approx \frac{2\sqrt{2 (\lambda+\lambda_2)}}{\sinh\left(M\sqrt{2(\lambda+\lambda_2)}\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting the expressions (\ref{eq:I_expanded}) and (\ref{eq:G_expanded}) into Eq. (\ref{eq:rhs_approx}) and approximating $e^{-(2\lambda+\lambda_2)}\approx 1$, we get that the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}) can be approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rhs_approx_2}
\int_0^\infty \, dM\, \frac{\sqrt{2(\lambda+\lambda_2)}}{\lambda}\frac{\tanh^2\left(M\sqrt{\lambda/2}\right)}{\sinh(M\sqrt{2(\lambda+\lambda_2)})}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Using this approximation (\ref{eq:rhs_approx_2}) together with Eq. (\ref{eq:approximation1}) to approximate the left-hand side of Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}), we get that in the limit $n,\tau\to\infty$, with $\tau/n$ fixed, Eq. (\ref{Proba_l_1_l_2_l_3_4}) becomes\begin{eqnarray}
&& \int_{0}^{1}\,dy\,\frac{f_{\rm LW}(y)}{\lambda+\lambda_2 \, y}\\ &=& \int_0^\infty \, dM\, \frac{\sqrt{2(\lambda+\lambda_2)}}{\lambda}\frac{\tanh^2\left(M\sqrt{\lambda/2}\right)}{\sinh(M\sqrt{2(\lambda+\lambda_2)})}\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Setting $u=\lambda_2 /\lambda$ and performing the change of variables $z=\sqrt{2(\lambda+\lambda_2)}M$ we find the relation:
\begin{equation}\label{integral2_new}
\int_{0}^{1}dy\frac{f_{\rm LW}(y)}{1+uy}=\int_{0}^{\infty}dz \frac{1}{\sinh(z)}\tanh^2\left(\frac{z}{2\sqrt{1+u}}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
Comparing this result with Eq. (\ref{integral2}) we notice that $f_{\rm LW}(y)$ and $f_{\exp}(y)$ satisfy the same integral relation. As explained in the previous section, this integral relation can be exactly solved (see Appendix \ref{app:integral}) and one obtains that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\rm LW}(y)=f_{\rm BM}(y)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is given by Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}). Hence, also in the case of lattice walks we have explicitly verified the expectations based on the Central Limit Theorem.
See Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_rw} for a numerical verification of this result.
\subsection{Divergent jump variance}
We now consider a class of RWs characterised by jump distributions with divergent variance $\sigma^2=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\eta\,\eta^2 \,p(\eta)$. In particular, we consider L\'evy flights for which the jump probability $p(\eta)$ has heavy tails:
\begin{equation}
p(\eta)\sim \frac{1}{|\eta|^{-(\mu+1)}}
\end{equation}
for $\eta\rightarrow \pm \infty$, with $0< \mu < 2$. Note that for such values of the L\'evy index $\mu$ the variance $\sigma^2$ is divergent. Thus, for these RWs the Central Limit Theorem does not hold. Indeed, we verify numerically (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_rw}) that in the limit of large number of steps $n$, the PDF of $\tau$ takes a scaling form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f_mu}
P(\tau|n)\approx\frac{1}{n}\,f_{\mu}\left(\frac{\tau}{n}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where the scaling function $f_{\mu}(y)$ depends on the L\'evy index $\mu$. Our general result is thus less universal with respect to the distribution of the time of the maximum $n_{\max}$, which is the same for any symmetric jump distribution. However, we observe from simulations that $f_{\mu}(y)$ goes to the value $1/2$ when $y\rightarrow \pm 1$ , independently of $\mu$. Thus, the PDF of the event ``$\tau = n$'' is universal in the limit of large $n$ for any symmetric distribution $p(\eta)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:res_n}
P(\tau=n|n)=1/(2n)
\end{equation}
In Section \ref{sec:BM}, we have verified that the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ approaches the limit value $1/2$ linearly with a negative slope $-1/2$. In the case of L\'evy flights, this linear behaviour in the vicinity of $y=\tau/n=1$ seems to remain valid, but with a slope which depends on the L\'evy exponent $\mu$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_rw}).
The asymptotic result in Eq. (\ref{eq:res_n}) can be directly obtained in the case of lattice walks (see Appendix \ref{app:limit}). As we will see in the next section, this result in Eq. (\ref{eq:res_n}) is valid, in the case of continuous jump distributions, for any finite $n$. However, rigorously proving this fact for L\'evy flights appears to be a challenging task.
\section{Universal probability of the event $\tau=n_{\min}-n_{\max}=n$}
\label{sec:universal}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure8.pdf}
\caption{A typical trajectory of a discrete-time random walk that contributes to the probability $P(\tau = n|n)$ where $\tau = n_{\min} - n_{\max}$. The event ``$\tau = n$'' can only happen when $n_{\max} = 0$ and $n_{\min} = n$. Consequently, the trajectories that contribute to this event start at $x_0 = 0$ and arrive at $x_n = -x_{\min}$, while staying inside the box $[-x_{\min},0]$.}
\label{fig:appendix}
\end{figure}
Let us consider a discrete-time random walk $x_k$ generated by the Markov process in Eq. (\ref{def_RW}) with a generic jump
distribution $p(\eta)$. In this section, we want to investigate the probability $p_n$ that the number of steps
$\tau=n_{\min}-n_{\max}$ between the global maximum and the global minimum is exactly equal to the total number of steps $n$.
Since $\tau$ is bounded by construction between $-n$ and $n$, the event ``$\tau = n$'' can only happen when $n_{\max} = 0$ and
$n_{\min} = n$, which corresponds to configurations as the one in Fig. \ref{fig:appendix}. Thus, this probability
$p_n=P(\tau=n|n)$ has a simple and nice interpretation. Indeed, using the $x\to-x$ symmetry of the process, $p_n$ is the
probability that a RW starting from the origin remains positive up to step $n$ and that the last value $x_n$ is a record,
meaning that $x_n>x_k$ for $k=0,\ldots, n-1$. \\
In Section \ref{sec:RW}, we have observed from numerical simulations that, in the limit of large number $n$ of steps, the
probability $p_n$ of the event ``$\tau = n$'' appears to be completely independent of the distribution $p(\eta)$ of the jumps
(see Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_rw}). Indeed, in the limit of large $n$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:result_asymptotic}
p_n=P(\tau=n|n)\simeq \frac{1}{2n}
\end{equation}
for any symmetric jump distribution $p(\eta)$. Notably, this universality appears to be valid for a variety of distributions,
including discrete distributions and distributions with divergent first moment, e.g. Cauchy distribution.
Moreover, in the case of the double-exponential jump distribution and in the case of lattice walks,
we analytically showed that the probability distribution of $\tau$ converges, in the large $n$ limit, to the scaling form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scaling_general}
P(\tau|n)\simeq \frac{1}{n}f_{\rm BM}\left(\frac{\tau}{n}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}).
In Section (\ref{sec:BM}) we have observed that when $y=\tau/n\to 1$, i.e. when $\tau \to n$, this scaling function
$f_{\rm BM}(y)$ converges to the asymptotic value $1/2$ (see Eq. (\ref{summary_asymptotics})). Thus, taking the
limit $\tau\to n$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:scaling_general}) we obtain the result in Eq. (\ref{eq:result_asymptotic}).
Moreover, Eq. (\ref{eq:result_asymptotic}) can be also derived directly in the case of
lattice walks (see Appendix \ref{app:limit}).
We now want to show that, in the case of continuous jump distributions, the universal result in Eq.
(\ref{eq:result_asymptotic}) is exactly valid even for finite $n$. In Fig. \ref{fig:numerics_universality}, we verify this
universality numerically for several different continuous jump distributions. Even if finding a theoretical explanation of
this universality appears to be non-trivial, it is possible to analytically derive the result $p_n=1/(2n)$ in the special case
of double-exponential jumps. Moreover, besides the trivial cases $n=1$ and $n=2$, in Appendix~\ref{app:n3}, we provide a proof
of this universality in the case $n = 3$. However, generalising the method presented in Appendix~\ref{app:n3} to $n>3$ appears
to be challenging. Thus, proving this conjecture $p_n=1/(2n)$ for symmetric and continuous jump distribution
remains an interesting open problem.
It is easy to verify that this result $p_n=1/(2n)$ for any finite $n$ does not hold for RWs with discrete jump
distributions (see Fig.
\ref{fig:numerics_universality}). For instance, if we consider the discrete distribution $p(\eta)=\delta(|\eta|-1)/2$,
corresponding to lattice walks, it is easy to check for $n=3$ that
\begin{equation}
p_3=\frac{1}{8}\neq \frac{1}{2n}\,.
\end{equation}
Note that for RWs with discrete distributions the global maximum and the global minimum are degenerate with finite
probability. Thus, here we define $n_{\max}$ ($n_{\min}$) as the step at which the global maximum (minimum) is reached for the
first time.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure9.pdf}
\caption{The probability $p_n=P(\tau=n|n)$ as a function of $n$ for discrete-time random walks (RWs) for different jump distributions. Continuous jump distributions collapse onto the universal result $1/(2n)$ shown by the solid (blue) line. In the case of lattice walks, which are discrete in space, the result $1/(2n)$ is only reached asymptotically for large $n$. The empirical curves are obtained by simulating $10^7$ RWs for each jump distribution.}
\label{fig:numerics_universality}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=\linewidth]{Figure10.pdf}
\caption{Typical realizations of the height $H(x,t)$ of $(1+1)-$dimensional
Kardar-Parisi-Zhang fluctuating interfaces, evolving on a substrate of size $L$, as a function of the
position $x$ and at fixed time $t$: a) for the free boundary conditions and b) for the periodic boundary condition.
The maximal height is reached at position $\tilde{x}_{\max}$ and the minimal height at
position $\tilde{x}_{\min}$. The distance between the points of maximal and minimal height is denoted as $\tau$.}
\label{fig:kpz_realization}
\end{figure*}
In the case of RWs with double exponential jumps, i.e. when $p(\eta) = (1/2) e^{-|\eta|}$, we can analytically show that $p_n=1/(2n)$ for any finite $n$. Since $-n \leq \tau \leq n$, it follows that the event ``$\tau = n_{\min} - n_{\max} = n$'' corresponds, as explained above, to having the maximum at step $n_{\max}=0$ and the minimum at step $n_{\min}=n$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:appendix}). This corresponds to a trajectory that starts at the origin at step $0$, reaches $-x_{\min}$ at step $n$, stays in the box $[-x_{\min},0]$ for all intermediate steps. To compute the probability of such a trajectory, it is useful first to reflect the trajectory $x \to -x$, so that we just need to compute the probability that the walker starting at $0$ arrives at $x_{\min}\geq 0$ at step $n$, while staying in the box $[0,x_{\min}]$, with $x_{\min}$ integrated over $[0, +\infty)$. This probability can be conveniently expressed in terms of our basic building block $G(x,n|M)$, defined as the probability that the walker goes from the origin to position $x$ in $n$ steps, always remaining in the box $[0,M]$. Indeed, after integrating over $x_{\min}$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{P1/2_2}
p_n=P(\tau = n|n) = \int_0^\infty G(x_{\min}, n |x_{\min}) \, d x_{\min} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, to prove that $p_n = 1/(2n)$, we need to evaluate the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (\ref{P1/2_2}).
Actually, for the double-exponential jump distribution, the generating
function of $G(x,n|M)$ was exactly computed in Section \ref{sec:RW}. Hence,
multiplying both terms of Eq. (\ref{P1/2_2}) by $s^n$ and summing over $n$, we obtain,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:app_lapl}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}p_n\,s^n = \int_0^\infty \tilde{G}(x_{\min}, s |x_{\min}) \, d x_{\min} \;.
\end{equation}
Using the expression for $\tilde{G}(x_{\min},s|M)$ in Eqs. (\ref{g_solution}) and (\ref{A}), with $M=x_{\min}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:app_lap2}
&&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}p_n\,s^n = \int_0^\infty
d x_{\min} \, \frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1-(\frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}})^2
e^{-2\sqrt{1-s}\,x_{\min}}}\nonumber \\ &\times &
\left[e^{-\sqrt{1-s}\,x_{\min}}-\frac{1-\sqrt{1-s}}{1+\sqrt{1-s}}e^{-\sqrt{1-s}\,x_{\min}}\right]\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Computing the integral on the right-hand side, we obtain, after few steps of algebra,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}p_n\,s^n=-\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1-s\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The right-hand side can be rewritten in Taylor series for $0<s<1$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}p_n\,s^n=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}s^n\,,
\end{equation}
which implies that for any finite $n\geq 1$
\begin{equation}
p_n=P(\tau = n|n)=\frac{1}{2n}\,.
\end{equation}
\section{Fluctuating interfaces} \label{sec:fluctuating}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=\linewidth]{Figure11.pdf}
\caption{
Scaling plot of $P(\tau = \tilde x_{\min} - \tilde x_{\max}|L)$ for the Edwards-Wilkinson interface obtained from the numerical integration of Eq. (\ref{discrete_EW}) with $\Delta t=0.01$ and $L=512$: a) for the free boundary conditions and b) for the periodic boundary conditions. The solid line in a) represents the analytical scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}) while the filled dots represent simulation data. In b), the solid line represents the analytical scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bb}), while the filled dots represent simulation data. The numerical data are obtained by averaging over $10^6$ samples.}
\label{fig:numeric_ew}
\end{figure*}
A remarkable application of our results is to KPZ/EW fluctuating interfaces. We consider a $(1+1)-$dimensional fluctuating interface evolving over a substrate of finite size $L$. Let $H(x,t)$ be the height of the interface at position $x$ at time $t$, with $0\leq x \leq L$, as in Fig. \ref{fig:kpz_realization} \cite{review_kpz1,review_kpz2,spohn_houches}. We describe the evolution of the height field in time using the KPZ equation~\cite{kpz86}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:kpz}
\frac{\partial H(x,t)}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial^2 H(x,t)}{\partial x^2}+\lambda\left(\frac{\partial H(x,t)}{\partial x}\right)^2+\eta\left(x,t\right),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda \geq 0$ and $\eta(x,t)$ is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean and correlator $\langle\eta\left(x,t\right)\eta\left(x',t'\right)\rangle=2\delta(x-x')\delta(t-t')$. The linear case $\lambda=0$ corresponds to EW equation \cite{edwads82}. We consider both free boundary conditions, where the endpoints $H(0,t)$ and $H(L,t)$ evolve freely, and periodic boundary condition, where the constraint $H(0,t)=H(L,t)$ is present (see Fig. \ref{fig:kpz_realization}). Here we are interested in describing this system in the large time limit. However, since the zero mode, characterised by the average height
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:avg_H}
\overline{H(t)}= \frac{1}{L}\int_{0}^{L}H(x,t)\,dx\,,
\end{eqnarray}
typically grows with time, the height $H(x,t)$ will never reach a stationary state, even for a finite system. Thus, it is useful to define the displacement from the average height, i.e. the relative height
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:h_def}
h(x,t)=H(x,t)-\overline{H}(t)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In this way, we are fixing the zero mode to be exactly zero. Indeed, note that $h(x,t)$ satisfies by construction
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:condition_on_h}
\int_0^L \, dx \,h(x,t)\,=\,0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For finite $L$, it turns out that $h(x,t)$ reaches a stationary state $h(x)$ for late times. In this stationary state, we define the position at which the height is minimal as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:x_min_def}
\tilde{x}_{\min}=\operatorname{argmin}_{0\leq x\leq L}\left(h(x)\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and the position of maximal height as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:x_max_def}
\tilde{x}_{\max}=\operatorname{argmax}_{0\leq x\leq L}\left(h(x)\right)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We are mainly interested in computing the joint PDF $P(\tilde{x}_{\max}\,,\tilde{x}_{\min}|L)$ of $\tilde{x}_{\max}$ and $\tilde{x}_{\min}$ and the PDF of the position distance $\tau=\tilde{x}_{\min}-\tilde{x}_{\max}$ between maximum and minimum, which we denote as $P(\tau|L)$. We also denote the maximal and the minimal relative height as $h_{\max}=h(\tilde{x}_{\max})$ and $h_{\min}=h(\tilde{x}_{\min})$.
\subsection{Edwards-Wilkinson case}
We start by considering the simpler case of EW interfaces, corresponding to $\lambda=0$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:kpz}).
First, we consider FBC, i.e. we assume that the height values $h(0)$ and $h(L)$ at the extremes of the interval evolve freely according to Eq. (\ref{eq:kpz}). In this case, the PDF of the stationary state $h(x)$ of EW equation is given by~\cite{majumdar04,comtet05,schehr06}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stationary_FBC}
P_{\rm st}\left(\{h\}\right)=A_L\,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{L}dx (\partial_{x}h)^2}\delta\left[\int_{0}^{L}h(x)dx\right] \;,
\end{equation}
where the delta function enforces the constraint (\ref{eq:condition_on_h}) and $A_L$ is the normalisation constant
\begin{equation}
A_L=\sqrt{2\pi}L^{3/2}\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, in the case of PBC $h(0)$ and $h(L)$ evolve freely but with $h(0)=h(L)$. Thus, the stationary distribution of $h(x)$ contains the additional factor $\delta\left(h(0)-h(L)\right)$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:stationary_PBC}
P_{\rm st}\left(\{h\}\right) &=& B_L\,e^{-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{L}dx (\partial_{x}h)^2}\delta\left[\int_{0}^{L}h(x)dx\right]\\ & \times\, &\delta \left(h(0)-h(L)\right) \;\nonumber ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $B_L$ corresponding to the normalisation constant
\begin{equation}
B_L=L\,.
\end{equation}
From the expressions of the stationary probabilities (\ref{eq:stationary_FBC}) and (\ref{eq:stationary_PBC}), we observe that, for both FBC and PBC, the stationary height $h(x)$ behaves locally as a BM, apart from a global zero area constraint. Indeed if we identify (a) space with time, i.e. $x \Leftrightarrow t$, (b) the total substrate length $L$ with the total duration $T$, i.e. $L \Leftrightarrow T$ and (c) the stationary relative height $h(x)$ with the position $x(t)$ of a BM, i.e. $h(x) \Leftrightarrow x(t)$, we find a one-to-one mapping between the stationary EW interface and the positions of a BM (for the case of the FBC). In the case of the PBC, the stationary interface corresponds to a BB. Note however that due to the zero area constraint (\ref{eq:condition_on_h}) the process $x(t)$ obtained through the mapping is not exactly a BM/BB. Indeed, $x(t)$ has to satisfy an equivalent constraint:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:condition_x}
\int_{0}^{T}\,dt\,x(t)\,=\,0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the statistical properties of this process $x(t)$ will in general differ from those of a usual BM/BB.
For instance, the PDF of the maximal (minimal) height $h_{\max}$ ($h_{\min}$) is known for both boundary conditions to be different from the PDF of the maximum (minimum) value of an usual BM/BB \cite{majumdar04,comtet05}. Indeed, the zero area constraint affects the value of the maximum (minimum). On the other hand, this constraint just corresponds to a global shift by the zero mode. Thus, it is clear that, due to the locally Brownian nature of $h(x)$, the positions at which the extrema occur are not affected for both FBC and PBC. Hence, for FBC the joint PDF of $\tilde{x}_{\max}$ and $\tilde{x}_{\min}$ $P(\tilde{x}_{\max}\,,\,\tilde{x}_{\min}|L)$ will coincide with that of the times $t_{\max}$ and $t_{\min}$ for a BM of total duration $T=L$. This implies that the stationary probability distribution of the position difference $\tau$ between minimum and maximum is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:P_tau_FBC}
P(\tau=\tilde{x}_{\min}-\tilde{x}_{\max}|L)=\frac{1}{L}f_{\rm BM}(\frac{\tau}{L})\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is given by Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bm}). In the case of PBC, exploiting the mapping to a BB, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:P_tau_PBC}
P(\tau=\tilde{x}_{\min}-\tilde{x}_{\max}|L)=\frac{1}{L}f_{\rm BB}(\frac{\tau}{L})\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ is given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bb}).
To check this prediction for $P(\tau|L)$ in Eqs. (\ref{eq:P_tau_FBC}) and (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}) for the EW interface, we numerically integrated the space-time discretised form of Eq. (\ref{eq:kpz}) with $\lambda = 0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{discrete_EW}
H(i,t+ \Delta t) - H(i,t)&=& \Delta t \big[H(i+1,t) + H(i-1,t)\nonumber \\&-& 2 H(i,t) \big] + \eta_i(t) \sqrt{2 \Delta t} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta_i(t)$'s are IID random variables for each $i$ and $t$, each drawn from a Gaussian distribution of zero mean and unit variance. We considered both the FBC and the PBC with $\Delta t = 0.01$ and $L = 512$. We have run the simulation for a sufficiently large time to ensure that the system has reached the stationary state and then measured the PDF $P(\tau|L)$. Even though we expect the results in Eqs. (\ref{eq:P_tau_FBC}) and (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}) to be valid for all values of $L$, this expectation is only for the continuum version of the EW equation (\ref{eq:kpz}) with $\lambda=0$. Since for the simulation we have use the discrete version (\ref{discrete_EW}) of this equation, we expect these results in Eqs. (\ref{eq:P_tau_FBC}) and (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}) to hold only for large $L$. Actually, for $L=512$, we already see an excellent agreement between simulations and analytical results. In Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_ew} a) we compare the simulations with the analytical prediction for the FBC in Eq. (\ref{eq:P_tau_FBC}). The corresponding simulation results for the PBC are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:numeric_ew} b) and compared with the analytical prediction in Eq. (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}).
\subsection{Kardar-Parisi-Zhang case}
At variance with the case of EW equation, for the KPZ equation (\ref{eq:kpz}) with $\lambda >0$, the stationary state for the relative heights is expected to converge to the same measures (\ref{eq:stationary_FBC}) and (\ref{eq:stationary_PBC}) (respectively for the FBC and the PBC), but only in the limit $L \to \infty$. Therefore, we expect that the results for $P(\tau|L)$ in Eqs. (\ref{eq:P_tau_FBC}) and (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}) to hold also for the KPZ equation for large $L$. However, verifying these analytical predictions numerically for the KPZ equation is challenging because the non-linear term is not easy to discretise \cite{lam_shin,lam_shin2}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure12.pdf}
\caption{Scaling plot of $P(\tau = \tilde x_{\min} - \tilde x_{\max}|L)$ for the KPZ interface with PBC obtained using the discretisation scheme (\ref{lam_shin}) with $\Delta t=0.01$ and $L=512$. The solid line represents the analytical scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:f_bb}), while the filled dots represent the simulation data. The numerical data are obtained by averaging over $10^6$ samples.}\label{Fig_KPZ}
\end{figure}
Several discretisation schemes have been proposed in the literature and we found it suitable to use the scheme proposed by Lam and Shin \cite{lam_shin2}, where the non-linear term $\lambda (\partial_x H(x,t))^2$ is discretised as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lam_shin}
&&\frac{\lambda}{3} \Big[ (H(i+1,t)-H(i,t))^2+ (H(i+1,t)- H(i,t))\nonumber \\ &\times & (H(i,t) - H(i-1,t)) \\ &+& (H(i,t) - H(i-1,t))^2 )\Big]\nonumber \;.
\end{eqnarray}
The advantage of this scheme is that one can prove analytically that, for the PBC, the Fokker-Planck equation associated with this discrete model admits a stationary solution,
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm st}(\{ H\}) \propto \exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^L (H(i+1,t)-H(i,t))^2 \right]\,,
\end{equation}
independently of $\lambda$. In the $L \to \infty$ limit, the stationary measure converges to the Brownian measure $P_{\rm st}(\{ H\}) \propto \exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} \int_0^L (\partial_x H)^2 \, dx \right]$. Therefore, with this discretisation scheme (\ref{lam_shin}) and PBC, we expect to recover the BB result for $P(\tau|L)$ as in Eq. (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}). In Fig. \ref{Fig_KPZ} we compare the simulation results for $P(\tau|L)$ for the KPZ equation with PBC and $\lambda = 1$ (with parameters $\Delta t = 0.01$ and $L=512$), with the analytical scaling function in Eq. (\ref{eq:P_tau_PBC}) for the BB -- the agreement is excellent. Unfortunately, for the KPZ equation with the FBC, there is no convenient discretisation scheme for the non-linear term that correctly produces the stationary measure for finite $L$. Of course, we still expect that, in this case, the results for $P(\tau|L)$ for the KPZ equation in the stationary state will again converge to the Brownian prediction given in Eq. (\ref{eq:P_tau_FBC}) in the large $L$ limit. However, numerically verifying this for finite but large $L$ seems challenging, due to the absence of a good discretisation scheme for the non-linear term in the FBC case.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
In summary, we have presented an exact solution for the probability distribution of the time $\tau$ between the maximum and the minimum for a class of stochastic processes. First, we have considered a one-dimensional BM of duration $T$. In this case, we have used a path-integral method to show that the PDF of $\tau$ has a scaling form for any $\tau$ and $T$, i.e. $P(\tau|T)=(1/T)f_{\rm BM}(\tau/T)$, and we have exactly computed the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$. In particular we find that $f_{\rm BM}(y)\sim e^{-\pi/\sqrt{|y|}}$ when $y\to 0$, while $f_{\rm BM}(y)\sim 1/2$ when $y\to \pm 1$. We have generalised our result to a one-dimensional BB, finding a different scaling function $f_{\rm BB}(y)$. We have verified numerically that the PDF of $\tau$ for BM is universal in the sense of the Central Limit Theorem, i.e. the scaling function $f_{\rm BM}(y)$ is also valid for discrete-time RWs with finite-variance jumps in the limit of large number of steps $n$. For two particular RW models, namely RW with double-exponential jumps and lattice walks, we have proved analytically this universality. In the case of L\'evy flights with a divergent jump variance we have observed from numerical simulations that the PDF of $\tau$ differs from the Brownian case. Indeed, for L\'evy walks the precise shape of $P(\tau|n)$ depends on the tail behaviour of the jump distribution.
For discrete-time RWs with symmetric and continuous jump distribution, we found numerically that
the probability $p_n=P(\tau=n|n)=1/(2n)$ for any finite $n$, completely independent of the jump distribution. We could
prove this result analytically for the double exponential jump distribution. For general symmetric and continuous jump distribution, we
could prove this super-universality only for $n\leq 3$. We believe that there must be an elegant combinatorial proof of this result, but
it has eluded us so far. Proving this conjecture for $n >3$ remains a challenging open problem.
Finally, we have also observed that the distribution of $\tau$ for BM and BB emerges in the statistical description of fluctuating interfaces. Indeed, the space distance between the maximal and minimal height of a $(1+1)$-dimensional stationary KPZ interface growing over a substrate of size $L$ has the same probability distribution as $\tau$ for BM, if one considers FBC, or for BB, in the case of PBC.
For further studies it would be interesting to compute the distribution of $\tau$ in the case of L\'evy flights. Moreover, in this paper we have only investigated processes with symmetric increments. It would be relevant to study how the PDF of $\tau$ gets modified when one considers an additional drift in the process, such as for drifted BM. This could be useful to describe financial data, which have the tendency to increase or decrease persistently in time.
Finally, it would be also interesting to compute the distribution of $\tau$ for stochastic processes with correlated noise, such as run-and-tumble particles or active BM.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Citation networks and their growth have attracted the interest of the complex networks research community for long~\cite{wang2009effect,Parolo2015,Golosovsky2017}.
A citation network is a directed network, in which nodes represent scientific publications and edges between nodes citations between publications.
Because new publications can only cite existing ones, the \emph{temporal ordering} in which nodes and links are added to the network plays a crucial role, and a time-aggregated network representation omits this information.
One focus of current research was to test whether established growth mechanisms, such as preferential attachment, are suitable to describe the evolution of citation networks~\cite{wang2008measuring,Golosovsky2013,Golosovsky2018}.
Preferential attachment assumes the growth rate, \(\Delta k\), is proportional to the in-degree of a node, $k$, i.e. the number of citations a paper has attracted so far.
This follows early investigations from the 1960's showing that publications with already a large number of citations tend to attract even more citations~\cite{Price1965,Price1976}.
Preferential attachment prescribes a certain average dynamics to every node, i.e. it does not account for any kind of \emph{heterogeneity} other than the degree.
In practice, however, some nodes, once added to the network, accumulate many edges very fast, while others do not.
This observation has led to the notion of node \emph{fitness}: the fitter a node, the more edges it attracts~\cite{Bianconi2001,Wang2013,PhysRevE.99.060301}.
Conceptually, this considers a heterogeneity among nodes that goes beyond network properties.
In citation networks, the fitness is usually attributed to the content of the paper.
Preferential attachment further implies that that \emph{older} nodes attract more edges, which is in disagreement with empirical observations of citation dynamics.
Hence, the \emph{ageing} of nodes was introduced as another node property.
With respect to publications, ageing reflects obsolescence (novelty decay, relevance decay)~\cite{Wu2007,Medo2011} or attention decay~\cite{Parolo2015,Schweitzer2019}.
When verifying the preferential attachment hypothesis, most works either looked at the scale-free \emph{degree distribution} as an aggregated property of the network, or analysed the relation between in-degree, $k$, and growth rate, \(\Delta k\).
These approaches suffer from certain drawbacks.
For instance, the mentioned distributions and relations can result from many dynamic mechanisms, e.g. \(\Delta k \sim k\) can be found from a preferential attachment or a fitness model~\cite{Golosovsky2018}.
In addition, results on statistical modelling are not conclusive without the statistical comparison with other candidate models and without calculating the parameter errors.
For example, without errors or confidence intervals for the exponent of the degree distribution in the non-linear preferential attachment model, the discussion about evidence for or against a non-linearity in the growth mechanism is not complete~\cite{Golosovsky2013}.
In addition to the methodological issues with applying the preferential attachment model to citation growth, there are also conceptual problems.
The most important one regards the role of social influences on the citation dynamics.
Specifically, to what extent do properties of the \emph{authors}, e.g. their reputation as expressed by their number of previous publications or their total number of citations, play a role in citing a publication?
After all, producing academic publications is a \emph{social endeavour} that involves collaboration between authors and information spreading through social interactions.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect that these social aspects have an impact on the citation dynamics.
Already \citet{Merton1968} in his seminal work discussed various mechanisms of how characteristics of authors (prominence, academic awards) may influence the recognition of their publications in terms of citations.
In particular, he raised the question of whether publications by better known researchers get more and faster recognition in the community.
To formally address such issues in a modeling approach requires us to consider not only the relations between \emph{publications}, in a citation network, but additionally also the relations between \emph{authors}, in a co-authorship network.
Such collaboration networks between authors~\cite{Tomasello2017} and their co-evolution with the citation networks~\cite{Boerner2004} have been studied recently.
For instance, it was shown that the centrality of authors in the co-authorship network prior to a publication affects the number of citations that the publication will receive~\cite{Sarigol2014}, which allows to predict their future success.
In this article, we provide an in-depth analysis to quantify the impact of authors' characteristics, such as their previous number of publications or co-authors, on the citation growth of their publications.
Specifically, we will test different hypotheses about this impact and combine them with different growth mechanisms for the citation dynamics.
This way, our results shed a new light on the discussion about the ``fitness'' of a publication.
While it is usually attributed to the \emph{content} of the paper, we address the question whether this ``fitness'' can be better attributed to the properties of the \emph{authors}.
This would allow to transform the rather abstract notion of ``fitness'' in relation to ``content'' into a measurable and interpretable quantity.
To achieve our goal, we start from the more general perspective of coupled multi-layer networks.
We provide a framework to model the growth of such coupled networks, but even more, we demonstrate how a statistical evaluation of such growth models should be carried out.
This generalises the methods presented in \cite{Leskovec2008,Medo2014} for single layer networks.
We refine these methods in two ways.
First, we demonstrate how to compute the standard errors of the parameter estimates.
This allows us to judge the significance of the model parameters and the corresponding model formulations.
Second, we address the issue of prohibitive computational cost of the microscopic model evaluation based on the sequential addition of individual edges.
We solve this for arbitrarily large networks by evaluating the models based on finite samples of growth events over the course of the network growth.
By sampling events uniformly over the whole period of network growth, from the first nodes to the final observed state of the network, we ensure representing the whole growth process.
The article is organised as follows.
In \cref{sec:multi-layer-growth} we formalise (i) the multi-layer network representation of citations between publications and authorship relations between publications and authors, (ii) the modelling approach to coupled growth of multi-layer networks in general.
In \cref{sec:temp-mle}, we introduce the maximum likelihood estimation of model parameters and model selection based on the temporal sequence of edges added to the network, the scalable estimation procedure based on event sampling, and a way to evaluate the temporal stability of model parameters.
In \cref{sec:valid-synth-data} we validate the methods on synthetic networks generated with known mechanisms.
We then proceed with the formulation of specific models for citation growth of publications coupled with the properties of the authors of these publications in \cref{sec:model-spec-citat}.
Finally in \cref{sec:scientometric-results}, we analyse the growth of nine empirical citation networks that have been constructed from physics journals based on data from the American Physical Society and INSPIRE.
\section{A multi-layer growth model}
\label{sec:multi-layer-growth}
\subsection{A multi-layer approach to citation dynamics}
\label{sec:multi-layer-approach}
The real-world application of our general framework comes from the domain of scientometrics.
Specifically, we want to identify the mechanisms that drive citations between different publications.
We therefore use data from nine physics journals, most of them from the APS, which are described in detail in \cref{sec:appendix_data}.
For each journal and each publication therein, we extract data about (i) the publication time, (ii) the authors and (iii) the publications cited in the respective publication.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\include{figures/tikz-twolayer}
\end{center}
\caption{Multilayer representation of authors and publications.}
\label{fig:cit-aut-multi}
\end{figure}
To represent this relational data, we construct a two-layer network (see Figure~\ref{fig:cit-aut-multi}) in which the lower layer consists of the authors and the upper layer of their publications.
Edges in the upper layer indicate citations between publications.
The relation \emph{between} the two layers is defined by the co-authorship for each publication.
Previous works have mainly focused on the dynamics of the publication layer, which was studied in isolation, i.e., without accounting for influences from the author layer~\cite{Price1965,Barabasi1999,wang2008measuring,wang2009effect,Wang2013,Parolo2015,Lariviere2008}.
This shall be improved in our paper.
The research question addressed with respect to this two-layer representation can be stated as follows:
To what extent impacts the author layer (i.e. the status, collaboration history etc. of authors) the publication layer (i.e. citation of papers)?
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{net-growth-example}
\caption{
Coupled dynamics of the two-layer network. Blue nodes/edges refer to the publication layer, yellow nodes/edges to the author layer (see also Figure~\ref{fig:cit-aut-multi}). Each growth event is associated with a new publication, which draws citation edges to older publications and co-authorship edges between new and/or existing authors.}
\label{fig:net-evol}
\end{figure}
While this research question is interesting in itself, it does not address the notion of \emph{time} in an explicit manner.
We have to take into account that publications enter the system at different times, which restricts the range of possible citations to papers already published.
With every new publication, also the author layer changes.
Figure \ref{fig:net-evol} illustrates with three time-ordered snapshots such a coupled growth process.
To capture this dynamics properly, in this paper we formulate a \emph{growth} model for the publication layer that takes changes in the author layer into account.
The related research question can be stated as follows: What is the impact of time on these relations, specifically the decay of attention towards older publications?
\subsection{A multi-layer approach to coupled growth processes}
\label{sec:model-general}
The application of multi-layer networks to scientometrics is just one instance of a bigger class of problems, in which two processes, \emph{within} and \emph{across} different layers, concurrently determine the overall dynamics.
Therefore, in this paper we want to derive a general approach to these problems, before applying it to the specific application of the citation dynamics.
We consider a growing multi-layer network \(G(t) = G\left[V(t),E(t)\right]\) with \(L\) sets of nodes \(V(t) = \{V^\mu(t)\}_{\mu \in [1,L] }\) that define the network layers \(\mu \in [1,L]\) and with edges \(E(t) = \{E^{\mu\nu}(t)\}_{(\mu,\nu) \in [1,L]\times[1,L]}\).
Each set of edges \(E^{\mu\nu}(t)\) comprises all and only edges that connect nodes in layer \(V^\mu(t)\) to nodes in \(V^\nu(t)\).
The left panel in \cref{fig:multi-layer} illustrates such a multi-layer network where the edges within and between two layers \(\mu\) and \(\nu\) shown.
In principle, the edges within and across different layers can be directed or undirected independently from each other.
Edges can also be weighted, but for simplicity we will not consider the weights in the further discussion.
This notation above is quite general and can encode the special cases of multiplex networks \citep{Nicosia2013} in which \(V^\mu(t) = V^\nu(t)\) for all \(\mu,\nu \in [1,L]\), or multi-partite networks \citep{garas16:_inter} in which \(E^{\mu\mu} = \emptyset\) for any \(\mu\) and \(\nu\).
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{multi-layer-model-v2}
\caption{(Left) Multi-layer network representation. For illustrative purposes, only edges between neighbouring layers are drawn.
(Right top) The growth of the network can be described by means of separate model components \(\pi^{\mu\nu}\), each corresponding to edge creation of one type, \(E^{\mu\nu}\).
(Right bottom) The coupling between the dynamics of different layers is captured in the model components.
}\label{fig:multi-layer}
\end{figure}
In the following we investigate \emph{growing} networks, i.e. nodes and edges are added to the network over time.
We do not consider isolated nodes and the removal of nodes or edges.
Formally, our models define the probability of adding an \emph{edge} \(e_{ij} \in E^{\mu\nu}(t+1)\) to the network at time \(t+1\).
We assume discrete time, parametrised by the network growth.
This means that a time step \(t \to t+1\) occurs only when at least one edge (but potentially, multiple simultaneous edges) is added to the network.
The probability of this event is, in its most general form, expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:general-model}
\Pr \left[ e_{ij} \in E^{\mu\nu}(t+1) \land e_{ij} \notin E^{\mu\nu}(t) \right] = \pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right].
\end{equation}
\(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]\), which is the central element of our model specifications below, defines this probability as a function of the network $G(t)$, taken at the time before the edge is added, and a vector of parameters, \(\vecb{\theta}\), which later allow to distinguish between different models.
Note that, in the right panel of \cref{fig:multi-layer}, the \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]\) denote \emph{model components}.
They may differ for different sets of edges and are therefore indexed by the network layers \(\mu\) and \(\nu\).
In principle, each set of edges \(E^{\mu\nu}\) can be modelled by its own model component.
Because each model component is in general a function of the whole network at time \(t\), the addition of edges in one network layer is affected by the state of the network not only in that layer but also in other layers.
In other words, this general formulation allows for coupling in the growth dynamics of different layers.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:valid-synth-data}, we will specify the \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]\) to capture the growth of a synthetic network.
More importantly, in Sect.~\ref{sec:model-component} we will present a general expression for the model component \(\pi^{pp}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]\) that shall describe the growth of citations between publications.
There, we make use of five parameters \(\vecb{\theta}=[\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\tau]\) that will allow us to include or exclude different mechanisms that impact citations.
Their importance can be tested in a statistical approach described in the following section.
\section{Time-respecting Maximum Likelihood Estimation}
\label{sec:temp-mle}
\subsection{Estimation of model parameters}\label{sec:estim-model-param}
Having defined multi-layer network growth by means of model components \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]\), here we describe a maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameter vector \(\vecb{\theta}\), given a growing network \(G(t)\).
Similar to the approach in~\cite{Medo2014,Leskovec2008}, we calculate the model likelihood under the assumption of statistical independence of \emph{adding} individual edges:
\begin{equation}
\ln \mathcal{L}\left[\vecb{\theta}; G(T)\right] = \sum_{t=1}^{T-1} \sum_{\mu,\nu} \sum_{\substack{e_{ij} \in E^{\mu\nu}(t+1)\\ e_{ij} \notin E^{\mu\nu}(t)}} \ln \pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right],
\label{eq:mle:ll}
\end{equation}
where \(T\) is the last observed time.
Note that the independence assumption does not apply to the edges themselves: the probability of an edge depends on the network state at time $t$ and thus on the previously existing edges.
But adding one edge at a given time does not depend on other edges added at the same time.
The vector of model parameters \(\vecb{\hat\theta}\) that maximises the likelihood of the model given the network is found by solving the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mle:score}
\left. \frac{\partial \ln \mathcal{L}}{\partial \vecb{\theta}} \right|_{\vecb{\hat\theta}} = 0.
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:mle:score} allows us to find the best estimate of the given model's parameter vector. However, it does not provide information about the \emph{uncertainty} of the estimates.
Fortunately, the latter can also be computed as part of the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method. It is an important property of the MLE method that, under some mild conditions, the vector of parameter estimates \(\mathbf{\hat\theta}\) follows a multivariate normal distribution around the true value of the parameters.
This means that, the uncertainty about the parameter estimates can be adequately described using standard errors based on the corresponding covariance matrix.
In the context of MLE, the covariance matrix of the parameters is then given by the inverse of the \emph{Fisher information matrix} \(\mathcal{I}(\mathbf{\theta})\):
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2(\vecb{\hat\theta}) = {[\mathcal{I}(\vecb{\hat\theta})]}^{-1}.
\label{eq:mle:var}
\end{equation}
The matrix \(\mathcal{I}(\vecb{\hat\theta})\) is the expectation of the second derivatives of the log-likelihood function, which is usually not feasible to find.
Hence, in practice it is commonly approximated by the \emph{observed} Fisher information matrix:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}(\vecb{\theta}) \approx \mathcal{I}(\vecb{\hat\theta}) = - \left. \frac{\partial^2 \ln \mathcal{L} (\vecb{\theta})}{\partial \vecb{\theta} \, \partial \vecb{\theta}} \right|_{\vecb{\hat\theta}}.
\label{eq:mle:fisher}
\end{equation}
I.e., $ \mathcal{I}(\vecb{\theta})$ corresponds to the values of the second derivatives as in \cref{eq:mle:fisher} calculated for the parameter estimate \(\vecb{\hat\theta}\).
In general, the \gls{mle} of the parameters \(\vecb{\theta}\) is not performed by finding the maxima of \cref{eq:mle:score} analytically but is computed by means of numerical optimisation as discussed below in \cref{sec:computation}.
\subsection{Model selection}\label{sec:model-selection}
So far, we have specified our growth model by means of model components \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]\),
where the model parameter vector \(\vecb{\theta}\) was determined by a MLE.
Model selection denotes a defined procedure of statistically comparing different models in their ability to capture the data given with the growing network $G(t)$.
With ``different models'', we not only refer to different parameter vectors \(\vecb{\theta}\), but also to different formulations of sets of model components \(\pi_{ij}^{\mu\nu}\).
For instance, we can define a model $A$ that implements information from two sets of edges, \(E^{\mu\nu}\) and \(E^{\mu'\nu'}\), and then compare it to a model $B$ based on only one set of edges.
In general, model $A$ is expected to describe the data better, in statistical terms, because it takes more data into account.
Therefore, model selection has to consider not only the goodness of a fit, but also the \emph{model complexity} as expressed by the degrees of freedom of the model: the more information we put into the model, the more complex it is.
Later, in \cref{sec:scientometric-results}, we will define seven models for the growth of citations among scientific publications.
In some of these models the new citations will depend only on the previous citations, while in other models the new citations will also depend on authorship relations. To compare these models, we will compute their \emph{relative likelihoods}, similar to~\cite{Medo2014}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mle:rel-lik}
w_m = \exp \left\{\frac{1}{2} \left[\min_{m}(AIC_m) - AIC_m \right] \right\}
\end{equation}
where \(AIC_m\) is the value of Akaike Information Criterion of the model \(m\).
It is based on the maximum likelihood value of the model, corrected for the model complexity:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:aic}
AIC_m = - 2 \log \mathcal{L}[\vecb{\hat\theta}_m; G(T) ] + 2|\vecb{\theta}_m|,
\end{equation}
where \(|\vecb{\theta}_m|\) denotes the size of vector \(\vecb{\theta}_m\), i.e., the number of parameters of the model \(m\).
For better interpretability, after computing the values of \(w_m\) according to \cref{eq:mle:rel-lik}, they are normalised to add to one.
Our choice of the relative likelihoods \(w_m\) of models is motivated by their applicability for comparing a wide range of models.
This is in contrast with, e.g., likelihood ratio tests that could be used only for comparing so-called nested models where one model is a special case of another.
\subsection{Scalable \gls{mle} by event sampling}\label{sec:computation}
While the MLE cannot be solved \emph{analytically}, we can make use of the fact that, for commonly studied network growth models, the likelihood function has a convex shape (see \cref{sec:app} and \cite{Medo2014}).
This means that the \gls{mle} can be done \emph{numerically} by using a greedy hill-climbing algorithm.
In the following, we will use the Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) algorithm.
It has the advantage that, while finding the function extremum, it also estimates the inverse of the Hessian matrix, which for the log-likelihood function corresponds to the Fisher information matrix.
This means that we obtain both the MLE of the parameters and their variances at the same time (see \cref{eq:mle:fisher}).
More specifically, to obtain our results we use a variant of the algorithm, \texttt{L-BFGS-B}.
It allows to set boundary constraints on the parameters and uses limited memory, making the whole procedure more scalable~\cite{Byrd1995,Zhu2997}.
\texttt{L-BFGS-B} is a standard algorithm for solving nonlinear optimisation problems with bounded variables and implementations are available in common scientific computing libraries \cite{scipy}.
For further details on the algorithm's complexity, we refer to the original publications \cite{Byrd1995,Zhu2997}.
Performing a MLE for \cref{eq:mle:ll} based on the full network data becomes very costly for large networks.
For each time step the computations for \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}[G(t);\vecb{\theta}]\) have to be redone based on the network state at that time.
Therefore, the total computation time scales at least with the square of the final network size.
The larger the network, the more distinct time steps we have to consider to describe its growth (as time is parametrised by edges added, see \cref{sec:model-general}).
To reduce the computational cost of the MLE, we apply the model evaluation of \cref{eq:mle:ll} only to a \emph{subset} of growth events observed over time \(t \in [1,T]\).
For this, we sample, without replacement, a number \(S < T\) of time steps uniformly at random, \(\{t_s\}_{s \in [1,S]}\).
This set of time stamps uniformly covers the full time range \([1,T]\) of the network growth, provided that the largest sampled time step \(t_S\) is close to the final time \(T\).
Then, we can compute the MLE of a model based on this sample of time steps:
\begin{equation}
\ln \mathcal{L}\left(\vecb\theta; G(T), S\right) = \sum_{s=1}^{S} \sum_{\mu,\nu} \sum_{\substack{e_{ij} \in E^{\mu\nu}(t_s+1)\\ e_{ij} \notin E^{\mu\nu}(t_s)}} \ln \pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}[G(t_s);\vecb{\theta}].
\label{eq:mle:ll:sample}
\end{equation}
Through the model components \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}[G(t_s);\vecb{\theta}]\)
potentially all nodes and edges present in \(G(T)\) will affect the log-likelihood of the model given by \cref{eq:mle:ll:sample}.
In other words, the likelihood estimation is based on `probes' of temporal events over the whole growth period of the network.
By fixing the number of time steps, \(S\), the computation time can, for the final network size,
be decreased by an order of magnitude.
As a trade-off, the precision of the parameter estimates will be lower because their variance is inversely proportional to the number of observations used in the estimation.
This trade-off can be controlled by adjusting the number \(S\) of sampled time stamps according to the desired precision of the parameter estimate.
\subsection{Temporal stability of a model}
\label{sec:trends}
The above discussion assumes that the growth model does not \emph{explicitly} depend on time, even though the studied network changes over time.
In particular, the parameter vector \(\vecb{\theta}\) used to define the model components \(\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}[G(t_s);\vecb{\theta}]\) does not depend on time.
To confirm that this assumption holds we split the whole growth time period \([1,T]\) into
into \(R\) consecutive time windows such that each of them contains approximately \(\lfloor T/R \rfloor\) time steps.
We then partition the log-likelihood function, \cref{eq:mle:ll}, into the sum of log-likelihoods computed for each time window separately:
\begin{equation}
\ln \mathcal{L}\left[\vecb{\theta}; G(T)\right] = \sum_{r=1}^{R} \ln \mathcal{L}\left[\vecb{\theta}; G, r\right],
\label{eq:mle:partition}
\end{equation}
where each summand on the right hand side is given by
\begin{equation}
\ln \mathcal{L}\left[\vecb{\theta}; G, r\right] = \sum_{t=(r-1)\lfloor \frac{T}{R} \rfloor}^{r\cdot\lfloor \frac{T}{R} \rfloor}
\sum_{\mu,\nu} \sum_{\substack{e_{ij} \in E^{\mu\nu}(t+1)\\ e_{ij} \notin E^{\mu\nu}(t)}} \ln \pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right].
\label{eq:mle:window}
\end{equation}
\cref{eq:mle:window} provides the log-likelihood of the model computed for a certain time window \(r \in [1,R]\).
Based on this, we can estimate the model parameters for each time window separately using the MLE described earlier.
The assumption of a stationary model that itself does not depend on time is tested by comparing the parameter estimates for the \(R\) consecutive time windows.
We will use this approach in the next section to validate the method based on synthetically generated networks with known growth mechanisms.
\section{Method Validation on Synthetic Data}\label{sec:valid-synth-data}
To confirm that the presented method leads to correct results,
we first use a synthetic network comprising two sets of nodes denoted as \(V^{p}\) and \(V^{a}\) and two sets of directed edges \(E^{pp}\) and \(E^{ap}\).
That is, we have a two-layer network with edges within layer $p$ and between the two layers, $p$ and $a$.
The set $V^{a}$ consists of a fixed number of initially disconnected nodes.
During the growth of the network, these nodes will be subsequently connected to the nodes in layer $p$, as described below.
Hence, for the growth of the synthetic network we
concentrate on layer $p$, where one node \(i\) at a time is added with an \emph{out-degree} randomly drawn between one and five.
This node connects to already existing nodes
based on \emph{linear preferential attachment}, i.e. on the \emph{in-degrees} of the chosen nodes.
Because of the two-layer network, nodes are connected \emph{within} and \emph{across} layers.
Consequently, the first growth mechanism takes the in-degree of nodes \emph{within} a layer, i.e., the edges in the set \(E^{pp}\), into account.
The second growth mechanism, on the other hand, builds on the in-degree of nodes \emph{across} layers, i.e., the edges in the set \(E^{ap}\).
Using the combined information from the two layers, we specify the growth mechanism as follows: when adding an edge from the newly added node \(i \in V^p\), we choose the existing node \(j \in V^p\) with probability:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:pi11}
\pi^{pp,\mathrm{true}}_{ij}[G(t);\alpha,\delta] =&\alpha \frac{k^{pp,in}_j(t) + \delta}{\sum_{l \in V^p(t)} [k^{pp,in}_l(t) + \delta]} + (1-\alpha) \frac{k^{ap}_j}{\sum_{l \in V^p(t)} k^{ap}_l} ,
\end{align}
where \(k^{pp,in}_j(t)\) is the number of incoming edges of node \(j \in V^p\) within layer $p$, i.e., its in-degree with respect to the edge set \(E^{pp}(t)\), and \(k^{ap}_j(t)\) is the number of edges of node \(j\) to nodes in layer $a$, i.e., its in-degree with respect to the edge set \(E^{ap}(t)\).
The parameter \(\alpha \in [0,1]\) weights between the two growth mechanisms (often called mixture weight).
The constant \(\delta\) \cite{Price1976,Barabasi1999}, which appears in the first growth mechanism, is added to the in-degree of nodes in layer $p$ to ensure that, in the case of directed networks, a newly added node with non-zero out-degree, but \emph{zero in-degree} can attract incoming edges.
For the second mechanism we do not need to include such an additive constant because each node in \(i \in V^p\) has at least one edge \(e_{ij} \in E^{ap}\) connecting it to a node \(j \in V^a\) in the second layer.
Specifically,
we connect the newly added node \(i \in V^p(t)\) to between one and five nodes in layer $a$ with a uniform probability:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pi21}
\pi^{ap,\mathrm{true}}_{ji}[G(t)] = \frac{1}{|V^a(t)|}.
\end{equation}
For the experiment below, we choose \(V^p(T) = V^a(T) = 2000\) nodes in each of the two layers.
Adding one node at a time to layer $p$, this implies a total growth period of \(T=2000\).
To test whether our procedure works, we fix the values of the parameters as \(\delta = 1.2\) and \(\alpha = 0.7\).
Once we generate a synthetic network, we can apply the MLE to recover the (known) parameters of the model.
Given the sampling procedure described in Sect.~\ref{sec:computation}, we estimate the parameters for varying sizes \(S \leq T\) of the randomly sampled time stamps.
Additionally, we repeat the procedure ten times for each sample size.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{param_size_PA-NAUT_beta_070_2000_2000.png}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{param_size_PA-NAUT_alpha_120_2000_2000.png}
\caption{Parameter estimates (small dots) of the model given in \cref{eq:pi11} for varying sample size, with \(10\) realisations for each sample size.
These estimates (large dots and lines) and their standard errors (shaded area) are pooled for each sample size.
The black line corresponds to the true parameter value used for generating the networks.}\label{fig:param-size}
\end{figure}
The results of this numerical experiment are reported in \cref{fig:param-size}.
We find that (i) the estimates are close to the true value and the true value falls within one standard error of the estimates, (ii) the variance decreases with the sample size as expected.
The decrease becomes noticable beyond a sample size of about 400, i.e. 20\% from the full data.
The results confirm that our method is able to identify the correct parameters.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{param_folds_multip_PA-NAUT_beta_070_2000_2000.png}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{param_folds_multip_PA-NAUT_alpha_120_2000_2000.png}
\caption{The observed growth of a network is partitioned into ten consecutive time windows, each comprising approximately the same number of time steps.
The model in \cref{eq:pi11} is then evaluated based on each time window separately.
The resulting parameter estimates (dots and lines) and their standard errors (shaded areas) are shown for five synthetic networks. The black line corresponds to the true parameter value.
}\label{fig:param-trend}
\end{figure}
Next, we want to test whether the parameter estimates are stable over different growth periods of the network, as described in \cref{sec:trends}.
For this test, we partition the total growth period of \(T=2000\) time stamps
into \(R=10\) time windows.
We then estimate the model parameters for each time window based on the log-likelihood defined in \cref{eq:mle:window}.
The results for five synthetically generated networks are shown in \cref{fig:param-trend}.
We see that for both parameters the true value lies within one standard error of the estimates for each time window.
Further, no trend is observed in the parameter estimates over time.
This confirms that our method is robust also with respect to the sampling procedure.
Last but not least, it is important to also demonstrate that the \emph{model selection approach} based on the relative likelihoods (\cref{sec:model-selection}) can correctly identify the best model among various candidates.
To this end, we eventually evaluated a set of different models (explained in the next section) in addition to the known true model of \cref{eq:pi11}.
We show these results in the Appendix \cref{tab:growth:fits-sinthetic}.
They confirm that, indeed, the model selected this way corresponds to the true model used to generate the synthetic data set, i.e. that the correct model was identified.
\section{Model Specification for Citation Dynamics}
\label{sec:model-spec-citat}
Now that we have seen how our modeling framework can be used and how it is able to correctly identify the mechanisms underlying a synthetic growth process, we are ready to specify the framework for the real-world application in scientometrics.
We recall that model specification implies to determine the model components $\pi^{\mu\nu}_{ij}\left[G(t);\vecb{\theta}\right]$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:general-model}).
Specifically, to model the two-layer network with publications $V^p$ and authors $V^a$ we need to determine the four model components shown in Figure \ref{fig:multi-layer}.
This requires us to come up with some dynamic hypotheses of how these two layers are coupled, which should be aligned to the empirical facts.
\subsection{The model component $\pi_{ij}^{pp}$}
\label{sec:model-component}
Given the dynamics for our network illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:net-evol}, we can make two observations.
First, authors do not have direct links, but only via co-authored publications.
Therefore, the probability $\pi^{aa}_{ij}[\cdot]$ does not need to be modelled.
Second, relations between authors and papers are undirected, and thus $\pi^{ap}_{ij}[\cdot] = \pi^{pa}_{ij}[\cdot]$ holds.
Furthermore, we assume that the links between authors and publications are given by the data, making $\pi^{ap}_{ij}[\cdot]$ deterministic.
Therefore, we are only left with specifying a single model component, $\pi^{pp}_{ij}[\cdot]$.
This defines the probability of an incoming publication $i$ to form an edge, i.e., to cite, an existing publication $j$.
In most general terms, this probability can be written in full as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:model_component}
\pi_{ij}^{pp}[G(t); \vecb{\theta}] &= \alpha\dfrac{\eta_j\left[G(t)\right]^\beta \cdot K_j\left[G(t); \gamma, \delta, \tau\right]}{\sum\limits_{l \in V^p(t)}\eta_l\left[G(t)\right]^\beta \cdot K_l\left[G(t); \gamma, \delta, \tau\right]} + (1-\alpha)\dfrac{\eta_j\left[G(t)\right]}{\sum\limits_{l\in V^p(t)}\eta_l\left[G(t)\right]},\\
\vecb{\theta} &= \begin{bmatrix}\alpha, & \beta, & \gamma, & \delta, & \tau \end{bmatrix}^{'}
\end{align}
which follows the structure already discussed for Eq. (\ref{eq:pi11}).
Note that once published, the citations in publication are generally not further modified.
Hence, we do not model the probability of existing publications to form new links.
Equation~(\ref{eq:model_component}) comprises two constituents, $K_j[\cdot]$ and $\eta_j[\cdot]$:
With $K_j[\cdot]$, we specify the \emph{citation self-dynamics}, in particular different specifications from the preferential attachment family.
$\eta_j[\cdot]$ shall consider the \emph{fitness} of the publication.
It describes, for instance, how attractive the publication is for citations~\cite{Wang2013} and relates to the fitness term in other preferential attachment models~\cite{Bianconi2001,Pham2016}.
We want $\eta_j[\cdot]$ to capture \emph{non-citation related influences}, specifically influences from the authors of the paper on its probability to receive citations.
Therefore, we will refer to $\eta_j[\cdot]$ as the \emph{social constituent}.
Both components will be individually addressed in the following sections.
The parameters $\alpha \in [0,1]$ and $\beta$ can be used to couple the citation and the social constituents either additively or multiplicatively.
For $\beta = 0$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:model_component_additive}
\pi_{ij}^{pp}[G(t); \vecb{\theta}] &= \alpha\dfrac{K_j\left[G(t); \gamma, \delta, \tau\right]}{\sum\limits_{l \in V^p(t)} K_l\left[G(t); \gamma, \delta, \tau\right])} + (1-\alpha)\dfrac{\eta_j\left[G(t)\right]}{\sum\limits_{l\in V^p(t)}\eta_l\left[G(t)\right]},
\end{align}
which means the probability $\pi_{ij}^{pp}[\cdot]$ for publication $i$ to cite publication $j$ is the weighted mixture of the two constituents.
Such \emph{mixture models} are used when the statistical population is known to comprise sub-populations that are described by different probability distributions.
The mixture weight $\alpha$ is, then, determined by the relative size of each sub-population.
In our case, it means that node $j$ is chosen \emph{either} based on constituent \(K_j[\cdot]\) of citation self-dynamics, \emph{or} based on the social constituent \(\eta_j[\cdot]\), with the respective weight $\alpha$.
For $\alpha = 1$, we obtain multiplicative coupling:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:1}
\pi_{ij}^{pp}[G(t); \vecb{\theta}] = \dfrac{\eta_j\left[G(t)\right]^\beta \cdot K_j\left[G(t); \gamma, \delta, \tau\right]}{\sum\limits_{l \in V^p(t)}\eta_l\left[G(t)\right]^\beta \cdot K_l\left[G(t); \gamma, \delta, \tau\right]}
\end{align}
It means that the social constituent \emph{scales} the effect of the citation constituent during the growth process, with
$\beta \in [0, \infty)$ as the \emph{impact} of the social constituent.
Hence, the growth mechanism defined within the citation layer is the main, \emph{baseline}, effect while the social constituent biases it.
For intermediate values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ mixtures between additive and multiplicative coupling can be achieved.
\subsection{Citation Constituent}\label{sec:growth:cit-comp}
To define the citation constituent $K_j[\cdot]$, we use a general expression for preferential attachment:
\begin{align}\label{eq:2}
K_j\left[G(t); \vecb{\theta}\right] =[k_j^{pp,\text{in}}(t) + \delta]^\gamma \cdot e^{-\frac{t-t_j}{\tau}}
\end{align}
The term $k_j^{pp,\text{in}}(t) + \delta$ describes linear preferential attachment, where $k_j^{pp,\text{in}}(t)$ denotes the in-degree of the publication $j$ in the citation layer at time $t$, i.e., before citations made to $j$ are considered.
The constant $\delta$, again, corrects for publications without citations (i.e. in-degree zero) at time $t$~\cite{Sen2005}.
The parameter $\gamma \in [0, \infty)$ allows us to study \emph{non-linear preferential attachment} by controlling the degree-related preference.
Specifically, it amplifies or weakens the effect of the number of previous citations.
Finally, the term $e^{-\nicefrac{(t-t_j)}{\tau}}$ introduces a \emph{relevance decay}~\cite{Medo2011}.
Here, $t_j$ denotes the time at which the publication $j$ was added to the network, thus the probability for a publication to be cited now also depends on its age.
For simplicity, we will measure time using the number of publications in layer $p$.
This means \(t_j = j\) if nodes are labeled in the order they were added to the network.
The parameter $\tau \in [0, \infty)$ determines the characteristic time of the relevance decay.
In our empirical analysis, we study four specifications of the citation constituent \(K_j[\cdot]\) defined by certain settings of the parameters $\gamma$, $\delta$, and $\tau$ as follows:
\begin{description}
\item[Uniform Attachment (UNIF)]
This model defines a baseline without citation preferences for any paper. This is achieved, e.g. with $\gamma = \delta = 0$ and $\tau = \infty$, yielding
\begin{align}
\label{eq:3}
K_j\left[G(t); \vecb{\theta}\right] = 1.
\end{align}
\item[Preferential Attachment (PA)]
This model is motivated by the general finding that highly cited publications tend to receive more citation in the future~\cite{Price1976}.
This can be described by linear preferential attachment, which is obtained for $\gamma = 1$ and $\tau = \infty$.
\begin{align}
K_j\left[G(t); \vecb{\theta}\right] = k_j^{pp,\text{in}}(t) + \delta
\label{eq:PA}
\end{align}
\item[Preferential Attachment with Relevance Decay (PA-RD)]
The motivation for this model is similar to \texttt{PA}, but it additionally considers that papers are cited less over time~\cite{Medo2011}, for which the most evidence can be found in literature.
This is obtained for $\gamma = 1$.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:4}
K_j\left[G(t); \vecb{\theta}\right] = [k_j^{pp,\text{in}}(t) + \delta] \cdot e^{-\frac{t-t_j}{\tau}}
\end{align}
\item[Non-Linear Preferential Attachment with Relevance Decay (PA-NL-RD)]
The added non-linearity to the \texttt{PA-RD} model allows to scale the citation probability with the current citation count~\cite{Sen2005,Golosovsky2013}.
To keep the same number of degrees of freedom for this model compared to PA-RD, we fix the offset $\delta=1$ yielding
\begin{align}
\label{eq:5}
K_j\left[G(t); \vecb{\theta}\right] = [k_j^{pp,\text{in}}(t) + 1]^\gamma \cdot e^{-\frac{t-t_j}{\tau}}.
\end{align}
\end{description}
\subsection{Social Constituent}\label{sec:growth:soc-comp}
To completely specify the model component $\pi_{ij}^{pp}[\cdot]$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:model_component}), we have to make assumptions about the
social constituent, \(\eta_j\left[G(t)\right]\).
Here we mostly follow the arguments made by \citeauthor{Merton1968} in his seminal paper~\cite{Merton1968}, where he theorizes that the academic prominence of authors influences the success and recognition of their future work.
To quantify different levels of prominence, we use information related to the number of co-authors and the number of their
previous publications, as specified in the following:
\begin{description}
\item[Number of Authors (NAUT)]
As the simplest possibility, we define the social constituent as the number of authors that wrote the publication.
We argue that more co-authors (i) increase a paper's potential social exposure, (ii) allow for a better division of labour and to a higher impact~\cite{Leimu2005}.
A paper with a higher number of co-authors should therefore receive more citations. Mathematically, this is formulated as
\begin{equation}
\eta_j\left[G(t)\right] = k^{ap}_j(t),
\label{eq:coupling:soc:naut}
\end{equation}
where $k^{ap}_j(t)$ counts the number of authors of a publication.
\item[Number of Previous Co-authors (NCOAUT)]
We assume that authors who have previously collaborated with a larger number of co-authors have more experience and more visibility in their community, which in turn increases the citations for their new publications.
To calculate, for the co-authors of a given paper, their set of unique \emph{previous} co-authors, we use:
\begin{equation}
\eta_j\left[G(t)\right] = \big| \{ v \given \exists \lambda^{ap}_{3,jv}(t) \} \big|,
\label{eq:coupling:soc:ncoaut}
\end{equation}
That means, we count the unique endpoints \(v\) of the self-avoiding paths \(\lambda^{ap}_{3,jv}\) of length three over author-publication edges, i.e., paths \texttt{publication $\rightarrow$ authors $\rightarrow$ previous publications $\rightarrow$ previous co-authors}.
\item[Maximum Number of Previous Co-authors (MAXCOAUT)]
In this variant of \texttt{NCOAUT} we only take the author with the largest number of previous co-authors into account~\cite{Sarigol2014}.
This is motivated by \citet{Merton1968}, who argues that the academic credit for a publication written by a team of authors is often attributed to the most prominent author. For authors \(q \in V^a(t)\) of the publication \(j\) this yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coupling:soc:maxcoaut}
\eta_j(t) = \max_q ( \big|\{ v \given \exists \lambda^{ap}_{2,qv}(t) \} \big|)
\end{equation}
That means, we count the unique endpoints \(v\) of the self-avoiding paths \(\lambda^{ap}_{2,jv}\) of length two: \texttt{author $\rightarrow$ previous publications $\rightarrow$ previous co-authors}.
\item[Number of Previous Publications (NPUB)]
We argue that with more prior publications, i.e., with increasing experience of an author, (i) the impact of new publications and (ii) the author's recognition in the academic community should both increase, which leads to increased citation counts of future publications.
Hence, we consider the number of distinct publications written by all authors of publication \(j\).
\begin{equation}
\eta_j(t) = \big| \{ v \given \exists \lambda^{ap}_{2,jv}(t) \} \big|
\label{eq:coupling:soc:npub}
\end{equation}
Similar to \cref{eq:coupling:soc:ncoaut,eq:coupling:soc:maxcoaut}, we count the unique endpoints \(v\) of the self-avoiding paths \(\lambda^{ap}_{2,jv}\) of length two: \texttt{publication $\rightarrow$ authors $\rightarrow$ other publications}.
\item[Maximum Number of Previous Publications (MAXPUB)]
In this variant of \texttt{NPUB} we assume that the probability to be cited only depends on the maximum number of previous publications among all co-authors.
For authors \(q \in V^a(t)\) of the publication \(j\), this is formulated as
\begin{equation}
\eta_j(t) = \max_q ( k^{ap}_{q}(t) ),
\label{eq:coupling:soc:maxpub}
\end{equation}
where $k^{ap}_{q}$ is the degree of author $q$ with respect to author-publication edges at time $t$.
\end{description}
Based on the three alternatives for the citation constituent and the five alternatives for the social constituent, we can now create a large number of possible models, i.e. expressions for $\pi_{ij}^{pp}[\cdot]$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:model_component}), by using either additive or multiplicative coupling of the constituents.
Three models (\texttt{UNIF}, \texttt{PA-RD} and \texttt{PA-NL-RD}) consider only the citation self-dynamics, i.e., there is no coupling to the social constituent.
Because we take from the literature that \texttt{PA-RD} is the most promising candidate for the citation constituent, we restrict the combined models only to combinations of \texttt{PA-RD}.
For the additive combination, we test it together with all five alternatives for the social constituent, for the multiplicative combination only with the two most promising ones.
A summary of all tested models and their free parameters is given in Table \ref{tab:model_specification}.
\begin{table*}[b!]
\caption{Specification and relationships of the seven models used in the analysis. Columns with \faQuestion~denote the free parameters that are fitted for the model.
(PA): plain preferential attachment,
(PA-RD): preferential attachment with relevance decay,
(PA-NL-RD): preferential attachment with with relevance decay and added non-linearity. In addition we consider models that combine PA-RD
with different candidates for the social constituent (see Sect.~\ref{sec:growth:soc-comp} for explanation). All models are compared to a baseline model with uniform attachment (UNIF).
}
\label{tab:model_specification}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{lf{3cm}f{3cm}CCCCC}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \makecell{\textbf{Citation}\\ \textbf{Constituent}} & \makecell{\textbf{Social}\\ \textbf{Constituent}} & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\delta$ & $\tau$\\\midrule
\textbf{UNIF} & UNIF & --- & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\infty$ \\
\textbf{PA} & PA & --- & 1 & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & $\infty$ \\
\textbf{PA-RD} & PA-RD & --- & 1 & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\textbf{PA-NL-RD} & PA-NL-RD & --- & 1 & 0 & \faQuestion & 1 & \faQuestion \\\cmidrule(lr){1-8}
\textbf{PA-RD + NAUT} & PA-RD & NAUT & \faQuestion & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\textbf{PA-RD + NCOAUT} & PA-RD & NCOAUT & \faQuestion & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\textbf{PA-RD + MAXCOAUT} & PA-RD & MAXCOAUT & \faQuestion & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\textbf{PA-RD + NPUB} & PA-RD & NPUB & \faQuestion & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\textbf{PA-RD + MAXPUB} & PA-RD & MAXPUB & \faQuestion & 0 & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\\cmidrule(lr){1-8}
\textbf{PA-RD $\times$ NCOAUT} & PA-RD & NCOAUTH & 1 & \faQuestion & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\textbf{PA-RD $\times$ NPUB} & PA-RD & NPUB & 1 & \faQuestion & 1 & \faQuestion & \faQuestion \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table*}
\section{Empirical Authorship-Citation Networks}
\label{sec:scientometric-results}
The bibliographic data used for our model testing comes from two sources: APS journals~\footnote{Data provided by American Physical Society for research purposes, see \protect\url{https://journals.aps.org/datasets}} and INSPIRE~\footnote{See \protect\url{http://inspirehep.net/info/general/project/index} for general information and \protect\url{http://inspirehep.net/dumps/inspire-dump.html} for data acquisition}.
The details of these data, their origin and our motivation to use them, are described in the \cref{sec:appendix_data}.
Here, we only list the nine different journals that were included in our study:
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep, topsep=0pt]
\item \gls{jpr}
\item \gls{jpra}
\item \gls{jprc}
\item \gls{jpre}
\item \gls{jrmp}
\item \gls{jhep}
\item \gls{jpr_ins}
\item \gls{jpl}
\item \gls{jnp}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Results for nine empirical citation networks}\label{sec:results:empirical_networks}
In the following, we fit, for each of the nine citation networks listed above, our eleven model specifications for \(\pi_{ij}^{pp}[G(t); \vecb{\theta}]\) presented in \cref{tab:model_specification}.
Subsequently, we apply the model selection technique described in \cref{sec:temp-mle} to select the most adequate model.
One could perform a step wise model selection as follows:
For each two-layer network, first fit the models with only the citation constituent and choose the one with the highest relative likelihood.
Then, consider models with couplings between citation and social constituents based on the previously selected citation constituent.
Instead, we chose the fixed set of models with and without coupling based on our prior beliefs.
Namely, we hypothesise that (i) the most appropriate citation constituent is the the linear preferential attachment with relevance decay, \texttt{PA-RD}, (ii) the additive coupling between the constituents is more appropriate than the multiplicative one.
We will be able to judge whether there is strong evidence against these hypotheses based on the results of model selection.
For instance, if the more complex non-linear preferential attachment in the citation constituent is more prevalent, \texttt{PA-NL-RD} will be selected as the best model (as we will see, this is the case for some networks).
Or, we would find very large values of the characteristic relevance decay time \(\tau\) (of the order of, or larger than, the whole growth time), if the simplest preferential attachment without relevance decay would be a better choice for the citation constituent in a coupled model.
We proceed as follows: For each network, we estimate the parameters based on 5000 publications, sampled uniformly at random, which are added to the network during its growth, as explained in \cref{sec:computation}.
The exception is \gls{jrmp}, which has in total only 3006 publications, so we considered all of them for model fitting.
The number of citation edges \({|E^{pp}|}_S\) corresponding to the sample publications and used in likelihood calculation of \cref{eq:mle:ll:sample} varies between 4318 for \gls{jrmp} and 60131 for \gls{jhep}.
In \cref{tab:growth:mle-summary}, we present the selected models that have a relative likelihood \(w_m \geq 0.01\) for each of the networks.
The table shows the estimates of the free parameters of the corresponding model, its relative likelihood \(w_m\) within the pool of the selected candidate models, and the log-likelihood of the model per considered edge.
We chose the latter instead of the total log-likelihood or the AIC score, because these strongly depend on the number of edges which differs across the studied networks. Even though we perform the likelihood estimation based on a fixed sample size of 5000 publications, the density of the networks differs.
Note that for \gls{jrmp}, three different models are listed because the model selection based on relative likelihood was inconclusive. However, in all of these three models the social constituent accounting for authors' number of publications is present.
The inconclusive results for \gls{jrmp} are likely due to the smaller size of \gls{jrmp} compared to the other networks.
For all other journals the data provided enough evidence to select one model over the other candidates.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Parameter estimations for the selected growth models of nine physics journals. For the fixed parameters of the different models see \cref{tab:model_specification}. }\label{tab:growth:mle-summary}
\centering\scriptsize
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{lf{3cm}cf{1cm}CCCCf{1cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{Journal} & \makecell{\textbf{Selected}\\ \textbf{Models}} & $\ln \mathcal{L} / {|E^{pp}|}_S$ & $w_m$ & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\delta$ & $\tau$ \\\midrule
\textbf{PR} & PA-RD + NCOAUT & -4.00314 & 1.00 & $0.90 (\pm0.020)$ & --- & --- & $0.95 (\pm0.247)$ & 5185 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{PRA} & PA-NL-RD & -4.13827 & 1.00 & --- & --- & $1.14 (\pm0.224)$ & --- & 8411 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{PRC} & PA-NL-RD & -3.92745 & 1.00 & --- & --- & $1.09 (\pm0.007)$ & --- & 4860 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{PRE} & PA-NL-RD & -4.14851 & 1.00 & --- & --- & $1.21 (\pm0.013)$ & --- & 9706 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{RMP}} & PA-RD + NPUB & -2.84885 & 0.71 & $0.85 (\pm0.124)$ & --- & --- & $0.47 (\pm0.086)$ & 480 \\
& PA-RD + MAXPUB & -2.84909 & 0.26 & $0.84 (\pm0.016)$ & --- & --- & $0.45 (\pm0.032)$ & 479 \\
& PA-RD $\times$ NPUB & -2.84959 & 0.03 & --- & $0.19 (\pm0.021)$ & --- & $0.74 (\pm0.315)$ & 480 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{JHEP} & PA-RD + NCOAUT & -3.60015 & 1.00 & $0.85 (\pm0.007)$ & --- & --- & $1.11 (\pm0.074)$ & 2828 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{PR-HEP} & PA-RD + NPUB & -3.99631 & 1.00 & $0.87 (\pm0.265)$ & --- & --- & $0.65 (\pm1.403)$ & 7347 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{Phys. Lett.} & PA-RD + NPUB & -3.56096 & 1.00 & $0.81 (\pm0.075)$ & --- & --- & $0.40 (\pm0.186)$ & 2991 \\\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
\textbf{Nuc. Phys.} & PA-RD + NPUB & -3.61780 & 1.00 & $0.85 (\pm0.129)$ & --- & --- & $0.51 (\pm2.072)$ & 3278 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table*}
Before discussing these results, we confirm that the model parameters are stable over the whole growth period of a network.
We illustrate this using the example of \gls{jhep}
Following the procedure described in \cref{sec:trends}, we first partition the whole growth period into twenty consecutive time windows and then estimate the parameters for the selected best model for this network, \texttt{PA-RD-NCOAUT}, based on each time window separately.
The results for the three parameters of the model are shown in \cref{fig:temp-trends}.
One insight regards the relation between the estimates $\alpha^{T}$, $\delta^{T}$, $\tau^{T}$ based on the whole sample of 5000 publications (black lines) and the estimates $\alpha^{R}$, $\delta^{R}$, $\tau^{R}$ based on the much smaller sub-samples for each time window.
For the parameter \(\delta\), we see that the standard error for $\delta^{T}$ is within the standard errors for $\delta^{R}$ for all but one estimates.
Similarly, the standard error for $\alpha^{T}$ is within the standard errors for $\alpha^{R}$ for 18 out of
twenty estimates.
Hence, for these two parameters we can conclude that the MLE leads to a feasible outcome and that the parameters are stable over time.
For the third parameter, \(\tau \), we also do not see any temporal trend in the estimates.
However, the standard errors for $\tau^{R}$ are unexpectedly small and their magnitude becomes comparable to $\tau^{T}$.
This may be explained by the fact that $\tau$ encodes the characteristic \emph{time} of the relevance decay and therefore cannot be accurately estimated when publications are added within a relatively narrow time window.
We, hence, do not report the error estimates of \(\tau \) in our results presented in \cref{tab:growth:mle-summary}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ll-folds-j1213103-PA-RD-NCOAUT-beta}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ll-folds-j1213103-PA-RD-NCOAUT-alpha}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{ll-folds-j1213103-PA-RD-NCOAUT-tau}
\caption{Model parameters of \texttt{PA-RD-NCOAUT} estimated for \gls{jhep} from 5000 sampled publications.
The solid black lines correspond to the parameters and the region between the dashed lines to their standard errors estimated on all 5000 sampled publications. The whole growth period ($x$-axis) was divided into 20 consecutive time windows, each comprising approximately 250 sampled publications.
The colored dots/lines indicate the parameters and the shaded area their standard errors within each time window.
}\label{fig:temp-trends}
\end{figure*}
The finding that, for the growth of the citation network, the parameter estimates are stable over time is not trivial because
our analysis of \gls{jhep} spans 20 years.
Between 1997 and 2017 the scientific landscape has changed considerably.
In particular, the pace of academic publishing has been increasing exponentially over the last decades~\cite{Lariviere2008}.
This accelerated growth in publications (and citations) does not affect our analysis because we have parametrised time in the network growth process by means of new publications.
When mapping the growth process to physical time, the earlier time windows in \cref{fig:temp-trends} span a much longer physical time interval compared to later time windows.
The fact that we achieve stable parameter estimates in our analysis supports the recent finding that attention decay in science is driven by the accumulation of newer publications rather than by the passing of time~\cite{Parolo2015}.
Going back to the results for the nine networks in \cref{tab:growth:mle-summary}, we find that model selection for most of the studied journals favors \emph{coupled models} of citation growth, i.e., models accounting for both a \emph{citation} and a \emph{social} constituent.
The citation constituent was best described by \texttt{PA-RD}, whereas for the social constituent different candidates were chosen (mostly \texttt{NPUB}).
The three exceptions are the journals \gls{jpra}, \gls{jprc} and \gls{jpre} published by the American Physical Society.
For these, model selection favors the non-linear preferential attachment, \texttt{PA-NL-RD}.
According to our research design presented in Table~\ref{tab:model_specification}, we excluded tests of \texttt{PA-NL-RD} together with social constituents.
Thus, we cannot argue about how \texttt{PA-NL-RD} would fare in coupled models.
But we already see that for \gls{jpra}, for which \texttt{PA-NL-RD} was selected, the exponent \(\gamma = 1.14 \pm 0.224\) is not significantly different from one, i.e., from the linear preferential attachment, \texttt{PA-RD}.
Hence, we can suspect that in this case a coupled model does not give an advantage in the model selection, otherwise it had been selected.
As a second insight, we note that model selection, for \emph{coupled models}, always favored an \emph{additive} coupling between citation and social constituents.
The weight of the social constituent measured by \((1 - \alpha)\), ranges between 0.07 and 0.19 across networks.
Only for \gls{jrmp} the selection of additive models is not strongly conclusive.
It lead to the largest relative likelihood $w_{m}= 0.71$ for the additive coupling, \texttt{PA-RD+NPUB}, but also
to a small, yet considerable, \(w_m = 0.03\) for its multiplicative counterpart, \texttt{PA-RDxNPUB}.
As a third insight, the social constituent \texttt{NPUB} based on the whole team of authors is always selected over the variant \texttt{MAXPUB} with only the most prominent author.
The exception is, again, \gls{jrmp}, where the model \texttt{PA-RD-MAXPUB} accounting for the highest number of publications among authors is selected with relative likelihood \(w_m = 0.26\), along with its counterpart that accounts for the number of publications of the whole team \texttt{PA-RD-NPUB} with \(w_m = 0.71\).
To summarise our findings, in most of the networks the \emph{coupled growth} model that includes a \emph{social constituent} has a higher likelihood to explain the observed citation dynamics than the simple growth model that only considers the previous history of the citation network.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:growth:conclusion}
In this article, we have provided three contributions:
(i) a framework to model the \emph{growth} of networks consisting of \emph{different coupled layers},
(ii) a method for statistical parameter estimation and \emph{model selection} applicable to \emph{growing multi-layer networks}, and
(iii) a large-scale case study of the citation dynamics in nine different physics journals which demonstrates the applicability of our approach.
To model the growth of multi-layer networks is challenging because it combines two different dynamics, \emph{within} and \emph{between} network layers.
The coupling between the layers usually does not allow us to separate the time scales for these dynamic processes.
Our modular approach provides a convenient way to cope with this in a stochastic manner.
Importantly, it allows to encode different \emph{hypotheses} about these dynamics, i.e. to generate different dynamic models, which can then be tested \emph{statistically} against empirical data.
This methodology requires two steps: (i) for each model, the parameters that match the data best have to be obtained using a Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), and (ii) models with different complexity (i.e. number of free parameters) have to be compared in their ability to describe the data.
These two steps bear, again, a number of challenges that we address in this paper.
First, the MLE has to be applied to a growing network with coupled dynamic processes.
Here we followed a microscopic approach (see also \cite{Leskovec2008, Medo2014}), i.e. we focus on the temporal sequence of edges being added to the network.
Second, we need to ensure the temporal stability of the model, i.e. the involved parameters should not change drastically over time.
And third, the MLE needs to be computationally efficient, not only for computing parameters, but also for computing their standard errors.
This requires a scalable procedure that also works for large multi-layer networks.
We solved this problem by means of sampling of growth events in the network.
Eventually, we need to provide an efficient procedure for \emph{model selection}, i.e. for comparing models of different complexity.
Here we have chosen relative likelihoods as the most insightful measure (see also \cite{Medo2014}).
In addition to the methodological contributions, our paper also provides interesting insights into scientometrics.
Specifically, we addressed the question to what extent social constituents, such as the number of \emph{previous} co-authors or publications, impact the citation of publications.
This question was recast in the coupled growth of a two-layer network, where one layer captures the publications and the second one the authors.
To construct such dynamic networks, we used data from nine physics journals, where each journal was captured in one two-layer network.
We proposed eleven models for the growth of the citation networks, which combine different forms for a citation and a social constituent.
These constituents represent different hypotheses about citation growth, mostly from the family of preferential attachment models, and about social influences.
Our first insight regards the important role of the social constituent.
We found that in the majority of the studied networks, the data is best described by \emph{coupled} models, i.e. models that incorporate the coupling with the social constituent.
Among these, the additive coupling is selected in most of the cases, with the mixture weight of the social component between 7\% and 19\%.
Second, regarding the type of social influence, we learned that the total number of previous co-authors explains the citation data best, in most cases.
This means, there is no strong statistical evidence for Merton's conjecture \cite{Merton1968} that the scientific community tends to cite a publication merely because of the most prominent author with the largest number of previous co-authors.
Third, it was interesting to note that not for all of the nine journals the citation dynamics was best described by the \emph{same} model.
There was clear evidence that preferential attachment with attention decay is the most promising candidate to explain the observed citations, which was already discussed in the literature \cite{Parolo2015}.
But three journals were better described by non-linear preferential attachment models, and there was also a variation in the form of the social influences.
Using the modeling framework provided in this paper,
our analysis can be extended in different ways.
While our focus in this paper was on the growth of citations,
the next step could incorporate a model component for authorship formation into the analysis.
Such a comprehensive model will facilitate further our understanding about the simultaneous co-evolution of citations and authorship relations.
It may shed more light on the feedback mechanisms between network layers and lead to insights about successful career paths of authors.
|
\section{Preliminaries}
In this first section, we will recall some background about both ${C}^*$-algebras and groupoids. We encourage the reader to look at \cite{ABBL} for further details about these topics.
\subsection{The Cuntz semigroup and Murray-von Neumann semigroup}
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra and let $\mathcal{K}$ denote the algebra of compact operators on a separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Let $(A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$ denote the set of positive elements in $A\otimes \mathcal{K}$. Given $a,b\in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$, we say that $a$ is \emph{Cuntz subequivalent} to $b$ (in symbols $a\precsim b$), if there is a sequence $(v_n)$ in $A\otimes \mathcal{K}$ such that $a=\lim_n v_n bv_n^*$. We say that $a$ and $b$ are \emph{Cuntz equivalent} (in symbols $a\sim b$), if both $a\precsim b$ and $b\precsim a$. The relation $\precsim$ is clearly transitive and reflexive and $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $(A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$.
We define the \emph{Cuntz semigroup} of a $C^*$-algebra $A$ to be ${\rm Cu}(A)=(A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+/\sim$, and the equivalence class of $a \in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$ in ${\rm Cu}(A)$ is denoted by $\langle a \rangle$. In particular, ${\rm Cu}(A)$ is a partially ordered abelian semigroup equipped with order and addition as:
\begin{align*}
\langle a \rangle \leq \langle b \rangle \Leftrightarrow a\precsim b,
\hspace{1,5cm}\langle a \rangle + \langle b \rangle= \langle a\oplus b \rangle,
\end{align*}
using a suitable isomorphism between $M_2(\mathcal{K})$ and $\mathcal{K}$.
Similarly, the \emph{Murray-von Neumann semigroup} $V(A)$ of a $C^*$-algebra $A$ is defined as the set of Murray-von Neumann equivalence classes of projections in $(A\otimes \mathcal{K})$. Recall that for $p$ and $q$ projections in $(A\otimes \mathcal{K})$, we say that $p$ and $q$ are \emph{Murray-von Neumann equivalent} if there exists $v\in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})$ with $p=vv^*$ and $q=v^*v$. The class of a projection $p\in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})$ in $V(A)$ is denoted by $[p]$. We also say that $p$ is \emph{Murray-von Neumann subequivalent} to $q$ if $p$ is Murray-von Neumann equivalent to a subprojection of $q$.
It is worth mentioning that when $A$ is a stably finite $C^*$-algebra, the natural map $V(A)\rightarrow {\rm Cu}(A)$ given by $[p]\mapsto \langle p \rangle$ is an injective order-embedding.
In this article we are only concerned with stably finite $C^*$-algebras. Hence, we will use this order-embedding without further mention.
We encourage the readers to look at \cite{APT11} for further details.
\subsection{Strict comparison}
Let $T(A)$ be the tracial state space of a $C^*$-algebra $A$. Given $\tau\in T(A)$, there is a canonical extension of $\tau$ to a trace $\tau_\infty:(A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+\rightarrow [0,\infty]$.
Abusing notation, we usually denote $\tau_\infty$ by $\tau$. The induced \emph{lower semicontinuous dimension function} $d_\tau:(A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+\rightarrow [0,\infty]$ is given by
$$
d_\tau(a):=\lim_n\tau(a^\frac{1}{n}),
$$
for $a\in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$.
If $a,b\in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$ satisfy $a\precsim b$, then $d_\tau(a)\leq d_\tau(b)$. Therefore, $d_\tau$ induces a well-defined, order-preserving map ${\rm Cu}(A) \rightarrow [0,\infty]$, which we also denote by $d_\tau$.
\begin{defi}
Let $A$ be a unital simple $C^*$-algebra. We say that $A$ has \emph{strict comparison} (with respect to tracial states) if for all $a,b\in (A\otimes \mathcal{K})_+$ we have $a\precsim b$ whenever $d_\tau(a)<d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau \in T(A)$.
\end{defi}
If a unital simple $C^*$-algebra $A$ has strict comparison (with respect to tracial states), then its Cuntz semigroup ${\rm Cu}(A)$ is \emph{almost unperforated} in the sense that whenever $\langle a \rangle, \langle b \rangle\in {\rm Cu}(A)$ satisfy $(k+1)\langle a \rangle\leq k \langle b \rangle$ for some $k\in \mathbb{N}$, it follows that $\langle a \rangle \leq \langle b \rangle$. If $A$ is an exact $C^*$-algebra, then every finite-valued 2-quasitrace on $A$ is a trace (see \cite{MR3241179}). Hence, the converse implication holds for all unital simple exact $C^*$-algebras (see \cite[Remark~9.2. (3)]{1711.04721}).
\subsection{Groupoids}
Given a groupoid $G$ we usually denote its unit space by $G^{(0)}$ and write $r,s:G\rightarrow G^{(0)}$ for the range and source maps, respectively. In this paper, we will only consider groupoids equipped
with a locally compact, Hausdorff topology making all the structure maps continuous. A groupoid $G$ is called \textit{étale} if the range map, regarded as a map $r:G\rightarrow G$, is a local homeomorphism, and it is called \textit{ample} if additionally, the unit space $G^{(0)}$ is totally disconnected. Moreover, a subset $V\subseteq G$ is called \textit{bisection} if the restrictions of the source and range maps to $V$ are homeomorphisms onto their respective images. Recall that every ample groupoid $G$ admits a basis for its topology consisting of compact and open bisections.
The product of two subsets $A,B\subseteq G$ in G is given by
$$AB=\lbrace ab\in G\mid a\in A, b\in B, s(a)=r(b)\rbrace .$$
Whenever $B=\lbrace x\rbrace$ for a single element $x\in G^{(0)}$, we will omit the braces and just write $Ax$.
For a subset $D\subseteq G^{(0)}$, we say that the set $D$ is \textit{$G$-invariant} if for every $g\in G$ we have $r(g)\in D \Leftrightarrow s(g)\in D$, and we say that $D$ is $G${\it -full} if it satisfies that $r(GD)=G^{(0)}$. Related to that, we say that a groupoid $G$ is \textit{minimal} if there are no proper non-trivial closed $G$-invariant subsets of $G^{(0)}$. Moreover, a Borel measure $\mu$ on $G^{(0)}$ is called invariant if $\mu(s(V))=\mu(r(V))$ for every open bisection $V \subseteq G$; we will denote by $M (G)$
the compact (in the weak$^*$-topology) convex set of invariant positive regular Borel probability measures on $G^{(0)}$.
The isotropy groupoid of $G$ is the subgroupoid $Iso(G)=\lbrace g\in G\mid s(g)=r(g)\rbrace$, and we say that $G$ is \textit{principal} if $Iso(G)=G^{(0)}$. We say that $G$ is {\it topologically principal} if the set of points of $G^{(0)}$ with trivial isotropy group is dense in $G^{(0)}$.
Let us finish this subsection by recalling that the reduced $C^*$-algebra associated to an étale groupoid $G$, denoted by $C^*_r(G)$, is the completion of $C_c(G)$ by the norm coming from a single canonical regular representation of $C_c(G)$ on a Hilbert module over $C_0(G^{(0)})$ (see \cite{Re80} for further details).
\subsection{Almost finiteness} In this subsection, we recall the definition of almost finiteness and state some known properties for almost finite groupoids.
\begin{defi}{\cite[Definition~6.2]{MR2876963}}\label{Def:AlmostFinite} Let $G$ be an ample groupoid with compact unit space.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We say that $K\subseteq G$ is an \textit{elementary} subgroupoid if it is a compact open principal subgroupoid of $G$ such that $K^{(0)}=G^{(0)}$.
\item Given a compact subset $C\subseteq G$ and $\varepsilon>0$, a compact subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$ with $K^{(0)}=G^{(0)}$ is called $(C,\varepsilon)$\textit{-invariant}, if for all $x\in G^{(0)}$ we have
$$\frac{\abs{CKx\setminus Kx}}{\abs{Kx}}<\varepsilon.$$
\item We say that $G$ is \textit{almost finite} if for every compact set $C\subseteq G$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a $(C,\varepsilon)$-invariant elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defi}
\textbf{Throughout the paper, whenever we say that a groupoid $G$ is almost finite, we also assume that $G$ is an ample groupoid with compact unit space.}
\begin{defi}\cite[Definition 3.2]{Suzuki}\label{def:castle}
Let $K$ be a compact groupoid. A \textit{clopen castle} for $K$ is a partition $$K^{(0)}=\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^n \bigsqcup\limits_{j=1}^{N_i} F_j^{(i)}$$ into non-empty clopen subsets such that the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $1\leq i\leq n$ and $1\leq j,k\leq N_i$ there exists a unique compact open bisection $V_{j,k}^{(i)}$ of $K$ such that $s(V_{j,k}^{(i)})=F_k^{(i)}$ and $r(V_{j,k}^{(i)})=F_j^{(i)}$.
\item $$K=\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^n \bigsqcup\limits_{1\leq j,k\leq N_i} V_{j,k}^{(i)}.$$
\end{enumerate}
The pair $(F_1^{(i)},\lbrace V_{j,k}^{(i)}\mid 1\leq j,k\leq N_i\rbrace)$ is called the $i$-th tower of the castle and the sets $F_j^{(i)}$ are called the levels of the $i$-th tower.
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
Note that the uniqueness of the bisections in $(2)$ above has an important consequence: If $\theta_{j,k}^{(i)}:F_k^{(i)}\rightarrow F_j^{(i)}$ denotes the partial homeomorphism corresponding to the bisection $V_{j,k}^{(i)}$, i.e. $\theta_{j,k}^{(i)}=r\circ (s_{\mid V_{j,k}^{(i)}})^{-1}$, then we have $(\theta_{j,k}^{(i)})^{-1}=\theta_{k,j}^{(i)}$, $\theta_{j,k}^{(i)}\circ \theta_{k,l}^{(i)}=\theta_{j,l}^{(i)}$, and $\theta_{j,j}^{(i)}=id_{F_j^{(i)}}$.
\end{rem}
As already mentioned in \cite{Suzuki}, every compact ample principal groupoid always admits a clopen castle by \cite[Lemma~4.7]{MR2876963}. It follows that Definition~\ref{Def:AlmostFinite} is equivalent to the definition of almost finiteness given in \cite[Definition 3.6]{Suzuki} by Suzuki. Due to this fact, we will be using both equivalent notions of almost finiteness without further notice.
Finally, let us list some facts about almost finite groupoids that will be used in the sequel:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $G$ is an almost finite groupoid, it follows that $M(G)\neq\emptyset$ by \cite[Lemma~3.9]{Suzuki}. In particular, its extreme boundary $\partial_e M(G)$ is non-empty as well.
\item If $G$ is almost finite and minimal, then $G$ is topologically principal by \cite[Lemma 3.10]{Suzuki}.
\item Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid and $A,B$ be compact open subsets of $G^{(0)}$. If $\mu(A)<\mu(B)$ for all $\mu \in M(G)$, then $A\precsim B$ by \cite[Lemma~3.7]{ABBL}, where $A\precsim B$ means $A$ is \textit{dynamically subequivalent} to $B$ in the sense that there exist finitely many compact open bisections $V_1 , \ldots , V_n$ of $G$ such that $A =\cup_{i=1}^n s(V_i)$ and the sets $\{r(V_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ are pairwise disjoint subsets of $B$. In particular, $1_A$ is Murray-von Neumann subequivalent to $1_B$ in $C_r^*(G)$, where $1_A$ denotes the characteristic function with support $A$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{$\mathrm{C}^*$-algebras of almost finite groupoids}
This section is the main part of the paper. Here we verify two important facts mentioned without proof in \cite[Remark 4.3]{Suzuki} by Suzuki: $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebras of minimal almost finite groupoids have real rank zero and strict comparison. These are build upon local versions of
results in \cite{MR2134336}, but there are some subtle differences which we expose below.
Let us begin by identifying the tracial states on $C_r^*(G)$, which might be of independent interest.
It is well-known that for a principal \'etale groupoid $G$, then the tracial states on $C_r^*(G)$ are in a one-to-one correspondence with the invariant probability measures on $G^{(0)}$.
Since an almost finite groupoid $G$ is in some sense locally approximated by principal groupoids, it might not come as a surprise that the one-to-one correspondence persists in this more generenal setting.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:TracesDeterminedByRestriction}
Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid and $\tau$ be a tracial state on $C_r^*(G)$. Then $$\tau=\tau_{\mid C(G^{(0)})}\circ E,$$ where $E:C_r^*(G)\rightarrow C(G^{(0)})$ is the canonical conditional expectation.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For convenience let $\tau':=\tau_{\mid C(G^{(0)})}\circ E$. It is enough to show that for every fixed $f\in C_c(G)$, we have $\abs{\tau(f^*f)-\tau'(f^*f)}<\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon>0$, since the linear span of elements of the form $f^*f$ is dense in $C_r^*(G)$.
We may assume that $\norm{f}\leq 1$ as well. As $supp(f^*f)$ is compact we can find compact open bisections $V_1,\ldots,V_N$ in $G$ such that $supp(f^*f)\subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^N V_i$. Let $V$ be the (compact and open) union of the $V_i$.
Applying almost finiteness of $G$ now, we can find a $(V\cup V^{-1},\frac{\varepsilon}{2N})$-invariant elementary subgroupoid $K$ of $G$. Clearly, $K$ is also $(V_i\cup V_i^{-1},\frac{\varepsilon}{2N})$ invariant for every $1\leq i\leq N$.
The restrictions of $\tau$ and $\tau'$ to the subalgebra $C(G^{(0)})$ define the same $G$-invariant probability measure $\mu\in M(G)$. Since $K$ is compact open in $G$ with $K^{(0)}=G^{(0)}$, we can also view $\mu$ as an element in $M(K)$.
By \cite[Lemma~3.8]{Suzuki} we have $\abs{\mu(r(V_i\setminus K))}<\frac{\varepsilon}{2N}$ for every $1\leq i\leq N$. Hence, we get
$$\abs{\mu(r(V\setminus K))}\leq \sum\limits_{i=1}^N \abs{\mu(r(V_i\setminus K))}<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}.$$
In other words, if $p:=\chi_{r(V\setminus K)}$ denotes the characteristic function of $r(V\setminus K)$, then
$$\tau(p)=\tau'(p)<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}.$$
We can now follow the arguments in \cite[Lemma~2.10]{MR2134336} to get the result. For the convenience of the reader we reproduce the argument here:
First, note that from $((1-p)f^*f)(g)=(1-p)(r(g))f^*f(g)$ and the definition of $p$, it follows that $(1-p)f^*f\in C(K)$. By taking the adjoint, we also get $f^*f(1-p)\in C(K)$. Since $p\in C(K)$, it follows that
$$f^*f-pf^*fp=(1-p)f^*f+pf^*f(1-p)\in C(K).$$
Since $K$ is a principal groupoid, $\tau$ and $\tau'$ coincide on the $\mathrm{C}^*$-subalgebra $C_r^*(K)\subseteq C_r^*(G)$ (see for example \cite[Lemma~4.3]{1703.10505}). In particular, we get
$$\tau(f^*f-pf^*fp)=\tau'(f^*f-pf^*fp).$$
On the other hand, it follows from $pf^*fp\leq \norm{f}^2p\leq p$, that we have
$0\leq \tau(pf^*fp)\leq \tau(p)<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ and similarly
$0\leq \tau'(pf^*fp)\leq \tau'(p)<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$.
Combining these facts we arrive at
$$\abs{\tau(f^*f)-\tau'(f^*f)}=\abs{\tau(pf^*fp)-\tau'(pf^*fp)}<\varepsilon,$$
as desired.
\end{proof}
Recall that $M(G)$ denotes the compact (in the weak$^*$-topology) convex set of invariant positive regular Borel probability measures on $G^{(0)}$, and $T(C_r^*(G))$ denotes the tracial state space of $C_r^*(G)$.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:One-to-one Measures Traces}
Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid. Then the canonical map $T(C_r^*(G))\rightarrow M(G)$ is an affine homeomorphism. In particular, we can also identify their extreme boundaries $\partial_eT(C_r^*(G))=\partial_e M(G)$, which are non-empty.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is well-known that this map is affine, continuous, and surjective. Injectivity now follows from Lemma \ref{Lemma:TracesDeterminedByRestriction}. By the affineness we also
have that $\partial_eT(C_r^*(G))=\partial_e M(G)$, which are non-empty as $M(G)\neq \emptyset$.
\end{proof}
Let us now focus on the proofs of real rank zero and strict comparison. For many of the intermediate steps in the proof, we only need the hypothesis that
$G^{(0)}$ admits an invariant measure with full support (i.e., $\mu \in M(G)$ such that $\text{supp}(\mu) = G^{(0)}$). Clearly, every measure in $M(G)\ne \emptyset$ has full support for a minimal almost finite groupoid $G$ (see \cite[Lemma 6.8]{MR2876963}).
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:CutdownBySmallProjections}
Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid such that $G^{(0)}$ admits a full-supported invariant measure. For every finite subset $F\subseteq C_c(G)$
and every $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$ and a compact open subset $W\subseteq G^{(0)}$ such that
if $p:=\chi_W$ is the characteristic function on $W$, then the following are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $r(supp(f)\cap (G\setminus K))\cup s(supp(f)\cap (G\setminus K))\subseteq W$ for all $f\in F$,
\item $\norm{(1-p)f(1-p)}>\norm{f}-\varepsilon$ for all $f\in F$, and
\item $\tau(p)<\varepsilon$ for all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Corollary 2.4]{KS02}, the condition about the existence of a full-supported invariant measure $\nu$ guarantees that the associated regular representation $\pi:C_r^*(G)\rightarrow B(L^2(G,\nu))$ is
injective.
Using that, write $F=\lbrace f_1,\ldots,f_k\rbrace$, and choose functions $\xi_1,\ldots, \xi_k,\eta_1,\ldots,\eta_k\in C_c(G)$ such that $\norm{\xi_i}=\norm{\eta_i}=1$ and $\abs{\langle \pi(f_i)\xi_i,\eta_i\rangle}>\norm{f_i}-\varepsilon$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$.
Consider the compact set $$C:=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^k supp(f_i)\cup supp(f_i^*)\cup supp(\xi_i)\cup supp(\eta_i).$$
Since $G$ is ample, we can cover $C$ by finitely many compact open bisections $V_1,\ldots, V_l$ and we let $V:=V_1\cup\cdots\cup V_l$. Let $0<\delta<\varepsilon$ to be determined. As $G$ is almost finite, we can find a $(V\cup V^{-1},\frac{\delta}{2l})$-invariant elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$. Let $W:=r(V\setminus K)\cup s(V\setminus K)$ (which depends on the choice of $\delta$). Then $(1)$ is clearly satisfied by $W$.
Moreover, if $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, then there exists a $\mu\in M(G)$ such that $\tau(\chi_A)=\mu(A)$ for every compact open subset $A\subseteq G^{(0)}$.
By \cite[Lemma~3.8]{Suzuki} we have $\mu(r(V_i\setminus K))<\frac{\delta}{2l}$ and $\mu(s(V_i\setminus K))<\frac{\delta}{2l}$ for all $1\leq i\leq l$, and hence
$$\tau(p)=\mu(W)\leq \sum\limits_{i=1}^l \mu(r(V_i\setminus K))+\mu(s(V_i\setminus K))<\delta<\varepsilon.$$
It remains to check $(2)$:
Let $R :=\max_{1\leq i\leq l}\sup_{x\in G^{(0)}}\sum_{g\in G^x} \abs{\xi_i(g)}^2$.
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{\pi(1-p)\xi_i-\xi_i}^2&=\norm{\pi(p)\xi_i}^2\\
&=\langle \pi(p)\xi_i,\xi_i\rangle\\
&=\int\limits_{G^{(0)}}\sum\limits_{g\in G^x}p(r(g))\xi_i(g)\overline{\xi_i(g)}d\nu(x)\\
&=\int\limits_W \sum\limits_{g\in G^x}\abs{\xi_i(g)}^2d\nu(x) \le \nu (W)R < R \delta.
\end{align*}
Similarly, $\norm{\pi(1-p)\eta_i-\eta_i}<R' \delta$ with $R'$ chosen as $R$, but with the $\xi_i$ replaced by $\eta_i$.
Using this and that $\abs{\langle \pi(f_i)\xi_i,\eta_i\rangle}>\norm{f_i}-\varepsilon$, we can choose $\delta$ (and hence $W$ and $p$) so small, such that
$$\abs{\langle \pi(f_i)\pi(1-p)\xi_i,\pi(1-p)\eta_i\rangle}>\norm{f_i}-\varepsilon$$
for $1\leq i\leq k$.
Hence, we get
\begin{align*}
\norm{(1-p)f_i(1-p)}&=\norm{\pi((1-p)f_i(1-p))}\\
&\geq \abs{\langle\pi(f_i)\pi(1-p)\xi_i,\pi(1-p)\eta_i\rangle}\\
&>\norm{f_i}-\varepsilon,
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is a local version of \cite[Lemma~3.3]{MR2134336} for finite sets of projections. The proof follows almost verbatim to \cite[Lemma~3.3]{MR2134336}, just using Lemma \ref{Lemma:CutdownBySmallProjections} instead of \cite[Lemma~3.1]{MR2134336}. We include the proof for completeness.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:SubprojectionsInElementarySubgroupoid}
Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid such that $G^{(0)}$ admits a full-supported invariant measure. Then for every finite set of
projections $E=\lbrace e_1,\ldots,e_n\rbrace\subseteq C_r^*(G)$ and $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an elementary subgroupoid
$K\subseteq G$ and projections $q_1,\ldots,q_n\in C_r^*(K)$ such that $q_i\precsim e_i$ and $\tau(e_i)-\tau(q_i)<\varepsilon$ for all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Without loss of generality we may assume that $\varepsilon<6$.
Choose $\delta_0>0$ such that whenever $A$ is a $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra and $p_1,p_2\in A$ are projections with $\norm{p_1p_2-p_2}<\delta_0$, then $p_2\precsim p_1$.
Let $f:[0,\infty)\rightarrow [0,1]$ be the continuous function given by
$f(t)=\frac{6t}{\varepsilon}$ for $0\leq t\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{6}$ and $1$ otherwise.
Now choose $\delta>0$ such that whenever $A$ is a $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra and $a_1,a_2\in A$ are positive elements with $\norm{a_1},\norm{a_2}\leq 1$ and $\norm{a_1-a_2}<\delta$, then $\norm{f(a_1)-f(a_2)}<\frac{\delta_0}{2}$.
Since $C_c(G)$ is dense in $C_r^*(G)$, there exist selfadjoint elements $d_1,\ldots, d_n\in C_c(G)$ with $\norm{d_i}\leq 1$ and
$$\norm{e_i-d_i}<\min(\frac{\delta}{2},\frac{\varepsilon}{6}),\ 1\leq i\leq n.$$
Now apply Lemma \ref{Lemma:CutdownBySmallProjections} to $F=\lbrace d_1,\ldots, d_n\rbrace$ and $\varepsilon>0$ to obtain a projection $p=\chi_W\in C(G^{(0)})\subseteq C_r^*(G)$ and an elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$,
such that $r(supp(d_i)\cap (G\setminus K))\cup s(supp(d_i)\cap (G\setminus K))\subseteq W$ for $i=1,\dots , n$, and $\tau(p)<\varepsilon /6$ for all $\tau \in T(C_r^*(G))$.
Then, we have $$((1-p)d_i)(g)=\sum\limits_{h\in G^{r(g)}}(1-p)(h)d_i(h^{-1}g)=(1-p)(r(g))d_i(g),$$ which can only be nonzero if $g\in K$. Hence, we have $(1-p)d_i\in C_r^*(K)$ and $d_i(1-p)=((1-p)d_i)^*\in C_r^*(K)$.
For every $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, we have that $\tau(pe_i(1-p))=0$. Hence, $$\tau((1-p)e_i(1-p))=\tau(e_i)-\tau(e_ip)\geq \tau(e_i)-\tau(p)>\tau(e_i)-\frac{\varepsilon}{6}.$$
Moreover, using that $\norm{d_i^2-e_i^2}\leq \norm{d_i^2-d_ie_i}+\norm{d_ie_i-e_i^2}\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{3}$ we obtain that
$$\tau(d_i(1-p)d_i)=\tau((1-p)d_i^2(1-p))>\tau(e_i)-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}.$$
Also, each $d_i(1-p)d_i$ is a positive element in $C_r^*(K)$.
Let $g,h:[0,\infty)\rightarrow [0,1]$ be given by
\begin{equation*}
g(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & 0\leq t\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{6} \\
6\varepsilon^{-1}t-1 & \frac{\varepsilon}{6}\leq t\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{3}\\
1 & \frac{\varepsilon}{3}\leq t
\end{array}\right.
\text{ and }
h(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t & 0\leq t\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{6} \\
\frac{\varepsilon}{6} & \frac{\varepsilon}{6}\leq t
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Then put $a_i:=f(d_i(1-p)d_i)$, $b_i:=g(d_i(1-p)d_i)$, and $c_i:=h(d_i(1-p)d_i)$. It follows that $a_i,b_i,c_i\in C_r^*(K)$ are positive elements for all $1\leq i\leq n$.
Moreover, we have the following relations:
$a_ib_i=b_i$, $b_i+c_i\geq d_i(1-p)d_i$, $\norm{a_i}\leq 1$, $\norm{b_i}\leq 1$ and $\norm{c_i}\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{6}$.
In particular we have $\tau(c_i)\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{6}$ for every $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, whence
$$\tau(b_i)=\tau(b_i+c_i)-\tau(c_i)\geq \tau(d_i(1-p)d_i)-\frac{\varepsilon}{6}>\tau(e_i)-\frac{2\varepsilon}{3}.$$
Now use the fact that $C_r^*(K)$ is an AF-algebra to apply \cite[Lemma~3.2]{MR2134336}, which gives us projections $q_i\in \overline{b_iC_r^*(K)b_i}$ such that $a_iq_i=q_i$ and $\norm{q_ib_i-b_i}<\frac{\varepsilon}{6}$. Then $\norm{q_ib_iq_i-b_i}<\frac{\varepsilon}{3}$. So for every $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$ we have $$\tau(q_i)\geq\tau(q_ib_iq_i)>\tau(b_i)-\frac{\varepsilon}{3}>\tau(e_i)-\varepsilon,$$
which is equivalent to $\tau(e_i)-\tau(q_i)<\varepsilon$.
It remains to show, that $q_i\precsim e_i$:
Since $\norm{d_i}\leq 1$, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{d_i(1-p)d_i-e_i(1-p)e_i}&<\norm{d_i(1-p)d_i-e_i(1-p)d_i} +\norm{e_i(1-p)d_i-e_i(1-p)e_i}\\
&\leq 2\norm{d_i-e_i}\\
&<\delta.
\end{align*}
The choice of $\delta$ then yields $\norm{a_i-f(e_i(1-p)e_i)}<\frac{\delta_0}{2}$.
Using the equality $e_if(e_i(1-p)e_i)=f(e_i(1-p)e_i)$, we obtain $\norm{e_ia_i-a_i}<\delta_0$.
Since $a_iq_i=q_i$, we also have $\norm{e_iq_i-q_i}=\norm{e_ia_iq_i-a_iq_i}\leq\norm{e_ia_i-a_i}\norm{q_i}<\delta_0$. From the choice of $\delta_0$ we conclude that $q_i\precsim e_i$ as desired.
\end{proof}
The following Lemma is the special tool needed to show Theorem \ref{Theorem:Traces detect positive elements in K_0}.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:Projections in compact groupoid algebras}
Let $K$ be an elementary groupoid. Then for each projection $p\in C_r^*(K)$ there exists a projection $q\in C(K^{(0)})$ such that $p\sim q$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We know that $C_r^*(K)\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^m M_{n_i}(C(A_i))$ for some $n_i\in \mathbb{N}$ and pairwise disjoint clopen subsets $A_1,\ldots, A_m\subseteq K^{(0)}$. Hence, it is enough to prove the claim for an algebra of the form $M_n(C(X))$ for a compact and totally disconnected Hausdorff space $X$. So let $p\in M_n(C(X))$ be a projection. We may assume that $p\neq 0$, otherwise there is nothing to prove. Then $x\mapsto\Tr(p(x))$ is an integer valued continuous function on $X$. Using continuity and the fact that $X$ is compact and totally disconnected, we can find $r\in \mathbb{N}$, a partition $X=X_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup X_r$ of $X$ by clopen subsets, and $0<n_1<\ldots< n_r\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\Tr(p(x))=n_i$ for all $x\in X_i$. Note, that we must have $n_r\leq n$.
For each $1\leq i\leq r$, let $\chi_i\in C(X)$ denote the characteristic function on $X_i$. Set $n_0:=0$ and $n_{r+1}:=n$ to make the following definition consistent: for each $1\leq i\leq r$ let $q_i\in M_{n_i-n_{i-1}}(C(X))$ be the diagonal matrix
$$q_i:=\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{j=i}^r \chi_j & & 0\\
&\ddots & \\
0& & \sum_{j=i}^r \chi_j
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Each $q_i$ is a projection, since the characteristic functions $\chi_j$ are pairwise orthogonal.
Define $q:=diag(q_1,\ldots, q_r,0)\in M_n(C(X))$. Then $q$ is a projection and $\Tr(q(x))=\Tr(p(x))$ for all $x\in X$. Since $X$ is totally disconnected, the result follows from \cite[Excercise 3.4]{zbMATH01541843}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{Theorem:Traces detect positive elements in K_0}
Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid such that $G^{(0)}$ admits a full-supported invariant measure.
If $x\in K_0(C_r^*(G))$ satisfies $\tau_*(x)> 0$ for all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, then there exists a projection $e\in M_\infty(C_r^*(G))$ such that $x=[e]$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Write $x=[q]-[p]$ for two projections $p,q\in M_n(C_r^*(G))$ for some large enough $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Replacing $G$ by $G\times \lbrace1,\ldots, n\rbrace^2$ and using that $C_r^*(G\times \lbrace 1,\ldots, n\rbrace^2)\cong M_n(C_r^*(G))$, we may assume that $p,q\in C_r^*(G)$.
Since $T(C_r^*(G))$ is weak-* compact, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $\tau(q)-\tau(p)=\tau_*(x)>\varepsilon$ for all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$.
Now we apply Lemma \ref{Lemma:SubprojectionsInElementarySubgroupoid} to $E=\lbrace q,1-p\rbrace$ to obtain an elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$ and projections $q_0,f_0\in C_r^*(K)$ such that $q_0\precsim q$ and $f_0\precsim 1-p$ and $\tau(q)-\tau(q_0)<\frac{\varepsilon}{3}$ and $\tau(1-p)-\tau(f_0)<\frac{\varepsilon}{3}$. Combining these three inequalities we get
$$\tau(q_0)-\tau(1-f_0)>\frac{\varepsilon}{3}>0\ \forall \tau\in T(C_r^*(G)).$$
Now since $K$ is an elementary subgroupoid of $G$, we can invoke Lemma \ref{Lemma:Projections in compact groupoid algebras} to find projections $q_1,f_1\in C(G^{(0)})$ such that $q_1\sim q_0\precsim q$ and $f_1\sim f_0\precsim 1-p$.
Hence, $$\tau(q_1)-\tau(1-f_1)>0\ \forall \tau\in T(C_r^*(G)).$$
By Proposition \ref{Prop:One-to-one Measures Traces} every trace corresponds to a $G$-invariant measure and vice versa. Since $q_1,f_1$ must be the characteristic functions
of some clopen subsets of $G^{(0)}$, it follows from \cite[Lemma 3.7]{ABBL} that $1-f_1$ is Murray-von Neumann subequivalent to $q_1$. Let $q_2\in C_r^*(G)$ be a projection such that $1-f_1\sim q_2\leq q_1$.
Since $q_1\precsim q$, there exists a projection $q'\in C_r^*(G)$ such that $q_1\sim q'\leq q$ and since $f_1\precsim 1-p$ there exists $f'\in C_r^*(G)$ such that $f_1\sim f'\leq 1-p$. Then
\begin{align*}
x&=[q]-[p]=([q]-[q_1])+([q_1]-[q_2])+([q_2]-[p])\\
& = [q-q']+[q_1-q_2]+[1-p-f']>0,
\end{align*}
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
As an easy application of Theorem \ref{Theorem:Traces detect positive elements in K_0} and the main theorem in \cite{Suzuki}, we deduce the following corollary. Recall that a C*-algebra $A$ has \emph{comparison of projections} if,
for projections $p,q\in M_\infty(A)$, we have $p\precsim q$ whenever $\tau(p)<\tau (q)$ for all $\tau\in T(A).$
\begin{cor}\label{cor:ComparisonProjections}
If $G$ is a minimal almost finite groupoid, then $C_r^*(G)$ has comparison of projections.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If $\tau(p)<\tau(q)$ for all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, then by Theorem 2.6 we have $[q]-[p]=[e]$ in $K_0(C_r^*(G))$ for some projection $e$. In other words, $[q]=[p\oplus e]$.
Since $C_r^*(G)$ has stable rank one by \cite[Main Theorem]{Suzuki}, we have that $q$ is MvN-equivalent to $p\oplus e\geq p$, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
Let us now turn our attention to the real rank of $C_r^*(G)$. We need the following technical result inspired by \cite[Lemma~4.1]{MR2134336}.
\begin{lem}\label{Lemma:EnoughRoom}
Let $G$ be an almost finite groupoid.
For every finite subset $F\subseteq C_c(G)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, there exist an elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$ and a clopen subset $W\subseteq G^{(0)}$, such that for $p:=\chi_W\in C(G^{(0)})$ we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f(1-p)$ and $(1-p)f$ are in $C_c(K)$ for all $f\in F$, and
\item There exist $n$ mutually orthogonal projections $p_1,\ldots, p_n\in C(G^{(0)})$, such that $p_i\sim p$ in $C_r^*(G)$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $F\subseteq C_c(G)$ be a finite subset and $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Consider the compact set $C:=\bigcup_{f\in F} \supp(f)\cup\supp(f^*)$. Find compact open bisections $V_1,\ldots, V_l$ such that $C\subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^l V_i=:V$. Then we can use almost finiteness of $G$ to find a $(V\cup V^{-1},\frac{1}{2(n+1)l})$-invariant elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$. Let $W:=r(V\setminus K)\cup s(V\setminus K)$ and $p:=\chi_W\in C_r^*(G)$. Then $p$ satisfies $(1)$, since for all $f\in F$ we can compute
$$((1-p) f)(g)=\sum\limits_{h\in G^{r(g)}}(1-p)(h)f(h^{-1}g)=(1-p)(r(g))f(g),$$
and the latter quantity can only be non-zero if $g\in K$ by the definition of $p$. Similar reasoning yields $f(1-p)\in C_c(K)$.
We now aim to show that $p$ also satisfies $(2)$. To this end we first show the following intermediate claim, which basically says, that in any given tower of a castle for $K$ that intersects $W$, we have enough levels to allow for at least $n$ pairwise disjoint copies of $W$ all equivalent in the dynamical sense to $W$.
Before that, recall that by the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma:CutdownBySmallProjections} we have
\begin{equation}\label{Equation:W is small in measure}
\mu(W)<\frac{1}{n+1} \text{ for all } \mu\in M(G).
\end{equation}
\begin{claim*} There exists $0<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{n+1}$, a compact subset $L\subseteq G$ and a $(L,\varepsilon)$-invariant elementary subgroupoid $K'\subseteq G$ admitting a clopen castle
$$G^{(0)}=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^N\bigsqcup_{j=1}^{N_i}F_j^{(i)},\ \ K'=\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^N \bigsqcup\limits_{l,k=1}^{N_i} V_{k,l}^{(i)},$$
such that for all $1\leq i\leq N$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{Equation:EnoughRoom}
N_i>(n+1)\cdot \big|\lbrace j\mid F_j^{(i)}\cap W\neq \emptyset\rbrace\big|.
\end{equation}
\end{claim*}
\begin{claimproof}
Suppose the claim is not true. Using almost finiteness, for every $0<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{n+1}$ and compact subset $L\subseteq G$, there exists a $m:=(L,\varepsilon)$-invariant elementary subgroupoid $K_m\subseteq G$ admitting a clopen castle. By refining the tower-decomposition according to \cite[Lemma~3.4]{ABBL}, we may as well assume that every level of every tower of the castle is either contained in or disjoint from $W$.
Since we assumed that the claim is not true, in each such clopen castle there must be at least one tower for which the inequality \ref{Equation:EnoughRoom} does not hold. Denoting the mentioned tower (and levels) by $\mathcal F_m :=( F^{(i_m)}_{j},\theta^{(i_m)}_{j,k})_{1\leq j,k\leq N_m}$, let $x_m\in F^{(i_m)}_1$ and define the associated probability measure on $B\subseteq G^{(0)}$ by
$$\mu_m(B)=\frac{1}{N_m}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_m} \delta_{x_m}(\theta_{1,j}^{(i_m)}(B\cap F^{(i_m)}_{j})).$$
Then, using that inequality \ref{Equation:EnoughRoom} does not hold, for all $m$ we have that
$$\mu_m(W)\geq \sum_{j=1}^{N_m}\mu_m(F^{(i_m)}_{j}\cap W)=\frac{\big |\lbrace j\mid F^{(i_m)}_{j}\cap W\neq\emptyset\rbrace\big|}{N_m}\geq \frac{1}{n+1}.$$
Then, it can be verified that any weak-$\ast$-cluster point of the net $(\mu_m)_m$ is a $G$-invariant probability measure on $G^{(0)}$ (see the proof of \cite[Lemma~3.7]{ABBL} for more details). If $\mu\in M(G)$ is one of those, it also satisfies $\mu(W)\geq \frac{1}{n+1}$; thus, it contradicts the inequality \ref{Equation:W is small in measure}.
\end{claimproof}
Now suppose we are given a clopen castle as in the claim with associated partial homeomorphisms $\theta^{(i)}_{k,l}$ implemented by the bisections $V_{k,l}^{(i)}$. For ease of notation, let $l_i:=\big|\lbrace j\mid F_j^{(i)}\cap W\neq \emptyset\rbrace\big|$. We can relabel the levels if necessary to assume that $W$ sits at the bottom of each tower, i.e. $F_j^{(i)}\cap W=\emptyset$ if and only if $j>l_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq N$.
Then, for each $1\leq k\leq n$ let $$W_k:=\bigcup_{i=1}^N\bigcup_{j=1}^{l_i} \theta^{(i)}_{kl_i+j,j}(F_j^{(i)}\cap W).$$
Let $p_k:=\chi_{W_k}$ be the associated characteristic function. Then the $p_k$ are obviously all pairwise orthogonal and by construction $p_k\sim_G p_0=p$ for all $k\in\lbrace 0,\ldots, n\rbrace$. In particular, the $p_k$ are all Murray-von Neumann equivalent.
\end{proof}
We can now follow the proof of \cite[Theorem~4.6]{MR2134336} by using Lemma \ref{Lemma:EnoughRoom} and Theorem \ref{Theorem:Traces detect positive elements in K_0} to get the following:
\begin{thm}\label{Thm:RR0}
If $G$ is a minimal almost finite groupoid, then $C_r^*(G)$ has real rank zero.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $a\in C_r^*(G)$ be a selfadjoint element with $\norm{a}\leq 1$. We want to approximate $a$ by an invertible selfadjoint element. Invoking a short density argument, we may assume that $a\in C_c(G)$. Moreover, we assume $0\in sp(a)$ since for an invertible element $a$, there is nothing to prove.
Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given. Choose continuous functions $f,g:[-1,1]\rightarrow [0,1]$ such that $g(0)=1$, $fg=g$, and $\supp(f)\subseteq (-\frac{1}{9}\varepsilon,\frac{1}{9}\varepsilon)$.
Let $$\alpha:=\inf_{\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))} \tau(g(a)).$$
Since $G$ is minimal and almost finite, $C_r^*(G)$ is simple. Hence all traces on $C_r^*(G)$ are faithful. Combining this with the facts that $g(a)$ is a nonzero positive element, and $T(C_r^*(G))$ is weak* compact, we obtain $\alpha>0$.
Find $0<\delta<\frac{1}{9}\varepsilon$ from \cite[Lemma~4.4]{MR2134336} applied to $r=1$, $g$, and $\frac{1}{4}\alpha$. Now let $m\in\mathbb{N}$ with $m>2/\delta$.
By Lemma \ref{Lemma:EnoughRoom} we can find an elementary subgroupoid $K\subseteq G$ and a projection $p_0\in C(G^{(0)})$, such that $a(1-p_0),(1-p_0)a\in C_c(K)$ and such that $p_0$ is Murray-von Neumann equivalent in $C_r^*(G)$ to more than $8m\alpha^{-1}$ mutually orthogonal projections in $C(G^{(0)})$. In particular $\tau(p_0)<\frac{1}{8}\alpha m^{-1}$ for all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$.
Define $b=a-p_0ap_0$. Then $b$ is a selfadjoint element of $C_c(K)$ with $\norm{b}\leq 2$. By our choice of $\delta$, and the fact that $C_r^*(K)$ is an AF algebra, we can apply \cite[Lemma~4.3]{MR2134336}
to $b$, $p_0$ and $\frac{1}{2}\delta$ to obtain a projection $p\in C_r^*(K)$ such that $\norm{pb-bp}<\delta$, $p_0\leq p$ and $[p]\leq 2m[p_0]$ in $K_0(C_r^*(G))$.
Now $p$ commutes with $a - b = p_0ap_0$, so also $\norm{pa-ap}<\delta$. Furthermore, because $p\in C_r^*(K)$ and $p\geq p_0$, we get $(1-p)a,a(1-p)\in C_r^*(K)$.
Define $a_0:=(1-p)a(1-p)$. For every $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, we have
$$\tau(p)\leq 2m\tau(p_0)<\frac{1}{4}\alpha.$$
By the choice of $\delta$ and using \cite[Lemma~4.4]{MR2134336}, we get
$$\tau(g(a_0))>\tau(g(a))-\tau(p)-\frac{1}{4}\alpha\geq \alpha-\frac{1}{4}\alpha-\frac{1}{4}\alpha=\frac{1}{2}\alpha\ \ \forall \tau\in T(C_r^*(G)).$$
Also $f(a_0)g(a_0)=g(a_0)$, and $C_r^*(K)$ is an AF algebra, so \cite[Lemma~3.2]{MR2134336} provides a projection $q\in C_r^*(K)$ such that
$$q\in \overline{g(a_0)C_r^*(K)g(a_0)},\ \ f(a_0)q=q,\text{ and }\norm{qg(a_0)-g(a_0)}<\frac{1}{8}\alpha.$$
Therefore we have the estimate $\norm{qg(a_0)q-g(a_0)}<\frac{\alpha}{4}.$
For all $\tau\in T(C_r^*(G))$, we have $\tau(qg(a_0)q)\leq \tau(q)$ because $\norm{g(a_0)}\leq 1$. Combining this with previous estimates, it follows that
$\tau(q)>\frac{1}{4}\alpha$.
Combining this with our estimate for $p$, we get that
$$\tau(p)<\tau(q)\text{ for all }\tau\in T(C_r^*(G)).$$
It follows from Theorem \ref{Theorem:Traces detect positive elements in K_0}, that $[q]-[p]=[e]$ for some projection $e\in M_\infty(C_r^*(G))$. Since $C_r^*(G)$ has stable rank one (and thus cancellation of projections)
by \cite[Main Theorem]{Suzuki}, we have $q\sim p+e$, which means $p\precsim q$ in $C_r^*(G)$.
Since $a_0p=pa_0=0$, we conclude that $p$ and $q$ are orthogonal.
By \cite[Lemma~4.5]{MR2134336} applied to $a_0$, $\lambda_0 = 0$, $g$, and $q$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{qa_0-a_0q}<\frac{2\varepsilon}{9} \text{ and }\norm{qa_0q}<\frac{\varepsilon}{9}.
\end{equation*}
Consider now $s:=1-p-q$. Then
$$a-(sas+pap)=pa(1-p)+(1-p)ap+qa_0s+sa_0q+qa_0q.$$
Therefore, using that $qs=0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\norm{a-(sas+pap)}&\leq 2 \norm{pa-ap}+2\norm{qa_0-a_0q}+\norm{qa_0q}\\
& < 2\delta + \frac{4\varepsilon}{9}+\frac{\varepsilon}{9}< \frac{7\varepsilon}{9}.
\end{align*}
Now if $B=(1-s)C_r^*(G)(1-s)$, then $pap$ is a selfadjoint element in $pBp=pC_r^*(G)p$ and we have $p\precsim q=(1-s)-p=1_B-p$. Hence \cite[Lemma~8]{MR1209829} provides us with an invertible selfadjoint element $b\in B$ such that $\norm{b-pap}<\frac{\varepsilon}{9}$. Moreover, $sas=s(1-p)as\in sC_r^*(K)s$, which is an AF algebra, so there is an invertible selfadjoint element $c\in sC_r^*(K)s$ such that $\norm{c-sas}<\frac{\varepsilon}{9}$. It follows that $b+c$ is an invertible selfadjoint element in $C_r^*(G)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{a-(b+c)} & \leq \norm{a-(sas+pap)}+\norm{b-pap} + \norm{c-sas}\\
& < \frac{7\varepsilon}{9}+\frac{\varepsilon}{9}+\frac{\varepsilon}{9}=\varepsilon,
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
Stable rank one for C*-algebras associated to minimal almost finite groupoids (\cite[Main Theorem]{Suzuki}) is a crucial ingredient in the proof of Theorem \ref{Theorem:Traces detect positive elements in K_0} and Theorem \ref*{Thm:RR0}. Notice that this strategy does not hold for general non-minimal almost finite groupoids since they usually do not have stable rank one (see e.g. \cite{LW18,MR989097,BNS} for examples and further results in this direction).
Finally, we are ready to provide a proof of the main theorem by combining the above results:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{TheoremA}]
First of all, we notice that $C_r^*(G)$ is a unital simple $C^*$-algebra with stable rank one and real rank zero (see \cite[Remark~6.6]{MR2876963}, \cite[Corollary~3.14]{boenicke_li_2018}, \cite[Main Theorem]{Suzuki}
and Theorem \ref{Thm:RR0}). Therefore, its Cuntz semigroup is ${\rm Cu}(C_r^*(G))\cong\Lambda_\sigma(V(C_r^*(G)))$ (\cite[Theorem 6.4]{abp11}), where the latter stands for the countably generated intervals
in the projection monoid. Recall that the isomorphism is described via $\langle a\rangle\mapsto I(a):=\{[p]\in V(C_r^*(G))\mid p\in \overline{aM_\infty(C_r^*(G))a}\},$
and that any interval $I(a)$ has an increasing countable cofinal subset of projections $\{[ p_n ]\}$ in $V(C_r^*(G))$ such that $\langle a\rangle=\sup ([p_n]) \text{ in }{\rm Cu}(C_r^*(G))$.
Let us now fix $\langle a\rangle,\langle b\rangle\in {\rm Cu}(C_r^*(G)) $ such that $d_\tau(a)< d_\tau(b)$ for all $\tau\in T(C^*_r(G))$.
Let $\langle a\rangle=\sup ([p_n])$ and $\langle b\rangle=\sup ([q_m])$, where all $[p_n], [q_m]$ in $V(C_r^*(G))$.
Given $\tau\in T(C^*_r(G))$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$, it is clear by construction that $\tau(p_n)=d_\tau (p_n)<d_\tau(b)$.
Hence, there is $N(n,\tau)\in\mathbb N$ such that $\tau(p_n)<\tau(q_{N(n,\tau)})$. Now, using that $T(C^*_r(G))$ is compact under the weak-* topology,
we find $N(n)\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\tau(p_n)<\tau(q_{N(n)})$ for all $\tau\in T(C^*_r(G))$. By Corollary \ref{cor:ComparisonProjections}, one obtains
that $[p_n]\leq [q_{N(n)}]$. As this can be done for all $n\in \mathbb N$, $C_r^*(G)$ has strict comparison.
For the second statement, $C_r^*(G)$ is a separable non-elementary unital simple $C^*$-algebra with stable rank one. Hence, this part follows from \cite[Corollary~8.12]{1711.04721}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{non-exact}
It is worth noticing that $C_r^*(G)$ in Theorem~\ref{TheoremA} may not be nuclear in general, as Gabor Elek constructed non-amenable minimal almost finite ample groupoids in \cite[Theorem~6]{1812.07511}. In \cite[Corollary~4.12]{ABBL}, the same four authors of this paper construct an almost finite ample principal non-minimal groupoid $G$ from coarse geometry such that $G$ is not even a-T-menable.
Let us finish providing here an almost finite ample principal non-minimal groupoid $G$ such that $C^*_r(G)$ is not exact. Indeed, take $X$ to be one of the expanders from \cite[Corollary~3]{MR2990566} such that its uniform Roe algebra $C_u^*(X)$ is not ($K$)-exact. Then $Y = X\times \mathbb{N}$ defined as in \cite[Proposition~4.10]{ABBL} contains $X$ as a subspace by construction, and $Y$ admits tilings of arbitrary
invariance. Hence, the associated coarse groupoid $G(Y)$ is almost finite by \cite[Theorem~4.5]{ABBL}. On the other hand, $C_u^*(X)$ is a $C^*$-subalgebra of $C_r^*(G(Y))=C_u^*(Y)$. Since exactness passes to $C^*$-subalgebras, $C_r^*(G(Y))$ cannot be exact as desired.
\end{rem}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction
\label{sec:introduction}}
The identity of dark matter remains a great mystery.
Dark matter is known to be very stable, and its lifetime must be much longer than the present
age of the universe~\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx}. The stability of dark matter can be explained in various ways,
and one plausible possibility is that it is due to the small mass and feeble interactions with the standard model particles.
In the string theory, a large number of moduli or axions appear in the low-energy effective theory after compactifying
the extra dimensions. Some of them may remain so light that they play an important role in cosmology such as the inflaton,
dark energy, or dark matter. Indeed, an axion is known to be a plausible candidate for dark matter;
it is stable on cosmological time scales due to its small mass and feeble interactions, and moreover,
it can be copiously produced by the vacuum misalignment mechanism~\cite{Preskill:1982cy,Abbott:1982af,Dine:1982ah}. In this paper we study the string axion (simply axion
hereafter) as a dark matter candidate.
The axion abundance depends on the initial misalignment angle and the global shape of the potential. Usually one adopts the initial
angle $\theta_{\rm ini}$ of order unity to estimate the axion abundance. Recently, however, it was pointed out in Refs.~\cite{Graham:2018jyp,
Guth:2018hsa} (including
two of the present authors F.T. and W.Y.) that the typical value of $\theta_{\rm ini}$ can be naturally much smaller than unity if the inflation scale is
low and if the inflation lasts sufficiently long. This is because the stochastic behavior of the axion is balanced by the classical dynamics
after sufficiently long inflation, and
its probability distribution reaches equilibrium, the so-called Bunch-Davies
(BD) distribution~\cite{Bunch:1978yq} peaked at the potential minimum.
In some sense, the axion knows where the minimum is in a probabilistic way.
The BD distribution was applied to the string axion in Ref.~\cite{Ho:2019ayl}, in which it was shown that the moduli problem
induced by the string axion can be significantly alleviated.
The other important factor of the axion abundance is the shape of the axion potential.
If there are many axions with mass and kinetic mixings, they may form a complicated axion landscape~\cite{Higaki:2014pja,Higaki:2014mwa},
which has interesting implications for
inflation models~\cite{Higaki:2014pja,Higaki:2014mwa,Wang:2015rel,Masoumi:2016eqo,Nath:2017ihp,Yamada:2017uzq} and dark matter~\cite{Daido:2016tsj}. In order for one of the axions
to explain dark matter, its mass must be extremely light compared to the fundamental scale.
Broadly speaking, such a light axion mass
can be realized in the following two cases: (i) there is a flat direction in the axion landscape, along which the
axion potential is extremely flat; (ii) the axion mass is suppressed in the vicinity of a potential minimum
due to cancellation among different contributions. In the first case, the potential is well approximated by a
quadratic term when expanded around the minimum, and the axion abundance in this case is the one usually adopted
in the literature. In the second case, on the other hand, the light axion mass is just a consequence of cancellation,
and it implies that the quartic coupling is not generally suppressed. Therefore, it is likely that the potential can be
approximated by a quartic potential plus a tiny mass term when expanded around the minimum.
The cancellation may be due to the anthropic requirement for dark matter.
In Ref.~\cite{Daido:2016tsj}
the axion abundance and its isocurvature fluctuations were studied in a set-up corresponding to the second case.
It was assumed that the initial misalignment angle was such that the curvature of the potential becomes comparable to the Hubble parameter during inflation. However, it was not studied how the viable parameter region will be modified if
one uses the BD distribution as the initial condition. The suppressed initial angle has two effects.
One is to suppress the axion abundance. The other is to enhance the isocurvature perturbation for a fixed inflation scale.
The purpose of this paper is to study these effects in detail and show the viable parameter space in this scenario.
In this paper we study the stochastic axion scenario where the initial misalignment angle follows the probability distribution
determined by the competition between the quantum diffusion and the classical motion. We allow the axion potential
to deviate from a simple quadratic potential, and estimate the axion abundance and isocurvature perturbations to delineate the
viable parameter space. We will take account of various cosmological bounds such as non-detection of
the primordial gravitational waves and the upper bound on the extra diffuse X-ray/$\gamma$-ray fluxes. As we shall see, a broader
range of the inflation scale is allowed in the case where the axion potential is approximated by the quartic plus tiny quadratic terms
compared to the conventional case with the simple mass term.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:setup} we explain the set-up for the axion potential. After a brief
review of the stochastic axion scenario, we estimate the initial misalignment angle and the resultant axion abundance in Sec.~\ref{sec:abundance}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:bounds} various cosmological bounds are taken into account to delineate the viable parameter space. The last two sections are devoted to discussion and conclusions.
\section{Light axion in the axion landscape
\label{sec:setup}}
Let us suppose that there are many axions which have mass and kinetic mixings and constitute a complex landscape,
the so-called axion landscape~\cite{Higaki:2014mwa, Higaki:2014pja}.
The axion potential can be modeled by
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\phi_\alpha)=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm{s}}}\Lambda^4_i\left(1-\cos\left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_{\rm{A}}}n_{i\alpha}\frac{\phi_\alpha}{f_\alpha}+\delta_i\right)\right)+C,
\end{eqnarray}
where the prefactor $\Lambda_i$ and $\delta_i$ respectively represent the dynamical scale and a CP phase of the corresponding non-perturbative effect, $n_{i\alpha}$ is an integer-valued anomaly coefficient matrix, $f_\alpha$ is the decay constant, and $N_{\rm{s}}$ and $N_{\rm{A}}$ are the number of shift symmetry breaking terms and axions, respectively. The constant term $C$ is chosen so that the cosmological constant is vanishingly small in the present universe.
In this paper we assume that one of the axions is responsible for the observed dark matter.
To this end, the axion must be sufficiently long-lived, implying that its mass is very light.
Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities to realize such a light axion in the axion landscape.
One possibility is that there exists a flat direction in the landscape. It may be that the corresponding
dynamical scale happens to be much smaller than the other directions, or the effective decay constant may be
enhanced by the KNP mechanism~\cite{Kim:2004rp,Choi:2014rja,Higaki:2014mwa}.
Although the enhanced decay constant certainly makes the axion lighter, we consider the former case because the axion mass must be extremely light to have a lifetime longer than the
present age of the universe, and the latter would require a rather contrived set-up to realize such a
large hierarchy in the effective decay constants.
Focusing on the flat direction, we consider the potential modeled by
a single cosine term,
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\phi)=\Lambda^4\left[1-\cos\left(\frac{\phi}{f_{\phi}}\right)\right]\simeq\frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}^2\phi^2,
\label{single}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda$ denotes the potential height, $f_\phi$ is the axion decay constant, and
we have expanded the potential at the origin in the second equality for
$|\phi| \lesssim f_{\phi}$. The axion mass $m_\phi$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\phi} = \frac{\Lambda^2}{f_\phi},
\end{eqnarray}
and we assume $\Lambda \ll f_\phi$.
The other possibility is that the axion mass at one of the potential minima in the landscape happens to be
much smaller than the typical curvature scale.
This can be realized by cancellation among several shift symmetry breaking terms. For example, a single axion with two shift symmetry breakings satisfying this property was considered in Ref.~\cite{Daido:2016tsj}, and its potential is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\phi)=\Lambda_1^4\left[1-\cos\left(n_1\frac{\phi}{f_\phi}\right)\right]+\Lambda_2^4\left[1-\cos\left(n_2\frac{\phi}{f_\phi}+\delta\right)\right]+{\rm const.},
\label{potential1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ represent the size of the shift symmetry breakings,
and $\delta$ is the CP phase between the two terms.
The axion mass can be suppressed if the contributions of the two terms
are almost canceled at the minimum.
Specifically we consider $\delta=\pi$ and $n_2>n_1$, and expand the potential around the minimum at
$\phi = 0$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\phi)\simeq\frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}^2\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4
\label{pot1app}
\end{eqnarray}
for $|\phi| < f_\phi$.
Here, the axion mass $m_\phi$ and the quartic coupling $\lambda$ are respectively given by
\begin{align}
m_{\phi}^2 &= \frac{n_1^2\Lambda_1^4-n_2^2\Lambda_2^4}{f_\phi^2},\\
\lambda &=\frac{n_2^4\Lambda^4_2-n_1^4\Lambda^4_1}{f_\phi^4}\simeq(n_2^2-n_1^2)\frac{n_1^2\Lambda_1^4}{f_\phi^4},
\label{lambda}
\end{align}
where in the last equality, we have used the fact that the two shift symmetry breaking terms
are almost canceled to realize the light axion mass, i.e.,
$$\frac{n_1^2\Lambda_1^4}{f_\phi^2}\simeq\frac{n_2^2\Lambda_2^4}{f_\phi^2}\gg m_{\phi}^2.$$
On the other hand, the quartic coupling and higher order terms are not suppressed in general.
To be concrete, we will set $n_1=1$ and $n_2=2$ in which case the periodicity of the potential is
equal to $2\pi f_\phi$.
For later use we also define a dimensionless angle,
$$\theta \equiv \frac{\phi}{f_\phi}.$$
The axion potential changes from the quadratic to quartic term around $\theta \simeq \theta_{\rm{tr}}$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_{\rm{tr}}\equiv\frac{m_{\phi}}{f_{\phi}}\sqrt{\frac{6}{\lambda}}\simeq\sqrt{\frac{6}{n_2^2-n_1^2}}\frac{f_{\phi}m_{\phi}}{\Lambda_1^2}\ll 1.
\label{transition}
\end{eqnarray}
Precisely speaking, we define $\theta_{\rm tr}$ such that
the derivative of the quadratic term becomes equal to that of the quartic term at $\theta = \theta_{\rm tr}$,
since we are interested in the transition
of the axion oscillations whose periodicity depends on $V'(\phi)$ at the oscillation amplitude.
\section{Bunch-Davies distribution and axion abundance
\label{sec:abundance}}
If the axion is light during inflation, it
acquires quantum fluctuations of order the Hubble parameter, $H_{\rm inf}$. The fluctuations
continuously exit the horizon and become classical soon afterwards.
Those fluctuations can be treated as a random Gaussian noise.
Therefore, while the axion is classically driven toward the potential minimum, it is also randomly kicked upward or downward on the potential by the small-scale fluctuations.
Such stochastic axion dynamics can be well described by the Fokker-Planck equation that takes account of
the effect of the random Gaussian noise as a diffusion effect on the axion probability distribution.
Then, the two competing effects end up with an equilibrium distribution of the axion field, if inflation lasts long enough. This probability distribution is called the BD distribution~\cite{Bunch:1978yq}. It was shown
in Refs.~\cite{Graham:2018jyp,Guth:2018hsa} that the QCD axion abundance can be suppressed if the initial angle follows
the BD distribution.
In the following we derive the BD distribution of the initial angle $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$
as a function of the inflation scale for a general axion potential. Then, we estimate the axion abundance
by applying it to the quadratic or quartic potentials.
\subsection{Bunch-Davies distribution
\label{sec:BDdist}}
We assume that the Hubble parameter during inflation, $H_{\rm inf}$, is approximately constant in time, and derive the BD distribution for the axion field, $\phi$. First, let us separate it into the long and short wave-length modes, $\phi=\bar{\phi}+\delta\phi_{\rm{short}}$. The axion dynamics under the effect of short-wavelength fluctuations is described by the Langevin equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\bar{\phi}}=-\frac{1}{3H_{\rm{inf}}}V'(\bar{\phi})+f(\bm{x} , t),
\label{Langevin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V(\phi)$ is a periodic potential of $\phi$ and the dot and prime represent the derivative with respect to the cosmic time $t$ and axion field $\phi$, respectively.
We assume that $V(\phi)$ is negligibly small compared to the total energy density of the universe,
and it satisfies $|V''(\phi)|\ll H^2_{\rm{inf}}$
for all values of $\phi$ so that the stochastic formalism is applicable.
The information of the short wave-length mode $\delta\phi_{\rm{short}}$ is included in the Gaussian noise term, $f(\bm{x},t)$,
satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle f(\bm{x} , t_1)f(\bm{x} , t_2)\right\rangle=\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}^3}{4\pi^2}\delta(t_1-t_2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle \cdots \rangle$ represents the stochastic average.
The corresponding Fokker-Planck equation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\mathcal{P}(\phi, t)}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{3H_{\rm{inf}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}(V'(\phi)\mathcal{P}(\phi, t))+\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{P}(\phi, t)}{\partial\phi^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{P}(\phi, t)$ denotes the probability distribution for the coarse-grained field $\phi$.
We are interested in the asymptotic form of the probability distribution, $\mathcal{P}_{\rm BD}(\phi)$, which satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{3H_{\rm{inf}}}V'(\phi)\mathcal{P}_{\rm BD}(\phi)+\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}^3}{8\pi^2}\frac{\partial\mathcal{P}_{\rm BD}(\phi)}{\partial\phi} = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
This equation follows from the Fokker-Planck equation with $\partial\mathcal{P}(\phi, t)/\partial t=0$
under the assumption that
$V(\phi)$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\rm BD}(\phi)$ are periodic with respect to $\phi$.\footnote{Alternatively, one may assume that the probability distribution vanishes at the boundary of $\phi$. }
The solution is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{BDfull}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm BD}(\phi) \propto \exp\left( - \frac{8 \pi^2}{3 H_{\rm inf}^4} V(\phi) \right).
\end{eqnarray}
This is called the BD distribution.
Therefore, the BD distribution is the largest where $V(\phi)$ is the smallest.
For convenience, we define the probability distribution for the dimensionless
angle $\theta = \phi/f_\phi$ as
\begin{align}
P(\theta) \propto \mathcal{P}_{\rm BD}(\theta f_\phi).
\end{align}
In the following we set the origin of $\theta$ equal to one of the minima of $V(\phi)$,
and consider the probability
distribution around it in the range of $\theta_- \leq \theta \leq \theta_+$.
The boundary is given by $\theta_\pm = \pm \pi$ for the two potentials given in the previous section.
The proportionality factor is determined by
the normalization condition,
\begin{align}
\int_{\theta_{-}}^{\theta_{+}} P(\theta) d\theta = 1,
\end{align}
where we implicitly assume that $P(\theta)$ is vanishingly small at the boundary.
We will comment on the case where this is not satisfied at the end of this subsection.
Using the above probability distribution, we can define the typical initial angle as
the variance,
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_{\rm{ini}}\equiv \sqrt{\langle\theta^2\rangle}= \left(\int_{\theta_{-}}^{\theta_{+}} \theta^2P(\theta)d\theta
\right)^{1/2}.
\label{inidef}
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of the quadratic potential (\ref{single}), the probability distribution is given by the Gaussian form,
\begin{eqnarray}
P(\theta)\propto
\exp\left[\displaystyle{-\frac{4\pi^2m_{\phi}^2f_{\phi}^2}{3H_{\rm{inf}}^4}\theta^2}\right]~~~~~(|\theta| \lesssim 1),
\label{distribution1}
\end{eqnarray}
where one can see that the distribution is peaked at the potential minimum $\theta=0$, and it is unlikely
for $\theta$ to take values much greater than $H_{\rm inf}^2/m_\phi f_\phi$. Using (\ref{inidef}) and (\ref{distribution1}), one can estimate the initial angle $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta_{\rm{ini}}\simeq 1.9\times10^{-6} \left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^5\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{f_{\phi}}{10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)^{-1},
\label{thetainiquad}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be naturally much smaller than unity without fine-tuning the initial condition. Note that this expression is valid
only for $\theta_{\rm ini} \lesssim 1$.
Similarly, in the case of the potential given by (\ref{pot1app}),
the probability distribution is approximately given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P(\theta)\propto
\begin{cases}
\exp\left[\displaystyle{-\frac{\lambda\pi^2f_{\phi}^4}{9H_{\rm{inf}}^4}\theta^4}\right]
\hspace{1cm} &(\theta_{\rm{tr}} \lesssim |\theta| \lesssim 1)
\\
&\\
\exp\left[\displaystyle{-\frac{4\pi^2m_{\phi}^2f_{\phi}^2}{3H_{\rm{inf}}^4}\theta^2}\right]
&(|\theta| \lesssim \theta_{\rm{tr}})
\end{cases}.
\label{distribution}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{inidef}) and (\ref{distribution}), one can estimate the initial angle $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$ as
\begin{empheq}[left={\theta_{\rm{ini}}\simeq\empheqlbrace}]{align}
&4.3\times10^{-5}\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^8\,{\rm GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{\Lambda_1}{10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-1}
&(\theta_{\rm{tr}}\lesssim \theta_{\rm{ini}}\lesssim 1)\label{initial1}\\
&1.9\times10^{-6} \left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^5\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{f_{\phi}}{10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)^{-1}
&(\theta_{\rm{ini}}\lesssim \theta_{\rm{tr}}).
\label{initial2}
\end{empheq}
We show the probability distribution $P(\theta)$ in Fig.~\ref{dist} for several values of $H_{\rm inf}$. This is the case that the axion populates the approximated potential (\ref{pot1app}) with $f_\phi=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$, $\lambda=3\times10^{-16}$, and $m_\phi=1 \ {\rm eV} $.
One can see that the distribution gets broader as $H_{\rm{inf}}$ increases. This is because the
diffusion effect is stronger for larger $H_{\rm inf}$. In other words, the initial angle is sharply peaked
at the potential minimum for a sufficiently small $H_{\rm{inf}}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{BDdist.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The BD distribution as a function of $\theta$ for several values of $H_{\rm{inf}}$
in the case of the approximated potential (\ref{pot1app}). We set $\lambda=3 \times 10^{-16}$,
$f_\phi=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$, and $m_\phi=1 \ {\rm eV} $, corresponding to $\theta_{\rm{tr}} \simeq 1.4 \times 10^{-17}$.
}
\label{dist}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{ini1} we show $\theta_{\rm ini}$ as a function of $H_{\rm inf}$
for $\Lambda_1=10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}$, $m_{\phi}=1 \ {\rm eV} $, and $f_{\phi}=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$.
Here we substitute the original potential (\ref{potential1}) into (\ref{inidef}) to calculate $\theta_{\rm ini}$
numerically.
The dotted horizontal line shows the transition point from quadratic to quartic potential,
$\theta_{\rm{ini}} = \theta_{\rm{tr}}$. One can see that $\theta_{\rm ini}$ tends to be suppressed when the
potential is dominated by the quartic term compared to the quadratic term. This can be understood by
noting that the potential gets steeper as the quartic term dominates over the quadratic one.
In order to reach the BD distribution, we need a sufficiently large number of $e$-folds;
$N\sim H_{\rm{inf}}^2/m_\phi^2$ for the quadratic potential, and $N\sim1/\sqrt{\lambda}$
for the quartic potential.
Such a large number of $e$-folds can be realized by
the eternal inflation~\cite{Linde:1982ur,Steinhardt:1982kg,Vilenkin:1983xq,Linde:1986fc,Linde:1986fd,Goncharov:1987ir}
(see also \cite{Guth:2000ka,Guth:2007ng,Linde:2015edk}). Note that the eternity of the
eternal inflation usually relies on the volume measure. Recently it was shown that
a sufficiently large number of $e$-folds can be realized without relying on the
volume measure, if one considers
a hilltop-type stochastic inflation with a shallow local minimum around the potential maximum~\cite{Kitajima:2019ibn}.
Lastly let us comment on the assumption that
the probability distribution $P(\theta)$ is vanishingly small
at $\theta = \pm \pi$ in the above discussion.
The approximated expressions \eqref{thetainiquad}, \eqref{initial1}, and \eqref{initial2}
can only be applied to the case of $\theta_{\rm ini} \ll \pi$, or equivalently, $H_{\rm{inf}} \lesssim \Lambda$ and $\Lambda_{1,2}$.
For $H_{\rm{inf}} > \Lambda$ or $\Lambda_{1,2}$, the axion can go over the potential barrier due to the large fluacutations and
all the physically inequivalent vacua will be populated as a result of the stochastic dynamics. For the potentials considered here,
the asymptotic distribution will be almost uniform over the entire values of $\phi$, and a typical value
of the initial misalignment angle measured from the nearest minimum will be of order unity.
Also, there is thermal radiation with the Gibbons-Hawking temperature $T_{\rm{inf}}={H_{\rm{inf}}}/{2\pi}$~\cite{Gibbons:1977mu}, which may significantly modify
the axion potential if $\Lambda$ or $\Lambda_{1,2}$ corresponds to the dynamical scale of the non-perturbative effects responsible for generating the axion potential. In the following, therefore, we will
focus on the case of $\theta_{\rm ini} \lesssim 1$, or equivalently, $H_{\rm{inf}} \lesssim \Lambda_1$ or $\Lambda$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{iniangle.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The initial angle $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$ as a function of the inflation scale $H_{\rm{inf}}$ for $\Lambda_1=10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}$, $f_{\phi}=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$, and $m_{\phi}=1 \ {\rm eV} $. The red line represents the initial angle which is estimated with the original potential (\ref{potential1}). The horizontal dotted line is the transition point, $\theta_{\rm{tr}}\simeq 1.4\times10^{-17}$.}
\label{ini1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Axion abundance
\label{subsec:abundance}}
During inflation the axion follows the BD distribution derived in the previous subsection. After inflation, the axion
starts to oscillate about the potential minimum when the effective mass, $|V''(\phi)|$, becomes comparable
to the Hubble parameter.\footnote{\label{ftnt}
The commencement of oscillations is delayed if the initial position is
close to the potential maximum, in which case the isocurvature perturbation as well as its non-Gaussianity
are enhanced~\cite{Kobayashi:2013nva}. See also discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:5}.} In the case of the axion potential (\ref{single}), the axion coherent
oscillations behave as cold dark matter. On the other hand, in the case of the axion potential (\ref{pot1app}),
the axion coherent oscillations behave as radiation until the oscillation amplitude becomes so small that
the tiny mass term comes to dominate the potential.
The final axion abundance depends on the oscillation amplitude, $\phi_{\rm osc}$, when the axion starts to oscillate.
Here let us relate $\theta_{\rm osc} \equiv \phi_{\rm osc}/f_\phi$ to the initial angle $\theta_{\rm ini}$, following
Refs.~\cite{Daido:2016tsj, Kawasaki:2011pd}. We define the onset of the oscillation to be the time when the temporal variation of the axion field over
the Hubble time becomes comparable to the distance to the potential minimum:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|H^{-1}\frac{\dot{\phi}}{\phi}\right|_{\rm{osc}}\equiv\frac{1}{2}.
\label{oscdef}
\end{eqnarray}
The choice of $1/2$ in the right-handed side is just a convention, and it can be replaced with a constant of order unity.
Before the onset of the oscillation, the axion dynamics is described by
an attractor solution of
\begin{eqnarray}
cH\dot{\phi}\simeq -V',
\label{atteq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c$ is a numerical coefficient that depends on the equation of state of
the dominant component of the universe,
\begin{eqnarray}
c=
\begin{cases}
3~~~(\rm{de ~Sitter})&\\
\frac{9}{2}~~~(\rm{matter ~dominant})&\\
5~~~(\rm{radiation ~dominant})&
\end{cases}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the equation of motion is valid if $|V''| \ll H^2$.
Using (\ref{oscdef}) and (\ref{atteq}) we can express the Hubble parameter at the onset of oscillations in terms
of $\phi_{\rm osc}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
H^2_{\rm{osc}}\simeq\frac{2V'(\phi_{\rm{osc}})}{c_{\rm osc} \phi_{\rm{osc}}},
\label{hosc}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{\rm osc}$ represents $c$ evaluated at the onset of oscillations.
For the quadratic and quartic potentials, it is given by
\begin{empheq}[left={H_{\rm{osc}}\simeq \empheqlbrace}]{align}
& \sqrt{\frac{2}{c_{\rm osc}}} m_\phi
&{\rm (quadratic)}\label{oscini1}\\
&\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3 c_{\rm osc}}} \phi_{\rm osc}
&{\rm (quartic)}.
\label{hosc2}
\end{empheq}
Integrating Eq.~(\ref{atteq}) from the end of inflation
to the onset of oscillations, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\phi_{\rm{ini}}}^{\phi_{\rm{osc}}}\frac{d\phi}{V'}\simeq-\frac{1}{2c_{\rm osc} (c_{\rm osc}-3)H_{\rm{osc}}^2},
\label{int}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used $\dot{H}/H^2=3-c$, and $H_{\rm osc} \ll H_{\rm inf}$.
Then we can relate $\theta_{\rm{osc}}$ to $\theta_{\rm ini}$ for the quadratic
and quartic potentials,
\begin{empheq}[left={\theta_{\rm{osc}}\simeq \theta_{\rm{ini}} \times \empheqlbrace}]{align}
& \exp\left[-\frac{1}{4(c_{\rm osc}-3)}\right]
&{\rm (quadratic)}\label{oscini1}\\
&\sqrt{\frac{2c_{\rm osc}-7}{2c_{\rm osc}-6}}
&{\rm (quartic)},
\label{oscini2}
\end{empheq}
One can see that $\theta_{\rm osc} \simeq \theta_{\rm ini}$ in these cases.
Since $\theta_{\rm ini}$ is determined by the BD distribution in our scenario, the final axion abundance
depends on the inflation scale, $H_{\rm inf}$. Note that, in the previous work \cite{Daido:2016tsj},
the initial angle $\theta_{\rm ini}$ was chosen in such a way that the curvature of the axion potential
at $\theta=\theta_{\rm ini}$ becomes comparable
to the Hubble parameter during inflation. On the other hand, $\theta_{\rm ini}$ is dynamically determined
by the competition between the classical motion and quantum diffusion in our case. As a result, the initial
angle is much smaller than assumed in the Ref.~\cite{Daido:2016tsj}.
In the following we estimate the axion abundance
for the quadratic and quartic potentials using the oscillation amplitude determined by the BD distribution.
\subsubsection{The case of the quadratic potential}
First, let us consider the case in which the axion potential is well approximated by the quadratic potential. This is the case
either if the axion potential is given by a single cosine term (\ref{single}) and the initial angle satisfies $\theta_{\rm ini}
\lesssim 1$, or if the potential is given by a flat-bottomed form (\ref{pot1app}) and $\theta_{\rm ini}$ is
smaller than $\theta_{\rm tr}$.
The axion abundance depends on whether the reheating is completed or not at the onset of oscillations.
First, let us consider the case in which the axion starts to oscillate before the reheating.
Taking account of the conservation of the entropy in the comoving volume after reheating, and the dependence of the axion energy density on the scale factor $R$, $\rho_\phi\propto R^{-3}$, the ratio of the axion energy density to the entropy density at present is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right|_0=
\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right|_{\rm reh}=
\left.\frac{\rho_{\rm inf}}{s}\right|_{\rm reh}
\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{\rho_{\rm{inf}}}\right|_{\rm osc} \simeq
\frac{3 T_{\rm reh}}{4} \frac{\rho_{\phi, \rm{osc}}}{3 H_{\rm{osc}}^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscripts, `0', `reh', and `osc', imply that the variables are evaluated at present, reheating, and the onset of oscillations, respectively,
and $\rho_{\rm inf}$ is the inflaton energy density. For simplicity we have assumed that the inflaton energy density decreases
as non-relativistic matter before the reheating, and that the reheating takes place almost instantaneously at $T=T_{\rm{reh}}$.
The axion energy density at the onset of oscillations is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\phi, \rm{osc}}&=&\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}_{\rm{osc}}^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}^2\phi_{\rm{osc}}^2=\left(\frac{1}{4c}+\frac{1}{2}\right)m_\phi^2\phi^2_{\rm{osc}}.
\label{phiosc}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{thetainiquad}), (\ref{hosc}), and (\ref{phiosc}), we can express the axion abundance in terms of the
density parameter as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\phi h^2
\simeq 0.39 \,\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^6\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^4\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{1\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-2}\left(\frac{T_{\rm{reh}}}{10^{6}\,{\rm GeV}}\right).
\label{abundance1}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the density parameter is defined by $\Omega_\phi \equiv \rho_{\phi,0}/\rho_{\rm{crit}}$,
where $\rho_{\rm crit} \simeq (0.0300 {\rm \,eV})^4 h^2$ is the critical density, and $h$ is the reduced Hubble
constant.
Next, we consider the case where the axion starts to oscillate after the reheating.
The entropy density at the onset of the oscillations $s_{\rm{osc}}$ is given by $s_{\rm{osc}}=({2\pi^2}/{45}) g_{\rm{*}}(T_{\rm{osc}})T_{\rm{osc}}^3$ in terms of the temperature $T_{\rm{osc}}$,
\begin{align}
T_{\rm{osc}} &\equiv \left(\frac{\pi^2g_*(T_{\rm{osc}})}{90}\right)^{-\frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{H_{\rm osc} M_{\rm Pl}}, \\
&\simeq 6.7 \times 10^8 {\rm \,GeV} \lrfp{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}{106.75}{-\frac{1}{4}} \lrfp{m_\phi}{1\,{\rm GeV}}{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{align}
where $g_{\rm{*}}$ counts the effective relativistic degrees of freedom,
and we substituted $c_{\rm osc} = 5$ in the second equality. The axion abundance is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\phi h^2\simeq 0.19 \left(\frac{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}{106.75}\right)^{-\frac{1}{4}}
\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^5\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^4\left(\frac{m_\phi}{0.3 \,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-\frac{3}{2}}.
\label{abundance2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, although it is not explicitly shown in the final results,
$\Omega_\phi$ is proportional to $\theta_{\rm ini}^2$ in both cases.
(The dependence on $\theta_{\rm ini}$ can be inferred by noting $\theta_{\rm ini} \propto H_{\rm inf}^2$
in the case of the quadratic potential.)
\subsubsection{The case of the quartic potential}
Now we consider the flat-bottomed potential where the potential (\ref{pot1app}) consists of the quartic
coupling plus a suppressed mass term. We focus on the case of $\theta_{\rm ini} \simeq \theta_{\rm osc} \gtrsim \theta_{\rm tr}$ because
otherwise the axion abundance is reduced to the case of the quadratic potential.
First, let us consider the case in which the axion starts to oscillate before the reheating.
Noting that the axion energy density decreases as $\rho_\phi\propto R^{-4}$ until the quadratic term comes to
dominate the potential, one can express the ratio of the axion energy density to the entropy density at present as
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right|_{0}
= \rho_{\phi,{\rm tr}}^{1/4} \left.\frac{\rho_{\rm inf}}{s}\right|_{\rm reh}
\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}{}^{3/4}}{\rho_{\rm{inf}}}\right|_{\rm osc}.
\label{trlreh}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\rho_{\phi, \rm{tr}}$ is the axion energy density when the oscillation amplitude becomes equal to $\phi_{\rm tr} = \theta_{\rm tr} f_\phi$, and it is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\phi,\rm{tr}}&=&\frac{9m_{\phi}^4}{2\lambda}.
\end{eqnarray}
The axion energy density at the onset of oscillations is
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\phi,\rm{osc}}&\simeq&\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2_{\rm{osc}}+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi_{\rm{osc}}^4 =
\frac{\lambda}{4!} \left(1+\frac{1}{c}\right)\phi_{\rm{osc}}^4.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, we arrive at the axion abundance,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\phi h^2 \simeq0.50&&\hspace{-5mm}\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^8\,{\rm GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)\left(\frac{f_{\phi}}{10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{3}
\nonumber\\&\times&
\left(\frac{\Lambda_1}{10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-3}\left(\frac{T_{\rm{reh}}}{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}}\right).
\label{abundance3}
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that $\Omega_\phi$ is proportional to $\theta_{\rm ini}$.
Note that the axion abundance does not depend on the order of the reheating and the transition from the quartic to the quadratic
potential.
Next, we consider the case in which the reheating precedes the onset of the axion oscillations.
As before, the ratio of the axion energy density to the entropy density at present is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right|_0=\left.\frac{\rho_{\phi}}{s}\right|_{\rm tr}=\rho_{\phi,\rm{tr}}^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{\rho^\frac{3}{4}_{\phi,\rm{osc}}}{s_{\rm{osc}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
where the temperature at the oscillation reads
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\rm{osc}} \simeq
3.4 \times 10^{10} {\rm\, GeV} \lrfp{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}{106.75}{-\frac{1}{4}}
\lrfp{H_{\rm inf}}{10^8 {\rm\,GeV}}{\frac{1}{2}}
\lrfp{f_\phi}{10^{16}{\rm\,GeV}}{-\frac{1}{2}}
\lrfp{\Lambda}{10^{12}{\rm\,GeV}}{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the axion abundance is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_\phi h^2\simeq 2.0&&\hspace{-5mm}
\left(\frac{g_*(T_{\rm{osc}})}{106.75}\right)^{-\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^8\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)
\nonumber\\ &\times&
\left(\frac{f_{\phi}}{10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{\frac{5}{2}} \left(\frac{\Lambda_1}{10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-\frac{5}{2}}.
\label{abundance4}
\end{eqnarray}
One can see that $\Omega_\phi$ in this case is proportional to $\theta_{\rm ini}^\frac{3}{2}$.
Note that the dependence of the axion abundance on the inflation scale is milder than the case of the quadratic potential
(see Fig.~\ref{ini1}). This as well as the tiny $m_\phi$ are the reason why the larger $H_{\rm inf}$ can be consistent with the dark matter abundance
in the case of the quartic potential.
\subsubsection{Thermal axion particle production}
So far, we have considered the axion condensate.
When the reheating temperature is sufficiently high, thermal axion particle production becomes important.
If too many axion particles are produced, they contribute to hot or warm dark matter.
Here let us estimate the abundance of thermally produced axions.
To this end, suppose for simplicity that the axion couples to weak gauge bosons as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L} = c_2 \frac{\alpha_2}{8 \pi} \frac{\phi}{f_\phi}W^a_{\mu \nu} {\tilde W}_a^{\mu \nu}+ c_Y \frac{\alpha_Y}{4 \pi} \frac{\phi}{f_\phi} B_{\mu \nu} \tilde B^{\mu \nu},
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\alpha_2, W^a_{\mu \nu})$ and $(\alpha_Y, B_{\mu \nu})$ are the fine-structure constant and gauge field strength of SU(2)$_L$ and U(1)$_Y$, respectively, and $c_2$ and $c_Y$ are model-dependent anomaly
coefficients.\footnote{In the low energy effective theory in the broken phase,
one obtains the coupling to photons, $\alpha_{\phi\gamma\gamma}$ defined in Eq.\,\eqref{Lagrangian} as
$ \alpha_{\phi\gamma\gamma}/\alpha_{\rm EM} = c_2/2 + c_Y$.}
Since they are higher dimensional terms, thermal production is efficient around the highest temperature, i.e. $T\sim T_{\rm reh}$, in the radiation dominant era. Here we assume the instantaneous reheating for simplicity.
The axion number density to entropy density is estimated
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{n^{\rm th}_\phi}{s}\simeq r \frac{45 \zeta{(3)}}{2 g_{*} \pi^4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r$ was calculated in \cite{Salvio:2013iaa},
\begin{eqnarray} r\approx \left(3\times 10^{-10}c_2^2+ 5\times 10^{-11}c_Y^2\right) \left(\frac{10^{16}\,\text{GeV}}{f_\phi}\right)^2 \left(\frac{T_{\rm reh}}{10^{10}\,\text{GeV}}\right).\end{eqnarray}
One obtains the abundance of the thermally produced axion as
\begin{align}
\Omega_{\phi}^{\rm th} h^2
&\simeq \left(2\times 10^{-9} c_2^2+3\times10^{-10} c_Y^2\right) \left( \frac{m_\phi}{10\text{\,keV}}\right)\left(\frac{10^{16}\,\text{GeV}}{f_\phi}\right)^2 \left(\frac{T_{\rm reh}}{10^{10}\,\text{GeV}}\right).
\end{align}
Thus, the thermal production is always subdominant for $c_2,c_Y={\cal O}(1)$ in the parameter region that we will consider.
However, it could be sizable when $T_{\rm reh}\sim f_\phi$ or $c_2, c_Y\gg {\cal O}(1)$.
Also, thermal production can be relevant if there are other interactions e.g. an axion-top quark interaction.
Notice that the above result applies to both potentials of \eqref{single} or \eqref{pot1app} as long as
$\Lambda_1$ or $\Lambda$ is much smaller than $f_\phi.$
On the other hand, when $\Lambda_1$ in \eqref{pot1app} is so large that the self-interaction of $\phi$ becomes important,
the processes of $\phi\phi\leftrightarrow \phi\phi , \phi\phi \leftrightarrow \phi \phi\phi\phi$ may not be neglected.
These processes increase the number density, while reducing the energy per one axion particle. Therefore in this case we can obtain
much colder axion particles (if the processes are in equilibrium
the typical temperature is $T_\phi \sim r^{1/4} T$) and their abundance is larger than the above estimate.
For $\Lambda_1\gg H_{\rm inf},$ the contribution of coherent mode, \eqref{abundance4}, can be suppressed and thus
thermally produced axions may explain the observed dark matter.\footnote{In this case, the isocurvature bound is evaded.}
\section{Cosmological bounds
\label{sec:bounds}}
In this section, we study cosmological constraints on the axion dark matter in our scenario. Specifically we consider
the axionic isocurvature perturbations and the diffuse X-ray/$\gamma$-ray fluxes from the axion decays. By doing so we
will be able to identify the viable parameter region where the axion explains the observed dark matter abundance.
\subsection{Isocurvature perturbations
\label{sec:isocurvature}}
Since the axion is assumed to be light during inflation, it acquires quantum fluctuations
of $\delta \phi_k \simeq H_{\rm inf}/2\pi$ at the horizon exit, where $k$ denotes the comoving wavenumber.
This gives rise to the almost scale-invariant isocurvature perturbation, whose
power spectrum is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_S=\left[\frac{\Omega_{\phi}}{\Omega_{\rm{DM}}}\frac{\partial \ln\Omega_\phi}{\partial\theta_{\rm{ini}}}\frac{\delta\phi_{k}}{f_{\phi}}\right]^2=\left[p \frac{H_{\rm inf}}{2 \pi \theta_{\rm ini} f_{\phi}}\right]^2,
\label{isocurvature}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega_{\rm DM} \simeq 0.12 h^{-2}$ is the density parameter of the dark matter~\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx},
and we have assumed $\Omega_\phi = \Omega_{\rm DM}$ in the second equality.
Here we have defined $p \equiv (\partial \ln\Omega_\phi/\partial\theta_{\rm{ini}})$, and it is given by $p= 2$ for the quadratic potential, and $p=1$ or $3/2$ for the quartic potential (cf. Sec.~\ref{subsec:abundance}).
A mixture of isocurvature perturbations is tightly constrained by the Planck data.
The current upper bound on the scale-invariant and uncorrelated isocurvature perturbation reads~\cite{Akrami:2018odb}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_S < 8.3 \times 10^{-11}.
\label{Planck}
\end{eqnarray}
In the following we derive the upper bound on the inflation scale as a function of the axion mass
for the quadratic and quartic potential.
\subsubsection{The case of the quadratic potential}
Using (\ref{thetainiquad}) and $p=2$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_S = \frac{8 m_\phi^2}{3 H_{\rm inf}^2}
\simeq 2.7\times10^{-10}\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^5\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-2}\left(\frac{m_\phi}{1\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, to satisfy the isocurvature bound (\ref{Planck}), we need
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\rm inf} \gtrsim 1.8 \times 10^5 \,m_\phi.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{The case of the quartic potential}
We focus on the case of $\theta_{\rm osc} \gtrsim \theta_{\rm tr}$ since otherwise the result will be reduced
to the previous case. Using (\ref{initial1}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}_S \simeq 0.14\, p^2\frac{\Lambda_1^2}{f_\phi^2}
\simeq 0.079\, p^2 \sqrt{\lambda}.
\end{eqnarray}
To satisfy the isocurvature bound (\ref{Planck}), we need
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda\; \lesssim \; \frac{1.1 \times 10^{-18}}{p^4}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the quartic coupling determines the size of isocurvature perturbations.
Since we assume $\Omega_{\phi}=\Omega_{\rm{DM}}$, we can erase $\Lambda_1$
using (\ref{abundance3}) or (\ref{abundance4}) from the expression of $\mathcal{P}_S$.
Then, we obtain
\begin{empheq}[left={\mathcal{P}_S\simeq\empheqlbrace}]{align}
&~ 3.5 \times 10^{-9}
\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^{8}\,\rm{GeV}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
\left(\frac{T_{\rm{reh}}}{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
&(T_{\rm{reh}}\lesssim T_{\rm{osc}})\\
&~ 2.9 \times 10^{-8}
\lrfp{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}{106.75}{-\frac{1}{5}}
\left(\frac{H_{\rm{inf}}}{10^{8}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{\frac{6}{5}}\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)^{\frac{4}{5}}&(T_{\rm{osc}}\lesssim T_{\rm{reh}}).
\end{empheq}
To satisfy the isocurvature bound (\ref{Planck}), we need
\begin{empheq}[left=H_{\rm inf} \lesssim \empheqlbrace]{align}
&3.6 \times 10^{5} {\rm\,GeV} \left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{T_{\rm{reh}}}{10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{-1}
&(T_{\rm{osc}}\gtrsim T_{\rm{reh}})
\label{isoconstrBD3}\\
& 7.6 \times 10^{5} {\rm\,GeV} \lrfp{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}{106.75}{\frac{1}{6}}
\left(\frac{m_{\phi}}{100\ {\rm MeV} }\right)^{-\frac{2}{3}}
& (T_{\rm{osc}}\lesssim T_{\rm{reh}}).
\label{isoconstrBD4}
\end{empheq}
In contrast to the quadratic potential, the isocurvature bound results in the upper bound on the inflation scale
in the case of the quartic potential.
\subsection{Axion decay into photons and hidden photons
\label{sec:photons}}
The axion dark matter might have feeble interactions with the standard model or hidden sector particles.
Here, we consider the axion-(hidden) photon couplings,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\alpha_{\phi\gamma\gamma}}{4\pi f_{\phi}}\phi F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu},
~~~\frac{\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}}{4\pi f_{\phi}}\phi F'_{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}'^{\mu\nu},
\label{Lagrangian}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{\phi\gamma \gamma}$ is a model-dependent coupling constant,
$F_{\mu\nu}$ and $\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$ are the field strength of
photons and its dual, respectively, and those with primes are for hidden photons.
First let us consider the axion decay into hidden photons through the above coupling.
The decay rate is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{\phi} (\phi \to \gamma'\gamma')=\frac{\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}^2}{64\pi^3}\frac{m_{\phi}^3}{f_{\phi}^2},
\end{eqnarray}
and if this is the dominant decay channel, the axion lifetime is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_\phi(\phi \to \gamma'\gamma') \simeq
2.5\times10^{18}\,\rm{sec} \left(\frac{\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}}{\alpha_{\rm{EM}}}\right)^{-2}
\left(\frac{\it{m_{\phi}}}{100\,\rm{MeV}}\right)^{-3}
\left(\frac{\it{f_{\phi}}}{10^{16}\,\rm{GeV}}\right)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{\rm{EM}} \simeq 1/137$ is the electromagnetic fine-structure constant.
The observational impact of dark matter decaying into dark radiation was
studied in detail in Refs.~\cite{Enqvist:2015ara,Enqvist:2019tsa}, and they placed a lower bound
on the lifetime, $\tau_{\rm{DM}}\ge175\,\rm{Gyr}$~\cite{Enqvist:2019tsa}.
This can be rewritten as the upper bound on the axion mass,
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\phi}\lesssim76\ {\rm MeV} \left(\frac{\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}}{\alpha_{\rm{EM}}}\right)^{-\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{\it{f_{\phi}}}{10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}.
\label{lifetime}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, for $f_{\phi}\simeq10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$ and $\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}\simeq\alpha_{\rm{EM}}$,
the axion mass cannot exceed $80\,\rm{MeV}$ or so.
Next we consider the cosmological impact of the axion decay into ordinary photons. The energetic photons produced
by the axion decay contribute to the Galactic and extra-galactic diffuse X-ray/$\gamma$-ray background.
First, let us estimate the Galactic halo contribution to the diffuse photon background~\cite{Essig:2013goa, Ho:2019ayl}. In order to derive the expected signal, we need the Galactic dark matter density profile. Here we assume the NFW dark matter profile~\cite{Navarro:1995iw, Navarro:1996gj} and use the J-factor summarized in Table I of Ref.~\cite{Essig:2013goa}. As we consider the axion-photon interaction (\ref{Lagrangian}), the produced two photons initially have the monochromatic spectrum
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN_{\gamma}}{dE_{\gamma}}=2\delta\left(E_{\gamma}-\frac{m_{\phi}}{2}\right)
\label{photonspectrum},
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_\gamma$ and $N_{\gamma}$ are the present photon energy and number, respectively.
Then, the differential photon flux from the axion decay in the Milky Way is written by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d\Phi_{\rm{MW}}}{dE_{\gamma}}=\int_{l.o.s}dy\frac{\Gamma_{\phi\gamma\gamma}}{4\pi y^2}\frac{dN_\gamma}{dE_\gamma}\frac{\rho_\phi(y)}{m_{\phi}}y^2d\Omega=\frac{r_{\odot}}{4\pi}\frac{\rho_\odot}{m_{\phi}}\Gamma_{\phi\gamma\gamma}\frac{dN_\gamma}{dE_\gamma}\frac{\Omega_\phi}{\Omega_{\rm{DM}}}J_{\rm{D}},
\label{MW}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_\odot=8.5\rm{kpc}$ is the distance between the Sun and the center of our Galaxy, $\rho_\odot= 0.3\rm{GeV/cm^3}$ is the local dark matter density, $\rho_\phi$ is the axion energy density, and we define a J-factor as
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\rm{D}}\equiv\int_{l.o.s}\frac{dy}{r_\odot}\frac{\rho_{\rm{DM}}(y)}{\rho_{\odot}}d\Omega,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{\rm{DM}}$ represents a dark matter density profile. Here, the integration is taken over the observed region of the sky $\Delta\Omega$ and the line-of-sight distance $y$.
Let us next consider the extra-galactic contributions~\cite{Asaka:1997rv}.
The photons coming from cosmological distances suffer a redshift due to the cosmic expansion.
Also, the dark matter density in the early universe was higher than present density. Assuming the spatially
homogeneous distribution of the axion, we obtain the photon flux per a unit solid angle
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2\Phi_{\rm{EG}}}{d\Omega dE_\gamma}
=\frac{\Gamma_{\phi\gamma\gamma}}{4\pi}\int_{t_{\rm{rec}}}^{t_0} d\tilde{t}\, n_\phi(\tilde{t})(1+z)^{-3}\frac{d \tilde{E}_\gamma}{dE_\gamma}\frac{dN_\gamma}{d\tilde{E}_\gamma},
\label{EGint}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_{\rm{rec}}$ is the time of the recombination, $z$ is the redshift parameter
corresponding to the time $t= \tilde{t}$, $\tilde{E}_\gamma$ is the photon energy at the production, and the axion density $n_\phi(\tilde{t})$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
n_\phi({\tilde t})\equiv n_{\phi,0}(1+z)^3=\frac{\Omega_\phi\rho_{\rm{crit}}}{m_{\phi}}(1+z)^3.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we have neglected a slight decrease of the axion density due to the decay, because the lifetime must be
much longer than the present age of the universe.
Note that we put a cut-off at recombination, since photons cannot propagate freely until the recombination.
The redshift parameter $z$ is related to the cosmic time $t$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dt}{dz}=-\left[H_0(1+z)\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_\Lambda}\right]^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant, and $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ denote the density parameter of non-relativistic matter and the cosmological constant, respectively. Using this relation in the integration (\ref{EGint}),
we obtain the extra-galactic photon flux per a unit solid angle,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2\Phi_{\rm{EG}}}{d\Omega dE_\gamma}=\frac{\Omega_\phi\rho_{\rm{crit}}\Gamma_{\phi\gamma\gamma}}{2\pi m_{\phi}E_\gamma H_0}\left[\Omega_\Lambda+\Omega_m\left(\frac{m_\phi}{2E_\gamma}\right)^3\right]^{-1/2}.
\label{EG}
\end{eqnarray}
Since we can observe photons produced after the recombination,
the energy $E_\gamma$ is in the range of $\frac{m_{\phi}}{2}/(1+z_{\rm{rec}})<E_\gamma<\frac{m_{\phi}}{2}$,
where $z_{\rm{rec}}\simeq1100$.
The constraint is placed on the parameters by the fact that the two contributions (\ref{MW}) and (\ref{EG}) should be smaller than the observational flux $F_{\rm{obs}}$. In this work, we compare the values integrated in the range of each energy bin width $\Delta E_\gamma$ with the observed flux,
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Delta E_\gamma}dE_\gamma\left[\frac{1}{\Delta\Omega}E_\gamma^2\frac{d\Phi_{\rm{MW}}}{dE_{\gamma}}+E_\gamma^2\frac{d^2\Phi_{\rm{EG}}}{d\Omega dE_\gamma}\right]\lesssim F_{\rm{obs}}\Delta E_\gamma,
\label{condition}
\end{eqnarray}
where the unit $[\rm{MeVcm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}}]$ of the photon flux is used in our analysis. We used the observational results from HEAO-1, INTEGRAL, COMPTEL, and EGRET summarized in~\cite{Essig:2013goa}. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{diffuse} where we set $f_{\phi}=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$.
The red region represents the constraint (\ref{condition}) from the diffuse photon spectrum from the axion decay. The blue region is the constraint (\ref{lifetime}) from the dark matter lifetime. For $\alpha_{\phi\gamma\gamma}=\alpha_{\rm{EM}}$, the axion mass has an upper bound $m_{\phi}\lesssim70 \ {\rm keV} $.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{diffuse.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The observational constraints on the axion coupling to photons and hidden photons.
The shaded regions are excluded, and we set $f_{\phi}=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$.
The red shaded region denotes the constraint (\ref{condition}) from the axion decay into photons,
and the blue region is the constraint (\ref{lifetime}) from the invisible decay of axion dark matter.
}
\label{diffuse}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Primordial tensor mode
\label{sec:tensor}}
During inflation the primordial tensor mode, i.e. primordial gravitational waves, are
generated, which contribute to the CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies.
Its amplitude is proportional to the inflation scale $H_{\rm inf}$. The absence
of the primordial tensor mode so far in
the CMB observations by Planck and BICEP2/Keck Array provides an
upper bound on $H_{\rm{inf}}$~\cite{Akrami:2018odb}:
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\rm{inf}}<6.5\times10^{13}\,{\rm GeV}\hspace{10mm}(95\%~\rm{C.L.}).
\label{tensor}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Results
\label{sec:results}}
Combining the above cosmological bounds, we show in Fig.~\ref{para} the viable parameter space on the ($m_\phi$, $H_{\rm{inf}}$) plane
as a white region where the axion explains all dark matter. Here we fix $f_{\phi}=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$ and $T_{\rm{reh}}=10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}$,
and choose an appropriate value of $\Lambda_1$ for each $m_\phi$ and $H_{\rm{inf}}$ to realize
$\Omega_\phi=\Omega_{\rm{DM}}$.
In the lower right gray region, $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$ is smaller than $\theta_{\rm{tr}}$, and the axion dynamics is same as for the
quadratic potential, and the axion abundance is independent of $\Lambda_1$.
On the boundary line, the axion explains all dark matter,
while the axion abundance is smaller than the observed dark matter abundance below the gray line.
The purple and blue shaded regions are excluded by the absence of the tensor and isocurvature perturbations (\ref{tensor}),
(\ref{isoconstrBD3}) and (\ref{isoconstrBD4}), respectively.
The yellow shaded region at the bottom is excluded because of $H_{\rm reh}>H_{\rm inf}.$
The dotted vertical line represents a constraint $m_{\phi}\lesssim80\ {\rm MeV} $, which comes from the invisible axion decay into
hidden photons for $\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}=\alpha_{\rm{EM}}$, while the dashed line represents the constraint $m_{\phi}\lesssim70 \ {\rm keV} $ from the X-ray/$\gamma$-ray diffuse flux for $\alpha_{\phi\gamma\gamma}=\alpha_{\rm{EM}}$.
In the upper left gray region, $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{initial2}) would become larger than unity, and
our approximated potential is no longer justified. The isocurvature bound in this region is calculated assuming $\theta_{\rm{ini}}=1$.
Above the orange solid line, the axion starts to oscillate before the reheating, i.e., $H_{\rm{osc}} > H_{\rm{reh}}$.
The cases for $T_{\rm{reh}} = 10^7$ and $10^{13}$\,GeV are also shown in Fig.~\ref{result}. In the upper panel with $T_{\rm{reh}}=10^7\,{\rm GeV}$,
the red line denotes $H_{\rm{reh}}=H_{\rm{tr}}$. In the right to the red line, the reheating takes place after the oscillation amplitude becomes
smaller than $\phi_{\rm tr}$, $H_{\rm{reh}}\lesssim H_{\rm{tr}}\lesssim H_{\rm{osc}}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{result.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The viable parameter space shown as a white region where $\Omega_{\phi}=\Omega_{\rm{DM}}$. We set $f_{\phi}=10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$, and $T_{\rm{reh}}=10^{10}\,{\rm GeV}$. The lower-right gray line shows $\theta_{\rm{ini}}=\theta_{\rm{tr}}$ below which the axion abundance
falls short of the observed dark matter abundance. The purple and blue regions are the bounds from the absence of
the primordial tensor mode (\ref{tensor}) and the isocurvature perturbation (\ref{isoconstrBD3}) and (\ref{isoconstrBD4}), respectively. The yellow region does not satisfy the condition that the reheating follows the inflation. The dotted vertical line is the constraint from the axion decay into hidden photons for $\alpha_{\phi\gamma'\gamma'}=\alpha_{\rm{EM}}$ and the dashed line is the constraint from the X-ray/$\gamma$-ray diffuse flux for $\alpha_{\phi\gamma\gamma}=\alpha_{\rm{EM}}$. The upper left gray region represents $\theta_{\rm{ini}}\gtrsim1$. The orange solid line is the boundary $H_{\rm{reh}}=H_{\rm{osc}}$. Note that the quadratic case corresponds to the lower right gray region.}
\label{para}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{result2.pdf}\\
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{result3.pdf}
\caption{
Same as Fig.~\ref{para} but for $T_{\rm{reh}}=10^{7}\,{\rm GeV}$ (upper) and $T_{\rm{reh}}=10^{13}\,{\rm GeV}$ (lower).
In the upper panel, the red line denotes $H_{\rm{reh}}=H_{\rm{tr}}$.
}
\label{result}
\end{figure}
As mentioned above, in the quadratic case, a right amount of dark matter can be explained
on the boundary line of the lower right gray region. The allowed region shown as a becomes much larger
in the case of the quartic potential.
This is because, for a given inflation scale, the initial angle $\theta_{\rm{ini}}$ becomes smaller and the axion abundance behaves like
radiation and therefore decreases faster in the quartic case than in the quadratic case.
In particular, the reheating temperature can be as high as $T_{\rm{reh}}\lesssim10^{14}\,{\rm GeV}$.
Thermal leptogenesis works for such a high reheating temperature ~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr}.
For some range of the axion mass, the upper bound on the inflation scale is given by the isocurvature bound,
and so, future CMB observations will be able to probe the corresponding parameter space. In addition, the relatively heavy axion dark matter
with mass $m_\phi\sim10^{-6} - 1\,{\rm GeV}$ can be realized by virtue of the BD distribution. Therefore, if the axion couples to two photons,
next-generation gamma-ray satellites such as AMEGO~\cite{Moiseev:2017mxg, McEnery:2019tcm} and eASTROGAM~\cite{DeAngelis:2017gra}
will improve the bound significantly.
If the axion mainly couples to the hidden photons (or other hidden light particles), on the other hand, the present scenario may be probed
by further observations of the present and late-time universe (cf. Refs.~\cite{Enqvist:2015ara, Enqvist:2019tsa}).
In particular, the decaying dark matter may ameliorate the $H_0$ tension~\cite{Riess:2018byc}.
\section{Delayed onset of oscillations and $\pi$\hspace{-0.2mm}nflation
\label{sec:5}
}
So far we have focused on a case in which the axion mass at the minimum is
suppressed compared to the typical curvature scale of the potential. In this section we consider
another possibility that the axion potential has a plateau region away from the minimum which
delays the onset of oscillation. Such a possibility was extensively studied in the
literature, because coherent oscillations in a potential flatter than the quadratic one leads
to spatial instabilities, formation of non-topological solitons such as
oscillons/I-balls~\cite{Gleiser:1993pt,Copeland:1995fq,Kasuya:2002zs} (see also Refs.~\cite{
McDonald:2001iv,Amin:2010jq,Amin:2011hj,Amin:2013ika,Takeda:2014qma,Kawasaki:2015vga,Lozanov:2016hid,
Hasegawa:2017iay,Antusch:2017flz,Hong:2017ooe,Ibe:2019vyo,Arvanitaki:2019rax} for more details about the
formation and decay processes in various contexts)
and the production of the gravitational waves~\cite{Zhou:2013tsa,Antusch:2016con,Kitajima:2018zco}.
Also, the delayed onset of oscillations enhances the final axion abundance as well as
its isocurvature perturbation (see the footnote~\ref{ftnt}.)
The enhancement of the axion (or ALP) abundance can also be obtained by e.g. the adiabatic conversion between the axion and the QCD axion~\cite{Kitajima:2014xla,Daido:2015bva,Daido:2015cba,Ho:2018qur}.
Here we present a model in which the initial value of the axion is set on the plateau of
the potential in the stochastic axion scenario. If we consider only the dynamics of the light axion,
the inflation scale $H_{\rm inf}$ must be
higher than the height of the plateau, since otherwise the probability distribution of the axion would
be peaked at the potential minimum and it is unlikely to find the axion on the plateau of the potential.
However, if there is another heavy axion field that mixes with the light axion, the probability distribution
of the lighter one can be shifted due to the heavy axion dynamics. Such a phase shift was recently
used to realize a hilltop initial condition for the QCD axion~\cite{Daido:2017wwb,Takahashi:2019pqf}.
(see also Ref.~\cite{Co:2018mho} which uses the stronger QCD in the early Universe~\cite{Dvali:1995ce,Banks:1996ea,Choi:1996fs,Jeong:2013xta}).
Let us introduce another heavy axion field, $\phi_H$, that mixes with the light axion. This is naturally
realized in the axion lanscape. We also assume that the location of the local maxima and minima of
the heavy axion potential is the same as (or very close to) that of a single cosine term.
For instance, this is the case if the heavy axion potential is dominated by a single cosine term, and another
relatively small shift-symmetry breaking term(s) lifts the degeneracy of the vacua. Then, the universe may be
first trapped in a false vacuum, and then tunnels to the adjacent lower vacuum, resulting in a field change by
approximately $2\pi$~\cite{Daido:2017wwb}.
Alternatively, if the heavy axion plays a role of the inflaton, we need at least two cosine terms as long as we consider
decay constants smaller than the Planck mass. Their relative height and phase are chosen so that the second
cosine term makes the potential maximum of the first one sufficiently flat for successful slow-roll inflation to occur.
Then, the field distance between the potential maximum and minimum is given by (a fraction of) $\pi$.
This is due to the requirement of successful hilltop inflation. In either case, by introducing a certain mixing with the
light axion, one can realize a phase shift of $\pi$. In particular, such inflation model that causes the phase shift
of $\pi$ was named $\pi$\hspace{-0.2mm}nflation~\cite{Takahashi:2019pqf}.
To be concrete, let us consider the following potential for the light and
heavy axions,
\begin{align}
V_L(\phi,\theta_H)=\Lambda_1^4\left[1+\cos\left(\frac{\phi}{f_\phi}+ \theta_H \right)\right]+
\Lambda_2^4\left[1-\cos\left(2\left(\frac{\phi}{f_\phi}+\theta_H\right)\right)\right],
\end{align}
where we assume $\Lambda_1^4\simeq 4\Lambda_2^4$ as before, and $\theta_H \equiv \phi_H/f_H$ with $f_H$ being the decay constant is the dimensionless
angle corresponding to the heavy axion. We assume that the heavy axion has its own potential satisfying the
above mentioned property so that $\theta_H$ changes from $0$ during inflation to $\pi$ after inflation.
We also assume that back reaction of $V_L(\phi, \theta_{\rm inf})$ to the heavy axion dynamics is negligibly
small.
During inflation the potential for $\phi$ is well approximated by the quadratic term
around one of the minima, $\phi = \pi f_\phi$,
\begin{align}
V_L(\phi,0)\simeq \frac{1}{2}M_{\phi}^2(\phi - \pi f_\phi)^2~~~~(\phi \sim \pi f_\phi).
\end{align}
where $M_\phi^2\simeq (\Lambda_1^4+4\Lambda_2^4)/f^2_\phi$ is the effective mass during inflation.
We assume $M_\phi \ll H_{\rm inf} \ll \Lambda_1$ and the BD distribution of $\phi$ is reached after a sufficiently long inflation.
The BD distribution of $\phi$ implies that $|\phi - \pi f_\phi|\sim H_{\rm inf}^2/M_\phi$, and it is peaked at $\phi = \pi f_\phi$.
After inflation only the first term of the axion potential $V_L$ receives the phase shift of $\pi$, since the second one remains
the same after the phase shift of $2\pi$. Then, the potential has a plateau around $\phi = \pi f_\phi$, and the minimum
is shifted to the origin. If the typical time scale of the heavy axion dynamics is much shorter than $M_\phi^{-1}$, the
distribution of the light axion remains almost the intact, and it is still peaked at $\phi = \pi f_\phi$. The potential can be
expanded again around $\phi = \pi f_\phi$ which is now the potential maximum,
\begin{align}
V_L(\phi,\pi) \simeq 2\Lambda_1^4-\frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}^2(\phi-\pi f_\phi)^2-\frac{\lambda}{4!}(\phi-\pi f_\phi)^4
+ \cdots~~~~(\phi \sim \pi f_\phi)
\end{align}
On the other hand, the potential at around the minimum, $\phi = 0$, is approximately given by
\begin{align}
V_L(\phi,\pi)\simeq \frac{1}{2}M_{\phi}^2\phi^2 ~~~~(\phi \sim 0).
\end{align}
For simplicity let us assume that the axion is initially in the vicinity of $\phi = \pi f_\phi$ where the potential
is dominated by the (negative) quadratic term, i.e., $|\theta_{\rm ini}-\pi|\ll \theta_{\rm tr}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{transition})
for the definition of $\theta_{\rm tr}$), and that the reheating occurs instantaneously just after inflation,
i.e., $H_{\rm inf} \simeq H_{\rm reh}>H_{\rm osc}$.
Then, one can determine the onset of oscillations from Eq.\,(\refeq{int}),
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm osc}\sim {\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{60}}\theta_{\rm tr}}f_\phi,
\end{equation}
where we have used $c_{\rm osc} = 5$, and
we have neglected the logarithmic contributions from the quadratic terms for simplicity.
One finds that $H_{\rm osc}$ is not sensitive to $\theta_{\rm ini}$, and it is of order $m_\phi$.
After the axion starts to oscillate, the oscillation amplitude becomes smaller due to the cosmic expansion, and
its oscillation frequency is determined by $M_\phi.$ One gets the abundance of the axion by taking $\Lambda_1^4\simeq 4\Lambda_2^4$,
\begin{equation}
\Omega_\phi h^2\sim
0.5 \lrfp{M_\phi}{0.1 {\rm\,eV}}{\frac{1}{4}} \lrfp{f_\phi}{10^6{\rm\,GeV}}{\frac{7}{4}}
\left(\frac{\theta_{\rm tr}}{10^{-7}}\right)^{-3/2}.
\end{equation}
Consequently we get the light axion dark matter with a very small decay constant.
The onset of the oscillation happens at $T\sim 10\,$GeV and the potential height is $\Lambda_1 \simeq 80$\,MeV.
Here the small $\theta_{\rm tr}$ controls the flatness of the plateau near $\phi = \pi f_\phi$, and therefore,
the enhancement of the axion abundance.
To have $\theta_{\rm ini}< \theta_{\rm tr}\sim 10^{-7}$, the Hubble parameter should be smaller than ${\cal O}(1)$MeV.\footnote{Such low-scale inflation and successful reheating can be
realized in the ALP inflation~\cite{Daido:2017wwb, Daido:2017tbr, Takahashi:2019qmh}. }
The isocurvature bound as well as the other constraints can be satisfied.
Interestingly, such a light axion dark matter with $M_\phi \sim 0.01-1\,$eV and $f_\phi\sim 10^6-10^7$\,GeV can be searched
in the IAXO experiment~\cite{Irastorza:2011gs, Armengaud:2014gea, Armengaud:2019uso} or the PTOLEMY experiment~\cite{McKeen:2018xyz, Chacko:2018uke, Betti:2019ouf} if the the axion couples to photons or neutrinos.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied the stochastic axion dark matter in the axion landscape that consists of many axions which generically have mass and kinetic mixings. Because of the various shift symmetry breaking terms as well as mass mixings,
we expect that some of the axion potential and its dynamics may not be captured by the usual analysis based on a single
cosine or a simple quadratic potential. In this paper, therefore, we have considered a possibility that the axion dynamics as well as
its abundance are significantly affected by the deviation from the simple quadratic potential.
First, we have focused on a possibility that one of the light axions is responsible for the observed dark matter. In order to be sufficiently long-lived, the axion mass must be much lighter than the fundamental scale.
This is realized either if there is a flat direction(s) in the landscape along which the typical curvature of the potential is very small,
or if the axion mass happens to be suppressed around the potential minimum. In the latter case, the potential is well approximated by the suppressed quadratic term plus a quartic term. We have carefully studied the axion initial condition determined by the stochastic dynamics and its subsequent evolution after inflation. By taking account of various cosmological bounds, we have delineated the viable parameter region in Figs.~\ref{para} and \ref{result}. We have found that the axion dark matter can be realized for a broad region of the inflation scale and the axion mass; e.g. $H_{\rm inf} = {\cal O}(10^{2-12})$\,GeV
and $m_\phi = 10^{-19} - 1$ GeV for $f_\phi = 10^{16}$\,GeV and $T_{\rm reh} = 10^{10}$\,GeV.
We also discussed a case where the axion potential has a plateau away from the minimum, which
delays the onset of oscillations. In particular we have shown that one can realize the axion probability
distribution peaked at the plateau region by using the phase shift of $\pi$ induced by the heavy axion
dynamics. This is the so-called $\pi$\hspace{-0.2mm}nflation mechanism. Since the axion abundance can be
significantly enhanced in this case, one can explain the observed dark matter density for a very small $f_\phi$,
e.g. $f_\phi = 10^6$\,GeV and the axion mass of ${\cal O}(0.1-1)$\,eV. Such axion dark matter with a small
$f_\phi$ may be probed by the IAXO or PTOLEMY experiments if it has a coupling to photons or neutrinos.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers
JP15H05889 (F.T.), JP15K21733 (F.T.), JP17H02875 (F.T.),
JP17H02878 (F.T.), by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, and by NRF Strategic Research Program NRF-2017R1E1A1A01072736 (W.Y.). One of us (S.N.) acknowledges support from the Graduate Program on Physics for the Universe (GP-PU) at Tohoku University.
\vspace{1cm}
|
\section*{Vector boson coupling}
An open question remains, What is the origin of the three distinct flavor masses of each fermion family? Could the coupling of a boson and a fermion form an Anyon, which could provide a solution to this question? While they have no charge, the neutrinos can acquire a magnetic dipole moment, or other effects such as the anapole moment, if the neutrino has mass. Such effects would permit effective gauge photon interactions.
The simplest Lagrangian to consider is the Yang-Mill Lagrangian of the coupling two spin-1/2 fields ($\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$) of mass $m$ with a spin-1 coupling (with formalism taken from \cite{Griffiths:1987tj}) has the form,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L} &=& \left[i\hbar c \bar{\Psi}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\Psi -m\bar{\Psi}\Psi\right] - \frac{1}{16\pi}\vec{F}^{\mu\nu} \vec{F}_{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\
&&-(f_{12}\bar{\Psi}\gamma^\mu\vec{\tau} \Psi)\cdot \vec{A_\mu}
\label{LagrangianFlavon}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_\mu$ are three massless vector gauge fields, the three-vector notation denotes the particle index and not spatial coordinates, $\tau$ are the Pauli matrices, and $f_{12}$ is a coupling constant of state 1 to 2\footnote{analogous to the electric charge}. Here state 1 and state 2 are said to have the same mass, but are assumed to have different flavors. The three gauge particle fields ($x$,$y$,$z$) are,
\begin{equation}
\vec{F}^{\mu\nu} = \partial^\mu\vec{A}^\nu - \partial^\nu\vec{A}^\mu - \frac{2f_{12}}{\hbar c}\left(\vec{A}^\mu \times \vec{A}^\nu\right),
\end{equation}
with $\Psi$ defined as,
\begin{equation}
\Psi = \begin{bmatrix}\Psi_1\\ \Psi_2 \end{bmatrix}, \bar{\Psi}=\begin{bmatrix} \bar{\Psi}_1 \hspace{2mm} \bar{\Psi}_2 \end{bmatrix} .
\end{equation}
Here the three possible state interactions are,
\begin{equation}
\tau_x \Psi = \begin{bmatrix}
\Psi_2\\\Psi_1
\end{bmatrix},\tau_y \Psi = \begin{bmatrix}
-i\Psi_2\\i\Psi_1
\end{bmatrix},\tau_z \Psi = \begin{bmatrix}
\Psi_1\\-\Psi_2
\end{bmatrix},
\label{currents}
\end{equation}
in which an $x$ interaction will change flavor state 1 to flavor state 2 (F); $y$ will change state 1 to state 2 and provide a switch to the negative energy state (FP); $z$ will provide a switch to the negative energy state for one of the two particles (P).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{{\color{black} Three possible current interactions (x,y,z) assuming state 2 is the Anyon state of a spin-1/2 (solid line) and a spin-1 field (dashed line). Horizontal lines represent the bound state, and the squiggly lines represent the flavor current exchange. Double current exchange of the same type returns states to their original form, akin to the seesaw mechanism.}}
\label{bergevinFigure1}
\end{figure}
These three interaction currents are shown in Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigure1}. Two successive interactions with the same flavon would reproduce the seesaw mechanism for generic small masses. If the interaction points are localised (diabatic), then one only needs to solve for the energy solution of the non-bound and bound states independently.
\section*{Non-flavor changing interactions}
The previous derivation details how the gauge photons interact with spin-1/2 particles at interaction points. An Anyon formed of the free Weyl spinor and spin-1 particle is assumed to be possible even in the absence of an electric charge. This section concentrates on non-flavor varying current $f_{ij}\tau_z\Psi$.
The classical Hamiltonian for a charged particle in an electric field is,
\begin{equation}
H = \sqrt{(\vec{p} - q\vec{A})^2+m ^2}+ q A^0,
\label{ClassicalHamiltonian}
\end{equation}
which is provided for comparison purposes. The neutrino does not have an electric charge ($q A^0\rightarrow 0$) and this formula does not reflect the nature of mass as assumed in this article.
The Lagrangian of Eqn~\ref{LagrangianFlavon} can be rewritten as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L} &=& \left[ \bar{\Psi}\cancel{p}\Psi - \bar{\Psi}f_{ij}\cancel{A}_{k}\cdot\tau^{k} \Psi -m\bar{\Psi}\Psi\right] - \frac{1}{16\pi}\vec{F}^{\mu\nu} \vec{F}_{\mu\nu}.
\label{LagrangianFlavon2}
\end{eqnarray}
For $\tau_z\Psi$ non-flavor changing currents this can be rewritten as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{p}&\rightarrow&\vec{\sigma}\cdot\left(\vec{p}-f_{ij}\vec{A}_{z}\right)\equiv \vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{p'}\\
m&\rightarrow&m + f_{ij} A^0_{z} \equiv m',
\end{eqnarray}
where the three-vector notation now denotes the standard spatial coordinates and ${z}$ the particle index. Replacing ($\vec{p'}$, $m'$) in Eqn.~\ref{Left-Hand-Oscillation}, the Foldy-Wouthuysen transform has the form,
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{z} &=& \eta \sqrt{(\vec{p}-f_{ij}\vec{A_{z}})^2+(m + f_{ij} A^0_{z})^2}\nonumber\\
&\approx& \eta \left({|\vec{p}|-f_{ij}|\vec{A_{z}}|\cos\theta_{\hat{p}\cdot\hat{A}}+\frac{f_{ij}^2\vec{A_{z}}^2+(m + f_{ij} A^0_{z})^2}{2|\vec{p}|}}\right),\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\vec{p}|\gg f_{ij}|\vec{A_{z}}|$. Choosing $\vec{A}$ to be perpendicular\footnote{which may be true on average i.e. $<\cos\theta_{\hat{p}\cdot\hat{A}}>=0$ if angle is not quantized.} to $\vec{p}$ ensures that no charge term remains in the Hamiltonian satisfying the necessary condition for neutrinos. Moreover, defining the electric charge as $q\equiv -\cos\theta_{\hat{p}\cdot\hat{A}}$ allows $(q=0)$ when $\vec{A}$ is perpendicular to $\vec{p}$, $(q=-1)$ when $\vec{A}$ is parallel to $\vec{p}$, and $(q=1)$ when $\vec{A}$ is antiparallel to $\vec{p}$.
In general the total ultrarelativisic Hamiltonian then has the form,
\begin{equation}
H^{z} \approx \eta \left( |\vec{p}| +\frac{m_{z}^2}{2|\vec{p}|}+\dots + q f_{ij} |\vec{A}_{z}| \right),
\end{equation}
which is the updated ultra-relativistic form of Eqn.~\ref{ClassicalHamiltonian}. The neutrino ($q=0$) case the total Hamiltonian has the form,
\begin{equation}
H^{z} \approx \eta \left( |\vec{p}|+\frac{m_{z}^2}{2|\vec{p}|}+\dots\right),
\end{equation}
which is consistent with Eqn.\ref{momentumRelation} with an effective mass term of,
\begin{equation}
m_{z} \equiv \sqrt{ (m + f_{ij} A^0_{z})^2 + |f_{ij}\vec{A_{z}}|^2 }.
\end{equation}
Allowing the extension of a third spin-1/2 state, leads to three possible mass splitting ($f_{12},f_{23},f_{13}$). We consider this the origin of the three-flavor mass of spin-1/2 fermions.
}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{Oscillation picture using diabatic (fast) interactions, denoted by x, with the higgs and flavon boson assumption (diagram adapted from \cite{Murayama}). A ground state neutrino that has undergone a flavon interaction is assumed to be in an excited state, interaction of this excited neutrino with the Higgs boson lead to a different vacuum expectation than the original ground state neutrino which is not proportional to the absorbed energy. }
\label{bergevinFigure2}
\end{figure*}
The three flavor extension then has the form{\color{black},
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{\alpha\beta\gamma}_{FD} \Psi^{\alpha\beta\gamma} = \left(\begin{matrix}
E_{\nu_\alpha}\eta & 0 & 0 \\
0 & E_{\nu_\beta}\eta & 0 \\
0 & 0 & E_{\nu_\gamma}\eta \\
\end{matrix}\right)\Psi^{\alpha\beta\gamma},
\label{Hamiltonian}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}$ are the lepton flavors. This represents a system that conserves flavor for a particle of physical momentum $p$. {\color{black} This is considered the unperturbed Hamiltonian ($H^{\alpha\beta\gamma}_{FD} \equiv H_0$) and the neutrino is considered a standard Dirac neutrino particle.
\section*{Time evolution of flavor states}
The time evolution between quantum states can be derived from the unperturbed Hamiltonian (Eqn.\ref{Hamiltonian}) and the perturbation of the Flavon field (Eqn.~\ref{currents})},}
\begin{equation}
H = H_{0} + H_{1}
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\nu_{l}|H_{0}|\nu_{m}\rangle &=& \delta_{lm} E_{\nu_m} \\
\langle\nu_{l}|H_{1}|\nu_{m}\rangle &=& (1-\delta_{lm}) {\color{black}{f_{lm}}}
\end{eqnarray}
and $l$ or $m$ are flavor numbers ($e$, $\mu$, $\tau$), $E_{\nu_m}$ is the energy of the neutrino of flavor $m$ (Eqn.~\ref{momentumRelation}), and $f_{lm}$ is the energy width of the flavon violating interaction, $\delta_{lm}$ is the Kronecker delta. This set of interactions are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigure2}.}
The flavor{\color{black}-violating} interaction is not assumed to have a time dependent component ($ f_{e\mu}\delta(\vec{x})$). The system energy of an electron-neutrino and a muon-neutrino, assuming that $f_{e\mu}$ is small enough such that the system can be treated in a perturbative way and in the relativistic limit {\color{black} in the Foldy-Wouthuysen representation }, is,
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
p+\frac{m^{2}_{\nu_{e}}}{2p} & f_{e\mu} \\
f_{e\mu }& p+\frac{m^{2}_{\nu_{\mu}}}{2p}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \nu_{e} \\ \nu_\mu
\end{bmatrix} \equiv E_{sys}\begin{bmatrix} \nu_{e} \\ \nu_\mu
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{basis}
\end{equation}
where the perturbation is at least 18 orders of magnitudes smaller than the particle energy. This matrix is rewritten in the form
\begin{equation}
E_{sys} = f_{e\mu} \sigma_x +\Delta E \sigma_z+ {E}_{tot}I,
\end{equation}
where $E_{tot}= p+(m^{2}_{\nu_{e}}/4p)+(m^{2}_{\nu_{\mu}}/4p)$, $\Delta E = (m^{2}_{\nu_{e}}/4p) - (m^{2}_{\nu_{\mu}}/4p) $, $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_z$ are the Pauli matrices, and $I$ is the identity matrix. Here, $E_{sys}$ has the following eigenvalues,\footnote{ $\delta{} \equiv \sqrt{\Delta E^2+ f_{e\mu}^2}$ defined for reading simplicity}
\begin{equation}
E_{\pm}=p+\frac{m_{\nu_e}^2}{4p}+\frac{m_{\nu_\mu}^2}{4p}\pm\delta.
\end{equation}
The relativistic Schr\"odinger equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \left(-\frac{i}{\hbar} E_{sys}\right) \Psi
\end{equation}
where $\Psi$ is the Weyl spinor and has solution $\Psi(t)=U(t)\Psi(0)$, where\footnote{Given two matrices, $A$ and $B$ with $[A,[A,B]] = 0$ and $[B,[A,B]]=0$:
$e^{A+B} = e^Ae^Be^{-\frac{1}{2}[A,B]}$, with $[B,A]=0$ for $A=f_{e\mu}\sigma_x+\Delta E \sigma_z$, and $B=E_{tot}I$\cite{hecht2000quantum}.},
\begin{equation}
U(t)= e^{-i({\color{black}{f_{e\mu}}} \sigma_x +\Delta E \sigma_z)t/\hbar}e^{-i({E}_{tot}I)t/\hbar }=U_{osc}U_{E_{\nu}},
\end{equation}
and the oscillation term can be rewritten in matrix form in the $\nu_{e}$, $\nu_{\mu}$ basis of Eqn. \ref{basis} as,
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{osc} &=&
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos (\delta{}t) - i\frac{\Delta E}{\delta} \sin(\delta{}t) &-i\frac{f_{e\mu}}{\delta} \sin(\delta{}t) \\
-i\frac{f_{e\mu}}{\delta} \sin(\delta{}t) &\cos (\delta{}t) + i\frac{\Delta E}{\delta} \sin(\delta{}t)
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\equiv&
\begin{bmatrix}
\tilde{c}_{e\mu} & \tilde{s}_{e\mu} \\
\tilde{s}_{e\mu} & \tilde{\bar{c}}_{e\mu}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{oscillationDef}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{figure3.png}
\hspace{2mm}
\caption{Performance of the flavon and PNMS model against a selection of electron neutrino and antineutrino experimental data. }
\label{bergevinFigures}
\end{figure*}
The probability that the neutrino has not changed flavor state after a time $t$ becomes,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{ee}\equiv P\left(\nu_e \not\rightarrow \nu_\mu\right)&=&\left|\begin{bmatrix}1\;\; 0 \end{bmatrix}U(t) \begin{bmatrix}
1
\\
0
\end{bmatrix}\right|^2
\end{eqnarray}
The final form of the neutrino oscillation probability is therefore\footnote{As the mass of the neutrino is very small, momentum and the total neutrino energy are used interchangeably in this letter.},
\begin{equation}
P_{ee} = 1
-
\frac
{{\color{black}{f_{e \mu}}}^{2}}
{\left(
\frac{\Delta m_{\nu_{\mu e}}^{2}}{4E_\nu}\right)^{2}+{\color{black}{f_{e \mu}}}^{2}}
\sin^{2}
\left(t\sqrt{
\left(
\frac{
\Delta m_{\nu_{\mu e}}^{2}}{4E_\nu}
\right)^2
+
{\color{black}{f_{e \mu}}}^{2}}
\right).
\label{flavonFormula}
\end{equation}
This formula should be compared to the standard two-neutrino PNMS oscillation formula, which has the form,
\begin{equation}
P_{ee} = 1-\sin^{2}(2\theta_{12})\sin^{2}\left(t\frac{\Delta m_{12}^{2}}{4E_{\nu}}\right).
\label{PNMSFormula}
\end{equation}
Each formulas has the same number of physical constants and as such the flavon model is not more complex than the PNMS model. If one wishes, an energy-dependent mixing angle term for the flavon formula could be define as:
\begin{equation}
\theta_{e\mu}'(E_\nu;\Delta m_{e\mu}^2,f_{e\mu}) = \frac{1}{2}\sin^{-1}\left( \frac{f_{e\mu}^2}{\left(\frac{\Delta m_{e\mu}^2}{4E_\nu}\right)^2+f_{e\mu}^2} \right),
\label{theta}
\end{equation}
leading Eqn. \ref{flavonFormula} to be re-written as,
\begin{equation}
P_{ee} = 1
-
\sin^2(2\theta'_{e\mu})\sin^{2}
\left(t\sqrt{
\left(
\frac{
\Delta m_{\nu_{\mu e}}^{2}}{4E_\nu}
\right)^2
+
f_{e \mu}^{2}}
\right).
\label{flavonFormula2}
\end{equation}
For experiments at very short or very long ranges, the neutrino gains non-standard oscillation properties. At the very short range, Eqn. \ref{flavonFormula} simplifies to ($1-f_{e\mu}^2t^2$). While at very long range and at sufficient energy, Eqn. \ref{flavonFormula} simplifies to $0.5\left(1+(\Delta m_{\alpha\beta}^2/4E_{\nu}f_{\alpha\beta})^2\right)$, leading to low-energy excess that do not follow the expected PNMS oscillation predictions.
\section*{Testing the model}
A global fit using a simple $\Delta\chi^{2}$ method between this model and published experimental data is made in order to study neutrino and antineutrino data across multiple experimental conditions. Generally, oscillations are observed using sources of (anti)neutrinos of a specific flavor (i.e., reactor electron antineutrinos, solar electron neutrinos, beam muon neutrinos) and measuring how neutrinos transform (or do not transform) into other flavors as a function of baseline and energy. This observation is made by either measuring how many neutrinos are lost---in the case of a disappearance experiment---or how many neutrinos of a different flavor are created---in the case of an appearance experiment.
It is assumed as a first order approximation that the extension to the three neutrino survival probability for an electron neutrino is simply{\color{black}:
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{ee} &=& |\langle e | R_x(\delta_{\mu\tau}'t)R_y(\delta_{e\tau}'t)R_z(\delta_{e\mu}'t) |e\rangle |^2\\
P_{ee} &\approx& |\langle e|\tilde{c}_{e\mu}\tilde{c}_{e\tau}|e\rangle|^2= P^{2D}_{\nu_e\not\rightarrow \nu_\mu} P^{2D}_{\nu_e\not\rightarrow\nu_\tau}\label{pmue}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_i(\delta'_{ij}t)$ is the rotation along the flavor axis $i$, and $\tilde{c}_{e\mu}$ are from Eq.~\ref{oscillationDef}. We note that $R_x R_y R_z \neq R_y R_x R_z$ and as such the oscillation formula is only approximately correct for the disappearance experiments relevant to this paper.}
The top row of Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigures} shows the rate of reactor antineutrino disappearance\footnote{averaged over reactor energy spectra} as a function of distance from creation\footnote{Values above 750 km are averaged over remaining baseline due to numerical computation issues.}. The central values for the antineutrino parameters are displayed in this and each other sub figure for the flavon model. The short-baseline and Double Chooz data \cite{PhysRevD.83.073006,PhysRevLett.108.131801}, the Daya Bay \cite{PhysRevD.95.072006} results were adjusted for recent flux results including a 3\% upward shift. We note that the change in average disappearance value between the Daya Bay near detectors and far detector is consistent with the oscillation parameters of KamLand and is the result of the non-standard oscillation behavior of the flavon model at short baseline. In the PNMS model a third neutrino is needed to explain this deficit, which in turn require a fourth neutrino to explain the short-baseline anomaly. There is no need to extend the number of neutrinos for the case of the 3-neutrino flavon model.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{The $\Delta\chi^{2}$ map of the reactor antineutrino best fit from Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigures}. The $\Delta \chi^{2}$ for a parameter of interest is obtained by fixing the value of the best fit {\color{black} of} the three other nuisance parameters.}
\label{bergevinFigure4}
\end{figure*}
The second row of Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigures} shows the spectral oscillations in the electron to tau neutrino conversion. Oscillations at PROSPECT \cite{PhysRevLett.121.251802} were evaluated using the publicly available detector response matrix. The probability prediction are further corrected by normalising to unity. Oscillation at NEOS \cite{PhysRevLett.118.121802} were evaluated using the data ratio NEOS/Daya Bay is presented including the best fit parameter for sterile neutrinos. Oscillations at Daya Bay for the two near detectors (EH1 and EH2) site are compared to data from \cite{PhysRevD.95.072006} assuming a detector resolution of 7\%/$\sqrt{E}$ and accounting for respectively thirty-six and forty-eight reactor-detector baselines over two data taking period. Data ratios were performed in order to remove uncertainties on flux and cross-section models and background were subtracted according to the best fit values prior to taking the data ratio.
The third row of Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigures} shows the spectral oscillation in the electron to muon conversion. Oscillations at Daya Bay using the far hall and the near hall (EH3 and EH2) are again used to remove uncertainties on flux and cross sections. The spectral feature at 5.5-6.0 MeV is due to detector resolution effects. Oscillations at KamLand were compared to data from \cite{PhysRevD.88.033001}, where we assumed an energy resolution of 7\%/$\sqrt{E}$. The oscillation probability was evaluated based on published power information for five reactor sites\footnote{Kashiwazaki, Ohi, Takahama, Hamaoka, and Tsuruga.}. The $^{210}$Po, accidentals and geoneutrinos were removed in the background-subtracted data for the first phase of \cite{PhysRevD.88.033001}. The last figure shows the oscillation from solar neutrinos and how the flavon antineutrino-parameters {\color{black}(dotted black line)} do not fit the solar data well, but a set of two different flavon {\color{black} perturbations} fits the data including the SAGE-GALLEX point. {\color{black} The MSW-LSA effect as illustrated in the red band is not considered in the flavon model, nonetheless the MSW behavior is reproduced by the flavon model, as is demonstrated by the agreement of the red band and green line. This is} due to the non-standard oscillation behavior at long baseline.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figure5.png}
\caption{Preliminary {\color{black} fit} results for {\color{black} the LSND and MiniBoone experimental data with a common flavon perturbation $f_{\mu\tau}$, with other parameters fixed. }}
\label{bergevinFigure3}
\end{figure*}
In all cases, the flavon fit results are largely consistent with the PNMS results. Disagreements can be observed in a region below 2 MeV for some experiments, such as in the NEOS experiment, KamLand, and the far Daya Bay results. It should be noted that a variety of backgrounds populate the energy region below 2 MeV, and more precise treatment should be performed in lieu of the background subtraction method used in this article. {\color{black} Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigure4} shows the global fit results for the antineutrino experiments considered. The global best set of fit values is shown on each plot of Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigures}.
Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigure3} shows experimental data in the beam sector that are considered anomalous in the PNMS model but fit well the flavon model for perturbation energies and mass square difference found in the solar and reactor antineutrino sectors. This data is considered anomalous as there should be no signal observed in this energy range. At LSND for the mode $\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_{e}$ good fits are observed when the perturbation from the Solar data is used. For MiniBoone, fit results are sensible for ${\nu}_\mu\rightarrow{\nu}_{e}$ when using the reactor flavor $f_{e\mu}$ perturbation. Reasons for the order of such transitions order is not yet understood. The flavon prediction with the solar $f_{e\mu}$ is not in agreement with the $\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_{e}$ expectation (not shown here) for MiniBoone.}
We show hints that left-handed neutrino and right-handed antineutrinos oscillate differently as the antineutrino parameters cannot reproduce the solar data, but a set of different parameters can. This, in turn, implies CP violation, which is one of three of the Sakharov conditions proposed to explain why our universe is dominated by matter. Since the neutrino data considered here consists of only four experimental measurements, no official CP-violation claim can be made.
\section*{Conclusions and Potential Impact}
In this letter a new oscillation model is proposed (Eqn. \ref{flavonFormula}) as a replacement to the PNMS formalism (Eqn. \ref{PNMSFormula}). This model recreates oscillation features measured in previous experiments using a simple $\Delta\chi^2$ method. However, more sophisticated fitting techniques and new oscillation data would be required to better test this model. Of particular interest are the accelerator and atmospheric neutrino sectors where preliminary agreements are observed (Fig.\ref{bergevinFigure3}). A follow-up paper will discuss the sensitivity of future planned experiments to this model and explore detector observable effects in beam-line experiments. It should be already noted from Fig.~\ref{bergevinFigures} (top) that the AIT{\color{black}-NEO} and JUNO experiments will be sensitive to this model as they will be respectively at an oscillation minimum and maximum and will further constrain and confirm $f_{e\mu}$ and $\Delta m^{2}_{e\mu}$, current results as shown in Figure \ref{bergevinFigure4}.
Further studies of the possible implications to the non-proliferation neutrino community are being investigated. As the oscillation patterns are more complex than in the standard PNMS model, one can potentially imagine leveraging the observed neutrino spectra for multiple purposes---either to make more confident pronouncements as to whether a reactor complex is complying with declared operations or to verify compliance with future treaties to verify the absence of undeclared reactors via observed changes in the energy spectra.
Neutrinos and antineutrinos are found to oscillate with different strengths in the flavon model between the solar and reactor sector, this implies charge-parity violation for neutrinos. This is a key requirement of the Sakharov conditions, which are necessary for understanding the matter-antimatter imbalance observed in our universe.
For some time, the physics community has {\color{black} operated under the premise that charged and neutral leptons have different underlying properties. Charged leptons are produced in weak interactions as single mass states, and neutral leptons are produced as superpositions of mass states}. At the price of assuming a simple interaction with a dark matter field, and a straightforward re-casting of the equations governing neutrino oscillations to include an energy-dependent term, this letter presents a model for oscillations with a single valued mass for each neutrino flavor{\color{black}, consistent with the charged lepton picture}. This model agrees with a diverse set of experimental results, as well as, or better than, the prevailing PNMS model.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Bernie Nickel for his advice when the author was developing a similar oscillation model for the neutron. The author would like to thank Baha Balantekin, Adam Bernstein, Nathaniel Bowden, Steven Dazeley, Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, Christopher Grant, Viacheslav Li, and Michael Mendenhall for discussions related to certain aspects of this work. The author is appreciative to the DAYA BAY and PROSPECT collaborations for publishing their data online. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344, LLNL-JRNL-772746.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{spphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
The widespread growth of electronic health records (EHRs) has generated vast amounts of clinical data. Normally, an encounter-based patient EHR is longitudinal and contains clinical notes, diagnosis codes, medications, laboratory tests and vital signs, etc., which can be represented as multivariate time series (MTS). As a consequence, EHRs contain valuable information about the clinical observations depicting both patients’ health and care provided by physicians.
However, the longitudinal and heterogeneous data sources make EHR analysis difficult from a computational perspective. In addition, the EHRs are often subject to a lack of completeness, implying that the MTS extracted from EHRs often contain massive \textit{missing data}~\cite{sharafoddini2019new}.
Missing data might, however, occur for different reasons. It could be that the physician orders lab tests, but because of an error some results are not recorded. On the other hand, it can also happen that the physician decides to not order lab tests because he thinks the patient is in good shape. In the first case, the missingness is ignorable, whereas in the latter case, the missing values and patterns potentially can contain rich information about the patient's diseases and clinical outcomes. Efficient data-driven systems aiming to extract knowledge, perform predictive modeling, etc., must be capable of capturing this information.
Traditionally, missingness mechanisms have been divided into missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) and missing not at random (MNAR). The main difference between these mechanisms consists in whether the missingness is ignorable (MCAR and MAR) or non-ignorable (MNAR)~\cite{donders2006review,rubin1976inference}.
This traditional description of missingness mechanisms is, however, not always sufficient in medical applications as the missing patterns might be correlated with additional variables, such as e.g. a disease. This means that the distribution of the missing patterns for patients with a particular disease might be different than the corresponding distribution for patients without the disease, i.e. the missingness is informative~\cite{ghorbani2018embedding,wells2013strategies}.
Several methods have been proposed to handle missing data in MTS~\cite{little2014statistical,schafer2002missing}. A simple approach is to create a complete dataset by discarding the MTS with missing data. Alternatively, one can do simple imputation of the missing values, e.g. using the last observation carried forward scheme (impute the last non-missing value for the following missing values)~\cite{shao2003last}, zero-value imputation (replace missing values with zeros) or mean-value imputation (missing values are replaced with the mean of the observed data)~\cite{zhang2016missing}.
A common limitation of these approaches is that they lead to additional bias, loss of precision, and they ignore uncertainty associated with the missing values~\cite{donders2006review}.
This problem is to some extent solved via multiple imputation methods, i.e. by creating multiple complete datasets using single imputation independently each time. Then, by training a classifier using an ensemble learning strategy, one can improve the performance compared to simple imputation. However, this imputation procedure is an ad-hoc solution as it is performed independently of the rest of the analysis and it ignores the potential predictive value of the missing patterns~\cite{MA2018297}.
Due to the limitations of imputation methods, several research efforts have been devoted over the last years to deal with missing data in MTS using alternative strategies~\cite{8489716,bianchi2019learning,DBLP:journals/corr/ChePCSL16,Ghassemi,li2019vs,pmlr-v56-Lipton16,mikalsen2016learning,shukla2018interpolation}. Prominent examples are kernels, i.e. positive semi-definite time series similarity measures, such as the \textit{learned pattern similarity} (LPS)~\cite{baydogan2016time} and the \textit{time series cluster kernel} (TCK)~\cite{mikalsen2018time} that can naturally deal with missing data.
The former generalizes autoregressive models to local autopatterns, which capture the local dependency structure in the time series, and uses an ensemble learning (random forest) strategy in which a bag-of-words representation is created from the output of the leaf-nodes for each tree.
TCK is also based on an ensemble learning approach and shares many properties with LPS. It is designed using an ensemble learning approach in which Bayesian mixture models form the base models.
However, while LPS exploits the inherent missing data handling abilities of decision trees, TCK is a likelihood-based approach in which the incomplete dataset is analysed using maximum a posteriori expectation-maximization.
An advantage of these methods, compared to e.g. multiple imputation that requires a careful selection of imputation model and parameters~\cite{schafer2002missing}, is that the missing data are handled automatically and no additional tasks are left to the designer. Additionally, since the methods are based on ensemble learning, they are robust to hyperparameter choices. In particular, these properties are important in unsupervised settings, which frequently occur in medical applications where manual label annotation of large datasets often is not feasible~\cite{Halpernocw011,MIKALSEN2017105}.
A shortcoming of these kernel methods is, however, that they cannot exploit informative missing patterns, which frequently occur in medical MTS, and unbiased predictions are only guaranteed for ignorable missingness as MAR is an underlying assumption.
Recently, several studies have focused on modeling the informative or nonignorable missigness by analyzing the observed values as well as the indicators of missingness, concluding that the missing patterns can add more insights beyond the observed values~\cite{agniel2018biases,DBLP:journals/corr/ChePCSL16,pmlr-v56-Lipton16,sharafoddini2019new}.
In this work, we present a novel time series cluster kernel, TCK$_{IM}$, that also represents the missing patterns using binary indicator time series. By doing so, we obtain MTS consisting of both continuous and discrete attributes. However, we do not only concatenate the binary MTS to the real-valued MTS and analyse these data in a naive way. Instead, we take a statistically principled Bayesian approach~\cite{little2014statistical,MA2018297} and model the missingness mechanism more rigorously by introducing novel mixed mode Bayesian mixture models, which can effectively exploit information provided by the missing patterns as well as the temporal dependencies in the observed MTS. The mixed mode Bayesian mixture models are then used as base models in an ensemble learning strategy to form the TCK$_{IM}$ kernel. Experiments on three real-world datasets of patients described by longitudinal EHR data, demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
\section{Time series cluster kernel to exploit informative missingness}
\label{Sec:TCK_IM}
Here we present the proposed TCK$_{IM}$ kernel. The kernel is learned using an ensemble learning strategy, i.e. by training individual base models which are combined into a composite kernel in the end.
As base model we introduce a novel mixed mode Bayesian mixture model. Before we provide the details of this method, we describe the notation used throughout the paper.
\textbf{Notation} We define a multivariate time series (MTS) $X$ as a finite combination of univariate time series (UTS) $x_v$ of length $T$, i.e.
$
X = \{ x_v \in \mathbb{R}^T \: | \: v = 1,2,\dots,V\}.
$
The dimensionality of the MTS $X$ is the same as the number of UTS, $V$, and the length of $X$ is the same as the length $T$ of the UTS $x_v$. A $V$--dimensional MTS, $X$, of length $T$ can be represented as a matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{V \times T}$. Given a dataset of $N$ MTS, we denote $X^{(n)}$ as the $n$-th MTS.
In a dataset of $N$ incompletely observed MTS, the $n$-th MTS is denoted by the pair $U^{(n)} = (X^{(n)}, R^{(n)})$, where $R^{(n)}$ is a binary MTS
with entry $r_v^{(n)}(t) = 0$ if the realization $x_v^{(n)}(t)$ is missing and $r_v^{(n)}(t) = 1$ if it is observed.
\paragraph{Mixed mode Bayesian mixture model}
Let $ U = (X, R)$ be a MTS generated from two modes, where $X$ is a V-variate real-valued MTS ($ X \in \mathbb{R}^{V \times T}$) and $R$ is a V-variate binary MTS ($ R \in \{0,1\}^{V \times T}$). In the mixture model it is assumed that $U$ is generated from a finite mixture density
\begin{equation}
\textstyle
p_u(U \: | \: \Phi, \Theta ) = \sum_{g=1}^G \theta_g p_{u_g}( U \: | \: \phi_g),
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the number of components,
$p_{u_g}$ is the density of the components parametrized by $\Phi = (\phi_1, \dots, \phi_G)$,
and $\Theta = (\theta_1, \dots, \theta_G) $ are the mixing coefficients, $0 \leq \theta_g \leq 1$ and $ \sum_{g=1}^G \theta_g = 1$.
We formulate the mixture model in terms of a latent random variable $ Z $, described via the one-hot vector $Z = (Z_1,\dots,Z_G)$ with marginal distribution given by
$
p_z(Z \: | \: \Theta ) = \prod_{g=1}^G \theta_g^{Z_g}.
$
The latent variable $Z$ describes which cluster component the MTS $U$ belongs to, i.e. $Z_g = 1$ if $U$ belongs to cluster component $g$ and $Z_g = 0 $ otherwise.
The conditional is given by
$
p_{u|z}(U \: | Z, \: \Phi) = \prod_{g=1}^G p_{u_g}( U \: | \: \phi_g)^{Z_g},
$
and therefore it follows that the joint distribution is given by
\begin{align}
p_{u,z}(U, Z \: | \: \Phi, \Theta)
=p_{u|z}(U \: | Z, \: \Phi) p_z(Z \: | \: \Theta ) \nonumber \\
= \textstyle \prod_{g=1}^G\left[ p_{u_g}(U \: | \: \phi_g) \theta_g \right]^{Z_g}.
\end{align}
We further assume that the parameters of each component are given by $\phi_g = (\mu_g, \Sigma_g, \beta_g) $ and
\begin{equation}
p_{u_g}(U \: | \: \phi_g) = p_{x|r}(X \: | \: R, \mu_g, \Sigma_g ) p_r( R \: | \: \beta_g),
\end{equation}
where
$ p_{x|r} $ is a density function given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq: diag gmm density}
\small
\textstyle
p_{x|r}(X \: | \: R, \mu_g, \Sigma_g ) = \prod_{v=1}^V \prod_{t=1}^T \mathcal{N} (x_v(t) \: | \: \mu_{gv}(t), \sigma_{gv})^{r_v(t) },
\end{equation}
where $\mu_g = \{ \mu_{gv} \in \mathbb{R}^T \: | \: v = 1,...,V\}$ is a time-dependent mean, and
$\Sigma_g = diag\{\sigma_{g1}^2,...,\sigma_{gV}^2\}$ is
a diagonal covariance matrix in which $\sigma_{gv}^2$ is the variance of attribute $v$. Hence, the covariance is assumed to be constant over time.
$p_r $ is a probability mass given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq: BMM prob mass}
\textstyle
p_r( R \: | \: \beta_g) = \prod_{v=1}^V \prod_{t=1}^T \beta_{gvt}^{r_v(t)} (1 - \beta_{gvt})^{1-r_v(t)},
\end{equation}
where $\beta_{gvt} \in [0,1]$. The idea with this formulation is to use the Bernoulli term $p_r $ to capture information from the missing patterns and $ p_{x|r} $ to capture the information from the observed data.
Using Bayes' theorem we compute the conditional probability of $Z$ given $U$, $ P(Z_g = 1 | U, \Phi, \Theta ) $,
\begin{align} \label{eq: p(z|x) posterior}
\pi_{g}
= \frac{\theta_g p_{x|r}(X | R, \mu_g, \Sigma_g) p_r( R | \beta_g) }{\sum_{g=1}^G \theta_g p_{x|r}(X | R, \mu_g, \Sigma_g) p_r( R | \beta_g)}.
\end{align}
To improve the capability of handling missing data, a Bayesian extension is introduced where informative priors are put over the parameters of the normal distribution as well as the Bernoulli distribution. This enforces that the cluster representatives become smooth over time even in the presence of large amounts of missing data and that the parameters of clusters with few MTS are similar to the overall mean. Towards this end, a kernel-based Gaussian prior is defined for the mean,
\begin{equation} \label{eq: mu}
p_{\mu}(\mu_{gv}) = \mathcal{N} \left(\mu_{gv} \: | \: m_{v}, \: S_{v}\right),
\end{equation}
where $m_{v}$ are the empirical means and $
S_{v} = s_{v} \mathcal{K},
$
are the prior covariance matrices.
$s_{v}$ are empirical standard deviations and $\mathcal{K}$ is a kernel matrix, whose elements are
$
\mathcal{K}_{tt'} = b_0 \exp (-a_0(t-t')^2), \quad t, \, t' = 1,\dots,T,
$
with $a_0$, $b_0$ being user-defined hyperparameters. For the standard deviation $\sigma_{gv}$, an inverse Gamma distribution prior is introduced
\begin{align} \label{eq: sigma}
p_{\sigma}(\sigma_{gv}) \propto \sigma_{gv}^{-N_0} e^{- N_0 s_v/2 \sigma_{gv}^2 },
\end{align}
where $N_0$ is a hyperparameter. Further, we put a Beta distribution prior on $\beta_{gvt}$
\begin{equation} \label{eq: beta}
p_{\beta}(\beta_{gvt}) \propto \beta_{gvt}^{c_0 - 1} (1- \beta_{gvt})^{d_0 - 1}.
\end{equation}
where $ c_0 $, $d_0$ are hyperparameters.
We let $\Omega = \{ a_0, b_0, c_0, d_0, N_0\}$ denote the set all of hyperparameters.
Given a dataset $\{U^{(n)}\}_{n=1}^N$, we estimate the parameters $\{ \Phi, \Theta \}$ using maximum a posteriori expectation maximization (MAP-EM)~\cite{dempster1977maximum}.
The Q-function is computed as follows
\small{
\begin{align} \label{eq: Q}
Q &= \mathbb{E}_{Z \: | \: U, \: \Theta, \: \Phi } \left[ \log \left( p_{u, z}(U, Z \: | \: \Phi, \Theta) p(\Phi) \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&= \log p(\Phi) + \textstyle \sum_{n, g} \log [p_{u}(U^{(n)} | Z^{(n)}_g = 1, \Phi) p(Z^{(n)}_g | \Theta ) ] \pi_{g}^{(n)} \nonumber \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{g} \log \left( p_{\mu}(\mu_{g}) p_{\sigma}(\sigma_{g}) p_{\beta} (\beta_{g}) \right) \nonumber \\
&\quad + \textstyle \sum_{n, g} \log \big[ p_{x | r}(X^{(n)} | R^{(n)}, \mu_g, \Sigma_g) p_r( R^{(n)} | \beta_g) \theta_g \big] \pi_{g}^{(n)},
\end{align}
}
\normalsize
where $p_{x|r}$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{eq: diag gmm density}, $p_r$ by Eq.~\eqref{eq: BMM prob mass}, $p_{\mu}$ by Eq.~\eqref{eq: mu}, $p_{\sigma}$ by Eq.~\eqref{eq: sigma} and $p_{\beta}$ by Eq.~\eqref{eq: beta}.
The E-step in MAP-EM is the same as in maximum likelihood EM and consists in updating the posterior (Eq.~\eqref{eq: p(z|x) posterior}) using the current parameter estimates, whereas the M-step consists in maximizing the Q-function (Eq.~\eqref{eq: Q} wrt. the parameters $\{ \Phi, \Theta \}$.
I.e.,
\begin{equation}
\small
\{ \Phi^{(m+1)}, \Theta^{(m+1)} \} = \arg \max_{\{ \Phi, \Theta \}} Q( \Phi, \Theta \: | \: \Phi^{(m)}, \Theta^{(m)}
\end{equation}
Computing the derivatives of $Q$ with respect to the parameters $ \theta_g $, $ \mu_g $, $\sigma_g$ and $\beta_g$ leads to
Alg. \ref{alg:algorithm 2}.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\small
\caption{MAP-EM for Bayesian mixture model}
\label{alg:algorithm 2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Dataset $\{U^{(n)} = (X^{(n)}, R^{(n)} ) \}_{n=1}^N$, hyperparameters $\Omega$ and number of mixtures $G$.
\State Initialize the parameters $\Theta^{(0)} = (\theta_1^{(0)} , \dots, \theta_G^{(0)} ) $ and $\Phi^{(0)} = \{\mu_g^{(0)} , \sigma_g^{(0)} , \beta_g^{(0)} \}_ {g=1}^G$.
\State E-step. For each MTS, evaluate the posteriors $\pi_{g}^{(n)} $ using Eq.~\eqref{eq: p(z|x) posterior} with current parameters $\Phi^{(m)}, \Theta^{(m)}$.
\State M-step. Update parameters using the current posteriors
\begin{align*}
\textstyle
\theta_g^{(m+1)} &= N^{-1} \textstyle \sum_{n=1}^{N} \pi_{g}^{(n)}
\\
{\sigma_{gv}^2}^{(m+1)} &=
\frac{N_0 s^2_{v} + \sum\limits_{n, t=1}^{N, T} r^{(n)}_v(t) \; \pi^{(n)}_{g} \big(x^{(n)}_v(t) - \mu_{gv}(t)\big)^2}{N_0 + \sum_{n, t=1}^{N, T} r^{(n)}_v(t) \; \pi_{g}^{(n)}}
\\
\mu_{gv}^{(m+1)} &=
\frac{S^{-1}_{v} m_{v} + \sigma^{-2}_{gv} \textstyle \sum_{n=1}^N \pi^{(n)}_{g} \text{diag}(r^{(n)}_{v} ) \: x^{(n)}_v}{S^{-1}_{v} + \sigma^{-2}_{gv} \textstyle \sum_{n=1}^N \pi^{(n)}_{g} \text{diag}(r^{(n)}_{v})}
\\
\beta_{gv}^{(m+1)} &=
\frac{c_0 - 1 + \textstyle \sum_{n=1}^{N} \pi_{g}^{(n)} r^{(n)}_v}{c_0 + d_0 -2 + \textstyle \sum_{n=1}^{N} \pi_{g}^{(n)}}
\end{align*}
\State Repeat step 2-3 until convergence.
\Ensure Posteriors $ \Pi^{(n)} \equiv ( \pi_1^{(n)},..,\pi_G^{(n)}) $ and parameters $\Theta$, $\Phi$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{The TCK$_{IM}$ kernel}
To compute the TCK$_{IM}$ kernel, we use the mixed mode Bayesian mixture model, described above, as the base model in an ensemble approach.
Key to ensure that TCK$_{IM}$ will have statistical advantages (lower variance), computational advantages (less sensitive to local optima) as well as representational advantages (increased expressiveness) compared to the individual base models, is \emph{diversity} and \emph{accuracy}~\cite{Dietterich2000,hansen1990neural}. In general, this means that the base models should not do the same type of errors and each base model has to perform better than random guessing. Hence, to ensure diversity, we integrate multiple outcomes of the base model as it is trained under different, randomly chosen, settings (hyperparameters, initialization, subsampling).
In more detail, the number of cluster components for the base models is sampled from a set of integers $ \mathcal{I}_C = \{I,\dots, I+C\}$. For each number of cluster components $q_2 \in \mathcal{I}_C $, we apply $Q$ different random initial conditions and sample hyperparameters uniformly as follows: $a_0 \in [0.001, 1]$, $b_0 \in [0.005, 0.2]$, $n_0 \in [0.001, 0.2]$, $c_0, d_0 \in [ 0.1/N, 2/N]$. We let $\mathcal{Q} = \{ q = (q_1,q_2) \: | \: q_1=1,\dots Q, \: q_2 \in \mathcal{I}_C \} $ be the index set keeping track of initial conditions and hyperparameters ($q_1$) as well as the number of components ($q_2$).
Each base model $q$ is trained on a random subset of MTS $\{(X^{(n)}, R^{(n)} ) \}_{n \in \eta(q)}$. To further increase the diversity, for each $q$, we select random subsets of variables $\mathcal{V}(q)$ as well as random time segments $\mathcal{T}(q)$.
After having trained the individual base models using an embarrasingly parallel procedure, we compute a normalized sum of the inner products of the normalized posterior distributions from each mixture component to build the TCK$_{IM}$ kernel matrix.
Details of the method are presented in Alg.~\ref{alg:algorithm}, whereas Alg.~\ref{alg:algorithm out of sample} describes how to compute the kernel for MTS not seen during training.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\small
\caption{TCK$_{IM}$. Training phase.}
\label{alg:algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Training set of MTS $\{(X^{(n)}, R^{(n)} ) \}_{n=1}^N$ , $Q$ initializations, set of integers $\mathcal{I}_C $.
\State Initialize kernel matrix $K = 0_{N \times N} $.
\For{$q \in \mathcal{Q}$}
\State Compute posteriors $ \Pi^{(n)}(q) \equiv ( \pi_1^{(n)},\dots,\pi_{q_2}^{(n)} )^T $, by fitting a mixed mode mixture model with $q_2$ clusters to the dataset and by randomly selecting:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i.] hyperparameters $\Omega(q)
\item[ii.] a time segment $ \mathcal{T}(q) $
to extract from each $X^{(n)}$ and $R^{(n)}$,
\item[iv.] a subset of attributes $\mathcal{V}(q)$
to extract from $X^{(n)}$ and $R^{(n)}$,
\item[vi.] a subset of MTS, $\eta(q) $.
\item[vii.] initialization of the mixture parameters $ \Theta(q) $ and $\Phi(q)$.
\end{itemize}
\State Update $K_{nm} = K_{nm} + \frac{\Pi^{(n)}(q)^T \Pi^{(m)}(q)}{ \| \Pi^{(n)}(q) \| \cdot \| \Pi^{(m)}(q) \| } $.
\EndFor
\Ensure $K$ kernel matrix, time segments $\mathcal{T}(q) $, subsets of attributes $\mathcal{V}(q)$, subsets of MTS $\eta(q)$, parameters $ \Theta(q)$, $\Phi(q)$ and posteriors $\Pi^{(n)}(q) $.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\small
\caption{TCK$_{IM}$. Test phase.}
\label{alg:algorithm out of sample}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require Test set $\big \{ X^{*(m)} \big \}_{m=1}^M$, time segments $\mathcal{T}(q) $ subsets $\mathcal{V}(q)$ and $\eta(q)$, parameters $ \Theta(q)$, $\Phi(q)$ and posteriors $\Pi^{(n)}(q) $.
\State Initialize kernel matrix $K^* = 0_{N \times M} $.
\For{$q \in \mathcal{Q}$}
\State Compute posteriors $\Pi^{*(m)}(q) $, $m=1,\dots,M$ using the mixture parameters $ \Theta(q)$, $\Phi(q)$.
\State Update $K^*_{nm} = K^*_{nm} + \frac{\Pi^{(n)}(q)^T \Pi^{*(m)}(q)}{ \| \Pi^{(n)}(q) \| \cdot \| \Pi^{*(m)}(q) \| } $.
\EndFor
\Ensure $K^*$ test kernel matrix.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec: experiments}
To test the performance of the proposed kernel, we considered three clinical datasets of which the characteristics are summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab: char datasets}. The variables and the corresponding missing rates in the three datasets are summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab: blood names}. A more detailed description of the datasets follows below.
\begin{table}
\centering
{\caption{Description of the three real-world clinical datasets.}\label{tab: char datasets}}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|@{\:\:}l@{\:}l@{\:}l@{}}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{PhysioNet} & \textbf{SSI}& \textbf{AL}\\
\hline
\# of patients & 4000 & 858 & 402 \\
\# attrib (Lab, vital) & 28 (17, 11) & 11 (11, 0) & 11 (7, 4) \\
Length of MTS & 48 (hours) & 10 (days) & 15 (days) \\
Positive class & 874 (21.9\%) & 227 (26.5\%) & 31 (7.7\%) \\
Av. missing rate & 76.6 \% & 80.7\% & 83\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
{\caption{List of variables and corresponding missing rates.}\label{tab: blood names}}
\small
\begin{tabular}{l|lll}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Variables} \textbf{(missing rate) }}\\
\hline
Phys & Albumin (0.99) & ALP (0.98) & AST (0.98) \\
& Bilirubin (0.98)
& BUN (0.93) & Creat. (0.93) \\
& Diast. BP (0.11) & FiO2 (0.84) & GCS (0.68) \\
& Glucose (0.93) & HCO3 (0.93) & HCT (0.91) \\
& HR (0.10) & K (0.93) & Lactate (0.96) \\
& MAP (0.12) & Mg (0.93) & Na (0.93) \\
& PaCO2 (0.88) & PaO2 (0.88) & Platelets (0.93) \\
& RespRate (0.76) & SaO2 (0.96) & Syst. BP (0.11) \\
& Temp (0.63) & Urine (0.31) &WBC (0.93) \\
& pH (0.88) & & \\
\hline
SSI & Albumin (0.79) & Amylase (0.95) & Creat. (0.87) \\
& CRP (0.69) & Glucose (0.92) & Hb (0.65) \\
& K (0.71)
& Na (0.71) & Platelets (0.92) \\
& Urea (0.94) & WBC (0.73) & \\
\hline
AL & Albumin (0.80) & Creat. (0.94) & CRP (0.77)\\
& Diast. BP (0.76)
& Hb (0.71) & HR (0.76) \\
& K (0.75)
& Na (0.75) & Syst. BP (0.76) \\
& Temp (0.66) & WBC (0.80) & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\if{
\begin{table*}[tb]
\centering
\caption{List of variables and their corresponding missing rates.}
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\:\:}|@{\:\:}l@{\:\:\:}l@{\:\:}l@{\:\:\:}l@{\:\:\:}l@{\:\:\:}l@{}}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Variables} \textbf{(missing rate) }}\\
\hline
Phys & Albumin (0.99) & ALP (0.98) & AST (0.98) & Bilirubin (0.98)
& BUN (0.93) & Creat. (0.93) \\
& Diast. BP (0.11) & FiO2 (0.84)
& GCS (0.68) & Glucose (0.93) & HCO3 (0.93) & HCT (0.91) \\
& HR (0.10) & K (0.93) & Lactate (0.96) & MAP (0.12)
& Mg (0.93) & Na (0.93) \\
& PaCO2 (0.88) & PaO2 (0.88)
& Platelets (0.93) & RespRate (0.76) & SaO2 (0.96) & Syst. BP (0.11) \\
& Temp (0.63) & Urine (0.31) &WBC (0.93) & pH (0.88) & & \\
\hline
SSI & Albumin (0.79) & Amylase (0.95) & Creat. (0.87)
& CRP (0.69) & Glucose (0.92) & Hb (0.65) \\
& K (0.71) & Na (0.71) & Platelets (0.92) & Urea (0.94) & WBC (0.73) & \\
\hline
AL & Albumin (0.80) & Creat. (0.94) & CRP (0.77) & Diast. BP (0.76)
& Hb (0.71) & HR (0.76) \\
& K (0.75) & Na (0.75) & Syst. BP (0.76) & Temp (0.66) & WBC (0.80) & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: blood names}
\end{table*}
}\fi
\if{
\begin{table*}[th]
\centering
\caption{Description of the three real-world clinical datasets.}
\small
\begin{tabular}{l|lll}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{PhysioNet} & \textbf{Surgical site infection}& \textbf{Anastomosis leakage}\\
\hline
Number of patients & 4000 & 858 & 402 \\
Number of attributes (Lab, vital) & 28 (17, 11) & 11 (11, 0) & 11 (7, 4) \\
Length of MTS & 48 (hours) & 10 (days) & 15 (days) \\
Positive class & 874 (21.9 \%) & 227 (26.5 \%) & 31 (7.7 \%) \\
Average missing rate & 76.6 \% & 80.7\% & 83\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab: char datasets}
\end{table*}
}\fi
\paragraph{PhysioNet} The PhysioNet dataset is collected from the PhysioNet Challenge 2012~\cite{silva2012predicting}. We extracted the first part, which consists of 4000 patient records of patients from the intensive care units (ICUs) of various hospitals. Each patient stayed in the ICU for at least 48 hours and the records contain information about both vital signs and blood samples collected over time. We extracted all measurements taken within 48 hours after admission and aligned the MTS into same-length sequences using an hourly discretization.
Variables with a missing rate higher than 99\% were omitted, which led to a total of 28 variables.
The classification task was to predict whether the patient was recovering from surgery, which is a task that also has been considered in other work~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/ChePCSL16,li2019vs}.
\textbf{Surgical site infection}
This dataset contains data for 11 blood samples collected postoperatively for patients who underwent major abdominal surgery at the department of gastrointestinal surgery at a Norwegian university hospital in the years 2004-2012. The task considered was to detect surgical site infection (SSI), which is one of the most common types of nosocomial infections~\cite{lewis2013} and represents up to 30\% of all hospital-acquired infections~\cite{magill2012prevalence}. Patients with no recorded lab tests during the period from postoperative day 1 until day 10 were removed from the cohort, which lead to a final cohort consisting of 858 patients. The average proportion of missing data in the cohort was $80.7 \%$.
To identify the patients in the cohort who developed postoperative SSI and create ground truth labels,
ICD-10 as well as NOMESCO Classification of Surgical Procedures codes related to severe postoperative complications were considered. Patients without these codes who also did not have a mention of the word ``infection'' in any of their postoperative text documents were considered as controls. This lead to a dataset consisting of 227 infected patients and 631 non-infected patients.
\textbf{Anastomosis leakage}
Anastomosis leakage (AL) is potentially a serious complication that can occur after colon rectal cancer (CRC) surgery, of which one of the consequences is an increase in 30-day mortality~\cite{snijders2013anastomotic}.
It is estimated that 5-15\% of the patients who undergo surgery for CRC suffer from AL~\cite{branagan2005prognosis}. Recent studies have shown that both unstructured as well structured EHR data such as measurements of blood tests and vital signs could have predictive value for AL~\cite{soguero2016predicting,soguero2014support}.
The dataset considered in this work contains only structured data and is collected from the same hospital as the SSI dataset. It contains physiological data (blood tests and vital signs) for the period from the day after surgery to day 15 for 402 patients who underwent CRC surgery. A total of 31 of these patients got AL after surgery, but there is no information available about exactly when it happened. The classification task considered here was to detect which of the patients got AL.
\paragraph{Experimental setup}
We considered the following experimental setup.
We performed kernel principal component analysis (KPCA)~\cite{scholkopf1997kernel} using the proposed TCK$_{IM}$ and then trained a kNN-classifier in the low dimensional space. The dimensionality of the KPCA-representation was set to 3 to also be able to visualize the embeddings, whereas we used 5-fold cross validation to set the number of neighbors $k$ for the kNN-classifier.
Performance was measured in terms of F1-score, sensitivity and specificity.
Sensitivity is the fraction of correctly classified cases, whereas specificity is the fraction of controls that are correctly
classified as negative. F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision and sensitivity, where precision is the fraction of actual positives among all those that are classified as positive
cases.
We compared the performance of the proposed kernel to four baseline kernels, namely the linear kernel (Lin), the global alignment kernel (GAK)~\cite{cuturi2011fast}, LPS and TCK.
GAK is a positive semi-definite kernel formulation of the widely used, but non-metric, time series similarity measure called \emph{dynamic time warping} (DTW) \cite{Berndt:1994:UDT:3000850.3000887}. It has two hyperparameters, namely the kernel bandwidth and the triangular parameter, which have to be set by the user and it does not naturally deal with missing data and incomplete datasets, and therefore also requires a preprocessing step involving imputation. Therefore, we created a complete dataset using mean imputation for Lin and GAK (initial experiments showed that mean imputation worked better than last observation carried forward). In accordance with~\cite{Cuturi}, for GAK we set the bandwidth $\sigma$ to 0.1 times the median distance of all MTS in the training set scaled by the square root of the median length of all MTS, and the triangular parameter to 0.2 times the median length (Frobenius norm) of all MTS.
In order to design baseline kernels that can exploit informative missingness, we also created baselines (referred to as Lin$_{IM}$, GAK$_{IM}$ and LPS$_{IM}$) by concatenating the binary indicator MTS $R^{(n)}$ to $X^{(n)}$.
LPS was run with default hyperparameters using the implementation provided by~\cite{Baydogan}, with the exception that the minimal segment length was adjusted to account for the relatively short MTS in the datasets.
For the TCK$_{IM}$ we let $Q = 15$ and $\mathcal{I}_C = \{N/200,\dots, N/200+20\}$, and, likewise, TCK was run with $Q = 15$ and $C = 20$. For all methods, except LPS which do not require standardization, we standardized each attribute to zero mean and unit standard deviation.
For PhysioNet and SSI, we did 5-fold cross validation to measure performance. The AL dataset is, however, highly imbalanced and therefore we employed an undersampling strategy by randomly sampling two patients from the negative class per positive case. 20\% of this dataset was then set aside as a test set. This entire process was repeated 10 times and we reported mean and standard errors of the performance measures. The AL dataset is small, and for that reason the hyperparameters of the methods had to be adjusted accordingly. For TCK$_{IM}$ we let $Q = 10$ and $\mathcal{I}_C = \{2,3\}$.
\if{
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Performance (mean $\pm$ se) for different kernels and datasets.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|llcccc@{}}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & & \textbf{Kernel} & \textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} & \textbf{F1-score} & \textbf{Accuracy} \\
\hline
\multirow{8}{*}{Phys.}
& Impute & Lin & 0.329 $\pm$ 0.049 & 0.812 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.328 $\pm$ 0.052 & 0.707 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
& & GAK & 0.313 $\pm$ 0.021 & 0.801 $\pm$ 0.019 & 0.309 $\pm$ 0.012 & 0.694 $\pm$ 0.013 \\
& Ignore & LPS & 0.511 $\pm$ 0.069 & 0.948 $\pm$ 0.010 & 0.600 $\pm$ 0.068 & 0.852 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
& & TCK & 0.411 $\pm$ 0.053 & 0.833 $\pm$ 0.022 & 0.408 $\pm$ 0.049 & 0.740 $\pm$ 0.017 \\
& Informative & Lin$_{IM}$ & 0.556 $\pm$ 0.054 & 0.939 $\pm$ 0.013 & 0.625 $\pm$ 0.046 & 0.855 $\pm$ 0.013 \\
& & GAK$_{IM}$ & 0.566 $\pm$ 0.032 & 0.941 $\pm$ 0.010 & 0.636 $\pm$ 0.038 & 0.858 $\pm$ 0.007 \\
& & LPS$_{IM}$ & 0.611 $\pm$ 0.060 & 0.939 $\pm$ 0.009 & 0.667 $\pm$ 0.041 & 0.867 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
& & TCK$_{IM}$ & \textbf{0.699 $\pm$ 0.034} & \textbf{0.980 $\pm$ 0.007} & \textbf{0.789 $\pm$ 0.033} &\textbf{0.915 $\pm$ 0.011} \\
\hline
\multirow{8}{*}{SSI}
& Impute & Lin & 0.480 $\pm$ 0.041 & 0.878 $\pm$ 0.041 & 0.529 $\pm$ 0.072 & 0.772 $\pm$ 0.040 \\
& & GAK & 0.639 $\pm$ 0.064 & 0.921 $\pm$ 0.036 & 0.687 $\pm$ 0.025 & 0.846 $\pm$ 0.015 \\
& Ignore & LPS & 0.687 $\pm$ 0.044 & 0.929 $\pm$ 0.040 & 0.730 $\pm$ 0.028& 0.865 $\pm$ 0.020 \\
& & TCK & 0.683 $\pm$ 0.071 & 0.922 $\pm$ 0.025 & 0.719 $\pm$ 0.069 & 0.859 $\pm$ 0.034 \\
& Informative & Lin$_{IM}$ & 0.700 $\pm$ 0.012 & \textbf{0.944 $\pm$ 0.030} & 0.755 $\pm$ 0.024 & 0.879 $\pm$ 0.012 \\
& & GAK$_{IM}$ & 0.718 $\pm$ 0.073 & 0.940 $\pm$ 0.026 & 0.761 $\pm$ 0.036 & 0.881 $\pm$ 0.015 \\
& & LPS$_{IM}$ & 0.652 $\pm$ 0.056 & 0.925 $\pm$ 0.015 & 0.701 $\pm$ 0.036& 0.853 $\pm$ 0.015 \\
& & TCK$_{IM}$ & \textbf{0.775 $\pm$ 0.017} & 0.929 $\pm$ 0.010 & \textbf{0.786 $\pm$ 0.015} & \textbf{0.888 $\pm$ 0.009} \\
\hline
\multirow{8}{*}{AL}
& Impute & Lin & 0.414 $\pm$ 0.273 & 0.907 $\pm$ 0.119 & 0.468 $\pm$ 0.240 & 0.742 $\pm$ 0.060 \\
& & GAK & 0.428 $\pm$ 0.223 & \textbf{0.935 $\pm$ 0.078} & 0.520 $\pm$ 0.206 & 0.766 $\pm$ 0.065 \\
& Ignore & LPS & \textbf{0.843 $\pm$ 0.105} & 0.835 $\pm$ 0.075 & 0.776 $\pm$ 0.058 & 0.838 $\pm$ 0.046 \\
& & TCK & 0.700 $\pm$ 0.147 & 0.886 $\pm$ 0.107 & 0.722 $\pm$ 0.080 & 0.823 $\pm$ 0.050 \\
& Informative & Lin$_{IM}$ & 0.742 $\pm$ 0.221 & 0.864 $\pm$ 0.097 & 0.724 $\pm$ 0.097 & 0.823 $\pm$ 0.039 \\
& & GAK$_{IM}$ & 0.728 $\pm$ 0.227 & 0.928 $\pm$ 0.047 & 0.759 $\pm$ 0.156 & \textbf{0.861 $\pm$ 0.065} \\
& & LPS$_{IM}$ & 0.800 $\pm$ 0.120 & 0.864 $\pm$ 0.091 & 0.773 $\pm$ 0.091 & 0.843 $\pm$ 0.067 \\
& & TCK$_{IM}$ & \textbf{0.843 $\pm$ 0.184} & 0.864 $\pm$ 0.095 & \textbf{0.792 $\pm$ 0.115} & 0.857 $\pm$ 0.072 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:Results}
\end{table*}
}\fi
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{Sec:Results}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Performance (mean $\pm$ se) on 3 datasets.}
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\:}|l@{\:\:}c@{\:\:\:\:}c@{\:\:\:\:}c@{}}
\hline
& \textbf{Kernel} & \textbf{Sensitivity} & \textbf{Specificity} & \textbf{F1-score} \\
\hline
\multirow{8}{*}{Phys.}
& Lin & 0.329 $\pm$ 0.049 & 0.812 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.328 $\pm$ 0.052 \\
& GAK & 0.313 $\pm$ 0.021 & 0.801 $\pm$ 0.019 & 0.309 $\pm$ 0.012 \\
& LPS & 0.511 $\pm$ 0.069 & 0.948 $\pm$ 0.010 & 0.600 $\pm$ 0.068 \\
& TCK & 0.411 $\pm$ 0.053 & 0.833 $\pm$ 0.022 & 0.408 $\pm$ 0.049 \\
& Lin$_{IM}$ & 0.556 $\pm$ 0.054 & 0.939 $\pm$ 0.013 & 0.625 $\pm$ 0.046 \\
& GAK$_{IM}$ & 0.566 $\pm$ 0.032 & 0.941 $\pm$ 0.010 & 0.636 $\pm$ 0.038 \\
& LPS$_{IM}$ & 0.611 $\pm$ 0.060 & 0.939 $\pm$ 0.009 & 0.667 $\pm$ 0.041 \\
& TCK$_{IM}$ & \textbf{0.699 $\pm$ 0.034} & \textbf{0.980 $\pm$ 0.007} & \textbf{0.789 $\pm$ 0.033} \\
\hline
\multirow{8}{*}{SSI}
& Lin & 0.480 $\pm$ 0.041 & 0.878 $\pm$ 0.041 & 0.529 $\pm$ 0.072 \\
& GAK & 0.639 $\pm$ 0.064 & 0.921 $\pm$ 0.036 & 0.687 $\pm$ 0.025 \\
& LPS & 0.687 $\pm$ 0.044 & 0.929 $\pm$ 0.040 & 0.730 $\pm$ 0.028 \\
& TCK & 0.683 $\pm$ 0.071 & 0.922 $\pm$ 0.025 & 0.719 $\pm$ 0.069 \\
& Lin$_{IM}$ & 0.700 $\pm$ 0.012 & \textbf{0.944 $\pm$ 0.030} & 0.755 $\pm$ 0.024 \\
& GAK$_{IM}$ & 0.718 $\pm$ 0.073 & 0.940 $\pm$ 0.026 & 0.761 $\pm$ 0.036 \\
& LPS$_{IM}$ & 0.652 $\pm$ 0.056 & 0.925 $\pm$ 0.015 & 0.701 $\pm$ 0.036 \\
& TCK$_{IM}$ & \textbf{0.775 $\pm$ 0.017} & 0.929 $\pm$ 0.010 & \textbf{0.786 $\pm$ 0.015} \\
\hline
\multirow{8}{*}{AL}
& Lin & 0.414 $\pm$ 0.273 & 0.907 $\pm$ 0.119 & 0.468 $\pm$ 0.240 \\
& GAK & 0.428 $\pm$ 0.223 & \textbf{0.935 $\pm$ 0.078} & 0.520 $\pm$ 0.206 \\
& LPS & \textbf{0.843 $\pm$ 0.105} & 0.835 $\pm$ 0.075 & 0.776 $\pm$ 0.058 \\
& TCK & 0.700 $\pm$ 0.147 & 0.886 $\pm$ 0.107 & 0.722 $\pm$ 0.080 \\
& Lin$_{IM}$ & 0.742 $\pm$ 0.221 & 0.864 $\pm$ 0.097 & 0.724 $\pm$ 0.097 \\
& GAK$_{IM}$ & 0.728 $\pm$ 0.227 & 0.928 $\pm$ 0.047 & 0.759 $\pm$ 0.156 \\
& LPS$_{IM}$ & 0.800 $\pm$ 0.120 & 0.864 $\pm$ 0.091 & 0.773 $\pm$ 0.091 \\
& TCK$_{IM}$ & \textbf{0.843 $\pm$ 0.184} & 0.864 $\pm$ 0.095 & \textbf{0.792 $\pm$ 0.115} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:Results}
\end{table}
Tab.~\ref{tab:Results} shows the performance of the TCK$_{IM}$ kernel, as well as the baseline methods, on the three real-world datasets.
The first thing to notice is that the two kernels (Lin and GAK) that rely on imputation consistently perform much worse than the other kernels in terms of both F1-score across all datasets. We also note that these methods achieve a relatively high specificity. However, this is because they put too many patients in the negative class, which also leads to a high false negative rate and, consequently, a low sensitivity.
The reasons could be that the imputation methods introduce biases and that the missingness mechanism is ignored.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{cropped_fig.pdf}
\caption{KPCA plots obtained using Lin, GAK, LPS, TCK and TCK$_{IM}$, respectively. Row 1: Physio., row 2: SSI, row 3: AL.
}
\label{fig: KPCA plots}
\end{figure*}
The two kernels, TCK and LPS, that naturally handle the missing data perform better than the kernels that rely on imputation for all three datasets.
TCK and LPS perform quite similarly across all 3 evaluation metrics for the SSI dataset, whereas LPS outperforms TCK on the PhysioNet and AL dataset.
These methods probably perform better than the imputation methods because ignoring the missingness introduces less bias than replacing missing values with biased estimates.
The performance of the baselines that account for informative missingness, Lin$_{IM}$ and GAK$_{IM}$, is considerably better than Lin and GAK, respectively, for all datasets. LPS$_{IM}$ also performs better than LPS on the PhysioNet datasets, whereas the performance of these two baselines is more or less equal on the two other datasets.
The proposed TCK$_{IM}$ performs considerably better than all baselines, and in particular compared to TCK (the kernel which it is an improvement of) for the PhysioNet and SSI datasets in terms of F1-score, and it performs better or comparable than the other kernels on the AL dataset.
This demonstrates that the missing patterns in clinical time series are often informative and the TCK$_{IM}$ can exploit this information very efficiently.
Fig.~\ref{fig: KPCA plots} shows the KPCA embeddings obtained
using five kernels (Lin, GAK, LPS, TCK and TCK$_{IM}$). In general, the
classes are more separated in the representations obtained using TCK$_{IM}$ than in the other representations.
\if{
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_lin.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_gak.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_lps.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_tck.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_tckim.pdf}
}
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_lin.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_gak.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_lps.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_tck.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_tckim.pdf}
}
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_lin.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 82mm 42mm 55mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_gak.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 82mm 42mm 55mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_lps.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_tck.pdf}
}%
\subfigure
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_tckim.pdf}
}
\caption{Plot of KPCA representations obtained using Lin, GAK, LPS, TCK and TCK$_{IM}$, respectively. Row 1: PhysioNet, row 2: SSI, row 3: AL. The blue dots represent the positive class.}
\label{fig: KPCA plots}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[Linear]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_lin.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[GAK]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_gak.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[LPS]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_lps.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[TCK]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_tck.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[TCK$_{IM}$]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/physio_tckim.pdf}
}
\subfigure[Linear]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_lin.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[GAK]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_gak.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[LPS]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_lps.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[TCK]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_tck.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[TCK$_{IM}$]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/SSI_tckim.pdf}
}
\subfigure[Linear]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_lin.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[GAK]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_gak.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[LPS]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_lps.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[TCK]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_tck.pdf}
}%
\subfigure[TCK$_{IM}$]
{
\includegraphics[trim = {42mm 85mm 42mm 57mm}, clip, width=0.187\linewidth]{figures/AL_tckim.pdf}
}
\caption{Plot of the KPCA representations obtained using five different kernels. (a)-(e): PhysioNet, (f)-(j): surgical site infection, (k)-(o): anastomosis leakage.}
\label{fig: KPCA plots}
\end{figure*}
}\fi
\paragraph{Limitations, future work and conclusions}
In this paper, we presented a MTS kernel capable of exploiting
informative missingness along with the temporal dependencies in the observed data. We showed that TCK$_{IM}$ can learn good representations that can be exploited both in supervised and unsupervised tasks, even when the percentage of missing data is high. In this work, the representations learned using TCK$_{IM}$ were evaluated visually (Fig.~\ref{fig: KPCA plots}) and using a supervised scheme by training a classifier (Tab.~\ref{tab:Results}). The experimental results suggested that TCK$_{IM}$ achieved superior performances compared to baselines on three real datasets.
The experiments presented in this work focused on binary classification tasks, both of patients at the ICU and patients who had undergone colonrectal cancer surgery.
However, we believe that TCK$_{IM}$ is also a very good choice in applications where there is a lack of labels, which often is the case in medical applications, thanks to the ensemble learning strategy that makes the kernel robust to hyperparameter choices. In fact, since it is a kernel, it can be used in many different applications, including classification as well as clustering tasks, benefiting from the vast body of work in the field of kernel methods. In future work, we would like to test TCK$_{IM}$ in a realistic unsupervised task from the medical domain.
A limitation of TCK$_{IM}$ is that it is only designed for MTS of the same length. In further work, we would therefore like to design a time series cluster kernel that can also deal with varying length MTS.
It should also be pointed out that if the missing patterns are not informative, i.e. the missingness is not correlated the particular medical condition(s) of interest, the performance gain of TCK$_{IM}$ compared to TCK is low. It is therefore an advantage if the user has some understanding about the underlying missingness mechanism in the data. On the other hand, our experiments on benchmark datasets (see Appendix) demonstrate that in cases when the missingness mechanism is almost ignorable (low correlation between missing patterns and labels), the performance of TCK$_{IM}$ is not worse than TCK.
\section{Acknowledgement}
The authors would like to thank K. Hindberg for assistance on extraction of EHR data and the physicians A. Revhaug, R.-O. Lindsetmo and K. M. Augestad for helpful guidance throughout the study.
\section{Appendix -- Synthetic benchmark datasets}
To test how well TCK$_{IM}$ performs for a varying degree of informative missingness, we generated in total 16 synthetic datasets by randomly injecting missing data into 4 MTS benchmark datasets. The characteristics of the datasets are described in Tab.~\ref{tab: benchmark description}.
We transformed all MTS in each dataset to the same length, $T$, where T is given by
$
T = \left \lceil T_{max} / \left \lceil T_{max}/25 \right \rceil \right \rceil.
$
Here, $ \lceil \: \rceil$ is the ceiling operator and $T_{max}$ is the length of the longest MTS in the original dataset.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Characteristics of the benchmark datasets. Attr is the number of attributes, Train and Test the number of training and test samples. $N_c$ is the number of classes, $T_{min}$ and $T_{max}$ the length of shortest and longest MTS in the dataset, whereas $T$ is the length of the MTS after the transformation.}\label{tab: benchmark description}
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\:}c@{\:}c@{\:}c@{\:\:}c@{\:}c@{}c@{\:}c@{\:}c@{}}
\hline
\textbf{Datasets} & \textbf{Attr} & \textbf{Train} & \textbf{Test} & $N_c$ & $T_{min}$ & $T_{max}$ & $T$ & \textbf{Source }\\
\hline
uWave & 3 & 200 & 4278 & 8 & 315 & 315 & 25 & \cite{bagnall2018uea} \\
Char.tra. & 3 & 300 & 2558 & 20 & 109 & 205 & 23 & \cite{bagnall2018uea} \\
Wafer & 6 & 298 & 896 & 2 & 104 & 198 & 25 & ~\cite{Olszewski} \\
Jap.vow. & 12 & 270 & 370 & 9 & 7 & 29 & 15 & \cite{bagnall2018uea} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Datasets}
The following procedure was used to create 8 synthetic datasets with missing data from the Wafer and Japanese vowels datasets. We randomly sampled a number $c_v \in \{-1, 1\} $ for each attribute $v \in \{1,\dots, V\} $, where $c_v =1$ indicates that the attribute and the labels are positively correlated and $c_v =-1$ negatively correlated.
Thereafter, we sampled a missing rate $\gamma_{nv}$ from $\mathcal{U}[ 0.3 + E \cdot c_v \cdot (y^{(n)}-1), 0.7 + E \cdot c_v \cdot (y^{(n)}-1)]$ for each MTS $X^{(n)}$ and attribute. The parameter $E$ was tuned such that the Pearson correlation (absolute value) between the missing rates for the attributes $\gamma_v$ and the labels $y^{(n)}$ took the values $\{ 0.2, \: 0.4, \: 0.6, \: 0.8\}$, respectively. By doing so, we could control the amount of informative missingness and because of the way we sampled $\gamma_{nv}$, the missing rate in each dataset was around 50\% independently of the Pearson correlation.
Further, the following procedure was used to create 8 synthetic datasets from the uWave and Character trajectories datasets, which both consist of only 3 attributes. We randomly sampled a number $c_v \in \{-1, 1\} $ for each attribute $v \in \{1,\dots, V\} $. Attribute(s) with $c_v = -1$ became negatively correlated with the labels by sampling $\gamma_{nv}$ from
$\mathcal{U}[ 0.7 - E \cdot (y^{(n)}-1), 1 - E \cdot (y^{(n)}-1)]$, whereas the attribute(s) with $c_v = 1$ became positively correlated with the labels by sampling $\gamma_{nv}$ from
$\mathcal{U}[ 0.3 + E \cdot (y^{(n)}-1), 0.6 + E \cdot (y^{(n)}-1)]$. The parameter $E$ was computed in the same way as above.
Then, we computed the mean of each attribute $\mu_v$ over the complete dataset and let each element with $ x^{(n)}_v(t) > \mu_v$ be missing with probability $\gamma_{nv}$. This means that the probability of being missing is dependent on the value of the missing element, i.e. the missingness mechanism is MNAR within each class. Hence, this type of informative missingness is not the same as the one we created for the Wafer and Japanese vowels datasets.
\paragraph{Baselines}
Three baseline models were created.
The first baseline, namely ordinary TCK, ignores the missingness mechanism.
We created a second baseline, refered to as TCK$_B$, in which the missing patterns we modeled naively by concatenating the binary missing indicator MTS $R$ to the MTS $X$ and creating a new MTS $U$ with $2V$ attributes. Then, ordinary TCK was trained on the datasets consisting of $\{U^{(n)}\}$.
In the third baseline, TCK$_0$, we investigated how well informative missingness can be captured by imputing zeros for the missing values and then training the TCK on the imputed data.
\begin{table}[!th]
\centering
\caption{Performance (accuracy) on the 16 synthetic datasets}
\label{tab: im synthetic results}
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|llll|}
\hline
Dataset & Corr. & TCK & TCK$_{B}$ & TCK$_{0}$ & TCK$_{IM}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Wafer} & 0.2 & 0.951 & 0.951 & 0.951 & \textbf{0.955} \\
& 0.4 & \textbf{0.961} & 0.953 & 0.955 & \textbf{0.961} \\
& 0.6 & 0.961 & 0.900 & 0.965 & \textbf{0.996} \\
& 0.8 & 0.958 & 0.893 & 0.963 & \textbf{1.000} \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Japan. vow.} & 0.2 & 0.938 & \textbf{0.954} & 0.951 & 0.940 \\
& 0.4 & 0.932 & 0.938 & 0.938 & \textbf{0.941} \\
& 0.6 & 0.922 & 0.946 & 0.924 & \textbf{0.962} \\
&0.8 & 0.922 & 0.924 & 0.935 & \textbf{0.968} \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{uWave} & 0.2 & 0.763 & 0.457 & 0.755 & \textbf{0.841} \\
& 0.4 & 0.807 & 0.587 & 0.813 & \textbf{0.857} \\
& 0.6 & 0.831 & 0.674 & 0.837 & \textbf{0.865} \\
& 0.8 & 0.834 & 0.699 & 0.844 & \textbf{0.884} \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Char. Traj.} & 0.2 & \textbf{0.854} & 0.742 & 0.847 & 0.851 \\
& 0.4 & 0.851 & 0.788 & 0.842 & \textbf{0.867}\\
& 0.6 & 0.825 & 0.790 & 0.824 & \textbf{0.871} \\
& 0.8 & 0.839 & 0.707 & 0.853 & \textbf{0.901} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Results}
Tab.~\ref{tab: im synthetic results} shows the performance of the proposed TCK$_{IM}$ and the three baselines for all of the 16 synthetic datasets.
We see that the proposed TCK$_{IM}$ achieves the best accuracy for 14 out of 16 datasets and is the only method which consistently has the expected behaviour, namely that the accuracy increases as the correlation between missing values and class labels increases. It can also be seen that the performance of TCK$_{IM}$ is similar to TCK when the amount of information in the missing patterns is low, whereas TCK is clearly outperformed when the informative missingness is high. This demonstrates that TCK$_{IM}$ can effectively exploit informative missingness.
\bibliographystyle{aaai}
\fontsize{9.0pt}{10.0pt} \selectfont
|
\section{Introduction}
Emotion recognition is a well-grounded research field in the Speech and Natural Language Processing community. People express their emotions directly or indirectly through their speech, writings, facial expressions or gestures. Given such profusion of signals for expressing emotions, there has been work on analyzing emotions using various modalities such as speech, text, visuals, biosignals, and combinations of these \cite{poria2016convolutional,kudiri2016human,soleymani2015analysis}. Additionally the medium used as well as the genre might also have an effect on how emotions are conveyed. In text-based communication, for example, there are various mediums through which people might express their emotions, such as social media, personal diaries, news articles, blogs. Basic emotions are usually classified into classes such as \textit{anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise} using established emotion annotation schemes \cite{ekman1992argument,shaver1987emotion,oatley1987towards}.
While most research on emotion analysis focuses on emotion classification, including predicting the emotions of the writer as well as those of the reader of a text \cite{chang2015linguistic}, a few studies so far have focused on identifying what might have triggered that emotion \cite{sailunaz2018emotion}. In particular, the task has been framed as \textit{Emotion Cause Extraction} \cite{lee2010text} from news and microblogs, where the cause of an emotion is usually a single clause \cite{chen2010emotion} connected by a discourse relation to another clause that explicitly expresses a given emotion \cite{cheng2017emotion}, as in this example from \newcite{gui2016event}: ``$<cause>$ \textit{Talking about his honours,} $</cause>$ \textit{Mr. Zhu is so} $<emotion>$ \textit{proud} $</emotion>$.''
However, if we move to other text genres beyond news and microblogs, it might be more complicated to identify the causes of given emotions from the text. In this work, we focus on spoken personal narratives.
A Personal Narrative (PN) can be defined as a recollection of an event or connected sequence of events the narrator has been part of, as an active or passive participant. Examples of PNs include personal diaries, short notes, travelogues in digital form (speech and/or text). Compared to other text genres such as news and microblogs, spoken PNs are particularly challenging because the structure of the narrative could be complex, involving multiple sub-events and characters as well as thoughts and associated emotions perceived by the narrator.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{12pt}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}XX@{}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{German (original)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{English (translated)}} \\ \midrule
Okay. Ähm also eine Situation, in der ich mich kompetent gefühlt hab, war, als ich meinen ähm \colorbox{red2}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{Praktikumsplatz}}} bekommen hab und ähm ich in dem \colorbox{red1}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{Praktikum}}} dann auch ähm Sachen \colorbox{red4}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{selbstständig}}} machen durfte und auch die Rückmeldung bekommen hab von den Personen dort, dass das, was ich da so mach, dass das gut ist und dass ähm sie mit mir sehr, mit mit mir sehr zufrieden sind ähm. Und die Gefühle dabei waren natürlich irgendwie Glück, weil man ist davor unsicher, ob man das, was man da macht, ob das so gut ist und ob man das so schafft. Ähm und das hat eben sehr gut funktioniert. Also ich hab mich sehr zufrieden gefühlt, mit mir ähm im Reinen, mit mir glücklich, auch irgendwie so ein bisschen \colorbox{red3}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{Bestätigung}}} darin bekommen, dass das, was ich mach, gut ist oder das, was ich auch jetzt als Studium gemacht hab, irgendwie passt. Ähm ähm so bisschen so \colorbox{red2}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{positive}}}\colorbox{red3}{ \textcolor{white}{\textbf{Aufregung}}}, also man fühlt sich sehr sehr wach, erregt irgendwie , aber in einer positiven Art und Weise. ... & OK. Um, so a situation in which I felt competent, was when I got my um \colorbox{red2}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{internship position}}} and er in the \colorbox{red1}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{internship}}} then I was also allowed to do things \colorbox{red4}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{\textbf{independently}}}} and also got the feedback from the people there, that what I am doing there, that it is good, and that they are very pleased with me, with me, um. And of course the feelings were kind of happiness, because you are not sure if you, what you are doing, if that is so good and if you can do it that way. Um, and that worked very well. So I felt very satisfied, with me uh, at peace with myself, happy, with me, somehow getting a bit of \colorbox{red3}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{confirmation}}} that what I'm doing is good or what I'm doing now as a study have, somehow fits. Uhm umh so a bit so \colorbox{red2}{\textcolor{white}{\textbf{positive}}}\colorbox{red3}{ \textcolor{white}{\textbf{excitement}}}, so you feel very very awake, excited somehow, but in a positive way. ... \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{\textbf{PN Annotated Example} (Colored Figure). A part of a narrative showing text spans annotated by the four annotators. The intensity of the red color in the background represents the number of annotators who annotated the text-span (varying from lightest for one annotator to the darkest for four annotators). It can be seen that some spans are annotated by only one annotator while some others by multiple. In the text-span \textit{``positive Aufregung''}, for example, two annotators selected the entire span while another one selected only the second word \textit{``Aufregung''}. It can be noticed how the annotations contain both sentiment words, such as \textit{``positive Augregung''} (i.e. positive excitement), and content words, such as \textit{``Praktikum''} (i.e. internship).}
\label{tab:annotation_example}
\end{table*}
\newcite{Tammewar2019}, for example, observed that in different machine learning models (Support Vector Machine, Attention-based neural sequence tagger) trained to predict valence (emotional value associated with a stimulus) from spoken PNs, concepts beyond sentiment words (\textit{sad}, \textit{happy}) were found to be useful. These concepts included terms such as characters (e.g. \textit{grandfather}, \textit{a friend}), locations (e.g. \textit{swimming pool}) and events (e.g. \textit{high school exam}).
As the task of the models was to predict the emotional state of the narrator, the authors concluded that these concepts played the role of explaining and {\em carrying} the emotional state of the person. We call such concepts \textit{emotion carriers}. Table \ref{tab:annotation_example}, shows a small part of a PN annotated with emotion carriers
Inspired by such evidence, in this work, we investigate the possibility of annotating emotion carriers in spoken PNs. This type of annotation could then be used to experiment with training automatic Emotion Carriers Extraction systems. Such models, together with emotion prediction models, could provide a deeper understanding of the emotional state of the narrator.
The task of emotion carriers extraction can be classified as a task of Automatic Narrative Understanding (ANU), which encompasses tasks that extract various information from narratives \cite{fu2019asking}.
Emotion carriers extraction, for example, could be a useful task for conversational mental healthcare applications.
Applications aimed at the mental well-being of the users, often collect personal narratives from users in the form of personal diaries. In this setup, the applications may benefit from an analysis that provides not only the user's emotion trends but also the emotion carriers. The conversational agent of the application could use this information to start a conversation with the user and elicit more information about them, which in turn can be provided to a therapist for personalized interventions
Nevertheless, annotating emotion carriers in PNs is a challenging task, since the same term may or may not carry emotions in different contexts and thus the search space for identifying emotion carriers becomes huge.
In this work, we present our experiments with manual annotation of emotion carriers in spoken PNs in the German language from the Ulm State-of-Mind in Speech (USoMS) corpus \cite{schuller2018interspeech}. After a review of relevant existing tasks in Section \ref{sect:related_work}, we describe the USoMs corpus in Section \ref{sect:USOMS}. The challenge of the task of Emotion Carriers extraction, formalized as the extraction of text segments perceived to be crucial for predicting the narrator's emotional state, is described in Section \ref{sect:task_description}, while the details about the manual annotation experiments are presented in Section \ref{sect:annotation}. In Section \ref{sect:analysis} we analyze and evaluate the annotated data using inter-annotator agreement metrics and qualitative analysis to get insights about the complexity of the task. Finally, in Section \ref{sect:conclusions}, we draw on the conclusions of our work.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sect:related_work}
While the emotion carriers in personal narratives is a new topic in the field of narrative understanding, the most relevant research to our task has been conducted on the task of \textit{Emotion Cause Extraction (ECE)}.
The task of ECE focuses on finding the cause of emotion from the given text. According to \newcite{talmy2000toward}, the cause of an emotion should be an event itself. The cause-event refers to the immediate cause of the emotion, which can be the actual trigger event or the perception of the trigger event \cite{lee2010text}. The cause events are further categorized into two types: verbal events and nominal events \cite{lee2010emotion}.
There are a few emotion cause corpora on formal texts such as news reports, frames from FrameNet \cite{tokuhisa2008emotion,ghazi2015detecting,lee2010text,gui2016event} and informal texts such as microblogs \cite{gui2014emotion,gao2015rule,cheng2017emotion}. Some of these are annotated manually, while some are created automatically.
While \newcite{lee2010text} defined the task of ECE as the extraction of word-level emotion causes, \newcite{chen2010emotion} suggested that a clause would be a more appropriate choice of unit for the extraction of an emotion cause. There have been works trying to solve the problem using different methods: Rule-based \cite{neviarouskaya2013extracting,li2014text,gao2015rule,gao2015emotion,yada2017bootstrap}; Machine Learning based \cite{ghazi2015detecting,song2015detecting,gui2016event,gui2016emotion,xu2017ensemble} and Deep Learning based \cite{gui2017question,li2018co,yu2019multiple,xu2019extracting}.
While most of the previous works are focused on either the news domain or microblogs, our work focuses on personal narratives. Personal narratives are more complex than the other domains as they are typically longer and contain multiple sub-events. Moreover, each sub-event has attributes (such as characters, entities involved in the sub-event), the narrator's reactions and emotions expressed in the narrative. In such a complex sequence of sub-events, it is difficult to associate the emotion clause with the corresponding event. It was one of the main shortcomings in the work by \newcite{gui2016event}, they call it the problem of \textit{cascading events}. Even if we succeed in correctly extracting the cause clauses for each sub-event, it is not our final goal. Our goal is to extract the emotion carriers used for conveying the emotions manifested in the narrator after recounting the entire narrative/event. The emotions produced by sub-events may or may not represent the emotions at the level of the entire narrative and thus the carriers as well. For instance, a narrative could begin with a happy event that is told to build context but could end up in a sad situation. Note that although the microblogs could also be considered as a personal narrative, we are dealing with longer personal narratives.
The previous approaches make one important assumption that an emotion keyword is always present in the text, for which they have to find the cause\cite{gui2016event}. As described by \cite{cheng2017emotion}, they consider the task of ECE as a discourse relation between the cause-clause and the emotion-clause. However, personal narratives may or may not contain emotion keywords. They might contain multiple keywords as well. Particularly in this task, the dataset is provided with the sentiment (positive or negative) of the text, and our goal is to find the emotion carriers for that sentiment.
\section{USoMs Corpus}
\label{sect:USOMS}
Ulm State-of-Mind in Speech (USoMs) is a database of spoken PNs in German, along with the self-assessed valence and arousal scores. A part of the dataset was used and released in the Self-Assessed Affect Sub-challenge, a part of the Interspeech 2018 Computational Paralinguistics Challenge (ComParE) \cite{schuller2018interspeech}. The task was to predict the narrator's valence score provided a short speech fragment (8 seconds) of the narrative.
The data consists of 100 speakers (students) (85 f, 15 m, age 18-36 years, mean 22.3 years, std. dev. 3.6 years). In the challenge, the data was divided into three sets \textit{training, development, and test}. In this study, we annotate the development and the test sets (66 participants' data). The students told two negative and two positive PNs, each with a duration of about 5 minutes. Before and after recording each narrative, they self-assessed valence (spanning from negative to positive) and arousal (spanning from sleepy to excited) using the affect grid \cite{russell2003core} on a 10-point Likert scale. The narratives were transcribed manually. The number of tokens in the narratives vary from 292 to 1536 (mean: 820; std: 208). We use these transcripts in our work to enrich the annotations with the emotion carriers.\footnote{We plan to organize a challenge and release the annotated data as a part of it}
Following prompts were used to elicit the narratives 1) Negative narrative: \textit{"Please remember a time in your life when you were facing a seemingly unsolvable problem and report as detailed as possible over the next five minutes"}. 2) Positive narrative:\textit{"Please report of a time in your life were you found a solution, where you felt powerful, happy, and content. Describe that story in-depth over the next five minutes".}
\section{The challenge of Emotion Carrier Extraction}
\label{sect:task_description}
While describing an emotional event, to convey the emotions narrators not only use explicit emotion words such as \textit{happy, sad, excited} but also other emotion carriers such as entities, persons, objects, places, sub-events related to the event. \cite{Tammewar2019}, in their work, found that these carriers play an important role in predicting the current mental state of the narrator. There could be mentions of many such carriers in the narrative, but this does not imply that all of them reflect/carry the narrator's emotions. We call the text spans that capture the annotator's emotion as \textit{emotion carriers}.
Apart from the carriers themselves, other factors also influence their importance, such as a context (from the narrative), the position of the span in the narrative, or the frequency of the mentions. Consider the term \textit{grandfather}. The emotional value/valence associated with the term changes according to the provided context, it can carry emotion accordingly. Consider the phrases \textit{``my grandfather died''} and \textit{``my grandfather came to visit us after a long time''}. In the first case, it might carry a negative emotion while, in the second case, a positive emotion. Often, narratives are longer, and people mention some terms to build the context for the main event. Consider the example \textit{``That day, my grandfather had come to visit us after a long time... we all went to the beach, where a saw a dreadful accident. A boy was swept out to sea while walking on the outer banks with his mom.... since then, I'm afraid of the water bodies.''} Here, the term \textit{grandfather} is used just to ground the context, while the emotion-relevant linguistic carriers come later in the narrative, such as \textit{``swept out''}, \textit{``water bodies''}. This uncertainty makes the task of identification of emotion carrying terms, complex and subjective.
\section{Annotation of Emotion Carriers}
\label{sect:annotation}
To investigate the possibility of identifying emotion carriers from personal narratives, we annotate the personal narratives from the USoMs Corpus explained in Section \ref{sect:USOMS}, with the text spans that carry the emotions of the narrator manifested during the recollection.
In our annotation scheme, even though it is more relevant to us, we do not provide the annotators with a pre-selected noun or verb phrases to choose from.We give them the freedom to select text segments they feel are most important for our task.We believe that the pre-selection of spans could build bias in annotators towards specific fragments while there could be other text-fragments which are more important emotion carriers. Also, being spoken narratives, the automated tools to extract the noun and verb phrases may produce errors, thus affecting the annotation quality.
In this section, we provide details of the annotation experiments, including the annotators, the annotation scheme, and a brief overview of the tool used for the annotation.
\subsection{Annotators}
\label{sect:annotators}
Each narrative is annotated by four annotators. All the annotators are native German speakers and hold a Bachelor's degree in Psychology. They have been specifically trained to perform the task. We refer to the four annotators \textit{`ann1', `ann2', `ann3'} and \textit{`ann4'}
\subsection{Annotation Guidelines}
\label{sect:guidelines_scheme}
The annotation task involves the selection of the emotion carrying text spans as perceived by the annotator. We provide annotators with the guidelines to follow while performing the task.
We ask them to select sequences of adjacent words (one or more) in the text that explain why the narrative is positive or negative for the narrator.\\ We are particularly interested in words that play an important role in the story, such as:
\begin{itemize}
\item People (e.g.`mother', `uncle John', `my best friend'); Locations (`university', `our old school'); Objects (e.g. `guitar', `my first computer'); Events (`exam', `swimming class', `prom night')
\item A clause that can include a verb and nouns (e.g. `Mary broke my heart', `I lost my guitar', `I failed the admission exam')
\end{itemize}
They have to select a minimum of three such text spans.\\
We also provide them with the best practices to be followed:
\begin{itemize}
\item We ask them to annotate the contentful words (`university', `mother') preferably over pronouns (`she', `her', `it')
\item If the same term is present multiple times, they are asked to annotate the first instance of the same concept and to avoid repetition.
\item To make sure if something needs to be added or removed from the list of selected fragments, the annotators are asked to make sure:
\begin{itemize}
\item If a person who has not read the narrative can understand why the event was positive or negative just by looking at the list of spans they have selected. If not, they have to check if something is missing.
\item They are asked to ensure that there are no repetitions in the list and that there are no spans, which are not central to the narrative.
\end{itemize}
\item As the annotators already know if the narrative is positive or negative in general, we ask them to annotate the feelings (emotion words) only if they are more informative (e.g. `feeling of freedom') than simple positive/negative (e.g. `I was happy').
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Annotation Tool}
\label{sect:tool}
We provide the annotators with a web-based tool to perform the annotations. The tool is mainly divided into two parts. In one part, we show them a personal narrative and the corresponding sentiment. The annotator can hover over the tokens and select text spans by clicking and dragging over the consecutive tokens. On the right-hand side, they can see the already selected spans and their rankings. They can change the ranking by simple drag and drop.
Table \ref{tab:annotation_example} shows an example of annotations for a part of a narrative. We observe that sometimes, annotators annotate text-segments representing a similar concept but are at different positions in the text. In the example, the terms \textit{Praktikumsplatz} and \textit{Praktikum} represent the same concept of \textit{internship} but two of the annotators followed the guidelines to select the first occurrence while the other annotator selected the second occurrence of the same concept.
\section{Analysis}
\label{sect:analysis}
In this section, we perform an analysis of the annotations performed on the USoMs corpus from different perspectives. We take a look at some statistics of the annotations then we evaluate the annotations by calculating inter-annotator agreements with different strategies and finally we discuss some important observations we made.
\defhsb{hsb}
\def\cca#1{\cellcolor[hsb]{0,#1,1}\ifdim #1pt>0.5pt\color{white}\fi{#1}}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Exact match, position agnostic, token level (mean $F_{1}$: 0.252)]{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& ann1 & ann2 & ann3 & ann4 \\
ann1 & \cca{1} & \cca{0.344} & \cca{0.417} & \cca{0.125} \\
ann2 & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.389} & \cca{0.106} \\
ann3 & & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.137} \\
ann4 & & & & \cca{1}
\end{tabular}}
\hspace{7em}
\subfloat[Partial match with position, token level (mean $F_{1}$: 0.320)]{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& ann1 & ann2 & ann3 & ann4 \\
ann1 & \cca{1} & \cca{0.338} & \cca{0.42} & \cca{0.277} \\
ann2 & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.381} & \cca{0.196} \\
ann3 & & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.308} \\
ann4 & & & & \cca{1}
\end{tabular}}
\qquad
\subfloat[Partial match, position agnostic, token level (mean $F_{1}$: 0.399)]{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& ann1 & ann2 & ann3 & ann4 \\
ann1 & \cca{1} & \cca{0.397} & \cca{0.483} & \cca{0.402} \\
ann2 & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.439} & \cca{0.264} \\
ann3 & & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.404} \\
ann4 & & & & \cca{1}
\end{tabular}}
\hspace{7em}
\subfloat[Partial match; position agnostic; lemma level (mean $F_{1}$: 0.403)]{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
& ann1 & ann2 & ann3 & ann4 \\
ann1 & \cca{1} & \cca{0.400} & \cca{0.490} & \cca{0.410} \\
ann2 & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.440} & \cca{0.267} \\
ann3 & & & \cca{1} & \cca{0.413} \\
ann4 & & & & \cca{1}
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Pairwise Inter-Annotator Agreement scores ($F_1$ measure) with respect to the different matching strategies. We vary the matching criteria for annotations based on three aspects 1) checking if the annotations are exactly same (exact match) or calculating the overlap between them (partial match) 2) positions of the annotations in the text is considered whiles matching (with position) or not (position agnostic) and 3) to calculate the overlap, the tokens in the annotations are matched (token level) or the lemmas of the tokens are matched (lemma level). Note that in the tables b, c and d we report the soft $F_1$ measure, since we are calculating partial match rather than exact match.}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Statistics}
\label{sect:stats}
In this study, we analyze 239 narratives from 66 participants (the development and test sets from the ComParE challenge) that have been annotated by four annotators each. Note that for 66 participants the total number of narratives should be 264, but in the ComParE challenge, 25 files were removed because of issues like noise.
We observe that the number of annotations (text-spans) annotated by the annotators per narrative vary from 3 to 14 with an average of 4.6, also that all annotators follow the same pattern from this aspect. We also calculated the number of tokens present in the annotations. The numbers show that three of the annotators (\textit{ann1, ann2, ann3}), on average select a span of 1.5 tokens, while the fourth annotator (\textit{ann4}) selects three tokens (avg.) per annotation. Note that, for all the analysis, we use the spaCy toolkit\footnote{\href{https://spacy.io/}{https://spacy.io/}} for tokenization. We observe that many annotations contain punctuation marks, which are considered as separate tokens by spaCy. Thus, we perform the same calculations while ignoring the punctuation tokens. We find that the average number of tokens drops down to 1.1 for the first three annotators, while it drops down to 2.3 for the \textit{ann4}.
We also analyzed the distributions of POS tags, and as expected, found that the most common categories include noun (35\%), adjective (30\%), verb (15\%), and adverb (7\%).
\subsection{Evaluation of Annotations}
In this section we measure the quality of the annotations in terms of inter-annotator agreement. In the first part, we define different metrics for evaluation. In the second part, we show the results using different metrics and strategies.
\subsubsection{Metrics}
Commonly used metrics for evaluating the agreement between annotators include variations of $\kappa$ coefficient such as Cohen's \cite{cohen1960coefficient} for two annotators, Fleiss' \cite{fleiss1971measuring} for multiple annotators. Unfortunately, calculations for $\kappa$ such as observed and chance agreements involve the knowledge of true negatives, which is not well defined for a text span selection task. (eg. in this study, it could mean the number of possible text spans that are not annotated). This makes $\kappa$ impractical as a measure of agreement for text spans annotation.
An alternative agreement measure that does not require the knowledge of true negatives for its calculations is Positive (Specific) Agreement \cite{fleiss1975measuring}(${ P }_{ pos }$ Eq. \ref{eq:ppos}). It has previously been shown to be useful in the evaluation of crowdsourced annotations tasks, similar to our's \cite{stepanov2018cross,chowdhury2014cross}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Histogram.png}
\caption{Sorted counts of emotion carriers (English translations of annotated German text spans) shared and agreed upon by the annotators. Notice the long tail of singletons. Due to space limitations, we perform binning of the carriers and show only a representative element from each bin.}
\label{fig:histogram}
\end{figure*}
The Equation \ref{eq:ppos} defines the positive agreement in terms of true positives (TP), false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN). We can see that the knowledge of \textit{true negatives (TN)} is not required for the calculation of the positive agreement. Also, notice that the equation is similar to the widely used $F_1$-measure \cite{hripcsak2005agreement}. In our experiments, we calculate the positive agreement for each pair of annotators.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ppos}
{ P }_{ pos } = \frac{ 2\times TP }{ 2\times TP + FP + FN }
\end{equation}
Another problem we face in the task of text spans selection is the annotation of overlapping text fragments. Given the freedom on the lengths and positions of the text spans, two annotators might annotate different but overlapping text spans. The overlapping part could be an important part, thus the annotations should not be discarded completely. For instance, in Table \ref{tab:annotation_example}, \textit{`positive Aufregung'} and \textit{`Aufregung'}, both the spans contain the fragment \textit{`Aufregung'}, which is important to be considered. Thus, we report results on exact matches as well as partial matches, following the work by \cite{johansson-moschitti-2010-syntactic}. For the partial match, they calculate ``soft'' $F_1$-measure by calculating the coverage of the hypothesis spans.
The coverage of a span($s$) with respect to another span ($s'$) is calculated as defined in Equation \ref{eq:coverage}, with the help of the number of tokens common in the two spans. The operator$|.|$ counts the number of tokens.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coverage}
c ( s , s ^ { \prime } ) = \frac { | s \cap s ^ { \prime } | } { | s | }
\end{equation}
Next, a span set coverage $C$ is defined for a set of spans $S$ with respect to another set of spans $S'$ using the Equation \ref{eq:set_coverage}.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:set_coverage}
C ( S , S ^ { \prime } ) = \sum _ { s _ { i } \in S } \sum _ { s _ { j } \in S ^ { \prime } } c ( s _ { i } , s _ { j } ^ { \prime } )
\end{equation}
In order to calculate the soft $F_1$-measure, first soft precision and soft recall are calculated according to Eq \ref{eq:softprec} and Eq \ref{eq:softrecall} respectively. Here $S_H$ and $S_R$ are hypothesis and reference spans respectively, and $|.|$ operator counts the number of spans.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:softprec}
precision( S _ { R } , S _ { H } ) = \frac { C ( S _ { R } , S _ { H } ) } { | S _ { H } | }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:softrecall}
recall( S _ { R } , S _ { H } ) = \frac { C ( S _ { H } , S _ { R } ) } { | S _ { R } | }
\end{equation}
Finally the soft $F_1$-measure is calculated using the standard formula \ref{eq:soft_f}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soft_f}
F_1 = 2 \times {\frac{precision \times recall}{precision + recall}}
\end{equation}
As the personal narratives are longer, often some terms are repetitive. In our task, the position of an annotation is not quite important compared to the content. We further try to loosen the criteria for matching by not considering the position of the text fragments. For instance, let us say a narrative contains mentions of \textit{`trip'} at multiple places, like \textit{`we went for a trip to India'} and \textit{`the trip was great'}. If two annotators intend to annotate the word \textit{`trip'}, they have multiple locations to choose from. While from the perspective of discourse, it would be interesting to see which position seems more appropriate, for our purpose of extraction of emotion carriers it is less important. Following the same intuition, we also try to match tokens having the same lemma.
\subsubsection{Results}
Table \ref{tab:results} shows the evaluation results based on the various strategies of matching described above. The $F_1$-measure is calculated for all pairs of annotators. For each strategy, we also report the mean of pairwise scores. In the four tables from Table (a) to Table (d) we loosen the matching criteria, thus increasing the scores. We show the results starting from the most strict criteria of exact matching in the table (a), then in the table (b), we show results for partial matching, but the positions of the annotations are taken into consideration. The improvements are most significant in the case of \textit{ann4}, as we saw earlier in Section \ref{sect:stats} that \textit{ann4} usually annotates longer fragments than others. This shows that the \textit{ann4} annotates longer spans, but still contains the important part that other annotators annotate. Later in table (C), we remove the constraint of position, which results in improved scores, showing that even if the annotations by different annotators are different they often contain similar terms/carriers. This also shows that the annotators often ignore the instruction from the guidelines of selecting the first occurrence of the same term (Section \ref{sect:guidelines_scheme}). In the table (d), we further try to match more things by considering lemmas instead of tokens, which results in an increment.
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{sect:qualitative_analysis}
In this section, firstly we discuss the quality of emotion carriers annotations compared to other annotation efforts which used inter-annotator metrics similar to ours. Secondly, we explore two main questions in regards to emotion carriers annotations in our corpus, namely whether emotion carriers consists only of sentiment words and whether we can observe any positional relation between emotion carriers and disfluencies.
\paragraph{How good are the annotations?}
It is difficult to judge the quality of the annotations by looking at the inter-annotator agreement scores, which are not self-explanatory. If we compare our task with other previous tasks that used a similar metric, we can better understand the complexity of the task and judge the quality of the annotations.
\newcite{chowdhury2014cross} worked on the task of semantic annotations of the utterances from conversations. For example, one of the sub-task annotators had to perform was selecting a text span describing a hardware concept. For a particular concept like \textit{printer}, the annotators could select the spans \textit{`with the printer'}, \textit{`the printer'} or just \textit{`printer'}, all of which are correct. The problem they faced for the selection of span is similar to ours, but the complexity and subjectivity are low, as they work on shorter texts and the annotator has more idea about the concept to be selected. They use the same metric as ours to evaluate the inter-annotator agreement for the span selection. They achieve $F_1$ scores of 0.39 and 0.46 (for two different subsets of data) for the exact match, whereas 0.63 and 0.7 for the partial match (mean of pairwise agreements between three annotators). While our scores for exact and partial matches are 0.25 and 0.4, which we believe are reasonable given the subjectivity of the task and more number of annotators.
\paragraph{Are emotion carriers just sentiment words?}
As seen in the example from Table \ref{tab:annotation_example}, the annotations include sentiment words as well as content words.
In order to further study what is the actual distribution of sentiment words (\textit{angry, joy}) versus content words in emotion carriers, we analyze the annotation of sentiment words across the annotators.
For this, we calculate the sentiment polarity of each annotation using the textblob-de library \footnote{\href{https://textblob-de.readthedocs.io/en/latest}{https://textblob-de.readthedocs.io/en/latest}}, which makes use of the polarity scores of the words from senti-wordnet for German (with simple heuristics), similar to the English senti-wordnet \cite{esuli2006sentiwordnet}. We find that the trends of using sentiment carrying phrases vary across the annotators. The fraction of annotations carrying sentiment varies from 24\% to 56\% (\textit{ann1: 39\%; ann2: 24\%; ann3: 36\%; ann4: 56\%}) for the four annotators. For further analysis, we plan to categorize the annotations into categories inspired by the ones used in the \textit{Psychological Processes} categories of the LIWC dictionary \cite{pennebaker2015development}.
In addition to the distribution across the annotators, we further analyze if there is a trend in the counts of occurrences of sentiment and content words.
In Figure \ref{fig:histogram}, we show an interesting observation from the annotations. We plot the histogram of overlaps from partial-matches that we get while evaluating the inter-annotator agreements for all annotator-pairs, with respect to their counts of occurrences. Due to space limitations, we only show the representative annotations and not all the partial-matches. We can see that the overlaps contain both, emotion words such as \textit{proud, hopeless, disbelief} as well as content words like \textit{scholarship, education, dance}. We notice that there is a long tail of overlaps having only a single occurrence. This shows that a few terms are annotated frequently and agreed upon by annotators, while many terms are unique to specific narratives. As expected, we observe more content words than sentiment words in the tail, while it is surprising to see content words like \textit{internship, solution} appearing in the most frequent words.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fillers-carriers-positions-2.png}
\caption{The relative positions of the closest fillers (a type of disfluency, e.g. ähm, äh, mhm) with respect to emotion carriers (in blue) and random words (in green) in the narratives, both assumed to be at position 0.
For example, the bar at position +1 indicates that the percentage of the emotion carriers for which the closest filler is the token just after the carrier is almost 6\%, while for random words it is less than 2\%.
It can be noticed how emotion carriers tend to be more frequently followed by a filler (see positions +1 to +3) within the next 3 words compared to random words.
}
\label{fig:fillers-carriers}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Is there a positional relation between emotion carriers and disfluencies?}
To investigate whether there is any recognizable pattern that could be useful for emotion carriers recognition, we analyze emotion carriers annotations in terms of position within narratives. However, we find that emotion carriers annotations are scattered across all positions in the narratives. The mean position of the annotations is usually near the middle of the narratives. \\
Hence, to further deepen the possible positional patterns of distribution of emotion carriers that might be helpful in signaling their occurrence, we focus on disfluencies.
This intuition was inspired by the results obtained by \newcite{Tammewar2019} on the USoMS corpus.
\newcite{Tammewar2019} show that fillers, a type of disfluency that identifies non-lexical utterances (such as \textit{uhm} or \textit{uh} in English) filling a pause in an utterance or conversation are useful for the task of valence prediction, since they appear both as relevant features in an SVM-based valence prediction approach and analyzing higher attention weights in a Attention-based neural sequence tagger. \\
Inspired by this observation, we study the relative positions of fillers with respect to the emotion carriers to verify whether there is any pattern of association between these elements. For this analysis, we select the nearest fillers for all carriers and summarize the analysis in Figure \ref{fig:fillers-carriers}. Since we are interested in investigating whether fillers occur near the emotion carriers, in the figure we show only the positions $-5$ to $+5$. We find the most occurrences at position $+2$ (7\% of the carriers) followed by $+1$, $+3$ while the most common on the negative side (occur before the carriers) include $-1$, $-4$. To ensure that the proximity of the carriers to fillers is meaningful, we also perform the same analysis for selecting other random words from the same narratives. In order to have a fair comparison, we exclude functional words from the random words considered and select only content words such nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs.
Moreover, we only consider as fillers elements that are unambiguously disfluencies in German (i.e. \textit{ähm, äh, mhm}) and do not consider other words (like \textit{also} in German), which depending on the context, may or may not carry meaning. Table \ref{fig:fillers-carriers} shows how, compared to random words, fillers seem to appear more frequently within the immediate context of carriers. While our analysis could be further extended to include other types of disfluencies, this result shows an interesting pattern of association in terms of position between emotion carriers and speech fluency.
\section{Conclusion and Future Directions}
\label{sect:conclusions}
We proposed a new annotation scheme for the task of extracting emotion carriers from personal narratives (PN), which provides a deeper emotion analysis compared to the conventional emotional prediction task. We performed manual annotations of personal narratives to extract the emotion carriers that best explain the emotional state of the narrator. The annotation was done by four annotators. Narratives being longer and having a complex structure, we find the task to be subjective, which is reflected in the inter-annotator agreement scores and other analyses. Nevertheless, we find surprisingly high overlaps over the annotations, consisting of content words.
As it is difficult to interpret the agreement-scores in itself, to judge the quality of the annotations, we plan to study the improvements in the end-applications making use of the annotations, such as the task of valence prediction. If using the annotations provides better results than the existing systems, we can conclude that the annotations are indeed useful.
We believe that automated extraction of the emotion carriers as a task of Automatic Narrative Understanding (ANU) could benefit various applications. For instance, a conversational agent could use this information (from a PN shared by user) to start a meaningful conversation with the user about the extracted emotion carriers rather than just showing \textit{sympathy} or \textit{happiness} based on the emotion classification of the PN. We plan to annotate the training data and build a module for the automatic extraction of emotion carriers.
Another interesting aspect to study is the correlation between speech and emotion carriers. As our analysis points out, there seems to be an association in terms of position between fillers and carriers, which might be in line with recent findings regarding fillers position and the prediction of perceived metacognitive states \cite{dinkar2020howconfident}.
The USoMs corpus contains speech and transcriptions of the PNs, allowing us to explore the correlation between the different modalities.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union – H2020 Programme under grant agreement 826266: COADAPT.
\section{Bibliographical References}
\label{main:ref}
\balance
\bibliographystyle{lrec}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Relativistic Poisson problem}\label{intro-RPP}
In this paper we are concerned with asymptotically Euclidean, conformally flat, time-symmetric initial data for compactly supported, smooth clouds of relativistic dust on $\mathbb{R}^3$. Within such a framework the Einstein constraint equations reduce to the Hamiltonian constraint relating scalar curvature to the matter content. This constraint is typically formulated in terms of matter density of the dust cloud. In place of matter density we express matter (dust) by means of a $3$-form $\omega$. Our decision to use forms in place of densities is motivated by the fact that the concept of matter density inherently involves the concepts of metric and volume. As a result, employment of matter density in the formulation of the constraints makes it impossible to view the constraints as equations which inform us about the geometric responses to presence of matter. By expressing the ``amount" of matter present in a metric \emph{independent} way, such as the one in Definition \ref{matterdist:defn} below, we are able to frame the solutions to the constraints as responses to presence of matter. For additional benefits of using $3$-forms for conveying matter see Remark \ref{oldformulationisbad} and Section \ref{heuristics-subsection}.
\begin{definition}[Matter Distribution]\label{matterdist:defn}
By matter distribution we mean a $3$-form $\omega = \phi\, \dvol_{\geucl}$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ where $\phi \geq$ 0 is smooth, compactly supported, and not identically equal to zero.
\end{definition}
The Hamiltonian constraint for the metric $g_\omega$ corresponding to the matter distribution $\omega$ reads as
$$R(g_\omega)\mathrm{dvol}_{g_\omega}=32\pi \frac{G}{2c^2} \omega.$$
From now on we set $g_\omega=\theta^4 g_{\mathbb{E}}$. The asymptotic conditions which ensure asymptotically Euclidean data are
$$\left|\partial_x^l\!\left(\theta(x)-1\right)\right|=O(|x|^{-|l|-1}),\ \ |x|\to \infty.$$
We see from $R(\theta^4g_{\mathbb{E}})=-8\theta^{-5}\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta$ that
the Hamiltonian constraint is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{TheEqn}
\theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}=-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega \text{\ \ i.e\ \ } \theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta =-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2}\phi.
\end{equation}
It is interesting to note that the collection of papers by Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (e.g \cite{ZeroMass, ADM}) also featured the Hamiltonian constraint in this form.
\begin{definition}[RPP]\label{RPP:defn}
A Relativistic Poisson Problem (RPP) is the equation
\begin{equation*}
\theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta\, \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}= -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega
\end{equation*}
paired with an asymptotic boundary condition
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{|x| \to \infty} \theta (x) = b \ \ \text{where} \ b \geq 0.
\end{equation*}
When the asymptotic boundary condition is not explicitly mentioned the reader should assume $b=1$.
\end{definition}
The existence and uniqueness of solutions of RPP is addressed in Proposition 1, Proposition 8, and Remark 1 of \cite{NI}. Overall, we have the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{ThetaF:prop}
Let $\omega$ be a matter distribution. For each $b \geq 0 $, there exists a unique, smooth, and positive solution $\theta$ of
\begin{equation*}
\theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\, \theta\dvol_{\geucl} = -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega , \ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \theta(x) = b.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, the solution $\theta$ satisfies the asymptotic conditions \begin{equation}\label{asymptotic-conditions}
\left|\partial ^l_x\left(\theta(x)-b\right)\right|\lesssim |x|^{-1-|l|} \text{\ \ as\ \ } |x|\to \infty.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{oldformulationisbad}
Had we formulated the Hamiltonian constraint as $R(g_\omega)=16\pi \frac{G}{c^2} \phi$ with $\phi$ denoting the energy \underline{density}, we would have been lead to the problem
\begin{equation}\label{oldRPP}
\theta^{-5} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta = -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \phi , \ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \theta(x) =1.
\end{equation}
The exponent on $\theta$ makes all the difference: in contrast to Theorem \ref{ThetaF:prop} the problem \eqref{oldRPP} does not permit positive solutions when $\phi$ is relatively large. Specifically, for $\phi$ which satisfy
$$\frac{G}{2c^2}\int_\xi \frac{\phi(\xi)}{|x-\xi|}\dvol_{\geucl} \ge 1 \text{\ \ for all\ \ } x\in \mathrm{supp}(\phi)$$
one can use an iterative, inductive argument based on Green's Representation Formula
$$\theta(x)=1+\frac{G}{2c^2} \int_\xi \frac{\phi(\xi)}{|x-\xi|}\theta^5(\xi)\dvol_{\geucl}$$
to show that any solution $\theta$ to \eqref{oldRPP} must satisfy $\theta\ge 2^{5^n}$ for all $n$, at least over the support of $\phi$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Physical interpretations}\label{heuristics-subsection}
There are at least two additional good reasons for viewing the equation \eqref{TheEqn} as a relativistic counterpart to the Poisson equation of classical, Newtonian gravity. First and foremost, note that the Ansatz
$$\theta=1+\tfrac{G}{2c^2}u$$
converts \eqref{TheEqn} to
$$\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}u+ O\left(\frac{1}{2c^2}\right)=-4\pi G \phi;$$
as a result, the Newtonian limit of the equation \eqref{TheEqn} is the classical Poisson equation for the gravitational potential $u$. Secondly, there is a heuristic argument in favor of \eqref{TheEqn} based on the equivalence of mass and energy. A system of sources of \emph{effective} masses $m_i$ at locations $p_i$ would have the total mass-energy of
$$\sum_i m_i c^2+\sum_{i\neq j} G\frac{m_im_j}{|p_i-p_j|}.$$
At first glance, it may appear that the latter could be reformulated as the statement that the (total) \emph{bare} mass of the system is given by
\begin{equation}\label{CheatingEqn}
\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\mathrm{bare}}=&\sum_i m_i\delta_{p_i}(x) + \frac{G}{2c^2} \sum_{ij} \frac{m_i m_j}{|x-p_j|}\delta_{p_i}(x)\\
=&\left(1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_j\frac{m_j}{|x-p_j|}\right)\sum_i m_i\delta_{p_i}(x),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{p_i}$ denotes the Dirac delta distribution with center at $p_i$. Substituting
$$\theta=1+\tfrac{1}{2c^2}u \text{\ \ for\ \ } u(x)=\sum_jG\frac{m_j}{|x-p_j|}$$
into \eqref{CheatingEqn}, and observing that
$$\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta=-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \sum_i m_i\delta_{p_i}$$
yields \eqref{TheEqn}. As we discuss below (see, for example, the self-interaction term in \eqref{meet-delta-over-r:eqn}) there is an illuminating error in \eqref{CheatingEqn}. Nonetheless, the perspective presented in \eqref{CheatingEqn} makes clear the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item The solutions $\theta=1+\tfrac{1}{2c^2}u$ of \eqref{TheEqn} serve as generalizations of the gravitational potential from classical gravity.
\medbreak
\item The equation \eqref{TheEqn} de-facto decomposes bare mass into the sum of effective mass (corresponding to $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta$) and interaction energy (corresponding to $(\theta-1)\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta$).
\medbreak
\item The coupling of $\theta$ and $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta$ in \eqref{TheEqn} is modeling gravitational interaction.
\end{itemize}
The last observation can serve as a basis for explorations of one-parameter families of theories which continuously interpolate between Newtonian and relativistic dust; see Section \ref{furthercontext:sec} below.
\subsection{Brill-Lindquist metrics}\label{intro-BL}
The following example offers some crucial insights, although nominally it does not fit the conditions of our Definition \ref{matterdist:defn}. The example is a vacuum example, is defined on $\mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus\{p_1, ..., p_Q\}$ and features the metric
\begin{equation}\label{BL-maineqn}
g_{BL}=\left(1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^Q \frac{a_i}{|x-p_i|}\right)^4 g_{\mathbb{E}},\ \ a_i>0.
\end{equation}
Metrics of the form \eqref{BL-maineqn} were studied in great detail in the work of Brill and Lindquist. Specifically, in \cite{BL} it is argued that metrics \eqref{BL-maineqn} describe a cloud of particles of (effective) masses $a_i$ located at $p_i$.
Under certain assumptions on the separations $|p_i-p_j|$ and coefficients $a_i$ (for example, see \cite{SormaniStavrov}) the geometry of Brill-Lindquist metrics is as indicated in Figure \ref{fig1}. The front row of point-sources in Figure \ref{fig1} illustrates the fact that the minimal surfaces associated with individual particles, as well as the lengths of ``individual necks", depend on the mutual relationship between the values of $a_i$ and $p_i$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.68]
\draw[thick] (-8.5,-6) to (2.5, -6) to (4,-3) to (-6.5, -3) to (-8.5, -6);
\node[right] at (1.15,-3.5) {$|x|\to \infty$};
\draw[thick] (-8.15,-9.75) to (-5.55, -9.75) to (-4.55,-7.75) to (-6.15, -7.75);
\draw[thick] (-6.45, -7.75) to (-7.15, -7.75) to (-8.15, -9.75);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-6.6, -5) to [out=-60, in=95] (-6.35, -6);
\draw[thick] (-6.35, -6) to [out=-85, in=90] (-6.35, -6.75) to [out=-90, in=60](-6.75, -8.75);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-5.75, -5) to [out=-120, in=85] (-6.15, -6);
\draw[thick] (-6.15, -6) to [out=-95, in=90] (-6.15, -7) to [out=-90, in=120](-5.85, -8.75);
\draw[ultra thick] (-6.35,-7.15) to [out=-15, in=-165] (-6.15,-7.15);
\node[right] at (-7.5,-9.3) {$x\to p_i$};
\draw[thick] (-5.15,-9.25) to (-2.35, -9.25) to (-1.35,-7.25) to (-3.1, -7.25);
\draw[thick] (-3.35, -7.25) to (-4.15, -7.25) to (-5.15, -9.25);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-3.6, -5) to [out=-60, in=95] (-3.35, -6);
\draw[thick] (-3.35, -6) to [out=-85, in=90] (-3.35, -6.25) to [out=-90, in=60](-3.75, -8.25);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-2.75, -5) to [out=-120, in=85] (-3.15, -6);
\draw[thick] (-3.15, -6) to [out=-95, in=90] (-3.15, -6.5) to [out=-90, in=120](-2.85, -8.25);
\draw[ultra thick] (-3.35,-6.65) to [out=-15, in=-165] (-3.15,-6.65);
\draw[thick] (-2.15,-10.25) to (0.65, -10.25) to (1.65,-8.25) to (-0.1, -8.25);
\draw[thick] (-0.35, -8.25) to (-1.15, -8.25) to (-2.15, -10.25);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-0.6, -5) to [out=-60, in=90] (-0.35, -6);
\draw[thick] (-0.35, -6) to [out=-90, in=90] (-0.35, -6.25) to [out=-90, in=60](-0.75, -9.25);
\draw[thick, dashed] (0.25, -5) to [out=-120, in=90] (-0.15, -6);
\draw[thick] (-0.15, -6) to [out=-90, in=90] (-0.15, -6.5) to [out=-90, in=120](0.15, -9.25);
\draw[ultra thick] (-0.35,-7.35) to [out=-15, in=-165] (-0.15,-7.35);
\draw[thick] (-7.05,-7.05) to (-6.35, -7.05);
\draw[thick] (-6.15, -7.05) to (-4.25, -7.05) to (-3.8, -6);
\draw[dotted] (-3.8, -6) to (-3.4,-5.2) to (-6.25, -5.2) to (-6.6, -6);
\draw[thick] (-6.6, -6) to (-7.05, -7.05);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-5.8, -3.25) to [out=-60, in=95] (-5.55, -4.25) to [out=-85, in=90] (-5.55, -4.5) to [out=-90, in=60](-5.95, -6.5);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-4.95, -3.25) to [out=-120, in=85] (-5.35, -4.25) to [out=-95, in=90] (-5.35, -4.75) to [out=-90, in=120](-5.05, -6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (-5.55,-4.9) to [out=-15, in=-165] (-5.35,-4.9);
\draw[thick] (-4.05,-7.05) to (-3.35, -7.05);
\draw[thick] (-3.15, -7.05) to (-1.25, -7.05) to (-0.8, -6);
\draw[dotted] (-0.8, -6) to (-0.4,-5.2) to (-3.25, -5.2) to (-3.6, -6);
\draw[thick] (-3.6, -6) to (-4.05, -7.05);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-2.8, -3.25) to [out=-60, in=95] (-2.55, -4.25) to [out=-85, in=90] (-2.55, -4.5) to [out=-90, in=60](-2.95, -6.5);
\draw[thick, dashed] (-1.95, -3.25) to [out=-120, in=85] (-2.35, -4.25) to [out=-95, in=90] (-2.35, -4.75) to [out=-90, in=120](-2.05, -6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (-2.55,-4.9) to [out=-15, in=-165] (-2.35,-4.9);
\draw[thick] (-1.05,-7.05) to (-0.35, -7.05);
\draw[thick] (-0.15, -7.05) to (1.75, -7.05) to (2.2, -6);
\draw[dotted] (2.2, -6) to (2.6,-5.2) to (-0.25, -5.2) to (-0.6, -6);
\draw[thick] (-0.6, -6) to (-1.05, -7.05);
\draw[thick, dashed] (0.2, -3.25) to [out=-60, in=95] (0.45, -4.25) to [out=-85, in=90] (0.45, -4.5) to [out=-90, in=60](0.05, -6.5);
\draw[thick, dashed] (1.05, -3.25) to [out=-120, in=85] (0.65, -4.25) to [out=-95, in=90] (0.65, -4.75) to [out=-90, in=120](0.95, -6.5);
\draw[ultra thick] (0.45,-4.9) to [out=-15, in=-165] (0.65,-4.9);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Brill-Lindquist metrics.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Relative to the asymptotic end where $|x|\to \infty$ one computes
$$m_{\mathrm{ADM}}(\infty)=\sum a_i.$$
However, relative to the asymptotic end where $x\to p_i$ one computes
\begin{equation}\label{baremass-BL}
m_{\mathrm{ADM}}(p_i)=a_i\left(1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{j\neq i} \frac{a_j}{|p_i-p_j|}\right).
\end{equation}
The reader is encouraged to examine parallels between \eqref{CheatingEqn} and the expression \eqref{baremass-BL}. Once again we are lead to distinguishing the \emph{effective mass} $a_i$ from the \emph{bare mass} given by \eqref{baremass-BL}.
\subsection{On relativistic point-sources}\label{intro-point-sources}
As seen in Sections \ref{heuristics-subsection} and \ref{intro-BL}, the non-linearity of RPP is tied to the concept of interaction energy between different parts of a matter distribution. In contrast to Newtonian (linear) theory of gravity, the discrepancy between the concepts of the effective mass and the bare mass makes it at least difficult if not entirely impossible to view relativistic mass as an integral of mass density\footnote{Defining a suitable notion of quasi-local mass is still one of the most investigated problems in general relativity.}. This fact alone is an indicator that the Dirac delta framework -- the most commonly used framework for managing point-sources -- is inadequate in the relativistic context. The observation we just made has been in the literature at least since the landmark 1960-62 papers of Arnowitt, Deser and Misner \cite{ZeroMass, ADM}. Specifically, it can be shown that an employment of Dirac delta function in the absence of, say, charge necessitates the vanishing of the ADM mass of the point-source. We quote from \cite{ADM}:
\begin{quote}
.... mass only arises if a particle has nongravitational interaction ...
\end{quote}
The subject of point-sources was revisited more recently in \cite{NI} where -- in contrast to \cite{ZeroMass, ADM} -- it is shown that a gravitational point-source of non-zero mass which is not coupled to any other field (and is in particular electrically neutral) can indeed be constructed in a mathematically rigorous way. The results of \cite{NI} make it clear that we need to rethink the deeply engrained presumption that point-sources are to be modeled using the Dirac delta functions. To see what the appropriately non-linear substitute might be, let us investigate the RPP
\begin{equation*}
\theta_{\mathrm{Schw}} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta_{\mathrm{Schw}} \dvol_{\geucl}= -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2}\omega_{\mathrm{Schw}} \ \text{for} \ \theta_{\mathrm{Schw}} = (1 + \tfrac{G}{2c^2}\tfrac{m}{r})
\end{equation*}
for a Schwarzchild body $(1+\tfrac{G}{2c^2}\frac{m}{r})^4 g_{\mathbb{E}}$. We see that instead of (the multiple of) the Dirac delta function the bare mass $\omega_{\mathrm{Schw}}$ of a point-source schematically equals
\begin{equation}\label{meet-delta-over-r:eqn}
m\,\delta + m^2\,\frac{G}{2c^2}\,\frac{\delta}{r}= \omega_{\mathrm{Schw}}.
\end{equation}
Authors of \cite{NI} go on to make the idea of $\frac{\delta}{r}$ mathematically rigorous, and propose a point-source model based on such a $\frac{\delta}{r}$-framework.
The approach to $\frac{\delta}{r}$ presented in \cite{NI} is reliant on blow up analysis. In a nutshell\footnote{The framework in \cite{NI} is more general and includes approximately self-similar ``collapse" to a point-source.}, the idea is to use a fixed matter distribution $\Omega$, a dilation $\H_{n}: y \mapsto x=y/n$ and a sequence of matter distributions $n\, (\H_{n})_{*}\Omega$. Note that because the Dirac delta distribution corresponds to $(\H_{n})_{*}\Omega$ it is the inclusion of the multiplicative factor of $n$ which makes $n\, (\H_{n})_{*}\Omega$ scale like $\frac{\delta}{r}$. Ultimately, the idea of \cite{NI} is to investigate the limit of geometries $\theta_n^4g_{\mathbb{E}}$, which are related to $n\, (\H_{n})_{*}\Omega$ by means of the RPP.
A careful reader may have noticed that the description in the previous paragraph is at least somewhat flawed due to units. Metaphorically speaking, if the units on $\delta$ were to be $\mathrm{kg}$ then the units on $\frac{\delta}{r}$ would have to be $\frac{\mathrm{kg}}{\mathrm{m}}$. To address any and all concerns of this sort we now provide a precise formulation of the framework of \cite{NI}. (For a generalization adapted to different levels of gravitational interactivity see Section \ref{furthercontext:sec}.)
\begin{definition}\label{framework-basic}
Let $\Omega$ be a matter distribution supported on a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$ and let $r_n$ be a sequence of positive numbers with $r_n\to 0$.
Consider
$d_{n}=\left(\tfrac{G}{2c^2}\cdot\tfrac{m}{r_n}\right)^{-1}$ where $m= \int\Omega$. A sequence of distributions $\omega_n$ is self-similar of $\Omega$-type if for the dilation $\mathcal{H}_{d_{n}}: y\mapsto d_{n}\,y$ we have
$$\Omega=d_{n}\cdot \mathcal{H}_{d_{n}}^*\omega_n, \text{\ \ i.e.\ \ }
\omega_n = (d_{n})^{-1}\cdot \left(\mathcal{H}_{d_{n}}\right)_*\Omega.$$
\end{definition}
As mentioned above, the idea of \cite{NI} is to investigate the limit of geometries
$$g_n=\theta_{n}^4g_{\mathbb{E}},$$
which are related to $\omega_{n}$ by means of the RPP. Ultimately, the main result of \cite{NI}, depicted in Figure \ref{fig2}, is that one indeed recovers Schwarzschild metric in the limit.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.33]
\draw (-0.5,-6) to (6.25, -6) to (8.25,-4) to (1.5, -4) to (-0.5, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (2, -4.5) to [out=-30, in=100] (2.75, -6);
\draw[thick] (2.75, -6) to [out=-80, in=180] (3.75, -6.5) to [out=0, in=-100] (4.75, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (4.75, -6) to [out=80, in=-150] (5.75, -4.5);
\draw (8.75,-6) to (14, -6) to (16,-4) to (10.75, -4) to (8.75, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (11.5, -4.5) to [out=-30, in=100] (12.15, -5.25) to [out=-100, in=30] (11.75, -6);
\draw[thick] (11.75, -6) to [out=-150, in=90] (10.75, -7) to [out=-90, in=180] (12.25, -7.75) to [out=0, in=-100] (14.25, -7) to [out=80, in=-45] (13.5, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (13.5, -6) to [out=135, in=-90] (13.25, -5.25) to [out=80, in=-150] (13.75, -4.5);
\draw[thin] (12.15, -5.15) to [out=-10, in=-160] (13.25, -5.15);
\draw (16.65,-6) to (22, -6) to (24,-4) to (18.65, -4) to (16.65, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (19, -4.5) to [out=-30, in=100] (19.75, -5.6) to [out=-100, in=30] (19.5, -6);
\draw[thick] (19.5, -6) to [out=-120, in=75] (17.25, -7.25) to [out=-90, in=180] (19.5, -8.65) to [out=0, in=-100] (23, -7.5) to [out=100, in=-75] (20.8, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (20.8, -6) to [out=105, in=-90] (20.75, -5.6) to [out=80, in=-150] (21.5, -4.37);
\draw[thin] (19.75, -5.55) to [out=0, in=-165] (20.8, -5.55);
\draw (23.75, -6.5) to (26, -6.5);
\draw (25.8, -6.7) to (26, -6.5) to (25.8, -6.3);
\draw (26.75,-6) to (31.5, -6) to (33.5,-4) to (28.75, -4) to (26.75, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (29, -4.5) to [out=-30, in=90] (29.75, -6);
\draw[thick] (29.75, -6) to [out=-90, in=25] (28.75, -8);
\draw[thick] (31.75, -8) to [out=160, in=-90] (30.6, -6);
\draw[thick, dashed] (30.6, -6) to [out=90, in=-150] (31.45, -4.37);
\draw[thick] (29.8, -6.15) to [out=-20, in=-160] (30.6, -6.15);
\draw (26.5,-9) to (31.5, -9) to (33.5,-7) to (28.5, -7) to (26.5, -9);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Pictorial description of results from \cite{NI}.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}\label{NI-oldthm}
Adopt the notation established above, and fix some $k\in \mathbb{N}$. There exists an exhaustion
$$J_1\subseteq J_2\subseteq J_3\subseteq ... \subseteq \mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus\{0\},\ \ \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty J_n=\mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus\{0\}$$
with precompact open sets and embeddings $j_n:J_n\to \mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$$\|j_n^*g_{n}-g_{\mathrm{Schw}}\|_{C^k(J_n, g_{\mathrm{Schw}})}\to 0 \text{\ \ as\ \ } n\to \infty,$$
where $g_{\mathrm{Schw}}=\left(1+\tfrac{G}{2c^2}\tfrac{m_{\mathrm{eff}}}{|x|}\right)^4g_{\mathbb{E}}$ for some positive parameter $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$.
\end{theorem}
In addition, the mass parameter $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is explicitly computed in \cite{NI}. To state the result regarding $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ we need to revisit Theorem \ref{ThetaF:prop} for the specific value of $b=0$.
Let $\Theta$ denote the unique, smooth, positive solution of
\begin{equation}\label{thecrux}
\Theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta\, \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}= -4\pi \frac{G}{2c^2} \Omega, \ \ \ \ \lim_{|y| \to \infty} \Theta(y) = 0.
\end{equation}
The work in \cite{NI} (see Section 1.5) shows that
$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}=\int \frac{\Omega}{\Theta}.$$
In hindsight, it would have been prudent to employ the following normalization in \cite{NI}.
\begin{remark}\label{normalization:remark}
Replacing $\Omega$ with $\Omega_C = C\,\Omega$ amounts to replacing $\Theta$ with $\Theta_C = \sqrt{C}\,\Theta$. If we choose $C$ so that $$C = \left(\int\frac{\Omega}{\Theta}\right)^{-2}$$
we have the following consequence:
$$ \int \frac{\Omega_C}{\Theta_C} = \sqrt{C}\int\frac{\Omega}{\Theta} = 1.$$
From now on we always assume such a choice of $C$. In other words, from now on we always assume a fixed matter distribution $\Omega_0$ such that for its corresponding $\Theta_0$ we have
$$\int \frac{\Omega_0}{\Theta_0} =1.$$
\end{remark}
While the above normalization seems algebraically innocent, it does have a somewhat profound physical interpretation. The narrative thus far has de-facto assumed that the units on matter distributions
$\Omega$ (see Definition \ref{matterdist:defn}) are $\mathrm{kg}$ while the conformal factors $\Theta$ are unit-less. Under such a choice, the constant $C$ from Remark \ref{normalization:remark} has the units of $\mathrm{kg}^{-2}$. Overall, such a choice of units forces the units on $\Omega_0$ and $\Theta_0$ to be $\frac{1}{\mathrm{kg}}$. Should the reader find themselves uncomfortable with this perspective, they may benefit from the following informal description. Both $\Omega_0$ and $\Theta_0$ are in some sense ``bindable" to mass: $\Omega_0$, much like $\frac{G}{2c^2}\cdot \frac{\delta}{r}$ in \eqref{meet-delta-over-r:eqn}, awaits $(\mathrm{mass})^2$ to be multiplied with. At the same time, $\Theta_0$ awaits just $\mathrm{mass}$. For clarity reasons we emphasize that $\Theta=\Theta_0$ solves
$$\Theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta\, \dvol_{\geucl}= -4\pi \frac{G}{2c^2} \Omega_0, \ \ \ \ \lim_{|y| \to \infty} \Theta(y) = 0,$$
while $\Theta=m\Theta_0$ solves
\begin{equation}\label{m^2:eqn}
\Theta \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta\, \dvol_{\geucl}= -4\pi \frac{G}{2c^2} m^2\Omega_0, \ \ \ \ \lim_{|y| \to \infty} \Theta(y) = 0.
\end{equation}
In hindsight, it would have been prudent to center the work in \cite{NI} around \eqref{m^2:eqn} rather than \eqref{thecrux}. In this paper we assume normalized $\Omega_0$.
\subsection{On superposition of relativistic point-sources}
In the sense discussed in Sections \ref{heuristics-subsection}, \ref{intro-BL} and \ref{intro-point-sources} above, the non-linearity of general relativity makes it questionable if one should even attempt to view a relativistic cloud of matter as being made up of point-source constituents. And yet, there is an undeniable sense that mass, much like volume or simply amount of some substance, is an \underline{\emph{extensive}} variable. In this paper we point to the possibility that relativistic clouds of matter could in fact be viewed as cumulative effects of point-sources provided one interprets the concept of point-sources as in \cite{NI}.
Perhaps the most delicate issue to circumnavigate is the inherent lack of superposition associated with the RPP. Even if one were to believe that the framework of \cite{NI} leads to the appropriate interpretation of the phrase ``point-source", there is no reason to believe that the framework lends itself to a principle of superposition. It is natural to think that Brill-Lindquist metrics \eqref{BL-maineqn} might somehow embody the idea of superposition, but it is not at all obvious (and it is maybe not even expected) that such an intuitive understanding can be put on mathematically rigorous footing. The entire goal of our paper is to provide a framework which serves as a de-facto superposition of point-sources of \cite{NI} and which recovers Brill-Lindquist metrics \eqref{BL-maineqn} in the limit. Specifically, our framework relies on the following definition.
\begin{definition}[Source configuration]\label{dust:defn}
Suppose $\Omega_0$ is a normalized matter distribution in the sense of Remark \ref{normalization:remark}, and suppose $\Omega_0$ is supported on the unit ball centered at the origin. Let $\P = \{ (p_1, a_1), ... , (p_{Q}, a_{Q}) \}$ be a set of $Q$ point-sources, each located at $p_i$ with effective mass $a_i$. Finally, consider the dilations
$$\H_{n, p_i}: y \mapsto x = p_i + y/n.$$
We say $\omega_{\P,n}$ is a source configuration of $(\Omega_0, \P)$-type if
\begin{equation*}
\omega_{\P,n} =\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^2\cdot n \, (\H_{n,p_i})_{*}\Omega_0.
\end{equation*}
By the separation parameter of the configuration we mean
$$\sigma (\P):=\min \{ |p_j - p_i | \big | i \neq j \}.$$
When $\P$ is clear from context we simply write $\omega_n$ and $\sigma$.
\end{definition}
Much as in \cite{NI} we analyze solutions $\theta_{\P,n}$ to
\begin{equation}\label{littleRPP:eqn}
\theta_{\P,n} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta_{\P,n}\dvol_{\geucl} = -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega_{\P,n}, \ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \theta_{\P,n}(x) = 1,
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{\P,n}$ is from Definition \ref{dust:defn}. The following is our main result.
\begin{theorem}[Superposition Theorem]\label{Will-Iva-Thm1}
We have
$$\theta_{\P,n}(x)\to 1+ \frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} \frac{a_i}{|x -p_i|}\ \ \text{as}\ \ n\to \infty$$
over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus \{p_1, ..., p_Q\}$. The convergence is uniform with all the derivatives.
\end{theorem}
The limit function in Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} takes the form of the conformal factor of the Brill-Lindquist metrics for the cloud of point-sources of effective masses $a_i$ located at $p_i$ (see Section \ref{intro-BL}). This fact motivated the employment of the term ``effective mass" in Definition \ref{dust:defn}.
\subsection{One-parameter family of non-linear superposition principles}\label{furthercontext:sec}
We would also like to present the case that our superposition framework, made precise in Definition \ref{dust:defn} and Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} above, is in fact a continuous extension of the classical superposition principle of Newtonian gravity. Inspired by the observation that the coupling of $\theta$ and $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta$ in \eqref{TheEqn} is modeling gravitational interaction (see Section \ref{heuristics-subsection}) we introduce the following one-parameter family of \emph{Generalized Poisson Problems}.
\begin{definition}[GPP]\label{GPP:defn}
Let $\alpha\in[0,1]$. By a Generalized Poisson Problem (GPP) we mean
$$\theta^\alpha \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}=-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega,\ \ \lim_{x\to \infty} \theta(x)=b$$
with $b\ge 0$. When $b$ is not explicitly mentioned the reader should assume the value of $b=1$.
\end{definition}
The idea here is that the coupling of $\theta^\alpha$ to $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta$ models gravitational interactivity. The continuous parameter $\alpha$ marks the departure from the Newtonian Poisson equation ($\alpha=0$) towards its relativistic counterpart ($\alpha=1$). Basically, the introduction of the parameter $\alpha$ allows us to \emph{continuously} transition from the non-interactivity of the Newtonian matter towards the full interactivity of the relativistic matter. The following is the main theorem addressing the existence and the uniqueness of the solutions of the GPP, and is proven in Section \ref{GPP:sec}. The theorem also addresses the continuity of the GPP framework with respect to the parameter $\alpha$.
\begin{theorem}\label{AngryIvaThm}
For each $b\in[0,1]$ and each $\alpha\in[0,1]$ there exists a unique solution $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ of
\begin{equation}\label{TheAlphaEqn-modified}
\theta_{b,\alpha}^\alpha \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta_{b,\alpha} \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}=-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega,\ \ \lim_{x\to \infty} \theta_{b,\alpha}(x)=b,
\end{equation}
which in addition satisfies the asymptotic conditions \eqref{asymptotic-conditions}. The family $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ depends continuously on $(b,\alpha)$ in the sense that for all convergent sequences $(b_n,\alpha_n)\to (b,\alpha)$ in the permissible range we have convergences $\theta_{b_n,\alpha_n}\to \theta_{b,\alpha}$ with all derivatives on all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{theorem}
Of particular interest for our paper is the solution $\theta_{0,\alpha}$ of the GPP corresponding to the value of $b=0$. The following definition goes in parallel with Remark \ref{normalization:remark}.
\begin{definition}[$\alpha-$normalization]\label{newnormalization:definition}
By an $\alpha$-normalized matter distribution we mean a matter distribution $\Omega_{0,\alpha}$ supported on the standard unit ball such that
$$\int \frac{\Omega_{0,\alpha}}{\Theta_{0,\alpha}^\alpha}=1.$$
Here $\Theta_{0,\alpha}$ denotes the solution of the GPP
$$\Theta^\alpha \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta \dvol_{\geucl} =-4\pi \frac{G}{2c^2} \Omega_{0,\alpha},\ \ \lim_{|y|\to \infty} \Theta(y)=0$$
whose existence and uniqueness is established in Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm}. When a value of $\alpha$ is clear from context\footnote{E.g. the value of $\alpha=1$ is used throughout the sections of our paper dealing with RPP.} we drop $\alpha$ from the notation and simply write $\Omega_0$ and $\Theta_0$.
\end{definition}
The existence of $\alpha$-normalized distributions, as well as the fact that focusing only on them does not reduce any generality, can be established much as in Remark \ref{normalization:remark}; the appropriate value of $C$ in the generalized framework is
$$C=\left(\int \frac{\Omega}{\Theta^\alpha}\right)^{-(1+\alpha)}.$$
It is interesting to observe that, for a fixed distribution $\Omega$ and by virtue of Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm}, the normalization constant $C$ varies continuously in $\alpha$. Thus, there is a sense in which $\alpha$-normalization is continuous in $\alpha$.
We are now in position to alter Definition \ref{dust:defn} and make it compatible with the framework of GPP.
\begin{definition}\label{sourceconfiga}
Let $\P$ and $\H_{n, p_i}$ be as in Definition \ref{dust:defn} and let $\Omega_{0,\alpha}$ be an $\alpha$-normalized matter distribution in the sense of Definition \ref{newnormalization:definition}. We say $\omega_{\P,\alpha,n}$ is a source configuration of $(\alpha, \Omega_{0,\alpha}, \P)$-type if
\begin{equation}\label{alpha-matter:defn}
\omega_{\P,\alpha,n} =\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^{\alpha+1}\cdot n^{\alpha} \, (\H_{n,p_i})_{*}\Omega_{0,\alpha}.
\end{equation}
When $\alpha$ and $\P$ are clear from context we simply write $\omega_n$.
\end{definition}
Note that in the situation when $\alpha=0$ the configuration \eqref{alpha-matter:defn} reduces to $\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i\cdot (\H_{n,p_i})_{*}\Omega_{0}$. The latter is akin to a discrete version of the decomposition
$$\varrho(x)=\int_{p\in \mathbb{R}^3} \varrho\big{|}_p\cdot \delta_p(x),$$
where $\delta_p$ denotes the Dirac delta distribution centered at $p$. On the other hand, the value of $\alpha=1$ corresponds to the relativistic matter distribution of Definition \ref{dust:defn}. As discussed above, \eqref{alpha-matter:defn} exhibits continuity in $\alpha$ and can thus be interpreted as providing a continuous transition from the classical Newtonian framework to the relativistic framework of the RPP.
For the value of $\alpha=0$ the following result is recognizable as the classical Superposition Principle. By permitting $\alpha$ to vary we obtain a one-parameter family of superposition principles.
\begin{theorem}[Generalized Superposition Theorem]\label{Will-Iva-alphaThm}
Consider the solutions $\theta_{\P,\alpha, n}$ to
\begin{equation}\label{littleGPP:eqn}
\begin{cases}
\theta^{\alpha}_{\P,\alpha,n} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta_{\P,\alpha,n} \dvol_{\geucl}= -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega_{\P,\alpha,n},\\
\lim_{|x| \to \infty} \theta_{\P,\alpha,n}(x) = 1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{\P,\alpha,n}$ is from Definition \ref{sourceconfiga}. We have
$$\theta_{\P,\alpha, n}(x)\to 1+ \frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} \frac{a_i}{|x -p_i|}\ \ \text{as}\ \ n\to \infty$$
over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus \{p_1, ..., p_Q\}$. The convergence is uniform with all the derivatives.
\end{theorem}
For the value of $\alpha=1$ Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm} reduces to Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1}. It is in this sense that we understand Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} as a continuous extension of the classical superposition principle of Newtonian gravity. Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm} itself is proven in Section \ref{GPP:sec}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
Our research has been funded by John S. Rogers Science Research Program at Lewis \& Clark College.
\section{Proof of the Superposition Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1}.}
\subsection{Review of linear theory}\label{LinTheory:sec}
For a constant $b\in \mathbb{R}$ and a compactly supported smooth function $\varrho$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ the integral $\int_{\xi \in\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\varrho(\xi)}{|x-\xi|}\,\mathrm{dvol}_{\xi}$ is absolutely convergent and defines a function
\begin{equation}\label{GRF-verN}
u(x)=b+\int_{\xi \in\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\varrho(\xi)}{|x-\xi|}\,\mathrm{dvol}_{\xi}.
\end{equation}
Under the smoothness assumption on $\varrho$ one sees that $u$ is itself smooth, although differentiation of \eqref{GRF-verN} under the integral sign is only appropriate in certain situations. More specifically, differentiation under the integral sign is justified in the case of the first derivatives and in the case of $x\not \in \mathrm{supp}(\varrho)$.
The function $u(x)$ of \eqref{GRF-verN} is the unique solution to the asymptotic boundary value problem
$$\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} u = -4\pi \varrho,\ \ \lim_{|x|\to \infty} u(x)=b$$
and satisfies the asymptotic conditions \eqref{asymptotic-conditions}.
We now record boundedness properties of $u(x)$ needed in our paper. The proof is elementary and left to the reader.
\begin{lemma}\label{WillsLemma3}
\
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a constant $C_+$ which depends only on $\mathrm{supp}(\varrho)$ such that
$$\|u\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)}\le |b|+ C_+\|\varrho\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)}.$$
\medbreak
\item For each fixed non-negative $\varrho$ and a compact set $K\subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$ there is a positive constant $C_-=C_-(K)>0$ such that
$$u(x) \ge b+ C_-(K) \text{\ \ for all\ \ }x\in K.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The reader should note that the representation formula
\begin{equation}\label{GRF-main}
u(x)=b-\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\xi \in \mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} u(\xi)}{|x-\xi|}\,\mathrm{dvol}_{\xi}
\end{equation}
holds more generally -- even in situations when $\varrho=-\tfrac{1}{4\pi}\Delta u$ is not compactly supported. Indeed, one can show that \eqref{GRF-main} holds whenever $u$ satisfies the asymptotic decay conditions \eqref{asymptotic-conditions}.
\subsection{Strategy}
The main strategy in the proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} is to use pullback under $\H _{n, p_j}$ where, as in Definition \ref{dust:defn},
$$\H_{n, p_j}: y \mapsto x = p_j + y/n.$$
We now introduce the notation for (scaled) pullbacks we use throughout our proof.
\begin{definition}\label{pullb:defn}
Adapting the notation from Definition \ref{dust:defn}, we define
$$\Omega_{n,p_j} =\tfrac{1}{n}\H_{n,p_j}^*\omega_{\P,n} \text{\ \ and\ \ }
\Theta_{n, p_j} = \tfrac{1}{n}\H _{n, p_j}^{*}\theta_{\P,n}.$$
In addition, define the functions $\Phi_0$ and $\Phi_{n,p_j}$ by
$$\Omega_0=\Phi_0\,\mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \text{\ \ and\ \ }\Omega_{n,p_j}=\Phi_{n,p_j}\,\dvol_{\geucl}.$$
\end{definition}
Let us take the moment to record explicit expressions for $\Omega_{n,p_j}$ and $\Phi_{n, p_j}$.
\begin{remark}\label{pullb}
It follows from $\H _{n, p_i}^{-1}\circ \H_{n,p_j}(y)=y-n(p_i-p_j)$ and Definition \ref{dust:defn} that
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{n, p_j}(y) = &\H _{n, p_j}^*\left(\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^2\cdot (\H_{n,p_i})_{*} \Omega_0(y) \right)\\
=& \sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^2\cdot \Omega_0(y- n(p_i -p_j)),
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
Consequently, we have $\Phi_{n,p_j}(y)= \sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^2 \Phi_0(y - n(p_i - p_j))$.
\end{remark}
Since $\H _{n, p_j}^*\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}=n^2\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}$ and $\H _{n, p_j}^*\mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}=\tfrac{1}{n^3}\mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}$, pulling \eqref{littleRPP:eqn} back under $\H _{n, p_j}$ yields
\begin{equation}\label{BigRPP:eqn}
\Theta_{n,p_j} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta_{n,p_j} = -4\pi \frac{G}{2c^2}\Phi_{n, p_j}, \ \lim_{|y| \to \infty} \Theta_{n, p_j}(y) = \tfrac{1}{n}
\end{equation}
with $\Phi_{n,p_j}$ and $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ as in Definition \ref{pullb:defn}.
The key to proving Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} is in showing that for each fixed $p_j$ the sequence of functions $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ converges to $a_j\Theta_0$ as $n\to \infty$.
It is because of this that we are mainly interested in $\omega_{\P,n}$ for substantially large values on $n$. For example, we always assume that $n$ is large enough so that $\frac{1}{n}\ll \sigma(\P)$ and, specifically,
$$i\neq j \longrightarrow \mathrm{supp} \left((\H_{n,p_i})_{*} \Omega_0\right)\cap \mathrm{supp} \left((\H_{n,p_j})_{*} \Omega_0\right)=\emptyset.$$
In addition, we frequently make use of the following observation: For a given compact set $K\subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$ there exists $N(K,\sigma)$, depending only on $K$ and $\sigma$, such that for all $n\ge N(K,\sigma)$ we have
$$y\in K,\ i\neq j \longrightarrow y-n(p_i-p_j)\not\in B(0,1).$$
In view of the assumption that $\mathrm{supp}(\Omega_0) = B(0,1)$ (see Definition \ref{dust:defn}) expressions of Remark \ref{pullb} now give us the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{ivaslastminutebs}
Let $K$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$. There exists $N(K,\sigma)\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\Omega_{n, p_j}=a_j^2 \Omega_0$ for all $n\ge N(K,\sigma)$ and all $p_j$. In particular, we have
$$\Omega_{n, p_j} \to a_j^2 \Omega_0 \text{\ \ as\ \ } n\to \infty.$$
This convergence is uniform with all derivatives over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{lemma}
For convenience of the reader we also record another consequence of Remark \ref{pullb}. Note that the second of the claims relies on smoothness of $\Phi_0$ and the fact that expressions in Remark \ref{pullb} involve evaluation at $y-n(p_i-p_j)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{hboundp}
We have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\|\Phi_{n,p_j}\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq \left(\sum a_i^2\right)\|\Phi_0\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)}$ and
\medbreak
\item $\|\Phi_{n,p_j}\|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^3)}\leq \left(\sum a_i^2\right)\|\Phi_0\|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^3)}$ for all $k\ge 0$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, the bounds mentioned above are independent of $n$ and our choice of $p_j$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Bounds on $\Theta_{n, p_j}$}\label{Bounds2}
As stated earlier, our strategy is to show the sequence $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ converges to $a_j \Theta_0$. We will use a diagonal argument to construct a convergent subsequence of $\Theta_{n, p_j}$. The iterative process within the diagonal argument relies on Rellich Lemma. Thus, we continue by establishing bounds on $\Theta_{n, p_j}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{ThetaBounds:prop}\
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ are bounded in $L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$, independently of $n$ and our choice of $p_j$:
$$\|\Theta_{n, p_j}\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)}\le M_+ \text{\ \ for all\ \ } n, p_j.$$
\medbreak
\item Given a compact set $K$ there exists a positive constant $M_-=M_-(K)$ so that
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{n, p_j}(y) \ge a_j^2\cdot M_{-}(K) \ \ \text{for all $n, p_j $ and all $y\in K$}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin by bounding $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ from the above. Consider the fact that
\begin{equation}\label{keyinequality}
\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(\Theta_{n, p_j}^2) = 2 \Theta_{n, p_j} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta_{n, p_j} + 2 |d\Theta _{n, p_j}|^2 \geq -4\pi \frac{G}{c^2}\Phi_{n, p_j}.
\end{equation}
Since $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ satisfies \eqref{asymptotic-conditions} so does $\Theta_{n, p_j}^2$. Thus \eqref{GRF-main} still applies to $\Theta_{n,p_j}^2$. Combined with the inequality above we have,
\begin{equation}\label{BigDeal}
\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{n, p_j}^2(y) = &\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 - \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{\xi} \frac{1}{|y - \xi|}\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}} }(\Theta^2_{n,p_j})(\xi) \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \\
\leq &\,\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 + \frac{G}{c^2}\int_{\xi} \frac{\Omega_{n,p_j }(\xi)}{|y-\xi|}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It now follows from Lemmas \ref{WillsLemma3} and \ref{hboundp} that
$$\|\Theta_{n, p_j}^2\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)} \leq \,1 + C_+\cdot \left(\sum a_i^2\right)\,\|\Phi_0\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)},$$
for some universal constant $C_+$. In particular, it follows that the functions $\Theta_{n,p_j}$ are bounded in $L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$, independently of $n$ and our choice of $p_j$.
We move on to show $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ are bounded away from zero over compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$. Let $M_+$ be the $L^\infty$-upper bound we established thus far. From Green's representation formula \eqref{GRF-main} we have
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{n, p_j}(y) \geq \frac{G}{2c^2}\int_{\xi} \frac{\Omega_{n, p_j}(\xi)}{|y-\xi|\Theta_{n, p_j}(\xi)} \geq \frac{G}{2c^2}\,\frac{a_j^2}{M_+}\int_{\xi} \frac{\Phi (\xi)}{|y-\xi|}\dvol_{\geucl}.
\end{equation*}
Our claim is now an immediate consequence of the lower bound discussed in Lemma \ref{WillsLemma3}.
\end{proof}
Next, we address the behavior of $\Theta_{n, p_j}(y)$ as $y$ approaches infinity.
\begin{lemma}\label{ThetaDBC:prop}
Let $\varepsilon>0$, and let $p_j$ be fixed. There exists $L>1$ such that for all $|y| > L$ there exists $N \in \mathbb{N}$ so that when $n\ge N$ we have
$$\Theta_{n, p_j}(y) < \epsilon.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L>2$ be large enough so that
$$\frac{G}{c^2}\cdot\frac{2}{L}\,a_j^2\, \|\Omega_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)} <\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}.$$
Choose $N$ large enough so that
$$\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^2 +\frac{G}{c^2}\cdot\frac{4\sigma}{N}\left(\sum a_i^2\right)\,\|\Omega_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)}<\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}.$$
Let $y$ be such that $|y|>L$. Further increase $N$ so that
$$L<|y|<N\sigma/2.$$
Let $\eta\in B(0, 1)$. Note that
\begin{equation}\label{1/l}
\frac{1}{|y - \eta|} \leq \frac{1}{|y| - |\eta|} \leq \frac{1}{L - 1} \leq \frac{2}{L}.
\end{equation}
for all $n\ge N$. In addition, if $i\neq j$ we also have that
\begin{equation}\label{1/n}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|y + n(p_i -p_j) - \eta|} \leq &\,\frac{1}{|n(p_i-p_j)|- |y| - |\eta|}\\
\leq &\, \frac{1}{(n\sigma/2) - 1}\le \frac{4/\sigma}{n}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Arguing as in the proof of Lemma \ref{ThetaBounds:prop} (e.g see \eqref{BigDeal}) and employing the change of coordinates $\xi =\eta-n(p_i-p_j)$ yields
\begin{align*}
\Theta_{n, p_j}^2(y) \leq &\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 + \frac{G}{c^2}\int_{\xi} \frac{\Omega_{n, p_j }(\xi)}{|y-\xi|} \\
= &\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 + \frac{G}{c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^2 \int_{\eta} \frac{\Omega_0 (\eta)}{|y + n(p_i - p_j)-\eta|}.
\end{align*}
We continue by distinguishing the cases of $i=j$ and $i\neq j$ within the summation. Employing \eqref{1/l} and \eqref{1/n} yields
$$\Theta_{n, p_j}^2(y) \leq \left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 + \frac{G}{c^2}\left( a_j^2 \cdot \frac{2}{L} + \sum_{i \neq j} a_i^2 \cdot \frac{4/\sigma}{n}\right)\cdot \|\Omega_0\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)}.$$
Our choice of $L$ and $N$ is made so that
$$\Theta_{n, p_j}^2(y) \leq \frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}=\varepsilon^2.$$
This completes our proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Convergence of $\Theta_{n,p_j}$}
\begin{lemma}\label{ExUnT:prop}
For a fixed $p_j$ the sequence $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ converges uniformly with all derivatives over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$ to $a_j\Theta_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The proof of the lemma is a multi-step process. First we construct a convergent subsequence of $\Theta_{n,p_j}$ using a diagonal argument. Next, we record important characteristics about the diagonal sequence's limiting function. Finally, we argue by contradiction that the full sequence converges to said limit function.
Fix a chain of compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Ksub}
K_0 \subseteq \text{Int}(K'_0) \subseteq K'_0 \subseteq K_1 \subseteq \text{Int}(K'_1) \subseteq K'_1 \subseteq ... \subseteq \mathbb{R}^3,
\end{equation}
and $\bigcup _i K_i = \mathbb{R}^3$. From the Interior Elliptic Regularity \cite{Jost} we have
\begin{equation}\label{H2Theta}
\norm{\Theta_{n,p_j}}_{H^2(K'_0)} \lesssim \norm{\Phi_{n, p_j } \Theta_{n, p_j}^{-1}}_{L^2(K_1)} + \norm{\Theta_{n,p_j}}_{L^2(K_1)}.
\end{equation}
Boundedness of $\Theta_{n,p_j}$ and $\Theta_{n,p_j}^{-1}$ in $L^2(K_1)$ follow from Lemma \ref{ThetaBounds:prop} while boundedness of $\Phi_{n, p_j}$ in $L^2(K_1)$ follows from Lemma \ref{hboundp}. Overall, we have boundedness of $\Theta_{n,p_j}$ in $H^2(K'_0)$. Observe that we in addition have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\Theta_{n,p_j}}_{H^4(K_0)} \lesssim \norm{\Phi_{n, p_j } \Theta_{n, p_j}^{-1}}_{H^2(K'_0)} + \norm{\Theta_{n,p_j}}_{L^2(K'_0)}.
\end{equation*}
Here, the boundedness of $\Phi_{n, p_j }$ and $\Theta_{n, p_j}^{-1}$ in $H^2(K'_0)$ follows from Lemma \ref{hboundp}, Lemma \ref{ThetaBounds:prop} and \eqref{H2Theta}. We are now able to conclude boundedness of $\Theta_{n,p_j}$ in $H^4(K_0)$. In fact, bootstrapping like this gives boundedness of $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ in $H^k(K_0)$ for arbitrarily large $k$.
With the intention of using a diagonal argument, we now inductively construct convergent subsequences $\Theta_{n, p_j}^{(i)}$ from $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ with repeated applications of Rellich Lemma across the chain of compact subsets \eqref{Ksub}. We construct the subsequences $\Theta_{n, p_j}^{(i)}$ so that they converge in $H^4(K_i) \subseteq C^2(K_i)$ and are subsequences of the previous $\Theta_{n, p_j}^{(i-1)}$.
By construction, the diagonal subsequence $\Theta_{n, p_j}^{(n)}$ converges uniformly with two derivatives over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R} ^3$. Denote the limit function by $\Theta_\infty$. Next, we argue that
\begin{equation}\label{limitbc}
\lim_{|y| \to \infty} \Theta_{\infty}(y) =0.
\end{equation}
To that end let $\varepsilon>0$. By Lemma \ref{ThetaDBC:prop} there is $L>0$ and an $N\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $|y|>L$ and all $n\ge N$ we have
$$\Theta_{n,p_j}^{(n)}(y)<\varepsilon.$$
Upon taking the limit as $n\to \infty$ we obtain
$$\Theta_\infty(y)\le \varepsilon,$$
proving \eqref{limitbc}.
Applying Lemma \ref{ivaslastminutebs} to RPP satisfied by $\Theta_{n,p_j}^{(n)}$ we see that
$\Theta_\infty$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{\infty} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta_{\infty} \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} = -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} a_j^2\Omega_0, \ \lim_{|y| \to \infty} \Theta_{\infty}(y) =0.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, Theorem \ref{ThetaF:prop} states that solutions to the above are unique. In fact, we have already determined (see \eqref{m^2:eqn} above) that $a_j\Theta_0$ is this unique solution and therefore $\Theta_\infty=a_j \Theta_0$.
It remains to show that the full sequence $\Theta_{n, p_j}$ converges to $a_j \Theta_0$ over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$. To see this suppose towards a contradiction that there exists some compact set $K\subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$, some $\epsilon_0 > 0$ and a subsequence $\Theta_{n_{k},p_j}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{rnd:est}
\norm{\Theta_{n_{k},p_j} - a_j \Theta_0}_{L^{\infty}(K)} \ge \epsilon_0
\end{equation}
for every $k$. We have already shown that a subsequence of the sequence of solutions $\Theta_{n_{k}, p_j}$ of the RPP corresponding to $\Omega_{n_{k}, p_j}$ can be constructed so that $\Theta_{n_{k}, p_j}$ converges to $a_j \Theta_0$. This contradicts \eqref{rnd:est} and proves that $\Theta_{n, p_j} \to a_j \Theta_0$ in $L^{\infty}(K)$ for all compact K. To show the convergence is uniform with all the derivatives, we perform the induction on $l$ in the Interior Elliptic Regularity Estimate
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\Theta_{n, p_j} - a_j \Theta_0}_{H^{l+2}(K)} \\ & \lesssim \norm{\Phi_{n, p_j}\Theta_{n, p_j}^{-1}-a_j\Phi_0\Theta_0^{-1}}_{H^l(K')} + \norm{\Theta_{n, p_j} - a_j\Theta_0}_{L^2(K')}.
\end{align*}
Our proof is now complete.
\end{proof}
We use the convergence $\Theta_{n, p_j} \to a_j \Theta_0$ to provide the proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} in Section \ref{TheProof:sec}. We end this section by recording two additional convergences.
\begin{lemma}\label{niceone:lemma}
Fix $r_0 > 0$ and let $|x| \geq r_0$. For each multiindex $l$ and the corresponding partial derivative $\partial^l$ we have the following $L^\infty$-convergence of functions of $\nu \in B(0, 1)$:
\begin{equation*}
\left\|\partial_x^l\left(\frac{1}{|x - \nu/n|}\right) - \partial_x^l\left(\frac{1}{|x|}\right)\right\|_{L^\infty(B(0,1))}\to 0\ \ \text{as}\ \ n\to \infty.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, the stated convergences are uniform with respect to $x\in \mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus B(0,r_0)$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma \ref{niceone:lemma} is an elementary consequence of the triangle inequality
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{|x - \nu/n|} - \frac{1}{|x|} = \frac{|x|-|x- \nu/n|}{|x||x - \nu/n|} \leq \frac{|\nu|/n}{|x|\cdot(|x| - |\nu|/n)},
\end{equation*}
which for sufficiently large $n$ implies
$$\frac{1}{|x - \nu/n|} - \frac{1}{|x|}\leq \frac{2}{nr_0^2},$$
and as such is left to the reader. It is now a corollary of Lemma \ref{ExUnT:prop} and Lemma \ref{niceone:lemma} that
\begin{equation}\label{WillsOldLemma}
\left\|\partial_x^l\left(\frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x - \nu/n|\Theta_{n, p_j}(\nu)}\right) - \partial_x^l\left(\frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x|\cdot a_j\Theta_0(\nu)}\right)\right\|_{L^\infty}\to 0
\end{equation}
as $n\to \infty$. Just as in Lemma \ref{niceone:lemma}, the convergences are uniform with respect to $x\in \mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus B(0,r_0)$. It is really in the form of \eqref{WillsOldLemma} that the convergence result of Lemma \ref{ExUnT:prop} is used in the proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1}}\label{TheProof:sec}
Recall that this theorem addresses the limit behavior of the sequence $\theta_{\P,n}$ of solutions of
$$\theta_{\P,n} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta_{\P,n} = -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega_{\P,n}, \ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \theta_{\P,n}(x) = 1,$$
where $\omega_{\P,n}$ is as in Definition \ref{dust:defn}.
\begin{proof}
Fix a compact subset $K$ of $\mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus\{p_1, .., p_Q\}$ and let $x\in K$.
We analyze $\theta_{\P,n}(x)$ by applying the Green's representation formula \eqref{GRF-main} and by expanding $\omega_{\P,n}$ according to Definition \ref{dust:defn}:
\begin{equation}\label{GRF-applied}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\P,n}(x)=&1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int_{\xi} \frac{\omega_{\P,n}(\xi)}{|x-\xi|\theta_{\P,n}(\xi)}\\ =&1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^2\int_{\xi} \frac{(\H_{n,p_i})_{*}\Omega_0(\xi)}{|x-\xi|\cdot \frac{1}{n}\theta_{\P,n}(\xi)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Next, we study each term in the summation \eqref{GRF-applied} individually, with the intention of using a $\frac{\epsilon}{\sum a_i^2}$-argument at the very end.
Changing coordinates according to $\H_{n,p_i}$, by which we mean setting $\xi = p_i + \nu/n$, yields
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\xi} \frac{(\H_{n,p_i})_{*}\Omega_0(\xi)}{|x-\xi|\cdot \frac{1}{n}\theta_{\P,n}(\xi)}=
\int_{\nu} \frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x-p_i - \nu/n|\Theta_{n, p_i}(\nu)}.
\end{equation*}
Now consider the fact that due to the normalization on $\Omega_0$ (see Remark \ref{normalization:remark}) we have
$$\frac{1/a_j}{|x -p_j|}=\int_{\nu} \frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x -p_j|\cdot a_j\Theta_0(\nu)}.$$
Since $p_i\not\in K$ there is some $r_0>0$ such that $|y-p_i|\ge r_0$ and hence Lemma \ref{niceone:lemma} applies. It follows that for any given $\varepsilon>0$ and suitably large $n$ the following holds:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\left| \left( \int_{\nu} \frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x-p_j - \nu/n|\Theta_{n, p_j}(\nu)} \right) - \frac{1/a_j}{|x -p_j|} \right|\\
\le& \int_{\nu} \left |\frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x-p_j - \nu/n|\Theta_{n, p_j}(\nu)} - \frac{\Omega_0(\nu)}{|x -p_j|\cdot a_j\Theta_0(\nu)} \right |< \frac{\epsilon}{\sum a_i^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
In combination with \eqref{GRF-applied} this completes the proof of the $L^\infty(K)$ convergence
$$\theta_{\P,\alpha, n}(x)\to 1+ \frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} \frac{a_i}{|x -p_i|}.$$
For sufficiently large $n$ the expression \eqref{GRF-applied} can be differentiated under the integral sign with respect to $x$; see Section \ref{LinTheory:sec}. Thus the exact same line of reasoning as above also proves the claim about the derivatives with respect to $x$.
\end{proof}
\section{One-parameter family of non-linear superposition principles}\label{GPP:sec}
The purpose of this section is to provide the proofs of our two GPP results: Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm} and Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm}.
\subsection{Special case of Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm}}
We begin by proving a special case of Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm}, the case when $b=1$. For notational convenience we drop the explicit reference to $b=1$ in the subscript.
\begin{lemma}\label{NoahThm}
For each $\alpha\in[0,1]$ there exists a unique solution $\theta=\theta_\alpha$ of
$$\theta^\alpha \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}=-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \omega,\ \ \lim_{x\to \infty} \theta(x)=1,$$
which in addition satisfies the asymptotic conditions \eqref{asymptotic-conditions}.
The family $\theta_\alpha$ is continuous in $\alpha$ in the sense that for all convergent sequences $\alpha_n \to \alpha$ we have convergences $\theta_{\alpha_n}\to \theta_\alpha$ with all derivatives on all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first establish existence and uniqueness. In the case of $\alpha=0$ there is nothing to show and so we proceed by fixing a value of $\alpha\in(0,1]$. For reasons of notational simplicity we temporarily drop $\alpha$ from the subscript. We implement the strategy of \cite{NI} which is based on the recursive sequence
$$ \theta_{m+1}(x):=1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int_{\xi\in \mathbb{R}^3} \frac{\omega(\xi) }{|x-\xi| \theta_m^\alpha(\xi)},\ \ \theta_0(x)=1.$$
As in \cite{NI} one proves that the sequences $\theta_{2n}$ and $\theta_{2n+1}$ converge on all compacts to functions $\theta_-$ and $\theta_+$ satisfying $1\le \theta_-\le \theta_+$ and the asymptotic boundary conditions $\theta_\pm\to 1$. Furthermore, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{lastminutelabel}
\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+) =-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2}\phi\cdot \tfrac{k\theta_-^\alpha+(1-k)\theta_+^\alpha}{\theta_-^\alpha\theta_+^\alpha}
\end{equation}
for all constants $k$.
If $\theta_-\neq \theta_+$, i.e if $\theta_-^\alpha<\theta_+^\alpha$ somewhere, then for some positive constant $k>1$ the function
$$\theta_+^\alpha+k(\theta_-^\alpha-\theta_+^\alpha)=k\theta_-^\alpha+(1-k)\theta_+^\alpha$$
achieves a value less than $1$. By taking $k>1$ not too large, we may assume that $k\theta_-^\alpha+(1-k)\theta_+^\alpha$ reaches a positive interior minimum value. Next, we argue that $k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+$ for that specific value of $k$ reaches an interior minimum. There would be nothing to show if $k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+$ were to turn negative so we assume $k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+>0$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$. Since the function $x\mapsto x^\alpha$ is concave down, and since $k>1$, Jensen's Inequality implies
$$(k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+)^\alpha\le k\theta_-^\alpha+(1-k)\theta_+^\alpha$$
over $\mathbb{R}^3$. It follows that the functions $(k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+)^\alpha$ and $k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+$ reach values -- and thus interior minimum values -- less than $1$. Note in addition that the function $k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+$ is not constant because it approaches $1$ at infinity. Since
$$\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+)\le 0$$
due to \eqref{lastminutelabel}, the existence of the interior minimum value of
the function $k\theta_-+(1-k)\theta_+$ contradicts the Strong Maximum Principle \cite{Jost}. This contradiction shows that $\theta_-=\theta_+$, and proves the existence of solutions of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified} in the case of $b=1$. The uniqueness of solutions follows from the Strong Maximum Principle as in \cite{NI}, with very minor modifications to accommodate for the parameter $\alpha$.
We now focus on establishing continuity in the parameter $\alpha$. Fix $0\le \alpha<\beta\le 1$. The difference $\theta_\beta-\theta_\alpha$ satisfies
$$\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(\theta_\beta-\theta_\alpha)+4\pi\tfrac{G}{2c^2} \tfrac{\phi}{\theta_\alpha^\alpha\theta_\beta^\beta}\left(\theta_\alpha^\alpha-\theta_\beta^\alpha\right)=4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \tfrac{\phi}{\theta_\alpha^\alpha\theta_\beta^\beta}\left(\theta_\beta^\beta-\theta_\beta^\alpha\right),$$
which by the Mean Value Theorem and the fact that $\theta_\beta^\beta\ge \theta_\beta^\alpha\ge 1$ becomes
$$
\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(\theta_\beta-\theta_\alpha)-4\pi \alpha \tfrac{G}{2c^2}\tfrac{\phi}{\theta_\alpha^\alpha\theta_\beta^\beta}\theta_*^{\alpha-1}\left(\theta_\beta-\theta_\alpha\right)\ge 0.
$$
It follows from the Strong Maximum Principle that $\theta_\beta-\theta_\alpha$ cannot reach a nonnegative interior maximum unless it is a constant. Given that $\theta_\beta-\theta_\alpha$ obeys a Dirichlet boundary condition, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{monotone}
1\le \theta_1\le \theta_\beta\le \theta_\alpha\le \theta_0.
\end{equation}
Now suppose that $\alpha_n\to \alpha$; without loss of generality we may assume that the sequence $\alpha_n$ is monotone. It follows from \eqref{monotone} that both $\theta_{\alpha_n}$ and $\frac{\phi}{\theta_{\alpha_n}^{\alpha_n}}$ are bounded in $L^2(K)$ for all compact subsets $K$. By the Interior Elliptic Regularity we see that $\theta_{\alpha_n}$ is bounded in $H^2(K)$ for all compact subsets $K$. By the Rellich Lemma and the Sobolev embedding we get a subsequential convergence of $\theta_{\alpha_n}$ to some $\theta\in C^0(K)$. However, monotonicity \eqref{monotone} ensures that the entire sequence
$\theta_{\alpha_n}$ converges to $\theta$. The standard bootstrapping argument based on Interior Elliptic Regularity now shows that the convergence to $\theta$ happens in each and every $H^k(K)$. Taking the limit as $n\to \infty$ in the representation formula
$$\theta_{\alpha_n}(x)=1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int_\xi \frac{\omega(\xi)}{|x-\xi|\theta_{\alpha_n}(\xi)^{\alpha_n}}$$
shows that the limit $\theta$ solves \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified}. Since the said solutions are unique it must be that $\theta=\theta_\alpha$ and our proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm}}
\begin{proof}
The uniqueness of solutions of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified} follows by the same Strong Maximum Principle argument as in the proof of Lemma \ref{NoahThm}. The existence of solutions of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified} in the cases when $b\neq 0$ is a consequence of Lemma \ref{NoahThm} because a function $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ serves as a solution of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified} if and only if the function $\frac{\theta_{b,\alpha}}{b}$ serves as a solution of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified} with $\omega$ replaced by $\frac{1}{b^{1+\alpha}}\omega$ and the asymptotic boundary condition replaced by $1$. The existence of solutions of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified} for $b=0$ is established through continuity methods later on in this proof. Specifically, we show that $\lim_{b\to 0} \theta_{b,\alpha}$ exists, that it satisfies \eqref{zerocase} and that as such it defines $\theta_{0,\alpha}$.
Temporarily fix some $0<b<s\le 1$ and a value of $\alpha\in[0,1]$. Consider solutions $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ and $\theta_{s,\alpha}$ of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified}. By the Mean Value Theorem the difference $\theta_{b,\alpha}-\theta_{s,\alpha}$ satisfies
$$\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(\theta_{b,\alpha}-\theta_{s,\alpha})-\frac{4\pi\alpha\phi}{\theta_*^{\alpha+1}}\left(\theta_{b,\alpha}-\theta_{s,\alpha}\right)=0$$
for some positive function $\theta_*$.
We see from the Strong Maximum Principle that $\theta_{b,\alpha}-\theta_{s,\alpha}$ cannot reach a nonnegative interior maximum unless it is a constant. Since $\theta_{b,\alpha}-\theta_{s,\alpha}\to b-s<0$ we arrive at $\theta_{b,\alpha}<\theta_{s,\alpha}$. This further gives $\theta_{b,\alpha}^\alpha< \theta_{s,\alpha}^\alpha$ which, when combined with the representation formula, yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{b,\alpha}(x)=&b+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int \frac{\omega(y)}{|x-y|\theta_{b,\alpha}^\alpha(y)}\\
\ge & (b-s)+s+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int \frac{\omega(y)}{|x-y|\theta_{s,\alpha}^\alpha(y)}=(b-s)+\theta_{s,\alpha}(x).
\end{aligned}$$
Overall, we have
\begin{equation}\label{cty-a}
0\le \theta_{s,\alpha}-\theta_{b,\alpha}\le s-b.
\end{equation}
Th estimate \eqref{cty-a} and the monotonicty formula \eqref{monotone} provide a lower bound $\theta_{b,\alpha}\ge \theta_{1,\alpha}-1\ge \theta_{1,1}-1$, valid for all $b\in (0,1]$ and all $\alpha\in[0,1]$.
For future purposes we note that
\begin{equation}\label{lowerbound}
\theta_{b,\alpha}\big{|}_{\mathrm{supp}(\omega)}\ge \min_{\mathrm{supp}(\omega)}\frac{G}{2c^2}\int \frac{\omega(y)}{|x-y|\theta_{1,1}(y)} >0
\end{equation}
for all $b\in (0,1]$ and all $\alpha\in[0,1]$. (Compare with Lemma \ref{WillsLemma3}.)
Next, temporarily fix $0\le \alpha<\beta\le 1$ and a value $b\in(0,1]$. Consider the solution $\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}$ of the problem
$$\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}^\alpha \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \theta_{\mathrm{aux}} =-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \tfrac{1}{b^{1+\beta}}\phi,\ \ \theta_{\mathrm{aux}}\to 1.$$
Since $\alpha<\beta$ the monotonicity formula \eqref{monotone} implies
$$\tfrac{\theta_{b,\beta}}{b}\le \theta_{\mathrm{aux}}.$$
Also note that
$$\begin{cases}
&\left(b^{\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}\right)^\alpha
\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\left(b^{\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}\right)=-4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} \tfrac{1}{b^{1+\alpha}}\phi,\\
&b^{\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}\to b^{\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1+\alpha}} \text{\ \ with\ \ }b^{\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\le 1.
\end{cases}$$
The inequality \eqref{cty-a} further shows
$$b^{\frac{\beta-\alpha}{1+\alpha}}\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}\le \tfrac{\theta_{b,\alpha}}{b}.$$
Since $b^{\frac{\alpha-\beta}{1+\alpha}}\le b^{\alpha-\beta}$ due to $b\in (0,1]$, we obtain $\theta_{\mathrm{aux}}\le b^{\alpha-\beta}\tfrac{\theta_{b,\alpha}}{b}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{newmonotonicity}
\theta_{b,\beta}\le b^{\alpha-\beta}\theta_{b,\alpha},\ \ \text{i.e.}\ \ b^\beta\theta_{b,\beta}\le b^\alpha\theta_{b,\alpha}.
\end{equation}
At this stage we may repeat the argument from the end of the proof of Lemma \ref{NoahThm}, with monotonicity formula \eqref{newmonotonicity} replacing \eqref{monotone}. The conclusion is the continuity of the sequence $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ in $\alpha$ for each fixed $b\in(0,1]$.
Finally, fix $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and consider a sequence $b_n\to b$. By \eqref{cty-a} we see that the sequence $\theta_{b_n,\alpha}$ is Cauchy in $C^0(K)$ for each compact set $K$. In fact, it is Cauchy \emph{uniformly} with respect to $\alpha$. Combining with \eqref{lowerbound} we obtain that both $\theta_{b_n,\alpha}$ and $\frac{\phi}{\theta_{b_n,\alpha}^{\alpha}}$ are uniformly Cauchy in $L^2(K)$ for each compact $K$. The Interior Elliptic Regularity and a standard bootstrapping argument show that $\theta_{b_n,\alpha}$ is uniformly Cauchy in each $H^k(K)$. The representation formula implies that the limit function $\theta$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{zerocase}
\theta(x)=b+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int \frac{\omega(y)}{|x-y|\theta^\alpha(y)}.
\end{equation}
For $b>0$ the identity \eqref{zerocase} shows $\theta=\theta_{b,\alpha}$. In particular, we obtain continuity of $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ as a function of $b\in(0,1]$. Furthermore, this continuity is uniform in $\alpha$. In the case of $b=0$ we first use \eqref{zerocase} to establish the existence of solutions
$$\theta_{0,\alpha}=\lim_{n\to \infty} \theta_{b_n,\alpha}$$
of \eqref{TheAlphaEqn-modified}. Once again, this limit is uniform in $\alpha$. Thus, the function $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ of $b\in[0,1]$ is continuous uniformly in $\alpha\in[0,1]$. The continuity of $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ as a function of $(b,\alpha)\in[0,1]\times [0,1]$ is now a consequence of the continuity of $\theta_{b,\alpha}$ as a function of $\alpha$ established earlier within this proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm}}
We are about to employ the strategy already used in the proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-Thm1} with some slight modifications accounting for the parameter $\alpha$. Specifically, the (scaled) pullbacks we use in the proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm} are as follows:
\begin{definition}\label{pullba:defn}
We define:
$$
\begin{cases}
&\Omega_{n,\alpha,p_j} = \Phi_{n,\alpha, p_j}\dvol_{\geucl} = \tfrac{1}{n^{\alpha}}\H_{n,p_j}^*\omega_{\P,\alpha,n},\\
&\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j} = \tfrac{1}{n}\H _{n, p_j}^{*}\theta_{\P,\alpha, n}.
\end{cases}
$$
\end{definition}
The explicit expression for $\Omega_{n,p_j}$ now becomes
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{n,\alpha, p_j}(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^{\alpha+1}\cdot \Omega_{0,\alpha}(x-n(p_i -p_j)).
\end{equation*}
Computation much like that employed in \eqref{BigRPP:eqn} shows that pullback of \eqref{littleGPP:eqn} under $\H_{n,p_j}$ is
$$
\Theta^{\alpha}_{n,\alpha,p_j} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta_{n,\alpha,p_j} = -4\pi \frac{G}{2c^2}\Phi_{n,\alpha, p_j}, \ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}(x) = \tfrac{1}{n}
$$
with $\Phi_{n,\alpha, p_j}$ and $\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}$ as in Definition \ref{pullba:defn}. The key to proving Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm} is in showing that for each fixed $p_j$ the sequence of functions $\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}$ converges to $a_j\Theta_{0,\alpha}$ as $n\to \infty$. The latter in turn relies on the following convergence.
\begin{lemma}\label{massalpha}
Let $K$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$. If $n\ge N(K,\sigma)$ then $\Omega_{n,\alpha, p_j}=a_j^{\alpha+1} \Omega_{0,\alpha}$. In particular, we have
$$\Omega_{n,\alpha, p_j} \to a_j^{\alpha +1} \Omega_{0,\alpha} \text{\ \ as\ \ } n\to \infty.$$
This convergence is uniform with all derivatives over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\end{lemma}
The inequality
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}(\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}^{\alpha +1}) =&(\alpha+1)\Theta^{\alpha}_{n, \alpha, p_j} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j} + (\alpha+1) |d\Theta _{n,\alpha, p_j}|^2\\
\geq & -4\pi (\alpha+1) \frac{G}{2c^2}\Phi_{n, \alpha,p_j}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
when used in place of \eqref{keyinequality} and \eqref{BigDeal} gives us an upper bound on $\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}^{\alpha +1}$ and the following results.
\begin{lemma}\label{ThetaBounds:propa}\
\begin{enumerate}
\item The functions $\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}$ are bounded in $L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$, independently of $n$ and our choice of $p_j$:
$$\|\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)}\le M_+ \text{\ \ for all\ \ } n, p_j.$$
\medbreak
\item Given a compact set $K$ there exists a positive constant $M_-=M_-(K)$ so that
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{n, \alpha,p_j}(y) \ge a_j^{1+\alpha}\cdot M_{-}(K)
\end{equation*}
for all $n, p_j $ and all $y\in K$.
\medbreak
\item\label{part3} Let $\varepsilon>0$, and let $p_j$ be fixed. There exists $L>1$ such that for all $|y| > L$ there exists $N \in \mathbb{N}$ so that when $n\ge N$ we have
$\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}(y) < \varepsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The steps outlined in Lemma \ref{ExUnT:prop} can be executed in the new framework as well, leading us to the following convergence.
\begin{lemma}\label{ExUnT:propa}
For a fixed $p_j$ the sequence $\Theta_{n, \alpha,p_j}$ converges uniformly with all derivatives over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$ to $a_j\Theta_{0,\alpha}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Upper bounds on $\norm{\Phi_{n, p_j } \Theta_{n, \alpha,p_j}^{-\alpha}}_{L^2}$ and $\norm{\Theta_{n,\alpha,p_j}}_{L^2}$ are obtained by applying estimates from Lemma \ref{ThetaBounds:propa}. In combination with Elliptic Regularity Estimates
$$
\norm{\Theta_{n,\alpha,p_j}}_{H^2(K')} \lesssim \norm{\Phi_{n, p_j } \Theta_{n, \alpha,p_j}^{-\alpha}}_{L^2(K)} + \norm{\Theta_{n,\alpha,p_j}}_{L^2(K)}
$$
and Rellich Lemma these upper bounds lead to a diagonal sequence $\Theta_{n,\alpha, p_j}^{(n)}$ which converges (uniformly with two derivatives over all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R} ^3$) to some function $\Theta_\infty$. By virtue of part \eqref{part3} of Lemma \ref{ThetaBounds:propa} we know that
$ \Theta_{\infty}(y) =0$ as $|y|\to \infty$. In combination with Lemma \ref{massalpha} we further see that $\Theta_\infty$ solves the GPP
\begin{equation*}
\Theta_{\infty}^{\alpha} \Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} \Theta_{\infty} \mathrm{dvol}_{g_{\mathbb{E}}} = -4\pi \tfrac{G}{2c^2} a_j^{\alpha+1}\Omega_{0,\alpha}, \ \lim_{|x| \to \infty} \Theta_{\infty}(x) =0.
\end{equation*}
Theorem \ref{AngryIvaThm} states that solutions to the above are unique, i.e that $\Theta_\infty=a_j \Theta_{0,\alpha}$. The remainder of the proof proceeds exactly as in Lemma \ref{ThetaBounds:propa}.
\end{proof}
To complete the proof of Theorem \ref{Will-Iva-alphaThm} we employ the Green's representation formula:
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\P,\alpha,n}(x)=&1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\int_{\xi} \frac{\omega_{\P,\alpha,n}(\xi)}{|x-\xi|\theta^{\alpha}_{\P,\alpha,n}(\xi)}\\
=&1+\frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^{\alpha+1}\int_{\xi} \frac{(\H_{n,p_i})_{*}\Omega_{0,\alpha}(\xi)}{|x-\xi|\cdot \frac{1}{n^{\alpha}}\theta^{\alpha}_{\P,\alpha,n}(\xi)}\\
=& 1+ \frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} a_i^{\alpha+1}\int_{\nu} \frac{\Omega_{0,\alpha}(\nu)}{|x-p_i - \nu/n|\,\Theta^{\alpha}_{n, \alpha,p_i}(\nu)}.
\end{aligned}
$$
As a corollary of Lemma \ref{niceone:lemma} and Lemma \ref{ExUnT:propa} we now have
$$
\left\|\partial_x^l\left(\frac{\Omega_{0,\alpha}(\nu)}{|x - \nu/n|\Theta_{n, p_j,\alpha}^\alpha(\nu)}\right) - \partial_x^l\left(\frac{\Omega_{0,\alpha}(\nu)}{|x|\cdot a_j^\alpha\,\Theta_{0,\alpha}^\alpha(\nu)}\right)\right\|_{L^\infty}\to 0
$$
as $n\to \infty$. Note that for any fixed $r_0>0$ the convergences are uniform with respect to $x\in \mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus B(0,r_0)$ and that
$$\int_{\nu} \frac{\Omega_{0,\alpha}(\nu)}{|x-p_i - \nu/n|\Theta^{\alpha}_{0, \alpha}(\nu)}=1$$
due to $\alpha$-normalization (see Definition \ref{newnormalization:definition}).
Overall, we obtain the convergence of $\theta_{\P,\alpha,n}$, uniform with all derivatives on all compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3\smallsetminus\{p_1, .., p_Q\}$, towards
$$1+ \frac{G}{2c^2}\sum_{i=1}^{Q} \frac{a_i}{|x-p_i|}.$$
\section{Concluding remarks}
To complete the program of representing a relativistic cloud of matter as a cumulative effect of point-sources we in addition need to execute the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item\emph{Discretization of sources}. For a given matter distribution $\omega$ there needs to be way of associating a suitable sequence $\P_Q=\{ (p_1, a_1), ... , (p_{Q}, a_{Q})\}$ indexed by $Q$ so that in some kind of limit as $Q\to \infty$ one recovers $\omega$. Note that one does not expect $a_i$ to simply be $\omega\big{|}_{p_i}$ because of non-linear interaction effects. Instead, since the conformal factor $\theta$ mimics the gravitational potential it is expected that the parameters $a_i$ are related to $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta\big{|}_{p_i}$. In other words, it is expected that the computation of parameters $a_i$ relies on the RPP. However, it would be far more optimal to have an iterative algebraic (and in particular non-PDE-based!) algorithm which determines $a_i$ based on the values of $\omega\big{|}_{p_j}$ for various $j$. We are in the process of developing such an algorithm, along with a theorem which quantifies the extent to which the parameters $a_i$ approximate $\Delta_{g_{\mathbb{E}}}\theta\big{|}_{p_i}$.
\medbreak
\item \emph{Employment of limits}. Ideally, for a given matter distribution $\omega$ and an approximating sequence $\P_Q$ discussed above one would also have a theorem along the following lines: the limit as $Q\to \infty$ of superpositions associated with $\P_Q$ in the sense of our Definition \ref{dust:defn} is the matter $\omega$ being discretized in the first place. A paper \cite{TI} is being written on this subject; it employs the concept of intrinsic flat limits \cite{SW-JDG}.
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Many problems in multi-agent control are naturally posed as large-scale optimization problems, where knowledge of the problem cost function and constraints is distributed among agents, and the collective actions of the network are summarized by a global vector decision variable. Concerns about communication overhead, privacy, and robustness in such settings have motivated the need for distributed solution algorithms that avoid explicitly gathering all of the problem data in one location. This is strikingly similar to a prominent setting in the literature on distributed optimization where knowledge of the objective function is distributed, i.e., can be expressed as the sum of privately known functions, and agents must reach a \emph{consensus} on the optimal decision variable despite limited inter-agent communication. We refer the reader to \cite{2017arXiv170908765N} for a recent survey on distributed optimization.
For many practical settings, seeking consensus as the end goal accurately represents the objective; for instance, in rendezvous and flocking problems, all the agents' actions depend on a global decision variable (meeting time and location for the former, and speed and heading for the latter). However, when the global decision variable represents a concatenation of individual actions, the network can still act optimally without ever coming to a consensus. Consider, for example, a task allocation problem where each agent only needs to know what tasks are assigned to itself, and is not concerned with other agents' assignments.
Many existing distributed optimization algorithms leverage consensus as a core building block and, broadly speaking, can be abstracted as the interleaving of descent steps, to drive the solution to the optimum, and averaging of information from neighbors, to enforce consistency. The main features differentiating these algorithms from each other are the centralized algorithm from which they are derived, and details regarding the communication structure such as synchronous or asynchronous, and directed or undirected communication links, with the broad overarching categories being consensus-based (sub)gradient (\cite{5404774}, \cite{6705625}), (sub)gradient push (\cite{1896df2670fa448e8f6ee55888ee65e7}, \cite{6120272}), dual-averaging (\cite{6426375}, \cite{Duchi.ea.TAC12}), and distributed second-order schemes (\cite{7134753}, \cite{7590162}).
Historically, the mixing time of the communication graph has been seen as a fundamental limit on the convergence of distributed optimization algorithms \cite{Duchi.ea.TAC12}. Accordingly, a large body of the literature focuses on designing gossip matrices whose spectral properties allow for faster mixing of information \cite{Seidman.ea.CDC18}, \cite{Boyd.ea.06Gossip}. This perspective implicitly makes the assumption that convergence cannot be achieved until problem information has been disseminated and subsequently incorporated into the estimates of all of the agents. Our objective in this paper is to identify problems where this global mixing is an unnecessary overhead, by quantifying how well agents can compute their portion of the global solution based solely on information in their local neighborhood.
Our approach builds on the work of Rebeschini and Tatikonda~\cite{8370673}, who introduced a notion of ``correlation" among variables
in network optimization problems. The authors in ~\cite{8370673} characterize the ``locality'' of network-flow problems, and show that the notion of locality can be applied to develop computationally-efficient algorithms for ``warm-start'' optimization, i.e., re-optimizing a problem when the problem is perturbed. Moallemi and Van Roy~\cite{5437447} have also explored similar notions of correlation, but solely as a tool to prove convergence of min-sum message passing algorithm for unconstrained convex optimization. To the best of our knowledge, \cite{8370673} is the only prior work to advocate for a general theory of locality in the context of multi-agent systems.
Our approach in this paper also draws influence from the field of local computation, a sub-field of theoretical computer science. Motivated by the common threads in problems such as locally decodable codes, reconstruction models, and decompression algorithms, Rubinfeld et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/innovations/RubinfeldTVX11} proposed a unifying framework of Local Computation Algorithms (LCAs). LCAs formalize the intuition that, in problems with large inputs and outputs, if only a small subset of the output is needed, it is inefficient to compute the entire output and simply read off the component required. Instead, both computation and access to the input should be kept to a minimum such that the required output is obtained and can be guaranteed to be consistent with subsequent queries. Kuhn et al. \cite{Kuhn:2016:LCL:2906142.2742012} adapted the definition of local computation for graph problems where nodes must make decisions based on information limited to a $k$-hop neighborhood around themselves. Under this model, they study the ``locality" of several prototypical combinatorial optimization problems and their linear programming relaxations, such as minimum vertex cover, and maximum independent set, by characterizing the bounds on estimation error as the $k$-hop neighborhood grows.
\paragraph*{Statement of Contribution}
We develop a theoretical basis for the local-computation paradigm applied to convex optimization problems in multi-agent systems. Specifically, given the objective of computing $x^*_i$, a single component of the optimal decision variable, we characterize the error incurred by truncating the optimization problem to a neighborhood ``around" $x_i$. We show that for \emph{all} linearly-constrained strongly-convex optimization problems, this error decays exponentially with the size of the neighborhood at a rate dependent on the conditioning of the problem. This rate, which we \frmargin{coin as}{``name'' perhaps? Not a native english speaker, but this sounds weird. Feel free to disregard.} the ``locality" of a problem, naturally characterizes the trade-off between the amount of local knowledge available to an agents, and the quality of its approximation. The condition number of a problem, colloquially referred to as a metric of how ``well-behaved" a problem is (where lower condition numbers are preferable), unsurprisingly, is positively correlated with the locality of a problem (where a low locality parameter indicates a rapid decay in influence of problem data). Our findings give a theoretical basis for a rather simple algorithm, in which agents simply solve truncated sub-problems of the global problem. Our numerical results, obtained by using this algorithm, show that the tightness of the theoretical bounds also depend on the condition number of the problem, with the bounds being near-optimal for well-conditioned problems.
A preliminary version of this work was accepted at the 2020 European Control Conference \cite{BrownRossiea20}. This paper extends prior results by providing tighter bounds on the locality of problems, in addition to showing that the property of locality is common to \emph{all} linearly-constrained strongly-convex optimization problems.
\paragraph*{Organization}
In Section \ref{sec:notation}, we introduce notation, terminology, and technical assumptions about the problem. In Section \ref{sec:main_results}, we provide the problem statement, which establishes the fundamental question of locality, and summarize the main result, which establishes the ubiquity of locality in linearly-constrained convex optimization problems and provides a problem-specific bound on the rate of locality. We also summarize the key intermediary results, and discuss the algorithmic implications of locality in terms of the communication and message complexity it implies. Rigorous proofs of the main results are reported in Section \ref{sec:proofs}. In Section \ref{sec:experiments} we provide numerical experiments that highlight both scenarios where our theoretical bounds are tight, and those where our bounds are more conservative. Finally, we conclude and highlight future directions in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Notation and Assumptions}\label{sec:notation}
We use $[N] := \{1,..., N\}$ to denote the $1 - N$ index set, and $e_i$ to denote the canonical $i$th basis vector i.e., the vector with $1$ in position $i$ and zero elsewhere, where the size of the vector will be clear from context.
For a given matrix $A$, $A_{ij}$ denotes the element in the $i$th row and $j$th column of $A$. Similarly let $A_{i,*}$ and $A_{*,j}$ denote the $i$th row and $j$th column of $A$ respectively. Let $A^T$ be the transpose, and $A^{-1}$ be the inverse of $A$. Given subsets $I \subseteq M, \, J \subseteq N$, let $A_{I,\,J} \in \mathbb{R}^{|I| \times |J|}$ denote the submatrix of $A$ corresponding to the rows and columns of $A$ indexed by $I$ and $J$, respectively. Similarly, let $A_{-I,\,-J}$ denote the submatrix of $A$ obtained by removing rows $I$ and columns $J$. We let $\sigma_\text{max}(A)$ and $\sigma_\text{min}(A)$ denote the maximum and minimum singular values of $A$ respectively, $\lambda_\text{max}(A)$ and $\lambda_\text{min}(A)$, the maximum and minimum eigenvalues, and $\kappa(A) = \frac{\vert\lambda_\text{max}(A)\vert}{\vert\lambda_\text{min}(A)\vert}$ the condition number. We define the difference between two sets, $S_1 \setdiff S_2 = \{s \in S_1 \mid s \not \in S_2\}$ to be the set of elements in $S_1$ but not $S_2$
Throughout this paper, we will consider linearly-constrained convex optimization problems of the form:
\begin{mini*}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^N}{f(x) = \sum_i f_i(x_i)}
{}{}
\addConstraint{Ax = b.}\end{mini*}
We assume that $A \in \mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ is full rank, and that each function $f_i: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $L$-smooth, $\mu$-strongly convex, and twice continuously differentiable. We let $V^{(p)} = [N]$ denote the set of primal variables, $V^{(d)}= [M]$ the set of dual variables, and $S_j = \{i \in V^{(p)}| A_{ji} \neq 0\}$ the set of primal variables participating in the $j$th constraint. We also define the following set of constraints
\[C_{S \subseteq V^{(p)}} := \{i \in [M] \mid \text{ if } j \not \in S \text{ then } A_{ij} = 0 \},\]
Intuitively, $C_S$ is the set of constraints that \emph{only} involve variables in $S$. Throughout this paper, we fix the objective function $f$ and the constraint matrix $A$, and write $x^*(b)$ as a function of the constraint vector, $b$
We define an undirected graph $G = (V,E)$ by its vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$, where elements $(i,j) \in E$ are unordered tuples with $i,j \in V$. We define the graph distance $d_G(i,j)$ to be the length of the shortest path between vertices $i$ and $j$ in graph $G$, and $\mathcal{N}^G_k(i) = \{j \in V \mid d_G(i, j) \leq k\}$ to be the $k$-hop neighborhood around vertex $i$ in graph $G$ for a given $k\in \mathbb{N}_{>0}$. We define the following undirected graphs representing coupling in the optimization problem:
\begin{itemize}
\item $G_\text{dec} = (V^{(p)}, \, E_\text{dec}(x))$, with $E_\text{dec} = \{(v^{(p)}_i,v^{(p)}_j)|A_{ki} \neq 0, \, A_{kj} \neq 0\text{ for some } k \}$. Informally, $G_\text{dec}$ is the graph encoding the \emph{decision variables} that appear in the same constraint.
\item $G_\text{con} = (V^{(d)}, \, E_\text{con})$, with $E_\text{con}= \{(i,j)| [AA^T]_{ij} \neq 0\}$. Informally, $G_\text{con}$ encodes connections between the \emph{constraints} through shared primal variables.
\item $G_\text{opt} = (V^{(p)} \cup V^{(d)}, \, E_\text{opt}(x))$, with $E_\text{opt} = \{(v^{(p)}_j,v^{(d)}_i)| A_{ij} \neq 0\}$. Informally, $G_\text{opt}$ is the graph encoding the overall dependence structure of the \emph{optimization problem}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Foundations of locality, and their algorithmic implications}\label{sec:main_results}
\subsection{Problem Statement}
\label{subsec:setup}
We consider a network of $N$ agents collectively solving the following linearly-constrained optimization problem
\begin{mini}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^N}{f(x) = \sum_i f_i(x_i)}
{\label{global_opt}}{}
\addConstraint{Ax = b,}
\end{mini}
where knowledge of the constraints is distributed, and the decision variable represents a concatenation of the decisions of individual agents. Specifically, we assume that $f_j$ and $A_{*j}$ are initially known by agent $j$ only, and agent $j$ knows $b_i$ if $A_{ij} \neq 0$. As a motivating example, consider a scenario where a fleet of agents needs to collectively complete tasks at various locations, while minimizing the cost of completing such tasks. In this setting, the constraints ensure completion of the tasks, while the entries $A_{ij}$ of the constraint matrix may encode the portion of task $i$ that agent $j$ can complete, or efficiency when completing tasks, thus, constituting private knowledge. See Section~\ref{sec:experiments} for additional examples.
As a departure from a large body of the existing literature on distributed optimization, we consider the problem to be solved when each agent $j$ knows $x^*_j$---that is, we do not require every agent to know the entire optimal decision variable. With some abuse of notation, we conflate each agent with its associated primal variable\footnote{While, in this paper, each agent is only associated with a scalar variable for illustrative purposes, one can readily extend the results in this paper to the setting where each agent is associated with a vector. Additionally, the case where multiple agents' actions depend on shared variables can be addressed by creating local copies of those variables and enforcing consistency between agents who share that variable through a coupling constraint.}.
Our objective in this paper is to characterize the accuracy with which an agent $i$ can compute its associated solution $x_i$ component given access to problem data held by agents within a $k$-hop neighborhood of itself in $G_\text{dec}$, for a given $k\in \mathbb{N}_{>0}$. On the communication graph given by $G_\text{dec}$, obtaining this information requires $k$ communication rounds of accumulating and passing problem data between neighbors. Consequently, our results also characterize the trade-off between communication and approximation accuracy in this setting. This communication graph should not be seen \ksmargin{as prescriptive}{I don't understand this. can you elaborate?}, but rather one that facilitates ready analysis of locality in multi-agent systems.
\subsection{Foundations of Locality}
For each $x_i$, we consider sub-problems induced by restricting Problem \eqref{global_opt} to the variables within the $k$-hop neighborhood around $x_i$ and constraints only involving those variables (termed ``$k$-hop local sub-problems"). The main result of this paper states that the error in the $i$th component of the $k$-hop ``local solution" decays exponentially with the size of the neighborhood. A formal statement of this result is provided below.
\begin{theorem}[Locality]\label{thm:locality_sketch}
Let $x^{(k)}$ be the solution to the optimization problem induced by restricting Problem \ref{global_opt} to $k$-hop neighborhood around $x_i$, $\mathcal{N}_k^{\text{(dec)}}(i)$, and the constraints only involving those variables. If \ksmargin{$\lambda = \sup_x \frac{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} + 1}$} {you may want to state $\lambda$ in a preceding standalone definition, and call with a fancy name, e.g., locality rate.}, where $\kappa(x)$ denotes the \ksmargin{condition number}{unless this is standard, it may be worth providing a definition for this term, or for the very least reference a source where it's defined} of $A \nabla^2 f(x)^{-1} A^T$, then
\begin{equation}
\lvert x^{(k)}_i - x^*_i \rvert \leq C \lambda^k
\label{eq:bound_x}
\end{equation}
for $C = \left(1+ \sqrt{\frac{L}{\mu}}\right)\frac{2\sigma_{max}(A)}{\sigma^2_{min}(A)}\norm{ b - Ax^*_{UC}}_2$.
\end{theorem}
The rate $\lambda$ naturally characterizes the degree to which local information is sufficient to approximate individual components of the global optimum, thus justifying it as a metric of ``locality". The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:locality_sketch} relies on two intermediary results.
Our first intermediary result derives the relationship between solutions to the local sub-problems and the true solution to Problem \eqref{global_opt} (the ``global problem"). Specifically, we show that the solution to a local sub-problem is consistent with that of a perturbed version of the global problem (where the perturbation appears in the constraint vector, $b$).
\begin{theorem}[Relationship between local sub-problems and the global problem]\label{thm:loc_global_sketch}
Let $S\subseteq V^{(p)}$ be a subset of the primal variables. If $x^{(S)}$ is the solution to the problem obtained by restricting Problem \eqref{global_opt} to the variables in $S$ and constraints only involving those variables, i.e.,
\begin{argmini}|l|
{x^{(S)}\in \mathbb{R}^{|S|}}{\sum_{i \in S} f_i\left(x^{( S)}_i\right),}
{}{x^{(S)} = }
\addConstraint{A_{C_s, S} x^{(S)} = b_{C_s},}
\end{argmini}
then there exists $\hat{b} \in \mathbb{R}^M$ such that $x^{(S)}= \left[x^*(\hat{b})\right]_S$.
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch]
We proceed by showing that augmenting the local sub-problem with the remaining variables does not change the solution on the local-subproblem. By computing the values that the remaining constraints naturally take on (without being enforced), we can derive the global constraint vector $\hat{b}$ that induces the same value on $S$.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
The importance of Theorem \ref{thm:loc_global_sketch} lies in the fact that we can interpret solving local sub-problems as solving perturbed versions of the global problem. This interpretation allows us to leverage theory on the sensitivity of optimal points of Problem \eqref{global_opt} to characterize the error incurred by only using a subset of the original problem data.
Our second intermediary result characterizes the component-wise magnitudes of this correction factor. Specifically, we show that when the constraint vector of Problem \ref{global_opt} is perturbed, the impact of the perturbation decays exponentially with distance to the perturbation.
\begin{theorem}[Decay in sensitivity of optimal points]\label{thm:decay_sketch}
Let $\lambda$ be defined as in Theorem \ref{thm:locality_sketch}. Then for any perturbation in the constraint vector, $\Delta \in \mathbb{R}^M$, subset of the primal variables, $S \subseteq V^{(p)}$, and $C = \frac{2\norm{\Delta}_2}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}$,
\[\left\|\left[x^*(b + \Delta) - x^*(b)\right]_S\right\|_2 \leq C \lambda^{d(S, \text{supp}(\Delta))}.\]
\begin{proof}[Proof Sketch]
The proof leverages the Conjugate Residuals algorithm (designed to solve linear systems) to generate a sequence of sparse approximations to the correction factor that converges exponentially to the true correction factor. The sparsity patterns of the approximate correction factors reflect the underlying graph structure of the optimization problem, and can be determined \emph{a priori}. The convergence guarantees of conjugate residuals along with a characterization of the sparsity pattern of its iterates allow us to derive a component-wise bound on the correction factor.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
Intuitively, this theorem states that a perturbation in the constraints affects the decision variables ``closest" to the constraint the most, i.e., those that are actually involved in the constraint, while the effect of the perturbation decays with the degrees of separation between a decision variable and the constraint. The construction of the $k$-hop local sub-problems takes advantage of this theorem by forcing the ``perturbation" to be at a distance of at least $k$ from component $x_i$. Theorem \ref{thm:locality_sketch} is derived from the intermediary results by bounding the perturbations induced by cutting constraints.
\subsection{Algorithmic Implications}
\frmargin{The characterization}{Is this section ``algorithmic implications'' or ``a locality-aware optimization algorithm''? Also, mention algorithm in statement of contribution.} of locality naturally suggests a means of reducing the communication necessary for distributed optimization. In a radical departure from much of the existing work on distributed optimization, which rely on propagating information throughout the network, we suggest \emph{localizing} information flow. Our results show that the importance of problem data to individual solution components decays with distance to the data. Consequently, if a problem exhibits sufficient locality, by restricting information flow to where it matters most, we can avoid the high communication overhead of flooding methods with little impact on solution quality.
The objective is for each agent to compute its own component of the solution vector, i.e., for agent $i$ to compute $x^*_i$.
We denote by $\hat{x}_i$ agent $i$'s estimate of $x^*_i$ and we let $\hat{x} = (\hat{x}_1, \ldots, \hat{x}_N)$ be the aggregation of privately known solution components. Because we allow the approximation to violate constraints, the typical metric of sub-optimality in the objective function is \ksmargin{uninformative}{can you clarify?}---the approximation generated is guaranteed to have an objective value no larger than the true optimum. Consequently, we will measure the accuracy of our solution by $\norm{\hat{x} - x_*}_\infty$---this bound readily translates into bounds on both the objective value and constraint violation if such metrics are preferred. We note that by strong convexity of the objective, the optimal solution is guaranteed to be unique. This ensures that our notion of an approximate solution is well-defined, and rules out the case of ``jumps" to other optimal solutions.
\frmargin{The locality-aware distributed optimization algorithm}{This is the first time we talk about "the" locality-aware distributed optimization algorithm, save for the abstract. We should restructure this section a bit.} is conceptually simple. Leveraging locality, we conclude that each agent can compute its component of the solution by solving a local sub-problem of the global problem, where the size of the local sub-problem depends on the accuracy desired and the locality parameter of the global problem. Agents aggregate local problem data through a recursive flooding scheme, which is truncated after a predetermined number of communication rounds. Then, each agent solves its own local problem without further communication with the network.
Specifically, agent $i$ starts with its local objective function, $f_i$, its associated column of the constraint matrix $A_{*i}$, and components of the constraint vector $b_{C_i}$. In the initialization phase, agent $i$ sends $A_{C_ii}$ to each of its neighbors. After the initialization phase, agent $i$ has full knowledge of $A_{C_i *}$, i.e., the constraints that it participates in. Then, in the first iteration, agent $i$ sends a representation of $A_{C_i*}$, $b_{C_i}$ and $f_i$ to each of its neighbors. In subsequent iterations, each agent sends a representation of all of the information it has previously received to each of its neighbors. After the $k$'th iteration, for $k\in [K]$, agent $i$ has a representation of $f_j$, $b_{C_j}$ and $A_{C_j*}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{N}(i, k)$, where $\mathcal{N}(i, k)$ denotes the $k$-hop neighbors of agent $i$. After the $K$ communication rounds, agent $i$ generates its local sub-problem by ignoring any constraints involving variable outside of its $K$-hop neighborhood, $\mathcal{N}(i, K)$.
The algorithm for agent $i$ is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:locality}.
\begin{algorithm}[!ht]
\SetKwInOut{Input}{input}
\Input{$f_i, \, A_{* i}, \, b_{C_i}, \, K$}
Initialization: Send $A_{C_i i}$ to all $j \in \mathcal{N}(i, 1)$\;
\For{$k = 1, \ldots, K$}{
Send $\{f_l, \, A_{C_l, *}, \, b_{C_l}\}_{l \in \mathcal{N}(i, k - 1)}$ to all $j \in \mathcal{N}(i, 1)$\;
}
Solve
\nonl \vspace{-\baselineskip} \begin{argmini}|s|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{N}(i, K)|}}{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i, K)} f_j(x_j)}
{}{x^{(\mathcal{N}(i, K))} = }
\addConstraint{A_{C_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}}x = b_{C_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}}}
\end{argmini}
$\hat{x_i} = x_i^{(\mathcal{N}(i, K))}$
\caption{Locality-Aware Distributed Optimization}
\label{alg:locality}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Discussion}\label{subsec:Discussion}
It follows directly from the locality analysis in Theorem~\ref{thm:locality_sketch} that if an accuracy of $\norm{ \hat{x} - x_*}_\infty \leq \epsilon$ is desired, \[K \geq \frac{1}{1-\lambda}\log\left(\frac{C}{\epsilon}\right)\] communication rounds are sufficient. This bound not only determines how to select the number of communication rounds (passed in as a hyperparameter to the algorithm), but should be seen as guidance in determining whether the locality-aware algorithm is suitable for a particular setting. If $K$ is greater than the radius of the network, at least one node has accumulated the entirety of the problem data, and if $K$ is greater than the diameter of the network, the locality-aware algorithm amounts to accumulating and solving the entirety of the problem data at every node---in such settings, the locality-aware algorithm may not be suitable. Generally, the locality-aware algorithm offers an advantage in scenarios where the locality parameter, $\lambda$, is sufficiently small, and the network diameter is much larger than $K$.
In contrast to algorithms where estimates of the primal or dual solutions are passed between agents, the message complexity of the proposed algorithm is not constant across iterations---the size of the messages grows at each iteration with the number of agents in each expanding neighborhood. Explicitly, if each local function can be fully represented by $B$ bits, a message representing $\{f_i, \, A_{C_i,*} , \, b_{C_i}\}$ requires on the order of $\mathcal{O}(B + 4 \max_i{|S_i|}\times\max_j{|C_j|})$ bits, where $\max_i{|S_i|}$ is the maximum number of agents participating in a constraint, and $\max_j{|C_j|}$ is the maximum number of constraints any agent participates in. Because $|\mathcal{N}(i, k - 1)| \leq \left(\max_i{|S_i|}\times\max_j{|C_j|}\right)^{k-1}$, the maximum message size during the $k$th communication round is on the order of $\mathcal{O}\left(\left(\max_i{|S_i|}\times\max_j{|C_j|}\right)^{k}\right)$ bits.
Notably, both the number of communication rounds and the message complexity of the locality-aware algorithm do not directly depend on the number of nodes in the network. In contrast, distributed optimization algorithms that rely on passing estimates of the decision variable requires each node to send messages of size $\mathcal{O}(N)$ at every iteration. Moreover, the number of iterations to convergence of such methods tend to scale with the number of nodes in the network (depending on network topology) \cite{2017arXiv170908765N}.\todo{address partial consensus} While the message complexity of the locality-aware algorithm grows rapidly between iterations, when $A$ is sparse, $|S_i| \ll N$ and $|C_i| \ll M$. This analysis suggests that the locality-aware algorithm offers a significant advantage in settings where $|S_i|$ and $|C_i|$ remain bounded as $N$ and $M$ are increased, i.e., those where a bounded number of agents participate in constraints, and agents participate in a bounded number of constraints regardless of the size of the network.
A shortcoming of Algorithm \ref{alg:locality} is that problem data is explicitly shared between agents. At present, its application is limited to settings where preserving the privacy of individual objective functions and constraint sets is not a concern. However, the scalability of the locality-sensitive algorithm in such settings motivates extending these ideas to design algorithms that exploit locality without explicitly sharing problem data, and we highlight as a promising future direction.
\section{Proofs of Main Results}\label{sec:proofs}
In this section, we prove the main results summarized in Section \ref{sec:main_results}. First, in Section \ref{subsec:local_global}, we derive the relationship between the true solution to Problem \eqref{global_opt} (termed the ``global problem") and the solution to the problem obtained by restricting Problem \eqref{global_opt} to a subset of the variables and the constraints only involving those variables (termed the ``local sub-problem"). Explicitly, we show that the solution of the local sub-problem is consistent with the solution of a perturbed version of the global problem. This then allows us to leverage the sensitivity expression in \cite{8370673} to derive an expression for the difference between the solution to the local sub-problem and the solution to the global problem (henceforth denoted as the ``correction factor")
Second, in Section \ref{subsec:sensitivity}, we show that the correction factor derived in Section \ref{subsec:local_global} yields a numerical structure that reflects the underlying structure of the constraints. Specifically, we show that, while the correction factor will typically be dense, it is possible to find a sparse approximation to the correction factor, where the sparsity pattern of the approximation is a function of the sparsity of the constraints, the desired accuracy, and the conditioning of the global problem. We leverage the guarantees of the Conjugate Residual algorithm to derive, \emph{a priori}, both the sparsity pattern and a bound on the accuracy of the approximation. This approach will allow us to identify which elements of a local solution will be unaffected if a sparse approximation of the correction factor is used.
In Section \ref{subsec:summary}, we use the results of the previous sub-sections to characterize the relationship between the quantity of problem data used, and the error in individual components. This will naturally give rise to the metric of locality $\lambda$, which we formally present at the end of the section.
\subsection{Relating local sub-problems to the global problem}\label{subsec:local_global}
In this section, we consider sub-problems generated by restricting Problem \eqref{global_opt} to a subset of the primal variables and the constraints only involving those variables. In particular, if $S\subseteq V^{(p)}$ is a subset of the primal variables, we define \[C_{S \subseteq V^{(p)}} := \{i \in [M] \mid \text{ if } j \not \in S \text{ then } A_{ij} = 0 \}.\] These are the constraints of the global problem that \emph{only} involve the components of $S$. We define the following problem to be the \emph{local sub-problem induced by $S$}:
\begin{argmini}|l|
{x^{(S)}\in \mathbb{R}^{|S|}}{\sum_{i \in S} f_i(x^{(S)}_i)}
{\label{eq:loc_opt}}{x^{(S)} = }
\addConstraint{A_{C_s, S} x^{(S)} = b_{C_s}.}
\end{argmini}
Our objective in this section is to relate the value of $x^{(S)}$ to $\left[x^*(b)\right]_S$, the components $S$ of the global optimum. Ultimately, this will allow us to analyze the error incurred by only using a subset of the original problem data.
We first show that augmenting the local sub-problem with the remaining variables does not change the solution to the local sub-problem. By computing the values that the cut constraints naturally take on (without being enforced), we can derive the global constraint vector $\hat{b}$ that induces the same value on $S$, i.e., $x^{(S)} = \left[x^*(\hat{b})\right]_S$. This equivalence allows us to exploit the sensitivity of optimal points of Problem \eqref{global_opt} to perturbations in the constraint vector, $b$, to derive the correction factor that drives the solution of the local sub-problem to that of the global problem. This interpretation is key for making the connection between the ``warm-start" scenario presented in \cite{8370673} (where the algorithm needs to compute $x^*(b)$ given the solution to $x^*(b + p)$) to the ``cold-start" scenario considered in this paper (where the algorithm must compute $x^*(b)$ without prior knowledge of other optimal solutions). The allows us to develop a more general theory of locality that fully captures the importance of problem data to individual solution components, as opposed to a theory that only captures response to perturbations.
In the following lemma, we show that if the local-sub-problems are augmented with the remaining variables, the solution on the $k$-hop neighborhood does not change.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:loc_ext}
Let $x^{(S)}$ be the solution to the local sub-problem induced by $S$, and
\begin{argmini}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^{N}}{\sum_{i = 1}^N f_i(x_i)}
{\label{eq:loc_est_opt}}{\hat{x}^{(S)} = }
\addConstraint{A_{C_s, S} x = b_{C_s}.}
\end{argmini}
is the solution to the problem including the entire objective function, but only the constraints of the local sub-problem, then $x^{(S)} = \left[\hat{x}^{(S)}\right]_S$.
\begin{proof}This lemma follows from observing that the variables in $V^{(p)} \setdiff S$ are entirely unconstrained, and can be optimized independently from those in $S$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
By computing the values that the constraints in $V^{(d)} \setdiff C_s$ take on without being enforced, we can derive a constraint vector $\hat{b}$ that induces the same optimal solution as the partitioned problem (termed the ``implicit constraints"). The following Lemma formalizes this.
\begin{lemma}[Implicit Constraints]\label{lem:implicit_constraints}
Let $\hat{x}^{(S)}$ be defined as in Lemma \ref{lem:loc_ext}, and $\hat{b} = A \hat{x}^{(S)}$. Then,
\begin{argmini}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^N}{f(x)}
{\label{eq:implicit}}{\hat{x}^{(S)} = }
\addConstraint{Ax = \hat{b}}.
\end{argmini}
\begin{proof}
Assume by contradiction that there exists an optimal solution $\tilde{x}^*\neq \hat{x}^{(S)}$ to Problem \eqref{eq:implicit} with optimal value ${f(\tilde{x}^*)<f(\hat{x}^{(S)})}$.
Note that on $V^{(d)} \setminus C$, the implicit constraints are equal to the true constraints. Precisely, $b_{C_s} = \left[\hat{b}\right]_{C_s}$.
The constraints in Problem \eqref{eq:loc_est_opt} are a subset of the constraints in Problem \eqref{eq:implicit}. Therefore, the feasible set of Problem \eqref{eq:implicit} is contained in the feasible set of Problem \eqref{eq:loc_est_opt}. Explicitly,
\begin{align*}\{x \mid Ax = \hat{b}\} &= \{x \mid A_{-C,*}x = \hat{b}_{-C},\, A_{C,*}x = \hat{b}_C\}\\ &\subseteq \{x \mid A_{C,*}x = \hat{b}_{C}\}.\end{align*}
Therefore, if $\tilde{x}^*$ is the optimal solution to Problem \eqref{eq:implicit}, it is also a feasible solution for Problem \eqref{eq:loc_est_opt}. Since $f(\tilde{x}^*)<f(\hat{x}^{(S)})$, $\hat{x}^{(S)}$ is not optimal for Problem \eqref{eq:loc_est_opt}---a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lem:implicit_constraints} allows us interpret solving the local sub-problem as solving a perturbed version of the global problem where $b$ is replaced by $\hat{b}$. This interpretation allows us to leverage the theory developed by Rebeschini and Tatikonda \cite{8370673} on the sensitivity of optimal points of Problem \eqref{global_opt} to finite perturbations in the constraint vector, $b$, to relate the solution of the local sub-problem to that of the global problem. The main theorem of \cite{8370673} is reviewed below.
\begin{theorem}[Sensitivity of Optimal Points - Theorem~1 of \cite{8370673}]\label{RT_1}
Let $f: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be strongly convex and twice continuously differentiable, and $A\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ have full row rank. For $b\in \text{Im}(A)$, let $\Sigma(x^*(b)) := \nabla^2 f(x^*(b))^{-1}$ . Then $x^*(b)$ is continuously differentiable at all $b \in \mathbb{R}^m$, and
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\,x^*(b)}{\mathrm{d}\,b} = D(b) = \Sigma(x^*(b))A^T(A\Sigma(x^*(b))A^T)^{-1}. \label{sensitivity}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The above theorem relates the gradient of the optimal solution, $x^*(b)$, to the constraint matrix and the objective function. Critically, Equation \eqref{sensitivity} holds globally, allowing us to apply the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus \frmargin{to determine the correction factor necessary to correct}{here you define correction factor = $x^* - \hat{x}^*$. Intuitively, ``error'' is a better term for this. See comments above.} for finite perturbations in the constraint vector. Precisely, if we let $\Delta = b - \hat{b}$, the correction factor can be expressed as
\begin{equation*}
x^*(\hat{b} + \Delta) - x^*(\hat{b}) = \left(\int_0^1 \Sigma(x_\theta)A^T(A\Sigma(x_\theta)A^T)^{-1} d\theta\right)\Delta,
\end{equation*}
where $x_\theta := x^*(\hat{b} + \theta\Delta)$.
Consequently, we have established that the error incurred by only using a subset of the original problem data is precisely this correction factor.
\subsection{Component-wise Sensitivity}\label{subsec:sensitivity}
In the previous section, we gave a closed-form expression for the error incurred by not using the entire problem data. In this section, we show how the underlying structure of the optimization problem is reflected in the numerical structure of the correction factor. In particular, we leverage the Conjugate Residuals algorithm \cite{Saad03} (designed to solve linear systems) to generate a sequence of sparse approximations to the correction factor that converge exponentially to the true correction factor while maintaining sparsity patterns that reflect the underlying graph structure of the optimization problem. We establish that a perturbation in the constraints affects the decision variables ``closest" to the constraint the most, i.e., those that are actually involved in the constraint, while the effect of the perturbation decays with the degrees of separation between a decision variable and the constraint. Moreover, we derive an \emph{a priori} bound of the rate of decay.
In the remainder of this section, we will analyze the instantaneous sensitivity of the optimal point
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\,x^*(b)}{\mathrm{d}\,b}\Delta = D(b)\Delta = \Sigma(x^*(b))A^T(A\Sigma(x^*(b))A^T)^{-1}\Delta.
\end{equation*}
In Section \ref{subsec:summary}, when we formally define our metric of locality, the results developed in this section will naturally extend to finite perturbations in the constraint vector. For ease of notation, we let $\Sigma = \Sigma(x^*(b))$.
The instantaneous sensitivity expression will allow us to reason about the structural coupling between components of Problem \eqref{global_opt}, however, the term $(A \Sigma A^T)^{-1}$ will require careful treatment. Specifically, the inverse of sparse matrices is not guaranteed to be sparse, and in fact, is typically dense. While the structure of $A \Sigma A^T$ is obfuscated when we take the inverse, it is not lost. The insight that allows us to recover the original structure of the problem in the sensitivity expression is that the Conjugate Residuals algorithm can be leveraged to generate structure-preserving sparse approximations to $\delta := (A \Sigma A^T)^{-1} \Delta$. We now provide a high-level overview of the algorithm and relevant guarantees \cite[6.8]{Saad03}\footnote{We adapt the results from \cite{Saad03} slightly because $A\Sigma A^T$ is known to be normal.}.
\paragraph{Conjugate Residuals} For ease of notation, let $M = A \Sigma A^T$. Conjugate residuals (CR) is an iterative Krylov method for generating solutions to linear systems, $\delta = M \Delta$, where $M$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix. Specifically, the algorithm recursively generates a sequence of iterates \[\delta^{(k)} \in \mathcal{K}(M, \Delta, k) := \text{span}\{\Delta, \, M\Delta, \, M^2 \Delta, \ldots, M^{k - 1} \Delta \}\]
where each $\delta^{(k)}$ minimizes the norm of the residuals, $\norm{r_k} := \norm{\Delta - M\delta^{(k)}}_2$, in the $k$th Krylov subspace. The guarantees of the algorithm that we will leverage are as follows,
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sparsity: \\ $\delta^{(k)} \in \mathcal{K}(M, \Delta, k) := \text{span}\{\Delta, \, M\Delta, \, M^2 \Delta, \ldots, M^{k - 1} \Delta \}$.
\item Convergence Rate: \begin{align*}
\norm{r_k}_2 &\leq 2\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}\right)^k \norm{r_0}_2 = 2\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}\right)^k \norm{\Delta}_2.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
The first guarantee will allow us to derive the support of each $\delta^{(k)}$, which reflects the underlying structure of the global problem. The second guarantee will allow us to prove the rate with which the effect of a perturbation decays with each degree of separation.
\paragraph{Support of the estimates}
\begin{theorem}[Sparsity Structure of Matrix Powers]\label{thm:sens_supp}
For $k \in \mathbb{Z}_+$, neglecting numerical cancellation\footnote{When characterizing the sparsity pattern of a matrix, ``numerical cancellation" refers to entries that are zeroed out due to the exact values of entries in the matrix, and cannot be deduced to be zero from the combinatorial structure of the matrix alone.},
\begin{equation*}
\text{supp}((A\Sigma A^T)^k) = \{(i,j)\mid d_{G_\text{con}}(v_i, v_j) \leq k\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
This theorem establishes that the sparsity pattern of a symmetric matrix to the $k$th power is determined by the $k$-hop neighbors in the graph representing the sparsity pattern of the original matrix. This allows us the characterize the sparsity pattern of each of the generating vectors of the $k$th Krylov subspace generated by $A\Sigma A^T$ and $\Delta$.
\begin{corollary}[Sparsity Structure of the Sensitivity Expression]\label{cor:sens_distr} For $k \in \mathbb{Z}_+$ and $i \in [M]$
\[ \text{supp}\left(\Sigma(x)A^T\delta^{(k)}e_i\right)\\ \subseteq \mathcal{N}_1^{G_\text{opt}}(\mathcal{N}^{G_\text{con}}_{k - 1}(i)).\]
\end{corollary}
Informally, $\mathcal{N}_1^{G_\text{opt}}(\mathcal{N}^{G_\text{con}}_{k - 1}(i))$ represents the components of $\Sigma A^T\delta^{(k)}e_i$ that can be deduced to be nonzero based on combinatorial analysis of each of its composing terms. The consequence of Corollary \ref{cor:sens_distr} is that if we take $\Sigma A^T\delta^{(k)}$ as an approximation to $\Sigma A^T(A\Sigma A^T)^{-1}\Delta$, we know which components of the approximation are guaranteed to be zero, i.e., are invariant to locally supported perturbations in the constraint vector.
Based on the previous theorem and its corollary, we define a measure of distance between primal variables and dual variables that characterizes the indirect path, through coupling in the constraints, by which a perturbation in the constraint propagates to primal variables,
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:distance}
d(v^{(p)}_i, v^{(d)}_j) := \min\{k \mid \mathcal{N}_1^{G_\text{opt}}(\mathcal{N}^{G_\text{con}}_{k - 1}(i))\}.
\end{equation*}
We also define the distance between sets of primal and dual variables as \[d(I,J) = \min\{ d(v^{(p)}_i, v^{(d)}_j)|{v^{(p)}_i\in I, v^{(d)}_j\in J}\}.\]
\paragraph{Component-wise sensitivity}
We will now show that the previous result along with the convergence guarantees of CR can be used to infer the component-wise magnitudes of the sensitivity expression. We will ultimately conclude that these magnitudes decay exponentially with rate $\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}$ with the degrees of separation between a component of $x$, and the support of $\Delta$, where $\kappa$ is the condition number of $A \Sigma A^T$.
\begin{theorem}[Decay in Sensitivity]\label{thm:decay_sens}
The component-wise magnitudes of the sensitivity expression can be bounded as
\[\norm{[D(b)\Delta]_S}_2 \leq C \left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}\right)^{d(S, \text{supp}(\Delta))},\]
where $C = \frac{2\norm{\Delta}_2}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}$, and $\kappa = \dfrac{\lambda_{\text{max}}(A \Sigma A^T)}{\lambda_{\text{min}}(A \Sigma A^T)}$ is the condition number of $A \Sigma A^T$.
\begin{proof}
Let $\delta^{(k)}$ be the $k$th estimate of $(A\Sigma A^T)^{-1}\Delta$ generated via the Conjugate Residuals algorithm. Corollary \ref{cor:sens_distr} allows us to conclude that $[\Sigma A^T \delta^{(k)}]_S = 0$ if $k \leq {d(S, \text{supp}(\Delta))}$.
It then follows that for all $k \leq d(S, \text{supp}(\Delta)) $
\begin{align*}
[D(b)\Delta]_S &= [D(b)\Delta - \Sigma A^T \delta^{(k)}]_S\\
&= [\Sigma A^T((A\Sigma A^T)^{-1}\Delta - \delta^{(k)})]_S.
\end{align*}
Taking the norm of both sides of the equality, we can bound the sensitivity as \[\norm{[D(b)\Delta]_S}_2 \leq \norm{\Sigma A^T((A\Sigma A^T)^{-1}\Delta - \delta^{(k)})}_2.\]
\frmargin{Notice that}{This section should be polished a bit once the content is stable.} the $k$th residual can be expressed as \[r_k = A\left(\Sigma A^T \left((A\Sigma A^T)^{-1} \Delta - \delta^{(k)}\right)\right),\]
and convergence of the conjugate residuals algorithms guarantees that
\[ \norm{r_k}_2 \leq 2\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}\right)^k \norm{r_0}_2.\]
Consequently, using the fact that $\sigma_{\text{min}}(A) \norm{v}\leq\norm{Av}$, we can bound
\begin{align*}
\norm{[D(b)\Delta]_S}_2 &\leq \norm{\Sigma A^T((A\Sigma A^T)^{-1}\Delta - \delta^{(k)})}_2\\
&\leq \frac{\norm{r_k}_2}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)} \leq \frac{2\norm{\Delta}_2}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}\right)^k.
\end{align*}
Taking $C = \frac{2\norm{\Delta}_2}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}$ and $k = d(S, \text{supp}(\Delta))$ concludes the proof.\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:decay_sens} states that components that are ``closest" to the perturbation, i.e., those that participate in the constraints, are most sensitive to the perturbation, and the sensitivity of components decay exponentially according to their degree of separation from the perturbation. Moreover, the decay rate can be bounded by $\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}$. Theorem \ref{thm:decay_sens} can be readily extended to bound the effect that perturbations in the constraint vector, $b$, have on individual components of the correction factor.
\begin{corollary}[Decay in Error]\label{cor:dist_corr}
If $\lambda \geq \frac{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} + 1}$ for all $x$, then
\[\norm{\left[x^*(\hat{b} + \Delta) - x^*(\hat{b})\right]_S} \leq C \lambda^{d(S, \text{supp}(\Delta))},\]
for $C = \frac{2\norm{\Delta}}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}$.
\begin{proof}
Like before, we define $x_\theta := x^*(\hat{b} + \theta\Delta)$, and $b_\theta := \hat{b} + \theta\Delta$. Then,
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\left[x^*(\hat{b} + \Delta) - x^*(\hat{b})\right]_S}\\ &= \norm{\left[\int_0^1 \Sigma(x_\theta)A^T(A\Sigma(x_\theta)A^T)^{-1}\Delta d\theta\right]_S}\\
&= \norm{\int_0^1[D(b)\Delta]_Sd\theta} \leq \int_0^1\norm{[D(b)\Delta]_S}d\theta\\
&\leq \int_0^1 \norm{\Sigma(x_\theta) A^T((A\Sigma(x_\theta A^T)^{-1}\Delta - \delta^{(k)})} d\theta\\
&\leq \int_0^1 \frac{2\norm{\Delta}}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa(x_\theta)} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa(x_\theta)} + 1}\right)^k d\theta \leq \frac{2\norm{\Delta}}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}\lambda^k.
\end{align*}
Taking $C = \frac{2\norm{\Delta}}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)}$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{corollary}
Corollary \ref{cor:dist_corr} extends the results of Theorem \ref{thm:decay_sens} to establish that the magnitude of the correction factor decays with distance to the perturbation. The authors of \cite{8370673} characterized a similar decay bound for network flow problems, and demonstrated the potential of such a bound in the context of warm-start optimization. This decay bound extends their results to all linearly-constrained convex optimization problems, and improves on our previous results derived from the infinite series expansion of the sensitivity expression \cite{BrownRossiea20}.
\subsection{Putting it all together}\label{subsec:summary}
We now have the technical machinery necessary to establish a notion of locality. In this section, we restrict our attention to local sub-problems induced by a $k$-hop neighborhood around $x_i$ in $G_\text{dec}$. To lighten notation, we let $x^{(k)}$ denote the solution to the local sub-problem induced by the $k$-hop neighborhood around $i$ (denoted by $x^{\left(\mathcal{N}^{G_\text{dec}}_k(i)\right)}_i$ in Section \ref{subsec:local_global}).
In this section, we show that \[\lvert x^{(k)}_i - x^*_i \rvert \leq C \lambda^k,\]
for constants $C$ and $\lambda$, and provide bounds on both $C$ and $\lambda$. In other words, we will show that the error in component $i$ decays exponentially according to rate $\lambda$ with the size of neighborhood generating the local sub-problem. The rate $\lambda$ naturally characterizes the degree to which local information is sufficient to compute a single component of the global optimum, ultimately, becoming our metric of ``locality".
We proceed by leveraging the results of Section \ref{subsec:local_global} to characterize the error on each of the local sub-problems in terms of the implicit constraints, $\hat{b}^{(k)}$. We will then apply the results derived in Section \ref{subsec:sensitivity} to bound the error induced at component $x_i$. The key difficulty resolved in this section stems from the fact that we want to avoid solving for the implicit constraints (which would require using the entirety of the problem, thus defeating the purpose of locality!)---this is akin to applying Corollary \ref{cor:dist_corr} without knowing $\Delta$.
While we generally cannot control the value of the implicit constraints, $\hat{b}^{(k)}$, the construction of the local sub-problems guarantees that the distance from $i$ to the cut constraints is at least $k$, i.e., $d(i, \text{supp}(\Delta^{(k)})) \geq k $ where $\Delta^{(k)} := b - \hat{b}^{(k)}$. Moreover, we know that the ``perturbations", $\Delta^{(k)}$, are not arbitrary---they arise from ``cutting" constraints. These insights provide sufficient knowledge of $\Delta^{(k)}$ to apply Corollary \ref{cor:dist_corr}. We are now in a position to prove the main result
\begin{customthm}{\ref{thm:locality_sketch}}
Let $x^{(k)}$ be the solution to the optimization problem induced by restricting Problem \ref{global_opt} to $k$-hop neighborhood around $x_i$, $\mathcal{N}_k^{\text{(dec)}}(i)$, and the constraints only involving those variables. If $\lambda = \sup_x \frac{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} + 1}$, where $\kappa(x)$ denotes the condition number of $A \nabla^2 f(x)^{-1} A^T$, then
\begin{equation}
\lvert x^{(k)}_i - x^*_i \rvert \leq C \lambda^k
\label{eq:bound_x}
\end{equation}
for $C = \left(1+ \sqrt{\frac{L}{\mu}}\right)\frac{2\sigma_{max}(A)}{\sigma^2_{min}(A)}\norm{ b - Ax^*_{UC}}_2$.
\begin{proof}
First, we will show that the $k$-hop local sub-problem can be generated by cutting constrains that are at least distance $k$ from $i$ under the primal-dual distance metric. We will prove this by reasoning about the supports of the appropriate matrix products. The set of primal variables contained in the $k$-hop neighborhood of $x_i$ can be equivalently characterized as
\[\mathcal{N}^{(p)}_k(i) = \left\{j \mid \left[(A^TA)^k\right]_{ij} \neq 0\right\} = \text{supp}([(A^TA)^k]_{i*}).\]
Similarly, the primal-dual distance metric can be defined as
\begin{align*}
d(i, c) &=\min\{k \mid c \in \text{supp}\left(\left[A^T(AA^T)^{k - 1}\right]_{i*}\right)\}\\
&=\min\{k \mid c \in \text{supp}\left(\left[(A^TA)^{k - 1}A^T\right]_{i*}\right)\}.
\end{align*}
Because the graph $G_\text{dec}$ is defined by placing an edge between agents that appear together in the same constraint, if $A_{c, i} \neq 0$ and $A_{c, i} \neq 0$ for some constraint $c$, then for all $l \in V^{(d)}$, \[\vert d(i, l) - d(j, l) \vert \leq 1.\]
Moreover, to generate the $k$-hop local sub-problem, a constraint only cut if it contains a variable of distance at least $k + 1$. Consequently, all of the primal variables in the cut constraint are at least distance $k$ from $i$.
We can now apply Corollary \ref{cor:dist_corr} to bound the error in component $i$ as \[\lvert x^{(k)}_i - x^*_i\rvert \leq \frac{2\norm{\Delta^{(k)}}}{\sigma_\text{min}(A)} \lambda^k.\]
We will bound the $\Delta^{(k)}$ term by deriving the maximum constraint violation error, $\norm{b - \hat{b}^{(k)}}_\infty$. We do so by noting that the solution to the local sub-problems are consistent with the solution to
\begin{argmini}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^N}{f(x)}
{}{\hat{x}^{\mathcal{N}(i, k)} = }
\addConstraint{A_{C_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}}x = b_{C_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}}}.
\end{argmini}
That is, we use the same set of constraints as agent $i$'s $k$-hop local sub-problem but include all of the variables in the objective function. Precisely,
\[x^{(\mathcal{N}(i, k))} = \left[\hat{x}^{\mathcal{N}(i, k)}\right]_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}.\]
Consequently, every variable but those in $\mathcal{N}(i, k)$ is unconstrained.
We define
\begin{argmini}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^N}{f(x)}
{}{x^*_{UC} = }
\end{argmini}
to be the solution to the unconstrained problem. Then
\begin{equation*}
\left[\hat{x}^{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}\right]_i =
\begin{cases}
x^{(\mathcal{N}(i, k))}_i, &\text{if } i \in \mathcal{N}(i, k)\\
\left[x^*_{UC}\right]_i, &\text{if } i \not \in \mathcal{N}(i, k).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Then, the individual components of the implicit constraints can be derived as
\begin{equation*}
\left[\hat{b}^{(k)}\right]_i =
\begin{cases}
b_i, &\text{if } i \in C_{\mathcal{N}(i, k)}\\
\left[Ax^{(\mathcal{N}(i, k))}\right]_i, &\text{if } i \not \in C_{\mathcal{N}(i, k)}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
It then follows that the component-wise constraint violation is given by
\begin{equation*}
\left[b - \hat{b}^{(k)}\right]_i =
\begin{cases}
0, &\text{if } i \in C_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}\\
\left[b - A\hat{x}^{(\mathcal{N}(i, K))}\right]_i, &\text{if } i \not\in C_{\mathcal{N}(i, K)}\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Consequently, the maximum constraint violation is equal to
\[\norm{[b - A\hat{x}^{(\mathcal{N}(i, K))}}_\infty.\]
To obtain a uniform bound, we will show that \[\norm{b - A\hat{x}^{(\mathcal{N}(i, K))}}_2\leq
\left(1+ \sqrt{\frac{L}{\mu}}\right)\frac{\sigma_{max}(A)}{\sigma_{min}(A)}\norm{ b - Ax^*_{UC}}_2\]
Because $f$ is $L$-smooth and $\mu$-strongly convex,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mu}{2}\norm{\hat{x} - x_{UC}}^2_2 &\leq f(\hat{x}) - f(x_{UC}) &&\leq \frac{L}{2}\norm{\hat{x} - x_{UC}}^2_2\\
\frac{\mu}{2}\norm{x - x_{UC}}^2_2 &\leq f(x) - f(x_{UC}) &&\leq \frac{L}{2}\norm{x - x_{UC}}^2_2
\end{align*}
Because $f(\hat{x}) \leq f(x)$, \[\frac{\mu}{2}\norm{\hat{x} - x_{UC}}^2_2 \leq \frac{L}{2}\norm{x - x_{UC}}^2_2.\]
Then, using the triangle inequality,
\begin{align*}
\norm{x - \hat{x}}_2 &= \norm{x - x_{UC} + x_{UC} - \hat{x}}_2\\
&\leq \norm{x - x_{UC}}_2 + \norm{x_{UC} - \hat{x}}_2\\
&\leq \left(1+ \sqrt{\frac{L}{\mu}}\right)\norm{x - x_{UC}}_2
\end{align*}
Finally, because $\sigma_{min}(A)\norm{v} \leq \norm{Av} \leq \sigma_{max}(A)\norm{v}$ and $b = Ax$,\[\norm{b - A\hat{x}}_2 \leq \left(1+ \sqrt{\frac{L}{\mu}}\right)\frac{\sigma_{max}(A)}{\sigma_{min}(A)}\norm{ b - Ax^*_{UC}}_2.\]
\end{proof}
\end{customthm}
The upshot of this theorem is that if an accuracy of ${\lvert x^{(k)}_i - x^*_i \rvert \leq \epsilon}$ is desired, a neighborhood size of \[K \geq \frac{1}{1-\lambda}\log\left(\frac{C}{\epsilon}\right)\] \frmargin{is sufficient}{High-level comment. At this point, the reader may be wondering "How big is C? How useful is this bound?" This is a great place to point the reader to say "In Section \ref{sec:experiments:economic:convergence}, we show through numerical simulations that the proposed bound is remarkably tight for highly local problems.}.
The larger $\lambda$ is, the larger the neighborhood needed to achieve a desired accuracy, whereas a smaller $\lambda$ indicates that a smaller neighborhood is sufficient. We note here that the actual number of variables and constraints included in a neighborhood of a fixed size will depend on the problem. For example, if $G_\text{dec}$ is a path graph, then the number of variables in each neighborhood will scale linearly with $k$, whereas if $G_\text{dec}$ is a grid graph, then the number of variables in each neighborhood scales quadratically with $k$.
The close relationship between $\lambda$ and the size of sub-problem needed to achieve a desired accuracy justifies it as a metric of the degree to which local information is sufficient to approximate individual components of the global solution. We are now in a position to define our metric of locality.
\begin{definition}[Locality]\label{def:locality}
For an optimization problem of the form \eqref{global_opt} we define the locality of the problem as \begin{equation}\lambda(f, A) = \sup_x \frac{\sqrt{\kappa(x)} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa(x) + 1}}.\end{equation}
We also extend the definition of locality to classes of problems. Explicitly, if it is known that $f \in F$ and $A \in \mathcal{A}$, we define the locality of the class of problems as
\begin{equation}
\lambda(F,\, \mathcal{A}) = \sup_{f \in F, \, A \in \mathcal{A}} \lambda(f,\, A).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
For instance, in network flow problems the class of constraint matrices, $\mathcal{A}$, are those representing flow conservation constraints. The flow conservation constraint at a given node only affects variables for flows departing or arriving at that node; accordingly, the distance metric $d$ corresponds to the shortest-path distance in the network flow graph.
\subsection{Discussion}
In this section, we have proposed a metric of locality that captures the amount of information that is required to solve for a single component of a convex optimization problem to a given degree of accuracy. From a practical standpoint, implementing the locality-aware algorithm requires checking the condition number for a given problem instance. In scenarios where the objective function, $f$, and constraint matrix, $A$, are fixed (with potentially varying constraint vector $b$), the locality parameter can be computed once, offline, and passed in as a parameter to the network. As an example of such a setting, in Section \ref{sec:experiments} we consider an example of economic dispatch, in which we minimize an objective function capturing generation and transmission costs subject to load fulfillment constraints. In such a scenario, the objective function and constraint matrix are fixed while the constraint vector is determined online. Since the objective function and constraint matrix are static, the proposed results can be immediately applied.
In Definition \ref{def:locality}, we generalize our metric of locality to classes of problems to account problem instances that exhibit variability in the objective and constraint matrix. As an example, in Section \ref{sec:experiments} we consider an instance of the power network state estimation problem, in which we maximize the posterior probability of the power flows and voltage angles given noisy measurements of both, subject to the power flow equations. The class of problems encompassing this scenario is defined by objective functions derived from the maximum-a-posteriori estimation formulation, and the constraint matrix representing the power flow equations. The noisy measurements are modeled in the objective function, so, in contrast with the economic dispatch example, the objective function is stochastic and determined at run-time. We show that the Hessian of the objective function is constant for all possible objective functions of this form. Accordingly, the locality metric can be readily computed in this setting. However, we remark that this is not always be the case, and there is often a practical trade-off between generality of a class of problems and how informative our metric of locality is. For example, if all but one problem in a class exhibit a high degree of locality, the proposed metric would still indicate that the entire class exhibits a low degree of locality---resulting in bounds that are exceedingly conservative for almost all of the problems in that class.
In the case that computing the locality of an entire class of problem is intractable, we suggest a sampling-based approach, where individual problem instances are sampled, and their locality estimated. This motivates a complementary notion of locality in a stochastic sense, where the presented notion of locality is extended from being a worst-case bound to one that captures the distribution of locality parameters in a class of problem. Similarly, we highlight the potential for a class of adaptive algorithms where agents individually estimate local measures of locality based on problem data within their neighborhood (potentially by applying notions of structured and component-wise condition numbers \cite{gohberg1993mixed}). This not only would alleviate the overhead of computing the global locality parameter, but would remedy the inherent conservatism of worst-case bounds---as demonstrated in Section \ref{sec:experiments}, the maximum error of Algorithm \ref{alg:locality} across agents can be much worse than the average error.
\section{Numerical Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
In this section we empirically validate our theoretical bounds and assess the performance of the locality-aware algorithm.
First, we consider a synthetic instance of the economic dispatch problem. We compare the true error of the locality-aware algorithm with the theoretical upper-bound on the error, as a function of the number of communication rounds. We observe that when the condition number is relatively low, the performance of the algorithm closely matches the theoretical prediction. We also assess the performance of the projected sub-gradient algorithm and observe that the number of iterations necessary to achieve a high level of accuracy far exceeds the number of communication rounds required for the locally-aware algorithm.
Second, we consider the state-estimation problem on the Pan European Grid Advanced Simulation and State Estimation (PEGASE) 9241-bus power-network \cite{6488772}, \cite{josz2016ac}. From a theoretical standpoint, this problem exhibits a high locality rate, which suggests that a locality-aware algorithm will not be useful in this case. However, empirically we observe that the locally-aware algorithm still manages to find a high-quality solution in fairly few rounds. This suggests that the locality rate is overly conservative for this case.
Finally, we consider a randomized instance of the rendezvous problem. Intuitively, deciding on a meeting location that is central to all agents is an inherently global problem. This is confirmed by the high locality parameter. In contrast to the state-estimation example, the rendezvous problem does not exhibit locality that is overlooked by the theory. This confirms that our characterization of locality does not buy us locality when there is none.
\subsection{Economic Dispatch}
\subsubsection{Problem Setting}
We consider a setting where generators are positioned in an $N \times M$ grid, and load buses are positioned in the center of each grid cell. Each load bus is only connected to its neighboring generators, which need to supply enough power to satisfy a stochastically generated load $\mathcal{L}(i)$. The costs associated with the problem are a quadratic generation cost with coefficient $\frac{\alpha}{2}$, and a quadratic transmission cost with coefficient $\frac{\beta}{2}$.
Explicitly, the optimization problem representing this setting is given by
\begin{mini}|l|
{x}{\frac{\alpha}{2}\sum_i \left(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} x_{i,j}\right)^2 + \frac{\beta}{2}\sum_i \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} x_{i,j}^2}
{\label{ex:econ_disp}}{}
\addConstraint{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{N}(j)} x_{i,j}= \mathcal{L}_j, \, \forall j.}
\end{mini}
If $\alpha = 0$, the problem becomes fully decoupled and the optimal solution is given by splitting each load evenly between its generators. Consequently, this setting allows us to use the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to ``tune'' the locality of the problem and investigate both the tightness of the proposed bounds, and the performance of the locality-aware algorithm for various rates of locality. We note that this example also illustrates the extension of our results to \frmargin{block-separable}{Did you define this anywhere? It is quite clear from context, but I lean towards pedantry} objectives.
\subsubsection{Effect of Locality on Convergence}\label{sec:experiments:economic:convergence}
In this example, we fixed the dimension of the global problem to be $20 \times 20$, and varied $\alpha$ to be $0.1$, $10$, and $1000$. The condition number for each of these cases was calculated and found to be $1.39$, $37.62$, and $3611.43$ respectively---these correspond to locality parameters of 0.08, 0.72, and 0.97. In each of these cases, we varied the local sub-problem size for each of the agents between $0$ and the diameter of the network. Figure \ref{fig:econ_disp_locality} plots the maximum error (computed over all the agents) against the size of local sub-problem, as well as the error bound in Theorem \ref{thm:locality_sketch} derived from the locality parameter. For well-conditioned problems, the true performance of the algorithm aligns closely with the theoretical prediction, while the theoretical bounds become more conservative as the condition number and the locality parameter increase. Notably, in cases with low locality parameter, the error exhibits clear exponential convergence. Whereas, when the locality parameter is higher, the convergence rate of the error appears to increase with the number of communication rounds. This aligns closely with the superlinear convergence behavior observed when solving large symmetric systems of equations using Krylov subspace methods \cite{Beckermann.ea.SIAM01}.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{econ_disp_locality.png}
\caption{This figure plots the true accuracy of the locality-aware algorithm (in blue) against the theoretical accuracy (in red) for varying communication rounds. In the well-conditioned case, $\alpha = 0.1$, the proposed theoretical rate is tight. As the conditioning of the problem increases, the theoretical bound becomes more conservative. }
\label{fig:econ_disp_locality}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Comparison to other methods}
We now evaluate the performance of our algorithm against the standard distributed projected subgradient algorithm \cite{5404774}. The distributed subgradient algorithm assumes an optimization problem of the form
\begin{mini}|l|
{x\in \mathbb{R}^N}{\sum_{i = 1}^m f_i(x)}
{}{}
\label{eq:subgrad_form}
\addConstraint{x \in \chi_i}
\end{mini}
where each $f_i(x)$ and $\chi_i$ are only known by agent $i$, and messages are passed over a fixed communication topology.
Each generator's local objective function encodes its own transmission and generation costs, i.e., \begin{equation*}f_i(x) = \frac{\alpha}{2}\left(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} x_{i,j}\right)^2 + \frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} x_{i,j}^2,\end{equation*}
and each generators' local constraint sets are the load constraints it needs to satisfy. We assume a fixed communication graph where each generator can communicate with other generators that it shares a constraint with---this is exactly the communication graph assumed in Algorithm \ref{alg:locality}.
We use the lazy Metropolis weighting for the consensus step (let $L$ denote the matrix encoding these weights). Every agent maintains and updates a copy of the global variable during each iteration. Let $x^k_{(i)}$ denote the $i$th agent's copy of the global optimization variable at iteration $k$. Then the projected subgradient updates are given by
\[x^{k + 1}_{(i)} = \Pi_{\chi_i}\left(\sum_{j} L_{ij}x^{k}_{(j)} - \frac{\gamma_0}{k^{0.55}}g^k_{(i)}\right),\]
where $\Pi_{\chi_i}(x)$ is the orthogonal projection of the point $x$ on the set $\chi_i$.
We simulated the projected subgradient algorithm for varying values of $\alpha$ for 10,000 iterations, and extracted local estimates from each agents' copy of the global decision variable i.e., $\hat{x}^k_i = \left[x^{k}_{(i)}\right]_i$. Figure \ref{fig:econ_disp_projSG} plots the maximum error across all agents of the projected sub-gradient algorithm against the number of communication rounds. We observe that within 10,000 iterations, none of the estimates have converged to the error achieved by the initial communication round in the locality-aware algorithm despite each agent having access to all of the problem data it would have obtained after the initialization round.
We also note that the convergence of the projected subgradient algorithm is particularly sensitive to the step-size schedule, and that the optimal step size is dependent on the condition number of the problem. Moreover, the best initial step size is not consistent across different problem instances---for $\alpha = 10$, an initial steps-size of $\gamma_0 = 1$ converged the fastest, whereas for $\alpha = 1000$, an initial step-size of $\gamma_0 = 0.01$ converged the slowest. While it is a weakness that the locality-aware algorithm depends on the locality parameter, which depends on the condition number, efficient implementation of the projected sub-gradient algorithm depends on the condition number as well.
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{proj_SG.png}
\caption{This figure plots the convergence of the projected sub-gradient algorithm, with lazy Metropolis weighting, against the number of communication rounds for varying intial step-sizes. The convergence of the algorithm is highly sensitive to the initial step-size.}
\label{fig:econ_disp_projSG}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Power Network---State Estimation}
We consider a power network modeled by a graph $G(V, E)$. We assume that the network is primarily inductive, the voltage amplitudes are fixed to one, and the voltage angle differences between neighboring nodes are small enough to apply the DC power assumption. The power flow $P_{ij}$ on edge $\{i,\, j\} \in E$ must satisfy the equation \[P_{ij} = -b_{ij}(\theta_i - \theta_j).\]
We consider a setting where both the voltage angles, $\theta$, and line power flows, $P$, are measured according to \[\theta^m_i = \theta_i + \epsilon_i, \quad P^m_{ij} = P_{ij} + \epsilon_{ij}\]
where $\epsilon_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2_i)$, and $\epsilon_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2_{ij})$, and the true power flow and voltage angles must be estimated. Then, the maximum a posteriori estimation problem is given by
\begin{mini}|l|
{\hat{\theta}\in \mathbb{R}^{|V|}, \, \hat{P}\in \mathbb{R}^{|E|}}{\sum_{i \in V} \left(\frac{\hat{\theta}_i -\theta^m_i}{\sigma_i}\right)^2 + \sum_{(i,j) \in E}\left(\frac{\hat{P}_{ij} - P^m_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}}\right)^2}
{\label{pn_opt}}{}
\addConstraint{\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}I & B \end{array}
\right] \left[\begin{array}{c}
\hat{P}\\\hline\hat{\theta}
\end{array}\right]}{= 0}
\end{mini}
where $I$ is the identity matrix, and $B$ is the network admittance matrix containing the electrical parameters and topology information \cite{Molzahn.ea.17}. We simulated the locality-aware distributed optimization algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:locality}) for $K = 2, \ldots, 20$. The average and maximum errors in both the powerflow and voltage angle estimates are shown in Figure \ref{fig:pegase9241} along with their theoretical bounds. We found that the condition number of the problem was $6.37 \times 10^6$, resulting in a locality rate of $0.9992$. The theoretical bounds, in this case, would suggest that the locality-aware approach is not well-suited to the problem setting. However, numerically, we observe that this bound is overly conservative and the problem instance nevertheless exhibits locality behavior. Additionally, we see that the average error tends to be an order of magnitude less than the maximum error exhibited. Our method of analysis resulted in a uniform worst-case bound, however, this experiment demonstrates that the worst case is a poor representation of the average case. Accordingly, we highlight extending the results of this paper to quantify local measures of locality.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth, height = 0.3\textwidth]{pn_comparison.png}
\caption{This figure depicts the local sub-problem size versus average (green), maximum (blue), and theoretical (red) errors in power flow and voltage angle estimates. The theoretical bounds suggest a rate of decay of 0.9992. However, both the maximum and average errors decay much faster, with the average error being consistently an order of magnitude smaller than the theoretical error.}
\label{fig:pegase9241}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Rendezvous}
We now consider an instance of rendezvous where 1000 agents are places randomly in a $[0,1] \times [0, 1]$ grid, and they must decide on a meeting location the minimizes the sum of their distances to the location. The optimization problem representing this setting is given by
\begin{mini}|l|
{x, y \in \mathbb{R}}{\sum_{i = 1}^N (x - x_i)^2 + (y - y_i)^2}
{}{}
\label{eq:uncon_rendezvou}
\end{mini}
We assume that the communication graph, $G = (V, E)$ between agents is a given by the minimum weight spanning tree of their distances. We rewrite the rendezvous optimization problem in the following form to make it amenable to distributed optimization algorithms,
\begin{mini}|l|
{\hat{x}, \hat{y} \in \mathbb{R}^N}{\sum_{i = 1}^N (\hat{x}_i - x_i)^2 + (\hat{y}_i - y_i)^2}
{}{}
\label{eq:con_rendezvou}
\addConstraint{\hat{x}_i = \hat{x}_j,\, \hat{y}_i = \hat{y}_j \quad \forall (i, j) \in E}
\end{mini}
This formulation simply local copies of the meeting location coordinates, $x$ and $y$, and ensures that the neighbors agree on the same meeting location. Because the communication graph is connected, this condition ensures that all agents agree on the same meeting location. As we might expect, deciding on a meeting location that is central to \emph{all} agents is an inherently global problem. This is confirmed by the locality parameter, which was found to be $\lambda = 0.9939$. The true error along with our theoretical bounds are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:rendezvous}: unlike the example of state-estimation in a power network, the rendezvous example did not exhibit locality that was overlooked by the theory. We note that the communication graph in this example had a radius of 39---empirically, we see that the maximum error hardly changes even when multiple agents have already accumulated the entirety of the problem data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth, height=0.3\textwidth]{rendezvous.png}
\caption{This figure shows the true accuracy of the locality-aware algorithm (blue) against its theoretical accuracy (red). The locality parameter, $\lambda = 0.9939$, indicates that the error should hardly decay with the number of communication rounds, which aligns with the empirical results observed.}
\label{fig:rendezvous}
\end{figure}
This experiment shows that our characterization of locality does not buy us locality when there is none. Some problems that we might solve with a multi-agent system are inherently global, requiring information from all of the nodes to solve the problem with reasonable accuracy---others are inherently local. The purpose of this paper is not to imbue all problems with locality, but rather to develop a metric that can distinguish between the two.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we have studied the structure of linearly-constrained strongly-convex optimization problems, and proved that \emph{all} such problems exhibit locality. Our results hinge on the Conjugate Residuals algorithm, which allow us to relate the locality of a problem to its conditioning. The rate of locality derived from CR is $\frac{\sqrt{\kappa} - 1}{\sqrt{\kappa} + 1}$ is a significant improvement to the $\frac{\kappa - 1}{\kappa + 1}$ rate derived in previous work via the infinite Neumann expansion. We applied this notion of locality to design a distributed optimization algorithm that explicitly takes advantage of this fact, and demonstrated our algorithm in the context of both economic dispatch and state-estimation in a power network.
While the framework of locality seems like a promising direction for designing multi-agent systems that scale well with the number of agents, a number of key questions remain open. The first is the issue of determining the locality parameter of a problem---as stated, it is determined by a uniform bound on condition number that may be difficult to solve for. While we have provided a bound via the condition number of the sensitivity expression, the numerical experiments show that this bound can be conservative, especially in settings where the condition number is poor.
It is also of interest to determine the locality of a problem in a distributed fashion. The next question is how we can exploit locality without explicitly aggregating any problem data. One commonly cited reason for the necessity of distributed optimization algorithms is to avoid sharing information about privately known objectives and constraints---it remains open how to incorporate privacy in our approach.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Part of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.88}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
{\small
|
\section{Introduction}
A radio telescope works by combining the signals received by the elements that constitute its aperture (a reflecting surface in the case of a dish, or an array of antennas in the case of a phased array).
In order to maximize the sensitivity of the telescope towards a particular direction, the signals arriving from that direction must be combined in phase, i.e., the time difference between the signals received by different aperture elements must be zero.
In the case of a dish this is accomplished by shaping the reflecting surface in such a way that all the signals arrive at the receiver at the same time; in a phased array it is done by introducing instrumental time delays between its elements to compensate for the time of arrival of the signal at the antennas \citep[e.g.,][]{Thompson2017}.
Deviations from a perfect phase alignment when the signals are combined lead to a loss in the efficiency of the telescope \citep[e.g.,][]{Ruze1952,Ruze1966,D'Addario2008}.
These phase misalignments can be caused by the telescope itself, or they can be produced in the path between the source of the signals and the telescope.
An example of the former are phase differences caused by misaligned panels in a reflector \citep[e.g.,][]{Baars2007} or by uncorrected cable delays in a phased array.
Different methods to reduce phase misalignments between the elements of an aperture have been developed.
These include photogrammetric measurements \citep[e.g.,][]{Wiktowy2003}, direct measurement of the aperture distribution \citep[e.g.,][]{Chen1998,Naruse2009}, holographic measurements \citep[e.g.,][]{Napier1973,Bennett1976,Scott1977,Baars2007,Hunter2011}, and calibration using astronomical sources \citep[e.g.,][]{Fomalont1999,Intema2009,Thompson2017,Rioja2018}.
This paper focuses on the holographic measurement of the aperture illumination of a large phased array telescope.
Since the work of \citet{Scott1977}, holographic measurements have been used to calibrate the dishes of the Very Large Array \citep[VLA, e.g.,][]{Kesteven1993,Broilo1993}, the Atacama Large Millimeter Array \citep[ALMA, e.g.,][]{Baars2007}, and the Green Bank Telescope \citep[GBT, e.g.,][]{Hunter2011}; to study the primary beam response of the Westerbork radio telescope \citep[WSRT, e.g.,][]{Popping2008} and the Allen telescope array dishes \citep[ATA, e.g.,][]{Harp2011}; and to characterize the beam and aperture of the LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR) stations \citep[Brentjens et al. in prep.][]{}.
All these measurements have been restricted to the study of apertures $\lesssim100$~m in diameter.
In the regime of low frequencies and large apertures, holographic measurements are particularly challenging.
At low frequencies the ionosphere will introduce additional time delays depending on its total electron content \citep[TEC, e.g.,][]{Intema2009}.
To accurately measure the intrinsic phase errors between the elements of the phased array without ionospheric distortion, the phased array must be smaller than the diffractive scale of the ionosphere.
Night time observations of the ionosphere at $150$~MHz show that its diffractive scale is between $30$ and $3$~km \citep{Mevius2016}.
LOFAR operates at frequencies between $10$~MHz and $240$~MHz \citep[][]{vanHaarlem2013}.
This frequency range is covered by two different types of antennas: low band antennas (LBA, $10$--$90$~MHz) and high band antennas (HBA, $120$--$240$~MHz).
The HBA antennas are combined in a $4\times4$ tile with an analog beamformer.
The antennas and tiles are grouped into stations, and the stations are further combined to form an array.
For the core stations of LOFAR, the LBA stations consist of $96$ antennas, while the HBA stations have $48$ tiles split into two fields.
Of the $96$ antennas in a core LBA station the available electronics permits only $48$ to be actively beamformed.
There are $24$ stations in the core of LOFAR.
The core stations are connected via fiber to a central clock, thus their signals can be added coherently to form a telescope with a maximum baseline of $3.5$~km.
The stations in the innermost $350$~m are known as the \textit{Superterp}.
Each LOFAR LBA dipole observes the entire sky, while the HBA tiles have a field of view (FoV) of $30\degr$ at $150$~MHz.
Since the signals from the antennas and tiles are combined digitally, the stations can simultaneously point in multiple directions within their FoV \citep[e.g.,][]{Barton1980,Steyskal1987}.
When the signals from different stations are added together coherently, a phased array (known as a tied array) is formed.
This enables LOFAR to form multiple tied-array beams (TABs) that point in different directions.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
We want to determine the time delays for the array formed by the stations in LOFAR's core.
We refer to the tied array formed by these stations as the array under test (AUT).
In order to determine the time delays, we start from a map of its complex-valued beam $B$.
The basic procedure used to measure $B$ is the same as that employed by \citet{Scott1977}, with a difference in its implementation.
In their work, a raster scan was used to map the region around the bright unresolved source.
Here, we take advantage of LOFAR's multi-beaming capability to map the region around the bright unresolved source.
Using multiple TABs the whole region is mapped simultaneously, and there is always a TAB pointing towards the bright unresolved source.
In addition to speeding up the process by a factor equal to the number of simultaneous beams, this allows continuous calibration of the AUT and the reference stations by always having a TAB at the central calibrator source.
At the frequencies at which LOFAR operates, the Milky Way is bright and it will distort the observed map of $B$.
To reduce the contribution from the Milky Way to the measurements, we use a reference station to produce a baseline that resolves out large-scale Galactic structure \citep[e.g.,][]{Colegate2015}.
The contribution from smaller bright sources (e.g., Cassiopeia~A or Cygnus~A) cannot be completely resolved out, and is reduced by limiting the field of view (FoV) through time and frequency smearing \citep[e.g.,][]{Bridle1999}.
Moreover, the AUT and the reference station ``see'' different portions of the ionosphere, which will introduce an additional time delay between them.
The effects of the different ionosphere seen by the AUT and the reference station are calibrated using the bright point source.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\caption{\label{tab:obs} Observations used in this work.\tablefootmark{$\dagger$}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline\hline
Observation ID\tablefootmark{{\ddag}} & Antenna & \# antenna & Start time & Duration & \# TABs & TAB spacing & FoV & Source\tablefootmark{f} \\
& & fields & & (s) & & (arcmin) & (degrees) & \\
\hline
L658168 & HBA\tablefootmark{b} & 46\tablefootmark{c} & June $14$ $13$:$40$:$00$ UT & 60 & $169$ & $1.6$ & $0.37$ & 3C147 \\
L658158 & HBA\tablefootmark{b} & 46\tablefootmark{c} & June $14$ $13$:$30$:$00$ UT & 60 & $169$ & $1.6$ & $0.37$ & 3C196 \\
L650445 & LBA\tablefootmark{d} & 24\tablefootmark{e} & April $19$ $09$:$20$:$00$ UT & 600 & $271$ & $5$ & $1.32$ & 3C48 \\
L645357\tablefootmark{a} & LBA\tablefootmark{d} & 24\tablefootmark{e} & March $20$ $19$:$45$:$00$ UT & 600 & $271$ & $5$ & $1.32$ & 3C196 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{
\tablefoottext{$\dagger$}{Stations used as reference and their distance from the center of the array: RS$210$ $65$~km; RS$509$ $59$~km; RS$310$ $52$~km; and DE$605$ $226$~km.}\\
\tablefoottext{$\ddag$}{For each observation ID the three/four previous odd values contain the observations with the reference stations.}\\
\tablefoottext{a}{For this observation DE$605$ was not used as a reference.}\\
\tablefoottext{b}{Data was recorded for ten spectral windows centered at $115.0391$, $119.9219$, $124.8047$, $129.6875$, $134.5703$, $139.4531$, $144.3359$, $154.1016$, $163.8672$, and $173.6328$~MHz.}\\
\tablefoottext{c}{All core stations except CS024.}\\
\tablefoottext{d}{Data was recorded for ten spectral windows centered at $36.7188$, $39.8438$, $45.1172$, $50.0000$, $51.5625$, $53.1250$, $56.0547$, $61.5234$, $65.2344$, and $67.7734$~MHz.}\\
\tablefoottext{e}{All core stations.}\\
\tablefoottext{f}{IAU names for the sources 3C147 0538+498, 3C196 0809+483, 3C48 0134+329.}
}
\end{table*}
Following the measurement equation formalism \citep{Hamaker2000}, we obtain the visibility generated by cross-correlating the signals from the AUT and the reference station as
\begin{equation}
V_{b}^{}=J_{\mathrm{AUT},b}^{}EJ_{\mathrm{ref}}^{\dagger}\delta_{b,\mathrm{ref}},
\end{equation}
where $E$ represents the coherency matrix formed by the pure sky visibilities, $J_{\mathrm{AUT},b}$ and $J_{\mathrm{ref}}$ are respectively the Jones matrices \citep{Jones1941} of the AUT and the reference station, the subscript $b$ represents the TABs formed with the AUT, the $\dagger$ symbol denotes taking the conjugate transpose of the corresponding matrix, and $\delta_{b,\mathrm{ref}}$ is the Kroneker delta-function due to the spatial dependence of the product.
The calibration consists of finding the inverse of the visibility of the central TAB, $V_{c}^{-1}$, and right multiplying all the visibilities with it.
This is possible since $V_{c}$ is non-singular, as $E$ is non-singular by definition and the AUT measures two orthogonal polarizations.
After this, for the central beam $\tilde{V}^{}_{b=c}=V^{}_{c}V^{-1}_{c}=1$, where $1$ represents the identity matrix.
For the remaining directions $\tilde{V}^{}_{i}=V^{}_{i}V^{-1}_{c}=J^{}_{\mathrm{AUT},i}J^{-1}_{\mathrm{AUT},c}$.
This means that the calibrated visibility for the $i$-th beam only depends on the Jones matrix of the AUT, and not on the sky brightness distribution.
This relation holds if the sky coherency matrix is that of a single point-like source \citep[e.g.,][]{Smirnov2011}.
The calibrated visibilities map $B$.
The details behind the calibration method will be presented in Brentjens et al. (in prep.).
From the observed map of $B$ we determine the amplitude and phase over the aperture of the AUT, $A$.
In the far-field approximation, and for a coplanar array, they are related by \citep[e.g.,][]{D'Addario1982,Baars2007,Thompson2017},
\begin{equation}
B(l,m)\propto\iint A(p,q)e^{2\pi i(pl+qm)\frac{\nu}{c}}dpdq,
\label{eq:ft}
\end{equation}
where $i$ denotes the imaginary unit, $c$ is the speed of light, $\nu$ is frequency, $p$ and $q$ are orthogonal coordinates in the aperture plane, and $l$ and $m$ are the direction cosines measured with respect to $p$ and $q$.
For LOFAR, the $(p,q)$ coordinate system has its origin at the center of the aperture and it lies in the plane of the station, or in this case the plane of the \textit{Superterp} stations.
The phase of $A(p,q)$ is set, for example, by uncalibrated errors in the clock distribution, cable length, antenna position, and ionospheric phase variations across the aperture.
\section{Observations}
\label{sec:observations}
\subsection{LOFAR holography observations}
\label{ssec:lofobs}
Table~\ref{tab:obs} summarizes the observations.
Each TAB recorded complex voltages in two orthogonal polarizations (X and Y) at $5.12$~$\mu$s time resolution in ten spectral windows $195.3125$~kHz in width each.
The data were subsequently ingested into the LOFAR long-term archive.
The calibrator sources are selected to be small compared to the size of the TAB, and compared to the fringe spacing of the baselines between the AUT and the reference stations.
The former prevents systematic distortions in the measured beam, while the latter guarantees high signal-to-noise ratios (S/N) on the baselines towards the reference stations.
The complex valued beam maps were measured on a regular hexagonal grid, $1.32$ and $0.37$ deg across for LBA and HBA, respectively.
The map size is limited by the number of TABs, spectral windows and stations that the beamformer, COBALT \citep[][]{Broekema2018}, can process simultaneously.
Per Fourier relation Equation~\ref{eq:ft} this implies a spatial resolution in the aperture plane of $270$~m (HBA at $174$~MHz) and $170$~m (LBA at $68$~MHz), comparable to the diameter of the \textit{Superterp} ($350$~m).
The separation between TABs was set at $\lambda/D$ at the highest frequency, and kept constant for lower frequencies.
This maximizes the FoV while avoiding the overlap of aliasing artifacts with the AUT in the aperture plane, and enables simultaneous observations at different frequencies.
The required integration time is set by the error on the phase in the aperture plane, $\Delta\phi$, \citep{D'Addario1982}
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi\approx\dfrac{\pi D}{4\sqrt{2}d\mathrm{S/N}_{\mathrm{bm}}},
\label{eq:dphi}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the telescope diameter, $d$ the spatial resolution on the aperture plane, and $\mathrm{S/N}_{\mathrm{bm}}$ the signal-to-noise ratio in the complex-valued beam map; in other words, the ratio of the peak response of the array to the root mean square (rms) over the complex-valued beam map, $\mathrm{S/N}_{\mathrm{bm}}=I/\sigma$.
Sigma can be estimated as \citep[e.g.,][]{Napier1982}
\begin{equation}
\sigma=\sqrt{(\mbox{SEFD}_\mathrm{CS}/N_\mathrm{CS})(\mbox{SEFD}_\mathrm{RS})}/(\sqrt{\Delta\nu\Delta t}),
\end{equation}
where $N_\mathrm{CS}$ is the number of stations in the AUT; $\mbox{SEFD}_\mathrm{CS}$ and $\mbox{SEFD}_\mathrm{RS}$ are the system equivalent flux density (SEFD) of a core station and a reference station, respectively; $\Delta\nu$ is the bandwdith; and $\Delta t$ the integration time.
For the LBA the SEFD of each antenna field is $\approx30$~kJy at $60$~MHz and for the HBA $\approx3$~kJy at $150$~MHz \citep{vanHaarlem2013}.
Thus, for an observation of 3C196 with integration times of $600$~s at $60$~MHz and $60$~s at $150$~MHz we can determine the time delays with errors of $1.8$~ns and $0.4$~ns, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics{waterfalls.pdf}}
\caption{Waterfall plots of the complex visibilities and their Fourier transform.
\textit{Top panel}: Amplitude of the visibilities. The
RFI can be seen at $39.78$~MHz.
\textit{Bottom panel}: Fourier transform of the visibilities.
If the visibilities are dominated by a point source in the array tracking center, then this should be a delta function centered at $0$ delay and $0$ fringe rate.
In this case there is some time variability in the data, which produces a spread along the fringe rate.
}
\label{fig:waterfalls}
\end{figure}
\subsection{From raw voltages to beam maps}
To obtain a complex-valued map of the array beam we cross-correlate the voltage from the AUT with that of the reference station.
This is done using an FX correlator \citep[e.g.,][]{Thompson2017} implemented in \emph{python}.
To channelize the time series data from each spectral window we use a polyphase filter bank \citep[PFB, e.g.,][]{Price2016} with a Hann window to alleviate spectral leakage and scalloping losses.
We produce spectra of $64$ $3$~kHz channels, and a time resolution of $327.68$~$\mu$s.
This enables us to, at a later stage, flag narrowband radio frequency interference (RFI) without flagging the entire time sample.
In each spectral window we discard $25\%$ of the channels at the edges, leaving a bandwidth of $146.48$~kHz per spectral window.
The two orthogonal polarizations are combined to produce four cross-correlation products, i.e., XX, XY, YX, and YY products.
Before proceeding, we check that the bright unresolved source in the map center dominates the signal.
In this case, a time delay versus fringe rate plot will show a peaked response in the center of the diagram.
An example of such a diagram is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:waterfalls}.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{beam0_phases.pdf}}
\caption{Phase of the visibilities at the map center.
\textit{Top panel}: Observed phase for the LBA observations.
\textit{Bottom panel}: Observed phase for the HBA observations.
\label{fig:b0phase}}
\end{figure}
After cross-correlation, the visibilities are time averaged to ensure that their S/N is high enough ($>3$) for calibration.
For the HBA observations we average to a time resolution of $0.4$~s, which results in a S/N of $6$.
For the LBA, which has a lower sensitivity and is more severely affected by the ionosphere (Figure~\ref{fig:b0phase}), the averaging times are longer.
For L645357 we average to $20$~s and for L650445 --- $5$~s.
After time averaging, we remove visibilities affected by RFI in the frequency-time domain.
We use a SumThreshold method \cite*[AOFlagger,][]{Offringa2012} on each TAB, polarization, and spectral window independently.
For the LBA and HBA observations the fraction of flagged data is $\approx5\%$.
After RFI flagging we average each spectral window in frequency to a single $146.48$~kHz channel.
The amount of time and bandwidth smearing on the visibility measured by a baseline can be approximated by \citep[e.g.,][]{Smirnov2011,Thompson2017}
\begin{equation}
\langle V\rangle=V\sinc(\Delta\Psi)\sinc(\Delta\Phi),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\Psi=\pi\theta_{\mathrm{s}}\Delta\nu/(\theta_{\mathrm{b}}\nu)$, $\Delta\Phi=\pi\theta_{\mathrm{s}}\omega_{\mathrm{e}}\Delta t/\theta_{\mathrm{b}}$, $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$ is the distance from the array's phase center, $\theta_{\mathrm{b}}$ is the size of the synthesized beam formed by the baseline, and $\omega_{\mathrm{e}}$ is the Earth's rotational angular velocity ($7.2921159\times^{-5}$~radians~s$^{-1}$).
Then, for a baseline of $52$~km, a bandwidth of $146.48$~kHz, an integration time of $0.4$~s, and a frequency of $115$~MHz ($\theta_{\mathrm{b}}\approx10\arcsec$) time and bandwidth smearing reduce the amplitude of Taurus~A (the closest A-team source to 3C147) by $1.7\times10^{-4}$.
For an integration time of $5$~s, an observing frequency of $37$~MHz, and the same baseline and bandwidth the amplitude of Cassiopeia~A (closest A-team source to 3C48) is smeared by $2.3\times10^{-4}$.
The flagged and averaged visibilities are then calibrated by multiplying by the inverse of the Jones matrix of the central beam.
This has the effect of removing most of the undesired systematic effects present in the data, such as the dependence of the observed visibilities on the sky brightness distribution, beam pattern of the reference station, or ionospheric delays between reference station and AUT.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics{L645357_avg_rfi_avg_XX_CS401LBA_5col_2row.pdf}}
\caption{Voltage beam and aperture maps for the LBA at $56$~MHz derived from the observation L645357.
\textit{Top left}: Amplitude of the voltage beam.
\textit{Top center}: Beam model amplitude. The beam model is generated using the derived phases for the stations in the AUT.
\textit{Top right}: Amplitude of the residuals after subtracting the beam model from the observed voltage beam (\textit{top left}).
\textit{Bottom left}: Aperture map obtained by taking the Fourier transform of the voltage beam (inverse Fourier transform of Equation~\ref{eq:ft}).
The \textit{white circles} show the location of the stations in the AUT.
\textit{Bottom right}: Amplitude of the Fourier transform of the beam residuals (\textit{top right}).
\label{fig:bmap_lba}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}
{\includegraphics{L658168_avg_rfi_avg_XX_CS026HBA1_5col_2row.pdf}}
\caption{Voltage beam and aperture maps for the HBA at $139$~MHz derived from the observation L658168.
\textit{Top left}: Amplitude of the voltage beam.
\textit{Top center}: Beam model amplitude. The beam model is generated using the derived phases for the stations in the AUT.
\textit{Top right}: Amplitude of the residuals after subtracting the beam model from the observed voltage beam (\textit{top left}).
\textit{Bottom left}: Aperture map obtained by taking the Fourier transform of the voltage beam (inverse Fourier transform of Equation~\ref{eq:ft}).
The \textit{white circles} show the location of the stations in the AUT.
\textit{Bottom right}: Amplitude of the Fourier transform of the beam residuals (\textit{top right}).
\label{fig:bmap_hba}}
\end{figure}
After calibration, we further average the visibilities in time to one time sample with a duration of one minute for the HBA and ten minutes for the LBA (Table~\ref{tab:obs}).
After averaging in time, we are left with one calibrated complex visibility for each polarization (XX, XY, YX, and YY), spectral window, and TAB.
These calibrated complex visibilities map the complex-valued beam.
Finally, we compute the inverse-variance weighted mean beam maps, averaged over all reference stations.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Beam and aperture maps}
\label{ssec:bamaps}
An example of the observed beam of the LBA is presented in the top left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:bmap_lba}.
There the main lobe of the beam is at the map center, and we can also see that there is a side lobe with a similar amplitude at $(l,m)=(-6,25)$.
This is produced by improperly calibrated time delays between stations.
For the HBA (top left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:bmap_hba}) the side lobes have amplitudes $\approx30\%$ of the main lobe.
The time delays between HBA stations are regularly calibrated using synthesis imaging observations.
The voltage beam is the Fourier transform of the aperture illumination (Eq.~\ref{eq:ft}), shown in the bottom left panel of Figures~\ref{fig:bmap_lba} and \ref{fig:bmap_hba}.
There we can see that the amplitudes are non-zero at the location of the stations in the AUT.
The amplitudes are larger in the \textit{Superterp} because there the stations are unresolved and their amplitudes, and phases, overlap.
\subsection{Time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets}
\label{ssec:tau}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lba_phase_solutions.pdf}}
\caption{Example of the measured phases as a function of frequency for three LBA stations.
The measured phases are shown with \textit{dashed lines} and \textit{error bars}, while the best fit lines are shown with \textit{dotted lines}.
CS302LBA is at a distance of 2 km from the array center, CS026LBA at $870$~m, and CS006LBA at $126$~m, part of the \textit{Superterp}.
These correspond to values derived from observation L645357.
\label{fig:phaseeg}}
\end{figure}
To measure the phase of the stations in the AUT we pose Equation~\ref{eq:ft} as a linear problem, i.e., B=Ax with
\[
A=\begin{pmatrix}
\exp[2\pi i(p_{s}l_{j}+q_{s}m_{j})] & \dots & \exp[2\pi i(p_{N_\mathrm{CS}}l_{j}+q_{N_\mathrm{CS}}m_{j})]\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\exp[2\pi i(p_{s}l_{N}+q_{s}m_{N})] & \dots & \exp[2\pi i(p_{N_\mathrm{CS}}l_{N}+q_{N_\mathrm{CS}}m_{N})]\\
\end{pmatrix},
\]where $N$ is the number of TABs and x is a complex vector whose argument is the phase of each station, $\phi$.
The linear complex problem is recast to a real problem following \citet{Militaru2012}.
Then, we use least squares parameter estimation to determine the amplitude and phase at the locations of the stations.
The phases derived are not meaningful on their own, as an interferometer only measures relative phases \citep[e.g.,][]{Jennison1958}.
To remove the arbitrary offset from the phases we reference them with respect to one of the stations in the AUT.
From the referenced phases we can recover the time delay, $\tau$, and the $0$ Hz phase offset, $\phi_{0}$, of each station.
These are related to the phase by the linear relation $\phi=2\pi\nu\tau+\phi_{0}$.
An example of the observed phases and their best fit linear relation are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:phaseeg}.
There we can see that the phases show a linear relation with frequency and that the error bars on the phases become larger for stations closer to the array center.
Examples of the measured $\tau$ and $\phi_{0}$ for the HBA stations derived from the L658168 observations are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dgains_hba}.
For the \textit{Superterp} stations, CS$002$ to CS$007$, the error bars are a factor of three larger than for the rest of the stations.
This is a consequence of the larger phase errors obtained for the \textit{Superterp} stations (see Figure~\ref{fig:phaseeg}).
This is also reflected in the larger aperture residuals at the \textit{Superterp} (bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:bmap_hba}).
For the stations outside the \textit{Superterp}, the errors on $\tau$ have a mean value of $1.4\pm1.2$~ns and $1.2\pm0.9$~ns for the XX and YY polarizations, respectively.
For the observation L658158 the same stations have errors on $\tau$ with a mean of $3.9\pm1.7$~ns and $3.7\pm1.7$~ns for the XX and YY polarizations, respectively.
Since the flux density of 3C196 is a factor of $1.2$ higher than that of 3C147, the larger errors on $\tau$ for L658158 are produced by the larger phase fluctuations in this observation (Figure~\ref{fig:b0phase}).
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{hba_gain_solutions_XX_YY_L658168.pdf}}
\caption{Time delay and $0$ Hz phase offsets for the HBA stations derived from observation L658168.
\textit{Top panel}: Derived time delay $\tau$ for each station in the AUT.
The time delay for CS$026$HBA1 is $0$ because this station was used to reference the phases.
\textit{Bottom panel}: Phase offset of $0$ Hz.
It can be seen that the time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets are consistent between the two polarizations.
For the innermost stations, CS$002$ to CS$007$, the scatter is larger because the stations are unresolved.
\label{fig:dgains_hba}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lba_gain_solutions_ref_CS401LBA.pdf}}
\caption{Time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets for the LBA stations derived from holography observations.
The time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets correspond to those of the XX polarization for two observations (L645357 and L650445).
\textit{Top panel}: Derived time delay $\tau$ for each station in the AUT.
The time delay for CS$401$ is $0$ because this station was used to reference the phases.
\textit{Bottom panel}: Phase offset of $0$ Hz.
It can be seen that the time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets are consistent between the two observations.
For the innermost stations, CS$002$ to CS$007$, the scatter is larger because the stations are unresolved.
\label{fig:dgains_lba}}
\end{figure}
The measured time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets for the LBA stations derived from L645357 and L650445 are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:dgains_lba}.
In both observations the derived values of $\tau$ and $\phi_{0}$ agree to within $3\sigma$, even though in L645357 the S/N is higher by a factor of $12$; for the L645357 observations the ionosphere over the array produces a smooth slow time-varying phase rotation, while for L650445 the changes are faster and more pronounced (Figure~\ref{fig:b0phase}).
The time delays for the \textit{Superterp} stations have errors that are a factor of four larger than for the rest of the stations.
For both HBA and LBA (Figures~\ref{fig:dgains_hba} and \ref{fig:dgains_lba}), the $0$ Hz phase offsets are consistent with being zero at the $5\sigma$ level.
Motivated by this, we fit a linear relation to the phases with $\phi_{0}=0$.
The values of $\tau$ for the LBA stations under this assumption are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:tau_lba_fix}.
We can see that the derived time delays are consistent with those presented in Figure~\ref{fig:dgains_lba}, but in this case the error bars are smaller because there is one less free parameter and setting $\phi_{0}=0$ is a strong constraint.
Using $\phi_{0}=0$ the mean value of the error of the derived time delays is $0.26\pm0.16$~ns and $0.17\pm0.10$~ns for the HBA and LBA, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lba_clock_solutions.pdf}}
\caption{Time delays for the LBA stations assuming that $\phi_{0}=0$.
The time delays obtained from holography observations are shown for two orthogonal polarizations (XX and YY).
We also show the time delays derived from imaging observations for Stokes I.
During the calibration of imaging observations the phase offset between XX and YY polarizations is removed by assuming that a reference station has zero phase offsets \citep[][]{deGasperin2019}.
The time delay for CS$401$LBA is $0$ because this station was used to reference the phases.
Station CS$031$LBA is missing in the imaging data because it was completely flagged.
\label{fig:tau_lba_fix}}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:tau_lba_fix} we also show the time delays for the LBA stations derived from imaging observations.
In imaging observations the phases for each station are derived from observations of a bright calibrator source and a model of the sky brightness distribution \citep[e.g.,][]{Fomalont1999}.
Then the contribution to the phase from the station delays and the ionosphere are separated \citep[e.g.,][]{vanWeeren2016,deGasperin2018,deGasperin2019}.
We see that the time delays derived using holography and imaging observations agree to within $3\sigma$ for $20$ out of the $23$ stations present in both observations.
This shows that the time delays derived here, where no model of the sky brightness distribution is used, are indistinguishable from those derived in imaging observations.
The interferometric time delays have smaller error bars because they are obtained using $488$ $195.3125$~kHz spectral windows.
We check that the derived time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets capture the status of the AUT by using them to simulate the array beam and comparing it with the observed beam.
To simulate the array beam we use the time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets shown in Figures~\ref{fig:dgains_hba} and \ref{fig:dgains_lba} for the HBA and LBA stations, respectively.
These are used to evaluate the phase of each station at a particular frequency, producing a complex valued map of the AUT.
The Fourier transform of the AUT simulates the array beam.
The residuals between the observed and simulated array beams are presented in the top right panel of Figures~\ref{fig:bmap_lba} and \ref{fig:bmap_hba}.
The residuals in the image plane have no obvious structure and show amplitudes of $\lesssim10\%$.
This shows that we can reproduce the array beam using the derived time delays and $0$ Hz phase offsets.
However, the Fourier transform of the beam residuals reveals that there is significant structure in the aperture plane (bottom right panel of Figures~\ref{fig:bmap_lba} and \ref{fig:bmap_hba}).
This can be seen as a larger amplitude ($11\%$ for the LBA) at the location of the \textit{Superterp}, for which we are not capturing the phase behavior as accurately as for the stations away from it (see also Figure~\ref{fig:phaseeg}).
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Corrected time delays}
\label{ssec:cortau}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{lba_beams_comp_psf.pdf}}
\caption{Observed beam for the LBA.
The \textit{top row} shows the observed beam after updating the instrumental time delays in the beamformer (\textit{colorscale}).
The \textit{red contours} show the amplitude of a beam model generated from the position of the stations with no additional time delays.
They are at the $20\%$, $50\%$, $90\%$ and $98\%$ level with respect to the peak response.
The \textit{bottom row} shows the residuals after subtracting the beam model from the observed beam (\textit{colorscale}).
The \textit{red contours} are the same as in the top row.
\label{fig:corrbeam}}
\end{figure}
We use the derived time delays (Figure~\ref{fig:tau_lba_fix}) to update the instrumental time delays in LOFAR's beamformer.
To test the effect of updating the instrumental time delays in the beamformer we observed Cygnus~A with the core stations of LOFAR.
The observation was one minute long using the imaging mode, where the signals of different stations are cross-correlated instead of added.
Since the signal path between stations and the beamformer is the same in tied-array and imaging modes, these observations have a beam equivalent to the one observed using holography.
Cygnus~A has a size of $\approx1\arcmin$ \citep[e.g.,][]{McKean2016}, so it will be unresolved by the LOFAR core at LBA frequencies (at $90$~MHz the spatial resolution of the core is $3\farcm3$).
Hence, a dirty image obtained from this observation will show the array beam.
A comparison between the LBA beam after the update and a model of the beam is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:corrbeam}.
In the beam model the phase of each station is given by its location with no additional time delays.
We see that the sidelobes in the observed beam are similar to those of the beam model.
After subtracting the beam model the residuals are $\lesssim20\%$.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{snr_ratio.pdf}}
\caption{Ratio of the observed S/N to the theoretical value.
\label{fig:snr_ratio}}
\end{figure}
We compare the S/N of the observations of Cygnus~A with the theoretical S/N in Figure~\ref{fig:snr_ratio}.
The ratio of the observed S/N to its theoretical value has a mean of $0.88\pm0.06$.
These results show that after updating the time delays in the beamformer the array beam is close to the ideal case.
The remaining differences are produced by propagation delays introduced by the ionosphere and any remaining errors in the instrumental time delays.
When using an unpolarized bright unresolved source to determine the time delays, there will be an arbitrary offset between the X and Y polarizations.
When these time delays are applied to the beamformer, the offset will produce a rotation of Stokes $U$ into Stokes $V$.
In order to find this offset we need to observe a linearly polarized source for which the sign of the rotation measure is known.
From this observation the offset is determined from the angle between the apparent Stokes $U$ and $V$ \citep[e.g.,][]{Brentjens2008}.
This step has not been performed yet.
\subsection{Comparison to other methods}
Previous to holography LOFAR used interferometric observations to derive time delays between its stations using the methods described by \citet{Wijnholds2009}.
In these interferometric array-calibration observations pairs of antennas were cross-correlated using the station correlator.
The antenna gains were derived by calibrating against multiple calibrator sources in their FoV.
The observations lasted $6$~hours and $24$~hours for the HBA and LBA, respectively.
Variations in the sky brightness distribution due to the ionosphere were partially averaged out during the observations \citep[e.g.,][]{Wijnholds2011}.
By comparison, holography requires $1$~minute and $10$~minutes of observations for the HBA and LBA, respectively, and it does not require the use of a sky model.
Time delays between stations are also derived during imaging observations.
In the case of Figure~\ref{fig:tau_lba_fix} the time delays derived from imaging observations have smaller error bars because they are derived from $488$ $195.3125$~kHz spectral windows.
If we derive time delays from the imaging observations using the same ten spectral windows as for the holographic observations, then the errors on the time delays have a difference of less than $5\%$.
This makes holography a competitive alternative, as its accuracy can be scaled up by adding more reference stations and more spectral windows.
For the latter an increase in computing power is required.
The method presented here is also used to calibrate the antennas within a LOFAR station.
For this calibration a station is under test (instead of the AUT).
The station under test generates multiple station-beams to map its beam, while another station acts as reference.
The complex voltages from the station under test and reference are then cross-correlated and calibrated following the same procedure as that outlined here.
From the calibrated complex visibilities the complex gains for each antenna within a station are derived.
\subsection{Improvements to holographic measurements with LOFAR}
One of the main limitations of the holographic measurements presented is the spatial resolution over the telescope aperture.
For a constant number of TABs this can be improved by observing a larger portion of the beam using a mosaic while keeping a TAB at the calibrator source.
Additionally, the separation between TABs could be made smaller, reducing aliasing artifacts in the aperture plane.
For the experiments presented in this work we used only four reference stations.
Outside its core, LOFAR has $14$ stations within the Netherlands and $13$ stations distributed all over Europe.
Any of these stations can be used as reference station, as long as the baseline formed with the AUT does not resolve the source used to map the beam.
This means that there can be an improvement in the S/N of the complex-valued beam map of up to a factor of four using the same sources.
With this level of improvement in the maps of the complex-valued beam, the integration times could be made shorter or more precise time delays could be derived.
The time delays derived from holographic measurements can be used to update the instrumental time delays prior to an observation with the tied array (e.g., of a pulsar).
Moreover, if the integration time required to reach nanosecond precision could be made shorter, and the post-processing of the holographic measurements could be done in real time, then it would be possible to interleave holographic observations during the tied-array observations.
This could be a way towards semi-real-time beam calibration for the Square Kilometer Array (SKA).
Implementing a dedicated holography mode in the supercomputer that processes the raw LOFAR data is one of the next steps towards this goal.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
In this work we used radio holography along with a new calibration method to characterize the time delays between LOFAR's core stations.
This new calibration method consists in calibrating the measured complex-valued beam map by right multiplying by the matrix inverse of the map center.
This calibration makes the observed complex-valued reception pattern independent of the sky brightness distribution.
Four HBA and three LBA reference stations were used simultaneously to produce maps of the tied-array voltage beam.
Using $60$~s (HBA) and $600$~s (LBA) long observations of 3C196, 3C147, and 3C48 we derived time delays with an error $<1$~ns.
We find that the main limitations in reaching nanosecond precision in the measured time delays are the condition of the ionosphere over the array and the ability to spatially resolve the array elements.
LOFAR now uses the derived time delays operationally.
\begin{acknowledgements}
P.~S., J.~B.~R.~O. and H.~J.~A.~R. acknowledge financial support from the Dutch Science Organisation (NWO) through TOP grant 614.001.351.
This research made use of Astropy, a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy \citep{Astropy2013}, and matplotlib, a Python library for publication quality graphics \citep{Hunter2007}.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{The TOTEM Collaboration\label{app:totem}}
\newcommand{\AddAuthor}[2]{#1$^{#2}$,\ }
\newcommand\AddAuthorLast[2]{#1$^{#2}$}
\noindent
\AddAuthor{G.~Antchev}{a
\AddAuthor{P.~Aspell}{9
\AddAuthor{I.~Atanassov}{a
\AddAuthor{V.~Avati}{7,9
\AddAuthor{J.~Baechler}{9
\AddAuthor{C.~Baldenegro~Barrera}{11
\AddAuthor{V.~Berardi}{4a,4b
\AddAuthor{M.~Berretti}{2a
\AddAuthor{V.~Borchsh}{8
\AddAuthor{E.~Bossini}{9,6b
\AddAuthor{U.~Bottigli}{6b
\AddAuthor{M.~Bozzo}{5a,5b
\AddAuthor{H.~Burkhardt}{9
\AddAuthor{F.~S.~Cafagna}{4a
\AddAuthor{M.~G.~Catanesi}{4a
\AddAuthor{M.~Csan\'{a}d}{3a,b
\AddAuthor{T.~Cs\"{o}rg\H{o}}{3a,3b
\AddAuthor{M.~Deile}{9
\AddAuthor{F.~De~Leonardis}{4c,4a
\AddAuthor{M.~Doubek}{1c
\AddAuthor{D.~Druzhkin}{8,9
\AddAuthor{K.~Eggert}{10
\AddAuthor{V.~Eremin}{d
\AddAuthor{A.~Fiergolski}{9
\AddAuthor{L.~Forthomme}{2a,2b
\AddAuthor{F.~Garcia}{2a
\AddAuthor{V.~Georgiev}{1a
\AddAuthor{S.~Giani}{9
\AddAuthor{L.~Grzanka}{7
\AddAuthor{J.~Hammerbauer}{1a
\AddAuthor{T.~Isidori}{11
\AddAuthor{V.~Ivanchenko}{8
\AddAuthor{M.~Janda}{1c
\AddAuthor{A.~Karev}{9
\AddAuthor{J.~Ka\v{s}par}{1b,9
\AddAuthor{B.~Kaynak}{e
\AddAuthor{J.~Kopal}{9
\AddAuthor{V.~Kundr\'{a}t}{1b
\AddAuthor{S.~Lami}{6a
\AddAuthor{R.~Linhart}{1a
\AddAuthor{C.~Lindsey}{11
\AddAuthor{M.~V.~Lokaj\'{\i}\v{c}ek}{1b,\dagger
\AddAuthor{L.~Losurdo}{6b
\AddAuthor{F.~Lucas~Rodr\'{i}guez}{9
\AddAuthor{M.~Macr\'{\i}}{5a
\AddAuthor{M.~Malawski}{7
\AddAuthor{N.~Minafra}{11
\AddAuthor{S.~Minutoli}{5a
\AddAuthor{T.~Naaranoja}{2a,2b
\AddAuthor{F.~Nemes}{9,3a
\AddAuthor{H.~Niewiadomski}{10
\AddAuthor{T.~Nov\'{a}k}{3b
\AddAuthor{E.~Oliveri}{9
\AddAuthor{F.~Oljemark}{2a,2b
\AddAuthor{M.~Oriunno}{f
\AddAuthor{K.~\"{O}sterberg}{2a,2b
\AddAuthor{P.~Palazzi}{9
\AddAuthor{V.~Passaro}{4c,4a
\AddAuthor{Z.~Peroutka}{1a
\AddAuthor{J.~Proch\'{a}zka}{1b
\AddAuthor{M.~Quinto}{4a,4b
\AddAuthor{E.~Radermacher}{9
\AddAuthor{E.~Radicioni}{4a
\AddAuthor{F.~Ravotti}{9
\AddAuthor{C.~Royon}{11
\AddAuthor{G.~Ruggiero}{9
\AddAuthor{H.~Saarikko}{2a,2b
\AddAuthor{V.D.~Samoylenko}{c
\AddAuthor{A.~Scribano}{6a
\AddAuthor{J.~Siroky}{1a
\AddAuthor{J.~Smajek}{9
\AddAuthor{W.~Snoeys}{9
\AddAuthor{R.~Stefanovitch}{9
\AddAuthor{J.~Sziklai}{3a
\AddAuthor{C.~Taylor}{10
\AddAuthor{E.~Tcherniaev}{8
\AddAuthor{N.~Turini}{6b
\AddAuthor{O.~Urban}{1a
\AddAuthor{V.~Vacek}{1c
\AddAuthor{O.~Vavroch}{1a
\AddAuthor{J.~Welti}{2a,2b
\AddAuthor{J.~Williams}{11
\AddAuthor{J.~Zich}{1a
\AddAuthorLast{K.~Zielinski}{7
\vskip 4pt plus 4pt
\let\thefootnote\relax
\newcommand{\AddInstitute}[2]{${}^{#1}$#2\\}
\newcommand{\AddExternalInstitute}[2]{\footnote{${}^{#1}$ #2}}
\noindent
\AddInstitute{1a}{University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic.}
\AddInstitute{1b}{Institute of Physics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.}
\AddInstitute{1c}{Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic.}
\AddInstitute{2a}{Helsinki Institute of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.}
\AddInstitute{2b}{Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.}
\AddInstitute{3a}{Wigner Research Centre for Physics, RMKI, Budapest, Hungary.}
\AddInstitute{3b}{EKU KRC, Gy\"ongy\"os, Hungary.}
\AddInstitute{4a}{INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{4b}{Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica di Bari, Bari, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{4c}{Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e dell'Informazione --- Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{5a}{INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{5b}{Universit\`{a} degli Studi di Genova, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{6a}{INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{6b}{Universit\`{a} degli Studi di Siena and Gruppo Collegato INFN di Siena, Siena, Italy.}
\AddInstitute{7}{AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland.}
\AddInstitute{8}{Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia.}
\AddInstitute{9}{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.}
\AddInstitute{10}{Case Western Reserve University, Dept.~of Physics, Cleveland, OH, USA.}
\AddInstitute{11}{The University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA.}
\AddExternalInstitute{a}{INRNE-BAS, Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria.}
\AddExternalInstitute{b}{Department of Atomic Physics, ELTE University, Budapest, Hungary.}
\AddExternalInstitute{c}{NRC `Kurchatov Institute'--IHEP, Protvino, Russia.}
\AddExternalInstitute{d}{Ioffe Physical - Technical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, St.~Petersburg, Russian Federation.}
\AddExternalInstitute{e}{Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.}
\AddExternalInstitute{f}{SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford CA, USA.}
\AddExternalInstitute{\dagger}{Deceased.}
\addtocounter{footnote}{-8}
\newcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
\section{Introduction}
\label{section:introduction}
In proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions a significant fraction of the total cross section is attributed to diffractive processes.
Diffractive events are characterised by at least one of the two incoming protons emerging from the interaction intact or excited into a low-mass state, with only a small energy loss.
These processes can be explained by the exchange of a virtual object, the so-called Pomeron,
with the vacuum quantum numbers~\cite{Collins:1977jy};
no hadrons are therefore produced in a large rapidity range adjacent to the scattered proton, yielding a so-called large rapidity gap (LRG).
A subleading exchange of Reggeons, as opposed to a Pomeron, also contributes to diffractive scattering, especially for large values of the proton fractional momentum loss $\xi$, and is required to describe diffractive data~\cite{diff_desy1,Aktas:2006hx,diff_desy2, diff_desy3}.
While Pomerons mainly consist of gluons, Reggeons are mesons composed of a quark-antiquark pair.
Hard diffraction has been studied in hadron-hadron collisions at the SPS at CERN~\cite{diff_cern}, the Tevatron at Fermilab~\cite{diff_fermi1, diff_fermi2, diff_fermi3, diff_fermi4, ratio_cdf}, the CERN LHC~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012vc, Aad:2015xis}, and in electron-proton ($\Pe\Pp$) collisions at the HERA collider at DESY~\cite{diff_desy1, Aktas:2006hx, diff_desy2, diff_desy3, diff_desy4}.
Hard diffractive processes can be described in terms of
the convolution of diffractive parton distribution functions (dPDFs) and hard scattering
cross sections, which can be calculated in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD).
The dPDFs have been determined by the HERA experiments~\cite{diff_desy1, diff_desy2, diff_desy3} by means of fits to inclusive diffractive deep inelastic scattering data.
The dPDFs have been successfully applied to describe different hard diffractive processes in $\Pe\Pp$ collisions.
This success is based on the factorisation theorem proven for $\Pe\Pp$
interactions at large $Q^2$, and on the validity of the QCD evolution equations for the dPDFs~\cite{dpdf1, dpdf2, dpdf3}.
However, in hard diffractive hadron-hadron collisions factorisation is broken because of the presence of soft rescattering between the spectator partons.
This leads to a suppression of the observed diffractive cross section in hadron-hadron collisions~\cite{Bjorken:1992er}.
The suppression factor, often called the rapidity gap survival probability ($\langle S^{2} \rangle$), is $\sim$10\% at the Tevatron energies~\cite{diff_fermi3}.
Experimentally, diffractive events can be selected either by exploiting the presence of an LRG or by measuring the scattered proton.
The latter method is superior since it gives a direct measurement of $t$, the squared four momentum transfer at the proton vertex,
and suppresses the contribution from events in which the proton dissociates into a low-mass state.
The CMS Collaboration has previously reported a measurement of diffractive dijet production at $\sqrt{s} = 7\TeV$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012vc} that did not include information on the scattered proton.
The ATLAS Collaboration has also measured dijet production with large rapidity gaps at $\sqrt{s} = 7\TeV$~\cite{Aad:2015xis}.
This article presents a measurement of dijet production with a forward, high longitudinal momentum proton at $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$.
It corresponds to the processes $\Pp\Pp \to \Pp\PX$ or $\Pp\Pp \to \PX\Pp$, \ie with the proton scattering to either side of the interaction and $\PX$ including at least two jets.
The system $\PX$ is measured in CMS and the scattered proton in the TOTEM roman pots (RPs).
This process is referred to as single-diffractive dijet production.
The single-diffractive dijet production cross section is measured as a function of $\xi$ and $t$ in the kinematic region $\xi < 0.1$ and $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$, in events with at least two jets, each with transverse momentum $\pt > 40\GeV$ and pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$.
The ratio of the single-diffractive to inclusive dijet cross sections is measured as a function of $x$, the longitudinal momentum fraction of the proton carried by the struck parton for $x$ values in the range $-2.9 \leq \log_{10} x \leq -1.6$.
This is the first measurement of hard diffraction with a measured proton at the LHC.
\section{The CMS and TOTEM detectors}
\label{section:cms-totem-detectors}
\tolerancePar{
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6\unit{m} internal diameter,
providing a magnetic field of 3.8\unit{T}. Within the superconducting solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker,
a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL),
each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections.
Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors.
The forward hadron (HF) calorimeter uses steel as an absorber and quartz fibers as the sensitive material.
The two HFs are located 11.2\unit{m} from the interaction region, one on each end, and together they provide coverage in the range $3.0 < \abs{\eta} < 5.2$.
Muons are measured in gas-ionisation detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.}
When combining information from the entire detector, including that from the tracker, the jet energy resolution amounts
typically to 15\% at 10\GeV, 8\% at 100\GeV, and 4\% at 1\TeV, to be compared to about 40, 12, and 5\%, respectively, obtained when
ECAL and HCAL alone are used.
In the region $\abs{\eta} < 1.74$, the HCAL cells have widths of 0.087 in pseudorapidity and 0.087 in azimuth ($\phi$). In the $\eta$-$\phi$ plane, and for $\abs{\eta} < 1.48$, the HCAL cells map on to $5{\times}5$ arrays of ECAL crystals to form calorimeter towers projecting radially outwards from close to the nominal interaction point.
For $\abs{\eta} > 1.74$, the coverage of the towers increases progressively to a maximum of 0.174 in $\Delta \eta$ and $\Delta \phi$.
Within each tower, the energy deposits in the ECAL and HCAL cells are summed to define the calorimeter tower energies, subsequently used to provide the energies and directions of hadronic jets.
\tolerancePar{
The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed charged-particle track $\pt^2$ is taken to be the primary interaction vertex.
Tracks are clustered based on the $z$ coordinate of the track at the point of closest approach to the beamline. In the vertex fit, each track is assigned a weight between 0 and 1, which reflects the likelihood that it genuinely belongs to the vertex. The number of degrees of freedom in the fit is strongly correlated with the number of tracks arising from the interaction region.}
The particle-flow (PF) algorithm~\cite{Sirunyan:2017ulk} aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle in an event with an optimised combination of information from the various elements of the CMS detector.
The energy of photons is directly obtained from the ECAL measurement,
corrected for zero-suppression effects. The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the electron momentum at
the primary interaction vertex as determined by the tracker, the energy of the corresponding ECAL cluster, and the energy sum of
all bremsstrahlung photons spatially compatible with originating from the electron track.
The energy of muons is obtained from the curvatures of the corresponding track.
The energy of charged hadrons is determined from a combination of their momentum measured
in the tracker and the matching ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function of the
calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energies.
Hadronic jets are clustered from these reconstructed particles using the anti-\kt algorithm~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp, Cacciari:2011ma}.
The jet momentum is determined as the vectorial sum of all PF candidate momenta in the jet,
and is found from simulation to be within 5 to 10\%
of the true momentum over the whole \pt spectrum and detector acceptance.
Jet energy corrections are derived from simulation, and are confirmed with in situ measurements of the energy balance in dijet, multijet, photon + jet, and \PZ + jet events~\cite{Khachatryan:2016kdb}.
The jet \pt resolution in the simulation is scaled upwards by around 15\% in the barrel region, 40\% in the endcaps and 20\% in the forward region to match the resolution in the data.
Additional selection criteria are applied to each event to remove spurious jet-like features originating from isolated noise patterns in some HCAL regions~\cite{Chatrchyan:2009hy}.
A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref.~\cite{cms}.
The TOTEM experiment~\cite{totem1,totem2} is located at the LHC interaction point (IP) 5 together with the CMS experiment.
The RP system is the subdetector relevant for measuring scattered protons.
The RPs are movable beam pipe insertions that approach the LHC beam very closely (few\mm) to detect protons scattered at very small angles or with small $\xi$. The proton remains inside the beam pipe and its trajectory is measured by tracking detectors installed inside the RPs.
They are organised in two stations placed symmetrically around the IP; one in LHC sector 45 (positive $z$), the other in sector 56 (negative $z$).
Each station is formed by two units: near (215\unit{m} from the IP) and far (220\unit{m} from the IP).
Each unit includes three RPs: one approaching the beam from the top, one from the bottom and one horizontally.
Each RP hosts a stack of 10 silicon strip sensors (pitch 66\mum) with a strongly reduced insensitive region at the edge facing the beam (few tens of \mum).
Five of these planes are oriented with the silicon strips at a $+45^{\circ}$ angle with respect to the bottom of the RP and the other five have the strips at a $-45^{\circ}$ angle.
The beam optics relates the proton kinematics at the IP and at the RP location.
A proton emerging from the interaction vertex ($x^{\ast}$, $y^{\ast}$) at horizontal and vertical angles $\theta_x^{\ast}$ and $\theta_y^{\ast}$, with a fractional momentum loss $\xi$, is transported along the outgoing beam through the LHC magnets. It arrives at the RPs at the transverse position:
\begin{linenomath}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
x (z_{\mathrm{RP}}) & = L_x (z_{\mathrm{RP}})\, \theta_x^{\ast} + v_x (z_{\mathrm{RP}}) \, x^{\ast} - D_x (z_{\mathrm{RP}})\, \xi , \\
y (z_{\mathrm{RP}}) & = L_y (z_{\mathrm{RP}})\, \theta_y^{\ast} + v_y (z_{\mathrm{RP}}) \, y^{\ast} - D_y (z_{\mathrm{RP}})\, \xi ,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:optics}
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath}
relative to the beam centre.
This position is determined by the optical functions, characterising the transport of protons in the beamline and controlled via the LHC magnet currents.
The effective length $L_{x, y} (z)$, magnification $v_{x, y} (z)$ and horizontal dispersion $D_{x} (z)$ quantify the sensitivity of the measured proton position to the scattering angle, vertex position, and fractional momentum loss, respectively. The dispersion in the vertical plane, $D_y$, is nominally zero.
For the present measurement, a special beam optical setup with $\beta^{\ast} = 90\unit{m}$ was used, where $\beta^{\ast}$ is the value of the amplitude function of the beam at the IP.
This optical setup features parallel-to-point focussing ($v_y \sim 0$) and large $L_y$, making $y$ at RP directly proportional to $\theta_y^{\ast}$, and an almost vanishing $L_x$ and $v_x$, implying that any horizontal displacement at the RP is approximately proportional to $\xi$.
Protons can hence be measured with large detector acceptance in the vertical RPs that approach the beam from the top and bottom.
To reduce the impact of imperfect knowledge of the optical setup, a calibration procedure~\cite{lhc_optics} has been applied.
This method uses elastic scattering events and various proton observables to determine fine corrections to the optical functions presented in Eq.~(\ref{eq:optics}).
For the RP alignment, a three-step procedure~\cite{totem2} has been applied: beam-based alignment prior to the run (as for the LHC collimators) followed by two offline steps.
First, track-based alignment for the relative positions among RPs, and second, alignment with elastic events for the absolute position with respect to the beam.
The final uncertainties per unit (common for top and bottom RPs) are: 2\mum (horizontal shift), 100\mum (vertical shift), and 0.2\unit{mrad} (rotation about the beam axis).
The kinematic variables ($\xi$, $\theta_x^{\ast}$, $\theta_y^{\ast}$ as well as $t$) are reconstructed with the use of parametrised proton transport functions~\cite{totem2}.
The values of the optical functions vary with $\xi$, an effect that is taken into account by the optics parametrisation.
The details of the reconstruction algorithms and optics parametrisation are discussed in Refs.~\cite{totem2,Niewiadomski:2008zz}.
The momentum loss reconstruction depends mostly on the horizontal dispersion, which is determined with a precision better than 10\%.
The scattering angle resolution depends mainly on the angular beam divergence and in the horizontal plane also on the detector resolution, whereas the momentum loss resolution depends mainly on the optics~\cite{totem3}.
The $\xi$ resolution is about $\sigma$($\xi$) = 0.7\% and the $\theta_y^{\ast}$ and the $\theta_x^{\ast}$ resolutions 2.4\unit{$\mu$rad} and 25\unit{$\mu$rad}, respectively.
\section{Event kinematics}
\label{section:kinematics}
\tolerancePar{
Figure \ref{fig:dijet_graph} shows a schematic diagram of the single-diffractive
reaction $\Pp\Pp \to \PX\Pp$ with $\PX$ including two high-$\pt$ jets.
Single-diffractive dijet production is characterised by the presence of a high-energy proton, which escapes undetected by the CMS detector, and the system $\PX$, which contains high-$\pt$ jets, separated from the proton by an LRG.}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSmall]{Figure_001.pdf}
\caption{
Schematic diagram of single-diffractive dijet production.
The exchange of a virtual object with the vacuum quantum numbers (\ie a Pomeron) is indicated by the symbol $\textrm{I}\!\textrm{P}$.
The diagram shows an example of the $\Pg\Pg \to \text{dijet}$ hard scattering process;
the $\Pq\Pq$ and $\Pg\Pq$ initial states also contribute.
}
\label{fig:dijet_graph}
\end{figure}
The proton is scattered at small angles, has small fractional
momentum loss $\xi = 1 - {\abs{\mathbf{p}_f}} / {\abs{\mathbf{p}_i}}$,
and small absolute value of the 4-momentum transfer squared $t = (p_f - p_i)^2$, where $p_i$ and $p_f$ are the four-momenta of the incoming and outgoing protons, respectively.
The scattered proton does not leave the beam pipe and can only be detected by using the TOTEM RP detectors, which make a direct measurement of $t$ and $\xi$ (hereafter referred to as $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$).
If only CMS information is used, as in Ref.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012vc}, $\xi$ can be estimated only from the energies and longitudinal momenta of the particles measured in CMS:
\begin{equation}
{\xi}_{\text{\tiny CMS}}^{\pm}= \frac{ \sum_i \left( E^i\pm p_z^i \right) }{\sqrt{s}},
\label{eq:xi_cms}
\end{equation}
where the sum is carried out with PF objects.
The positive (negative) sign corresponds to the scattered proton moving towards the positive (negative) $z$ direction. In this case, $t$ cannot be measured.
The combination of the limited CMS pseudorapidity coverage ($\abs{\eta} < 5$) and the detector inefficiency causes $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}}$ to be smaller than $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ in general, \ie $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} \leq 0$.
However, the limited detector resolution may cause $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}}$ to be larger than $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$.
The momentum fraction of the partons initiating the hard scattering, $x^{+}$ and $x^{-}$, can be estimated from the energies and longitudinal momenta of the measured jets as:
\begin{equation}
x^{\pm}= \frac{ \sum_{\text{\tiny jets}}\left( E^{\text{\tiny jet}} \pm p_z^\text{\tiny jet} \right) }{\sqrt{s}},
\label{eq:x_jets_cms}
\end{equation}
where the sum is carried out over the two highest transverse momentum jets in the event, and an additional third jet, if present.
The positive (negative) sign corresponds to the incoming proton moving towards the positive (negative) $z$ direction.
Finally, the fraction $\beta$ of the Pomeron momentum carried by the interacting parton is measured from the values of $x^{\pm}$ and $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ as $\beta = x^{\pm}/\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$.
\section{Data samples}
\label{section:data-mc-samples}
The data were collected in July 2012 during a dedicated run with low probability ($\sim$6--10\%) of overlapping $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same bunch crossing (pileup) and a nonstandard $\beta^*=90\unit{m}$ beam optics configuration.
These data correspond to an integrated luminosity of $\lumi = 37.5\nbinv$.
Events are selected by trigger signals that are delivered simultaneously to the CMS and TOTEM detectors.
The first level of the CMS trigger system (L1) is used. The L1 signal is propagated to the TOTEM electronics to enable the simultaneous readout of the CMS and TOTEM subdetectors.
The CMS orbit-counter reset signal, delivered to the TOTEM electronics at the start of the run, assures the time synchronisation of the two experiments.
The CMS and the TOTEM events are combined offline based on the LHC orbit and bunch numbers.
\section{Monte Carlo simulation}
\label{section:mc-simulation-acceptance}
The simulation of nondiffractive dijet events is performed with the {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace (version 6.422) \cite{pythia6}, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace~(version 8.153)~\cite{pythia8}, and {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace~\cite{herwig6} Monte Carlo (MC) event generators.
The underlying event is simulated in {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace with tune Z2*~\cite{Field:2010bc} and in {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace with tunes 4C~\cite{Corke:2010yf}, CUETP8M1, and CUETP8S1~\cite{Khachatryan:2015pea}.
Single-diffractive dijet events are simulated with the {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace and {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace~(version 2.0)~\cite{pomwig} generators.
Hard diffraction is simulated in {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace using an inclusive diffraction model, where both low- and high-mass systems are generated~\cite{Navin:2010kk}.
High-mass diffraction is simulated using a perturbative description. Pomeron parton densities are introduced and the diffractive process is modelled as a proton-Pomeron scattering at a reduced centre-of-mass energy.
The default generator settings are used, including that for the proton-Pomeron total cross section.
Multiparton interactions (MPI) are included within the proton-Pomeron system to provide cross sections for parton-parton interactions.
In this model, the presence of secondary interactions does not lead to a suppression of the visible diffractive cross section.
Additionally, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace implements a model to simulate hard-diffractive events based on a direct application of dPDFs, and a dynamical description of the rapidity gap survival probability in diffractive hadron-hadron interactions~\cite{Rasmussen:2015qgr}.
In this model an event is classified as diffractive only when no MPI are generated.
We refer to this implementation as the dynamic gap (DG) model.
Single-diffractive dijet events using the inclusive diffraction model are simulated with {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace, tunes 4C and CUETP8M1.
The simulation of diffractive dijet events using the DG model is performed with {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace~version 8.223~\cite{Rasmussen:2015qgr} with the underlying event tune CUETP8M1.
These {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace tunes give a fair description of the charged-particle pseudorapidity and \pt distributions in a sample with a large fraction of single-diffractive inelastic events~\cite{Chatrchyan:2014qka,Khachatryan:2015pea,Sirunyan:2018zdc}.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace generator is based on {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace and implements dPDFs to simulate hard-diffractive processes.
The simulation uses dPDFs from a fit to deep inelastic scattering data~(H1 fit B~\cite{diff_desy1}).
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace generator uses a next-to-leading order dPDF fit, whereas {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace uses a leading order dPDF fit.
When using {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, a constant factor $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 7.4\%$ is applied to account for the rapidity gap survival probability leading to the suppression of the diffractive cross section.
This value is calculated from the ratio of the measured diffractive cross section and the prediction from {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, as described in Section~\ref{section:results-dsigmadtdxi}.
Both Pomeron and Reggeon exchange contributions are generated. Reggeon exchange is not simulated in {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace.
To improve the description of the data by the MC samples, correction factors are applied event-by-event as a function of $\beta$, by a reweighting procedure.
The correction modifies the event distribution as a function of $\beta$ by up to 40\%, and the $\log_{10}x$ and $\xi$ distributions by as much as 30\% and 8\%, respectively. The correction has a negligible effect on the $t$ distribution.
The generated events are processed through the simulation of the CMS detector, based on \GEANTfour~\cite{Agostinelli:2002hh},
and reconstructed in the same manner as the data.
The acceptance and resolution of the TOTEM RP detectors are parametrised as a function of the proton kinematics, as discussed below.
All samples are simulated without pileup.
\subsection{Roman pot detectors acceptance and resolution}
The proton path from the IP to the TOTEM RPs is calculated using a parametrisation of the LHC optics~\cite{lhc_optics}.
To obtain a realistic simulation of the scattered proton, the following procedure is used:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Proton transport:}
The simulation of the RP detectors acceptance is parametrised in terms of the vertex position, the proton scattering angles at the vertex $\theta_x^{\ast}$ and $\theta_y^{\ast}$, and $\xi$.
The incident beam energy spread and beam divergence are also simulated~\cite{totem3}.
\item \textit{Reconstruction of $t$ and $\xi$:}
The detector-level distributions of $t$ and $\xi$ are obtained from the scattering angles $\theta_x^{\ast}$ and $\theta_y^{\ast}$,
where the correlation between the $\xi$ and $\theta_x^{\ast}$ uncertainties is taken into account~\cite{totem2}.
The generated values of $\theta_x^{\ast}$ and $\theta_y^{\ast}$ are spread by $25\unit{$\mu$rad}$ and $2.4\unit{$\mu$rad}$, respectively.
These values include the effects of detector resolution, as well as those of the beam optics and the beam divergence.
\item \textit{Proton reconstruction inefficiency:}
The track reconstruction in the RPs may fail for several reasons: inefficiency of the silicon sensors,
interaction of the proton with the RP mechanics, or the simultaneous presence of a beam halo particle or a proton from a pileup interaction.
The silicon strips of the detectors in an RP are oriented in two orthogonal directions;
this allows for good rejection of inclined background tracks, but makes it very difficult to reconstruct more than one track almost parallel to the beam direction~\cite{totem2}.
These uncorrelated inefficiencies are evaluated from elastic scattering data~\cite{totem3}, and amount to $\sim$6\%.
To correct for this, an extra normalisation factor is applied, obtained separately for protons traversing the RPs on either side of the IP.
\end{itemize}
\section{Event selection}
\label{section:event-selection}
Dijet events are selected online by requiring at least two jets with $\pt > 20\GeV$~\cite{Khachatryan:2016bia}.
The efficiency of this trigger selection is estimated with a sample of minimum bias events, \ie events collected with a loose trigger intended to select inelastic collisions with as little bias as possible, and containing a leading jet with $\pt$, as reconstructed offline, of at least 40\GeV.
The fraction of dijet events accepted by the trigger is calculated as a function of the subleading jet $\pt$. The efficiency is above $94\%$ for $\pt > 40\GeV$.
The offline selection requires at least two jets with $\pt > 40\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$.
Jets are reconstructed from PF objects with the anti-\kt algorithm with a distance parameter $R=0.5$.
The reconstructed jet energy is corrected with the procedure described in Ref.~\cite{Khachatryan:2016kdb}.
The parton momentum fractions $x^{+}$ and $x^{-}$ are reconstructed using Eq.~(\ref{eq:x_jets_cms}) from the two highest transverse momentum jets and an additional third jet, if present.
The latter is selected with $\pt > 20\GeV$.
In addition, the selection requires at least one reconstructed primary interaction vertex and at least one reconstructed proton track in the RP stations.
The fit of the reconstructed vertex is required to have more than four degrees of freedom.
Events with protons in the RP stations on both sides are rejected if their kinematics are consistent with those of elastic scattering.
Elastic scattering events, which are present in the data sample because of pileup, are identified by the presence of two proton tracks in opposite directions, in a diagonal configuration: the protons traverse the two top RPs in sector 45 and the two bottom RPs in sector 56, or vice versa. The horizontal and vertical scattering angles are required to match within the measured resolutions.
These requirements are similar to those described in Ref.~\cite{totem3}.
To avoid detector edges with rapidly varying efficiency or acceptance, as well as regions dominated by secondary particles produced by aperture limitations in the beamline upstream of the RPs,
proton track candidates are selected if the corresponding hit coordinates on the RP stations satisfy the following
fiducial requirements: $0 < x < 7\mm$ and $8.4 < \abs{y} < 27\mm$,
where $x$ and $y$ indicate the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the hit with respect to the beam.
To suppress background from secondary particles and pileup in the RPs, the reconstructed proton track is selected if it is associated to one track element in both top or both bottom RPs on a given side.
The kinematic requirements $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1.0\GeV^2$ and $0 < \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} < 0.1$ are then applied.
For signal events, one expects $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}}$ to be smaller than $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$, \ie $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} \leq 0$ (as discussed in Section~\ref{section:kinematics}).
This selection is imposed to suppress the contribution of pileup and beam halo events, in which the proton is uncorrelated with the hadronic final state $\PX$ measured in the CMS detector.
Roughly $6\%$ of signal events are rejected by this requirement, as estimated from a simulation of single-diffractive dijet production.
Table~\ref{table:selection} shows the number of events passing each selection.
The number of events with the proton detected in the RPs in sector 45~(56) after all the selections is 368~(420).
A difference in the yields for events with a proton in sector 45 and 56 could notably arise from different background contributions, which is discussed in Section~\ref{section:background}. Both an imperfect knowledge of the optical functions, especially the horizontal dispersion, discussed in Section~\ref{section:results-systematics}, and statistical fluctuations of the two mostly independent event samples contribute to the difference.
\begin{table}[hbtp]
\centering
\topcaption{Number of events after each selection.}
\label{table:selection}
\cmsTable{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Selection & Sector 45 & Sector 56 \\
\hline
At least 2 jets ($\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$) & \multicolumn{2}{ c }{427689}\\
Elastic scattering veto & \multicolumn{2}{ c }{405112}\\
Reconstructed proton & \multicolumn{2}{ c }{9530}\\
RP and fiducial region & 2137 & 3033\\
$0.03 < \abs{t} < 1.0\GeV^2$, $0 < \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} < 0.1$ & 1393 & 1806 \\
$\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}\leq0$ & 368 & 420 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\section{Background}
\label{section:background}
The main background is due to the overlap of a $\Pp\Pp$ collision in the CMS detector and an additional track in the RP stations, originating from either a beam halo particle or an outgoing proton from a pileup interaction.
Pileup and beam halo events are not simulated, but they are present in the data.
To estimate the pileup and beam halo contribution in the data, a zero bias sample consisting of events from randomly selected, nonempty LHC bunch crossings is used.
Events with a proton measured in the RP stations and with any number of reconstructed vertices are selected from the zero bias data set.
Such events are denoted by ZB in the following.
The RP information from events in the zero bias sample is added to diffractive and nondiffractive events generated with {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace and {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace, respectively.
The mixture of MC and ZB events simulates data events in the presence of pileup and beam halo.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace sample is normalised assuming a rapidity gap survival probability factor of 7.4\%, as discussed in Section~\ref{section:mc-simulation-acceptance}.
The MC and ZB event mixture is then passed through the selection procedure illustrated in Section~\ref{section:event-selection},
except for the requirement ${\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} \leq 0}$, which is not applied.
Such mixed events with a proton in the RPs are considered as signal if the proton originates from the MC simulated sample, or as background if it originates from the ZB sample.
If an event has a proton from both the MC sample and the ZB sample, the proton with smaller $\xi$ is chosen.
However, the probability of such a combination is small and none of these events pass all the selections.
Figure~\ref{fig:background:xi_cms_totem} shows the distribution of $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ for the data compared to the MC+ZB event mixture.
The requirement $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} \leq 0$ selects signal events and rejects the kinematically forbidden region populated by the MC+ZB background events (filled histogram).
The background distribution is normalised to the data in the $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ region from 0.048 to 0.4, which is dominated by background events.
The background is estimated separately for events with a proton traversing the two top (top-top) or the two bottom (bottom-bottom) RPs on each side. The top-top and bottom-bottom distributions are similar.
Figure~\ref{fig:background:xi_cms_totem} shows the sum of the two contributions.
The background contribution for events with a proton detected in sector 56 (right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:background:xi_cms_totem}) is larger than that for events with a proton detected in sector 45 (left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:background:xi_cms_totem}).
The remaining contamination of background in the signal region is estimated to be $15.7\%$ for events in which the proton is detected in sector 45 and $16.8\%$ for those in which the proton is detected in sector 56.
Figure~\ref{fig:background:xi_t_totem} shows the distribution of $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ for the data and the MC+ZB sample, before and after the $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}\leq0$ requirement, as well as the distribution of $t$, after the $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}\leq0$ selection. The sum of the top-top and bottom-bottom combinations is used. The data and the MC+ZB sample are in good agreement.
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_002-a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_002-b.pdf}
\caption{
Distribution of $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ for events with a reconstructed proton in sector 45 (left) and sector 56 (right).
The data are indicated by solid circles.
The blue histogram is the mixture of {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace or {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace and zero bias (ZB) data events described in the text.
An event with a proton measured in the RPs contributes to the open histogram (signal) if the proton originates from the MC sample, or to the filled histogram (background) if it originates from the ZB sample.
}
\label{fig:background:xi_cms_totem}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleSmall]{Figure_003-a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleSmall]{Figure_003-b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleSmall]{Figure_003-c.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleSmall]{Figure_003-d.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleSmall]{Figure_003-e.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleSmall]{Figure_003-f.pdf}
\caption{
Distribution of $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ before (upper) and after (middle) the $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$
requirement and distribution of $t$ after the $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ requirement (lower) for events in which the proton is detected in sector 45 (left) and sector 56 (right).
The data are indicated by solid circles.
The blue histogram is the mixture of {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace or {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace and zero bias (ZB) data events described in the text.
An event with the proton measured in the RPs contributes to the open histogram (signal) if the proton originates from the MC sample, or to the filled histogram (background) if it originates from the ZB sample.
}
\label{fig:background:xi_t_totem}
\end{figure*}
An alternative method, used at HERA~\cite{diff_desy2}, takes two events randomly chosen from the data sample.
First, $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}}$ is sampled from events that have passed the dijet selection;
$\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ is then taken from events with $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} > 0.12$ that have passed the event selection described in Section~\ref{section:event-selection}, except for the ${\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}}$ requirement, to select proton tracks considered to be mostly from background.
These two values are used to plot the $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}} - \xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}}$ distribution, which is normalised to the data in a region dominated by background.
The remaining contamination in the signal region is $\sim$19\% both for events with a proton detected in sector 45 and for those with a proton in sector 56.
The ZB method is used in this analysis.
Half the difference between the results of the two methods is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty of the background subtraction procedure.
\section{Results}
\label{section:results}
In this section the measurements of the differential cross sections $\rd\sigma/{\rd}t$, $\rd\sigma/\rd\xi$, and the ratio $R(x)$ of the single-diffractive ($\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}(x)$) to inclusive dijet cross sections ($\sigma_{\mathrm{jj}}(x)$) are presented.
The ratio $R(x)$, normalised per unit of $\xi$, is defined by:
\begin{equation}
R(x)=\frac{\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}(x)/\Delta\xi}{\sigma_{\mathrm{jj}}(x)} ,
\label{eq:results:ratio}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\xi = 0.1$.
The cross sections are calculated in the kinematic region $\xi < 0.1$, $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$,
with at least two jets at a stable-particle level with $\pt > 40\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$.
The ratio $R(x)$ is calculated for $x$ values in the region $-2.9\leq\log_{10} x\leq-1.6$.
In the following, the estimated background is subtracted from the number of single-diffractive dijet candidates following the procedure described in the previous section.
The differential cross sections for dijet production in bins of $t$ and $\xi$ are evaluated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rd\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}}{{\rd}t} &= \mathcal{U}\left\{ \frac{N^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}}{\mathcal{L} A_{\text{\tiny CMS-TOTEM}} {\Delta t}} \right\}, \\
\frac{\rd\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}}{\rd\xi} &= \mathcal{U}\left\{ \frac{N^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}}{\mathcal{L} A_{\text{\tiny CMS-TOTEM}} {\Delta \xi}} \right\},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:results:dsigmadtdxi}
\end{equation}
where $N^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}$ is the measured number of single-diffractive dijet candidates per bin of the distribution after subtracting the estimated background;
${\Delta t}$ and ${\Delta \xi}$ are the bin widths, and $\mathcal{L}$ is the integrated luminosity.
The factors $A_{\text{\tiny CMS-TOTEM}}$ indicate the acceptance of CMS and TOTEM for single-diffractive dijet events.
Unfolding corrections, represented by the symbol~$\mathcal{U}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:results:dsigmadtdxi}), are applied to account for the finite resolution of the reconstructed variables used in the analysis. They are evaluated with {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1.
The results presented are the average of those obtained with the different unfolding corrections.
The measured cross sections are obtained by unfolding the data using the D'Agostini method with early stopping~\cite{bayes}.
In this method the regularisation parameter is the number of iterations used, which is optimised to obtain a relative $\chi^{2}$ variation between iterations lower than 5\%.
The ratio $R(x)$ of the single-diffractive to inclusive dijet cross sections is evaluated as a function of $x$ as:
\begin{equation}
R(x)=\frac{\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}(x)/\Delta\xi}{\sigma_{\mathrm{jj}}(x)} = \frac{ \mathcal{U}\left\{ N^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}/A_{\text{\tiny CMS-TOTEM}} \right\}/\Delta\xi }{ \mathcal{U}\left\{ N_{\mathrm{jj}}/A_{\text{\tiny CMS}} \right\} },
\label{eq:results:ratio-acceptance}
\end{equation}
where $N^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}$ is the number of single-diffractive dijet candidates with $\xi_{\text{\tiny TOTEM}} < 0.1$, and $N_{\mathrm{jj}}$ is the total number of dijet events without the requirement of a proton detected in the RPs.
This number is dominated by the nondiffractive contribution.
The symbol $A_{\text{\tiny CMS-TOTEM}}$ indicates the acceptance of CMS and TOTEM for single-diffractive dijet events, evaluated with {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1;
$A_{\text{\tiny CMS}}$ is the acceptance for nondiffractive dijet production ($\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$), evaluated with {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8S1, and {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace.
The acceptance includes unfolding corrections to the data with the D'Agostini method with early stopping, denoted by the symbol~$\mathcal{U}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:results:ratio-acceptance}).
\subsection{Systematic uncertainties}
\label{section:results-systematics}
The systematic uncertainties are estimated by varying the selections and modifying the analysis procedure, as discussed in this Section.
Tables~\ref{table:results_systematics_t_xi} and~\ref{table:ratio_systematics_x} summarise the main systematic uncertainties of the single-diffractive cross section and the ratio of the single-diffractive and inclusive dijet cross sections, respectively, presented in Sections~\ref{section:results-dsigmadtdxi} and~\ref{section:results-sd-nd-ratio}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Trigger efficiency:}
The trigger efficiency is calculated as a function of the subleading jet $\pt$ using a fit to the data.
The sensitivity to the trigger efficiency determination is estimated by varying the fit parameters within their uncertainties.
This variation corresponds to a trigger efficiency that increases or decreases by roughly 2\% at jet $\pt = 40\GeV$ and less than 1\% at $\pt = 50\GeV$.
\item \textit{Calorimeter energy scale:}
The reconstruction of $\xi_{\text{\tiny CMS}}$ is affected by the uncertainty in the calorimeter energy scale and is dominated by the HF contribution.
This uncertainty is estimated by changing the energy of the PF candidates by $\pm 10\%$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012vc,Chatrchyan:2011wm}.
\item \textit{Jet energy scale and resolution:} The energy of the reconstructed jets is varied according to the jet energy scale uncertainty following the procedure described in Ref.~\cite{Khachatryan:2016kdb}.
The systematic uncertainty in the jet energy resolution is estimated by varying the scale factors applied to the MC, as a function of pseudorapidity.
The uncertainties obtained from the jet energy scale and resolution are added in quadrature.
The effect of the jet energy resolution uncertainty amounts to less than 1\% of the measured cross section.
\item \textit{Background:}
Half the difference between the results of the ZB and HERA methods used to estimate the background, described in Section~\ref{section:background}, is an estimate of the effect of the systematic uncertainty of the background.
\item \textit{RP acceptance:} The sensitivity to the size of the fiducial region for the impact position of the proton in the RPs is estimated by modifying its vertical boundaries by $200\mum$ and by reducing the horizontal requirement by 1\mm, to $0 < x < 6\mm$.
Half the difference of the results thus obtained and the nominal ones is used as a systematic uncertainty. The uncertainties obtained when modifying the vertical and horizontal boundaries are added in quadrature.
\item \textit{Resolution:} The reconstructed variables $t$ and $\xi$ are calculated by applying two methods: either directly, with a resolution function depending on each of these variables, or indirectly from the scattering angles $\theta_x^{\ast}$ and $\theta_y^{\ast}$. Half the difference between the results using the two methods is taken as a systematic uncertainty.
\item \textit{Horizontal dispersion:}
The reconstructed $\xi$ value depends on the optical functions describing the transport of the protons from the interaction vertex to the RP stations, and specifically the horizontal dispersion.
This uncertainty is calculated by scaling the value of $\xi$ by $\pm 10\%$.
This value corresponds to a conservative limit of the possible horizontal dispersion variation with respect to the nominal optics.
\item \textit{$t$-slope:}
The sensitivity to the modelling of the exponential $t$-slope is quantified by replacing its value in {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace by that measured in the data.
Half the difference between the results thus found and the nominal results is used as an estimate of the uncertainty.
\item \textit{$\beta$-reweighting:}
Half the difference of the results with and without the reweighting as a function of $\beta$ in {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace (as discussed in Section~\ref{section:mc-simulation-acceptance}) is included in the systematic uncertainty.
The effect amounts to less than 1\% of the single-diffractive cross section and less than about 6\% of the single-diffractive to inclusive dijet cross section ratio versus $x$.
\item \textit{Acceptance and unfolding:}
Half the maximum difference between the single-diffractive cross section results found by unfolding with {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C, and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1 is taken as a further component of the systematic uncertainty. Likewise for the results obtained with {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace Z2*, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1 and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8S1 for the inclusive dijet cross section.
\item \textit{Unfolding regularisation:}
The regularisation parameter used in the unfolding, given by the number of iterations in the D'Agostini method used in this analysis,
is optimised by calculating the relative $\chi^2$ variation between iterations.
The value is chosen such that the $\chi^2$ variation is below 5\%.
The number of iterations when the relative variation of $\chi^2$ is below 2\% is also used and half the difference with respect to the nominal is taken as a systematic uncertainty.
\item \textit{Unfolding bias:}
A simulated sample, including all detector effects, is unfolded with a different model.
The difference between the corrected results thus obtained and those at the particle level is an estimate of the bias introduced by the unfolding procedure.
Half the maximum difference obtained when repeating the procedure with all generator combinations is a measure of the systematic uncertainty related to the unfolding.
\item \textit{Integrated luminosity:} The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity is 4\%, measured using a dedicated sample collected by TOTEM during the same data taking period~\cite{totem3}.
\end{itemize}
The total systematic uncertainty is calculated as the quadratic sum of the individual contributions.
The uncertainties in the jet energy scale and horizontal dispersion are the dominant contributions overall.
\clearPageSingle
\subsection{Extraction of the cross section as a function of \texorpdfstring{$t$ and $\xi$}{t and xi}}
\label{section:results-dsigmadtdxi}
Figure~\ref{fig:results:sigma_t_xi_result} shows the differential cross section as a function of $t$ and $\xi$, integrated over the conjugate variable.
The results from events in which the proton is detected on either side of the IP are averaged.
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_004-a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_004-b.pdf}
\caption{
Differential cross section as a function of $t$ (left) and as a function of $\xi$ (right) for single-diffractive dijet production,
compared to the predictions from {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1, and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction is shown with no correction for the rapidity gap survival probability ($\langle S^{2} \rangle = 1$) and with a correction of $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 7.4\%$.
The vertical bars indicate the statistical uncertainties and the yellow band indicates the total systematic uncertainty.
The average of the results for events in which the proton is detected on either side of the interaction point is shown.
The ratio between the data and the {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction, when no correction for the rapidity gap survival probability is applied, is shown in the bottom.
}
\label{fig:results:sigma_t_xi_result}
\end{figure*}
The data are compared to {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1, and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction is shown for two values of the suppression of the diffractive cross section, \ie the rapidity gap survival probability, represented by $\langle S^{2} \rangle$.
When $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 1$, no correction is applied.
The resulting cross sections are higher than the data by roughly an order of magnitude, in agreement with the Tevatron results~\cite{diff_fermi3,diff_fermi4,ratio_cdf}.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction is also shown with the correction $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 7.4\%$, calculated from the ratio of the measured diffractive cross section and the MC prediction, as discussed below.
After this correction, {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace gives a good description of the data.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:results:sigma_t_xi_result} as the sum of the Pomeron ($\Pp\ensuremath{\mathrm{I}\!\mathrm{P}}$), Reggeon ($\Pp\ensuremath{\mathrm{I}\!\mathrm{R}}$) and Pomeron-Pomeron ($\ensuremath{\mathrm{I}\!\mathrm{P}}\Ppom$) exchange contributions, while {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace includes only the Pomeron ($\Pp\ensuremath{\mathrm{I}\!\mathrm{P}}$) contribution.
{\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1 predict cross sections higher than the data by up to a factor of two.
The {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG model shows overall a good agreement with the data.
No correction is applied to the normalisation of the {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace samples.
The {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG model is the only calculation that predicts the cross section normalisation without an additional correction.
The ratio between the data and the {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace predictions is shown in the bottom of the left and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:results:sigma_t_xi_result}.
No correction is applied for the rapidity gap survival probability ($\langle S^{2} \rangle = 1$).
Within the uncertainties, no significant dependence on $t$ and $\xi$ is observed.
The value of the cross section for single-diffractive dijet production, measured in the kinematic region $\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$, $\xi < 0.1$ and $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$, is:
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_\mathrm{jj}=21.7 \pm 0.9\stat \,^{+3.0}_{-3.3}\syst \pm 0.9\lum \unit{nb}.
\label{eq:results:single-diffractive-cross-section}
\end{equation}
Table~\ref{table:results_systematics_t_xi} summarises the main systematic uncertainties of the measured cross section.
The cross section is calculated independently for events in which the proton scatters towards the positive and negative $z$ directions, namely the processes $\Pp\Pp \to \Pp\PX$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \PX\Pp$, and the results are averaged. They are compatible within the uncertainties.
The {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG model predicts in the same kinematic region a cross section of $23.7\unit{nb}$, consistent with the measurement.
\begin{table}[hbtp]
\centering
\topcaption{
Individual contributions to the systematic uncertainties in the measurement of the single-diffractive dijet production cross section in the kinematic region $\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$, $\xi < 0.1$, and $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$.
The second column indicates the relative uncertainties in the integrated cross section. The third and fourth columns represent the minimum and maximum relative uncertainties in the differential cross sections in bins of $t$ and $\xi$, respectively.
The minimum relative uncertainty is not shown when it is below 1\%.
The total uncertainty is the quadratic sum of the individual contributions.
The uncertainty of the integrated luminosity is not shown.
}
\label{table:results_systematics_t_xi}
\cmsTable{
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Uncertainty source} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Relative uncertainty} \\
& $\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_\mathrm{jj}$ & $\rd\sigma/\rd{}t$ & $\rd\sigma/\rd\xi$ \\
\hline
Trigger efficiency & $\pm$2 \% & 1--2\% & $<$2.4\% \\
Calorimeter energy scale & $+$1/$-$2 \% & $<$7\% & $<$7\% \\
Jet energy scale and resolution & $+$9/$-$8 \% & 3--32\% & 7--16\% \\
Background & $\pm$3 \% & 2--27\% & $<$8\% \\
RP acceptance & $<$1 \% & $<$21\% & $<$2\% \\
Resolution & $\pm$2 \% & 2--30\% & $<$8\% \\
Horizontal dispersion & $+$9/$-$12 \% & 8--71\% & 8--41\% \\
$t$-slope & $<$1 \% & $<$16\% & $<$1.3\% \\
$\beta$-reweighting & $<$1 \% & $<$1\% & $<$1\% \\
Acceptance and unfolding & $\pm$2 \% & 2--50\% & 5--12\% \\
Unfolding bias & $\pm$3 \% & 2--50\% & 5--11\% \\
Unfolding regularization & \NA & $<$8\% & $<$1\% \\
Total & $+$14/$-$15 \% & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
The differential cross section as a function of $t$ is well described by an exponential function for $\abs{t}$ values up to about $0.4\GeV^2$.
A fit is performed with the function $\rd\sigma/{\rd}t \propto \exp\left({-b\abs{t}}\right)$ for $t$ values in the range $0.03 < \abs{t} < 0.45\GeV^2$.
The resulting exponential slope is:
\begin{equation}
b = 6.5 \pm 0.6\stat \,^{+1.0}_{-0.8}\syst \GeV^{-2},
\label{eq:results:t-slope}
\end{equation}
where the systematic uncertainties include the contributions discussed in Section~\ref{section:results-systematics}.
The results for the exponential slope of the cross section calculated independently for events in which the proton scatters towards the positive and negative $z$ directions are compatible within the uncertainties.
The parametrisation obtained from the fit is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:results:sigma_t_xi_result}. In the fit range ($0.03 < \abs{t} < 0.45\GeV^2$), the horizontal position of the data points is calculated as the value for which the parametrised function equals its average over the bin width.
The data points in the larger-$\abs{t}$ region outside the fit range ($\abs{t} > 0.45\GeV^2$) are shown at the centre of the bins.
The slope measured by CDF is $b \approx 5\text{--}6\GeV^{-2}$ for $\abs{t} \lessapprox 0.5\GeV^2$~\cite{diff_fermi4}.
In the larger-$\abs{t}$ region, the CDF data exhibit a smaller slope that becomes approximately independent of $t$ for $\abs{t} \gtrapprox 2\GeV^2$.
The present measurement of the slope is consistent with that by CDF at small-$\abs{t}$.
The data do not conclusively indicate a flattening of the $t$ distribution at larger-$\abs{t}$.
An estimate of the rapidity gap survival probability can be obtained from the ratio of the measured cross section in Eq.~(\ref{eq:results:single-diffractive-cross-section}) and that predicted by {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace with $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 1$. Alternatively, the {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace hard-diffraction model can be used if the DG suppression framework is not applied.
The two results are consistent.
The overall suppression factor obtained with respect to the {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace cross section is $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 7.4 \,^{+1.0}_{-1.1}\%$, where the statistical and systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.
A similar result is obtained when the {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace unsuppressed cross section is used as reference value.
The H1 fit B dPDFs used in this analysis include the contribution from proton dissociation in $\Pe\Pp$ collisions. They are extracted from the process $\Pe\Pp \to \Pe\PX\mathrm{Y}$, where Y can be a proton or a low-mass excitation with $M_{\mathrm{Y}} < 1.6\GeV$~\cite{diff_desy1}.
The results found when the proton is detected are consistent, apart from a different overall normalisation. The ratio of the cross sections is $\sigma( M_{\mathrm{Y}} < 1.6\GeV )/\sigma( M_{\mathrm{Y}} = M_{\Pp} ) = 1.23 \pm 0.03\stat \pm 0.16\syst$~\cite{diff_desy1,Aktas:2006hx}. No dependence on $\beta$, $Q^2$, or $\xi$ is observed.
To account for the different normalisation, the ratio is used to correct $\langle S^{2} \rangle$; this yields $\langle S^{2} \rangle = \left( 9 \pm 2 \right)\%$ when the {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace cross section is taken as the reference value.
A similar result is obtained with {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace.
\subsection{Extraction of the ratio of the single-diffractive to inclusive dijet yields}
\label{section:results-sd-nd-ratio}
Figure~\ref{fig:results:ratio_average} shows the ratio $R(x)$ in the kinematic region $\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$, $\xi < 0.1$, $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$ and $-2.9\leq\log_{10} x\leq-1.6$.
The average of the results for events in which the proton is detected on either side of the IP is shown.
The yellow band represents the total systematic uncertainty (\mbox{cf.}\xspace Section~\ref{section:results-systematics}).
The data are compared to the ratio of the single-diffractive and nondiffractive dijet cross sections from different models.
The single-diffractive contribution is simulated with {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C, {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1, and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG.
The nondiffractive contribution is simulated with {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace and {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace if {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace is used for the diffractive contribution.
When using {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace the diffractive and nondiffractive contributions are simulated with the same underlying event tune.
When no correction for the rapidity gap survival probability is applied ($\langle S^{2} \rangle = 1$), {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace gives a ratio higher by roughly an order of magnitude, consistent with the results discussed in Section~\ref{section:results-dsigmadtdxi}.
The suppression seen in the data with respect to the simulation is not substantially different when using {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace or {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace for the nondiffractive contribution.
{\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace with a correction of $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 7.4\%$ gives overall a good description of the data when {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace is used for the nondiffractive contribution.
When {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace is used for the nondiffractive contribution the agreement is worse, especially in the lower- and higher-$x$ regions.
The agreement for {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace 4C is fair in the intermediate $x$ region, but worse at low- and high-$x$.
The agreement is worse for {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace CUETP8M1, with values of the ratio higher than those in the data by up to a factor of two.
The {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace DG predictions agree well with the data overall, though the agreement is worse in the lowest-$x$ bin.
No correction is applied to the {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace normalisation.
In the lowest-$x$ bin, the ratio in the data is below the predictions.
The observed discrepancy is not significant for the predictions that agree well overall with the data elsewhere, taking into account the systematic and statistical uncertainties.
The measured value of the ratio, normalised per unit of $\xi$, in the full kinematic region defined above is:
\begin{equation}
R = \left(\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}/\Delta\xi\right)/\sigma_{\mathrm{jj}} = 0.025 \pm 0.001\stat \pm 0.003\syst.
\end{equation}
Table~\ref{table:ratio_systematics_x} summarises the main contributions to the systematic uncertainty of the ratio.
The uncertainty of the jet energy scale is considerably smaller than in the case of the single-diffractive cross section.
\begin{table}[hbtp]
\centering
\topcaption{
Individual contributions to the systematic uncertainty in the measurement of the single-diffractive to inclusive dijet yields ratio in the kinematic region $\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$, $\xi < 0.1$, $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$, and $-2.9 \leq \log_{10} x \leq -1.6$.
The second and third columns represent the relative uncertainties in the ratio in the full kinematic region and in bins of $\log_{10}x$, respectively.
The minimum relative uncertainty is not shown when it is below 1\%.
The total uncertainty is the quadratic sum of the individual contributions.
}
\label{table:ratio_systematics_x}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Uncertainty source} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Relative uncertainty} \\
& $R$ & $R(x)$ \\
\hline
Trigger efficiency & Negligible & 2--3\% \\
Calorimeter energy scale & $+$1/$-$2 \% & $<$7\% \\
Jet energy scale and resolution & $\pm$2 \% & 1--10\% \\
Background & $\pm$1 \% & 1--17\% \\
RP acceptance & $<$1 \% & $<$4\% \\
Resolution & $\pm$2 \% & $<$4\% \\
Horizontal dispersion & $+$9/$-$11 \% & 11--23\% \\
$t$-slope & $<$1 \% & $<$3\% \\
$\beta$-reweighting & $\pm$1 \% & $<$6\% \\
Acceptance and unfolding & $\pm$2 \% & 3--11\% \\
Unfolding bias & $\pm$3 \% & 3--14\% \\
Unfolding regularization & \NA & $<$11\% \\
Total & $+$10/$-$13 \% & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_005-a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure_005-b.pdf}
\caption{
Ratio per unit of $\xi$ of the single-diffractive and inclusive dijet cross sections in the region given by $\xi < 0.1$ and $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$,
compared to the predictions from the different models for the ratio between the single-diffractive and nondiffractive cross sections.
The {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction is shown with no correction for the rapidity gap survival probability ($\langle S^{2} \rangle = 1$) (left) and with a correction of $\langle S^{2} \rangle = 7.4\%$ (right).
The vertical bars indicate the statistical uncertainties and the yellow band indicates the total systematic uncertainty.
The average of the results for events in which the proton is detected on either side of the interaction point is shown.
The ratio between the data and the {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace prediction using {\textsc{pythia6}}\xspace or {\textsc{herwig6}}\xspace as the nondiffractive contribution, when no correction for the rapidity gap survival probability is applied, is shown in the bottom of the left panel.
}
\label{fig:results:ratio_average}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:ratio_cdf} shows the comparison between the results of Fig.~\ref{fig:results:ratio_average} and those from CDF~\cite{diff_fermi4}.
The CDF results are shown for jets with $Q^2$ of roughly $100\GeV^2$ and pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta} < 2.5$, with $0.03 < \xi < 0.09$. In this case $Q^2$ is defined, per event, as the mean transverse energy of the two leading jets squared. CDF measures the ratio for $Q^2$ values up to $10^4\GeV^2$. A relatively small dependence on $Q^2$ is observed.
The present data are lower than the CDF results.
A decrease of the ratio of diffractive to inclusive cross sections with centre-of-mass energy has also been observed by CDF by comparing data at 630 and 1800\GeV~\cite{ratio_cdf}.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidthSingleLarge]{Figure_006.pdf}
\caption{
Ratio per unit of $\xi$ of the single-diffractive and inclusive dijet cross sections in the kinematic region given by $\xi < 0.1$ and $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1\GeV^2$.
The vertical bars indicate the statistical uncertainties and the yellow band indicates the total systematic uncertainty.
The red squares represent the results obtained by CDF at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96\TeV$ for jets with $Q^2 \approx 100\GeV^2$ and $\abs{\eta} < 2.5$, with $0.03 < \xi < 0.09$.
}
\label{fig:ratio_cdf}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
The differential cross section for single-diffractive dijet production in proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ has been measured as a function of the proton fractional momentum loss $\xi$ and the squared four momentum transfer $t$, using the CMS and TOTEM detectors.
The data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $37.5\nbinv$, were collected using a nonstandard optics configuration with $\beta^* = 90\unit{m}$.
The processes considered are $\Pp\Pp \to \Pp\PX$ or $\Pp\Pp \to \PX\Pp$, with $\PX$ including a system of two jets, in the kinematic region $\xi<0.1$ and $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1.0\GeV^2$.
The two jets have transverse momentum $\pt > 40\GeV$ and pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$.
The integrated cross section in this kinematic region is
$\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_\mathrm{jj} = 21.7 \pm 0.9\stat \,^{+3.0}_{-3.3}\syst \pm 0.9\lum \unit{nb}$;
it is the average of the cross sections when the proton scatters to either side of the interaction point.
The exponential slope of the cross section as a function of $t$ is
$b = 6.5 \pm 0.6\stat \,^{+1.0}_{-0.8}\syst \GeV^{-2}$.
This is the first measurement of hard diffraction with a measured proton at the LHC.
The data are compared with the predictions of different models. After applying a normalisation shift ascribed to the rapidity gap survival probability, {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace agrees well with the data.
The {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace dynamic gap model describes the data well, both in shape and normalisation.
In this model the effects of the rapidity gap survival probability are simulated within the framework of multiparton interactions.
The {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace dynamic gap model is the only calculation that predicts the cross section normalisation without an additional correction.
The ratios of the measured single-diffractive cross section to those predicted by {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace and {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace give estimates of the rapidity gap survival probability.
After accounting for the correction of the dPDF normalisation due to proton dissociation, the value of $\langle S^{2} \rangle$ is $\left( 9 \pm 2 \right)\%$ when using {\textsc{pomwig}}\xspace as the reference cross section value, with a similar result when {\textsc{pythia8}}\xspace is used.
The ratio of the single-diffractive to inclusive dijet cross section has been measured as a function of the parton momentum fraction $x$.
The ratio is lower than that observed at CDF at a smaller centre-of-mass energy.
In the region $\pt > 40\GeV$, $\abs{\eta} < 4.4$, $\xi < 0.1$, $0.03 < \abs{t} < 1.0\GeV^2$, and $-2.9 \leq \log_{10} x \leq -1.6$, the ratio, normalised per unit $\xi$, is
$R = (\sigma^{\Pp\PX}_{\mathrm{jj}}/\Delta\xi)/\sigma_{\mathrm{jj}} = 0.025 \pm 0.001\stat \pm 0.003\syst$.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS and TOTEM institutes for their contributions to the success of the common CMS-TOTEM effort. We gratefully acknowledge work of the beam optics development team at CERN for the design and the successful commissioning of the high $\beta^*$ optics and thank the LHC machine coordinators for scheduling dedicated fills. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS and TOTEM detectors provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (The Vilho Yrj{\"o} and Kalle V{\"a}is{\"a}l{\"a} Fund), MEC, Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation, HIP, and Waldemar von Frenckell Foundation (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); the Circles of Knowledge Club, NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
\hyphenation{Rachada-pisek} Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos.\ 675440, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P.\ Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation \`a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the ``Excellence of Science -- EOS" -- be.h project n.\ 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science \& Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) and MSMT CR of the Czech Republic; the Nylands nation vid Helsingfors universitet (Finland); the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy -- EXC 2121 ``Quantum Universe" -- 390833306; the Lend\"ulet (``Momentum") Programme and the J\'anos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program \'UNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, 129058, K 133046, and EFOP-3.6.1- 16-2016-00001 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, including Grant No. MNiSW DIR/WK/2018/13, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Education, grant no. 14.W03.31.0026 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigaci{\'o}n Cient{\'i}fica y T{\'e}cnica de Excelencia Mar\'{\i}a de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
We presented an efficient reconditioning strategy for proximal
algorithms on graphs. By relying on a sharp analysis of the local linear convergence
rate we proposed an edge partitioning of the graph into forests which provably boosts
the linear convergence rate. The scaled dual updates are still efficiently computable thanks to a
message-passing algorithm on trees.
While one is tempted to commit to a super-linearly convergent solver once the
optimal active set is identified (as e.g., mentioned in~\cite{Liang14,Liang2015,liang2018local,nutini17a}),
it is unfortunately difficult to verify in practice whether the current active set is the optimal. Furthermore, as
observed in the numerical experiments, the adaptive preconditioning strategy practically improves the convergence
also \emph{before} the local linear convergence regime is entered. The result suggests that
local convergence analysis can serve as a practical guideline for constructing preconditioners for
proximal algorithms.
\section{Combinatorial preconditioner}
Suggested by the local convergence analysis and Corollary~\ref{cor:conv} from the previous section, an ideal preconditioner $T$ ought to minimize the condition number $\kappa(\Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)} T^{-1/2} K)$ once the active set $\mathcal{A}^*$ is identified. In practice, however, computationally amenable choices of $T$ are rather constrained due to a generic \emph{trade-off} between convergence speed of (outer) iterations and per-iteration cost, i.e., the $T$-scaled proximal evaluation in \eqref{eq:ppg} or \eqref{eq:ppdhg2}.
A dense matrix $T$, in general, will render inner iterations very expensive, as in the case of proximal Newton method \cite{LSS14}. For this reason, many authors consider diagonal preconditioners \cite{PoCh11,GiBo14a,GiBo14b} or (diagonal + low-rank) preconditioners \cite{BeFa12,BeFaOchs18} to keep the inner iterations fast and tractable.
Towards yet better balance of this trade-off, a recent paper \cite{MoYeWu18} makes use of fast TV solver on trees \cite{Con13,KPR16} and proposes a class of block diagonal preconditioners via graph partitioning (aiming at optimizing $\kappa(T^{-1/2} K)$ heuristically, however). There the optimal condition number $\kappa(T^{-1/2} K)$ is achieved by matroid partitioning. As a remark, combinatorial preconditioners for solving linear systems involving graph Laplacians date back to the early work by Vaidya in 1990's \cite{vaidya90}; refer to \cite{spielman2010algorithms} for a more detailed survey.
In this section, we construct combinatorial preconditioners which are more faithful, compared to the ones from \cite{MoYeWu18}, to the (local) convergence analysis. In a nutshell, given the current active/inactive sets of edges, we partition the graph into \emph{inactively nested forests} in the sense of \eqref{eq:ninf}, so that the resulting preconditioner yields a guaranteed (local) convergence rate, which is made precise in Theorem \ref{thm:nf}.
To construct our preconditioner, let the edge set $\mathcal{E}$ be partitioned into $L$ mutually disjoint subsets, i.e., $\mathcal{E}=\bigsqcup_{l=1}^L\mathcal{E}_l$, such that each subgraph $\mathcal{G}_l=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}_l,\omega|_{\mathcal{E}_l})$ is a {\it forest}.
Correspondingly, we define $P_l$ as the canonical projection from $\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{E}_l}$, i.e., $P_lp=p|_{\mathcal{E}_l}$ for any $p\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}$.
Thus, the matrix $K$ can be decomposed into submatrices
$\{K_l\}_{l=1}^L$
where each $K_l=P_l K\in\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{E}_l|\times|\mathcal{V}|}$. Analogously, let $\nabla_l = P_l \nabla$.
Note that each $\nabla_l^\top$ (or $K_l^\top$) has full column rank, and hence
\iali{
T_l:=K_l K_l^\top,\quad \forall l\in\{1,...,L\},
}
is symmetric positive definite.
We then define our preconditioner as
\ieqn{ \label{eq:tmtx}
\ialid{
T &:= \sum_{l=1}^L P_l^\top T_l P_l.
}}
In view of Theorem~\ref{thm:conv}, we analyze in the following the condition number of the following matrix:
\iali{
&\Pi_\mathcal{I} := K^\top T^{-1/2} \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A})} T^{-1/2} K \notag\\
&= K^\top T^{-1/2} (I - T^{-1/2}P_\mathcal{A}(T^{-1/2}P_\mathcal{A})^\dagger) T^{-1/2}K.
\label{eq:pi-i}
}
As a preparatory result, the following lemma decomposes $\Pi_\mathcal{I}$ into orthogonal projections onto subspaces.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem1}
Given $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{A}\sqcup\mathcal{I}$, let $\mathcal{G}$ be partitioned into $L$ nonempty forests $\{\mathcal{G}_l\}_{l=1}^{L}$. Then the matrix defined in \eqref{eq:pi-i} can be characterized as
\iali{
\Pi_\mathcal{I} = \sum_{l=1}^L \Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}, \label{eq:pi-lem}
}
where each $\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}$ is the orthogonal projection onto the linear subspace $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},l}$ defined by
\iali{ \label{eq:ranil}
\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},l} := \spn\{\nabla^\top_e: e\in\mathcal{I}\cap\mathcal{E}_l\}.
}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) We show the identity \eqref{eq:pi-lem} with
$I_l := P_l I P_l^\top$, $P_{\mathcal{A},l} := P_l P_\mathcal{A} P_l^\top$, $P_{\mathcal{I},l} := P_l P_\mathcal{I} P_l^\top$, and
\iali{
\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l} :=\, & K_l^\top T_l^{-1/2} (I_l-(T_l^{-1/2}P_{\mathcal{A},l})(T_l^{-1/2}P_{\mathcal{A},l})^\dagger) \notag\\
&T_l^{-1/2} K_l.
}
Note that
\iali{
K^\top T^{-1/2} &=
\sum_{l=1}^L K^\top P_l^\top T_l^{-1/2} P_l \notag\\
&= \sum_{l=1}^L K_l^\top T_l^{-1/2} P_l, \label{eq:pi-il-1}\\
T^{-1/2} P_\mathcal{A} &=
\left(\sum_{l=1}^L P_l^\top T_l^{-1/2} P_l \right)\left(\sum_{l'=1}^L P_{l'}^\top P_{\mathcal{A},l'} P_{l'} \right) \notag\\
&= \sum_{l=1}^L P_l^\top T_l^{-1/2} P_{\mathcal{A},l} P_l, \label{eq:pi-il-2}\\
(T^{-1/2} P_\mathcal{A})^\dagger &= \sum_{l=1}^L P_l^\top (T_l^{-1/2} P_{\mathcal{A},l})^\dagger P_l. \label{eq:pi-il-3}
}
By plugging \eqref{eq:pi-il-1}--\eqref{eq:pi-il-3} into \eqref{eq:pi-i}, we accomplish (i).
(ii) We show each $\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},l}$.
First, it is easy to see $\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}$ is symmetric and $\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}^2=\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}$, and hence an orthogonal projection.
Secondly, note that $\rnk \Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}=|\mathcal{I}\cap\mathcal{E}_l|=\rnk K_l^\top P_{\mathcal{I},l}$. Furthermore, we have the following equation:
\iali{
\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}K^\top_lP_{\mathcal{I},l} =\,& K_l^\top P_{\mathcal{I},l} - K_l^\top T_l^{-1/2} \notag\\
& (T_l^{-1/2}P_{\mathcal{A},l})(T_l^{-1/2}P_{\mathcal{A},l})^\dagger T_l^{1/2}P_{\mathcal{I},l} \notag\\
=\,& K_l^\top P_{\mathcal{I},l},
}
which completes step (ii).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:nf}
Given $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{A}\sqcup\mathcal{I}$, let $\mathcal{G}$ be partitioned into $L$ \emph{nonempty}, \emph{inactively nested} forests $\{\mathcal{G}_l\}_{l=1}^{L}$ in the sense that
\iali{
\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},1} = ... = \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},{\hat l}} \supsetneq \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},{\hat l +1}} \supseteq ... \supseteq \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},L} \supsetneq \{0\}, \label{eq:ninf}
}
with the subspaces defined in \eqref{eq:ranil}.
Then we have $\lambda_{\min>0}(\Pi_\mathcal{I})=\hat l$ and the (local) convergence rate in Theorem~\ref{thm:conv} is $\varphi = (L / \widehat l) \cdot \kappa(G^*)$.
\label{thm:cn}
\label{thm:convrate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem1}, we have $\lambda_{\max}(\Pi_\mathcal{I})\leq \sum_{l=1}^L\lambda_{\max}(\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}) \leq L$. In fact, the equality holds since $\Pi_\mathcal{I} v=Lv$ for some nonzero $v\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},L}$. On the other hand, for any $v\in\ran\Pi_\mathcal{I}$, we have $\ip{v}{\Pi_\mathcal{I} v}\geq \sum_{l=1}^{\hat l} \ip{v}{\Pi_{\mathcal{I},l}v} = \hat{l}\|v\|^2$. The equality holds for some nonzero $v\in \ran\Pi_\mathcal{I}\cap (\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{I},\hat l+1})^\perp$.
This yields $\lambda_{\min>0}(\Pi_\mathcal{I})=\hat l$.
\end{proof}
\section{Implementation}
\label{sec:impl}
In this section, we specify
how to construct our preconditioner and apply active-set-based reconditioning to both PG and PDHG algorithms.
We only trigger reconditioning every $n$ iterations.
When reconditioning is performed at iteration $k$,
a greedy heuristic is used for constructing the preconditioner $T_k$; see Section \ref{sec:recond}.
Then, using the separability of $\norm{\cdot}_\infty$,
we perform the updates across the subgraphs $\{\mathcal{G}_l\}_{l=1}^L$:
\iali{
p^{k+1}|_{\mathcal{E}_l} &= \text{arg} \min_{p \in \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{E}_l}} - \ip{K \bar{u}^k|_{\mathcal{E}_l}}{p} \notag \\
&\qquad + \delta \{ \norm{p}_\infty \leq 1 \} + \frac{t}{2}\norm{p-p^k}^2_{T_{k,l}},
\label{eq:dual-upd}
}
where $\bar{u}^k$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\bar{u}^k = \begin{cases}
\nabla G^*(-K^\top p^k), & \text{for PG},\\
2u^{k+1}-u^k, & \text{for PDHG}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The proximal evaluation required by \eqref{eq:dual-upd} is detailed in Section \ref{sec:dual-up}, which invokes the message-passing algorithm on trees. The overall complexity of the reconditioned algorithm is discussed in Section \ref{sec:complex}.
\subsection{Constructing preconditioner} \label{sec:recond}
Following Theorem~\ref{thm:cn} we aim to find a preconditioner $T_k$ which minimizes the condition number $\varphi
= (L / \widehat l) \cdot \kappa(G^*)$, and hence the local linear convergence rate.
Theoretically, optimal $T_k$ can be found in polynomial time by Matroid partitioning as in \cite{MoYeWu18}. The computation time is prohibitively large for the graphs in practical problems, however.
Here we present a greedy heuristic to find inactively nested forests.
Given an input graph $\mathcal{G}$ we partition the graph based on the active set at the current dual variable $p^k$. We assign to each edge $e \in \mathcal{E}$ an additional weight $\rho_e = 1- \left| 1-\left| p^k_e \right| \right|$.
Then, a minimum spanning forest according to that weight is generated using Kruskal's algorithm~\cite{kruskal1956}. This spanning forest is then subtracted from current graph and will be added to the set $\{
\mathcal{G}_l\}_{l=1}^L$. We perform this generation and subtraction iteratively until no edges remain in the original graph.
The partitioning weight is introduced for two reasons: Firstly, we found it unstable to determine the active set $\mathcal{A}(p^k)$ numerically according to a threshold;
Secondly, computing the preconditioner $T_k$ is quite expensive for large graphs. This strategy could extend the suitable duration of current preconditioner since a potential active edge often has a larger partitioning weight.
\subsection{Backward solver} \label{sec:dual-up}
The introduction of the proposed preconditioner $T_k$ makes the backward update \eqref{eq:dual-upd} more expensive. Here we describe how to solve it
efficiently, following the approach in~\cite{MoYeWu18}.
Combining the linear and the quadratic term, \eqref{eq:dual-upd} can be re-written as:
\begin{equation}
p^{k+1}|_{\mathcal{E}_l} = \text{arg} \min_{\norm{p}_\infty \leq 1} \frac{1}{2} \norm{K^\top_l p + f_l}^2,
\label{eq:dual-upd2}
\end{equation}
where $f_l = -K_l^\top p^k|_{\mathcal{E}_l} - \bar{u}^k/t$. The (Fenchel) dual problem of \eqref{eq:dual-upd2} is given by
\begin{equation}
v_l = \text{arg}\min_{u \in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V}} \frac{1}{2}\norm{u-f_l}^2 + \norm{K_l u}_1,
\label{eq:tv-on-tree}
\end{equation}
which is simply a weighted total variation problem on the individual trees in the forest $\mathcal{G}_
l$. We solve the problem \eqref{eq:tv-on-tree} using the message-passing algorithm introduced in \cite{KPR16}.
To retrieve $p^{k+1}|_{\mathcal{E}_l}$ from $v_l$ one can use the optimality condition:
\begin{equation}
K_l^\top p^{k+1} |_{\mathcal{E}_l} = v_l - f_l.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Discussion on complexity} \label{sec:complex}
For non-preconditioned proximal gradient, the complexity of each iteration
is $\mathcal{O}( |\mathcal{E}| )$. For the preconditioned variant it is $\mathcal{O}( \sum_{t=1}^\mathcal{T} |\mathcal{E}_t| \log( |\mathcal{E}_t|))$ where $\mathcal{T}$ is the total number of trees
using the aforementioned message-passing algorithm~\cite{KPR16}. The preconditioned
update can still be parallelized to some extent, as the message-passing can run for each tree in parallel.
Construction of the preconditioner $T_k$ based on the greedy inactively nested forest strategy with Prim's or Kruskal's algorithm is $\mathcal{O}( |\mathcal{E}|^2 \log(|\mathcal{E}|) / |\mathcal{V}|)$ \cite{cheriton76}.
After entering the local linear convergence phase,
the overall iteration complexity is $\mathcal{O}(\varphi \log(1/\varepsilon))$ to
find an $\varepsilon$-accurate solution (see Corollary~\ref{cor:conv}). While each iteration of the preconditioned algorithm
is slighty more costly (by roughly a factor of $\log(|\mathcal{E}|)$), the condition number $\varphi$
is drastically reduced. For regular grids we have that $\varphi \in \mathcal{O}(|\mathcal{V}|)$ (cf. \cite[Theorem~4]{MoYeWu18}) in the non-preconditioned
case. The proposed preconditioner improves this to a \emph{constant} $\varphi \in \mathcal{O}(1)$, independent of problem size
at the expense of a slightly more expensive dual update step (up to a logarithmic factor).
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\emph{Preconditioning}, as a way of transforming a difficult linear system
into one that is easier to solve, enjoys a rich and successful history.
Recently, \emph{proximal algorithms} \cite{CoPe11,PaBo13,ChPo16b} have received a surge of popularity in solving
structured non-smooth convex optimization problems appearing across
many fields in science and engineering. Unlike in the case
of linear systems, putting forward a satisfactory theory
and implementation of preconditioning in the general non-smooth setting remains a largely unsolved challenge \cite{PoCh11,GiBo14a,GiBo14b,LSS14,BrSu15,FoBo15,GiBo15,ChPo16b,BeFaOchs18,MoYeWu18}.
This is mainly due to two obstacles:
\noindent
\textbf{(i)} The non-linear dynamics of proximal algorithms, as well as the geometry of the non-smooth energy are more involved than in the quadratic case.
A precise characterization of the convergence behavior, which could guide the proper choice of metric (preconditioner), is challenging.
\noindent
\textbf{(ii)} In cases where the proper choice of metric is clear, non-diagonal preconditioners typically make the proximal operators in the algorithm much more expensive to evaluate. While favorably reducing the number of outer iterations, each inner iteration could be even of similar complexity as the original problem~\cite{LSS14}.
In this vein, numerous efforts have been devoted to a better understanding of the dynamics of proximal algorithms (see, e.g.,~\cite{nishihara15,garrigos17}), and exploring scenarios where non-diagonally scaled proximal mappings are still efficient to evaluate \cite{FrGo16,BeFa12,BeFaOchs18}.
In this paper we take a novel perspective, circumventing issue \textbf{(i)} by resorting to the local convergence analysis. This does not yield provable guarantees on the global iteration complexity. Nevertheless, we show empirically that our preconditioners guided by the local analysis yield an improvement long before the local linear convergence regime is entered (see Fig.~\ref{fig:theory}).
To overcome difficulty \textbf{(ii)} we restrict ourselves to
structured convex problems on weighted graphs, where metrics based on tree
decompositions are amenable to efficient proximal evaluation
thanks to recent message-passing algorithms~\cite{KPR16}.
Specifically, given an undirected weighted graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E},\omega)$, whose edges are weighted by a function $\omega: \mathcal{E}\to\mathbb{R}_{>0}$,
we consider the structured convex optimization on $\mathcal{G}$:
\iali{
\min_{u\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V}} G(u) + \TV_\mathcal{G}(u),
\label{eq:pp}
}
where $\TV_\mathcal{G}$ is the graph total variation
\ieqn{
\TV_\mathcal{G}(u) = \sum_{e=(i, j) \in \mathcal{E}} \omega_e \, | u_i - u_j |.
}
The function $G:\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V}\to\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}$ is assumed to be proper, lower semi-continuous and convex.
We define the vertex-to-edge map $K:\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V}\to\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}$ by
\ieqn{
K=\diag(\omega)\nabla, \notag
\label{eq:wgrad}
}
where $\nabla$ is the (transposed) incidence matrix of $\mathcal{G}$, i.e.,
\ieqn{
(\nabla u)_e = u_{i}-u_{j}, \quad \forall e=(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}, \notag
\label{eq:wtv}
}
with arbitrarily fixed orientation. With this notation we can succinctly write $\TV_\mathcal{G}(u) = \norm{Ku}_1$.
Problems of form \eqref{eq:pp} are, for example, relevant in image processing and computer vision~\cite{gilboa2008nonlocal,lou2010image,ChPo11,newcombe2011dtam}, unsupervised and transductive learning~\cite{hein2011beyond,hein2013total,bresson2013multiclass,garcia2014multiclass}, collaborative filtering~\cite{benzi2016song} and clustering~\cite{garcia2014multiclass}.
For separable convex $G(u) = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{V}} ~ g_i(u_i)$, problem \eqref{eq:pp}
can be efficiently solved (up to machine precision) in polynomial time by
parametric max-flow methods
\cite{chambolle2009total,hochbaum2001efficient}. To handle
non-separable but differentiable $G$, the authors in
\cite{xin2014efficient} propose a (primal) proximal gradient iteration,
reducing \eqref{eq:pp} to a sequence of separable problems which are solved
by parametric max-flow.
For problems on regular grids, several authors proposed a splitting into \emph{chains},
leading to 1D total variation subproblems which can be solved efficiently \cite{Con13,BaSr14,KPR16}.
An active-set method for submodular minimization (which includes the
graph total variation as a special case) was proposed in~\cite{KB17},
which is different from the active-set strategy pursued here.
Landrieu~{et~al.}~recently proposed a fast method for graph total
variation~\cite{landrieu17,raguet18} by assuming that the solution is piecewise constant
and refining that partition by solving a sequence of max-flow problems.
Closely related to the present approach are projected Newton methods \cite{schmidt2012}, which
have also been applied to the total variation \cite{barbero2011fast}.
In contrast, the main focus of this paper is to advance the understanding of
preconditioning in proximal algorithms.
To solve the problem class \eqref{eq:pp}, we consider two types of algorithms:
\paragraph{(1) (Dual) proximal gradient (PG).} Assume $G^*$ is $C^2$ such that $l_{G^*} I \preceq \nabla^2 G^*(\cdot) \preceq L_{G^*} I$ for some constants $l_{G^*},L_{G^*}>0$.
Based on the (Fenchel) dual formulation of \eqref{eq:pp}, written
\iali{
\min_{p\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}} G^*(-K^\top p) +\delta\{\norm{p}_\infty \leq 1\},
\label{eq:dp}
}
one can apply the proximal (or projected) gradient:
\iali{
p^{k+1} &= \arg\min_{p\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}} -\ip{K \nabla G^*(-K^\top p^k)}{p} \notag\\
&\qquad +\delta\{\norm{p}_\infty \leq 1\} + \frac{t}{2} \norm{p - p^k}_{T_k}^2.
\label{eq:ppg}
}
Here
$T_k \in\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{E}|\times|\mathcal{E}|}$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix which induces a scaled norm $\|\cdot\|_{T_k}$ defined by $\|u\|_{T_k}^2={\ip{u}{u}_{T_k}}=u ^\top T_k u$.
\paragraph{(2) Primal-dual hybrid gradient (PDHG).}
Another equivalent formulation of \eqref{eq:pp} is the following convex-concave saddle-point problem:
\iali{
\min_{u\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V}} \max_{p\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}} ~ \ip{Ku}{p} + G(u) - \delta\{\norm{p}_\infty \leq 1\} ,
\label{eq:spp}
}
to which one can apply the primal-dual hybrid gradient (PDHG) algorithm:
\iali{
u^{k+1} &= \arg\min_{u \in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V}}~ G(u) + \langle{p^k},{Ku}\rangle + \frac{s}{2}\norm{u-u^k}^2, \label{eq:ppdhg1}\\
p^{k+1} &= \arg\min_{p\in\mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}} ~ -\ip{K(2u^{k+1}-u^k)}{p} \notag\\
&\qquad +\delta\{\norm{p}_\infty \leq 1\}+\frac{t}{2}\norm{p-p^k}_{T_k}^2. \label{eq:ppdhg2}
}
\subsection{Related work on preconditioning}
The (vanilla) PG and PDHG (typically with $T_k \equiv I$), as special instances of proximal algorithms, are widely applied in convex optimization -- we refer to \cite{CoPe11,PaBo13,ChPo16b} for up-to-date surveys which contain relevant historical accounts and interconnection of algorithms. Acceleration of these algorithms is of significant research as well as practical interests.
To this end, momentum-based acceleration techniques, which are traced back to the seminal works by Nesterov \cite{Nes83} and Polyak \cite{Pol64}, were recently developed for PG \cite{BeTe09,OCBP14} and PDHG \cite{ChPo16a} and achieved impressive performances \cite{ChPo16b}.
In contrast to momentum methods, preconditioning techniques for proximal algorithms are less developed and understood, as previously discussed in the introduction. To clarify further, in the context of proximal methods there are roughly two separate streams of ideas referred to as preconditioning.
In the first one, the aim is to make the individual update steps in the algorithm easier while retaining a convergent method~\cite{BrSu15,ChPo11}. While making each iteration faster, the effect on the overall complexity is unclear.
The second line of works, aims at improving the theoretical convergence rate and thereby reducing the number of outer iterations, see~\cite{GiBo14a,GiBo14b,GiBo15}. However, these works make very restrictive assumptions on the problem class and do not apply to our setting. A consensus among these works is to minimize the \emph{(finite) condition number} $\kappa(T^{-1/2} K)$, which is defined by
\begin{equation}
\kappa(\cdot) = \frac{\sigma_{\text{max}}(\cdot)}{\sigma_{\text{min}>0}(\cdot)},
\label{eq:cond}
\end{equation}
as a reasonable heuristic in practice. This was (approximately) pursued for general problems in \cite{PoCh11,FoBo15,DiBo17}. In particular, forest-structured preconditioners for $K=\diag(\omega)\nabla$ which are provably optimal in terms of $\kappa(T^{-1/2} K)$ were proposed recently in \cite{MoYeWu18}.
\section{Local convergence analysis}
\begin{figure}
\newcommand{0.95}{1}
\input{hoffman.tex}
\caption{Local vs global analysis of the linear convergence of the PG iteration \eqref{eq:ppg}. The local linear rate sharply matches the observed convergence behaviour, while the global rate based on Hoffman's bound is not informative. We guide the construction of our preconditioner based on the local convergence theory.}
\label{fig:hoffman}
\end{figure}
While the condition number $\kappa(T^{-1/2} K)$ has proven to be reasonable heuristic in practice,
a more quantified connection between the convergence rate and the preconditioner $T$ would be desirable.
For problems of form \eqref{eq:pp}, global linear convergence of PG \eqref{eq:ppg} can be
established using Hoffman's bound~\cite{Hoffman52,klatte1995error,necoara2015linear,karimi2016linear}. However, the
linear rate obtained from that bound is mainly of theoretical interest,
as it does not really inform us about the practical performance of the
method but rather gives a (weak) upper bound. Secondly, Hoffman's
bound is an inherently combinatorial expression that is very challenging to compute
even for small problem instances.
Instead, we aim to choose the preconditioner to improve the local
convergence behaviour of the method. It turns out that for a wide
range of \emph{partly smooth} functions the local dynamics of the
PG, PDHG and accelerated variants thereof are well
understood, see~\cite{Liang14,Liang2015,liang2018local}. This
will serve as a basis for our theory.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:hoffman} we show the linear rate predicted by Hoffman's bound to the
local rate on a small $4 \times 3$ grid graph for which Hoffman's bound is still tractable to compute. As discussed above, the global rate by Hoffman's bound is not
informative.
The local analysis we present in
Theorem~\ref{thm:conv} below (which proceeds similar to~\cite{Liang14}) is
sharp, matches the empirical performance and will be the guide of our preconditioners.
Next we establish the local linear convergence of \eqref{eq:ppg}.
Our strategy is to prove that, locally, iteration \eqref{eq:ppg} reduces to gradient descent on a modified unconstrained problem. Therefore, the local linear rate is inherited from the one of gradient descent.
\begin{lemma}
Let $h$ be $C^2$ with $l_h I \preceq \nabla^2 h(\cdot) \preceq L_h I$ for some constants $l_h,\,L_h>0$. Then
the gradient descent on $\min_x~h(Ax+b)$ with step size $1/t = 2 / (L_h \sigma_{\text{max}}(A)^2 + l_h \sigma_{\text{min}>0}(A)^2)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\norm{x^{k+1} - x^*} \leq \frac{\varphi - 1}{\varphi + 1} \norm{x^k - x^*},
\end{equation}
with $\varphi = \kappa(A)^2 \cdot \kappa(h)$, $\kappa(h) := L_h / l_h$.
\label{lm:cg}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See the supplementary material.
\end{proof}
The analysis in Theorem \ref{thm:conv} below hinges on finite identification of the \emph{active set} define as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}(p) = \left \{ e \in \mathcal{E} ~:~ |p_e| = 1 \right \}.
\label{eq:aset}
\end{equation}
The associated projection matrix is defined as
\ieqn{
(P_\mathcal{A} p)_e =
\begin{cases}
p_e & \text{if }e\in\mathcal{A}, \\
0 & \text{if } e\notin\mathcal{A}.
\end{cases}
}
Correspondingly, let $\mathcal{I}(p):=\mathcal{E}\backslash\mathcal{A}(p)$ be the \emph{inactive set} and $P_\mathcal{I} := I-P_\mathcal{A}$.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose that \eqref{eq:ppg} generates a sequence $\{p^k\}$ which converges to a minimizer $p^* \in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}$ of \eqref{eq:dp}.
Under the assumptions that
\setlist[enumerate]{
leftmargin=1cm
}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(A\arabic*)]
\item \label{asm:a1} For each $e\in\mathcal{E}$, $\left( K \nabla G^*(-K^\top p^*) \right)_e = 0 \Rightarrow |p_e^*| < 1$;
\item \label{asm:a2} For each $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\underline{t} I \preceq T_k \preceq \bar{t} I$ with fixed $\underline{t},\,\bar{t} > 0$;
\item \label{asm:a3} $T_k$ depends on $p^k$ only through $\mathcal{A}(p^k)$;
\end{enumerate}
there exists $\bar{k} \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $k \geq \bar{k}$:
\setlist[enumerate]{
leftmargin=0.75cm
}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item Finite identification, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}(p^k) = \mathcal{A}(p^*) \equiv \mathcal{A}^*,~ T_k \equiv T.
\end{equation}
\item Local linear convergence, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\norm{p^{k} - p^*}_T \leq \left( \frac{\varphi - 1}{\varphi + 1} \right)^{k-\bar{k}} \norm{p^{\bar{k}} - p^*}_T,
\label{eq:local-conv}
\end{equation}
with
\iali{ \label{eq:local-rate}
\varphi &= \kappa(\Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)} T^{-1/2} K)^2 \cdot \kappa(G^*),
}
and $\Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)}$ the
orthogonal projection onto the subspace $U(\mathcal{A}^*) := \ker(P_{\mathcal{A}^*} T^{-1/2})$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{thm:conv}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i) Finite identification of the active set follows by invoking \cite[Corollary~3.6]{burke88}. The strict complementary condition at $p^*$ required by that corollary is \ref{asm:a1}.
Further, the corollary requires
\begin{equation}
\dist(0, \nabla J(p^k) + N(p^k)) \to 0,
\label{eq:optzero}
\end{equation}
where $J = G^* \circ (-K^\top)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ncdef}
\begin{aligned}
N(\bar p) = \Bigl \{ p \in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E} : p_e = 0 &~\text{ if } e \notin \mathcal{A}(\bar p), \\
\sgn(\bar p_e) \cdot p_e \geq 0 &~\text{ if } e \in \mathcal{A}(\bar p) \Bigr \},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
denotes the normal cone at $\bar p$. From the optimality conditions of \eqref{eq:ppg} it follows
\iali{
t T_k (p^{k} - p^{k+1}) - &\left( \nabla J(p^k) - \nabla J(p^{k+1}) \right) \notag\\
&\in \nabla J(p^{k+1}) + N(p^{k+1}).
}
Then we have
\iali{
&\text{dist}(0, \nabla J(p^{k+1}) + N(p^{k+1})) \notag\\
&\leq \norm{t T_{k} (p^{k} - p^{k+1}) - (\nabla J(p^{k}) - \nabla J(p^{k+1}))} \notag\\
&\leq \left( t \norm{T_{k}} + L_{G^*} \lambda_{\text{max}}(K^\top K) \right) \norm{p^{k} - p^{k+1}}.
}
Convergence of $\{p^k\}$ to $p^*$ implies $\norm{p^{k} - p^{k+1}} \to 0$ and \eqref{eq:optzero} follows by
\ref{asm:a2}. Since the active set is constant for $k \geq \bar{k}$ we have by \ref{asm:a3} that $T_k \equiv T$.
(ii). Assume in the following that $k\geq \bar{k}$. Since $T_k = T$ due to (i), \eqref{eq:ppg} is equivalent the projected gradient descent applied to
\begin{equation}
\min_{q \in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{E}} ~ \tilde J(q) \quad \text{ s.t.} ~\norm{T^{-1/2} q}_\infty \leq 1,
\label{eq:psc}
\end{equation}
under the change of variable $p = T^{-1/2} q$, $\tilde J = J \circ T^{-1/2}$.
The iteration in $q$ is given by
\iali{
& q^{k+1} = \underset{\substack{\norm{T^{-1/2} q}_\infty \leq 1}}{\argmin} ~ \langle \nabla \tilde J(q^k), q \rangle + \frac{t}{2} \norm{q - q^k}^2,
\label{eq:ppgt}
}
whose optimality condition reads
\iali{ \label{eq:qopt}
t(q^{k}-q^{k+1}) \in T^{-1/2} N(T^{-1/2} q^{k+1}) + \nabla \tilde J(q^k).
}
From (i) we know that $P_{\mathcal{A}^*} p^{k+1} = P_{\mathcal{A}^*} p^k$, which yields
\iali{
&P_{\mathcal{A}^*} T^{-1/2} q^{k+1} = P_{\mathcal{A}^*} T^{-1/2} q^k, \notag \\
&\Rightarrow q^{k+1} - q^k \in \ker(P_{\mathcal{A}^*} T^{-1/2}) = U(\mathcal{A}^*).
\label{eq:z1}
}
In addition,
in view of \eqref{eq:ncdef}
we have
\iali{
T^{-1/2}N(T^{-1/2}q^k) \subset U(\mathcal{A}^*)^\perp.
}
Thus, applying $\Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)}$ on both sides of \eqref{eq:qopt} yields an \emph{equivalent} characterization:
\iali{
0 &= \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)}\nabla \tilde J(q^k) + t(q^{k+1} - q^k). \label{eq:qopt2}
}
Indeed, this is the gradient descent on $\tilde J$ restricted to $U(\mathcal{A}^*)$, which we rewrite as
\begin{align}
q^{k+1} &= q^k + t^{-1} \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)} T^{-1/2} K^\top \nabla G^*(-K^\top T^{-1/2} q^k) \notag\\
&= q^k + t^{-1} \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)} T^{-1/2} K^\top \nabla G^*(-K^\top T^{-1/2} \notag\\
&\quad (\Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)} q^k + \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)^\perp} q^{\bar{k}})). \label{eq:ppgtl}
\end{align}
Hence \eqref{eq:ppgt} is equivalent to gradient descent
on the function $G^* \circ (A \cdot \, + \, b)$ with $A = -K^\top T^{-1/2} \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)}$, $b = -K^\top T^{-1/2} \Pi_{U(\mathcal{A}^*)^\perp} p^{\bar{k}}$. Using Lemma~\ref{lm:cg} yields
the linear convergence in $\{ q^k \}$. As $\norm{q^k} = \norm{T^{1/2} p^k} = \norm{p^k}_T$, we achieve the linear convergence, with respect to the $T$-norm, of the original sequence $\{p^k\}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $\varphi$ be given as in \eqref{eq:local-rate}.
Locally (i.e., for $k \geq \bar{k}$), with fixed $T \equiv T_{\bar{k}}$ we have $\norm{p^k - p^*} \leq \varepsilon$ whenever
\begin{equation}
k \geq \bar{k} + \frac{\varphi + 1}{2} \log\left(\frac{\norm{p^{\bar{k}} - p^*} \sqrt{\kappa(T)}}{\varepsilon}\right).
\label{eq:bound1}
\end{equation}
\label{cor:conv}
\end{corollary}
We remark that there are bounds in literature on $\bar{k}$, see
\cite[Prop.~3.6]{Liang2015} or the recent works~\cite{nutini17a,nutini17b}. Analyzing which choice of variable
metric $T_k$ lead to fast identification of $\mathcal{A}^*$ is beyond the scope of this work.
\subsubsection*{\bibname}}
\input{shortcut.tex}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[
\aistatstitle{Optimization of Graph Total Variation
via Active-Set-based Combinatorial Reconditioning}
\runningtitle{Optimization of Graph Total Variation
via Active-Set-based Combinatorial Reconditioning}
\aistatsauthor{ Zhenzhang Ye \And Thomas M\"ollenhoff \And Tao Wu \And Daniel Cremers }
\aistatsaddress{ TU Munich \\ \href{mailto:<EMAIL>@tum.de} \And TU Munich \\ \href{mailto:<EMAIL>@tum.de} \And TU Munich \\ \href{mailto:<EMAIL>@tum.de} \And TU Munich \\ \href{mailto:<EMAIL>}{<EMAIL>}} ]
\begin{abstract}
Structured convex optimization on weighted graphs finds numerous applications in machine learning and computer vision. In this work, we propose a novel adaptive preconditioning strategy for proximal algorithms on this problem class. Our preconditioner is driven by a sharp analysis of the local linear convergence rate depending on the ``active set" at the current iterate. We show that nested-forest decomposition of the inactive edges yields a guaranteed local linear convergence rate. Further, we propose a practical greedy heuristic which realizes such nested decompositions and show in several numerical experiments that our reconditioning strategy, when applied to proximal gradient or primal-dual
hybrid gradient algorithm, achieves competitive performances. Our results suggest that local convergence analysis can serve as a guideline for selecting variable metrics in proximal algorithms.
\end{abstract}
\input{intro.tex}
\input{local_convergence.tex}
\input{condition_number.tex}
\input{implementation.tex}
\input{numerics.tex}
\input{conclusion.tex}
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
\section{Applications}
In the following experiments we compare four preconditioning strategies: non-preconditioned $T_k = I$, diagonally scaled $T_k = \diag(K K^\top)$, nested (linear) forest from \cite{MoYeWu18} and the
\subsection{Numerical validation on synthetic data}
As a first numerical example, we consider the fused Lasso~\cite{tibshirani2005sparsity} (also called ROF model in imaging~\cite{Rudin-Osher-Fatemi-92})
\begin{equation}
\min_{u \in \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{V}}}~ \frac{1}{2} \norm{u-f}^2 + \norm{Ku}_1.
\label{eq:ROF}
\end{equation}
We solve \eqref{eq:ROF} on random graphs with fixed $|\mathcal{V}| = 512$ using proximal gradient (PG) with $f$ chosen uniformly random in $[0,1]$. We consider two factors: edge-to-vertex ratio and percentage of active edges at the optimal
solution. For the proposed reconditioning we set the frequency to $n=1$.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc||cc|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Instance}& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{None} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Diagonal} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Nest. Forest} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Lin. Forest} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Inact. NF} \\
name & $\frac{|\mathcal{A}_*|}{|\mathcal{E}|}$ & it[$10^3$] & time[s] & it[$10^3$] & time[s] & it[$10^3$] & time[s] & it[$10^3$] & time[s] & it[$10^3$] & time[s] \\
\hline
rmf-long & 0.02 & -- & -- & 19 & 473 & 12 & 2539 & 18 & \textbf{233.3} & \textbf{1.9} & 474.9 \\
rmf-wide & 0.19 & -- & -- & 62 & 665 & 27 & 2274 & 43 & 213.1 & \textbf{0.19} & \textbf{18.54} \\
horse & 0.02 & -- & -- & -- & -- & 2.9 & 340.8 & 37 & 355.6 & \textbf{0.73} & \textbf{155.3}\\
alue & 0.03 & -- & -- & -- & -- & 4.5 & 117.2 & 100 & 270.9 & \textbf{0.71} & \textbf{155.3}\\
lux & 0.01 & -- & -- & -- & -- & 13 & 1254 & -- & -- & \textbf{0.40} & \textbf{54.34} \\
punch & 0.01 & 488 & 968 & -- & -- & 14.9 & 1445 & 203 & 872.1 & \textbf{0.34} & \textbf{62.66} \\
BVZ* & 0.35 & 27 & 74.0 & 22 & 730 & 1.12 & 434.8 & 0.57 & \textbf{6.59} & \textbf{0.49} & 261\\
manga* & 0.05 & -- & -- & -- & -- & 38 & 48591 & 5.3 & \textbf{230} & \textbf{1.41} & 4609 \\
KZ2 & 0.5 & 419 & 3042 & 1.6 & 159 & 0.43 & 614.1 & 0.6 & \textbf{56.0} & \textbf{0.42} & 965.9 \\
ferro & 0.09 & 9.25 & 186 & 5.83 & 639.6 & 0.36 & 430.3 & 0.93 & \textbf{86.23} & \textbf{0.27} & 609.3\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{We show the number of iterations and running time to reach a relative primal dual gap less than $10^{-10}$ on \eqref{eq:ROF} on real-world graphs. FISTA with various choices of $T_k$ is used to solve these problems. ``--'' means the algorithm failed to reach the tolerance within $5 \times 10^5$ iterations. ``*'' means that graph has a grid structure. \vspace{0.2cm}}
\label{tab:comp_ROF}
\end{table*}
The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_act}. For reasonable amounts of active edges at the solution ($30\%$ -- $80\%$) the proposed preconditioning strategy requires orders of magnitude less
iterations to reach a primal-dual gap under $10^{-10}$. Moreover, it is shown that we require the fewest iterations across all scenarios.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:theory} we show $\log_{10}$-primal-dual gap over iterations for PG applied to \eqref{eq:ROF} on a $100 \times 100$ grid graph with different choices of $T_k$ and
moderate regularization strength ($30\%$ of active edges at the optimal solution). The proposed preconditioner outperforms vanilla PG ($T_k = I$) and the recent (fixed) preconditioners proposed in \cite{MoYeWu18}. Reconditioning more often leads to faster convergence, but as recomputing the preconditioner is expensive there is a trade-off
between reducing the number of iterations and fast updates. In practice, a choice of the reconditioning frequency $n$ between $5$ and $30$ leads to the best performance
\subsection{Fused Lasso on real-world graphs}
To consider a more realistic scenario, we solve the model \eqref{eq:ROF} on real-world graphs from a popular graphcut benchmark considered in~\cite{goldberg11}.
Furthermore, instead of using standard PG we used the accelerated FISTA variant~\cite{ChDo2015, attPey2015, Liang2015} with overrelaxation parameter $\beta_k = (k-1)/(k+2)$. Reconditioning
takes place at every 30 iterations. We discard the momentum for one iteration after reconditioning, which improved the stability.
In Table \ref{tab:comp_ROF}, we show the running time and number of iterations of FISTA with non-preconditioned, diagonal preconditioner, nested forest~\cite{MoYeWu18}, linear forest~\cite{MoYeWu18}
and the proposed inactively nested forest.
Our preconditioner outperforms the other methods in all cases on number of iterations, despite a rather large choice of $n=30$. However, the linear forest
from~\cite{MoYeWu18} perform better with respect to the running time on 5 out of 10 datasets.
The two datasets with grid structures leads to chain partition on which message-passing is much faster than on trees.
The sizes of last two graphs are huge ($|\mathcal{V}| \approx 250.000$, $|\mathcal{E}| \approx 600.000$) and therefore partitioning is quite expensive. To summarize, the proposed preconditioning
strategy consistently improves the number of iterations, but to ensure a shorter overall running time, an efficient implementation or improved strategy on reconstructing the tree decomposition
might be required.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\input{pdhg_iterations2_new.tex} &\hspace{-1cm}
\input{pdhg_time2_new.tex}
\end{tabular}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{customlegend}[legend columns=2,legend style={align=center,draw=none,column sep=2ex},
legend entries={None ($T_k = I$),
Diagonal~\cite{PoCh11},
Nested Forest~\cite{MoYeWu18},
Chains~\cite{MoYeWu18},
Inact. NF (Proposed)
}]
\definecolor{mycolor1}{rgb}{0.00000,0.44700,0.74100}%
\definecolor{mycolor2}{rgb}{0.85000,0.32500,0.09800}%
\definecolor{mycolor3}{rgb}{0.92900,0.69400,0.12500}%
\definecolor{mycolor4}{rgb}{0.49400,0.18400,0.55600}%
\definecolor{mycolor5}{rgb}{0.46600,0.67400,0.18800}%
\csname pgfplots@addlegendimage\endcsname{mark=none,solid,line legend,line width=3pt,color=mycolor1}
\csname pgfplots@addlegendimage\endcsname{mark=none,solid,line width=3pt,color=mycolor2}
\csname pgfplots@addlegendimage\endcsname{mark=none,solid,line width=3pt,color=mycolor4}
\csname pgfplots@addlegendimage\endcsname{mark=none,solid,line width=3pt,color=mycolor5}
\csname pgfplots@addlegendimage\endcsname{mark=none,solid,line width=3pt,color=mycolor3}
\end{customlegend}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\log_{10}$-optimality gap over iterations (left) and time (right) for PDHG with various preconditioners applied to a TV deconvolution problem.\vspace{-0.0cm}}
\label{fig:pdhg}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Linear inverse problems}
In this image processing experiment we consider a TV deconvolution problem on a regular 2D grid of size $116 \times 87$.
The data term is given by $G(u) = \frac{1}{2} \norm{Au - f}^2$, where the forward model $A$ is a convolution
with motion blur kernel with radius $3$. We construct $f$ by applying the forward model and adding Gaussian noise.
The overall problem is solved using PDHG.
The primal update is a quadratic problem and we use a few iterations of (warm started) conjugate gradient.
Considering the size of the problem, we set the reconditioning frequency to $n=5$ for the proposed approach.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:pdhg} we show the $\log_{10}$-optimality gap over iterations and time for various choices of preconditioners. The diagonal
preconditioner is the one from~\cite{PoCh11} with $\alpha = 1$. The forest preconditioners perform comparably when the accuracy is lower. Once the local convergence regime is entered, the proposed algorithm achieves linear convergence rate. Especially for high accuracies, the proposed
inactively nested forest reconditioning strategy outperforms the other approaches with
respect to overall running time and iterations.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
For simulating wave phenomena, the state of the art relies heavily on
efficient and accurate numerical solution techniques for hyperbolic
systems. This paper is concerned with those solution techniques that
proceed by subdividing the spacetime into tent-shaped subregions
satisfying a causality condition. Just as light cones are often used
to delineate what is causally possible and impossible in the
spacetime, tent-shaped spacetime regions are natural to impose
causality when numerically solving hyperbolic equations. By
constraining the height of the tent pole, erected vertically in an
increasing time direction, one can ensure that the tent encloses the
domain of dependence of all its points. This constraint on the tent
pole height is a causality condition that a numerical scheme using
such tents should satisfy. The spacetime subdivision into tents may
be unstructured, thus allowing such schemes to advance in time by
different amounts at different spatial locations, i.e., local time
stepping can be naturally built in while subdividing the spacetime
into tents.
The main contribution of this paper is a new explicit Runge-Kutta type
time stepping scheme for solving hyperbolic systems within a spacetime
tent. Standard time stepping methods cannot be directly applied on
tents, since tents are generally not a tensor product of a spatial
domain with a time interval. A non-tensor product spacetime tent can
be mapped to a tensor product spacetime cylinder using a degenerate
Duffy-like transformation. This is the basis of the Mapped Tent
Pitching (MTP) schemes that we introduced previously in~\cite{mtp}. As
shown there, a spacetime Piola map can be used to pull back the
hyperbolic system from the tent to the spacetime cylinder. Being a
tensor product domain, the spacetime cylinder, admits the use of
standard explicit time stepping schemes, like the classical RK4
scheme. However, as we shall show here, expected convergence rates are
{\em not} observed when such standard explicit schemes are used. The
cause of this problem can be traced back to the degeneracy of the
map. After illustrating this problem, we shall introduce a new
Structure Aware Runge-Kutta (SARK) scheme, which overcomes this problem.
We first reported the above-mentioned order reduction
in~\cite{mtp_sat}, where a fix was proposed for {\em linear}
hyperbolic systems, called the Structure Aware Taylor (SAT) scheme. In
contrast, the new SARK schemes of this paper are applicable to {\em
both linear and nonlinear} hyperbolic systems.
Prior work on tent-based methods spans both the computational
engineering literature~\cite{Haber2006,MILLER2008194} and numerical
analysis literature~\cite{Falk1999,Monk2005}. These works have clearly
articulated the promise of tent-based schemes, including local time
stepping, even with higher order spatio-temporal discretizations, and
the opportunities to utilize concurrency. Recent advances include
tent-based Trefftz methods~\cite{PerugSchobStock20} and the use of
asynchronous SDG (spacetime discontinuous Galerkin) methods to new
engineering applications~\cite{AbediHaber18}.
To place the present
contribution in the perspective of these existing works, a few words
regarding our focus on explicit time stepping are in order. The ratio of
memory movements to flops is very low for explicit schemes, making them
highly suitable for the newly emerging many-core processors. However,
before the introduction of MTP schemes in~\cite{mtp}, it was not clear
that such advantages of explicit time stepping could be brought to any
tent-based method. Now that we have an algorithmic avenue to perform
explicit time stepping within tent-based schemes, we turn to the
study of accuracy and convergence orders. Having encountered the
unexpected roadblock of the above-mentioned convergence order
reduction, we have been focusing on developing time stepping techniques to
overcome it. This paper is an outgrowth of these studies.
In the next section, we quickly review the construction of MTP
schemes, showing how the main system of ordinary differential
equations (ODEs) that is the subject of this paper arises. In
Section~\ref{sec:prob}, we show why we should not use standard
Runge-Kutta schemes for solving the ODE system. Then, in
Section~\ref{sec:rk-type}, we propose our new SARK schemes for solving
the ODE system. Section~\ref{sec:order-cond} derives order conditions
for these schemes. In
Section~\ref{sec:discrete-stability}, we study the discrete
stability of SARK schemes.
Section~\ref{sec:numerical} reports on the good
performance of the new schemes when applied to some
standard nonlinear hyperbolic systems.
\section{Construction of mapped tent pitching schemes}
\label{sec:mapped-tent-pitching}
In this section we give a brief overview of MTP
schemes. A fuller exposition can be found in \cite{mtp}.
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a simplicial conforming spatial mesh of
a bounded spatial domain $\varOmega_0 \subset \mathbb{R}^N.$
Spacetime tents are
built atop this spatial mesh in a sequence of steps. At the $i$th
step, a tent $K_i$ is added. It takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def_Ki}
K_i := \{(x,t) : x\in{\omega_V}, \tau_{i-1}(x)\le t\le\tau_{i}\}
\end{equation}
where ${\omega_V}$ is the vertex patch made up of all elements in $\mathcal{T}$
connected to a mesh vertex $V$. In~\eqref{eq:def_Ki}, the
function $\tau_i(x)$ is a continuous
function of the spatial coordinate $x$ that is piecewise linear with
respect to $\mathcal{T}$.
The graph of
$\tau_i$ represents the advancing spacetime front at the $i$th step,
so the tent $K_i$ may be thought of as
the spacetime domain between these advancing fronts.
Within $K_i$, the distance the
central vertex $V$ can advance in time is restricted by the {\em causality
constraint}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:causality_constraint}
|\nabla \tau_i| < \frac{1}{c_{\max}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $c_{\max}$ is an upper bound for the local wavespeed
on ${\omega_V}$ of a hyperbolic system under consideration.
The hyperbolic systems we have in mind are general systems with $L$ unknowns in $N$
spatial dimensions, posed on the spacetime cylinder
$\varOmega := \varOmega_0 \times (0,t_{\mathrm{max}})$ for some
final time $t_{\mathrm{max}}$. For sufficiently regular
functions $g:\varOmega\times\mathbb{R}^L \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{L}$ and
$f:\varOmega\times\mathbb{R}^L \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{L\times N}$, the hyperbolic
problem is to find $u:\varOmega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{L}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conslaw}
\partial_tg(x,t,u) + {\mathrm{div}}_x f(x,t,u) = 0
\end{equation}
where $\partial_t = \partial\slash{\partial t}$ denotes the time derivative and ${\mathrm{div}}_x$
denotes the row-wise divergence operator.
Hyperbolicity of~\eqref{eq:conslaw} implies that there is a set of
eigenvalues---whose magnitudes give wavespeeds---for each direction vector and each
point $x,t,u$. Let $c(x,t,u)$ denote the maximum of these
wavespeeds over all directions. The quantity $c_{\max}$ in
\eqref{eq:causality_constraint} can be taken to be any upper bound for
these $c(x, t, u)$ for $(x, t) \in K_i$.
MTP schemes proceed by mapping each of the tents arising above to a
spacetime cylinder.
To define the mapping, we consider a general tent $K$ over any given vertex
patch ${\omega_V}$, defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def_tent}
K := \{(x,t) : x\in{\omega_V}, \varphi_b(x)\le t\le\varphi_t(x)\}.
\end{equation}
The functions $\varphi_b$ and $\varphi_t$ are continuous functions
that are piecewise linear on the vertex patch and may be identified as
the bottom and top advancing
fronts restricted to the vertex patch ${\omega_V}$. To map the tent $K$
to the spacetime cylinder $\hat K := {\omega_V}\times(0,1)$, we define
the transformation $\varPhi : \hat K \rightarrow K$ by
$ \varPhi(x,\hat{t}) := (x,\varphi(x,\hat{t})),$
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def_phi}
\varphi(x,\hat{t}) := (1-\hat{t})\varphi_b(x) + \hat{t}\varphi_t(x).
\end{equation}
Defining
$F:\varOmega\times\mathbb{R}^L \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{L\times (N+1)}$ by
\begin{equation*}
F(x,t,u) := [f(x,t,u),g(x,t,u)] \in \mathbb{R}^{L\times (N+1)},
\end{equation*}
we may write (\ref{eq:conslaw}) as
\begin{equation*}
{\mathrm{div}}_{x,t} F(x,t,u) = 0.
\end{equation*}
The spacetime divergence ${\mathrm{div}}_{x,t}$ is a row-wise operator which applies
the spatial derivative to the first $N$ components and the temporal
derivative to the last component.
The well-known Piola transformation of $F$, defined by
$\hat F = \left(\det\varPhi'\right) \left(F\circ\varPhi\right)
\left(\varPhi'\right)^{-T}$ can be simplified after calculating the
derivatives of $\varPhi$ to
\begin{equation*}
\hat F
= \left(F\circ\varPhi\right)
\begin{bmatrix}
\delta I & -\nabla\varphi \\ 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
where $\delta(x) = \varphi_t(x)-\varphi_b(x)$
and $I\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ is the identity matrix. By the properties
of the Piola map, we then immediately have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mapped_conslaw_st}
{\mathrm{div}}_{x,\that} \hat F(x,\hat{t},\hat u) = 0,
\end{equation}
with $\hat u = u\circ\varPhi$ and the spacetime divergence ${\mathrm{div}}_{x,\that}$
on $\hat K$. Finally, as described in~\cite{mtp}, writing $\hat F$ in
terms of $f$ and $g$, we find that~(\ref{eq:mapped_conslaw_st}) is
equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mapped_conslaw_1}
\partial_{\hat{t}}\left(g(x,\hat{t},\hat u) - f(x,\hat{t},\hat u) \nabla\varphi(\hat{t})\right)
+ {\mathrm{div}}_x\left(\delta(x)f(x,\hat{t},\hat u)\right) = 0,
\end{equation}
which is again a conservation law.
For readability, we omit the spatial
variable $x$ and pseudo-time $\hat{t}$ from the arguments of functions
in~(\ref{eq:mapped_conslaw_1}) and simply write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mapped_conslaw}
\partial_{\hat{t}}\left(g(\hat u) - f(\hat u) \nabla\varphi\right)
+ {\mathrm{div}}_x\left(\delta f(\hat u)\right) = 0,
\end{equation}
which describes the evolution of $\hat u$ along pseudo-time from
$\hat{t}=0$ to $\hat{t}=1$.
Since
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(x,\hat{t}) = (1-\hat{t})\varphi_b(x) + \hat{t}\varphi_t(x) = \varphi_b(x) + \hat{t} \delta(x),
\end{equation*}
we may split $g(\hat u) - f(\hat u) \nabla\varphi$ into
parts with and without explicit dependence on pseudo-time,
allowing us to rewrite~\eqref{eq:mapped_conslaw}
as
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{\hat{t}}\left(\left(g(\hat u) - f(\hat u) \nabla\varphi_b\right)
- \hat{t} f(\hat u) \nabla \delta\right)
+ {\mathrm{div}}_x\left(\delta f(\hat u)\right) = 0.
\end{equation*}
This equation is the starting point for our spatial discretization.
We use a
discontinuous Galerkin method based on
\[
V_h = \{ v: v|_K \text{ is a polynomial of degree } \le p
\text{ on all spatial elements } T \in \mathcal{T}\}.
\]
When restricted to the vertex patch ${\omega_V}$ we obtain
$V_h({\omega_V}) = \{ v|_{{\omega_V}}: v \in V_h\}$. Multiplying
(\ref{eq:mapped_conslaw}) by a test function $v_h \in V_h$ and integrating by
parts over the patch ${\omega_V}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:var_prob}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\omega_V}\frac{ d}{ d\hat t}
\bigg(g(\hat u) & - f(\hat u) \nabla\varphi\bigg)
\cdot v_h
\\
& = \sum_{T\subset{\omega_V}}\int_T \delta f(\hat u) : \nabla v_h
- \sum_{F\subset{\omega_V}}\int_F \delta f_n(\hat u^+,\hat u^-)
\cdot \llbracket v_h \rrbracket,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for all $v_h\in V_h$ and all $\hat{t}\in[0,1]$. Here and throughout,
every facet $F$ is assigned a unit normal, simply denoted by $n$,
whose direction is arbitrarily fixed, except when
$F \subset \partial\varOmega$, in which case it points outward. The
traces $\hat u^+$ and $\hat u^-$ of $\hat u$ from either side are
defined by
\begin{equation*}
\hat u^+ := \lim_{s\rightarrow 0^+}\hat u(x+sn) \quad \text{and} \quad
\hat u^- := \lim_{s\rightarrow 0^+}\hat u(x-sn).
\end{equation*}
In~\eqref{eq:var_prob}, we also used a numerical flux $f_n$ on each facet
$F$ (that takes values in $\mathbb{R}^L$ depending on values
$\hat u^+,\hat u^-$ from either side) and the jump
$\llbracket \hat v_h \rrbracket := \hat v_h^+ - \hat v_h^-$. In these
definitions, whenever $\hat{u}^+$ falls outside $\varOmega$, it is
prescribed using some given boundary conditions.
Let $m = \dim V_h({\omega_V})$ and let $\psi_i$, $i=1, \ldots, m$ denote
any standard local basis for $V_h({\omega_V})$.
Introducing $U: [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^m$,
consider the basis expansion
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:basis_exp}
\hat u (x, \hat{t} ) =
\sum_{i=1}^m U_i(\hat{t}) \psi_i(x).
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:var_prob} leads to an ODE system for $U(\hat{t})$ as
follows. Define (possibly nonlinear) operators
$M_0: \mathbb{R}^m \to V_h({\vpatch})$, $M_1: \mathbb{R}^m \to V_h({\vpatch})$, and
$A : \mathbb{R}^m \to V_h({\vpatch})$ by
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:MA}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Mo}
\int_{\vpatch} M_0(U) v_h
& = \int_{\vpatch}
\left(g(\hat u) - f(\hat u) \nabla_{\!x}\varphi_b\right)
\cdot v_h
\\ \label{eq:M1}
\int_{\vpatch} M_1(U) v_h
& = \int_{\vpatch} f(\hat u) \nabla_{\!x} \delta\; \cdot \,v_h
\\
\int_{\vpatch} A(U) v_h
& = \sum_{T\subset{\omega_V}}\int_T \delta f(\hat u) : \nabla v_h
- \sum_{F\subset{\omega_V}}\int_F \delta \, f_n(\hat u^+,\hat u^-)
\cdot \llbracket v_h \rrbracket,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all $v_h \in V_h({\vpatch})$, where $\hat u$ in all terms on the right
hand sides above is to be expanded in terms of $U$
using~\eqref{eq:basis_exp}.
With these notations, problem~\eqref{eq:var_prob} becomes the problem of
finding $U: [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^m$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:discr_ode}
\frac{d}{d\hat{t}} M(\hat{t}, U(\hat{t})) = A (U(\hat{t})),
\end{equation}
given some $U(0) = U_0 \in \mathbb{R}^m.$ Here $M : [0, 1] \times \mathbb{R}^m \to V_h({\omega_V})$ is defined by
\begin{align}
M(\hat{t}, W) = M_0(W) - \hat{t} M_1(W), \qquad 0 \le \hat t \le 1, \quad
W \in \mathbb{R}^m. \label{eq:Mt}
\end{align}
\section{Difficulty with standard time stepping}
\label{sec:prob}
In this section, we describe the problem we must overcome,
thus setting the stage for the new schemes proposed in
Section~\ref{sec:rk-type}. The problem is that
standard Runge-Kutta methods when applied to the tent
system~\eqref{eq:discr_ode}---after a standard reformulation---do not
give expected orders of convergence.
A standard approach to numerically solve~\eqref{eq:discr_ode} proceeds
by introducing a new variable $Y(\hat{t}) := M(\hat{t}, U(\hat{t})).$ Then,
using the inverse mapping $M^{-1}(\hat t, \cdot)$, the primary
variable is $U(\hat t) = M^{-1}(t, Y(\hat t))$. Substituting this
expression for $U$ on the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:discr_ode}, we
can bring~\eqref{eq:discr_ode} to the standard form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:discr_ode_subs}
\frac{d}{d\hat{t}}Y(\hat{t}) - A(M^{-1}(\hat t, Y(\hat{t}))) = 0.
\end{equation}
Standard ODE solvers, such as the classical explicit RK4 method, may
now be directly applied to~\eqref{eq:discr_ode_subs}. Unfortunately, this leads
to reduced convergence order, as we shall now see.
\begin{figure}
\captionsetup{width=.45\linewidth}
\centering
\subfloat[Initial values (\ref{eq:burgers_example_u0}) (solid)
and exact solution of (\ref{eq:burgers1d_example}) at $t_{\max}=0.1$ (dashed).]{
\label{fig:burgers1d_inital_exact}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
xmax=1, xmin=0,%
legend style = {at={(0.5,1.02)}, anchor=south, draw=none},%
legend columns = 2,
xlabel={\footnotesize $x$},
xlabel style = {at={(0.5,0.01)} ,anchor=north},
]%
\addplot[color=red] table[x=x,y=u0] {burgers1d_sol_t0_1.txt};
\addlegendentry{$u(x,t=0)$};
\addplot[color=blue,style=densely dashed] table[x=x,y=u0_1] {burgers1d_sol_t0_1.txt};
\addlegendentry{$u(x,t=0.1)$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\subfloat[Convergence rates of the spatial error at $t_{\max}$ for Ralson's method (RK2) and the classical RK4 method. ]{
\label{fig:burgers1d_rk_rates}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
legend style = {at={(0.5,1.02)}, anchor=south, draw=none},%
legend columns = 3,
xlabel={\footnotesize mesh size $h$},%
xlabel style = {at={(0.5,0.03)} ,anchor=north},%
ylabel={\footnotesize $e$},%
ylabel style = {at={(1.38,0.5)} ,anchor=north},%
]%
\addplot[color=green!60!black,mark=square*] table[x=h,y=l2e_RK2_ralston] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\addlegendentry{RK2};
\addplot[color=blue,mark=*] table[x=h,y=l2e_RK4] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\addlegendentry{RK4};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y=h] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\addlegendentry{$\mathcal{O}(h)$};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y expr={x^2}] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\addlegendentry{$\mathcal{O}(h^2)$};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y expr={x^3}] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\addlegendentry{$\mathcal{O}(h^3)$};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Exact solution $u$ and convergence rates of the error $e$,
defined in (\ref{eq:def_l2e}), for the example of the Burger's
equation described in (\ref{eq:burgers1d_example}).}
\label{fig:burgers1d}
\end{figure}
Consider the example of the one-dimensional Burger's equation
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:burgers1d_example}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t} u(x,t) + \partial_x u(x,t)^2 = 0, \quad \forall (x,t)\in[0,1]\times(0,t_{\max}],
\end{equation}
with initial values set by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:burgers_example_u0}
u(x,0)=\exp{\big(-50\big(x-\tfrac{1}{2}\big)^2\big)}, \quad \forall x\in[0,1],
\end{equation}
an inflow boundary condition an $x=0$, and an outflow boundary
condition at $x=1$. The final time $t_{\max} = 0.1$ is chosen such
that the exact solution is still a smooth function (before the onset
of shock).
Therefore no regularization or limiting
is expected to be essential to witness high order
convergence. The exact solution at $t_{\max}$ shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:burgers1d_inital_exact} is obtained by the method of
characteristics together with a Newton's method. Let $u_h(x)$ be the
numerical solution of (\ref{eq:burgers1d_example}) at $t=t_{\max}$
computed with an explicit MTP scheme using a DG method of order
$p = 2$ for the spatial discretization. Thus one would expect the
error
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def_l2e}
e := \|u(\cdot,0.1)-u_h\|_{L^2([0,1])}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
to go to zero at a rate of $\mathcal{O}(h^3)$. However our observations in
Figure~\ref{fig:burgers1d_rk_rates} run counter to that expectation.
Figure~\ref{fig:burgers1d_rk_rates} reports the rates we observed when
two standard time stepping schemes were used to solve~(\ref{eq:discr_ode_subs}),
namely the two-stage (RK2) and the four-stage (RK4) explicit
Runge-Kutta time stepping schemes. Although we see third order
convergence for the first few refinement steps, the rate eventually
drops to first order for both methods.
We shall return to this example in
Subsection~\ref{ssec:conv-rates-burg}
after developing a method without this convergence reduction.
\section{Structure aware Runge-Kutta type methods}
\label{sec:rk-type}
In this section, we develop specialized Runge-Kutta type schemes that
do not show the above mentioned order loss of classical Runge-Kutta
schemes. The appearance of $M^{-1}$ in~\eqref{eq:discr_ode_subs} is
the cause of the problem. Although $M$ is linear in $\hat t$, its
inverse is not. Therefore a spacetime polynomial solution of a
hyperbolic problem is not generally preserved even by high order
discretizations of~\eqref{eq:discr_ode_subs}.
With this in mind, we motivate the definition of the new scheme
by reformulating~\eqref{eq:discr_ode} in terms of two
variables $Z(\hat t)$ and $Y(\hat t)$, defined by
\[
Z(\hat t) = M_0(U(\hat t)), \qquad
Y(\hat t) = M(\hat t, U(\hat t)) = Z(\hat t) - \hat{t} M_1(U(\hat{t})).
\]
Then~\eqref{eq:discr_ode} implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:discr_ode_yz}
Y' = A(U(\hat t)), \qquad Z' =
A(U(\hat t)) + (\hat t M_1(U(\hat t)))',
\end{equation}
together with the initial conditions $ Y(0) = Z(0) = M_0(U_0).$
Here and throughout we use primes ($'$) to abbreviate $d / d\hat t$.
The key idea is to avoid the inversion of the time-dependent~$M$
at all $\hat t$, limiting the inversion to just that of
$M_0$. Assuming we can compute the time-independent inverse
$M_0^{-1}$, we define
\[
\tilde A = A \circ M_0^{-1}, \qquad \tilde M_1 = M_1 \circ M_0^{-1}.
\]
Then,~\eqref{eq:discr_ode_yz} yields the following ODE system for $Y$ and $Z$ on
$0 < \hat t < 1$:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:exactflow}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:exactflow-Z}
Z' & = \tilde A( Z(\hat t)) + (\hat t \tilde M_1(Z(\hat t)))',
&& Z(0) = Y_0,\\
\label{eq:exactflow-Y}
Y' & = \tilde A( Z(\hat t)),
&& Y(0) = Y_0,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $Y_0 = M_0(U_0)$.
Integrating the equations of~\eqref{eq:exactflow} from $0$ to
$\tau$, we obtain
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rktype_z}
Z(\tau) & = Z(0) + \tau \tilde M_1(Z(\tau)) + \int_0^{\tau} \tilde A(Z(s)) \,\mathrm{d} s,
\\
\label{eq:rktype_y}
Y(\tau) & = Y(0)+
\int_0^{\tau} \tilde A (Z(s))\, \mathrm{d} s.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The new scheme, defined below, may be thought of as motivated by
quadrature approximations to the integrals above. Note that we are
only interested in such quadratures that result in explicit schemes.
Moreover, we must also approximate $\tau \tilde M_1(Z(\tau))$ by an
extrapolation formula that uses prior values of $Z,$ in order to keep
the scheme explicit.
\begin{definition}
Given an initial condition $Y_0$, {\em an $s$-stage SARK method}
for~\eqref{eq:exactflow} computes
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:rktype}
\begin{align}
Z_i & = Y_0 + \tau \sum_{j<i} d_{ij}\tilde M_1(Z_j)
+ \tau \sum_{j<i}a_{ij}\tilde A(Z_j), \qquad 1\le i \le s,
\label{eq:rktype_Zi}
\\
Y_\tau & = Y_0 + \tau \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \tilde A(Z_i). \label{eq:rktype_int}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{definition}
This explicit method is determined by the coefficient matrices $b \in
\mathbb{R}^{s \times 1}$,
$\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{s \times s}$,
and
$\mathcal{D} \in \mathbb{R}^{s \times s}$:
\begin{gather*}
b = (b_1,\dots,b_s), \quad
\mathcal{A} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & \\
a_{21} & 0 & &\\
\vdots & \ddots & 0 & \\
a_{s1} & \dots & a_{s,s-1} & 0\\
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\mathcal{D} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & \\
d_{21} & 0 & &\\
\vdots & \ddots & 0 & \\
d_{s1} & \dots & d_{s,s-1} & 0\\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{gather*}
Hence we use
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
$c$ & $\mathcal A$ & $\mathcal D$ \\ \hline & $b$ &
\end{tabular} instead
of the standard Butcher tableau
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
$c$ & $\mathcal A $ \\ \hline & $b$
\end{tabular}
to express our scheme. Here we restrict ourselves to schemes where
$c \in \mathbb{R}^s$ is set by the consistency condition
\[
c_i= \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} a_{ij}.
\]
In the next section, we shall develop a theory to choose appropriate values of
$a_{ij}, d_{ij},$ and $b_i$. There, Subsection~\ref{sec:examples} contains
some specific examples of SARK scheme tableaus.
\section{Order conditions for the scheme}
\label{sec:order-cond}
Appropriate values of $a_{ij}, d_{ij},$ and $b_i$ can be found by
order conditions obtained by matching terms in the Taylor expansions of the
exact solution $Y(\tau)$ and the discrete solution $Y_\tau$. To
derive these order conditions we follow the general methodology laid
out in~\cite{hairer2008}. For this, we need to first compute the
derivatives of the exact flow (in~\S\ref{ssec:deriv-exact}), then the
derivatives of the discrete flow (in~\S\ref{ssec:deriv-discr}),
followed by the formulation of resulting order conditions (in
\S\ref{ssec:conditions-order-3}).
\subsection{Derivatives of the exact solution} \label{ssec:deriv-exact}
Continuing to use primes ($'$) for total derivatives with respect to a single
variable like $d/d \tau$, to ease the tedious calculations below, we
shall also employ the $n$th order Frechet derivative of a function
$g: D \subset \mathbb{R}^m \to V$, for some vector space $V$. It is denoted
by $g^{(n)}(z): \mathbb{R}^m \times \cdots \times \mathbb{R}^m \to V$ and defined
by the symmetric multilinear form
\[
g^{(n)}(z)(v_1, \ldots, v_n) =
\sum_{i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_n=1}^m
\frac{ \partial^n g(z)}{ \partial x_{i_1} \cdots \partial x_{i_n}}
[v_1]_{i_1} \ldots [v_n]_{i_n}
\]
for any $v_1, \ldots, v_n \in \mathbb{R}^m.$ Whenever $g$ and
$z: (0,1) \to \mathbb{R}^m$ are sufficiently smooth for the derivatives
below to exist continuously, we have the following formulae.
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:derivs_compos}
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{d \tau} g(z(\tau))
& = g^{(1)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau)),
\\
\frac{d^2}{d \tau^2} g(z(\tau))
& = g^{(2)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau), z'(\tau)) +
g^{(1)}(z(\tau)(z''(\tau)),
\\
\frac{d^3}{d \tau^3} g(z(\tau))
& = g^{(3)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau), z'(\tau), z'(\tau))
\\ \nonumber
& + 3 g^{(2)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau), z''(\tau))
+ g^{(1)}(z(\tau))(z'''(\tau)),
\\
\frac{d^4}{d \tau^4} g(z(\tau))
& = g^{(4)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau), z'(\tau), z'(\tau), z'(\tau))
\\ \nonumber
& + 6 g^{(3)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau), z'(\tau), z''(\tau))
+ 4 g^{(2)}(z(\tau))(z'(\tau), z'''(\tau))
\\ \nonumber
& + 3 g^{(2)}(z(\tau)) (z''(\tau), z''(\tau)) + g^{(1)}(z(\tau))(z''''(\tau)).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These formulae can be derived by repeated application of the chain
rule (or by applying the Fa{\'a} di Bruno formula). We will also
need to use
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Leibniz_tau}
\frac{d^k}{d \tau^k}\big( \tau g(z(\tau)) \big)
= \tau \frac{d^k}{d \tau^k} g(z(\tau)) + k
\frac{d^{k-1}}{d \tau^{k-1}} g(z(\tau)),
\end{equation}
which is a simple consequence of the Leibniz rule.
We start by computing the derivatives of $Z(\tau)$ at
$\tau=0$. To express such derivatives
concisely, we introduce the notation
\begin{gather*}
\alpha = \tilde A(Z(0)),
\qquad \an n (v_1, \ldots, v_n) = \tilde A^{(n)}(Z(0))(v_1, \ldots, v_n),
\\
\mu = \tilde M_1(Z(0)),
\qquad \mn n (v_1, \ldots, v_n) = \tilde M^{(n)}(Z(0))(v_1, \ldots, v_n).
\end{gather*}
From~\eqref{eq:exactflow-Z}, it is immediate that $Z'(0) =
\tilde A (Z(0)) + \tilde M(Z(0))$. Thus,
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:dZ}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dZ_1}
Z'(0) &= \alpha + \mu.
\end{align}
For the next derivative, we differentiate~\eqref{eq:exactflow-Z}
twice to get $Z''(\tau) = (\tilde A(Z(\tau))' + (\tau \tilde M_1(Z(\tau)))''.$
Calculating the latter using~\eqref{eq:Leibniz_tau}, simplifying
using~\eqref{eq:derivs_compos}, and evaluating at $\tau=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dZ_2}
Z''(0) = (\an 1 + 2 \mn 1)(\alpha + \mu).
\end{equation}
By the same procedure, starting with
$Z'''(\tau) = (\tilde A(Z(\tau))'' + (\tau \tilde M_1(Z(\tau)))'''$
and using~\eqref{eq:Leibniz_tau}
and~\eqref{eq:derivs_compos}, we also have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dZ_3}
Z'''(0) = (\an 2 + 3\mn 2)(\alpha + \mu, \alpha + \mu) +
(\an 1 + 3 \mn 1)
\big(
(\an 1 + 2 \mn 1 )(\alpha + \mu)
\big).
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Armed with~\eqref{eq:dZ}, we proceed to compute the derivatives of
$Y$. Obviously, \eqref{eq:exactflow-Y} implies
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:dY0}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dY0_1}
Y'(0) & = \tilde A(Z(0)) = \alpha.
\intertext{Differentiating \eqref{eq:exactflow-Y} again,
using~\eqref{eq:derivs_compos}, and evaluating at $\tau=0$ using the
previously computed derivatives of $Z$ in~\eqref{eq:dZ}, we also get}
\label{eq:dY0_2}
Y''(0) & =
\an 1 (\alpha + \mu)
\\
\label{eq:dY0_3}
Y'''(0) & = \an 2 (\alpha+\mu, \alpha+\mu) +
\an 1
\big(
(\an 1 + 2 \mn 1 )(\alpha + \mu)
\big).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\subsection{Derivatives of the discrete flow} \label{ssec:deriv-discr}
The next task is to compute the coefficients of the Taylor expansion
of the function $Y_\tau$ defined in~\eqref{eq:rktype_int}. The
arguments $Z_i$ in~\eqref{eq:rktype_int} are also functions of $\tau$,
as given by~\eqref{eq:rktype_Zi}. Therefore, in what follows, we first
differentiate $Z_i \equiv Z_i(\tau)$ and then $Y_\tau$.
Obviously, $Z_i(0)$ and $Z(0)$ coincide, so we will focus on the first
and higher derivatives of $Z_i$ at $\tau=0$. To this end, we
differentiate \eqref{eq:rktype_Zi} $k$ times to get
\[
\frac{d^k Z_i}{d \tau^k} = \sum_{j<i}
\bigg[ d_{ij}\frac{d^k}{ d\tau^k} (\tau \tilde M_1(Z_j(\tau)))+
a_{ij}
\frac{d^k}{ d \tau^k}(\tau \tilde A(Z_j(\tau)))\bigg].
\]
Using~\eqref{eq:Leibniz_tau} for $k=1,2, 3$,
then~\eqref{eq:derivs_compos}, and evaluating at $\tau=0$ we obtain
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:dZi}
\begin{align}
Z_i'(0) & = \sum_{j < i} d_{ij} \mu + a_{ij} \alpha
\\
Z_i''(0) & = 2 \sum_{j < i} \sum_{k < j}
\big(
d_{ij}\mn 1 + a_{ij}\an 1
\big)
(d_{jk} \mu + a_{jk} \alpha)
\\
%
Z_i'''(0)
& = 3 \sum_{j< i} \sum_{k < j} \sum_{l < j}
\big(
d_{ij} \mn 2 + a_{ij} \an 2
\big)
(
d_{jk} \mu + a_{jk} \alpha,
d_{jl} \mu + a_{jl} \alpha
)
\\ \nonumber
& + 6 \sum_{j< i} \sum_{k < j} \sum_{l < k}
\big(
d_{ij} \mn 1 + a_{ij} \an 1
\big)
\big(
(d_{jk} \mn 1 + a_{jk} \an 1)
(d_{kl} \mu + a_{lk}\alpha)
\big).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Next, we focus on $Y_\tau$.
By~\eqref{eq:rktype_int},
\[
\frac{d^k Y_\tau}{d \tau^k}
= \sum_{i=1}^s b_i
\frac{d^k }{d \tau^k}(\tilde A (Z_i(\tau))).
\]
Using~\eqref{eq:derivs_compos}, and evaluating the resulting terms at
$\tau = 0$ by means of~\eqref{eq:dZi}, we obtain
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:dY10}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dY10_1}
Y_\tau'(0) & = \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \alpha,
\\
\label{eq:dY10_2}
Y_\tau''(0) & = 2\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j < i} b_i
\an 1(d_{ij} \mu + a_{ij} \alpha),
\\
\label{eq:dY10_3}
Y_\tau'''(0)
& =
3 \sum_{i=1}^s\sum_{j< i} \sum_{k < i}
b_i
\an 2
(d_{ij} \mu + a_{ij} \alpha,
d_{ik} \mu + a_{ik} \alpha)
\\ \nonumber
& +
6 \sum_{i=1}^s\sum_{j< i} \sum_{k < j}
b_i\an 1
\big(
(d_{ij}\mn 1 + a_{ij} \an 1 )
(d_{jk} \mu + a_{jk} \alpha)
\big).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\subsection{Formulation of order conditions} \label{ssec:conditions-order-3}
To obtain a specific method, we find values for $a_{ij}, d_{ij}$ and
$b_i$ by matching the coefficients in the Taylor expansions of
$Y(\tau)$ and $Y_\tau$. Note that $Y_\tau(0) = Y_0 = Y(0)$, so the
$0$th order coefficients match.
The next terms in the Taylor expansions will match if
$Y'(0)=Y_\tau'(0)$. For this it is sufficient that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cond_1}
\sum_{i=1}^s b_i = 1.
\end{align}
because of~\eqref{eq:dY0_1} and~\eqref{eq:dY10_1}. To match the third
terms in the Taylor expansions, equating~\eqref{eq:dY0_2}
and~\eqref{eq:dY10_2},
\[
\an 1 (\alpha) + \an 1 (\mu) =
\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j < i} 2b_i d_{ij}
\an 1 (\mu) + 2 b_ia_{ij} \an 1 (\alpha).
\]
Equating the coefficients of $\an 1 (\alpha)$ and $\an 1 (\mu)$, we
conclude that $Y''(0) = Y_\tau''(0)$ if
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cond_2}
2\sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j<i}
b_i d_{ij} = 1 \quad \text{and} \quad 2\sum_{i=1}^s\sum_{j<i} b_ia_{ij} = 1.
\end{align}
If one desires to further match the next higher order terms,
$Y_\tau'''(0) = Y'''(0)$, then the expressions in \eqref{eq:dY0_3}
and~\eqref{eq:dY10_3} must be equated, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\an 2 &(\alpha,\! \alpha)
+ 2 \an 2 (\alpha,\!\mu) + \an 2 (\mu,\! \mu)
\\
& + \an 1 (\an 1 (\alpha)) + \an 1 (\an 1 (\mu))
+ 2 \an 1 (\mn 1 (\alpha) ) + 2 \an 1 (\mn 1 (\mu))
\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j< i} \sum_{k < i}
\bigg[
3 b_i d_{ij} d_{ik} \an 2 (\mu,\! \mu) + 6 b_i d_{ij} a_{ik} \an 2
(\mu, \alpha) + 3 b_i a_{ij} a_{ik} \an 2 (\alpha, \alpha)
\bigg]
\\
& + 6 \sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j< i} \sum_{k < j}
\bigg[
b_i d_{ij}d_{jk} \an 1 (\mn 1 (\mu)) + b_i d_{ij}a_{jk} \an 1 (\mn 1 (\alpha))
\\
& \hspace{2.1cm} +
b_i a_{ij}d_{jk} \an 1 (\an 1 (\mu)) +
b_i a_{ij}a_{jk} \an 1 (\an 1 (\alpha)) \bigg].
\end{align*}
For this equality to hold, the following seven conditions are sufficient
as can be seen by equating the coefficients of
$\an2 (\alpha, \alpha),$ $\an 2 (\mu, \mu),$ $\an 2(\alpha, \mu),$ $\an 1
(\an 1 (\alpha)),$ $\an 1 (\an 1 (\mu)),$ $\an 1 (\mn 1 (\alpha) ),$ and
$ \an 1 (\mn 1 (\mu))$, respectively:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:cond_3}
\begin{align}
3 \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \Big(\sum_{j<i} a_{ij}\Big)^2 = 1, \\
3 \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \Big(\sum_{j<i} d_{ij}\Big)^2 = 1, \\
3 \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \Big(\sum_{j<i} a_{ij}\Big)\Big(\sum_{j<i} d_{ij}\Big) = 1, \\
6 \sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j<i}\sum_{k<j} b_ia_{ij}a_{jk} = 1, \\
6 \sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j<i}\sum_{k<j} b_ia_{ij}d_{jk} = 1, \\
3 \sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j<i}\sum_{k<j} b_id_{ij}a_{jk} = 1, \\
3 \sum_{i=1}^s \sum_{j<i}\sum_{k<j} b_id_{ij}d_{jk} = 1.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Thus, we have proved the following result, which summarizes our
discussions on order conditions.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:order-conditions}
Whenever $\tilde A$ and $\tilde M$ are smooth enough for the derivatives below
to exist continuously,
\begin{enumerate}
\item the condition~\eqref{eq:cond_1} implies $ Y'(0) = Y_\tau'(0),$
\item the conditions of~\eqref{eq:cond_2} imply $Y''(0) =
Y_\tau''(0),$ and
\item the conditions of~\eqref{eq:cond_3} imply $ Y'''(0) = Y_\tau'''(0)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Examples of methods up to third order}
\label{sec:examples}
Observe that the standard order conditions of Runge-Kutta methods
are a subset of the order
conditions derived in \S\ref{ssec:conditions-order-3}. Thus we
base our SARK methods on existing Runge-Kutta methods.
Below, we shall refer to an $s$-stage SARK method based on an existing
Runge-Kutta method called ``RKname'' as ``SARK($s$, RKname)''.
A second order two-stage SARK method can be derived
from a second order Runge-Kutta method once we find $d_{ij}$
satisfying the additional condition
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sark2_coeff}
2\sum_{i=1}^2 \sum_{j<i}
b_i d_{ij} = 1 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad b_2 d_{21} = \frac{1}{2},
\end{align}
which was introduced in (\ref{eq:cond_2}). For example, one may start
with the standard explicit midpoint rule and select $d_{21}=1/2$ to
satisfy~\eqref{eq:sark2_coeff}, thus arriving at the ``SARK(2, midpoint)''
method, listed first in
Table~\ref{tab:sark2_examples}.
The table continues on to display
further such methods obtained from other well-known second order
Runge-Kutta schemes.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\subfloat[SARK(2, midpoint), based on the explicit midpoint rule]{
\begin{sark_tableau}{c|cc|cc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & 0\\
\hline
& 0 & 1 & &
\end{sark_tableau}
\label{tab:sark2_mprule}
}
\hspace{2em}
\subfloat[SARK(2, Ralston), based on Ralston's second order method]{
\begin{sark_tableau}{c|cc|cc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & 0 & $\frac{2}{3}$ & 0\\
\hline
& $\frac{1}{4}$ & $\frac{3}{4}$ & &
\end{sark_tableau}
\label{tab:sark2_ralston}
}
\hspace{2em}
\subfloat[SARK(2, Heun), based on Heun's second order method]{
\begin{sark_tableau}{c|cc|cc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
\hline
& $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & &
\end{sark_tableau}
\label{tab:sark2_heun}
}
\caption{Two-stage SARK methods}
\label{tab:sark2_examples}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\subfloat[SARK(3, Kutta) method, based on Kutta's third order method]{
\begin{sark_tableau}{c|rcc|rcc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & 0 & $\frac{1}{2}$ & 0 & 0 \\
1 & $-1$ & 2 & 0 & $-3$ & 4 & 0 \\
\hline
& $\frac{1}{6}$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{6}$ & & &
\end{sark_tableau}
\label{tab:sark3_kutta}
}
\hspace{2em}
\subfloat[SARK(3, Heun) method, based on Heun's third order method]{
\begin{sark_tableau}{c|ccc|rcc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
$\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & 0 & 0 & $\frac{1}{3}$ & 0 & 0 \\
$\frac{2}{3}$ & 0 & $\frac{2}{3}$ & 0 & $-\frac{2}{3}$ & $\frac{4}{3}$ & 0 \\
\hline
& $\frac{1}{4}$ & 0 & $\frac{3}{4}$ & & &
\end{sark_tableau}
\label{tab:sark3_heun}
}
\caption{Three-stage SARK methods}
\label{tab:sark3_examples}
\end{table}
The third order SARK methods in Table \ref{tab:sark3_examples} are
based on known third order Runge-Kutta methods with three stages. The additional coefficients $d_{ij}$ are chosen, such that (\ref{eq:cond_2})-(\ref{eq:cond_3}) are satisfied.
\subsection{Application of multiple steps within a tent}
\label{ssec:sark-mult-steps}
Recall that the ODE system we need to solve within one mapped tent
is~\eqref{eq:exactflow} for $0 < \hat t < 1.$ Since the $\hat t$
interval is not small, we subdivide it into $r$ subintervals and use
the previously described $s$-stage SARK scheme within each
subinterval, as described next.
We subdivide the unit interval $[0,1]$ into $r$ subintervals
\[
[\hat t_k, \hat t_{k+1}],
\quad k=0,1, \ldots, r-1,
\quad\text{ where } \hat t_k = \frac k r,
\]
and apply~\eqref{eq:rktype} within each subinterval as described next.
First observe that the above splitting of the unit $\hat t$-interval
corresponds to subdividing the original tent $K$, as given
by~\eqref{eq:def_tent},
into $r$
``subtents'' (see Fig. \ref{fig:map_tent}) of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Kk}
K_k = \{ (x, t): \; x \in {\vpatch}, \;\varphi^{[k]} \le t \le \varphi^{[k+1]}\}
\end{equation}
where $ \varphi^{[k]} = \varphi(\hat t_k)$. Clearly $\varphi^{[0]}
= \varphi_b$ and $\varphi^{[r]} = \varphi_t$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=8]
\tikzstyle{redfill} = [fill=red!30,fill opacity=0.5]
\coordinate (o) at (0,0);
\coordinate (xshift) at (-0.05,0);
\coordinate (b1) at ($(0.15,0)+(xshift)$);
\coordinate (b2) at ($(0.6,0)+(xshift)$);
\coordinate (b3) at ($(1,0)+(xshift)$);
\coordinate (yshift) at (0,-0.05);
\coordinate (tl) at ($(b1)+(yshift)+(0,0.35)$);
\coordinate (tb) at ($(b2)+(yshift)+(0,0.1)$);
\coordinate (tt) at ($(b2)+(yshift)+(0,0.5)$);
\coordinate (tr) at ($(b3)+(yshift)+(0,0.25)$);
\draw (tb) -- (tl) -- (tt) -- (tr) -- cycle;
\node (phib) at ($0.8*(tb)+0.2*(tr)$)[right,yshift=-4pt] {$\varphi^{[0]}=\varphi_b$};
\node (phit) at ($0.8*(tt)+0.2*(tr)$)[right,yshift=4pt] {$\varphi^{[r]}=\varphi_t$};
\fill[redfill] ($0.75*(tb)+0.25*(tt)$) -- (tl) -- ($0.5*(tb)+0.5*(tt)$) -- (tr) -- cycle;
\coordinate (phi1) at ($0.75*(tb)+0.25*(tt)$);
\draw[dashed] (tl) -- (phi1) -- (tr);
\node (phik) at ($0.8*(phi1)+0.2*(tr)$)[yshift=5pt] {$\varphi^{[k]}$};
\coordinate (phi2) at ($0.5*(tb)+0.5*(tt)$);
\draw[dashed] (tl) -- (phi2) -- (tr);
\node (phik) at ($0.8*(phi2)+0.2*(tr)$)[yshift=7pt] {$\varphi^{[k+1]}$};
\coordinate (phi3) at ($0.25*(tb)+0.75*(tt)$);
\draw[dashed] (tl) -- (phi3) -- (tr);
\node at ($0.7*(tb)+0.3*(tt)$)[anchor=south east] {$K_k$};
\draw[densely dotted] (b1) -- (tl);
\draw[densely dotted] (b2) -- (tt);
\draw[densely dotted] (b3) -- (tr);
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=4pt,mirror}] (b1) -- (b3) node[midway,below,yshift=-3pt] {${\vpatch}$};
\draw[-latex] (o)--($(o)+(1.1,0)$) node[right] {$x$};
\draw[-latex] (o)--($(o)+(0,0.5)$) node[above] {$t$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Illustration of the subtent $K_k$ (shaded) defined
in~\eqref{eq:Kk}. It is the image under $\varPhi$ of the
tensor product domain $\hat K_k = {\vpatch} \times (\hat{t}_k,\hat{t}_{k+1})$. \label{fig:map_tent}}
\end{figure}
We then apply~\eqref{eq:rktype} to each of these
subtents. Accordingly, let $M_{0, [k]}$ be defined by~\eqref{eq:Mo}
after replacing $\varphi_b$ by $\varphi^{[k]}$. Keeping the
same definition of $A$ and $M_1$, let
$\tilde M_1^{[k]} = M_1 \circ M_{0, [k]}^{-1}$,
$\tilde A^{[k]} = A \circ M_{0, [k]}^{-1}$, and
$\tau^{[k]} = \hat t_{k+1} - \hat t_k$. Then the application
of~\eqref{eq:rktype} on each interval $[\hat t_k, \hat t_{k+1}]$
results in the following algorithm.
\begin{algorithm}\label{alg:SARKrs} \hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the input is $Y_0$, an approximation to $Y(0)$ at the tent
bottom, then set $Y^{[0]} = Y_0$. If the input is $U_0$, an
approximation to $U(0)$ at the tent bottom, then set
$Y^{[0]} = Y_0 = M_0(U_0)$.
\item For $k = 0, 1, \ldots, r-1$ do:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $i = 1, 2, \ldots, s$, compute
\[
Z_i^{[k]} = Y^{[k]} + \tau^{[k]} \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} d_{ij}\tilde M_1^{[k]}(Z_j^{[k]})
+ \tau^{[k]}
\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} a_{ij}\tilde A^{[k]}(Z_j^{[k]}).
\]
\item Compute
\[
Y^{[k+1]} = Y^{[k]} + \tau^{[k]} \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \tilde A^{[k]}(Z_i^{[k]}).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\item Set
\[
Y_1^{r, s} = Y^{[r]}.
\]
Output this as the approximation to $Y(1)$ at the tent top.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
We conclude this section by
defining the propagation operators of the above
algorithm, which we shall use later.
At step $k$, we define the (generally nonlinear)
partial propagation operator
$ T^{[k+1]} : V_h({\omega_V}) \to V_h({\omega_V})$,
using the intermediate quantities in the algorithm:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:propagation-op}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop_op_k}
T^{[k+1]} (Y^{[k]}) = Y^{[k+1]}.
\end{equation}
Let the total propagation operator on the tent
$T : V_h({\omega_V}) \to V_h({\omega_V})$ be defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop_op_tent}
T = T^{[r]} \circ \ldots \circ T^{[2]} \circ T^{[1]}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Clearly, the input and output of the algorithm are related to $T$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop_yrs}
Y_1^{r, s} = T(Y_0).
\end{equation}
\section{Investigation of discrete stability} \label{sec:discrete-stability}
This section is devoted to remarks on the stability of the new SARK
schemes. While it is common to study stability of ODE solvers by
applying them to a simple scalar ODE, keeping our application of
spatially varying hyperbolic solutions in mind, we consider changes in
an energy-like measure on the solution $U(\hat t)$. Recall that
$U(\hat{t})\in\mathbb{R}^m$ is the coefficient vector of the basis expansion
of the mapped finite element solution $\hat u(x,\hat{t})\in V_h({\vpatch})$,
as defined by~\eqref{eq:basis_exp}. We limit ourselves to the case where the
energy-like quantity
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mnorm}
\Mnorm{U(\hat{t} )}{\hat{t}}^2:= \int_{\vpatch} M(\hat t, U) \cdot \hat u =
\int_{\vpatch} \left(M_0 (U) - \hat{t} M_1(U)\right)\cdot \hat u
\end{align}
is a {\em norm} and (the generally nonlinear operators) $M, M_0$ and $M_1$
defined in (\ref{eq:Mt}), (\ref{eq:Mo}) and (\ref{eq:M1}),
respectively, are linear, so that we may rewrite
$M(\hat t, U) = M(\hat t) U$ using the linear operator
$M(\hat t):= M_0 - \hat t M_1 :
\mathbb{R}^m \to V_h({\omega_V})$.
For many standard linear hyperbolic
systems, the causality condition can be used to easily show that
$M(\hat t)$ is identifiable with a symmetric positive definite
matrix so that
\eqref{eq:mnorm} indeed defines a norm. In the special case of
$g(v) = v$, we note that on flat advancing fronts, where
$\varphi(x,\hat{t})$ is independent of $x$ for some fixed $\hat{t}$,
\eqref{eq:mnorm} reduces to
\begin{align*}
\Mnorm{U(\hat t)}{\hat{t}}^2=\int_{\vpatch} \hat u \cdot \hat u,
\end{align*}
so $\Mnorm{U(\hat t) }{\hat{t}}$ becomes the familiar spatial $L^2$ norm of $ \hat
u(\cdot, \hat t)$.
\subsection{Our procedure to study linear stability}
Stability of the scheme within a tent can be understood by studying
the discrete analogue of the ratio
$\Mnorm{U(1)}{1} / \Mnorm{U(0)}{0}$ for all possible initial data
$U(0)$. This amounts to studying the norm of the discrete propagation
operator for $U$, which we proceed to formulate. First, recall the
connection between $U$ and $Y$, namely
$Y(\hat t) = M(\hat t) U(\hat t)$. Algorithm~\ref{alg:SARKrs}, takes
as input an approximation $U_0$ to $U(0)$ at the tent bottom and
outputs $Y_1^{r, s}$, an approximation to $Y(1)$ at the tent
top. Hence the associated approximation to $U(1)$ is
\[
U^{r,s}_1 := M(1)^{-1} Y_1^{r, s}.
\]
Next, recall the discrete propagation operator defined
by~\eqref{eq:propagation-op}. It is now a linear operator that maps
$Y_0= M(0) U_0$ to $Y_1^{r, s}$ according to~\eqref{eq:prop_yrs}. Define the {\em
tent propagation matrix} $S : \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^m$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S}
S = M(1)^{-1} T M(0).
\end{equation}
Clearly, \eqref{eq:prop_yrs} implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop_urs}
U_1^{r,s} = S \,U_0.
\end{equation}
The discrete analogue of
$\Mnorm{U(1)}{1} / \Mnorm{U(0)}{0}$ is
$\Mnorm{U_1^{r, s}}{1} / \Mnorm{U_0}{0}$ which can be bounded using
the following norm of $S$:
\[
\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))} \,=
\sup_{0 \ne W \in \mathbb{R}^m}
\frac{ \| S W \|_{M(1)}} { \| W \|_{M(0)}}.
\]
It is immediate from~\eqref{eq:prop_urs} that
$\| U_1^{r,s}\|_{M(1)} \le \| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))} \|
U_0\|_{M(0)}$. Thus the study of stability of SARK schemes is reduced
to computing estimates for the norm of $S$.
We now describe how we computed the norm of $S$ for some examples
below. Writing
$\hat v (x, \hat{t} ) = \sum_{i=1}^m V_i(\hat{t}) \psi_i(x)$ and
$\hat w (x, \hat{t} ) = \sum_{i=1}^m W_i(\hat{t}) \psi_i(x)$, in analogy
with the basis expansion of $\hat u$ in~\eqref{eq:basis_exp}, let
$\mathbb{M}_{\hat t}$ be the $m\times m$ symmetric positive definite matrix
satisfying
$W^\top \mathbb{M}_{\hat t} V = \int_{\omega_V} M(\hat t) V \cdot \hat w$. Then
\begin{align*}
\| S \|^2_{L(M(0), M(1))}
& =
\sup_{0 \ne W \in \mathbb{R}^m}
\frac{ (S W)^\top \mathbb{M}_1 (SW)} { W^\top \mathbb{M}_0 W}
\\
& =
\sup_{0 \ne W \in \mathbb{R}^m}
\frac{ W^\top (S^\top \mathbb{M}_1 S) W} { W^\top \mathbb{M}_0 W}
\\
& =
\sup\{ |\lambda|: \;\exists 0 \ne X \in \mathbb{R}^m \text{ satisfying }
(S^\top \mathbb{M}_1 S) X = \lambda \mathbb{M}_0 X\}.
\end{align*}
Thus, to investigate the stability of a scheme, we computed $T^{[k]}$
from
the scheme's Butcher-like tableau,
then $T$ by~\eqref{eq:prop_op_tent}, followed
by $S$ per~\eqref{eq:S}, and
finally, the square root of the spectral radius of
$ \mathbb{M}_0^{-1} (S^\top \mathbb{M}_1 S)$, which equals $\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))}$
as shown above. We expand on the first of these steps in the next
few subsections by displaying $T^{[k]}$ for some SARK
schemes and end this section by reporting
our numerical estimates for $\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))}$ for an example.
\subsection{Propagation operator of two-stage SARK methods}
\label{ssec:propmat-sark2}
For an arbitrary two-stage SARK method the only non-zero coefficients
are $b_1, b_2, a_{21}, d_{21}$. For a given $Y^{[k]}=M_{0,[k]}U^{[k]}$
we obtain
\begin{align*}
Z_1^{[k]} & = Y^{[k]}, \\
Z_2^{[k]} & = Y^{[k]} + \tau^{[k]} d_{21}\tilde M_1^{[k]} Z_1^{[k]}
+ \tau^{[k]} a_{21}\tilde A^{[k]} Z_1^{[k]}\\
& = \left(I + \tau^{[k]} \left(d_{21}\tilde M_1^{[k]} + a_{21}\tilde A^{[k]}\right)\right) Y^{[k]},
\end{align*}
with the identity matrix $I\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$.
The propagation from $\hat{t}_k$ to $\hat{t}_{k+1}$ reads
\begin{align*}
Y^{[k+1]} & = Y^{[k]} + \tau^{[k]} \left(b_1 \tilde A^{[k]} Z_1^{[k]} + b_2 \tilde A^{[k]} Z_2^{[k]}\right)\\
& = \left(I + \tau^{[k]}(b_1+b_2) \tilde A^{[k]}
+ (\tau^{[k]})^2 \tilde A^{[k]}\left(b_2d_{21}\tilde M_1^{[k]}
+ b_2a_{21} \tilde A^{[k]}\right)\right) Y^{[k]} \\
& = \left(I + \tau^{[k]}\tilde A^{[k]}
+ \tfrac{1}{2}(\tau^{[k]})^2 \tilde A^{[k]}\left(\tilde M_1^{[k]} + \tilde A^{[k]} \right)\right) Y^{[k]},
\end{align*}
where we used the order conditions (\ref{eq:cond_1}) and
(\ref{eq:cond_2}) for second order methods. This results in the
propagation matrix
\begin{align*}
T^{[k]} &= I + \tau^{[k]}\tilde A^{[k]}
+ \tfrac{1}{2}(\tau^{[k]})^2 \tilde A^{[k]}\left(\tilde M_1^{[k]} + \tilde A^{[k]} \right),
\end{align*}
such that $Y^{[k+1]} = T^{[k]}Y^{[k]}$.
\subsection{Propagation operator of three-stage SARK methods}
\label{ssec:propmat-sark3}
A similar calculation for three-stage SARK methods, using the order
conditions (\ref{eq:cond_1})-(\ref{eq:cond_3}), leads to the
propagation matrix
\begin{align*}
T^{[k]} =I &+ \tau^{[k]}\tilde A^{[k]}
+ \tfrac{1}{2}(\tau^{[k]})^2 \tilde A^{[k]}\left(\tilde M_1^{[k]} + \tilde A^{[k]} \right)\\
& + \tfrac{1}{6}(\tau^{[k]})^3\tilde A^{[k]}\left(2\tilde M_1^{[k]} + \tilde A^{[k]} \right)
\left(\tilde M_1^{[k]} + \tilde A^{[k]} \right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Discrete stability measure for a model problem}
\label{sec:discr-stab-conv}
We report the practically observed values of the previously described
stability measure (namely the norm $\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))}$)
for some SARK schemes
applied to the two-dimensional
convection equation
\begin{align*}
\partial_t u(x,t) + {\mathrm{div}}_x \left(b\,u(x,t)\right) = 0,\quad\forall(x,t)\in\Omega_0\times(0,t_{\max}],
\end{align*}
with $\Omega_0=[0,1]^2,~t_{\max}=0.05$, the flux field $b=(1,1)^\top$
and periodic boundary conditions. The time slab
$\Omega = \Omega_0\times(0,t_{\max})$ is filled with tents. Within
each such tent $K_i$, let $C_i$ denote the norm
$\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))}$ computed with $S, M(0),$ and $M(1)$ specific
to that tent. We expect $C_i$ to be close to one for a stable method.
Let
\begin{align}
\label{eq:stab_cbar}
\bar C := \max_{i} \; \left\{ C_i - 1 \right\},
\end{align}
where the maximum is taken over all tents in the time slab.
To gain an understanding of practical stability,
we examine the values of $\bar C$ as a function of the number of SARK stages
($s$), polynomial degree ($p$), and more importantly,
the number of substeps per tent ($r$).
In all our numerical experiments, we observed that on each tent, for a
fixed $s$, the norm $\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))}$ tends to $1$ with
increasing number of substeps $r$, and moreover, we discovered a
dependence of the following form
\begin{align*}
\| S \|_{L(M(0), M(1))} = 1 + \mathcal{O}\left(r^{-s}\right)
\end{align*}
on each tent $K_i$. Therefore, we organize our report on numerical
stability observations into
plots of values of $\bar C$ as a function of $r$. We do so
for two SARK methods, one with $s=2$
and another with $s=3$. The results are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:conv2d_stab}.
After a prominent preasymptotic
region, we observe that $\bar C$,
as a function of $r$, exhibits the rate
$\mathcal{O}\left(r^{-s}\right)$ in all cases, except one.
\begin{figure}[h]
\captionsetup{width=.45\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\def\xlabeloffset{2};
\def\ylabeloffset{-0.5};
\node (a) at (0,0) {\ref{pgfplots:sark2_p2} $p=2$};
\node at ($(a)+(\xlabeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:sark2_p3} $p=3$};
\node at ($(a)+(2*\xlabeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:sark2_p4} $p=4$};
\node at ($(a)+(3*\xlabeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:sark2_p5} $p=5$};
\node at ($(a)+(4*\xlabeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:sark2_p6} $p=6$};
\node at ($(a)+(0,\ylabeloffset)$) {\ref{pgfplots:sark2_p7} $p=7$};
\node at ($(a)+(\xlabeloffset,\ylabeloffset)$) {\ref{pgfplots:Or} $\mathcal{O}(r^{-1})$};
\node at ($(a)+(2*\xlabeloffset,\ylabeloffset)$) {\ref{pgfplots:Or2} $\mathcal{O}(r^{-2})$};
\node at ($(a)+(3*\xlabeloffset,\ylabeloffset)$) {\ref{pgfplots:Or3} $\mathcal{O}(r^{-3})$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\pgfplotscreateplotcyclelist{sarkplotstyles}{%
{color=violet,mark=square},
{green!60!black,mark=o},
{red,mark=diamond},
{color=blue,mark=triangle},
{color=orange,mark=pentagon},
{color=teal,mark=x}}
\subfloat[Two-stage SARK method]
{
\label{fig:conv2d_stab_sark2}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
xlabel={\footnotesize substeps $r$},%
cycle list name = sarkplotstyles,%
]%
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p2_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark2_p2}
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p3_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark2_p3}
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p4_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark2_p4}
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p5_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark2_p5}
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p6_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark2_p6}
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p7_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark2_p7}
\addplot[densely dotted] table[restrict expr to domain={\coordindex}{2:18},x=r,y expr={0.05/x}] {table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:Or}
\addplot[densely dotted] table[restrict expr to domain={\coordindex}{2:18},x=r,y expr={0.05/x^2}] {table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:Or2}
\addplot[densely dotted] table[restrict expr to domain={\coordindex}{2:18},x=r,y expr={0.05/x^3}] {table_conv2d_stability_sark2_ws4_fine.txt};
\label{pgfplots:Or3}
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\subfloat[Three-stage SARK method]
{
\label{fig:conv2d_stab_sark3}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
xlabel={\footnotesize substeps $r$},%
ylabel={\footnotesize $\bar C$},%
ylabel style = {at={(1.38,0.5)} ,anchor=north west},%
cycle list name = sarkplotstyles,%
]%
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p2_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p3_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p4_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p5_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p6_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot table[x=r,y=lammax_p7_ws4]{table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot[densely dotted] table[restrict expr to domain={\coordindex}{2:18},x=r,y expr={0.01/x}] {table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot[densely dotted] table[restrict expr to domain={\coordindex}{2:18},x=r,y expr={0.01/x^2}] {table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\addplot[densely dotted] table[restrict expr to domain={\coordindex}{2:18},x=r,y expr={0.01/x^3}] {table_conv2d_stability_sark3_ws4_fine.txt};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Observed dependence of $\bar C$ on $r$ for $p=2,3,4,5,6,7$ and
$s=2, 3$.}
\label{fig:conv2d_stab}
\end{figure}
The exceptional case is the case $p=2$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:conv2d_stab_sark3}, where the stability measure
approaches the ideal value of $1$ much faster. We do not have an
explanation for this observation.
Note that all the plotted curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:conv2d_stab} shift
to the top and right as $p$ increases, i.e., the
number of substeps~$r$ required to keep the same stability measure
$\bar C$ increases with $p$. This behavior is akin to the
$p$-dependence of the CFL-conditions of standard time stepping schemes.
\section{Numerical results} \label{sec:numerical}
In this section, we collect our observations on
the performance of the new SARK
schemes, on the one-dimensional Burger's equation (in
\S\ref{ssec:conv-rates-burg}) and the two-dimensional Euler system
(in
\S\ref{ssec:convergence-rates-euler}--\S\ref{ssec:mach-3-forward}).
While \S\ref{ssec:convergence-rates-euler}
focuses on the
study of convergence rates for a smooth Euler solution,
\S\ref{ssec:mach-3-forward} presents the application of SARK scheme on
the computationally challenging problem of simulating a
Mach~3 wind tunnel with a forward-facing step.
\subsection{Convergence rates for Burger's equation}
\label{ssec:conv-rates-burg}
Let us begin by returning to the one-dimensional model problem of
Section~\ref{sec:prob} to show that the SARK methods do
{\em not} suffer from the previously described convergence order reduction.
For this discussion, the equation and error $e$ are as in
(\ref{eq:burgers1d_example}). We apply Algorithm \ref{alg:SARKrs} with
SARK schemes of $s=2$ and $s=3$ stages, collect values
of $e$ for various $h$ and plot them in
Fig.~\ref{fig:burgers1d_sark_rates}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\captionsetup{width=.45\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\def\labeloffset{2.2};
\node (a) at (0,0) {\ref{pgfplots:sark} SARK(s)};
\node at ($(a)+(\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:rk} RK(s)};
\node at ($(a)+(2*\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:Oh} $\mathcal{O}(h)$};
\node at ($(a)+(3*\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:Oh2} $\mathcal{O}(h^2)$};
\node at ($(a)+(4*\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:Oh3} $\mathcal{O}(h^3)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\subfloat[Convergence rates obtained from SARK(2, Ralston) method
(see Table \ref{tab:sark2_ralston}) and the standard Ralston method.]
{
\label{fig:burgers1d_sark2_rates}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
xlabel={\footnotesize mesh size $h$},%
xlabel style = {at={(0.5,0.03)} ,anchor=north},%
]%
\addplot[color=green!60!black,mark=square*] table[x=h,y=l2e_SARK2_ralston] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\label{pgfplots:sark}
\addplot[color=blue,mark=*] table[x=h,y=l2e_RK2_ralston] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\label{pgfplots:rk}
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y=h] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\label{pgfplots:Oh}
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y expr={x^2}] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\label{pgfplots:Oh2}
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y expr={x^3}] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\label{pgfplots:Oh3}
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\subfloat[Convergence rates obtained from SARK(3, Heun) method (see Table
\ref{tab:sark3_heun}) and the standard Heun scheme.]
{
\label{fig:burgers1d_sark3_rates}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
xlabel={\footnotesize mesh size $h$},%
xlabel style = {at={(0.5,0.03)} ,anchor=north},%
ylabel={\footnotesize $e$},%
ylabel style = {at={(1.38,0.5)} ,anchor=north},%
]%
\addplot[color=green!60!black,mark=square*] table[x=h,y=l2e_SARK3_heun] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\addplot[color=blue,mark=*] table[x=h,y=l2e_RK3_heun] {table_burgers1d_conv_rk.txt};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y=h] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y expr={x^2}] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=h,y expr={x^3}] {table_burgers1d_conv_sark.txt};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Plots of the error $e$ defined in
(\ref{eq:burgers1d_example}) for SARK and RK methods.}
\label{fig:burgers1d_sark_rates}
\end{figure}
The data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:burgers1d_sark_rates} was generated
with the polynomial order $p=2$ in space and $h=2^{-i} / 10$ for
$i=0\dots 12$. The
tents were built so
that~(\ref{eq:causality_constraint}) is satisfied with
$c_{\max}=8$.
Algorithm \ref{alg:SARKrs} is applied with
$r=4$ substeps within each tent. As $h$ decreases, in
Fig.~\ref{fig:burgers1d_sark2_rates}
we eventually see quadratic
convergence for the two-stage SARK method (although the convergence
rate seems to be slightly higher in a preasymptotic regime),
while the rate of the underlying
standard Runge-Kutta method drops to first order. The three-stage SARK method in
Fig.~\ref{fig:burgers1d_sark3_rates} shows cubic convergence while the
rate of the
underlying standard Runge-Kutta method drops to first order again.
These plots clearly show the benefit of using SARK scheme over
the corresponding standard Runge-Kutta scheme.
\subsection{Convergence rates for a 2D Euler system}
\label{ssec:convergence-rates-euler}
Now we apply SARK methods to the Euler
system. Similar to the Burger's example, which we discussed in the
previous section, we choose smooth initial data and fix a final time
before the onset of shock so that no limiting is
needed.
Recall that the Euler system fits into (\ref{eq:conslaw}) with
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:euler2d_example}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:euler_system}
u = \begin{pmatrix} \rho \\ m \\ E \end{pmatrix}, \quad g(u) = u, \quad
f(u) = \begin{pmatrix} m \\ m\otimes m/\rho + {\scriptstyle{P}} I \\ ( E + {\scriptstyle{P}}) m / \rho \end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Here
the functions $\rho:\Omega_0\to\mathbb{R}$,
$m:\Omega_0\to\mathbb{R}^2$ and $E:\Omega_0\to\mathbb{R}$ denote the density,
momentum, and total energy of a perfect gas in the spatial domain
$\Omega_0=[0,1]^2$. Furthermore, we use ${\scriptstyle{P}}=\tfrac{1}{2}\rho {\scriptstyle{T}}$
for the pressure,
${\scriptstyle{T}} = \tfrac{4}{d}\big(
\tfrac{E}{\rho}-\tfrac{1}{2}\tfrac{|m|^2}{\rho^2}\big)$ for the
temperature and $d=5$ denotes the degrees of freedom of the gas
particles. The initial values are set by
\begin{align}
\rho_0 &= 1+e^{-100((x-0.5)^2+(y-0.5)^2)}, \\
m_0 &= (0,0)^\top, \\
{\scriptstyle{P}}_0 &= 1+e^{-100((x-0.5)^2+(y-0.5)^2)},
\end{align}
and the final time $t_{\max}=0.1$.
The data shown in Fig. \ref{fig:euler2d_sark_rates} was generated
with polynomial degree $p=2$ in space and mesh sizes
$h=0.1\times 2^{-i}$, for $i=0\dots 6$. For the tent generation
$c_{\max}$ in (\ref{eq:causality_constraint}) was set to $8$ and the
number of substeps $r=4$. Since we do not have an exact solution in
closed form, we compare
the numerical solution
computed using $c_{\max}$ with a ``reference
solution'' computed with the higher
characteristic speed $2\cdot c_{\max}$. The latter requires many
more tents to reach the final time. Let the former and latter
approximations to $u(\cdot, t_{\max})$ be denoted by $u_h$ and
$u_h^{\text{ref}}$, respectively.
We define the error by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:euler2d_l2e}
e:=\left\| u_h - u_h^{\text{ref}}\right\|_{L^2(\varOmega_0)}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This is the quantity that is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:euler2d_sark_rates}.
\begin{figure
\captionsetup{width=.45\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\def\labeloffset{2.2};
\node (a) at (0,0) {\ref{pgfplots:euler2d_sark} SARK(s)};
\node at ($(a)+(\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:euler2d_rk} RK(s)};
\node at ($(a)+(2*\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:euler2d_Oh} $\mathcal{O}(h)$};
\node at ($(a)+(3*\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:euler2d_Oh2} $\mathcal{O}(h^2)$};
\node at ($(a)+(4*\labeloffset,0)$) {\ref{pgfplots:euler2d_Oh3} $\mathcal{O}(h^3)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\subfloat[Convergence rates obtained from SARK(2, Ralston) method
(see Table \ref{tab:sark2_ralston}) and the standard Ralston method.]
{
\label{fig:euler2d_sark2_rates}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
xlabel={\footnotesize dof},%
xlabel style = {at={(0.5,0.03)} ,anchor=north},%
]%
\addplot[color=green!60!black,mark=square*] table[x=ndofs,y=l2error] {table_euler2d_conv_sark2ralston.txt};
\label{pgfplots:euler2d_sark}
\addplot[color=blue,mark=*] table[x=ndofs, y=l2error] {table_euler2d_conv_rk2ralston.txt};
\label{pgfplots:euler2d_rk}
\addplot[dotted] table[x=ndofs,y expr={0.01/x^(1/2)}] {table_euler2d_conv_sark2ralston.txt};
\label{pgfplots:euler2d_Oh}
\addplot[dotted] table[x=ndofs,y expr={0.2/x}] {table_euler2d_conv_sark2ralston.txt};
\label{pgfplots:euler2d_Oh2}
\addplot[dotted] table[x=ndofs,y expr={3/x^(3/2)}] {table_euler2d_conv_sark2ralston.txt};
\label{pgfplots:euler2d_Oh3}
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\subfloat[Convergence rates obtained from SARK(3, Heun) method (see Table
\ref{tab:sark3_heun}) and the standard Heun scheme.]
{
\label{fig:euler2d_sark3_rates}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{mark options={mark size=1.5}}%
\begin{loglogaxis}[%
width=0.48\textwidth,%
tick label style={font=\footnotesize},%
yticklabel pos=right,
xlabel={\footnotesize dof},%
xlabel style = {at={(0.5,0.03)} ,anchor=north},%
ylabel={\footnotesize $e$},%
ylabel style = {at={(1.38,0.5)} ,anchor=north},%
]%
\addplot[color=green!60!black,mark=square*] table[x=ndofs,y=l2error] {table_euler2d_conv_sark3heun.txt};
\addplot[color=blue,mark=*] table[x=ndofs,y=l2error] {table_euler2d_conv_rk3heun.txt};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=ndofs,y expr={0.1/x^(1/2)}] {table_euler2d_conv_sark3heun.txt};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=ndofs,y expr={2.5/x}] {table_euler2d_conv_sark3heun.txt};
\addplot[dotted] table[x=ndofs,y expr={50/x^(3/2)}] {table_euler2d_conv_sark3heun.txt};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Error $e$ as defined in (\ref{eq:euler2d_l2e}) over spatial
degrees of freedom (dof) for SARK and standard RK methods applied
to the Euler equation on tents as described in
(\ref{eq:euler2d_example}).}
\label{fig:euler2d_sark_rates}
\end{figure}
The errors of the two-stage SARK method and the underlying RK method
is seen to diverge already for the first
refinement level
in Fig.~\ref{fig:euler2d_sark2_rates}.
While the SARK method shows the expected second
convergence order, the rate of the RK method drops to first order.
For the three-stage methods in Fig. \ref{fig:burgers1d_sark3_rates},
we see cubic convergence for both method for the first few refinements.
The convergence rate of the RK method eventually drops to first
order while the SARK converges at third order.
\subsection{Mach~3 wind tunnel}
\label{ssec:mach-3-forward}
We conclude with the well-known benchmark example \cite{WoodwColel84} of
the wind tunnel with a forward-facing step onto which gas flows at
Mach~3. The situation is modeled by the
already described Euler system (\ref{eq:euler_system}), but now
with the initial values
\begin{align}
\rho_0 = 1.4, \quad m_0 = \rho_0(3,0)^\top, \quad {\scriptstyle{P}}_0 = 1
\end{align}
on a spatial domain $\Omega_0$ with a re-entrant corner at the
edge of the forward-facing step --- the domain and the boundary
conditions are exactly as illustrated in numerous previous works, see
e.g., \cite[Fig.~4(a)]{mtp}.
Our numerical experience with this problem shows that it is
beneficial to use
high order local time stepping. As in our prior study~\cite{mtp}, we
use a spatially refined mesh near the re-entrant corner and let the
tents adapt, providing automatic local time stepping. In contrast
to the standard time stepping used in~\cite{mtp},
we now use one of the newly proposed SARK schemes.
We shall
apply the SARK(3, Heun) method. Unlike the study in
\S\ref{ssec:convergence-rates-euler}, now we must
handle multiple shocks that develop over time, so it is necessary to
add some
stabilization to the system. This is done by adding artificial
viscosity based on the entropy residual as suggested
by~\cite{GuermPasquPopov11}---details of this stabilization on tents
are exactly as already described in~\cite{mtp}, so we omit them here.
One of the components of the computed solution is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mach3wt}. This was generated with polynomial
order $p=4$ in space, maximal characteristic speed $c_{\max}=10$ and
$r=16$ substeps within each tent. The solution component (logarithmic
density) shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mach3wt_density} is comparable with the
solution we previously obtained using standard methods in~\cite{mtp},
but now due to the higher accuracy of the new
SARK time
integration, we obtained a similar quality solution faster
(with the overall simulation time on the same processor
reduced by a factor of 10).
We also observed that the entropy residuals calculated off the computed
solution with SARK schemes led to a significantly
reduced addition of artificial viscosity. The artificial viscosity coefficients
generated by the entropy residual are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:mach3wt_visc}, which is about half the size of what is shown in
the corresponding plot in our earlier work~\cite[Fig.~5]{mtp}.
\begin{figure
\centering
\pgfplotsset{
colormap={netgen32}{
rgb255=(0, 0, 255),
rgb255=(0, 32, 255),
rgb255=(0, 65, 255),
rgb255=(0, 98, 255),
rgb255=(0, 131, 255),
rgb255=(0, 164, 255),
rgb255=(0, 197, 255),
rgb255=(0, 230, 255),
rgb255=(0, 255, 246),
rgb255=(0, 255, 213),
rgb255=(0, 255, 180),
rgb255=(0, 255, 148),
rgb255=(0, 255, 115),
rgb255=(0, 255, 82),
rgb255=(0, 255, 49),
rgb255=(0, 255, 16),
rgb255=(16, 255, 0),
rgb255=(49, 255, 0),
rgb255=(82, 255, 0),
rgb255=(115, 255, 0),
rgb255=(148, 255, 0),
rgb255=(180, 255, 0),
rgb255=(213, 255, 0),
rgb255=(246, 255, 0),
rgb255=(255, 230, 0),
rgb255=(255, 197, 0),
rgb255=(255, 164, 0),
rgb255=(255, 131, 0),
rgb255=(255, 98, 0),
rgb255=(255, 65, 0),
rgb255=(255, 32, 0),
rgb255=(255, 0, 0),
},
colormap name = netgen32,
}
\subfloat[Logarithmic density]{
\label{fig:mach3wt_density}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (0,0.35) [anchor=south west]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.55\paperwidth, trim=50 235 50 235, clip=true]{pictures/mach3wt_p4_t4_rk3type_logrho.png}};
\node at (3,0) [anchor=south west]{%
\pgfplotscolorbardrawstandalone[
colormap access=piecewise const,
colorbar sampled,
colorbar horizontal,
point meta min=0,
point meta max=1.85,
colorbar style={
axis line style={draw=none},
width=0.25\paperwidth,
height=10pt,
xtick={0,0.45,0.9,1.35,1.8},
xticklabel style = {font=\scriptsize},
}]
};
\end{tikzpicture}
}\\
\subfloat[Entropy viscosity coefficient $\nu$]{
\label{fig:mach3wt_visc}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (0,0.35) [anchor=south west]{%
\includegraphics[width=0.55\paperwidth, trim=50 235 50 235, clip=true]{pictures/mach3wt_p4_t4_rk3type_nu.png}};
\node at (3,0) [anchor=south west]{%
\pgfplotscolorbardrawstandalone[
colormap access=piecewise const,
colorbar sampled,
colorbar horizontal,
point meta min=0,
point meta max=0.008,
colorbar style={
axis line style={draw=none},
width=0.25\paperwidth,
height=10pt,
xtick={0,0.002,0.004,0.006,0.008},
xticklabel style = {font=\scriptsize},
x tick scale label style={
at={(xticklabel cs:1.1,-1em)},
anchor=near xticklabel,
},
}]
};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Solution of the Mach 3 wind tunnel with a forward-facing step at the final
time $t_{\max}=4$ solved on 4128 triangles with SARK(3, Heun) and
spatial degree $p=4$. }
\label{fig:mach3wt}
\end{figure}
\bibliographystyle{spmpsci}
|
\section*{Methods}
\section{Orbital character of the important DFT bands}
\label{Sec:orbcharact}
Starting point of our analysis is the density functional theory (DFT) bandstructure which we have calculated by \textsc{wien2k} \cite{blaha2001wien2k,schwarz02}, \textsc{VASP}\cite{PhysRevB.48.13115}, and \textsc{FPLO}\cite{FPLO} using the PBE \cite{PhysRevLett.77.3865} version of the generalized gradient approximation (GGA). There are three relevant orbitals that cross the Fermi energy $E_F=0$ in DFT. We determine their orbital character in \textsc{FPLO}\cite{FPLO} version 18-00.55, using a $k$-mesh of $19\times19\times22$ points for the scalar relativistic calculations. For NdNiO$_3$, the Nd-$4f$ states were put into the core (``open core''), their occupation is fixed to three electrons. At high-symmetry points, some orbitals may belong to the same two-dimensional irreducible representation. As a result, the respective orbital characters can show a seeming discontinuity in the band structure plot.
The results are presented in Fig.~\ref{Fig:orbcharact} for both, LaNiO$_2$ and
NdNiO$_2$. The band in the first row is predominately of Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ character, with some oxygen character mixed in. This oxygen admixture is however much less than for the cuprates, where the oxygen orbitals are much closer, see Fig.~1 of the main paper.
This band is close to half-filling and can be described, as we show in our paper, by a one-band Hubbard model, if the doping is adjusted properly.
We casually refer to it as the ``Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$'' band in the main text.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Band weights for three bands that cross the Fermi energy $E_F=0$ for LaNiO$_2$ (left panels) and NdNiO$_2$ (right panels), as calculated by DFT. In each panel, the top part shows the selected band (thick blue curve) along a path in the Brillouin zone, while the bottom part depicts the orbital composition (band characters) of the respective band along the same path. Here and in the following, the Fermi level is at $E_F=0$.
\label{Fig:orbcharact}}
\end{figure}
The band in the second row forms a Fermi surface pocket around the $\Gamma$-pocket. It is mainly of Nd(La)-5$d_{3z^2-r^2}$ character, but with much more admixture from the other orbitals, in particular, the Ni-3$d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbital. In case of LaNiO$_2$ it is difficult to disentangle this band from the the La-4$f$ orbitals above 2\,eV, but this only concerns the less relevant upper band edge. In case of NdNiO$_2$, these Nd-4$f$ have been removed by treating them as part of the open core.
An important observation is that the $\Gamma$-pocket is only slightly below $E_F$ for
LaNiO$_2$ but extends noticeable below $E_F$ for NdNiO$_2$. This is however, possibly an artifact of the open core treatment. In a plain GGA calculation
with Nd-4$f$ states as valance states (not shown), the distance between the bottom of the Nd-5$d_{3z^2-r^2}$ pocket and $E_F$ is more similar to that in LaNiO$_2$. In a DFT+$U$ treatment this pocket is spin-split due to a ferromagnetic interaction with the Nd-4$f$ magnetic moment \cite{Choi2020}.
The $\Gamma$-pocket disappears, i.e., is shifted above $E_F$, when including the La-5$d$ interaction in DMFT for LaNiO$_2$\cite{Si2020}. Even if we treat the Nd-4$f$ as open core states, which stabilizes the $\Gamma$-pocket the most, the $\Gamma$ pocket disappears for Sr-doping above 10-15\% \footnote{When referring to doping, we have used the virtual crystal approximation.}.
Finally, there is the pocket around the
$A$-point in Fig.~\ref{Fig:orbcharact}, which extends much further below $E_F$ and hence remains present even up to a Sr-doping of 30\% in DMFT, see Fig.~\ref{Fig2} below.
Hence it is this $A$-pocket which serves as an electron reservoir, with the important consequence that the doping of the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital is different from the Sr-doping. This $A$-pocket can be associated in part of the Brillouin zone with the Nd-5$d_{xy}$ orbital. However it is quite intermixed with other orbitals and at its bottom (around the $A$-point) it crosses the Nd-3$d$ orbitals which makes it difficult to trace.
In the next Section, we will see that the hybridization with the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital is vanishing so that the $A$-pocket can be considered as an electron reservoir which otherwise does not affect the strongly correlated Ni-3$d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbital (or the one-band Hubbard model description).
The proper translations between the Sr-doping and that of the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital is given in Fig.~1 (right) of the main text and in Fig.~\ref{Fig:doping} below.
\section{Wannier function projections}
\label{Sec:WF}
Next, we present details of the Wannier function projection, which has been done using \textsc{wien2wannier} \cite{mostofi2008wannier90,kunevs2010wien2wannier} for the projection of the \textsc{wien2k} bandstructure onto
maximally localized Wannier functions \cite{PhysRev.52.191,RevModPhys.84.1419,Pizzi2020}.
Fig.~\ref{Fig4} provides for an overview, showing the DFT bandstructure together with the Wannier function projection on 10-bands (La/Nd-5$d$+Ni-3$d$; blue dots) and on the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ band only (red dots). The former projection is used for the subsequent dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) multi-orbital calculations. These calculations however show that a properly doped Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$-band (one-band Hubbard model) description is sufficient. Hence, we have also performed a projection onto this one-band only. We have further done Wannier projections onto 17 orbitals (Nd-4$f$+Nd-5$d$+Ni-3$d$) which is not included Fig.~\ref{Fig4}, as it starts from the plain GGA calculation which puts the Nd-4$f$ states just above $E_F$. For this GGA calculation, the Wannier projections onto 1- and 10-band have been done as well.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{FigureS4.pdf}
\caption{Bandstructure of LaNiO$_2$ (a) and NdNiO$_2$ (b). For NdNiO$_2$, we treat the Nd-4$f$ orbitals as open core states. Single-band (Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$, red dots) and 10-bands (La/Nd-5$d$+Ni-3$d$, blue dots) Wannier bands are superimposed on the DFT bandstructure (black lines). }
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure*}
In Table~\ref{table1}, we present the hopping parameters of the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital which forms the one-band Hubbard model, as obtained for LaNiO$_2$, NdNiO$_2$ as well as for LaPdO$_2$, treating the Nd-$4f$ either as valence bands in GGA or as open core in GGA. Here $t_{R_x,R_y,R_z}$ denotes the hopping by $R_i$ unit cells in the $i$ direction. That is, $t_{000}$ is the on-site potential, $t=-t_{100}$ the nearest neighbor hopping, $t'=-t_{110}$ and $t''=-t_{200}$ the next nearest neighbor hopping, and $t_z=-t_{001}$ the hopping in the $z$-direction perpendicular to the NiO$_2$ plane. The hopping parameters are surprisingly similar for LaNiO$_2$ and NdNiO$_2$ and the different Wannier projections, considering the fact that e.g.~the 4$f$ orbitals are at very different energies for the three DFT calculations in Table~\ref{table1}. LaPdO$_2$, on the other hand, with 4$d_{x^2-y^2}$ instead of 3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ has a much larger bandwidth.
In the main text, we give the values for the open core GGA 1-band Wannier projection for NdNiO$_2$.
\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\hline
LaNiO$_2$ (GGA) & $t_{000}$&$t_{100}$&$t_{001}$&$t_{110}$&$t_{200}$&$t_{210}$ \\
\hline
1-band (Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$) & 0.2689 & -0.3894 & -0.0362 & 0.0977 & -0.0465 & -0.0037 \\
10-bands (La-$d$+Ni-$d$) & 0.2955 & -0.3975 & -0.0458 & 0.0985 & -0.0491 & 0.0000 \\
17-bands (La-$f$+La-$d$+Ni-$d$) & 0.3514 & -0.3943 & -0.0239 & 0.0792 & -0.0422 & -0.0008 \\
\hline
\hline
NdNiO$_2$ (GGA) & $t_{000}$&$t_{100}$&$t_{001}$&$t_{110}$&$t_{200}$&$t_{210}$ \\
\hline
1-band (Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$) & 0.2502 & -0.3974 & -0.0287 & 0.0933 & -0.0474 & -0.0027 \\
10-bands (Nd-$d$+Ni-$d$) & 0.1998 & -0.4068 & -0.0763 & 0.1007 & -0.0428 & 0.0015 \\
17-bands (Nd-$f$+Nd-$d$+Ni-$d$) & 0.2982 & -0.4065 & -0.0289 & 0.0773 & -0.0429 & 0.0026 \\
\hline
\hline
NdNiO$_2$ (GGA open core) & $t_{000}$&$t_{100}$&$t_{001}$&$t_{110}$&$t_{200}$&$t_{210}$ \\
\hline
1-band (Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$) & 0.3058 & -0.3945 & -0.0336 & 0.0953 & -0.0471 & -0.0031 \\
10-bands (Nd-$d$+Ni-$d$) & 0.3168 & -0.3976 & -0.0389 & 0.0949 & -0.0480 & -0.0008 \\
\hline
\hline
LaPdO$_2$ (GGA) & $t_{000}$&$t_{100}$&$t_{001}$&$t_{110}$&$t_{200}$&$t_{210}$ \\
\hline
1-band (Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$) & 0.4094 & -0.5373 & -0.0448 & 0.0975 & -0.0708 & -0.0058\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Major hopping elements (in units of eV) of the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital from 1-band (Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$), 10-bands (La/Nd-$d$+Ni-$d$) and 17-bands (La/Nd-$f$+La/Nd-$d$+Ni-$d$) model projections. In the last two lines, we also show the hopping parameters for LaPdO$_2$. The
DFT-relaxed lattice parameters are: LaNiO$_2$ ($a=b=3.88\,$\AA{}, $c=3.35\,$\AA{}), NdNiO$_2$ ($a=b=3.86\,$\AA{}, $c=3.24\,$\AA{}), LaPdO$_2$ ($a=b=4.13\,$\AA{}, $c=3.27\,$\AA{}).
\label{table1}}
\vspace{.6em}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\hline
LaNiO$_2$ (GGA) & $f_{xz^2}$ & $f_{yz^2}$ & $f_{z^3}$ & $f_{x(x^2-3y^2)}$ & $f_{y(3x^2-y^2)}$ & $f_{z(x^2-y^2)}$ & $f_{xyz}$ \\
\hline
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ & -0.0300 & 0.0300 & 0.0000 & -0.0851 & -0.0851 & -0.0203 & -0.0000 \\
\hline
\hline
NdNiO$_2$ (GGA) & $f_{xz^2}$ & $f_{yz^2}$ & $f_{z^3}$ & $f_{x(x^2-3y^2)}$ & $f_{y(3x^2-y^2)}$ & $f_{z(x^2-y^2)}$ & $f_{xyz}$ \\
\hline
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ & -0.0215 & 0.0215 & 0.0000 & -0.0612 & -0.0612 & 0.0160 & -0.0000 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Hybridization (hopping amplitude in eV) between the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ and the Nd(La)-4$f$ orbitals, as obtained from Wannier projections onto 17-bands (La/Nd-4$f$+La/Nd-5$d$+Ni-3$d$) including the 4$f$ as valence states in DFT(GGA).
\label{table2}}
\vspace{.6em}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\hline
LaNiO$_2$ & La-$d_{xy}$ & La-$d_{yz}$ & La-$d_{xz}$ & La-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ & La-$d_{z^2}$ \\
\hline
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ (10-bands model, GGA) & 0.0000 & 0.0835 & -0.0835 & -0.0168 & 0.0000 \\
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ (17-bands model, GGA) & 0.0000 & 0.0846 & -0.0846 & -0.0372 & 0.0000 \\
\hline
\hline
NdNiO$_2$ & Nd-$d_{xy}$ & Nd-$d_{yz}$ & Nd-$d_{xz}$ & Nd-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ & Nd-$d_{z^2}$ \\
\hline
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ (10-bands model, GGA with open core) & 0.0000 & 0.0701 & -0.0701 & -0.0388 & 0.0000 \\
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ (10-bands model, GGA) & 0.0000 & 0.0775 & -0.0775 & -0.0066 & 0.0000 \\
Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ (17-bands model, GGA) & 0.0000 & 0.0811 & -0.0811 & -0.0239 & 0.0000 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Hybridization (hopping amplitude in eV) between the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ and the La/Nd-5$d$ orbitals. The results are obtained from Wannier projections onto 17-bands (La/Nd-4$f$+La/Nd-5$d$+Ni-3$d$) and 10-bands (La/Nd-5$d$+Ni-3$d$).
The Nd-4$f$ bands are treated as core states in ``GGA with opencore'' and as valence states in ``GGA''.
\label{table3}}
\end{table}
A further relevant result of the Wannier projection is the hybridization with the 4$f$ orbitals which is shown in Table~\ref{table2}. These hybridizations are rather small, maximally $V=60$\,meV for NdNiO$_2$. Such a hybridization is by far too small to give rise to a Kondo effect. Even if we take this maximal hybridization and a typical 4$f$-Coulomb interaction of $U=5\,eV$, the Kondo coupling is only $J=4V^2/U=3\,meV$. Which even, yields an exponential factor\cite{Hewson1993} of only $e^{-1/(N\rho_0*J)}\approx 10^{-54}$ for the Kondo temperature (taking a typical $\rho_0=0.2$\,eV$^{-1}$ from Fig. 2 of the main text and $N=2\times 7$ as a maximal upper bound). The prefactor is of the order of 1\,eV or smaller, so that we can conclude that there is no Kondo effect between the localized Nd-4$f$ moments and the Ni 3$d_{x^ 2-y^ 2}$ orbital.
Next we turn to the hybridization between the relevant Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ band and the La/Nd-5$d$ orbitals. The important observation is that the hybridization between the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ band and the Nd(La)-5$d_{xy}$ and the Nd(La)-5$d_{z^2}$ is zero.
These are the most important hybridizations since these two Nd(La) orbitals form the basis of the $A$- and $\Gamma$-pocket, respectively.
Hence we can, to a very good approximation, indeed consider these pockets to be independent of the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ band, except for that they may serve as an electron reservoir. Part of the holes, induced by e.g.~Sr-doping will go into the Ni-3$d_{x^2-y^2}$ band, and part into the $A$- and $\Gamma$-pocket. The latter is completely depopulated in the superconducting regime.
\section{Doping and mass enhancement of the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital in DMFT}
\label{Sec:dopingDMFT}
In Fig.~1 of the main text, the scales of the lower and upper $x$-axis already provide a translation between the Sr-doping (in the virtual crystal approximation) and the doping of the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital (or the one-band Hubbard model). In Fig.~\ref{Fig1} we additionally show the functional dependence explicitly, and also compare the NdNiO$_2$ with the LaNiO$_2$ compound. For both compounds we see that a similar amount of $\sim60\%$ of the holes go to the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital. For (very) small dopings a little bit less so in case for NdNiO$_2$ than for LaNiO$_2$ because we also have to depopulate the $\Gamma$-pocket, whereas this is already shifted above $E_F$ for LaNiO$_2$ if we include the La-5$d$ interaction in DMFT\cite{Si2020}. The mass enhancement gradually decreases with the doping of the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital, as close to half-filling electronic correlations are strongest. For the parent compound LaNiO$_2$ the mass enhancement is slightly larger than for NdNiO$_2$, which agrees with the observation that it is closer to half-filling.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{FigureS1.pdf}
\caption{ Occupation of the Ni-$d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital [blue; right $y$-axis], its effective mass enhancement m*/m [black ; left $y$-axis in panels (a,c)] and quasiparticle renormalization $Z$ [red ; left $y$-axis in panels (b,d)] vs.~Sr-doping
for LaNiO$_2$ (left) and NdNiO$_2$ (right).}
\label{Fig1}\label{Fig:doping}
\end{figure*}
\section{Additional DMFT spectra}
\label{Sec:DMFTspectra}
In the main text, we have already shown the $k$-dependent DMFT spectral function of Sr$_{0.2}$ Nd$_{0.8}$NiO$_2$ in Fig.~2. In
Fig.~\ref{Fig2} we supplement this with the spectral functions at 0 and 30\% Sr-doping. For those Sr-dopings we have already presented the $k$-integrated spectra in Fig.~2 of the main text. One sees that for the parent compound, NdNiO$_2$, there is a $\Gamma$ pocket whereas it is shifted above $E_F$ for Sr$_{0.3}$Nd$_{0.7}$NiO$_2$, as well as for Sr$_{0.2}$Nd$_{0.8}$NiO$_2$ in the main text.
For Nd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$NiO$_2$ the other Ni-3$d$ bands almost touch $E_F$ at the $A$-point. Hence around this doping a one-band Hubbard model description is not possible any longer, all Ni orbitals and the interaction among these needs to be taken into account.
With Fig.~\ref{Fig3}, we provide for exactly the same overview of the DMFT results as in Fig.~2 of the main text but now for LaNiO$_2$ instead of NdNiO$_2$. An important difference is that for LaNiO$_2$ the Ni-$d_{xy}$ is immediately below $E_F$ already at 20\% Sr-doping.
At 30\% Sr-doping it accommodates already many holes and crosses the Fermi energy. Hence, in case of Sr-doped LaNiO$_2$ the one-band Hubbard model description is only valid up to about Sr-20\% doping. Another difference is that the $\Gamma$ pocket, which was present in DFT, is shifted considerably higher up in energy in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}~(d,e). This agrees with the aforementioned obervation that it is absent already for the parent compound LaNiO$_2$.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{FigureS2.pdf}
\caption{DMFT $k$-revolved spectral function $A(k,\omega)$ of undoped NdNiO$_2$ (a-b) and 30\% Sr-doped NdNiO$_2$, i.e., Sr$_{0.3}$Nd$_{0.7}$NiO$_2$ (c-b). Panels (b,d) are zoom-ins of (a,c). White lines are the corresponding Wannier bands.}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{FigureS3.pdf}
\caption{DMFT $k$-integrated (a-c) and $k$-revolved (d-e) spectral functions $A(\omega)$ and $A(k,\omega)$ of undoped LaNiO$_2$ (a), 20\%Sr-doped LaNiO$_2$ (La$_{0.8}$Sr$_{0.2}$NiO$_2$) (b) and 30\%Sr-doped LaNiO$_2$ (La$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$NiO$_2$) (c).
The $k$-resolved spectral function $A(k,\omega)$ of La$_{0.8}$Sr$_{0.2}$NiO$_2$ is shown in (d); (e) is a zoom-in of (d). }
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure*}
\section{$U$-dependence of the D$\Gamma$A results}
\label{Sec:DGA}
In this section, we show the dependence of our D$\Gamma$A results within a reasonable range of $U$ values above the cRPA value\cite{Nomura2019,Hirofumi2019} of $U=2.6\,$eV$=6.7t$. Specifically, in addition to $U=8t$ (in the main text), we consider
$U=7t$ and $9t$. As already pointed out in the main manuscript, the adequate value should be a bit larger than the cRPA value if we disregard the frequency dependence of $U$. These $U=7t$ and $U=9t$ values are the smallest and largest $U$ value, respectively, which we consider still conceivable given the cRPA calculated value. As for the hopping parameters we have employed the rounded ratios $t'/t=-0.25$ and $t''/t=0.12$ in D$\Gamma$A.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:U7-9}, we show the momentum dependence of the $\mathbf{k}$-resolved spectrum and the superconducting eigenvalue ($\lambda_{\rm SC}$) vs. temperature $(T)$, which are the same plot as the Fig.~3 in the main text, but now at $U=7t$ and $U=9t$ instead of $U=8t$.
For $U=7t$, the self-energy damping effect becomes smaller and we can still see the Fermi surface (peak of the spectrum) around $\mathbf{k}=(0,\pi)$ even for low dopings. The superconducting eigenvalue $\lambda_{\rm SC}$ and hence the superconducting susceptibility is slightly increasing towards low doping: $n_{d_{x^2-y^2}}=0.90$. For $U=9t$, we see that the damping effect becomes stronger instead and there is a strong momentum dependence even for large doping ($n_{d_{x^2-y^2}}=0.80$). A consequence of this increased damping is that $\lambda_{\rm SC}$ becomes smaller than for $U=7$ and $U=8t$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{U7-9-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(a) Imaginary part of the Green function at the lowest Matsubara frequency $A(\mathbf{k},\omega_0 \equiv \pi/\beta) \equiv-\Im G(\mathbf{k},\omega_0)/\beta$ and (b) temperature dependence of the superconducting eigenvalue ($\lambda_{\rm SC}$) for $U=7t$. (c,d) Same figures but for $U=9t$.}
\label{fig:U7-9}
\end{figure}
We also show the phase diagram for these three $U$ values in Fig.~\ref{fig:suppl-phase}. As discussed in the main paper the phase diagrams are obtained from $\lambda_{\rm SC}\rightarrow 1$, which for higher $T_{\rm C}$'s is interpolated and for lower $T_{\rm C}$'s extrapolated with a fit function\cite{Sekine2013} of the form $a-b\ln(T)$. This fit function is plotted as a dashed line (also in Fig.~4 of the main text). As a matter of course the extrapolation over a large temperature interval, i.e. for n$_{d_{x^2-y^2}}=0.775$ in Fig.~4 of the main text and n$_{d_{x^2-y^2}}=0.875$ in ~\ref{fig:suppl-phase} (d), leads to a large uncertainty. We hence cannot say whether $T_{\rm C}$ is still finite for n$_{d_{x^2-y^2}}=0.775$ or whether we are already outside the superconducting regime at this doping.
The physical conclusions from Fig.~\ref{fig:suppl-phase} are: $T_{\rm C}$ goes down and the optimal doping level moves to the larger doping side as we go toward stronger interaction. At 20\% Sr-doping, all results indicate a bit higher $T_{\rm C}$ than the experimental $T_{\rm C}$.
The result for $U=9t$ would be very close to the experimental result, but we think that
the theoretical $T_{\rm C}$ has to be larger than the experimental one (for the reasons stated in the main manuscript). This also agrees with our expectation that $U=8t$ is probably the best estimate for a static interaction parameter.
Our results indicate that nickelates are in the strong-coupling, larger $U$ regime with a dome-shaped $T_{\rm C}$ vs.~$U$ phase diagram, similar as is considered to be the situation for the cuprates.
An important conclusion from Fig.~\ref{fig:suppl-phase} is that larger critical $T_{\rm C}$'s can be obtained by enhancing the bandwidth and reducing the ratio of Coulomb interaction to bandwidth. This can be achieved by strain or by replacing Nd(La)NiO$_2$ with Nd(La)PdO$_2$ which has $t=-t_{100}= 537\,$meV instead of $t=395\,$meV [see Table~\ref{table1}]. The cRPA $U$ value does not change that strongly\footnote{See Ref.~\onlinecite{Motoaki2019} which considers two Pd-compounds with 4d$^9$ configuration. These have a somewhat smaller and larger $U$ value than NdNiO$_2$. Note that the bandwidth of NdPdO$_2$ is even larger than for the compounds considered in Ref.~\onlinecite{Motoaki2019} .}, so that
we have $U/t\approx 6$ for Nd(La)PdO$_2$ instead of $U/t\approx 8$ for Nd(La)NiO$_2$.
\section{Comparison with experimental phase diagram}
\label{Sec:comp}
{\em Added:} Here, we plot on top of Fig.~1(b) of the main text also the recently determined experimental phase diagram of Sr$_x$Nd$_{1-x}$NdO$_2$ by Li {\em et al.}\cite{Li2020}. Since we calculate the onset of the second order phase transition to the superconducting phase, we compare to the experimental onset of the phase transition ($T_{{\rm c}, 90\%R}$ in Ref.\onlinecite{Li2020}) and the upper limit in Ref.~\onlinecite{li2019superconductivity}. As already mentioned in the last section, the extrapolation for $n_{d_{x^2-y^2}}= 0.775$ (22.5\% doping of the Hubbard model, $\approx 30\%$ Sr dopign) covers a too large temperature range to say for sure whether $T_{\rm C}=0$ or small but finite.
Please consider that our calculation is a prediction of a most difficult quantity to calculate, namely the superconducting $T_{\rm C}$ and its doping dependence, and that we discussed already before that theory should overestimate $T_{\rm C}$, while the exerimentally observed $T_{\rm C}$ is likely suppressed by extrinsic contributions such as disorder etc. One may of course most easily compensate this over- and underestimation by changing the $U$ value. Indeed, $U=9t$ of Fig.~\ref{fig:suppl-phase} would be in almost perfect agreement with the experimental phase diagram, it also was already in excellent with the previously only available data point (Ref.\onlinecite{li2019superconductivity}; ``Experiment'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}).
While $U=9t$ would be essentially on top of the experimental phase
diagram, we raised some factors that theory overestimates $T_{\rm C}$ on the
other hand, and we still think that the true $U$ is $8t$ or in-between $U=8t$ and $U=9t$, and that further improving the calculation and purifying the crystals will eventually converge experimental and theoretical phase diagrams.
We conclude that given this reasonable over- and underestimation we have a very good agreement of the absolute value of $T_C$ and its doping dependence.
\clearpage
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{suppl-phase.pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Superconducting $T_{\rm C}$ vs.~Sr-doping ($d_{x^2-y^2}$ filling on the upper $x$-axis) comparing $U= 7t, 8t$ and $9t$.}
\label{fig:suppl-phase}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{comparison.pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Comparison of the theoretical phase diagram at $U=8t$ with the experimental phase diagram of Ref.~\onlinecite{Li2020} (``arXiv: 2003.08506''); ``Experiment'' refers, as before, to Ref.~\onlinecite{li2019superconductivity}. While $U=9t$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:suppl-phase} would be in almost perfect agreement with experiment, we believe the $T_{\rm C}$ of the present D$\Gamma$A calculation should be slightly larger than the experimental one.}
\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure}
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author wants to thank Igor P.\ Ivanov, Celso C.\ Nishi, and Jo\~ao P.\ Silva for discussions and motivation,
as well as Kevin Ingles for comments on the manuscript.
This work has partly been supported by a postdoc fellowship of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
The author gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of Stuart Raby and the Ohio State University during
the manufacturing of this manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} ability to re-localize ourselves has revolutionized our daily lives.
GPS-enabled smart phones already facilitate car navigation without a co-driver sweating over giant fold-out maps, or they enable the search for a rare vegetarian restaurant in the urban jungle of Seoul.
On the other hand, the limits of GPS-based re-localization are clear to anyone getting lost in vast indoor spaces or in between sky scrapers.
When the satellite signals are blocked or delayed, GPS does not work or becomes inaccurate.
At the same time, upcoming technical marvels, like autonomous driving \cite{Geiger2012kitti} or impending updates of reality itself (i.e.\ augmented/extended/virtual reality \cite{mann2018all}), call for reliable, high precision estimates of camera position and orientation.
Visual camera re-localization systems offer a viable alternative to GPS by matching an image of the current environment, e.g.\ taken by a handheld device, with a database representation of said environment.
From a single image, state-of-the-art visual re-localization methods estimate the camera position to the centimeter, and the camera orientation up to a fraction of a degree, both indoors and outdoors.
Existing re-localization approaches rely on varying types of information to solve the task, effectively catering to different application scenarios.
Some use \mbox{RGB-D} images as input which facilitates highest precision suitable for augmented reality \cite{shotton13scorf,valentin2015cvpr,brachmann2016, schmidt2017ssvdl}.
However, they require capturing devices with active or passive stereo capabilities, where the former only works indoors, and the latter requires a large stereo baseline for reliable depth estimates outdoors.
Approaches based on feature-matching use an RGB image as input and also offer high precision \cite{sattler2016efficient}.
But they require a structure-from-motion (SfM) reconstruction \cite{Snavely2006bundler,visualsfm13,schoenberger2016sfm} of the environment for re-localization.
Such reconstructions might be cumbersome to obtain indoors due to texture-less surfaces and repeating structures obstructing reliable feature matching \cite{LSTMPoseNet}.
Finally, approaches based on image retrieval or pose regression require only a database of RGB images and ground truth poses for re-localization, but suffer from low precision comparable to GPS \cite{sattler2019limits}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/teaser.pdf}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\caption{\textbf{Top.} Our system accurately re-localizes within a known environment given a single image. We show estimated camera positions in {\color{violet}purple} and ground truth in {\color{cyan}cyan}. In this instance, the system was trained using RGB images and associated ground truth poses, only ({\color{gray}gray} trajectory), In particular, the scene geometry, displayed as a 3D model, was discovered by the system, automatically. \textbf{Bottom.} To visualize the re-localization quality, we render the learned 3D geometry using estimated poses over gray-scale input images.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{figure}
In this work, we describe a versatile, learning-based framework for visual camera re-localization that covers all aforementioned scenarios.
In the minimal case, it requires only a database of RGB images and ground truth poses of an environment for training, and re-localizes based on a single RGB image at test time with high precision.
In such a scenario the system automatically discovers the 3D geometry of the environment during training, see Fig.~\ref{fig:teaser} for an example.
If a 3D model of the scene exists, either as a SfM reconstruction or a 3D scan, we can utilize it to help the training process.
The framework exploits depth information at training or test time if an RGB-D sensor is available.
We base our approach on scene coordinate regression initially proposed by Shotton et al.\ \cite{shotton13scorf} for \mbox{RGB-D}-based camera re-localization.
A learnable function, a random forest in \cite{shotton13scorf}, regresses for each pixel of an input image the corresponding 3D coordinate in the environment's reference frame.
This induces a dense correspondence field between the image and the 3D scene that serves as basis for RANSAC-based pose optimization.
In our work, we replace the random forest of \cite{shotton13scorf} with a fully convolutional neural network \cite{fcn2015}, and derive differentiable approximations to all steps of pose optimization.
Most prominently, we derive a differentiable approximation of the RANSAC robust estimator, called \emph{differentiable sample consensus} (DSAC) \cite{brachmann2017dsac}.
Additionally, we describe an efficient differentiable approximation for calculating gradients of the perspective-n-point problem \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}.
These ingredients make our framework end-to-end trainable, ensuring that the neural network predicts scene coordinates that result in high precision camera poses.
This article is a summary and extension of our previous work on camera re-localization published in \cite{brachmann2017dsac} as DSAC, and its follow-up DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}.
In particular, we describe an improved version under the name \emph{DSAC*} with the following properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item We extent DSAC++ to optionally utilize \mbox{RGB-D} inputs.
The corresponding pose solver is naturally differentiable, and other components require only minor adjustments.
When using RGB-D, DSAC* achieves accuracy comparable to state-of-the-art accuracy on standard indoor re-localization datasets.
\item We propose a simplified training procedure which unifies the two separate initialization steps used in DSAC++.
As a result, the training time of DSAC* reduces from 6 days to 2.5 days on identical hardware.
\item The improved initialization also leads to better accuracy.
Particularly, when training without a 3D model, results improve significantly from 53.1\% (DSAC++) to 80.7\% (DSAC*) for indoor re-localization.
\item We utilize an improved network architecture for scene coordinate regression which we introduced in \cite{brachmann2019neural, brachmann19esac}.
The architecture, based on ResNet \cite{resnet2015}, reduces the memory footprint by 75\% compared to the network of DSAC++.
A forward pass of the new network takes 50ms instead of 150ms on identical hardware.
Together with better pose optimization parameters we decrease the total inference time from 200ms for DSAC++ to 75ms for DSAC*.
\item In new ablation studies, we investigate the impact of training data augmentation, the impact of the network's receptive field, as well as the impact of end-to-end training. We also analyze the scene compression properties of DSAC*.
Furthermore, we provide extensive visualizations of our pose estimates, and of the 3D geometry that the network encodes.
\item We migrate our implementation of DSAC++ from LUA/Torch to PyTorch \cite{paszke2017automatic} and make it publicly available: \url{https://github.com/vislearn/dsacstar}
\end{itemize}
This article is organized as follows: We give an overview of related work in Sec.~\ref{sec:related}.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:framework}, we formally introduce the task of camera re-localization and how we solve it via scene coordinate regression.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:score}, we discuss how to train the scene coordinate network using auxiliary losses defined on the scene coordinate output.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose}, we discuss how to train the whole system end-to-end, optimizing a loss on the estimated camera pose.
We present experiments for indoor and outdoor camera re-localization, including ablation studies in Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}.
We conclude this article in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
In the following, we discuss the main strains of research for solving visual camera re-localization.
We also discuss related work on differentiable robust estimators other than DSAC.
\subsection{Image Retrieval and Pose Regression}
Early examples of visual re-localization rely on efficient image retrieval \cite{schindler2007city}.
The environment is represented as a collection of data base images with known camera poses.
Given a query image, we search for the most similar data base image by matching global image descriptors, such as DenseVLAD\cite{torii2015viewsynth}, or its learned successor NetVLAD \cite{netvlad2016}.
The metric to compare global descriptors can be learned as well \cite{cao2013graph}.
The sampling density of data base images inherently limits the accuracy of retrieval-based system.
However, they scale to very large environments, and can serve as an efficient initialization for local pose refinement \cite{sattler2017largescale, taira2018inloc}.
Absolute pose regression methods \cite{kendall2015convolutional,LSTMPoseNet,geometricloss,naseer2017svspose,mapnet2018} aim at overcoming the precision limitation of image retrieval while preserving efficiency and scalability.
Interpreting the data base images as a training set, a neural network learns the relationship between image content and camera pose.
In theory, the network could learn to interpolate poses of training images, or even generalize to novel view points.
In practise, however, absolute pose regression fails to consistently outperform the accuracy of image retrieval methods \cite{sattler2019limits}.
Relative pose regression methods \cite{relocnet2018,saha2018anchornet} train a neural network to predict the relative transformation between the query image, and the most similar data base image found by image retrieval.
Initial relative pose regression methods suffered from similarly low accuracy as absolute pose regression \cite{sattler2019limits}.
However, recent work \cite{ding2019camnet} suggests that relative pose regression can achieve accuracy comparable to structure-based methods which we discuss next.
\subsection{Sparse Feature Matching}
The camera pose can be recovered by matching sparse, local features like SIFT \cite{Lowesift} between the query image and database images \cite{Zhang2006urban}.
For an efficient data base representation, SfM tools \cite{visualsfm13,schoenberger2016sfm} create a sparse 3D point cloud of an environment, where each 3D point has one or several feature descriptors attached to it.
Given a query image, feature matching established 2D-3D correspondences which can be utilized in RANSAC-based pose optimization to yield a very precise camera pose estimate \cite{sattler2016efficient}.
Work on feature-based re-localization has primarily focused on scaling to very large environments \cite{li2012worldwide,svarm2014accurate,sattler2015hyperpoints,sattler2016large,sattler2017largescale,svarm2017city} enabling city or even world scale re-localization.
Other authors worked on efficiency to run feature-based re-localization on mobile devices with low computational budget \cite{lim2012real}.
While sparse feature matching can achieve high re-localization accuracy, hand-crafted features fail in certain scenarios.
Feature detectors have difficulty finding stable points under motion blur \cite{kendall2015convolutional} and for texture-less areas \cite{shotton13scorf}.
Also, SfM reconstructions tend to fail in indoor environments dominated by ambiguous, repeating structures \cite{LSTMPoseNet}.
Learning-based sparse feature pipelines \cite{lift2016,detone18superpoint,Revaud2019r2d2,Dusmanu2019d2net} might ultimately be able to overcome these issues, but currently it is an open research question whether learned sparse features consistently exceed the capabilities of their hand-crafted predecessors \cite{schonberger2017comparative,bhowmik2019reinforced}.
State-of-the-art feature-based re-localization methods such as ActiveSearch \cite{sattler2016efficient} offer no direct possibility to incorporate depth sensors when available at test time, neither do current state-of-the-art SfM tools like COLMAP \cite{schoenberger2016sfm} support depth sensors when creating the scene reconstruction.
\subsection{Scene Coordinate Regression}
Instead of relying on a feature detector to identify salient image structures suitable for discrete matching,
scene coordinate regression \cite{shotton13scorf} predicts the corresponding 3D scene point for a given 2D pixel location, directly.
In these works, the environment is implicitly represented by a learnable function that can be evaluated for any image pixel to predict a dense correspondence field between image and scene.
The correspondences serve as input for RANSAC-based pose optimization, similar to sparse feature techniques.
Originally, scene coordinate regression was proposed for \mbox{RGB-D}-based re-localization in indoor environments \cite{shotton13scorf, guzman2014multi, valentin2015cvpr, meng18}.
The depth channel would serve as additional input to a scene coordinate regression forest, and be used in pose optimization by allowing to establish and resolve 3D-3D correspondences \cite{kabsch1976solution}.
Scene coordinate regression forests were later shown to also work well for RGB-based re-localization \cite{brachmann2016, meng17}.
Recent works on scene coordinate regression often replace the random forest regressor by a neural network while continuing to focus on RGB inputs \cite{rfvscnn2016, brachmann2017dsac, brachmann2018lessmore, li2018abrloss, brachmann19esac}.
In previous work, we have shown that the RANSAC-based pose optimization can be made differentiable to allow for end-to-end training of a scene coordinate regression pipeline \cite{brachmann2017dsac, brachmann2018lessmore}.
In particular, \cite{brachmann2017dsac} introduced a differentiable approximation of RANSAC \cite{ransac1981}, and \cite{brachmann2018lessmore} described an efficient analytical approximation of calculating gradients for perspective-n-point solvers.
Furthermore, the predecessor of the current work, DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}, introduced the possibility to train scene coordinate regression solely from RGB images and ground truth poses, without the need for image depth or a 3D model of the scene.
Li et al.\ \cite{li2018abrloss} improved on this initial effort by enforcing multi-view and photometric consistency throughout training.
In a follow-up work, Li et al.\ \cite{li2020hierarchical} introduce a joint classification-regression network architecture for predicting scene coordinate, and demonstrate the effectiveness of training data augmentation for large improvements on standard benchmarks.
In this work, we describe several improvements to DSAC++ that increase accuracy while reducing training and test time.
We demonstrate that the DSAC framework naturally exploits image depth if available, in an attempt to unify previously distinct strains of RGB- and RGB-D-based re-localization research.
In summary, our method is more precise and more flexible than previous scene coordinate regression- and sparse feature-based re-localization systems.
At the same time, it is as simple to deploy as absolute pose regression systems due to requiring only a set of RGB images with ground truth poses for training in the minimal setting.
Orthogonal to this work, we describe a scalable variant of DSAC-based re-localization in \cite{brachmann19esac}.
Yang et al.\ explore the possibility of allowing for scene-independent coordinate regression \cite{yang2019sanet}, and Cavallari et al.\ adapt scene coordinate regression forests and networks on-the-fly for deployment as a re-localizer in simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) \cite{cavallari2017fly, Cavallari2019cascade,Cavallari2019flynet}.
\subsection{Differentiable Robust Estimators}
To allow for end-to-end training of our re-localization pipeline, we have introduced a differentiable approximation to the RANSAC \cite{ransac1981} algorithm, called \emph{differentiable sample consensus} (DSAC).
DSAC relies on a formulation of RANSAC that reduces to a $\argmax$ operation over model parameters.
Instead of choosing model parameters with maximum consensus, we choose model parameters randomly with a probability \emph{proportional to consensus}.
This allows us to optimize the expected task loss for end-to-end training.
A DSAC variant using a soft $\argmax$ \cite{Chapelle2010} does not work as well since it ignores potential multi-modality in the distribution of model parameters.
Recently, Lee et al.\ proposed a kernel soft $\argmax$ as an alternative that is robust to multiple modes in the arguments \cite{lee2019sfnet}.
However, their approximation effectively suppresses gradients of all but the main mode, while the DSAC estimator utilizes gradients of all modes.
Alternatively to making RANSAC differentiable, some authors propose to replace RANSAC by a neural network \cite{goodcorr18,Zhang2019orderaware,deepfund18,rocco2018connet,probst2019unsmax}.
In these works, the neural network acts as a classifier for model inliers, effectively acting as a robust estimator for model parameters.
However, \emph{NG-RANSAC} \cite{brachmann2019neural} demonstrates that the \emph{combination} of an inlier-scoring network and RANSAC achieves even higher accuracy.
In \cite{brachmann2019neural}, we also discuss a combination of NG-RANSAC and DSAC for camera re-localization which leads to higher accuracy in outdoor re-localization by learning to focus on informative image areas.
\section{Framework}
\label{sec:framework}
In this section, we introduce the task of camera re-localization, and the principle of scene coordinate regression \cite{shotton13scorf}.
We explain how to estimate the camera pose from scene coordinates using RANSAC \cite{ransac1981} when the input is a single RGB or \mbox{RGB-D} image, respectively.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/scene_coordinates.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\textbf{Scene Coordinates \cite{shotton13scorf}. Top.} Every surface point in a 3D environment has a unique 3D coordinate in the local coordinate frame. We visualize 3D scene coordinates by mapping XYZ to the RGB cube. \textbf{Bottom.} A 3D scene model together with ground truth camera poses allows us to render ground truth scene coordinates for images, e.g.\ to serve as training targets. We can also create training targets from depth maps instead of a 3D model, or from ground truth poses alone by optimizing the re-projection error over multiple frames.}
\label{fig:method:scenecoordinates}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/system_new.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{System Overview.} The system consists of two stages: Scene coordinate regression using a CNN (\textbf{top}) and differentiable pose estimation (\textbf{bottom}). The network is fully convolutional and produces a dense but sub-sampled output. Pose estimation employs a minimal solver (PnP\cite{gao2003complete} for RGB images or Kabsch\cite{kabsch1976solution} for \mbox{RGB-D} images) within a RANSAC\cite{ransac1981} robust estimator. The final camera pose estimate is also refined. To allow for end-to-end training, all components need to be differentiable. While the Kabsch solver is inherently differentiable, we describe differentiable approximations for PnP and RANSAC.}
\label{fig:method:system}
\end{figure*}
Given an image $I$, which can be either RGB or \mbox{RGB-D}, we aim at estimating camera pose parameters $\mathbf{h}$ w.r.t.\ the reference coordinate frame of a known scene, a task called re-localization.
We propose a learnable system to solve the task, which is trained for a specific scene to re-localize within that scene.
The camera pose has 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) corresponding to the 3D camera position $\mathbf{t}$ and its 3D orientation $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
In particular, we define the camera pose as the transformation that maps 3D points in the camera coordinate space, denoted as $\mathbf{e}$ to 3D points in scene coordinate space, denoted as $\mathbf{y}$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scenecoordinates}
\mathbf{y}_i = \mathbf{h} \mathbf{e}_i,
\end{equation}
where $i$ denotes the pixel index in image $I$.
For notational simplicity, we assume a 4x4 matrix representation of the camera pose $\mathbf{h}$ and homogeneous coordinates for all points where convenient.
We denote the complete set of scene coordinates for a given image as $\mathcal{Y}$, i.e.\ $\mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}$.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:method:scenecoordinates} for an explanation and visualization of scene coordinates.
Originally proposed by Shotton et al.\ \cite{shotton13scorf}, scene coordinates $\mathcal{Y}$ induce a dense correspondence field between camera coordinate space and scene coordinate space which we can use to solve for the camera pose.
To estimate $\mathcal{Y}$ for a given image, we utilize a neural network $f$ with learnable parameters $\mathbf{w}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Y} = f(I; \mathbf{w}).
\end{equation}
Due to potential errors in the neural network prediction, we utilize a robust estimator, namely RANSAC \cite{ransac1981}, to recover $\mathbf{h}$ from $\mathcal{Y}$.
Our RANSAC-based pose optimization consists of the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample a set of camera pose hypotheses.
\item Score each hypothesis and choose the best one.
\item Refine the winning hypothesis.
\end{enumerate}
We show an overview of our system in Fig.~\ref{fig:method:system}.
In the following, we describe the three aforementioned steps for the general case, while we elaborate on concrete manifestations for RGB and \mbox{RGB-D} input images in Sec.~\ref{sec:framework:rgb} and Sec.~\ref{sec:framework:rgbd}, respectively.
\noindent \textbf{1) Sample Hypotheses.}
Image $I$ and scene coordinate prediction $\mathcal{Y}$ define a dense correspondence field $\set{C}$ over all image pixels $i$.
We will specify the concrete nature of correspondences in sub-sections below because it differs for RGB and \mbox{RGB-D} inputs.
As first step of robust pose optimization we randomly choose $M$ subsets of correspondences, $\set{C}_j \subseteq \set{C}$, with $0 \leq j < M$.
Each correspondence subset $\set{C}_j$ corresponds to a camera pose hypothesis $\mathbf{h}_j$, which we recover using a pose solver $g$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}_j = g(\set{C}_j).
\end{equation}
The concrete manifestation of $g(\cdot)$ differs for RGB and \mbox{RGB-D} inputs.
Note that the RANSAC algorithm \cite{ransac1981} includes a way to adaptively choose the number of hypotheses $M$ according to an online estimate of the outlier ratio in $\set{C}$, i.e.\ the amount of erroneous correspondences.
In this work, and our previous work \cite{brachmann2016, brachmann2017dsac, brachmann2018lessmore, brachmann19esac, brachmann2019neural}, we choose a fixed $M$ and train the system to adapt to this particular setting.
Thereby, $M$ becomes a hyper-parameter that controls the allowance of the neural network $f$ to make inaccurate predictions.
\noindent \textbf{2) Choose Best Hypothesis.}
Following RANSAC, we choose the hypothesis $\mathbf{h}_j$ with maximum consensus among all scene coordinates $\mathcal{Y}$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framework:ransac}
\tilde{\mathbf{h}} = \argmax_{\mathbf{h}_j} s(\mathbf{h}_j, \mathcal{Y}).
\end{equation}
We measure consensus by a scoring function $s(\cdot)$ that is, by default, implemented as inlier counting:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hardinliers}
s(\mathbf{h}, \mathcal{Y}) = \sum_{\mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}} \mathds{1}[r(\mathbf{y}_i, \mathbf{h}) < \tau].
\end{equation}
Function $r(\cdot)$ measures the residual between pose parameters $\mathbf{h}$, and a scene coordinate $\mathbf{y}_i$, $\mathds{1}[\cdot]$ evaluates to one if the residual is smaller than an inlier threshold $\tau$.
\noindent \textbf{3) Refine Best Hypothesis.}
We refine the chosen hypothesis $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}$, which was created from a small subset of correspondences, using all scene coordinates:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:framework:refine}
\est{\mathbf{h}} = \mathbf{R}(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}, \mathcal{Y}).
\end{equation}
We implement refinement as re-solving for the pose parameters using the complete inlier set $\set{I}$ of hypothesis $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{R}(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}, \mathcal{Y}) = g(\set{C}_\set{I}) \text{ with } \set{I} = \{i|r(\mathbf{y}_i, \tilde{\mathbf{h}}) < \tau \}
\end{equation}
In practise, we iterate refinement and re-calculation of the inlier set $\set{I}$ until convergence.
We refer to the refined, chosen hypothesis as our final camera pose estimate $\est{\mathbf{h}}$.
Next, we discuss particular choices for pose optimization components in case the input image is RGB or \mbox{RGB-D} .
\subsection{Case RGB}
\label{sec:framework:rgb}
In case the input is an RGB image without a depth channel, correspondences $\set{C}$ manifest as 2D-3D correspondences between the image and 3D scene space:
\begin{equation}
\set{C}^\text{RGB} = \{(\mathbf{p}_i, \mathbf{y}_i) | \mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}\},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{p}_i$ denotes the 2D image coordinate associated with pixel $i$.
Image coordinates and scene coordinates are related by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{p}_i = K\mathbf{h}^{-1}\mathbf{y}_i
\end{equation}
where $K$ denotes the camera calibration matrix, or internal calibration parameters of the camera.
Using this relation, perspective-n-point (PnP) solvers $g(\cdot) $\cite{gao2003complete, mutliview2004} recover the camera pose from at least four 2D-3D correspondences: $|\set{C}_j^\text{RGB}| \ge 4$.
In practise, we use $|\set{C}_j^\text{RGB}| = 4$ with the solver of Gao et al.\ \cite{gao2003complete} when sampling pose hypotheses $\mathbf{h}_j$, and non-linear optimization of the re-projection error with Levenberg-Marquardt \cite{Levenberg44lm, Marquardt63lm} when refining the chosen hypothesis $\mathbf{R}(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}, \mathcal{Y})$ with $|\set{C}_\set{I}| > 4$.
We utilize the implementation available in OpenCV \cite{opencv_library} for all PnP solvers.
As residual function $r(\cdot)$ for determining the score $s(\cdot)$ of a pose hypothesis $\mathbf{h}_j$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:hardinliers}, we calculate the re-projection error:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:residual:rgb}
r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \mathbf{h}) = ||\mathbf{p}_i - K\mathbf{h}^{-1}\mathbf{y}_i||.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Case RGB-D}
\label{sec:framework:rgbd}
In case the input is an \mbox{RGB-D} image, the known depth map allows us to recover the 3D coordinate corresponding to each pixel $i$ in the coordinate frame of the camera, denoted as $\mathbf{e}_i$.
Together with the scene coordinate prediction $\mathcal{Y}$, we have dense 3D-3D correspondences $\set{C}$ between camera space and scene space, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\set{C}^\text{RGB-D} = \{(\mathbf{e}_i, \mathbf{y}_i) | \mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}\}.
\end{equation}
To recover the camera pose from 3D-3D correspondences we utilize the Kabsch algorithm \cite{kabsch1976solution}, sometimes also called orthogonal Procrustes, as pose solver $g(\cdot)$.
For sampling pose hypotheses $\mathbf{h}_j$, we use $|\set{C}_j^\text{RGB-D}| = 3$, when refining the chosen hypothesis $\mathbf{R}(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}, \mathcal{Y})$ we use $|\set{C}_\set{I}| > 3$.
As residual function $r(\cdot)$ for determining the score $s(\cdot)$ of an hypothesis $\mathbf{h}_j$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:hardinliers}, we calculate the 3D Euclidean distance:
\begin{equation}
r^\text{RGB-D}(\mathbf{y}_i, \mathbf{h}) = ||\mathbf{e}_i - \mathbf{h}^{-1}\mathbf{y}_i||.
\end{equation}
\section{Deep Scene Coordinate Regression}
\label{sec:score}
In this section, we discuss the neural network architecture for scene coordinate regression, and how to train it using auxiliary losses defined on the scene coordinate output.
These auxiliary losses serve as an initialization step prior to training the whole pipeline in an end-to-end fashion, see Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose}.
The initialization is necessary, since end-to-end training from scratch will converge to a local minimum without giving reasonable pose estimates.
We implement scene coordinate regression $f(\cdot)$ using a fully convolutional neural network \cite{fcn2015} with skip connections \cite{resnet2015} and learnable parameters $\mathbf{w}$.
We depict the network architecture in Fig.~\ref{fig:method:system}, top.
The network takes a single channel grayscale image as input, and produces a dense scene coordinate prediction sub-sampled by the factor 8.
Sub-sampling, implemented with stride 2 convolutions, increases the receptive field associated with each pixel output while also enhancing efficiency.
The total receptive field of each output scene coordinate is 81px.
In experiments on various datasets, we found no advantage in providing the full RGB image as input, in contrast, conversion to grayscale slightly increases the robustness to non-linear lighting effects.
\noindent{\textbf{Relation to our Previous Work.}}
In our first DSAC-based re-localization pipeline \cite{brachmann2017dsac} and in DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}, we utilized a VGGNet-style architecture \cite{Simonyan2014vgg}.
It had a larger memory footprint and slower runtime while offering similar accuracy.
The receptive field was comparable with 79px.
In the experiments of Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}, we conduct an empirical comparison of both architectures.
We utilized our updated architecture already in our work on ESAC \cite{brachmann19esac} and NG-RANSAC \cite{brachmann2019neural}.
\begin{table}[]
\caption{\textbf{Information Available at Training and Test Time.} ``D'' stands for depth channel, ``poses'' stands for ground truth camera poses. The 3D model of the scene may be a sparse point cloud, e.g.\ from a SfM reconstruction \cite{schoenberger2016sfm, visualsfm13}, or a dense 3D scan \cite{izadi2011kinectfusion, newcombe2011kinectfusion, dai2017bundlefusion}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l||cccc||cc}
& \multicolumn{4}{c||}{Training} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Test} \\ \hline
Setting & RGB & D & poses & 3D model & RGB & D \\ \hline
RGB-D & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
RGB + 3D model & \checkmark & & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \\
RGB & \checkmark & & \checkmark & & \checkmark &
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:settings}
\end{table}
In the following, we discuss different strategies on initializing the scene coordinate neural network, depending on what information is available for training.
In particular, we discuss training from \mbox{RGB-D} images for \mbox{RGB-D}-based re-localization, training from RGB images and a 3D model of the scene for RGB-based re-localization as well as training from RGB images only for RGB-based re-localization.
See Table \ref{tab:settings} for a schematic overview.
Other combinations are of course possible, e.g.\ training from RGB images only, but having \mbox{RGB-D} images at test time.
However, we but restrict our discussion and experiments to the most common settings found in the literature \cite{shotton13scorf, brachmann2016, brachmann2018lessmore}.
\subsection{\mbox{RGB-D} }
\label{sec:score:rgbd}
For \mbox{RGB-D}-based pose estimation, we initialize our neural network by minimizing the Euclidean distance between predicted scene coordinates $\mathbf{y}_i$ and ground truth scene coordinates $\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:rgbd}
\ell^\text{RGB-D}(\mathbf{y}_i,\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i) = ||\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i - \mathbf{y}_i||
\end{equation}
We obtain ground truth scene coordinates $\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i$ by re-projecting depth channels of training images to obtain 3D points $\mathbf{e}_i$ in the camera coordinate frame, and transforming them using the ground truth pose $\gt{\mathbf{h}}$, i.e.\ $\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i = \gt{\mathbf{h}}\mathbf{e}_i$.
We train the network using the average loss over all pixels of a training image:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:avgloss:rgbd}
\mathcal{L}^\text{RGB-D}(\mathcal{Y}, \gt{\mathcal{Y}}) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{Y}|} \sum_{\mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}} \ell^\text{RGB-D}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{y}}_i).
\end{equation}
We motivate optimizing the Euclidean distance for \mbox{RGB-D}-based re-localization by the fact that the corresponding Kabsch pose solver optimizes the pose over squared Euclidean residuals between camera coordinates and scene coordinates.
We found the plain, instead of the squared, Euclidean distance in Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbd} superior in \cite{brachmann2017dsac} due to its robustness to outliers.
\subsection{RGB + 3D Model}
\label{sec:score:rgbm}
In case the camera pose is to be estimated from an RGB image, the optimization of scene coordinates w.r.t.\ a 3D Euclidean distance is not optimal.
The PnP solver, which we utilize for pose sampling and pose refinement, optimizes the camera pose w.r.t.\ the re-projection error of scene coordinates.
Hence, for RGB-based pose estimation, we initialize the scene coordinate regression network by minimizing the re-projection error of its predictions, i.e.\ $r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}})$ where $r^\text{RGB}(\cdot)$ denotes the residual function defined for RGB in Eq.~\ref{eq:residual:rgb}, and $\gt{\mathbf{h}}$ denotes the ground truth camera pose.
Unfortunately, optimizing this objective from scratch fails since the re-projection error is ambiguous w.r.t.\ the viewing direction of the camera.
However, if we assume a 3D model of the environment to be available, we may render ground truth scene coordinates $\gt{\mathcal{Y}}$, optimize the \mbox{RGB-D} objective of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbd} first, and switch to the re-projection error after a few training iterations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:rgbm}
\ell^\text{RGB+M}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{y}}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}})=
\begin{cases}
\est{r}^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) & \text{if } \mathbf{y}_i \in \set{V}^\text{RGB+M}\\
||\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i - \mathbf{y}_i|| & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We define a set of valid scene coordinate predictions as $\set{V}^\text{RGB+M}$ for which we optimize the re-projection error.
If a scene coordinate does not qualify as valid yet, we optimize the Euclidean distance, instead.
A prediction $\mathbf{y}_i$ is valid, $\mathbf{y}_i \in \set{V}^\text{RGB+M}$ iff:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $({\gt{\mathbf{h}}}^{-1}\mathbf{y}_i)_z > 0.1\text{m}$, i.e.\ it lies at least 0.1m in front of the ground truth image plane.
\item It has a maximum re-projection error of $r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) < 1000\text{px}$.
\item It is within a maximum 3D distance w.r.t.\ to the rendered ground truth coordinate of $||\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i - \mathbf{y}_i|| < 0.1\text{m}$.
\end{enumerate}
The training objective is flexible w.r.t.\ to missing ground truth scene coordinates for certain pixels, i.e.\ if $\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i = \mathbf{0}$.
In this case, we only enforce constraint 1) and 2) for $\set{V}^\text{RGB+M}$.
This allows us to utilize dense 3D models of the scene, sparse SfM reconstructions as well as depth channels with missing measurements to generate $\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i$.
The training objective utilizes a robust version $\est{r}^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}})$ of the RGB residual function of Eq.~\ref{eq:residual:rgb}, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:sqrtrgb}
\est{r}^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{h}) = \begin{cases}
r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{h}) &\text{if }r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{h}) < 100\text{px}\\
\sqrt{100 r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{h})} &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
This formulation implements a soft clamping by using the square root of the re-projection residual after a threshold of 100px.
To train the scene coordinate network, we optimize the average of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbm} over all pixels of a training image, similar to Eq.~\ref{eq:avgloss:rgbd}.
\noindent{\textbf{Relation to our Previous Work.}}
We introduced a combined training objective based on, firstly, minimizing the 3D distance to ground truth scene coordinates, and, secondly, minimizing the re-projection error in DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}.
However, DSAC++ uses separate initalization stages for the two objectives, 3D distance and re-projection error, which is computationally wasteful.
The network might concentrate on modelling fine details of the geometry in the first initialization stage which is potentially undone in the second initialization stage.
Also, pixels without a ground truth scene coordinate would receive no training signal in the first initalization stage of DSAC++.
The new, combined training objective of DSAC* in Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbm} switches dynamically from optimizing the 3D distance to optimizing the re-projection error on a per-pixel basis.
By using one combined initialization stage instead of two, we shorten the pre-training time of DSAC* from 4 days to 2 days compared to DSAC++ on identical hardware.
\subsection{RGB}
The previous RGB-based training objective of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbm} relies on the availability of a 3D model of the scene.
When a dense 3D scan of an environment is unavailable, SfM tools like VisualSfM \cite{visualsfm13} or COLMAP \cite{schoenberger2016sfm} offer workable solutions to create a (sparse) 3D model from a collection of RGB images, e.g.\ from the training set of a scene.
However, for some environments, particularly indoors, a SfM reconstruction might fail due to texture-less areas or repeating structures.
Also, despite SfM tools having matured significantly over many years since the introduction of Bundler \cite{Snavely2006bundler} they still represent expert tools with their own set of hyper-parameters to be tuned.
Therefore, it might be attractive to train a camera re-localization system from RGB images and ground truth poses alone, without resorting to an SfM tool for pre-processing.
Therefore, we introduce a variation on the RGB-based training objective of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbm} that substitutes ground truth scene coordinates $\gt{\mathbf{y}}_i$ with a heuristic scene coordinate target $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_i$ combined with a robust $L_1$ distance:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:rgb}
\ell^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \bar{\mathbf{y}}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}})=
\begin{cases}
\est{r}^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) & \text{if } \mathbf{y}_i \in \set{V}^\text{RGB}\\
|\bar{\mathbf{y}}_i - \mathbf{y}_i| & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We obtain heuristic targets $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_i = \gt{\mathbf{h}}\bar{\mathbf{e}}_i$ from the ground truth camera pose $\gt{\mathbf{h}}$ and hallucinated 3D camera coordinates $\bar{\mathbf{e}}_i$ re-projected by assuming a constant image depth of 10m.
The above formulation relies on switching from the heuristic target to the re-projection error as soon as possible.
Therefore, we formulate the following relaxed validity constraints for scene coordinate predictions $\mathbf{y}_i$ to form the set $\set{V}^\text{RGB}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $({\gt{\mathbf{h}}}^{-1}\mathbf{y}_i)_z > 0.1\text{m}$, i.e.\ it lies at least 0.1m in front of the ground truth image plane.
\item $({\gt{\mathbf{h}}}^{-1}\mathbf{y}_i)_z < 1000\text{m}$, i.e.\ it lies at most 1000m in front of the ground truth image plane.
\item It has a maximum re-projection error of $r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) < 1000\text{px}$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent{\textbf{Relation to our Previous Work.}}
DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore} used two separate initialization stages for minimizing the distance to heuristic targets $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_i$, and optimization of the re-projection error, respectively.
The first initialization stage was particularly cumbersome since the heuristic targets $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_i$ are inconsistent w.r.t.\ the true 3D geometry of the scene.
The neural network can easily overfit to $\bar{\mathbf{y}}_i$ which we circumvent in DSAC++ by early stopping and by using only a fraction of the full training data for the first initialization stage.
The new, combined formulation of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgb} is more robust by only loosely enforcing the heuristic until the formulation adaptively switches to the re-projection error.
Also, as mentioned in the previous section, the new formulation is more efficient by combining two initialization stages into one, thus reducing training time.
\section{Differentiable Pose Optimization}
\label{sec:diffpose}
Our overall goal is training the complete pose estimation pipeline in an end-to-end fashion.
That is, we wish to optimize the learnable parameters $\mathbf{w}$ of scene coordinate prediction in a way that we obtain highly accuracy pose estimates $\est{\mathbf{h}}$ as per Eq.~\ref{eq:framework:refine} and Eq.~\ref{eq:framework:ransac}.
Due to the robust nature of our pose optimization, particularly due to deploying RANSAC to estimate model parameters, the relation of the quality of scene coordinates $\mathcal{Y}$ and the estimated pose $\est{\mathbf{h}}$ is non-trivial.
For example, some predictions $\mathbf{y}_i$ will be removed by RANSAC as outliers, hence they have no influence on $\est{\mathbf{h}}$.
We may neglect such outlier scene coordinates entirely in training without any deterioration in accuracy.
To the contrary, it might be beneficial to \emph{decrease} the accuracy of outlier scene coordinates further to make sure that RANSAC classifies them as outliers.
However, we have no prior knowledge which exact predictions for an image should be inliers or outliers of the estimated model.
In this work, we address this problem by making pose optimization itself differentiable, to include it in the training process.
By training in an end-to-end fashion, the scene coordinate network may adjust its predictions in any way that results in accurate pose estimates.
More formally, we define the following loss function on estimated poses:
\begin{equation}
\ell^\text{Pose}(\est{\mathbf{h}}, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) = ||\est{\mathbf{t}}-\gt{\mathbf{t}}|| + \gamma \measuredangle(\est{\boldsymbol{\theta}}, \gt{\boldsymbol{\theta}}),
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{h} = (\boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{t})$ consisting of translation parameters $\mathbf{t}$ and rotation parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
We denote the ground truth pose parameters as $\gt{\mathbf{t}}$ and $\gt{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$ respectively.
The weighting factor $\gamma$ controls the trade-off between translation and rotation accuracy.
We use $\gamma=100$ in our work, comparing rotation in degree to translation in cm.
Similar to Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:sqrtrgb}, robustify the pose loss by soft clamping.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:pose}
\est{\ell}^\text{Pose}(\est{\mathbf{h}}, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) = \begin{cases}
\ell^\text{Pose}(\est{\mathbf{h}}, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) &\text{if }\ell^\text{Pose}(\est{\mathbf{h}}, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) < 100\\
\sqrt{100 \ell^\text{Pose}(\est{\mathbf{h}}, \gt{\mathbf{h}})} &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The estimated camera pose $\est{\mathbf{h}}$ depends on network parameters $\mathbf{w}$ via the network prediction $\mathcal{Y}$ through robust pose optimization.
In order to optimize the pose loss of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:pose}, each component involved in pose optimization needs to be differentiable.
In the remainder of this section, we discuss the differentiability of each component and derive approximate gradients where necessary.
We discuss the differentiability of the Kabsch \cite{kabsch1976solution} pose solver for \mbox{RGB-D} images in Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose:kabsch}.
We give an analytical approximation for gradients of PnP solvers for RGB-based pose estimation in Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose:pnp}.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose:refine}, we explain how to approximate gradients of iterative pose refinement.
We discuss differentiable pose scoring via soft inlier counting in Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose:score}.
Finally, we present a differentiable version of RANSAC, called \emph{differentiable sample consensus} (DSAC) in Sec.~\ref{sec:diffpose:dsac} which also defines our overall training objective.
\subsection{Differentiating Kabsch}
\label{sec:diffpose:kabsch}
We utilize the Kabsch pose solver when estimating poses from \mbox{RGB-D} inputs.
In this setting, we have 3D-3D correspondences $\set{C}^\text{RGB-D}(\mathcal{Y})$ given between the 3D coordinates in camera space, defined by the given depth map, and 3D coordinates in scene space $\mathcal{Y}$ predicted by our neural network.
In the following, we assume that we apply the Kabsch solver $g^\text{Kabsch}(\cdot)$ over a subset of correspondences $\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})$ either when sampling pose hypothesis from three correspondences, or refining the final pose estimate over an inlier set found by RANSAC:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y}) = g^\text{Kabsch}(\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})) \text{ with } \set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}) \subseteq \set{C}^\text{RGB-D}(\mathcal{Y})
\end{equation}
Here, and in the following, we make the dependence of a model hypothesis to the scene coordinate prediction explicit, i.e.\ we write $\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y})$.
The Kabsch solver returns the pose that minimizes the squared residuals over all correspondences:
\begin{equation}
g^\text{Kabsch}(\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})) = \argmin_{\mathbf{h}'} \sum_{(\mathbf{e}_i, \mathbf{y}_i) \in \set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})} r^\text{RGB-D}(\mathbf{y}_i, \mathbf{h}')^2.
\end{equation}
The optimization can be solved in closed form by the following steps \cite{kabsch1976solution}.
Firstly, we calculate the covariance matrix $\text{cov}[\cdot]$ over the correspondence set:
\begin{equation}
\text{cov}[\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})] = \sum_{(\mathbf{e}_i, \mathbf{y}_i) \in \set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})} (\mathbf{e}_i-\bar{\mathbf{e}})(\mathbf{y}_i-\bar{\mathbf{y}})^T,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\mathbf{e}}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ denote the mean over all 3D coordinates in the correspondence set in camera space and scene space, respectively.
Secondly, we apply a singular value decomposition (SVD) to the covariance matrix:
\begin{equation}
\text{cov}[\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})] = U \Sigma V^T.
\end{equation}
We re-assemble the optimal rotation $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, and, subsequently, recover the optimal translation $\mathbf{t}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{\theta} = V \left[ {\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \text{det}(VU^T)\\
\end{array} } \right] U^T\\
&\mathbf{t} = \bar{\mathbf{y}} - \boldsymbol{\theta}(\bar{\mathbf{e}})\\
&\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y}) = (\boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{t}).
\end{aligned}
\end{eqnarray}
All operations involved in the calculation of $g^\text{Kabsch}(\cdot)$ are differentiable, particularly the gradients of SVD can be calculated according to \cite{Papadopoulo2000diffsvd}, with current deep learning frameworks like PyTorch \cite{paszke2017automatic} offering corresponding implementations.
The differentiability of the Kabsch algorithm has e.g.\ also been utilized in \cite{avetisyan2019ninedof}.
\subsection{Differentiable PnP}
\label{sec:diffpose:pnp}
Similar to the Kabsch solver of the previous section, the PnP solver $g^\text{PnP}(\cdot)$ calculates a pose estimate over a subset $\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})$ of all correspondences $\set{C}^\text{RGB}(\mathcal{Y})$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y}) = g^\text{PnP}(\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})) \text{ with } \set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}) \subseteq \set{C}^\text{RGB}(\mathcal{Y}).
\end{equation}
We utilize a PnP solver when estimating camera poses from RGB images, where 2D-3D correspondences are given between 2D image positions $\mathbf{p}_i$ and 3D scene coordinate $\mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}$.
A PnP solver optimizes pose parameters to minimize squared re-projection errors:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffpose:pnpobj}
g^\text{PnP}(\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})) = \argmin_{\mathbf{h}'} ||\mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h}')||^2.
\end{equation}
We construct a residual vector $\mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\cdot)$ over all pixels associated with the current correspondence subset:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffpose:pnpres}
\mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h})_i =
\begin{cases}
r^\text{RGB}(\mathbf{y}_i, \mathbf{h}) & \text{if } (\mathbf{p}_i, \mathbf{y}_i) \in \set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})\\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $r^\text{RGB}(\cdot)$ denotes a pixels re-projection error, cf.~Eq.~\ref{eq:residual:rgb}.
In contrast to the Kabsch optimization objective, we cannot solve the PnP objective of Eq.~\ref{eq:diffpose:pnpobj} in closed form.
Different PnP solvers have been proposed in the past with different algorithmic structures, e.g.\ \cite{gao2003complete, lepetit2009epnp} or the Levenberg-Marquardt-based optimization in OpenCV \cite{Levenberg44lm, Marquardt63lm,opencv_library}.
Instead of trying to propose a differentiable variant of the aforementioned PnP algorithms, we calculate an analytical approximation of PnP gradients derived from the objective function in Eq.~\ref{eq:diffpose:pnpobj} \cite{Foerstner2016Photogrammetric}.
We have introduced this way of differentiating PnP in the context of neural network training in DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}.
Given a proper initialization, e.g.\ by \cite{gao2003complete, lepetit2009epnp}, we can optimize Eq.~\ref{eq:diffpose:pnpobj} iteratively using the Gauss-Newton method.
Since we are interested only in the gradients of the optimal pose parameters found at the end of optimization, we ignore the influence of initialization itself, avoiding to calculate gradients of complex minimal solvers like \cite{gao2003complete, lepetit2009epnp}.
We give the Gauss-Newton update step to model parameters as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}^{t+1} = \mathbf{h}^t - J_\mathbf{r}^+ \mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h}^t),
\end{equation}
where $J_\mathbf{r}^+ = (J^T_\mathbf{r}J_\mathbf{r})^{-1}J^T_\mathbf{r}$ is the pseudoinverse of the Jacobean matrix $J_\mathbf{r}$ of the residual vector $\mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h})$ defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:diffpose:pnpres}.
In particular, the Jacobean matrix $J_\mathbf{r}$ is comprised of the following partial derivatives:
\begin{equation}
(J_\mathbf{r})_{ij} = \frac{\partial\mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h}^t)_i}{\partial\mathbf{h}^t_j}.
\end{equation}
As mentioned before, the initial pose $\mathbf{h}^{t=0}$ may be provided by an arbitrary, non-differentiable PnP algorithm \cite{gao2003complete, lepetit2009epnp}.
We define the pose estimate of the PnP solver as the pose parameters after convergence of the associated optimization problem.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y}) = g^\text{PnP}(\set{C}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y})) = \mathbf{h}^{t = \infty}
\end{equation}
Thus, we may calculate approximate gradients of model parameters $\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y})$ w.r.t.\ scene coordinates $\mathcal{Y}$ by fixing the last optimization iteration around the final model parameters:
\begin{equation}
\derv{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathbf{h}(\mathcal{Y})} \approx - J_\mathbf{r}^+ \derv{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathbf{r}_\set{I}(\mathcal{Y}, \mathbf{h}^{t = \infty}}).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Differentiable Refinement}
\label{sec:diffpose:refine}
We refine given camera pose parameters $\mathbf{h}$, denoted as $\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{h}, \mathcal{Y})$, by iteratively re-solving for the pose using the set of all inliers $\set{I}$, and updating the set of inliers with the new pose estimate:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}^{t+1} &= g(\set{C}_{\set{I}^t})\\
\set{I}^{t+1} &= \{i | r(\mathbf{y}_i,\mathbf{h}^{t+1}) < \tau \}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We repeat refinement until convergence, e.g.\ when the inlier set $\set{I}$ ceases to change, i.e.\ $\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{h}, \mathcal{Y}) = g(\set{C}_{\set{I}^{t=\infty}})$ where $\set{I}^{t=\infty}$ corresponds to the final inlier set.
Similar to differentiating PnP in the previous section, we approximate gradients of iterative refinement by fixing the last refinement iteration.
\begin{equation}
\derv{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{h}, \mathcal{Y})} = \derv{\mathcal{Y}}{g(\set{C}_{\set{I}^{t=\infty}})},
\end{equation}
where function $g(\cdot)$ denotes either the Kabsch solver or the PnP solver for \mbox{RGB-D} and RGB inputs, respectively.
We discussed have the calculation of gradients for $g(\cdot)$ already in the previous sections.
\subsection{Differentiable Inlier Count}
\label{sec:diffpose:score}
We obtain a differentiable approximation of inlier counting of Eq.~\ref{eq:hardinliers} by substituting the hard comparison of a pixel's residual to an inlier threshold $\tau$ with a Sigmoid function $\sigma[\cdot]$:
\begin{equation}
s(\mathbf{h}, \mathcal{Y}) = \sum_{\mathbf{y}_i \in \mathcal{Y}}\sigma[\beta\tau - \beta r(\mathbf{y}_i, \mathbf{h})].
\end{equation}
For hyper-parameter $\beta$, which controls the softness of the Sigmoid function, we use the following heuristic in dependence of the inlier threshold $\tau$: $\beta = \frac{5}{\tau}$.
\noindent{\textbf{Relation to our Previous Work.}}
In the original DSAC pipeline \cite{brachmann2017dsac} we utilize a designated scoring CNN as a differentiable alternative to traditional inlier counting.
However, our follow-up work on DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore} revealed that a scoring CNN is prone to overfitting, and does in general not exceed the accuracy of the simpler soft inlier count.
\subsection{Differentiable RANSAC}
\label{sec:diffpose:dsac}
We can subsume the RANSAC algorithm \cite{ransac1981} in the following three steps, as also discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:framework}:
Firstly, generate model hypotheses by random sub-sampling of correspondences.
Secondly, choosing the best hypothesis according to a scoring function.
Lastly, refine the winning hypotheses using its inliers.
We discussed the differentiability of most components involved in the previous sub-sections, e.g.\ calculating gradients of pose solvers used for hypothesis sampling and refinement, and differentiating the inlier count for hypothesis scoring.
However, choosing the best hypothesis according to Eq.~\ref{eq:framework:ransac} involves a non-differentiable $\argmax$ operation.
In \cite{brachmann2017dsac}, we introduce a differentiable approximation of hypothesis selection in RANSAC, called \emph{differentiable sample consensus} (DSAC).
In \cite{brachmann2017dsac}, we also argue, and show empirically, that a simple soft $\argmax$ approximation, a weighted average of arguments, does not work well.
A soft $\argmax$ can be unstable when arguments have multi-modal structure, i.e.\ very different arguments have high weights in the average.
A standard average might also be overly sensitive to outlier arguments.
The DSAC approximation relies on a probabilistic selection of a model hypothesis according to a probability distribution $ p(j|\mathcal{Y})$ over the discrete set of sampled hypotheses with index $j$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathbf{h}}(\mathcal{Y}) &= \mathbf{h}_j(\mathcal{Y})~\text{with}~j\sim p(j|\mathcal{Y})\\
\est{\mathbf{h}}(\mathcal{Y}) &= \mathbf{R}(\tilde{\mathbf{h}}(\mathcal{Y}), \mathcal{Y}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\mathbf{h}}(\mathcal{Y})$ denotes the selected hypothesis, and $\est{\mathbf{h}}(\mathcal{Y})$ denotes the final, refined estimate of our pipeline.
The distribution guiding hypothesis selection is a softmax distribution over scores, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diffpose:distribution}
p(j|\mathcal{Y}) = \frac{\exp [\alpha s(\mathbf{h}_j(\mathcal{Y}), \mathcal{Y})]}{\sum_{k=1}^M \exp [\alpha s(\mathbf{h}_k(\mathcal{Y}), \mathcal{Y})] }.
\end{equation}
The hyper-parameter $\alpha$ corresponds to a temperature that controls the softness of the distribution.
The larger $\alpha$, the more DSAC will behave like RANSAC in always selecting the hypothesis with maximum score, while providing less signal for learning.
In DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}, we present a schema do adjust $\alpha$ automatically during learning.
In this work, we treat $\alpha$ as a hand-tuned and fixed hyper-parameter, as we found the camera re-localization problem not overly sensitive to the exact value of $\alpha$, and fixing it simplifies the software architecture of our pipeline.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/graph.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{DSAC Computation Graph \cite{compgraph2015}.} Nodes without frames represent inputs to the system, nodes with square frames represent deterministic operations, nodes with circular frames represent sampling operations. Arrows denote an input relation.}
\label{fig:method:graph}
\end{figure}
To learn the pipeline, we optimize the expectation of the pose loss $\est{\ell}^\text{Pose}$ of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:pose} w.r.t.\ randomly selecting hypotheses:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:exp}
\mathcal{L}^\text{Pose}(\mathcal{Y}, \gt{\mathbf{h}}) = \expectation{j\sim p(j|\mathcal{Y})}{\est{\ell}^\text{Pose}(\mathbf{R}(\cdot), \gt{\mathbf{h}})},
\end{equation}
where we abbreviate the final, refined camera pose $\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{h}_j(\mathcal{Y}), \mathcal{Y})$ as $\mathbf{R}(\cdot)$.
To minimize the expectation, the neural network should learn to predict scene coordinates $\mathcal{Y}$ that ensure the following two properties:
Firstly, hypotheses with a large loss after refinement should receive a low selection probability, i.e.\ a low soft inlier count.
Secondly, hypotheses with a high soft inlier count should receive a small loss after refinement.
We present a schematic overview of all components involved in our DSAC-based pipeline in Fig.~\ref{fig:method:graph}.
The figure summarises dependencies between processing steps, and differentiates between deterministic functions and sampling operations.
The graph structure illustrates the non-trivial relation between the scene coordinate prediction and pose quality, since scene coordinates directly influence pose hypotheses, scoring and refinement.
The DSAC training objective of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:exp} is smooth and differentiable, and its gradients can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:loss:grad}
\derv{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathcal{L}^\text{Pose}(\cdot)} = \expectation{j}{\est{\ell}^\text{Pose}(\cdot)\derv{\mathcal{Y}}{\log p(j|\mathcal{Y})} + \derv{\mathcal{Y}}{\est{\ell}^\text{Pose}(\cdot)}},
\end{equation}
where we use $\cdot$ as a stand-in for the respective function arguments in Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:exp}, and abbreviate the expectation over $p(j|\mathcal{Y})$ as $\expectation{j}{\cdot}$.
We use Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:grad} to learn our system in an end-to-end fashion, updating neural network parameters $\mathbf{w}$ of scene coordinate prediction $\mathcal{Y} = f(I,\mathbf{w})$.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
We evaluate our camera re-localization pipeline for two indoor datasets and one outdoor dataset.
Firstly, in Sec.~\ref{sec:exp:setup} we discuss our experimental setup, including datasets, training schedule, hyper-parameters and competitors.
Secondly, we report results on 3 different datasets in Sections \ref{sec:exp:7scenes}, \ref{sec:exp:12scenes} and \ref{sec:exp:cambridge}, respectively.
Thirdly, we provide several ablation studies in Sections \ref{sec:exp:network}, \ref{sec:exp:aug}, \ref{sec:exp:rf} and \ref{sec:exp:end2end}, as well as visualizations of scene representations learned by our system in Sec.~\ref{sec:exp:geometry}.
Furthermore, we analyze the scene compression properties of DSAC* in Sec.~\ref{sec:exp:compression}.
\subsection{Setup}
\label{sec:exp:setup}
\noindent{\textbf{Task Variants.}}
We deploy our system in several flavours, catering to different application scenarios where depth measurements or 3D scans of a scene might be available or not.
Specifically, we analyze the following settings:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{RGB-D:} We have \mbox{RGB-D} images for training as well as at test time.
For initialization training, we render ground truth scene coordinates using 3D scans of each scene.
For end-to-end training and at test time, we generate camera coordinates $\mathbf{e}$ from the \mbox{RGB-D} depth channels.
We use a Kabsch \cite{kabsch1976solution} pose solver for sampling hypotheses and for refining the final estimate.
\item \textbf{RGB + 3D model:} We have RGB images for training as well as at test time. We can render ground truth scene coordinates for training using a 3D model of the scene. The 3D model can either be a sparse SfM point cloud, or a dense 3D scan. We use the PnP solver of Gao et al.\ \cite{gao2003complete} to sample camera pose hypotheses, and the Levenberg-Marquardt \cite{Levenberg44lm, Marquardt63lm} PnP optimizer of OpenCV \cite{opencv_library} for final refinement.
\item \textbf{RGB:} Same as the previous setting, but we have no information about the 3D geometry of a scene, only RGB images and ground truth poses for training. To initialize scene coordinate regression, we optimize the heuristic objective of Eq.~\ref{eq:loss:rgbd}.
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\textbf{Hyper-Parameters.}}
We convert input images to grayscale and re-scale them to 480px height.
For training, we follow Li et al.\ \cite{li2020hierarchical} and apply data augmentation.
We apply random adjustments of brightness and contrast of the input image within a $\pm10\%$ range.
We randomly rotate images, ground truth scene coordinates and camera poses within a $\pm30^\circ$ range.
We randomly re-scale images within 66$\%$ and 150$\%$, and adjust the camera focal length accordingly.
Different from Li et al.\ \cite{li2020hierarchical}, we do not shear training images, since our simple pinhole camera models does not support this operation.
We also do not shift training images, since for a patch-based network architecture, shifting by more than 4px would just increase the period of the input without any effect other than increasing boundary effects.
We use an inlier threshold $\tau=10\text{px}$ for RGB-based pose optimization, and $\tau=10\text{cm}$ for RGB-D-based pose optimization.
We sample $M=64$ RANSAC hypotheses.
We reject an hypothesis if the corresponding minimal set of scene coordinates does not satisfy the inlier threshold \cite{chum2002tdd}, and sample again.
We score hypotheses using a soft inlier count at training and test time.
For training, we optimize the expectation over hypothesis selection according to the distribution of Eq.~\ref{eq:diffpose:distribution} with a temperature of $\alpha=\frac{100}{|\mathcal{Y}|}$, where $|\mathcal{Y}|$ corresponds to the number of scene coordinates predicted, resp.~to the output resolution of the neural network.
At test time, we resort to standard RANSAC, and choose the best hypothesis with highest score.
We do at most 100 refinement iterations, but stop early if the inlier set converges which typically takes at most 10 iterations.
We initialize the scene coordinate network for 1M iterations, a batch size of 1 image, and the Adam optimizer \cite{adam2014} with a learning rate of $10^{-4}$.
This stage takes approximately two days on a single Tesla K80 GPU.
We train the system end-to-end for another 100k iterations, and a learning rate of $10^{-6}$, which takes 12 hours on the same hardware.
Our implementation, based on PyTorch \cite{paszke2017automatic}, is publicly available: \url{https://github.com/vislearn/dsacstar}.
\noindent{\textbf{Datasets.}}
We evaluate our pipeline on three standard camera re-localization datasets, both indoor and outdoor:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{7Scenes\cite{shotton13scorf}:} A \mbox{RGB-D} indoor re-localization dataset of seven small indoor environments featuring difficult conditions such as motion blur, reflective surfaces, repeating structures and texture-less areas.
Images were recorded using KinectFusion \cite{izadi2011kinectfusion} which also provides ground truth camera poses.
For each scene, several thousand frames are available which the authors split into training and test sets.
The depth channels of this dataset are not registered to the color images.
We register them by projecting the depth maps to 3D points using the depth sensor calibration, and re-projecting them using the color sensor calibration while taking the relative transformation between depth and color sensor into account.
A dense 3D scan of each scene is available for rendering ground truth coordinates for initialization training.
\item \textbf{12Scenes\cite{valentin2016learning}:} A \mbox{RGB-D} indoor re-localization dataset similar to 7Scenes, but containing twelve slightly larger indoor environments.
Each scene comes with several hundred frames, split by the authors into training and test sets.
The depth maps provided by the authors are registered to the color images.
A dense 3D scan of each scene is available as well, which we use to render ground truth scene coordinates for initialization training.
\item \textbf{Cambridge\cite{kendall2015convolutional}}: A RGB outdoor re-localization dataset of five landmarks in Cambridge, UK. Compared to the previous indoor datasets, each landmark spans an area of several hundred or thousand square meters.
Each scene comes with several hundred frames, split by the authors into training and test tests. The authors also provide ground truth camera poses re-constructed using a SfM tool. The sparse SfM point cloud is also available for each scene, which we use to render sparse scene coordinate ground truth for RGB-based re-localization. The dataset contains a sixth scene, an entire street scene, which me omit in our experiments. The corresponding reconstruction is of poor quality containing several outlier camera poses and 3D points as well as duplicated and diverging geometry. Like in our previous work \cite{brachmann2018lessmore,brachmann2019neural} we were unable to achieve reasonable accuracy on the street scene.
\end{itemize}
\noindent{\textbf{Competitors.}}
We compare to the following \textbf{absolute pose regression} networks:
PoseNet (the updated version of 2017) \cite{geometricloss}, SpatialLSTM \cite{LSTMPoseNet}, MapNet \cite{mapnet2018} and SVS-Pose \cite{naseer2017svspose}.
We compare to the following \textbf{relative pose estimation} approaches:
AnchorNet \cite{saha2018anchornet}, and retrieval-based InLoc \cite{taira2018inloc}.
For feature-based competitors, we report results of the ORB baseline used in \cite{shotton13scorf} and \cite{valentin2016learning}, as well as the SIFT baseline used in \cite{valentin2016learning}.
For a state-of-the-art feature-based pipeline, we compare to ActiveSearch \cite{sattler2016efficient}.
Several early scene coordinate regression works were based on \textbf{random forests}.
We compare to SCoRF of Shotton et al.\ \cite{shotton13scorf}, and its extension to multi-output forests (\emph{MO Forests}) \cite{guzman2014multi} and forests predicting Gaussian mixture models (GMM) of scene coordinates, in the variation of Valentain et al.\ \cite{valentin2015cvpr} for \mbox{RGB-D} (\emph{GMM F. (V)}) and of Brachmann et al.\ for RGB (\emph{GMM F. (B)}).
Furthermore, we compare to the Back-Tracking Forests of Meng et al.\ \cite{meng17} (\emph{BTBRF}), to the Point-Line Forests of Meng et al.\ \cite{meng18} (\emph{PLForests}), and MNG forests \cite{valentin2016learning}.
For \textbf{CNN-based} scene coordinate regression, we compare to ForestNet\cite{rfvscnn2016}, scene coordinate regression with an angle-based loss \cite{li2018abrloss} (\emph{ABRLoss}), joint scene coordinate classification and regression \cite{li2020hierarchical} (\emph{SCoCR}) and the visual descriptor learning approach of Schmidt et al.\ \cite{schmidt2017ssvdl} (\emph{SS-VDL}).
We also include results of the adaptive forests of Cavallari et al.\ \cite{cavallari2017fly} (\emph{OtF Forests}), comparing to their \emph{headline performance}.
Finally, we compare to previous iterations of this pipeline, namely DSAC \cite{brachmann2017dsac} and DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}.
We denote our updated pipeline, described in this article, as DSAC*.
\subsection{Results for Indoor Localization (7Scenes)}
\label{sec:exp:7scenes}
We train one scene coordinate regression network per scene, and accept a pose estimate for a test image if its pose error is below 5$^\circ$ and 5cm.
We calculate the accuracy per scene, and report the average accuracy over all 7Scenes, see quantitative results in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:scenes_bars}, left.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/scenes_bars.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\textbf{Indoor Localization Accuracy.} We report the average percentage of correctly re-localized frames below an error threshold of 5cm and 5$^\circ$ on the 7Scenes \cite{shotton13scorf} and 12Scenes \cite{valentin2016learning} datasets. We group methods by utilized data, i.e.\ \textbf{RGB}: neither a 3D model or depth maps at training and test time, \textbf{RGB + 3D model}: a 3D model or depth maps at training time \emph{but not at test time}, \textbf{RGB-D}: depth maps at training time \emph{and at test time}. See the main text for references to all methods.}
\label{fig:exp:scenes_bars}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure*}
\noindent{\textbf{RGB.}}
For training from RGB images and ground truth poses only, our new training procedure and network architecture increases accuracy significantly compared to DSAC++ (+27.6\%).
DSAC* also achieves higher accuracy than the angle-based loss of Li et al.\ \cite{li2018abrloss}, despite the latter incorporating multi-view constraints and a photometric loss.
We attribute some (but not all) of the performance gain to using training data augmentation, see Sec.~\ref{sec:exp:aug} for a discussion.
\noindent{\textbf{RGB + 3D model.}}
When a 3D model is available to render ground truth scene coordinates for training, both DSAC++ and DSAC* benefit, with DSAC* achieving highest accuracy with 85.2\% of re-localized frames.
Also note that DSAC* is trained for 2.5 days compared to 6 days for DSAC++ on identical hardware.
\emph{SCoCR} \cite{li2020hierarchical} achieves similar accuracy but leverages a more complicated network architecture with multiple, hierarchical classification heads conditioning the scene coordinate regression head as well as higher model capacity (165MB vs.~28MB).
Note that \emph{SCoCR} deploys training data augmentation similar to our setup.
\noindent{\textbf{RGB-D.}}
When DSAC* estimates poses from \mbox{RGB-D} images, it achieves
accuracy comparable to the state-of-the-art approach \emph{OtF Forests} of Cavallari et al.\ \cite{Cavallari2019cascade}.
Cavallari et al.\ \cite{Cavallari2019cascade} use an ICP and rendering-based post-processing to achieve their top-accuracy.
Without post-processing, they report 93.4\% on 7Scenes, slightly lower than the accuracy of DSAC*.
Note that the difference in accuracy for DSAC* compared to the RGB setups solely stems from the use of Kabsch as a pose solver, since our network still estimates scene coordinates from a grayscale image.
The correct depth of image points allows a re-localization pipeline to trivially infer the distance between camera and scene.
Note that all RGB-D competitors model the uncertainty of scene coordinates in some form, i.e.\ predicting full distributions of image-to-scene correspondences.
Compared to this, the expressiveness of our framework is limited by only predicting scene coordinate point estimates.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/7scenes_paths2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\textbf{Results For Indoor Scenes. First Row:} Camera positions of training frames in {\color{gray}gray} and of test frames in {\color{cyan}cyan} for all scenes of the 7Scenes \cite{shotton13scorf} dataset. \textbf{Remaining Rows:} Estimated camera positions of test frames, color coded by position error. We also state the percentage of test frames with a pose error below 5cm and 5$^\circ$. Each row represents a different training setup. For a more informative visualization, we show the ground truth 3D scene model as a faint backdrop, and we connect consecutive frames within 50cm tolerance.}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:exp:7scenes_paths}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/7scenes_median.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Median Errors for Indoor Scenes.} For all test sequences of the 7Scenes \cite{shotton13scorf} dataset, we select the frame with the median pose estimation error. We show the original input frame in gray scale, and a rendered overlay in color using the estimated pose, and the ground truth 3D model. We write the associated median pose error below each instance. Each row represents a different training setup.}
\label{fig:exp:7scenes_median}
\end{figure*}
\noindent{\textbf{Qualitative Results.}}
We visualize the estimated test trajectory, as well as the pose error, of DSAC* for all scenes and all re-localization settings in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:7scenes_paths}.
Estimated trajectories are predominately smooth, with outlier predictions concentrated on particular, presumably difficult, areas of each scene.
To also visualize the re-localization quality in an augmented reality setup, we compare renderings of 3D models of each scene, using estimated camera poses, with the associated test image in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:7scenes_median}.
To give an unbiased impression of the general re-localization quality, we selected the test frame with median pose error for each visualization.
\subsection{Results for Indoor Localization (12Scenes)}
\label{sec:exp:12scenes}
We report quantitative results for 12Scenes in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:scenes_bars}, right.
DSAC* achieves state-of-the-art accuracy in all settings for this dataset, consistently outperforming DSAC++.
In general, we would consider this dataset being solved, with multiple methods achieving an average accuracy of $\approx$99\% for re-localization from RGB-D and RGB images, and in case of DSAC* even from RGB images without a 3D model, the most difficult setting.
\subsection{Results for Outdoor Localization (Cambridge)}
\label{sec:exp:cambridge}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{\textbf{Outdoor Localization Accuracy.} We report median errors on the Cambridge Landmarks\cite{kendall2015convolutional} dataset as translation error (cm) / rotation error ($^\circ$). \emph{\color{gray}{N/A}} denotes that a particular result was not reported, whereas a dash (-) indicates that a method does not support this particular setting, i.e.\ training with or without a 3D model, respectively. Best results in \textbf{bold} per column, second best \underline{underlined}. For DSAC variants we additionally state, in brackets, the training time in days on identical hardware.}
\label{tab:exp:cambridge}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc||ccccc||ccccc}
& & \multicolumn{5}{c||}{RGB + 3D model} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{RGB} \\
Method & & Church & Court & Hospital & College & Shop & Church & Court & Hospital & College & Shop \\ \hline
MapNet \cite{mapnet2018} & & - & - & - & - & - & 200/4.5 & \color{gray}{N/A} & 194/3.9 & 107/1.9 & 149/4.2 \\
SpatialLSTM \cite{LSTMPoseNet} & & - & - & - & - & - & 152/6.7 & \color{gray}{N/A} & 151/4.3 & 99/1.0 & 118/7.4 \\
SVS-Pose \cite{naseer2017svspose} & & - & - & - & - & - & 211/8.1 & \color{gray}{N/A} & 150/4.0 & 106/2.8 & 63/5.7 \\
PoseNet17 \cite{geometricloss} & & 149/3.4 & 700/3.7 & 217/2.9 & 99/1.1 & 105/4.0 & 157/3.2 & 683/3.5 & 320/3.3 & 88/1.0 & 88/3.8 \\
AnchorNet \cite{saha2018anchornet} & & - & - & - & - & - & 104/2.7 & \color{gray}{N/A} & 121/2.6 & 57/0.9 & 52/2.3 \\
InLoc \cite{taira2018inloc} & & 18/0.6 & 120/0.6 & 48/1.0 & 46/0.8 & 11/0.5 & - & - & - & - & - \\
Active Search \cite{sattler2016efficient} & & 19/0.5 & \color{gray}{N/A} & 44/1.0 & 42/0.6 & 12/0.4 & - & - & - & - & - \\
BTBRF \cite{meng17} & & 20/0.4 & \color{gray}{N/A} & 30/0.4 & 39/0.4 & 15/0.3 & - & - & - & - & - \\
SANet \cite{yang2019sanet} & & 16/0.6 & 328/2.0 & 32/0.5 & 32/0.5 & 10/0.5 & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
DSAC \cite{brachmann2017dsac} & (4d) & 55/1.6 & 280/1.5 & 33/0.6 & 30/0.5 & 9/0.4 & - & - & - & - & - \\
DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore} & (6d) & \underline{13/0.4} & \underline{40/0.2} & \textbf{20/0.3} & 18/0.3 & \underline{6/0.3} & \underline{20/0.7} & \underline{66/0.4} & \underline{24/0.5} & \underline{23/0.4} & \underline{9/0.4} \\
NG-DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2019neural} & (6d) & \textbf{10/0.3} & \textbf{35/0.2} & 22/0.4 & \textbf{13/0.2} & \underline{6/0.3} & \color{gray}{N/A} & \color{gray}{N/A} & \color{gray}{N/A} & \color{gray}{N/A} & \color{gray}{N/A} \\
DSAC* & (2.5d) & \underline{13/0.4} & 49/0.3 & \underline{21/0.4} & \underline{15/0.3} & \textbf{5/0.3} & \textbf{15/0.6} & \textbf{34/0.2} & \textbf{21/0.4} & \textbf{18/0.3} & \textbf{5/0.3}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
We measure the re-localization quality on the Cambridge dataset using the median pose error for each scene,
see Table \ref{tab:exp:cambridge}.
Due to the ground truth for this dataset being recovered using a SfM tool, we report results with centimeter precision.
We find the expressiveness of millimeter precision dubious given the nature of ground truth poses.
Given a 3D model for training, DSAC* and DSAC++ achieve similar accuracy, but DSAC* trains significantly faster.
For many scenes, NG-DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2019neural}, i.e.\ DSAC++ with neural-guided RANSAC, achieves best results.
In principle, we could extend DSAC* to utilize neural guidance as well.
Neural guidance is designed to improve RANSAC in high outlier domains.
We expect the benefit of coupling it with DSAC* to be rather small, given the quality of results already.
When training without a 3D model, the new training objective of DSAC* achieves higher accuracy than DSAC++ across all scenes.
Notably, DSAC* trained without a 3D model achieves higher accuracy than any method (including DSAC*) trained with a 3D model for the Great Court scene.
Great Court is the largest landmark in the dataset.
The associated SfM reconstruction contains a high outlier ratio, and might hinder the training process due to its low quality.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/cambridge_paths.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Results For Outdoor Scenes. First Row:} Camera positions of training frames in {\color{gray}gray} and of test frames in {\color{cyan}cyan} for scenes of the Cambridge Landmarks \cite{kendall2015convolutional} dataset. \textbf{Remaining Rows:} Estimated camera positions of test frames, color coded by position error. We also state the percentage of test frames with a position error below 0.5\% of the scene size. We derive the threshold for each scene from the scene extent given in \cite{kendall2015convolutional}. In particular, we use 35cm for St. Mary's Church, 45cm for Great Court, 22cm for Old Hospital, 38cm for King's College and 15cm for Shop Facade. Each row represents a different training setup. For a more informative visualization, we show the ground truth 3D scene model as a faint backdrop, and we connect consecutive frames within 5m tolerance.}
\label{fig:exp:cambridge_paths}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/cambridge_median.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\textbf{Median Errors for Outdoor Scenes.} For all test sequences of the Cambridge Landmarks \cite{kendall2015convolutional} dataset, we select the frame with the median pose estimation error. We show the original input frame in gray scale, and a rendered overlay in color using the estimated pose, and a 3D scene model generated from the ground truth structure-from-motion point cloud. We write the associated median pose error below each instance. Each row represents a different training setup.}
\label{fig:exp:cambridge_median}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
We visualize the estimated test trajectories of DSAC* in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:cambridge_paths}.
Due to the very different scene sizes, we derive a scene-dependent threshold to color-code pose errors.
The visualizations reveal that high localization error is correlated with the distance of the camera to the scene, particularly obvious for Old Hospital, but also King's College.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:cambridge_median}, we depict the median pose error per scene, and observe a high visual quality of re-localization, suitable for augmented reality applications.
\subsection{Network Architecture and Runtime}
\label{sec:exp:network}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of Network Architecture.} We compare statistics of the network architecture of DSAC* (this work) and DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore}. We train both architectures using the new training schedule of DSAC* (2.5 days). We report accuracy on the 7Scenes dataset for the \emph{RGB + 3D model} setting.}
\label{tab:architecture}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccclc@{}}
\toprule
Architecture & Size & Time & RF & \begin{tabular}[l]{@{}l@{}}Training \\ Procedure\end{tabular} & Accuracy \\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}DSAC++\\ (VGGNet)\end{tabular}} & \multirow{2}{*}{104MB} & \multirow{2}{*}{150ms} & \multirow{2}{*}{73px} & DSAC++ & 74.4\% \\ \cmidrule(l){5-6}
& & & & DSAC* & 82.0\% \\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}DSAC*\\ (ResNet)\end{tabular}} & \multirow{2}{*}{28MB} & \multirow{2}{*}{50ms} & \multirow{2}{*}{81px} & \multirow{2}{*}{DSAC*} & \multirow{2}{*}{85.2\%} \\
& & & & & \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:score}, we updated the network architecture compared to DSAC++.
To disambiguate the impact of the network, and of the updated training schedule, we conduct an ablation study, see Table.~\ref{tab:architecture}.
We trained both architectures using the updated training schedule of DSAC* on the 7Scenes dataset.
Both architectures benefit from the DSAC* training settings.
However, the DSAC* architecture combined with DSAC* training achieves best accuracy, despite faster run time and smaller memory footprint.
Together with the stream-lined pose optimization (e.g.\ using 64 RANSAC hypotheses instead of 256), we achieve a total runtime of the system of 75ms compared to 200ms for DSAC++ on a single Tesla K80 GPU.
\subsection{Impact of Data Augmentation}
\label{sec:exp:aug}
Li et al.\ \cite{li2020hierarchical} demonstrated the effectiveness of simple geometric training data augmentation (random rotation and re-scaling) for RGB-based camera re-localization (w/ 3D model) on the 7Scenes dataset.
We confirm these results here, and show similar effects for RGB-D based re-localization, and RGB-only re-localization.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:aug} for quantitative and qualitative results.
Data augmentation results in significant improvement for DSAC* on the 7Scenes dataset with +9.1\%, +7.7\% and 4.1\% improvement depending on the setup.
We see largest improvements on the 7Scenes Stairs sequence when training in RGB-only mode (+51.5\%), see Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:aug}, right.
This scene is dominated by ambiguous, repeating structures and presumably data augmentation helps to resolve some of this ambiguity.
On 12Scenes, we observe an improvement for RGB-only re-localization (+8.6\%), while the other results on this particular dataset are saturated also without data augmentation.
For the Cambridge Landmarks dataset, we found no significant advantage in augmenting the training data.
Notably, DSAC* achieves state-of-the-art accuracy across settings also without the use of data augmentation, cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:scenes_bars}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/augmentation.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Effect of Data Augmentation. Left:} Average percentage of correctly localized frames on 7Scenes\cite{shotton13scorf} and 12Scenes\cite{valentin2016learning}, as well as average median translations errors for Cambridge Landmarks\cite{kendall2015convolutional}, with and without using geometric training data augmentation (random rotation and scaling). \textbf{Right:} We show qualitative results on the 7Scenes Stairs sequence when training in RGB-only mode (i.e.\ without using a 3D model of the scene).}
\label{fig:exp:aug}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Impact of the Receptive Field}
\label{sec:exp:rf}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/receptive.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\textbf{Receptive Fields.} We study the impact of the receptive field for DSAC* by altering the underlying network architecture, see the main text for details. \textbf{Left.} We visualize the different receptive field sizes of DSAC* relative to a test image. \textbf{Right.} We report the median localization errors and percentages of re-localized frames for the 7Scenes dataset. \emph{Global} means a receptive field with the size of the whole image. DenseVLAD \cite{torii2015viewsynth} and PoseNet \cite{geometricloss} also utilize a global receptive field. ActiveSearch \cite{sattler2016efficient} utilizes a varying but limited receptive field.}
\label{fig:exp:receptive}
\end{figure}
One important factor when designing an architecture for scene coordinate regression is the size of the receptive field.
That is, what image area is taken into account for predicting a single scene coordinate, comparable to the image patch size for sparse feature matching.
The architecture of DSAC* has a receptive field size of 81px.
By substituting individual 3x3 convolutions with 1x1 convolutions and vice versa (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:method:system}) we can increase and decrease the receptive field and study the change in accuracy.
The change of the convolution kernel affects also the total count of learnable parameters of the network.
To facilitate conclusions with regard to the receptive field alone, we scale the number of channels throughout the network to keep the number of free parameters constant.
We report results in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:receptive}, comparing DSAC* with a receptive field of 81px (standard), 49px and 149px.
We observe that the re-localization accuracy decreases with a large receptive field of 149px.
While a larger receptive field incorporates more image context for predicting a scene coordinate, is also leads to generalization problems, even when using data augmentation during training.
View point changes between training and test set have a higher impact for larger receptive fields.
Making the receptive field smaller, with 49px, also decreases accuracy slightly.
The effect of having less image context is counteracted by better generalization w.r.t.\ view point changes.
For a more extreme argument in favor of architectures with limited receptive field, we conduct an experiment with an encoder-decoder architecture.
Such an architecture encodes the whole image into a global descriptor, and de-convolves it to a full resolution scene coordinate prediction.
The receptive field of such an architecture is the whole image, and we ensure again to keep the number of learnable parameters identical.
As depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:receptive} a scene coordinate network with global receptive field achieves a disappointing re-localization accuracy.
This indicates, that the receptive field might be another issue connected with the low accuracy of absolute pose regression methods, orthogonal to the explanations given by Sattler et al.\ in their study of these methods \cite{sattler2019limits}.
\subsection{Impact of End-to-End Training}
\label{sec:exp:end2end}
We report report results before and after training our system in an end-to-end fashion in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:e2e2}.
For the indoor datasets 7Scenes and 12Scenes we report accuracy using different threshold of 5cm5$^\circ$, 2cm2$^\circ$ and 1cm1$^\circ$.
While the impact of end-to-end training for a coarse threshold is small, there are significant differences for the finer acceptance thresholds.
End-to-end training increases the precision of successful pose estimates, but it does not necessarily decrease the failure rate.
We see similar effects in outdoor re-localization for the Cambridge dataset where the pose precision, expressed by the median pose error decreases by ca.~30\%.
We also provide a qualitative comparison of scene coordinate prediction before and after end-to-end training.
Particularly, we visualize areas of training images where the re-projection error increased or decreased due to end-to-end training.
The system learns to focus on certain reliable structures.
In general, we observe a tendency of the system to increase the scene coordinate quality for close objects.
Presumably such objects are more helpful than distant structures for estimating the camera pose precisely.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/scenes_e2e2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\textbf{Effect of End-to-End Training. Left:} We give the average percentage of correctly localized frames, on 7Scenes\cite{shotton13scorf} and 12Scenes\cite{valentin2016learning}, before and after end-to-end training, denoted as \emph{Init.} and \emph{E2E}, respectively. We break down accuracy corresponding to pose error thresholds of 5cm/5$^\circ$, 2cm/2$^\circ$ as well as 1cm/1$^\circ$. Colors in the bar chart indicate different training setups as also specified at the bottom. Furthermore, we visualize the \emph{difference} in re-projection error before and after end-to-end training for three training frames of 7Scenes \cite{shotton13scorf}. Blue areas indicate that the re-projection error decreased due to end-to-end training, red areas indicate that the error increased. \textbf{Right:} We show the median translation error, averaged over five scenes in Cambridge Landmarks \cite{kendall2015convolutional}, before and after end-to-end training, as well as a visualization of the change in re-projection error on training frames.}
\label{fig:exp:e2e2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Learned 3D Geometry}
\label{sec:exp:geometry}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/7scenes_models2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{\textbf{Learned Indoor Geometries.} We visualize the 3D scene geometry learned by the scene coordinate regression network for all scenes of the 7Scenes \cite{shotton13scorf} dataset. See the main text for details on how we generated these models. Each row represents a different training setup. In particular, the last row, \emph{RGB}, shows geometry discovered by the network automatically given only RGB images and ground truth poses. For a more informative visualization, we always show the ground truth model as a faint backdrop.}
\label{fig:exp:7scenes_models}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/cambridge_models.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Learned Outdoor Geometries.} We visualize the 3D scene geometry learned by the scene coordinate regression network for scenes of the Cambridge Landmarks \cite{kendall2015convolutional} dataset. See the main text for details on how we generated these models. Each row represents a different training setup. In particular, the last row, \emph{RGB}, shows geometry discovered by the network automatically given only RGB images and ground truth poses. For a more informative visualization, we always show the ground truth model as a faint backdrop. Note that the ground truth models of this dataset are sparse point clouds created by structure-from-motion tools.}
\label{fig:method:cambridge_models}
\end{figure*}
Scene coordinate regression methods utilize a learnable function to implicitly encode the map of an environment.
We can generate an explicit map representation of the geometry encoded in a network.
More precisely, we iterate over all training images, predicting scene coordinates to generate one point cloud of the scene.
We can recover the color of each 3D point by reading out the associated color at the pixel position of the training image for which the scene coordinate was predicted.
Such a point cloud will in general feature many outlier points that hinder visualization.
Therefore, we generate a mesh representation using Poisson surface reconstruction \cite{kazhdan06poisson}.
We show the recovered 3D models in Fig.~\ref{fig:exp:7scenes_models} for 7Scenes and in Fig.~\ref{fig:method:cambridge_models} for Cambridge.
Interestingly, our approach learns the complex 3D geometry of a scene, even when training solely from RGB images and ground truth poses.
Furthermore, we are able to recover a dense scene representation, even when training with sparse 3D models for the Cambridge dataset.
\subsection{Scene Compression Properties}
\label{sec:exp:compression}
Since scene coordinate regression methods encode the scene geometry within a neural network of fixed capacity, they represent a natural framework for scene compression.
In Table \ref{tab:exp:compression}, we compare the memory demand and accuracy of several learning-based as well as classical re-localization methods.
The Cambridge Landmarks \cite{kendall2015convolutional} dataset is particularly interesting for this comparison, as it features scenes of varying sizes.
With a memory footprint of 28MB, DSAC* achieves highest average re-localization accuracy.
The retrieval-based DenseVLAD \cite{torii2015viewsynth} as well as the feature-based hybrid compression schema of Camposeco et al.\ \cite{compression2019cvpr} demand only very little memory but also suffer from low re-localization accuracy.
To analyze the scene compression properties of DSAC* further, we re-train our pipeline with a significantly leaner network architecture, called \emph{DSAC* Tiny}.
We clamp the number of channels per layer to 128 (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:method:system}) which results in a memory footprint of 4MB per scene.
For this analysis, we train using the 3D scene model but without training data augmentation.
We found data augmentation to deteriorate results for such a low-capacity network.
While \emph{DSAC* Tiny} has a memory demand in the same magnitude as the hybrid compression schema of \cite{compression2019cvpr}, it achieves significantly higher accuracy.
We find that the loss in accuracy compared to the full 28MB model grows with the scene size and complexity, see e.g.\ the results for \emph{St Mary's Church}.
For smaller scenes, such as \emph{Shop Facade}, the loss in accuracy is negligible.
We trained \emph{DSAC* Tiny} also for the 7Scenes and 12Scenes datasets, and report an average re-localization accuracy of 73.6\% and 98.1\%, respectively.
Therefore, \emph{DSAC* Tiny} is among the top-performing methods for indoor re-localization despite the small memory demand.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{King's College} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Old Hospital} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Shop Facade} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{St Mary's Church} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Average} \\ \cline{2-11}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}MB\\ used\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Median\\ error (m)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}MB\\ used\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Median\\ error (m)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}MB\\ used\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Median\\ error (m)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}MB\\ used\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c||}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Median\\ error (m)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}MB\\ used\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Median\\ error (m)\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
Active Search \cite{sattler2016efficient} & 275MB & 0.57 & 140MB & 0.52 & 39MB & 0.12 & 359MB & 0.22 & 203MB & 0.36 \\
HybridCompression \cite{compression2019cvpr} & 1.0MB & 0.81 & 0.6MB & 0.75 & 0.2MB & 0.19 & 1.3MB & 0.50 & 0.8MB & 0.56 \\
DenseVLAD \cite{torii2015viewsynth} & 10MB & 2.8 & 14MB & 4.0 & 3.6MB & 1.1 & 23MB & 2.3 & 13MB & 2.6 \\
PoseNet17 \cite{geometricloss} & 50MB & 0.88 & 50MB & 3.2 & 50MB & 0.88 & 50MB & 1.6 & 50MB & 1.6 \\ \hline
DSAC++ \cite{brachmann2018lessmore} & 104MB & 0.18 & 104MB & 0.20 & 104MB & 0.06 & 104MB & 0.13 & 104MB & 0.14 \\
DSAC* & 28MB & 0.15 & 28MB & 0.21 & 28MB & 0.05 & 28MB & 0.13 & 28MB & 0.13 \\
DSAC* (Tiny) & 4MB & 0.19 & 4MB & 0.23 & 4MB & 0.07 & 4MB & 0.39 & 4MB & 0.22 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Scene Compression Analysis.} We compare memory demand and re-localization accuracy of several methods on the Cambridge Landmarks dataset \cite{kendall2015convolutional}. Information of competitors taken from \cite{compression2019cvpr}. DSAC* (Tiny) is a variant of our network architecture with a reduced number of channels per layer.}
\label{tab:exp:compression}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have presented DSAC*, a versatile pipeline for single image camera re-localization based on scene coordinate regression and differentiable RANSAC.
In this article, we have derived gradients for all steps of robust pose estimation, including PnP solvers.
The resulting system supports \mbox{RGB-D}-based as well as RGB-based camera re-localization, and can be trained with or without a 3D model of a scene.
Compared to previous iterations of the system, DSAC* trains faster, needs less memory and features low runtime.
Simultaneously, DSAC* achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on various dataset, indoor and outdoor, and in various settings.
We made the code of DSAC* publicly available, and hope that is serves as a credible baseline in re-localization research.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
The authors would like to thank Dehui Lin for implementing an efficient version of the differentiable Kabsch pose solver within the scope of his Master thesis.
This work was supported by the DFG grant COVMAP: Intelligente Karten mittels gemeinsamer GPS- und Videodatenanalyse (RO 4804/2-1 and RO 2497/12-2). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unions Horizon 2020 programme (grant No. 647769).
The computations were performed on an HPC Cluster at the Center for Information Services and High Performance Computing (ZIH) at TU Dresden.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
\noindent
Quantum illumination (QI) is a photonic quantum sensing protocol (see \cite{PBG+18} for an overview of the field) introduced by Lloyd \cite{Llo08} in which entanglement shared between a signal beam interrogating a target region and a locally held idler beam is used to detect the presence of a weakly reflecting target better than a strategy using only a signal beam of the same energy, i.e., average photon number. Soon after \cite{Llo08} appeared, Tan et al. found that using multiple signal-idler modes prepared in the two-mode squeezed vacuum (TMSV) state allows a 6 dB improvement of the error probability exponent relative to a classical ladar (laser detection and ranging) system of the same energy \cite{TEG+08}. Surprisingly -- and unlike other sensing applications for which quantum advantage quickly disappears in the presence of decoherence \cite{EdMFD11,DKG12} -- this 6 dB advantage occurs when the target is bathed in thermal background radiation of brightness (i.e., per-mode energy) $N_B \gg 1$, due to which the initial signal-idler entanglement is lost.
These results have inspired much theoretical \cite{SL09,GE09,BGW+15,SLHG-R+17,ZZS17SFG,ZZS17Rayleighfading,ZZS17ROC,WTL+17,DPB18,WPT+16,YMZ18arxiv,PLL+19} and experimental \cite{LR-BD13,ZTZ+13,ZMW+15,CVB+19,LGH+19,BPV+20} work in QI, much of which is reviewed in \cite{PBG+18,Sha20}.
In this paper, we use tools from quantum information \cite{NC00} to investigate the fundamental limits of bosonic QI systems in all regimes of signal and background noise strength and allowing for all possible choices of quantum states at the transmitter and quantum measurements at the receiver. We first derive a lower bound on the average error probability of any QI system that transmits an $M$-mode signal beam entangled with locally held idler modes under a total signal energy constraint $\mathcal{N}_S$. For $N_B \gg 1$, we show that the scheme of \cite{TEG+08} using independently and identically distributed (iid) copies of TMSV states with signal brightness $N_S \equiv \mathcal{N}_S/M \ll 1$ achieves the greatest error probability exponent allowed by quantum mechanics, and that its near optimality persists for the detection of targets exhibiting flat Rayleigh fading. We also show that any QI system for estimating the reflectance of a detected target has a mean squared error that is at least half that suffered by the best classical ladar.
\section{QI Setup and Background} \label{sec:setup}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim=22mm 70mm 22mm 42mm, clip=true,width=\columnwidth]{QIsetupv2.pdf}}
\caption{General setup for QI: An entangled state $\Psi$ of $M$ signal and idler modes is prepared. Each signal mode $\hat{a}_S^{(m)}$ interrogates a distant target region bathed in thermal radiation $\hat{a}_B^{(m)}$ which may contain a target of effective reflectance $\eta \ll 1$. The modes $\{\hat{a}_R^{(m)}\}_{m=1}^M$ returned from the target region are measured jointly with the unperturbed idler modes $\{\hat{a}_I^{(m)}\}_{m=1}^M$ in order to decide whether or not the target was present. }
\label{fig:QIsetup}
\end{figure}
A general QI setup is depicted schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:QIsetup}. A transmitter prepares an entangled quantum state of $M$ signal (denoted $S$) modes (annihilation operators $\{\hat{a}_S^{(m)}\}_{m=1}^M$) and idler (denoted $I$) modes (annihilation operators $\{\hat{a}_I^{(m)}\}_{m=1}^{M}$). The signal modes interrogate a target region which may contain a weakly reflecting target bathed in background (denoted $B$) light (annihilation operators $\{\hat{a}_B^{(m)}\}_{m=1}^M$). The annihilation operators $\{\hat{a}_R^{(m)}\}_{m=1}^M$ of the modes returned from the target region, which may acquire an additional phase shift $\phi$, obey the relation
\begin{align} \label{HP}
\hat{a}_R^{(m)} &= \sqrt{\eta_h}\,e^{i\phi}\, \hat{a}_S^{(m)} + \sqrt{1-\eta_h} \,\hat{a}_B^{(m)}.
\end{align}
Here $h=0 \,(1)$ indicates the absence (presence) of a target, $\eta_0 = 0$, and $\eta_1 = \eta \ll 1$ is the effective reflectance of the signal to return beam path when the target is present. The two hypotheses are assigned prior probabilities $\{\pi_h\}_{h=0}^1$. In order to derive fundamental physical limits, we assume initially that the target is specular and that the values of $\eta$ and $\phi$ are known to the receiver. As in previous works \cite{TEG+08,SL09,GE09,BGW+15,SLHG-R+17,ZZS17SFG,ZZS17Rayleighfading,ZZS17ROC,WTL+17,DPB18,Sha20}, each background mode is assumed to be in a thermal state $\rho_{\tsf{th}}(N_B^{(h)}) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty {N_B^{(h)}}^n/ {\pars{N_B^{(h)} +1 }}^{n+1} \ket{n}\bra{n}_B$ ($\{\ket{n}_B\}$ are number states of $B$) of brightness
\begin{align} \label{NBh}
\big\langle{\hat{a}_B^{(m)^\dag} \hat{a}_B^{(m)}}\big\rangle_h \equiv N_B^{(h)} = N_B/(1-\eta_h)
\end{align}
under hypothesis $h$, where $N_B$ is a given nominal value of the background brightness. ~Eq.~\eqref{NBh} ensures that the target leaves no passive signature, and cannot be detected if a vacuum state is transmitted. Since $\eta \ll 1$ for standoff sensing, we have $N_B^{(1)} \simeq N_B = N^{(0)}_B$.
Let $\ket{\mb{n}}_S$ denote a product number state of the $M$ signal modes with $\mb{n} = (n_1,\ldots, n_M)$. The most general QI strategy consists of preparing a pure quantum state
\begin{align} \label{transmitter}
\ket{\psi}_{IS} &= \sum_{\mb{n}} \sqrt{p_\mb{n}} \keti{\chi_\mb{n}}\kets{\mb{n}},
\end{align}
of the $IS$ system (called \emph{transmitter} hereafter) subject only to the total signal energy constraint
$\sum_{\mb{n}} p_\mb{n} (n_1 + \cdots + n_M) \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty n\, p_n = \cl{N}_S.$
Here, $\set{\keti{\chi_\mb{n}}}$ is any normalized (not necessarily orthogonal) set of idler states and $\set{p_n}$ is the probability mass function of the \emph{total} photon number $n= \sum_{m=1}^M n_m$ in the $S$ modes.
In the Schr\"odinger picture, the evolution (\ref{HP}) corresponds to the output density operators
\begin{align} \label{dos}
\rho_h &= \Big[{\mr{id}_I \otimes {\big( \cl{U}_{\phi} \circ \cl{L}_{\eta_h,N_B^{(h)}}\big)}^{\otimes M} }\Big]\pars{\Psi},
\end{align}
where $\Psi = \ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}_{IS}$, $\mr{id}_I$ denotes the identity channel on $I$, and unitary phase-shift channels $\cl{U}_\phi$ and \emph{noisy attenuator} channels $\cl{L}_{\eta_h, N_B^{(h)}}$ of transmittance $\eta_h$ and added noise $N_B^{(h)}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:channeldecomp}, \cite{CGH06,G-PN-BL+12}) act on each mode of $S$. Note that $\rho_0 = \pars{\Tr_S \Psi} \otimes \rho_{\tsf{th}}(N_B)$ for any value of $\phi$, where $\Tr_S$ indicates partial trace over $S$.
The receiver makes a joint measurement with outcome $\check{h} \in \{0,1\}$ on the returned and idler modes that minimizes the average error probability
$P_e\bracs{\rho_0,\rho_1} = \pi_0 P_F + \pi_1 P_M,$
where $P_F = \mr{Pr}[\check{h}=1 | h=0]$ is the false-alarm probability and $P_M = \mr{Pr}[\check{h}=0 | h=1]$ is the miss probability. The lowest achievable $P_e$ is given by the \emph{Helstrom limit} \cite{Hel76}:
\begin{align} \label{Helstrom}
P_e\bracs{\rho_0,\rho_1} = 1/2 - \norm{\pi_0 \rho_o - \pi_1 \rho_1}_1/2,
\end{align}
where $\norm{X}_1 = \Tr \sqrt{X^\dag X}$ is the operator trace norm. Since the trace norm is hard to calculate, we often resort to bounds on it.
To be useful, a QI system must have a lower $P_e$ than the best classical ladar, i.e., a transmitter that is in a coherent state or a mixture of product signal-idler coherent states. In \cite{TEG+08}, it was shown that no classical ladar with signal energy $\cl{N}_S$ can have an error probability lower than
\begin{align} \label{CI}
P_e^{\tsf{cl}} \simeq \sqrt{\pi_0 \pi_1}\, \exp\Big[{-\eta\cl{N}_S \Big({\sqrt{N_B+1}- \sqrt{N_B}}}\Big)^2\Big].
\end{align}
In particular, the exponent after the minus sign in the above expression is the best possible for a classical ladar and $\simeq \eta \cl{N}_S/ 4N_B$ in the regime $N_B \gg 1$. It was also shown using the quantum Chernoff bound \cite{ACM+07,PL08} that if $M$ copies of the TMSV state $\ket{\psi}_{I_m S_m} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sqrt{N_S^n/\pars{N_S+1}^{n+1}} \ket{n}_{I_m}\ket{n}_{S_m}$ are transmitted, there exists a measurement that achieves
\begin{align} \label{TMSVQI}
P_e^{\tsf{TMSV}} \simeq \sqrt{\pi_0 \pi_1}\, \exp{(-\eta\cl{N}_S/N_B)}
\end{align}
in the regime of signal brightness $N_S = \cl{N}_S/M \ll 1$ and noise brightness $N_B \gg 1$. Recently, a concrete receiver using sum frequency generation (SFG) was proposed \cite{ZZS17SFG} that can in principle realize this 6 dB error exponent advantage over the classical performance (\ref{CI}).
\section{Methods and Results} \label{sec:methods}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim=14mm 80mm 10mm 75mm, clip=true,width=\columnwidth]{channeldecomp.pdf}}
\caption{Left: A noisy attenuator channel $\cl{L}_{\eta, N}$ mixes the signal mode $S$ with a background mode $B$ in a thermal state of energy $N$ at a beam splitter of transmittance $\eta$. Right: $\cl{L}_{\eta, N}$ can be realized as a cascade of a quantum-limited (mode $E_1$ in vacuum) loss channel $\cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta}}$ with $\widetilde{\eta} = \eta/G$ and a quantum-limited (mode $E_2$ in vacuum) amplifier (two-mode squeezer) $\cl{A}_G$ of gain $G= (1-\eta)N +1$. }
\label{fig:channeldecomp}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we are interested in performance bounds valid for arbitrary transmitters $\Psi$. A key tool that we use is the decomposition of the noisy attenuator channels appearing in Eq.~\eqref{dos} in terms of quantum-limited attenuators and amplifiers. Specifically, we can write $\cl{L}_{\eta, N}$ as the concatenation (see Fig.~\ref{fig:channeldecomp})
\begin{align} \label{decompositionparameters}
\cl{L}_{\eta,N} &= \cl{A}_{{G}} \circ \cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta}},
\end{align}
where $\cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta}} := \cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta},0}$, $\cl{A}_G$ is a quantum-limited amplifier of gain $G= (1-\eta)N + 1$, and $\widetilde{\eta} = {\eta}/G$ \cite{CGH06,G-PN-BL+12}.
We also make much use of the \emph{fidelity} between two states $\rho$ and $\sigma$ of a quantum system defined as $F(\rho,\sigma) = \Tr \sqrt{\sqrt{\rho} \,\sigma \sqrt{\rho}}$, which is an important measure of closeness between quantum states \cite{NC00}. The fidelity satisfies the \emph{data processing inequality} $F(\cl{C}(\rho),\cl{C}(\sigma)) \geqslant F(\rho,\sigma)$, where $\cl{C}$ is any quantum channel \cite{NC00}.
\subsection{Lower bound on QI error probability} \label{sec:Pelb}
We begin by using Eqs.~(\ref{NBh}) and (\ref{decompositionparameters}) to write
\begin{align} \label{QIparams}
\cl{L}_{\eta_h,N_B^{(h)}} &= \cl{A}_{N_B + 1} \circ \cl{L}_{\eta_h/(N_B + 1)} \equiv \cl{A}_{N_B + 1} \circ \cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta}_h}.
\end{align}
Then, using the data processing inequality on the states in Eq.~\eqref{dos} gives
\begin{align}
F\pars{\rho_0, \rho_1} &\geqslant
F\pars{\Big[{\mr{id}_I \otimes \cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta}_0}^{\otimes M} }\Big] ({\Psi}), \bracs{\mr{id}_I \otimes \cl{L}_{\widetilde{\eta}_1}^{\otimes M} } (\Psi) } \\
&\geqslant \sum_n p_n \mu^n,
\end{align}
where the last inequality follows from the result of \cite{Nai11} (Sec.~II) with $\mu = \sqrt{1-\eta/(N_B+1)}$. Using the inequalities $P_e[\sigma_0,\sigma_1] \geqslant \pars{1 - \sqrt{1-4\pi_0\pi_1F^2\pars{\sigma_0, \sigma_1}}}/2 \geqslant \pi_0\pi_1F^2\pars{\sigma_0, \sigma_1} $ relating the Helstrom limit Eq.~\eqref{Helstrom} and the fidelity for any two states $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$ \cite{FvdG99,Aud14}, we get the bound
\begin{align} \label{PelbPsi}
P_e^{\Psi} \geqslant \pi_0\pi_1\bigg\{\sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n \big[1-{\eta}/({N_B+1})\big]^{n/2}\bigg\}^2
\end{align}
on the $P_e$ of any $\Psi$. Further, using Jensen's inequality on the convex function $x \mapsto \mu^x$ gives the $\Psi$-independent bound
\begin{align} \label{Pelb}
P_e^{\tsf{QI}} \geqslant \pi_0 \pi_1 \exp\pars{-\beta \cl{N}_S},
\end{align}
where we have defined the exponent $\beta:= -\ln[1-\eta/(N_B+1)]$.
Eqs.~(\ref{PelbPsi})-(\ref{Pelb}) make up our first result. Eq.~\eqref{Pelb} shows that no QI system with signal energy $\cl{N}_S$ can have an error probability exponent greater than $\beta \cl{N}_S$. In the low-noise limit $N_B \simeq 0$, we have $\beta \simeq \eta$, and the best possible exponent $ \simeq \eta\cl{N}_S$. This matches that achieved by a classical ladar (Eq.~\eqref{CI}) and is consistent with earlier no-go results for QI advantage in this regime \cite{Nai11,SL09}. In the high-noise regime $N_B \gg 1$, the optimum exponent $ \simeq \eta \cl{N}_S/N_B$ is attained by the TMSV QI system \cite{TEG+08} (cf. Eq.~\eqref{TMSVQI}).
Eq.~\eqref{PelbPsi} explains why a TMSV QI system must use a large $M$ in order to beat the classical performance given by Eq.~\eqref{CI} for any $N_B$. Intuitively, the right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{PelbPsi} decreases the more the distribution $\left\{p_n \right\}$ is concentrated around its mean $\cl{N}_S$. For TMSV QI, the variance of the total signal photon number is $\cl{N_S}\pars{N_S +1}$, which is minimized as the brightness $N_S \rightarrow 0$ for fixed $\cl{N}_S$. More precisely, evaluating Eq.~\eqref{PelbPsi} gives:
\begin{align} \label{Pelbtmsv}
P_e^{\tsf{TMSV}} \geqslant \pi_0 \pi_1 \bigg[1 + \cl{N}_S \Big(1 - \sqrt{1 - \eta/(N_B+1)}\Big)/M\bigg]^{-2M}.
\end{align}
Thus, for fixed $M$, the error probability of TMSV QI cannot decay exponentially with $\cl{N}_S$. However, if $M \rightarrow \infty$ for fixed $\cl{N}_S$, Eq.~\eqref{Pelbtmsv} allows the exponential scaling of Eq.~\eqref{Pelb}.
\subsection{Targets exhibiting flat Rayleigh fading} \label{sec:fading}
At optical wavelengths, most target surfaces are rough and our model of Eq.~\eqref{HP} involving deterministic and known values for $\eta$ and $\phi$ needs modification. Such targets often obey a \emph{Rayleigh fading} model \cite{VanTreesI,Sha82} where $\eta$ and $\phi$ are independent random variables with $\eta$ distributed according to an exponential probability density $P(\eta)$ of mean $\overline{\eta}$ (the average reflectance of the target) and $\phi$ uniformly distributed over $[0,2\pi)$. In addition, we consider the \emph{flat fading} limit in which the values of $\eta$ and $\phi$ do not vary over the $M$ signal modes. Such a model was used in the TMSV QI study \cite{ZZS17Rayleighfading}. With these assumptions, $\rho_1$ in Eq.~\eqref{dos} is replaced by
\begin{align} \label{fadingrho1}
\rho_1 = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^1 \diff \eta \,P(\eta) \int_{0}^{2\pi} \diff \phi \Big[{\mr{id}_I \otimes {\big(\cl{U}_{\phi} \circ \cl{L}_{\eta,N_B^{(\eta)}} \big)}^{\otimes M} }\Big] \pars{\Psi}
\end{align}
while $\rho_0$ remains the same as before. In Eq.~\eqref{fadingrho1}, $N_B^{(\eta)} = N_B/(1-\eta)$ can vary greatly in the region $\eta \approx 1$, but the model is an excellent one if $\overline{\eta} \ll 1$, as is the case in practice.
With some more work (see Appendix \ref{sec:appA} for details), the approach of Sec.~\ref{sec:Pelb} can be extended to give the lower bound
\begin{align} \label{Rayleighfadingbound}
P_e^{\tsf{QI}\mr{; fading}} \geqslant \pi_0\pi_1/\bracs{1 + \overline{\eta}\cl{N}_S \ln \pars{1 +1/N_B}}
\end{align}
for {any} transmitter with signal energy $\cl{N}_S$. We see that for fading targets the error probability no longer decays exponentially with $\cl{N}_S$, generalizing the result of \cite{ZZS17Rayleighfading} beyond just TMSV QI in the $N_S \ll 1, N_B \gg 1$ regime. In the same regime, it was shown that the SFG receiver of \cite{ZZS17SFG} can in principle achieve $ P_e^{\tsf{TMSV}\mr{; fading}} \simeq \pi_1/\pars{1 + \overline{\eta}\cl{N}_S/N_B}$ for $\overline{\eta}\cl{N}_S/N_B \gg 1$, while the best classical transmitter has a $P_e$ that is greater by a factor $\simeq \ln \pars{\overline{\eta}\cl{N}_S/N_B}$ \cite{ZZS17Rayleighfading}. Comparing with Eq.~\eqref{Rayleighfadingbound}, we see that TMSV transmitters with SFG reception perform essentially optimally among all transmitters with the same $\cl{N}_S$.
\subsection{Estimation of target reflectance} \label{sec:estimation}
Finally, we consider the problem of \emph{estimating} the effective reflectance $\eta \ll 1$ of a detected specular target. The setup of Fig.~\ref{fig:QIsetup} applies except that a target is known to be present and the joint measurement of the returned signal and idler modes generates an estimate $\check{\eta}$ of $\eta$. Instead of Eq.~\eqref{dos}, we have a family of density operators $\left\{\rho_\eta\right\}$ given by
\begin{align} \label{estimationdos}
\rho_{\eta} &= \Big[\mr{id}_I \otimes \big(\cl{U}_{\phi} \circ \cl{L}_{\eta,N_B^{(\eta)}} \big)^{\otimes M} \Big] \pars{\Psi},
\end{align}
where, as before, $\Psi$ is a general energy-constrained $M$-mode transmitter, $N_B^{(\eta)} = N_B/(1-\eta)$, and $\phi$ is assumed to be known.
The mean squared error $\mr{MSE}_{\eta} = \mathbb{E} \bracs{\pars{\check{\eta} - \eta}^2}$ of any unbiased estimator $\check{\eta}$ of $\eta$ obeys the quantum Cram\'er-Rao bound \cite{Hel76,PBG+18}:
\begin{align} \label{QCRB}
\mr{MSE}_{\eta} \geqslant \cl{K}_{\eta}^{-1} = \Big[ - 4 \,{\partial^2 F \big(\rho_{\eta}, \rho_{\eta'}\big)}/{\partial \eta'^2} \big\vert_{\eta' = \eta}\Big]^{-1},
\end{align}
where $\cl{K}_\eta$ is the \emph{quantum Fisher information} (QFI) on $\eta$, and the equality relating QFI to fidelity is due to \cite{BC94}.
Using data processing arguments similar to those used for our target detection results, we can derive the upper bound
\begin{align} \label{QFIub}
\cl{K}_\eta^{\tsf{QI}} \leqslant \cl{N}_S/\bracs{\eta (N_B +1 -\eta)}
\end{align}
on the QFI valid for any $\Psi$, and the upper bound
\begin{align} \label{QFIcl}
\cl{K}_\eta^{\tsf{cl}} \leqslant \cl{N}_S/\bracs{\eta (2N_B +1)}
\end{align}
on the QFI of any classical transmitter which is achieved using coherent states (see Appendix \ref{sec:appB} for details). For $N_B=0$, Eq.~\eqref{QFIub} recovers the result of \cite{Nai18loss} that holds for all $\eta$ and is achieved by a large class of transmitters. For $N_B >0$ and $\eta \ll 1$, it is close to an upper bound on the QFI derived in \cite{SLHG-R+17}, though only for iid transmitters. In the presence of excess noise, Eq.~\eqref{QFIub} need not be saturable, but it was shown ( Eq.~(6) of \cite{SLHG-R+17}\footnote{Ref.~\cite{SLHG-R+17} reports the per-mode QFI $\cl{K}_{\sqrt{\eta}}/M$ on the {reflectivity} $\sqrt{\eta}$, which is related to $\cl{K}_{\eta}$ via $\cl{K}_{\eta} = \pars{\partial \sqrt{\eta}/\partial \eta}^2 \cl{K}_{\sqrt{\eta}}$.}) that the QFI of an $M$-mode TMSV transmitter is
\begin{align} \label{QFItmsv}
\cl{K}_{\eta}^{\tsf{TMSV}} = \bracs{\cl{N}_S (1+N_S)}/\bracs{\eta\pars{2N_SN_B + N_S + N_B +1}}.
\end{align}
In the low-brightness limit $N_S \rightarrow 0$, Eq.~\eqref{QFItmsv} approaches the bound Eq.~\eqref{QFIub} for all values of $N_B$ when $\eta \ll 1$. Moreover, as argued in \cite{SLHG-R+17}, this bound is achieved by the optical parametric amplifier receiver of \cite{GE09} (see also \cite{SZZ20}). From Eqs.~(\ref{QCRB})-(\ref{QFItmsv}), we see that the advantage of using quantum transmitters in the $\eta \ll 1$ regime is limited to at best a factor of 2 in the MSE.
\section{Discussion and Outlook} \label{sec:discussion}
Our study of QI target detection took place in the Bayesian paradigm in which prior probabilities are assigned to the two hypotheses. Target detection is often treated in the alternative Neyman-Pearson setting \cite{Hel76} where one asks for the best achievable detection probability $P_D = 1 - P_M$ for given $P_F$ (which determines the so-called Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC)). TMSV QI has been extensively studied in this paradigm \cite{WTL+17,ZZS17ROC,Sha20}, and shown to be asymptotically optimal in a specific sense in \cite{DPB18}. We note that the fidelity lower bounds developed here can also be used to place upper bounds on the ROC curve of arbitrary QI transmitters (see, e.g., \cite{TN12,Tsa13}). We can also ask if adaptively chosen transmitter states help in QI target detection -- some suggestive results are known for the Bayesian \cite{PLL+19} and Neyman-Pearson \cite{CMW16,BHK+18arxiv} paradigms.
Our reflectance estimation results show that the gain in using quantum transmitters is modest when $\eta \ll 1$. It is therefore interesting to explore quantum limits in detection and estimation in the region of moderate $\eta$ and $N_B$, which is relevant to detection applications like quantum reading \cite{Pir11} and various estimation applications (see, e.g., \cite{Nai18loss} and references therein). Our techniques may also be extended to protocols of phase-randomized quantum illumination without amplitude fading, e.g., the implementations \cite{LR-BD13,LGH+19}.
While further study of operational limitations and nonidealities in QI systems is necessary to assess their performance in real-world situations \cite{Sha20}, our work delineates their ultimate capabilities for all ranges of system parameters. We also believe that the tools developed here may help to study quantum limits of other optical sensing and communication protocols operating in noisy high-loss conditions.
\section*{Funding Information}
National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF-NRFF2016-02); NRF Singapore and L'Agence Nationale de la Recherche Joint Project (NRF2017-NRFANR004 VanQuTe); Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE2019-T1-002-015); FQXi (FQXi-RFP-IPW-1903).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Nicolas Menicucci, Jeffrey Shapiro, and Quntao Zhuang for helpful comments.
\onecolumngrid
|
\subsection{Data Structure for B-Spline Basis Functions}
Reviewing the definition of the B-spline basis functions in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:bsplinebasisfnc} gives rise to the present design idea illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:classDiagram}:
There are two types of B-spline basis functions $N_{i,p}$ that need to be distinguished, viz., of degree $p=0$ and of degree $p>0$.
The former are jump functions.
Instead, evaluating the $i$-th B-spline basis function of degree $p>0$ requires a linear combination of the two basis functions $N_{i,p-1}$ and $N_{i+1,p-1}$.
An abstract base class \texttt{BasisFunction} defines the common interface of B-spline basis functions of arbitrary degree $p\geq0$.
The basis function $N_{i,p}$ is characterized by its \texttt{degree\_} and its support specified by \texttt{start\_knot\_} and \texttt{end\_knot\_}.
The support starts with the \mbox{$i$-th} knot span (cf.\ Eq.\ \eqref{eq:knotspan}) and covers $p+1$ knot spans.
Therefore, it is usually given as $\left[u_i, u_{i+p+1}\right)$.
In the special case that $u_{i+p+1}$ equals the last knot $u_m$ of the knot vector $U$, $u_{i+p+1}$ must be included in the support (cf.\ second case of Eq. \eqref{eq:knotspan}).
Thus, the support is given as $\left[u_i, u_{i+p+1}\right]$ if \texttt{end\_knot\_is\_last\_knot\_} is set to \texttt{true} during the construction of an object of type \texttt{BasisFunction}.
Both \texttt{ZeroDegreeBSplineBasisFunction} and \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction} derive from this abstract class.
The former implements a step function whose support is a single knot span.
It represents the base case of the recursion.
The latter takes the linear combination in the Cox-de Boor recursion formula Eq. \eqref{eq:bsplinebasisfnc} into account by storing pointers to objects of the basis functions of lower degree $N_{i,p-1}$ and $N_{i+1,p-1}$ in \texttt{left\_lower\_degree\_} and \texttt{right\_lower\_degree\_}, respectively.
As the associated denominators only depend on the knot vector, they do not change for a specific \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction}.
Hence, their adequately inverted values are computed during construction using \texttt{InvWithPosZeroDenom} and stored in \texttt{left\_denom\_inv\_} and \texttt{right\_denom\_inv\_}.
When the factory function \mbox{\texttt{CreateDynamic}} is called with a knot vector \texttt{kv}, a knot span \texttt{start\_support} (corresponding to the start of the basis function's support), and a degree \texttt{deg}, the object hierarchy is constructed.
An object of type \texttt{ZeroDegreeBSplineBasisFunction} or \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction} is created depending on whether \texttt{deg} is equal to zero or not.
Within the constructor of \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction}, the two objects for both lower degree B-spline basis functions are instantiated.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{abstractclass}[text width = 11.4cm]{BasisFunction}{0, 1.75}
\attribute{- degree\_: Degree}
\attribute{- start\_knot\_: ParamCoord}
\attribute{- end\_knot\_: ParamCoord}
\attribute{- end\_knot\_is\_last\_knot\_: bool}
\operation{+ Eval(pc: ParamCoord): double}
\operation{+ EvalDeriv(pc: ParamCoord, deriv: Derivative): double}
\operation{\# BasisFunction(kv: KnotVector, deg: Degree, start\_support: KnotSpan)}
\operation[0]{\# EvalOnSup(pc: ParamCoord): double}
\operation[0]{\# EvalDerivOnSup(pc: ParamCoord, deriv: Derivative): double}
\operation{- IsCoordInSup(pc: ParamCoord): bool}
\end{abstractclass}
\begin{class}[text width = 13.5cm]{BSplineBasisFunction}{0, -5}
\inherit{BasisFunction}
\attribute{- left\_denom\_inv\_: double}
\attribute{- right\_denom\_inv\_: double}
\attribute{- left\_lower\_degree\_: *BasisFunction}
\attribute{- right\_lower\_degree\_: *BasisFunction}
\operation{+ BSplineBasisFunction(kv: KnotVector, deg: Degree, start\_support: KnotSpan)}
\operation{\# SetLowerDegBasFncs(kv: KnotVector, deg: Degree, start\_support: KnotSpan): void}
\operation{\# EvalOnSup(pc: ParamCoord): double}
\operation{\# EvalDerivOnSup(pc: ParamCoord, deriv: Derivative): double}
\operation{- CompLeftQuot(pc: ParamCoord): double}
\operation{- CompRightQuot(pc: ParamCoord): double}
\operation{- InvWithPosZeroDenom(denom: double): double}
\end{class}
\begin{class}[text width = 13.5cm]{ZeroDegreeBSplineBasisFunction}{0, 5}
\inherit{BasisFunction}
\operation{+ ZeroDeZeroDegreeBSplineBasisFunction(kv: KnotVector, start\_support: KnotSpan)}
\operation{\# EvalOnSup (pc: ParamCoord): double}
\operation{\# EvalDerivOnSup (pc: ParamCoord, deriv: Deriv): double}
\end{class}
\begin{class}[text width = 14.5cm]{BasisFunctionFactory}{0, -11.25}
\operation{\underline{+ CreateDynamic(kv: KnotVector, start\_support: KnotSpan, deg: Degree): $\ast$BasisFunction}}
\end{class}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{UML class diagram for B-spline basis functions.} \label{fig:classDiagram}
\end{figure}
The B-spline basis functions' derivatives of arbitrary degree can also be computed by linearly combining corresponding derivatives of lower order B-spline basis functions.
Therefore, the proposed data structure is also well-suited for computing derivatives of arbitrary degree.
\subsection{Evaluation Algorithm}
The methods \texttt{Eval} or \texttt{EvalDeriv} of a \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction} evaluate the function or its derivatives of arbitrary degree \texttt{deriv} at a parametric coordinate \texttt{pc}, respectively.
Within those two, \texttt{IsCoordInSup} is called to check if \texttt{pc} is contained in the support of the \texttt{BasisFunction} object.
If the parametric coordinate is not contained in the support, evaluating the functions and their derivatives yields zero.
Otherwise, \texttt{EvalOnSup} or \texttt{EvalDerivOnSup} are called.
Their actual implementations are provided by \texttt{ZeroDegreeBSplineBasisFunction} and \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction}.
Since \texttt{ZeroDegreeBSplineBasisFunction} is a jump function, it evaluates on its support simply to one while all derivatives are equal zero.
In contrast, evaluating a \texttt{BSplineBasisFunction} involves two non-trivial ingredients (cf.\ Eq.\ \eqref{eq:bsplinebasisfnc}): First, computing both fractions; second, evaluating the lower degree B-spline basis functions $N_{i,p-1}$ and $N_{i+1,p-1}$.
The two fractions are computed by calling \texttt{CompLeftQuot} and \texttt{CompRightQuot}.
Each method utilizes \texttt{start\_knot\_} or \texttt{end\_knot\_} to evaluate the numerator.
Next, its product with the values of the inverted denominator stored in \texttt{left\_denom\_inv} or \texttt{right\_denom\_inv} is computed.
These results are then multiplied with the values of the lower degree functions---accessed through \texttt{left\_lower\_degree\_} and \texttt{right\_lower\_degree\_}---and, finally, added.
\section{Conclusion}
A new multipurpose C++ spline library is presented.
The aim of the library is to close the gap between different research fields.
Therefore, interfaces to commonly used file formats are provided.
With being able to represent not only curves and surfaces, but also splines of higher dimensions, SplineLib can be used in many applications.
For the evaluation of basis functions and their derivatives, a newly developed algorithm is facilitated.
In this algorithm, the procedural approach of evaluating the basis functions is realized as a data structure.
The main application areas SplineLib aims to connect are CAD, IGA, and optimization.
How to use SplineLib in these areas is shown in simple application examples.
From this initial state, it is necessary to further develop SplineLib.
It is required to make SplineLib more powerful, e.g., by supporting recent spline techniques and incorporating elaborate algorithms.
Here, we welcome the input of the community via GitHub (https://github.com/mfcats/SplineLib).
\subsection{IGA}
\newcommand{\vekt}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath{${#1}$}}}
In order to demonstrate the applicability of SplineLib to solve partial differential equations (PDEs) using IGA, we consider Poisson's equation.
The general boundary value problem is given as:
\begin{equation*}
-\Delta u = f \hspace*{0.1cm} on \hspace*{0.1cm} \Omega \hspace*{0.3cm} and \hspace*{0.3cm} \alpha u + \beta \frac{\partial u}{\partial n} = g \hspace*{0.1cm} on \hspace*{0.05cm} \partial \Omega, \medskip
\end{equation*}
with unknown function $u$, source term $f$, the computational domain $\Omega$ with boundary $\partial\Omega$ and constants $\alpha$, $\beta$, and some function $g$.
In the following, we restrict ourselves to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions ($\alpha \ne 0, \beta = 0,$ and $g = 0$).
Furthermore, we assume a constant source term of $f = 1$.
The weak form is obtained by multiplication of the PDE with an arbitrary weighting function and integration over the computational domain $\Omega$.
Following Galerkin's method, the same function space is used for both the solution candidate and the weighting function.
The finite-dimensional subspace is represented by the spline basis function.
Considering the rational basis function $R$, the discrete weak form reads
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{n+1} \int_{\Omega} \nabla R_i \nabla R_j u_j \, d\Omega = \int_{\Omega} R_i f \, d\Omega \hspace*{0.5cm} \forall i = 0,\ldots,n+1. \label{eq:weak}
\end{equation*}
Note in particular that this approach uses the isoparametric principal, where the same basis functions are used for geometry representation and analysis.
Element-wise integration, i.e., integration on tensor-products of non-zero knot spans, by means of Gaussian quadrature then leads to
\begin{equation*}
\sum_e \sum_k \sum_{\tilde{i}} \sum_{\tilde{j}} \nabla R_{\tilde{i}} \nabla R_{\tilde{j}} \, u_{\tilde{j}} \, w_k \, det(J_e) = \sum_e \sum_k \sum_{\tilde{i}} R_{\tilde{i}} \, f_k \, w_k \, det(J_e),
\end{equation*}
where $e$ denotes the element number, $k$ the integration points, $\tilde{i}$ and $\tilde{j}$ the indices of the non-zero basis functions and $w_k$ are the integration weights.
The resulting linear equation system is solved using \textit{Armadillo} \cite{sanderson2016armadillo,sanderson2018user}, an open-source linear algebra library.
More details on the formation of the linear equation system and IGA in general are provided in \cite{Hughes:2005}.
The IGA framework based on SplineLib distinguishes itself from other IGA codes by the implementation of the parametric dimensionality of the spline as template parameter.
Thereby, the user is enabled to solve PDEs on splines of arbitrary dimensionality using the same code.
The functionality of the IGA framework was verified using analytical solutions provided in \cite{elman} and solutions computed using finite element solvers.
To demonstrate the capability to compute solutions for problems of higher dimensionality, the solution of the given reference problem is approximated inside the unit cube $[0, 1]^3$.
This problem is equivalent to finding the temperature distribution inside a cube with uniform heating and faces that are kept at zero temperature.
To visualize the solution, three slices through the cube are created normal to the $x$-, $y$- and $z$-axis.
These slices are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:iga_cube_1}.
The temperature distribution is equal on all slices and is equal to the solution that would be obtained for the same boundary value problem on the square plate $[0, 1]^2$.
The highest temperature is reached in the center of the cube and decreases when getting closer to the boundary of the cube.
The temperature distribution is spherically symmetric.
The IGA framework in SplineLib can certainly also be used for much more complex geometries.
A simple example is used here, since the exact solution of this problem can be represented using a series expansion.
This is not the case for complex geometries.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{iga_cube.jpg}
\caption{Solution of the reference problem on the unit cube.}
\label{fig:iga_cube_1}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
Engineering design has to rely on a number of contributing aspects: innovation, designing, geometry representation, computing, planning, and predetermination of product properties \cite{Conrad2004}.
An important helper tool in this process is Computer Aided Design (CAD) software.
CAD is utilized to convey design information from the designer to the manufacturer.
As such, it has long ago replaced manual drawings.
While the way geometry is represented within CAD systems has remained unaltered for decades now, the role of the CAD software in the design process has indeed changed.
The trend certainly moves towards a more holistic design process, which includes also the steps of purchasing, manufacturing, and sales.
Furthermore---at least within the research community---CAD systems have become closely intertwined with analysis and optimization steps.
Given the importance of CAD software, we will now repeat the key ideas of geometry representation within this context.
A type of geometry representation common to most CAD systems are splines and in particular Non-Uniform Rational B-splines (NURBS).
As illustrated in \cite{Rogers2001}, the success of this spline type in CAD goes back to Versprille \cite{Versprille:1975aa} as well as Tiller and Piegl \cite{Tiller:1983aa,Piegl1987}.
As a member of the category of parametric geometry representations, NURBS can easily represent multi-valued functions.
Further, they feature a high level of smoothness and differentiability.
They are invariant under affine transformations and provide local control over geometry.
Finally, they are able to represent free-form shapes and---in the engineering context so important---conic sections \cite{Rogers2001}.
Common exchange formats for NURBS are IGES \cite{Smith:1986sm} or STEP \cite{pratt2001introduction}.
In 2005, Hughes et.\ al introduced the concept of isogeometric analysis (IGA).
Here, the key idea is the use of spline functions as interpolation functions for the unknown solution in a finite element context.
Originally conceived to bridge the gap between CAD and analysis, the concept soon proved to be advantageous also solely from the analysis point of view.
As detailed in \cite{Cottrell2009}, key advantages of the IGA approach are: (1) exact (as in CAD-conforming) geometry representation; (2) user-controlled smoothness and continuity of the basis; (3) in general higher accuracy per degree of freedom; (4) in general variation diminishing property.
IGA has been applied to many different fields, including phase field methods for the Cahn-Hilliard equations \cite{Gomez2008}, brittle fracture \cite{Borden2012}, topology optimization \cite{Dede2012}, or fluid-structure-interaction \cite{Hsu2012,Hosters2018}.
Another field of research that can profit largely from spline representations is shape optimization.
Here, a geometry representation based on splines not only ensures easy incorporation into the standard design and manufacturing process, but also provides a means to include shape constraints into the parameterization.
Shape optimization with splines in the form of free-form deformation is for example demonstrated in \cite{salmoiraghi2018free}, spline boundary representations are utilized in \cite{hirschler2018isogeometric,herrema2017framework,lian2016implementation,fusseder2015fundamental,kostas2015ship}.
In view of the requirements of CAD, IGA, and shape optimizations, the aim of this work is to propose an open source C++ spline library.
One question the reader might ask at this point is: ``Where is the need for yet another spline library?''.
Naturally, we are aware of the manifold spline libraries relying on a variety of programming languages and licensing concepts.
However, these libraries usually focus on one specific application.
In contrast, this library aims to be applicable to all three application areas mentioned above.
The predecessor of the proposed library was an in-house development written in FORTRAN.
It was essential in a variety of scientific publications, addressing shape optimization and IGA within the context of numerical flow simulations (e.g., \cite{siegbert2013design,siegbert2015individualized}).
However, it turned out that there is a high demand for a multi-purpose spline library in the scientific computing community.
Therefore, the development of a new C++ spline library was published as open source project under the LPGL3 license.
All experiences made while developing the FORTRAN library were used to improve the new development.
Besides a wide range of different functionality, also requirements regarding programming language, build system, and supported computer systems were taken into account.
The proposed spline library is fully written in modern C++, a programming language increasingly replacing FORTRAN in the scientific community.
We point out that it is easily possible to couple C++ code to other scientific programming languages like Python or FORTRAN.
With the intention of developing a state-of-the-art library, the most recent C++-17 standard is used.
As a result, the library can make use of modern object oriented designs; but the recent standard also requires a recent compiler.
However, almost every system can be equipped with a recent Clang, GCC, or Intel compiler.
As build system, CMake \cite{Kitware:2012} is used. This system is available for most high-performance computing (HPC) machines.
However, on HPC machines it is crucial to install software with all its dependencies.
The more dependencies a software package requires, the more complicated the installation becomes.
Fortunately, Gamblin et.\ al.\ \cite{Gamblin:2015aa} made a great effort in the last years to develop Spack as a dependency manager for scientific software.
The proposed software library comes with support for Spack.
Therefore, installation of the library and all its dependencies is quite simple.
That makes the software usable for a wide range of scientists without caring about dependencies.
To maintain a high software quality, SplineLib is tested by means of the Google testing framework \cite{Civil:2013}.
This is combined with continuous integration and a test coverage that is in the area of 100\%.
The resulting number of tests simultaneously serves as a set of examples on how to use the library.
There is no need to read a large documentation.
Instead, the user can look for a test case suitable to the application at hand.
The paper provides an overview over the main features and implementational constituents of SplineLib.
It concludes with two basic sample test cases from the area of IGA and shape optimization.
\subsection{Optimization}
A simple shape optimization problem is considered to demonstrate the value of SplineLib's functionalities.
The shape to optimize is a second-degree B-spline curve with the following properties:
The knot vector is given as
\begin{equation*}
\{0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0\}
\end{equation*}
and the shape is represented by the three two-dimensional control points
\begin{equation*}
\{-1.0, 0.0\}, \{0.0, y\}, \{1.0, 0.0\},
\end{equation*}
where $y$ is the design variable for the optimization.
The design variable is subject to a bound constraint by $y \in [-1,1]$.
The initial value is $y=0$.
How to construct (as well as evaluate) this initial spline is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:examplecode} (further examples can be found at https://github.com/mfcats/SplineLib/tree/master/example).
\begin{figure}
\texttt{\footnotesize%
array<Degree, 1> degree = $\lbrace$Degree$\lbrace$2$\rbrace\rbrace$;\newline
KnotVectors<1> knot\_vector\_ptr =\vspace{-2.5mm}
\begin{tabbing}
\phantom{\hspace{5mm}}$\lbrace$make\_shared<KnotVector>(KnotVector($\lbrace$\=ParamCoord$\lbrace$0$\rbrace$, ParamCoord$\lbrace$0$\rbrace$,\\
\>ParamCoord$\lbrace$0$\rbrace$, ParamCoord$\lbrace$1$\rbrace$,\\
\>ParamCoord$\lbrace$1$\rbrace$, ParamCoord$\lbrace$1$\rbrace\rbrace$))$\rbrace$;
\end{tabbing}\vspace{-6mm}
\begin{tabbing}
vector<ControlPoint> control\_points = $\lbrace$\=ControlPoint($\lbrace$-1.0, 0.0$\rbrace$),\\
\>ControlPoint($\lbrace$ 0.0, 0.0$\rbrace$),\\
\>ControlPoint($\lbrace$ 1.0, 0.0$\rbrace$)$\rbrace$;
\end{tabbing}\vspace{-4.5mm}
BSpline<1> b\_spline(knot\_vector\_ptr, degree, control\_points);\vspace{-.5mm}
b\_spline.Evaluate($\lbrace$ParamCoord$\lbrace$0.5$\rbrace\rbrace$, $\lbrace$1$\rbrace$);
}
\caption{Initial spline constructed and evaluated in the second dimension at $u = 0.5$.}
\label{fig:examplecode}
\end{figure}
The target shape is a parabola given as
\begin{equation*}
y\left(x\right) = -x^2+1.
\end{equation*}
Thus, the objective function is the area between the B-spline and the parabola on the interval $y\in[-1,1]$.
To solve this simple optimization problem, an executable using SplineLib evaluates the objective function for a given control point coordinate $y$.
This objective function is coupled to the optimization framework Dakota \cite{Adams:2018aa}.
The gradient-free COBYLA algorithm is applied to the optimization problem.
For visualization purposes, VTK output is used.
The result of each optimization step is written into a single VTK file.
The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:optimization_steps}.
The solution converges to the target shape within 32 iterations.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{optimization_steps.pdf}
\caption{Solution steps for a simple shape optimization problem.}
\label{fig:optimization_steps}
\end{figure}
With this example the application of SplineLib in an optimization environment is shown.
Due to the amount of supported input and output formats it is a straightforward step to use SplineLib also in more complex and real-world applications.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\par {
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under the Collaborative Research Center SFB 1120, subproject B2, the Cluster of Excellence ``Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries'' EXC 128, and the International Research Training Group ``Modern Inverse Problems'' 33849990/GRK2379.
}
\section*{Bibliography}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{SplineLib Features}
This section describes the main utility functions of SplineLib: Input/Output and spline manipulation. Again, the multi-purpose idea has been emphasized.
\subsection{Input and Output}
SplineLib supports the four different file formats ITD, IGES, VTK and XML.
ITD is the native file format used in IRIT.
The application IRIT is a free-form geometric modeling environment developed by Elber \cite{Irit15}.
It supports modeling of rational and non-rational B-spline curves, surfaces, and trivariate volumes.
The latter is a feature almost unique to IRIT.
In the past, IRIT has been utilized in connection with IGA \cite{antolin2019isogeometric,antolin2019optimizing,massarwi2016b}.
A similar format to ITD is based on Extensible Markup Language (XML).
The XML-type data format for storing spline geometrical and related data was native to the FORTRAN library developed at the Chair for Computational Analysis of Technical Systems.
The XML format stores splines of arbitrary degree and dimension.
It was mainly developed in an IGA context.
Therefore, it can be used to store the spline geometry together with additional data.
The data can be defined as element data or control point data.
For practical reasons, it is only implemented for dimensions up to four.
This allows for typical three-dimensional computations as well as four-dimensional space-time computations, where time is handled as additional dimension.
However, SplineLib can easily be extended to support higher dimensions.
Parsing and writing XML files is built on top of the open-source library pugixml \cite{pugixml}.
Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) \cite{Smith:1983aa} is another file format that allows the digital exchange of geometry information among CAD systems.
The IGES format was introduced in 1979 and became the standard for transferring multi-dimensional models between CAD programs.
Although there are newer formats nowadays, it is still widely used.
Therefore, supporting IGES enables SplineLib to import and export data, that is relevant in industry.
IGES itself supports not only spline geometries, but also other types of data.
These are for example color information, meshes, and polylines.
The SplineLib implementation, however, focuses on NURBS and B-spline curves and surfaces.
All other IGES entries are ignored.
For post-processing data from computational fluid dynamics, an often used tool is Paraview \cite{Ahrens:2005aa}.
Paraview is an open-source software for data visualization and analysis.
It is built on top of the Visualization Toolkit (VTK) \cite{Schroeder:1999aa}.
VTK provides its own file format. Although it cannot represent splines, they can be visualized by converting them into a mesh.
As meshes cannot be transformed back into splines, SplineLib only provides a VTK writer and no reader.
This writer can be used to convert data obtained by SplineLib into mesh data for visualization and analysis.
The SplineLib API provides the user with the possibility to decide on the resolution of the mesh.
Thus, it can be adjusted to the relevant data.
The VTK export does not only convert the geometry, but can also add further element or control point data to the VTK file.
As a result, this exporter can be used to visualize data obtained by optimization or IGA with the well-developed tools for post-processing.
SplineLib also provides an interface to convert data between these different formats.
This functionality closes the gap between the different application areas.
\subsection{Spline Manipulation}
In addition to the support of multiple file formats, the second main feature implemented in SplineLib are the two most fundamental geometric algorithms for splines: (1) knot insertion/removal, and (2) subdivision.
Knot insertion is a means of improving the local control of the spline properties. Key to knot insertion is that it only acts on the parametric representation: It is important that the global geometry of the spline remains unaltered. In order to achieve this, new control points need to be inserted and others repositioned. The algorithm in SplineLib has been adapted from \cite{Piegl:2012aa}. In particular, the adaption concerns the spline dimension, which in SplineLib is implemented as template parameter.
In a similar fashion, knots can be removed.
Note that in contrast to knot insertion---depending on the specific scenario---knot removal may not be possible without altering the spline geometry.
In those cases, deviations (in terms of Euclidean distance) of the altered spline from the original one are bounded by a user-specified tolerance.
One particular extension of knot insertion is spline subdivision. It relies on inserting the same knot repeatedly, until $C^{-1}$-continuity is reached. At this point, the splines can be separated by splitting the original knot vector. Also this algorithm has been extended to arbitrary dimension.
\section{Application Examples}
This final section is devoted to two application examples: IGA and optimization.
\input{iga}
\input{optimization}
\section{Splines}\label{splines}
This section gives a brief introduction into the definition of splines.
A detailed description of splines---as well as corresponding properties and algorithms---can be found in \cite{Piegl:2012aa}.
In general, splines map from a parametric space to a physical space.
Let there are $n+1$ basis functions $f_i$ defined in the parameter space.
In the \mbox{$N$-dimensional} physical space $X$, a control point $\mathbf{P}_i \in \mathbb{R}^N$ is associated with each basis function.
A parametric coordinate $\mathbf{u}$ is mapped to the physical space by (1) evaluating each basis function $f_i$ at $\mathbf{u}$; (2) multiplying these values with the corresponding control points; (3) summing up all products:
\begin{equation*}
X\left(u\right) = \sum_{i = 0}^{n}{f_i\left(\mathbf{u}\right)\mathbf{P}_i}.
\end{equation*}
The definitions of the various spline types differ in the way the parametric space and the basis functions are defined.
SplineLib currently supports B-splines and the related NURBS, but implementation of further spline techniques is envisaged.
From the class of these splines, solely the so-called clamped splines are considered.
Clamped splines are those that interpolate their boundary control points exactly.
For simplicity, the current description is restricted to one-dimensional splines as higher dimensional splines (surfaces, volumes, etc.) are constructed by using tensor products of one-dimensional splines.
In contrast, the software library at hand supports splines of arbitrary dimension because the parametric dimensionality is implemented as a template parameter.
The parametric space is defined by a knot vector $U$.
A knot vector is a non-decreasing sequence of $m+1$ real numbers (potentially non-uniformly spaced):
\begin{equation*}
U = \left\{u_0, \ldots, u_{m}\right\},
\end{equation*}
where $u_i \in \mathbb{R}$ is called a knot.
Based on the knot vector $U$, the $i$-th knot span is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\left[u_i, u_{i+1}\right), i \ne m - 1,\\
\left[u_i, u_{i+1}\right], i = m - 1.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:knotspan}
\end{equation}
A knot span is called non-zero if $u_i \ne u_{i+1}$.
Given these knot spans, the B-spline basis functions are defined from $m$ basis functions of degree zero by using the Cox-de Boor recursion formula:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
N_{i,0}\left(u\right) = &
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } u \in i\text{-th knot span},\\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases} \\
N_{i,p}\left(u\right) = & \frac{u-u_i}{u_{i+p}-u_i}N_{i,p-1}\left(u\right) + \frac{u_{i+p+1}-u}{u_{i+p+1}-u_{i+1}}N_{i+1,p-1}\left(u\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:bsplinebasisfnc}
\end{align}
The number of control points $n+1$ for a spline of degree $p$ is given as
\begin{equation*}
n + 1 = m - p.
\end{equation*}
Note that the fraction $\frac{0}{0}$ can occur in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:bsplinebasisfnc} if a knot vector $U$ contains the same knot $p+1$ times.
This ratio is defined to be zero:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{0}{0} := 0 \label{eq:divisionbyzero}.
\end{equation*}
Given these basis functions, a $p$-th degree B-spline curve can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}\left(u\right) = \sum_{i=0}^nN_{i,p}\left(u\right)\mathbf{P}_i. \label{eq:bspline}
\end{equation}
It is well-known that B-splines have their limitations if geometries become more complex.
For example, it is not possible to exactly represent a circle by a B-spline curve.
NURBS overcome this limitation \cite{Versprille:1975aa,Tiller:1983aa}.
In contrast to B-splines, NURBS map to a weighted physical space.
Utilizing the B-spline basis functions, a NURBS curve is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}\left(u\right) = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^nN_{i,p}\left(u\right)w_i\mathbf{P}_i}{\sum_{j=0}^nN_{j,p}\left(u\right)w_j},
\label{eq:nurbsdefinition}
\end{equation}
where $w_i\in\mathbb{R}$ are the weights assigned to the control points.
Introducing
\begin{equation*}
R_{i,p}\left(u\right) = \frac{N_{i,p}\left(u\right)w_i}{\sum_{j=0}^nN_{j,p}\left(u\right)w_j},
\end{equation*}
Eq.\ \eqref{eq:nurbsdefinition} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{C}\left(u\right) = \sum_{i=0}^nR_{i,p}\left(u\right)\mathbf{P}_i.
\end{equation*}
This form resembles the B-spline definition in Eq.\ \eqref{eq:bspline} with the exception of the definition of basis functions.
In the spline library both types of splines can be accessed by a common spline interface.
This allows for a spline-type independent code development.
Even new spline types as for example T-splines or PB-splines can be used without any relevant modifications if they are implemented within a later release of the software.
\section{Implementation: Evaluation of B-Spline Basis Functions}
\input{basisfunctionevaluation}
|
\section{Introduction}
Machine learning models are increasingly being employed to aid decision-makers in all kinds of consequential decision settings such as healthcare, education, employment, criminal justice, etc. This amplifying use of model-based decision-making process has raised concerns from policymakers, legal experts, philosophers, and civil organizations about the prejudice (also called as bias) in the employed decision models that rely on the statistical patterns learned from the real-world data ~\cite{datta2015automated,sweeney2013discrimination,zhang2019faht,zliobaite2015survey}.
A machine learning algorithm learns from historical instances (i.e., training data) to produce decisions for future instances. The learning algorithms are designed to learn statistical patterns in the training data, and since these decision systems use real-world data, the unintended consequence is that it can also potentially learn any unfair prejudice that may exist in the real-world data. For example, credit scoring is often decided based on the past credit data records, and the past credit data records may contain less sampled minority classes that could result in random predictions for minority classes. Another well-known example is of ProPublica COMPAS's risk assessments -- COMPAS algorithm was being used to forecast which criminals are most likely to re-offend -- where it was found that the results were displayed differently for black and white offenders ~\cite{angwin2016machine}.
As the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence is becoming more prevalent, there is an increasing concern to make the decision process socially and legally fair i.e. non-discriminatory and fair in sensitive traits such as race, sex, religion, etc. Several techniques have been proposed to reduce or eliminate prejudice in machine learning models. A naïve approach is to avoid using sensitive features such as race, sex, religion, etc. while learning the model. However, machine learning algorithms are capable of learning complex relations present in the data, and there could be certain indirect data points that may serve as the proxy for these sensitive features. For example, the mention of the phrase “Convener of Grace Hopper Summit” in the resume may possibly indicate that the candidate is a female though there is no explicit mention of the sex. Hence, we need a more holistic mechanism to ensure that the data is free of such potential unfair prejudice inducing features.
To address these challenges, we propose an algorithm that automatically detects and treats the prejudice inducing features from the dataset and then learns a fair model. The process to detect and treat prejudice inducing features here is interpretable and easily verifiable. Our approach processes the dataset in an iterative way and removes information about the features which are latently related to the known sensitive attributes. The processed prejudice-free features can be used by the downstream tasks to build fair models. The information about the detected prejudice inducing features can also be used to understand the discrimination in the dataset and the dataset can thus be altered accordingly. By providing interpretable information about the prejudice inducing features in the dataset, our technique allows to collect better prejudice-free features that are more directly related to the model target variable than sensitive attributes. To validate our approach, we do a detailed experimental evaluation on real-world datasets that show significant improvement in fairness measures over prevailing methods. We have shown the comparison of our technique against other well-known methods ~\cite{calders2010three,feldman2015certifying,kamishima2012fairness,zafar2017fairness}.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 defines the basic notations. Section 3 reviews the related work. Section 4 discusses the proposed approach to eliminate prejudice inducing features from the dataset and learn a fair model. The experimental evaluation results are presented in Section 5. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section 6.
\section {Basic Notations}
Unfair treatment of people based on sensitive attributes such as race or sex is prohibited by anti-discrimination laws in many countries. Disparate impact is one of the metrics to evaluate fairness under these laws. Disparate impact occurs when decision system outcomes disproportionately impact certain sub-populations. While there is no mathematical formula for quantifying disparate impact, we use 80\% rule (or more generally p\% rule) advocated by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ~\cite{feldman2015certifying}. Disparate impact is calculated as the proportion of the unprivileged group that received the positive outcome by the proportion of the privileged group that received the positive outcome i.e.
\\
$\textit{Disparate Impact} = \frac{Pr(\hat{Y}=1 | S=unprivileged)}{Pr(\hat{Y}=1 | S=privileged)}$
\\
\\
where $\hat{Y}$ represent the predicited variable and $S$ represent the sensitive attribute class.
For cases with more than two possible values of sensitive attributes, two variants of disparate impact could be considered i.e. binary and average. In the binary case, all unprivileged and privileged classes are grouped together into one unprivileged and privileged class respectively, and then a standard disparate impact formula is applied. In average case, all pairwise disparate impact calculations are done for each of the unprivileged and privileged class combinations, and the average over all these calculations is reported ~\cite{friedler2019comparative}.
A disparate impact score of near $1.0$ would mean that the model is fair. A lower value would mean that the model is unfair to the unprivileged population, and a value above $1.0$ would mean that the model favors the unprivileged population. We use disparate impact as a fairness measure to demonstrate and validate the performance of our algorithm.
Disparate treatment is another notion used by anti-discrimination laws to evaluate the fairness of a decision-making system. This notion occurs when known sensitive information is used by the model to make decisions. We avoid disparate treatment by ensuring that known sensitive features are removed from the dataset before learning the model ~\cite{zafar2017fairness}.
Performance measurement for a binary classification problem at various thresholds settings is represented by AUC-ROC (Area Under the Curve - Receiver Operating Characteristics) curve which is the primary metric we use to make dataset prejudice free. ROC is a probability curve, and AUC represents the degree of measure of separability. Higher AUC score conveys that the model is more capable of differentiating between target (positive and negative) classes. An AUC score of 0.5 conveys that the model has no capacity to distinguish between positive and negative target class. We leverage the AUC metric to make the dataset indifferent to target classes for each of the known sensitive features ~\cite{bradley1997use}. In the case of multi-class classification problems, one vs. all techniques could be used for calculating the AUC metric.
We show accuracy vs. disparate-impact trade-off for which accuracy of classification prediction is calculated as:
\\
$\textit{Accuracy} = \frac{\text{Number of correct predictions}}{\text{Total number of predictions}}$
\\
\\
For the purpose of this paper, we restrict the explanation and demonstration scope of our technique to binary classification tasks, but the technique can be easily extended to multi-class classification and regression tasks.
\section {Related Work}
Fairness approaches generally fall into one of the following categories: pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing. In each of these categories, a number of approaches have been proposed to address prejudice and learn fair machine learning models.
Pre-processing approaches try to learn a new representation by removing correlation to (latent) sensitive attributes and preserves the training dataset information as much as possible. These new representations can then be fed to downstream tasks to build a model free of prejudice. Some advantages of these are that they don't modify the existing learning algorithm implementation, and access to the sensitive attributes is not required during the inference time. The technique we propose in this paper falls under this category of fairness approaches. One of the well-known previous work in this category is by ~\cite{zemel2013learning} that tries to learn a new representation of the data that is independent of the protected attribute by formulating fairness as an optimization problem while retaining as much information as possible about the features to encode the data and simultaneously obfuscating any information about membership in the protected group. ~\cite{kamiran2009classifying} is another well-known work in this category that selects the data points which are closer to the decision boundary and ranks them. The label of the ranked data points are carefully swapped in order to maintain the balance between classes and to minimize the loss of predictive accuracy.
In-processing approaches take algorithms into consideration, contrary to pre-processing approaches which are algorithm agnostic, and modifies the cost function to also account for fairness objectives. The most common idea leveraged by these approaches is to add a penalty or a regularization term to the existing optimization objective. ~\cite{calders2010three} proposes three naïve-bayes classifier approaches that fall under this category. The first approach modifies the probability of being positive to alter the decision distribution, the second one trains a model per sensitive attribute and balances them, and the third one optimizes the latent variable representing the prejudice free target by using expectation maximization methods. Another method is ~\cite{kamishima2012fairness} that modifies the cost function to add a regularization term in order to restrict the model learner’s behavior from sensitive information.
Post-processing approaches, on the other hand, try to correct trained model predictor in terms of fairness constraints by adjusting the decision regions. In ~\cite{hardt2016equality}, the operating threshold of the machine learning model is decided based on the ROC curves with respect to the targeted groups. The point of intersection of these ROC signify equalized odds i.e. both true and false positive rates are equal for targeted groups. The point where true positives rates are equal for targeted groups represents fairness according to the equality of opportunity notion.
\section {Prejudice Free Representations }
As in the case of any supervised learning setting, we assume that we have access to a labeled dataset (X, S, Y) where X denotes feature vectors, S denotes known sensitive features, and Y represents the target variable. We also assume that the domain of each of the columns in S is limited to discrete values, which is a common scenario in most of the real-world tasks, for example, sex, race as sensitive features. We also assume that known sensitive attributes are already removed from X, thereby avoiding disparate treatment i.e. features in S and X are mutually exclusive. The technique we propose here effectively identify and remove latent discriminating features present in the dataset (X, S, Y), while learning the model to predict target variable Y.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
For the dataset represented by $(X, S, Y)$, let $\mathcal{M}(Y|X, S)$ be a prediction model that models the conditional distribution of $Y$ given $X$ and $S$. Our objective is to ensure that model $\mathcal{M}$ is free of prejudice from sensitive features $S$ and latent sensitive features among $X$. In other words, the conditions $Y \perp \!\!\! \perp S$ $\vert$ $X$ and $S \perp \!\!\! \perp X$ should be satisfied to make the model prejudice free. The first condition is easy to achieve by simply eliminating the sensitive features S from prediction model $\mathcal{M}$, however $Y \perp \!\!\! \perp S$ $\vert$ $ X$ doesn’t guarantee $Y \perp \!\!\! \perp S$: for example one or more sensitive features are linear of combinations of known non-sensitive features: $S = X + \epsilon_s $. Hence, we need a method to remove prejudice by making X and Y independent from S simultaneously \cite{kamishima2012fairness}.
Before defining a general framework, we pick logistic regression as an example classification algorithm to discuss the approach that ensures $Y \perp \!\!\! \perp S$ and $S \perp \!\!\! \perp X$ conditions. Let $D = \{(x, s, y)\}$ be the dataset comprising of the instances of random variables $X$, $S$ and $Y$. We model $\mathcal{M}(Y|X, S; \theta)$ to predict the conditional probability of target variable Y where $\theta$ represents the set of model parameter that are learnt. In a typical case, the model parameters $\theta$, are tuned to maximize the log-likelihood given by equation 1:
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{.91\linewidth}{!}{$
\displaystyle
\begin{split}
\hat{\theta} & = \arg\max_{\theta} \big[ \ln \mathcal{M}\big(Y|X, S; \theta\big) \big] \\
& = \arg\max_{\theta} \big[\sum_{(x, y) \in D} \big(y\ln{\frac{1}{1 + e^{-x^{T}\theta}}} + \big(1 - y\big)\ln{\frac{1}{1 + e^{x^{T}\theta}}}\big) \big]
\end{split}
$}
\end{equation}
In our modified setting, we learn the prejudice free model in a two-step process through equation 2 and 3 where $D' = \{(x, s, y)\}$ be the dataset comprising of the instances of random variables $X'$, $S$ and $Y$:
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{.99\linewidth}{!}{$
\displaystyle
\hat{X'} = \arg\min_{X^{'} \subset X} \big[ \arg\max_{\omega} \big[ \sum_{(x, s) \in D'} \big(s\ln{\frac{1}{1 + e^{-x^{T}\omega}}} + \big(1 - s\big)\ln{\frac{1}{1 + e^{x^{T}\omega}}}\big) \big] \big]
$}
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{.91\linewidth}{!}{$
\displaystyle
\hat{\theta'} = \arg\max_{\theta'} \big[\sum_{(x, y) \in D'} \big(y\ln{\frac{1}{1 + e^{-x^{T}\theta'}}} + \big(1 - y\big)\ln{\frac{1}{1 + e^{x^{T}\theta'}}}\big) \big]
$}
\end{equation}%
Equation 2 minimizes the maximum likelihood of the model that learns $\omega$ to predict the sensitive variables $S$ from $X’$ where $X'$ is a subset of features from $X$ after eliminating the most predictive features in an iterative manner. Equation 3 learns the maximum likelihood parameter to predict $Y$ based on prejudice free features $\hat{X}$ which is the residual set of $X$, and therefore ensures the condition $Y \perp \!\!\! \perp S$. The Prejudice Free Representations (PFR) algorithm in the next section provides a general framework for this approach that is agnostic of the learning algorithm.
\subsection{General Framework}
In supervised learning, models evolve over iterations of feature engineering and hyperparameter tuning to optimize for one or more key performance metrics such as precision, recall, ROC, AUC, etc. In feature engineering, we tend to add more features to enhance the model’s predictive ability. Our approach here applies what we call the inverse of feature engineering where we remove features iteratively so that the AUC of the model that predicts the sensitive variable falls until the point when the model has no capacity to distinguish between the classes of the sensitive variable.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\begin{multicols}{3}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{adult-dataset-graphs/race-scatter.png}
\caption{Race Sensitive Attribute }
\end{subfigure}\par
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{adult-dataset-graphs/sex-scatter.png}
\caption{Sex Sensitive Attribute }
\end{subfigure}\par
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{adult-dataset-graphs/race-sex-scatter.png}
\caption{Race \& Sex Sensitive Attributes }
\end{subfigure}
\end{multicols}
\caption{Accuracy vs. Disparate Impact evaluation on Adult Income Dataset}
\label{fig:aidpfr}
\end{figure*}
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Prejudice Free Representations}
\label{alg:algorithm}
\textbf{Notations}:
\\ $\zeta$ -\ function to train a classifier
\\ $\psi$ -\ function to get AUC score
\\ $\eta$ -\ function to get most important feature
\\
\textbf{Input}:
\\ $X$ -\ feature vectors
\\ $S$ -\ known sensitive features
\\ $\tau$ -\ auc thresholds for sensitive features
\\
\textbf{Initliaze}: $X^\prime$ = $\frac{X -min(X)}{max(X) - min(X)}$ \quad \quad // min-max scaling $X$\\
\textbf{Output}: prejudice free dataset \\
\textbf{Process:}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE $\forall (s_i, \tau_i) \in (S, \tau)$
\STATE \quad \quad $\mathcal{M}$ := $\zeta(X^\prime, s_i)$
\STATE \quad \quad $auc$ := $\psi(\mathcal{M}, X^\prime, s_i)$
\STATE \quad \quad \textbf{while} $auc > \tau_i$ \textbf{do}
\STATE \quad \quad \quad \quad $f$ := $\eta(\mathcal{M}, X^\prime)$
\STATE \quad \quad \quad \quad $X^\prime$ := $X^\prime \setminus f$
\STATE \quad \quad \quad \quad $\mathcal{M}$ := $\zeta(X^\prime, s_i)$
\STATE \quad \quad \quad \quad $auc$ := $\psi(\mathcal{M}, X^\prime, s_i)$
\STATE \quad \quad \textbf{end while}
\STATE \textbf{return} $X^\prime$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Prejudice Free Representations (PFR) algorithm identifies the latent discriminating features and removes them from the dataset. To do so, it iteratively trains a classifier for each of the features in $S$ as target variable and removes the most important feature from the feature set, X, until the AUC of the sensitive variable predicting model drops to the acceptable fairness measure threshold represented by $\tau$. The process is repeated for each of the features in $S$. While the underlying learning algorithm attempts to maximize AUC, the PFR algorithm drives the AUC down by removing most predictive feature in every iteration. In this process, latent features that have a correlation to the sensitive features are removed in a thorough manner. The output of the algorithm can be fed to the learning algorithm to learn prejudice free prediction model for target variable Y. Taking an example Logistic Regression (LR) classifier, the PFR algorithm outputs a prejudice free dataset as per our modified setting in equation 2, and the output dataset is then used to train a LR classifier as per equation 3. For the LR classifier, the most important features is the one with the maximum absolute weight where the features are normalised.
Algorithm 1 above provides a pseudocode implementation of the PFR algorithm. The algorithm provides a (best-first) greedy feature selection and removal mechanism to eliminate the prejudice inducing features, but the formulation and approach could be generalized to other feature selection methods as well. A few things to take note of are that the feature vectors of $X$ are scaled before applying the algorithm as it requires relative feature importance values which can be known only when the features are normalized. The other thing is about the AUC threshold value $\tau$. The value $\tau$ for a binary classifier is calculated as a function of target class imbalance. For example, if the domain of target variable is $\{0, 1\}$, then the $\tau_i$ for a sensitive feature $s_i$ is calculated as:
\begin{equation}
\resizebox{.41\linewidth}{!}{$
\displaystyle
\tau _i= \frac{\max(\vert s_i \setminus \{0\} \vert, \vert s_i \setminus \{1\} \vert)}{\vert s_i \vert}
$}
\end{equation}%
It is therefore advisable to set AUC threshold $\tau$ as per equation 4. The parameter $\tau$ could be varied to handle Accuracy vs. Fairness-Measure trade-off as discussed more in the experimental section below.
The algorithm generalizes well for any classification algorithm where the feature importance score could be known, such as logistic regression, decision tree-based classifiers, neural networks, etc. As we use the same algorithm that is used to train the target model to identify and remove the prejudice inducing features, the approach provides a verifiable guarantee that the target model is free of prejudice. The dataset processed by the algorithm can also be fed to downstream learning tasks such as regression and classification to build prejudice free models. For example, the prejudice free datasets created using logistic regression algorithm can be used to train a linear regression, or an SVM model.
\section {Experiments}
We evaluate our approach on a couple of publicly available real-world datasets. The first goal of our experiments is to show the trade-off between accuracy and fairness measure. To this end, we evaluate our approach with different $\tau$ parameter values and with multiple sensitive attributes. We demonstrate our approach with the Logisitic Regression (LR) classifier and compare it with the standard LR classifier. The second goal is to analyze our approach with multiple sensitive attributes where we show that our approach iteratively removes prejudiced features for each of the known sensitive attributes.
The final goal of our experiments is to compare the performance metrics of our approach to other known fairness methods. We leverage the fairness-comparison open source library ~\cite{friedler2019comparative} to access datasets and implementations of other known methods. The library provides comparative study of other well-known fairness methods and is meant to facilitate the benchmarking of fairness aware machine learning algorithms.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{multicols}{3}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{propub-dataset-graphs/race-scatter.png}
\caption{Race Sensitive Attribute }
\end{subfigure}\par
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.015\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{propub-dataset-graphs/sex-scatter.png}
\caption{Sex Sensitive Attribute }
\end{subfigure}\par
\begin{subfigure}[b]{1.0\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{propub-dataset-graphs/race-sex-scatter.png}
\caption{Race \& Sex Sensitive Attributes }
\end{subfigure}
\end{multicols}
\caption{Accuracy vs. Disparate Impact evaluation on ProPublica Recidivism Dataset}
\label{fig:propubpfr}
\end{figure*}
\subsection {Datasets}
\textbf{Adult Income} This dataset contains information about individuals from the 1994 U.S. census. It consists of 32,561 instances and 14 attributes, including sensitive attributes race and sex. The prediction task is determining whether an individual makes more or less than \$50,000 per year ~\cite{friedler2019comparative}.
\\
\\
\textbf{ProPublica Recidivism} This dataset includes features such as the number of juvenile felonies and the charge degree of the current arrest for 6,167 individuals with 15 attributes, including sensitive attributes race and sex. This dataset was collected by the
use of the COMPAS risk assessment tool in Broward County, Florida [Angwin et al. 2016]. Each individual has a binary “recidivism” outcome, that is the prediction task, indicating whether they were rearrested within two years after the first arrest ~\cite{friedler2019comparative}.
\\
\\
For both the datasets, we do minority target classes oversampling since the target classes are skewed in terms of sensitive attributes as target variable. Categorical features in both the datasets are converted to one-hot encoded vectors to make them numerical before passing it to the learning algorithm. We consider \textit{White} and \textit{Male} as privileged classes for Race and Sex sensitive attribute in Adult Income Dataset, and \textit{Caucasian} and \textit{Male} as privileged classes for Race and Sex sensitive attribute in ProPublica Recidivism Dataset respectively.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | l | p{5.5 cm} |}
\hline
\textbf{Attribute} & \textbf{Values} \\ \hline
marital-status & Married-AF-spouse, Separated\\ \hline
native-country & Italy, Haiti, Portugal, Trinadad\&Tobago, Greece, Yugoslavia, Laos, Scotland, Cambodia, Hungary, China, Canada, South, Poland, Vietnam, Ireland, El-Salvador, Taiwan, Guatemala, Philippines, Honduras, Peru, Hong, Cuba, India, Mexico, Jamaica,Thailand, France, Nicaragua, Columbia, Iran,Germany, United-States \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{PFR Detected Prejudice Inducing Features on Adult Income Dataset with Race Sensitive Attribute at $\tau=0.70$.}
\label{tab:raceiterative}
\end{table}
\subsection{Accuracy vs. Disparate Impact}
Figure \ref{fig:aidpfr} and \ref{fig:propubpfr} shows accuracy vs. disparate impact trade-off results on Adult Income Dataset and ProPublica Recidivism Dataset respectively. The results show this trade-off on three different set of sensitive attributes i.e. Race, Sex and Race \& Sex, with different $\tau$ parameter values which influences the degree of prejudice removal. As expected, PFR iteratively removes prejudice inducing features from the dataset, as we lower the value of $\tau$, thereby consistently pushing the disparate impact value close to $1.0$, which is the ideal value for a fair model. The figures also show that the trade-off between accuracy and fairness measure can be decided based on different $\tau$ values.
Figure \ref{fig:aidpfrcurve} supports this further where we can see that the probability of predicting a positive class with respect to privileged and unprivileged classes is pushed more towards an ideal condition by our approach when compared to the standard LR classifier where ideal condition is the line satisfying positive class predicting probability to be same for both privileged and unprivileged classes.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | l | p{5.5 cm} |}
\hline
\textbf{Attribute} & \textbf{Values} \\ \hline
age & continous \\ \hline
workclass & Self-emp-inc, Without-pay, Local-gov
\\ \hline
marital-status & Married-civ-spouse, Divorced, Separated, Widowed, Married-spouse-absent \\ \hline
hours-per-week & continuous \\ \hline
native-country & Cambodia, Thailand, Honduras, India, Hungary, Scotland, Dominican-Republic, Outlying-US(Guam-USVI-etc), China \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{PFR Detected Prejudice Inducing Features on Adult Income Dataset with Sex Sensitive Attribute at $\tau=0.70$.}
\label{tab:sexiterative}
\end{table}
Since PFR iteratively removes the prejudice inducing features, the drop in accuracy of the target model as we lower the value of $\tau$ could be compensated by adding more features that are non-discriminating in nature. Table \ref{tab:raceiterative} and \ref{tab:sexiterative} shows the detected prejudice inducing features at $\tau=0.70$ for Adult Income Dataset with race and sex as sensitive attributes. We can see that with race attribute, the detected prejudice inducing features are mostly about `native-country` which is as expected. In the case of the sex attribute, what is interesting is that ‘hours-per-week‘ is detected as prejudice inducing feature which would not very obvious for human eyes as it takes a continous value and would not have been trivially detected by just looking at the dataset.
With our approach, we advocate that the disparate impact of near one should be achieved at any cost, and accuracy should be improved only through non-prejudice inducing features.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.495\linewidth}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{race-curve-adult.png}
\caption{Race Sensitive Attribute}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.495\linewidth}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sex-curve-adult.png}
\caption{Sex Sensitive Attribute}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{PFR push the probability of predicting positive class with respect to privileged and unprivileged classes towards ideal condition on Adult Income Dataset}
\label{fig:aidpfrcurve}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Multiple Sensitive Attributes}
For the tasks where prejudice against multiple sensitive attributes, like race, sex, etc., have to be handled, the proposed approach can be iteratively applied for each of the known sensitive attributes to eliminate prejudice inducing features. Figures \ref{fig:aidpfr}c and \ref{fig:propubpfr}c show working of the approach on Race \& Sex as sensitive attributes. To further understand the relation of applying our approach on multiple attributes, we analyze Accuracy vs. $\tau$ and Disparate Impact vs. $\tau$ performance metrics on Adult Income Dataset. Figure \ref{fig:multiple} shows the result with Race, Sex and Race \& Sex as sensitive attributes. As one can see with Race \& Sex as multiple attributes, our approach results lie somewhere in the middle of Race and Sex as separate sensitive attributes i.e. our approach tries to remove prejudice inducing features in terms of both sensitive attributes, for Accuracy and Disparate Impact case which is also as expected by \cite{friedler2019comparative}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.495\linewidth}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{adult-dataset-graphs/acc-vs-tau.png}
\caption{Accuracy}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.495\linewidth}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{adult-dataset-graphs/dis-vs-tau.png}
\caption{Disparate Impact}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance metrics for sensitive attributes at different $\tau$ values on Adult Income Dataset}
\label{fig:multiple}
\end{figure}
\subsection {Algorithms Comparison}
We benchmark our algorithm to existing well-known fairness methods; these implementations are leveraged from \cite{friedler2019comparative}.
In Figure 5a and 5b, we have plotted the output of PFR algorithms at different $\tau$ values and connected the dots to approximately show the trade-off between disparate impact and accuracy as a continuous function though it is not practical to measure the disparate impact metric at all accuracy values. In addition, the output of other well-known algorithms supported by [Friedler et al., 2019] framework are also plotted for comparison. In Figure 5a, we see that PFR beats all except Feldman in terms of disparate impact while giving comparable accuracy. However, in Figure 5b, other algorithms perform marginally better than PFR in terms of accuracy. In both the figures, we could see that PFR outperforms other algorithms in terms of disparate impact metric alone as it could push disparate impact closer to 1.0 at lower $\tau$ value. As previously called out, the accuracy could be improved by adding more features that are not correlated to the sensitive variables.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.495\linewidth}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{adult-dataset-graphs/compare.png}
\caption{Adult Income \\ Dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.495\linewidth}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{propub-dataset-graphs/compare.png}
\caption{ProPublica Recidivism Dataset}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Accuracy vs. Disparate Impact comparison of differernt algorithms with Race Sensitive Attribute}
\label{fig:comparison}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion \& Future Work}
We proposed an efficient approach that effectively identifies and treats the latent prejudice inducing features that (may) exist in training data. The approach provides a verifiable guarantee that the model is free of prejudice as we use the same algorithm that is used to train the model also to identify and eliminate the prejudice inducing features. Since the approach eliminates prejudice inducing features in an iterative fashion, it provides information about which features are linked to sensitive attributes. The information about the removed features complements the feature engineering process to add more features that are free of correlation with the sensitive attributes, therefore improving accuracy while maintaining fairness measure. Our experiments support that the approach helps to achieve a near-ideal fairness metric.
The approach can be used to identify and remove latent sensitive features and then train a fair model on the residual features using other learning algorithms, both supervised and unsupervised. Also, we could use our approach with in-processing fairness methods by feeding them with information about the detected prejudice inducing features as input. As an extension to the approach, we plan to devise an algorithm that will detect and penalize the prejudice inducing features instead of removing them, by dynamically learning the appropriate penalties for each such feature.
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Blue compact dwarf (BCD) galaxies \citep{Thuan1981}, particularly metal-poor ones, are important laboratories for studying galaxies in their earliest stages of evolution. They may be undergoing their first round of star formation, containing massive O and B stars responsible for their blue colors. Therefore, BCD galaxies may act as analogues to primordial high redshift galaxies, offering unique opportunities to study intense star formation and low-metallicity environments.
PHL 293B\footnote{Also known as the Kinman dwarf or SDSS J223036.79-000636.9.} is a metal-poor ($12+\log{{\rm O}/{\rm H}}= 7.71 \pm 0.02$; \citealt{Izotov2011}) BCD emission-line galaxy at $z=0.00517 \pm 0.00001$ (NED)\footnote{For consistency with \citet{Terlevich2014}, a distance of 23.1 Mpc is adopted throughout (corrected for the Virgo cluster + Great Attractor + Shapley) using $H_0=73.0$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.27$, and , $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$. See \url{http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/byname?objname=kinman\%20dwarf&hconst=73.0&omegam=0.27&omegav=0.73&wmap=1&corr_z=4}.}. PHL 293B has a stellar mass of $\sim2\times10^{7}~M_{\odot}$ and an HI gas fraction of 0.75 \citep{2006ApJ...653..240G}. The source previously exhibited striking P Cygni-like broad emission in Balmer series lines \citep{Izotov2009,Izotov2011}. The narrow absorption lines were blueshifted by $\sim$800 km s$^{-1}$ and the broad H$\alpha$ emission had a FWHM of about 1500 km s$^{-1}$. The spectral features (including broad lines) persisted for over a decade until only recently. The origin of these features has been a source of speculation, with conflicting interpretations in the literature. A luminous blue variable (LBV) star outburst \citep{Izotov2009,Izotov2011,Allan2020}, an expanding supershell or stationary superwind driven by a young stellar wind \citep{Terlevich2014}, and a strongly-radiative stationary cooling wind driven by old supernova remnants \citep{Tenorio-Tagle2015} have been proposed.
Here we report on variability measured in the optical light curves using difference imaging on Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and years 1 -- 6 (Y6) Dark Energy Survey \citep[DES;][]{Flaugher2015,DES2016,DW2018} images. The previously-undetected variability has an amplitude of 0.12 mag in the $\emph{g}$ band between 1998 and 2018. This observation rules out stationary winds and other non-transient interpretations for the mechanism of the broad emission lines in PHL 293B. The optical variability is well-described by a damped random walk process typical of active galactic nuclei (AGN) \citep{2009ApJ...698..895K, 2010ApJ...721.1014M}. However, analysis of recently-obtained Gemini \mbox{GMOS-N} spectroscopy reveals the broad emission component has now begun to subside. A changing-look AGN scenario is unlikely given the lack of X-ray emission and high-ionization lines, as discussed in \S\ref{sec:discussion}. Most likely, the variability is due to a transient event mimicking AGN-like variability.
In light of our new observations, we investigate several scenarios which could explain the features of PHL 293B. We conclude that the source of the variability and spectral features of PHL 293B is most likely due to a long-lived Type IIn supernova (SN IIn)-like transient. In particular, we speculate that we could be observing a similar event to the peculiar long-lived transient SDSS J113323.97+550415.8 (SDSS1133) in the BCD galaxy Mrk 177 discovered by \cite{Koss2014}. In this scenario, an LBV progenitor explodes as a SN IIn-like event, followed by a slowly flattening light curve and unusually persistent broad emission line features.
This Letter is organized as follows. In \S\ref{sec:newobs}, we present combined SDSS and DES light curves which show a slowly fading transient, along with new Gemini GMOS-N spectroscopy which shows the broad emission has faded recently. In \S\ref{sec:obs}, we summarize the existing observations of PHL 293B in the literature. In \S\ref{sec:discussion}, we review the interpretations of the nature of PHL 293B in the literature and attempt to reconcile its newly-observed photometric and spectroscopic variability with the previous work. In \S\ref{sec:conclusion}, we summarize our findings and conclude that, contrary to previous explanations, PHL 293B is most likely a long-lived SN IIn-like event.
\section{New Observations} \label{sec:newobs}
\subsection{SDSS+DES Light Curve} \label{sec:lc}
\begin{figure*}
\gridline{\fig{phl293b.eps}{0.3\textwidth}{(a)}
\fig{template.eps}{0.3\textwidth}{(b)}
\fig{diff.eps}{0.3\textwidth}{(c)}
}
\caption{Difference imaging analysis of PHL 293B photometry with SDSS and DES. The top row shows (a) the DES \emph{gri} color composite Y6 coadd, (b) the DES \emph{g} band template image, and (c) the DES \emph{g} band coadd of the difference images. The circles enclose the 2.5$^{\prime\prime}$ radius target aperture. The GMOS slit configuration is also shown in panel (c). The difference images indicate a single variable point source offset by $100\pm21$ pc. \label{fig:0}}
\gridline{\fig{g.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(a)}
\fig{r.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(b)}
}
\caption{The SDSS and DES combined difference imaging light curves of PHL 293B (target) are shown in \emph{g} (a) and \emph{r} (b) bands. A nearby field star is shown for comparison. The best-fit damped random walk (DRW) model (solid lines) and model uncertainty (dashed lines) are shown. The light curves are constructed from SDSS and DES imaging between 1998 and 2018. \label{fig:1}}
\end{figure*}
The optical variability in PHL 298B was discovered independently in searches for AGN in dwarf galaxies in SDSS \citep{Baldassare2018} and in DES (Burke et al. in preparation). Here, we combine the SDSS and DES light curves for a total baseline spanning two decades (1998--2018). We perform standard difference image analysis (DIA) to isolate the variable point-source flux from seeing variations between epochs.
We summarize the analysis and features of the light curve here; see Appx.~\ref{apdx} for details. The DES coadd, template image, difference image coadd, and the DIA multi-band SDSS+DES light curves are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:0}. The difference image flux is consistent with an unresolved point source offset by $3.5\pm0.7$ pixels or $100\pm21$ pc from the brightest pixel of the host. The SDSS photometry was taken between MJD 51075 and 53314 (between 1998 and 2005). The DES photometry was taken between MJD 56545 and 58428 (between 2013 and 2018). The amplitude is 0.12 mag (\emph{g} band) which corresponds to a $\sim10$ percent variation in luminosity over 20 years.
We originally selected PHL 293B as having variability consistent with an AGN. To test this in more detail, we fit the light curve to a damped random walk (DRW) model (generally a good empirical descriptor of AGN variability on days to years timescales; \citealt{2009ApJ...698..895K, 2010ApJ...721.1014M}). To assess the fit, we calculate the reduced $\chi^2$ of the DRW model $\left[\chi^2/\nu\right]_{\rm DRW}$. We also calculate the significance that the source is variable $\sigma_{\rm var}$ in units of $\sigma$ from a $\chi^2$ test given the photometry and uncertainties (see Appx.~\ref{apdx}). We find the $\emph{g}$-band variability is significant at the $11\sigma$ level, and the DRW model is a good fit to the data. However, the overall trend is a slow fading at a rate of $\sim$0.005 mag year$^{-1}$ in the \emph{g} band. Along with the evidence presented in \S\ref{sec:discussion}, we conclude that we are instead witnessing a long-lived transient mimicking AGN-like variability.
The nearby field star J223033.18-000633.7 is used for comparison and to correct for any zeropoint difference between the SDSS and DES photometric systems. The field star is not significantly variable (\emph{g}-band $\sigma_{\rm var}=0.16$) The variability of PHL 293B is marginally significant in the DES data and certainly present in SDSS. Inspection of the difference images by eye did not reveal any artifacts that would indicate a bad image subtraction. Furthermore, the same variable trend is present in all photometric bands, indicating it is not due to a systematic (Fig.~\ref{fig:1}).
\subsection{Gemini Spectroscopy} \label{sec:spec}
\begin{figure*}
\gridline{\fig{Ha_sdss.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(a)}
\fig{Ha_gemini.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(b)}
}
\gridline{\fig{Ha_gemini_conv.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(c)}
}
\caption{H$\alpha$-[N~\textsc{ii}] complex from the SDSS (a) and Gemini (b) spectrum of PHL 293B. We convolved the Gemini spectrum with a Gaussian of width $\rm{FWHM}=1541$ km s$^{-1}$ to match the GMOS spectral resolution to SDSS. This is shown in panel (c) to facilitate comparison (assuming the narrow H$\alpha$ emission is unchanged). The data is shown in black and the best fit model is overplotted in blue. The individual components -- narrow lines, broad line, and absorption -- are plotted in green, red, and orange, respectively. The reported FWHM and luminosity refer to the broad emission component shown in red. The uncertainties are dominated by systematics. \label{fig:sdss_spec}}
\end{figure*}
Gemini Director's Time observations of PHL 293B (GN-2019B-DD-109, P.I. Baldassare) were taken on 20 December 2019. Spectra were taken using the Gemini Multi Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on Gemini North. We used the 0.75$^{\prime\prime}$ slit with the R831\_G5302 grating, yielding a spectral resolution of $R\approx4500$. The central wavelength was set to $6600$~\AA, giving wavelength coverage from $5500$ -- $7500$~\AA. The seeing was 0.65$^{\prime\prime}$.
Spectra were reduced following the steps laid out in the GMOS Cookbook for the reduction of long-slit spectra with PyRAF \footnote{\url{http://ast.noao.edu/sites/default/files/GMOS\_Cookbook/}}. These include bias subtraction, flat-field correction, wavelength calibration, cosmic ray rejection, and flux calibration using the flux standard. The Gaussian spectral fitting is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sdss_spec}, and was done with the \textsc{PyQSOFit} code \citep{Guo2018,Shen2019}. We fit a continuum and Gaussian emission/absorption lines within user-defined windows and constraints on their widths.The continuum is modeled as a blue power-law plus a 3rd-order polynomial for reddening. The total model is a linear combination of the continuum and single or multiple Gaussians for the emission lines. Since uncertainties in the continuum model may induce subtle effects on measurements for weak emission lines, we first perform a global fit to the emission-line free region to better quantify the continuum.
We then fit multiple Gaussian models to the continuum-subtracted spectrum around the H$\alpha$ emission line region locally. For the SDSS H$\alpha$, we fit three Gaussians to model the narrow emission, broad emission, and absorption line. We use one narrow and one broad Gaussian to model the Gemini H$\alpha$ emission. Narrow Gaussians are defined as having $\rm{FWHM}<500$~km~s$^{-1}$. The narrow and broad line centroids are fit within a window of $\pm65$~\AA\ and $\pm100$~\AA, respectively. We use 100 Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the uncertainty in the line measurements. The spectral fitting of the H$\alpha$-[N~\textsc{ii}] complex is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sdss_spec} along with the SDSS spectral epoch taken in 2001 for comparison.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Comparison with Existing Observations} \label{sec:obs}
\subsubsection{Photometry}
The earliest photometry for PHL 293B is reported in \cite{Kinman1965} from the Palomar Sky Survey in 1965 and the Lick Observatory Carnegie Astrograph in 1949. \cite{Kinman1965} writes, ``a very rough estimate of the B magnitude is 17.7 on the Sky Survey plates and about a half-magnitude fainter on the 120-inch plates.'' \cite{Cairos2001} report a B magnitude of 17.67 in October 1988. The source is no brighter in the infrared than our comparison field star in digitized Sky Survey data taken on September 1995.
The galaxy's morphology was studied by \cite{Tarrab1987}. Later, the light profile was studied in more detail by \cite{Micheva2013}, who obtained deep multi-band imaging using the Nordic Optical Telescope in 2001. \cite{Micheva2013} report a B magnitude of 17.3. However, this difference can perhaps be attributed to instrument errors and different aperture definitions.
Catalina Sky Survey (CSS) photometry is available between April 2005 and October 2013 (roughly in-between the SDSS and DES photometry) and is analyzed in \cite{Terlevich2014}. However, the scatter in the CSS photometry is $\sim$ 0.1 \emph{V} mag. Still, we can rule out any large variability greater than one tenth of a magnitude in-between the SDSS and DES observations shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. Our SDSS+DES light curve is consistent with \cite{Terlevich2014}, who constrain any variability over a few years to less than $0.02$ mag and over 25 years to less than a few tenths of magnitude. There is a gap in the photometry between September 1995 and the beginning of the SDSS data in September 1998.
The lack of large photometric variability and lack of spectral variability seen in PHL 293B prior to this work resulted in \cite{Terlevich2014} and \citet{Tenorio-Tagle2015} concluding that the source is not transient in nature. Given the small-amplitude optical variability from our precise DIA photometry and the recent dissipation of the unusually persistent broad H$\alpha$ emission, it is now clear that this in not the case. A complete re-interpretation of PHL 293B is now warranted.
\subsubsection{Spectroscopy}
\begin{figure*}
\gridline{\fig{Hb_compare.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(a)}
\fig{Ha_compare.eps}{0.5\textwidth}{(b)}
}
\caption{Comparison of the SDSS, X-SHOOTER \citep{Izotov2011}, and Gemini GMOS-N spectra near H$\beta$ (a) and H$\alpha$ (b). All spectra are binned to $\Delta\log{\lambda}=10^{-4}$, flux-calibrated, de-reddened, redshift-corrected, and continuum model-subtracted. Differences between the SDSS and X-SHOOTER spectra can be attributed to aperture effects. The P Cygni-like absorption features are clearly present in the X-SHOOTER (1$^{\prime\prime}$ slit width) and SDSS (3$^{\prime\prime}$ fiber) data. The Gemini spectrum clearly shows the broad emission has begun to fade and the absorption feature is gone. \label{fig:3}}
\end{figure*}
The earliest spectrum of PHL 293B is shown in \cite{Kinman1965}. The presence of any broad emission is difficult to distinguish from the noise considering the [O~\textsc{iii}] $\lambda$4363 line is barely detected in their spectrum. Later, \cite{French1980} studied the line fluxes and its chemical abundance.
In 2001, PHL 293B was observed spectroscopically with SDSS. Broad and narrow Balmer emission with P Cygni profiles are clearly present (Fig.~\ref{fig:3}). \cite{Izotov2009} study the galaxy with archival UVES spectroscopy on the Very Large Telescope taken in November 2002. These authors conclude the spectral features are due to an LBV, which is reiterated in \cite{Izotov2011} with UV/optical and near-infrared X-SHOOTER spectroscopy obtained in August 2009 (60.A-9442(A), P.I. Diaz). \cite{Terlevich2014} note the presence of Fe~\textsc{ii} multiplet 42 and infrared Ca~\textsc{ii} triplet absorption lines blueshifted by the same velocity as the P Cygni absorption. They also obtained ISIS spectroscopy with the William Herschel Telescope in November 2011 and note no significant change in the broad emission between any of the spectra. We show both the SDSS and X-SHOOTER spectra in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} for comparison with our newly obtained GMOS-N spectrum. Our analysis of the SDSS spectrum H$\alpha$-[N~\textsc{ii}] complex is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sdss_spec}.
We fit a blue power-law continuum of $f_\lambda\sim6.4\times10^{-17}$ ($4.0\times10^{-17}$) erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$ at 6500 \AA\ with index $-3.1$ ($-5.0$) and reddening of $f_\lambda\sim5.2\times10^{-17}$ ($2.8\times10^{-17}$) erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$ at 6500 \AA\ in the SDSS (Gemini) spectrum.
In the Gemini spectrum, the broad and narrow H$\alpha$ luminosity is $2.6\times10^{38}$ and $2.8\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, respectively. In the earlier SDSS spectrum, the broad and narrow H$\alpha$ luminosity is $1.3\times10^{39}$ and $3.2\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, respectively. That is, a broad to narrow H$\alpha$ ratio of 0.41 with SDSS and 0.10 today with Gemini. The ratio of broad to narrow H$\alpha$ full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) is 8.5 in the SDSS fitting versus 5.9 in the Gemini fitting. The narrow absorption component is blueshifted by $807\pm65$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to H$\alpha$ in our model. The broad emission component in the Gemini spectrum is redshifted by $88\pm65$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to H$\alpha$. A P Cygni-like absorption feature is clearly present in the earlier SDSS (2001) and X-SHOOTER (2009) spectra. The absorption feature is not clearly visible in Gemini data, therefore no absorption component was used in our Gemini spectral fitting.
Given the seeing of 0.65$^{\prime\prime}$ and the 0.75$^{\prime\prime}$ slit width, a decrease of 17 percent is expected with respect to the same source observed with an SDSS fiber, assuming the emission is dominated by a Gaussian point source. We indeed measured a decrease in the narrow line flux of 14 percent compared to the larger 3$^{\prime\prime}$ SDSS fiber. Variations in the narrow lines, therefore, are due to instrument/aperture effects. We measured a decrease in the broad H$\alpha$ of 80 percent. If 14 percent can be attributed to systematics from the aperture differences, the broad H$\alpha$ still decreased by about 66 percent. In addition, both the X-SHOOTER and ISIS spectra used a slit width of 1$^{\prime\prime}$ and the broad emission features were found to be unchanged with SDSS \citep{Izotov2011,Terlevich2014}. An 80 percent decrease could be explained if the broad emission is offset by 0.61$^{\prime\prime}$ from the slit center, inconsistent with Fig.~\ref{fig:1} (c) which shows the variable source is well-covered by the slit configuration.
Our Gemini spectrum does not cover the Fe~\textsc{ii} absorption lines, therefore we cannot determine if the Fe~\textsc{ii} absorption has weakened or disappeared. Recently, \citet{Allan2020} also report the fading of the broad Balmer emission and disappearance of the P Cygni absorption using new X-SHOOTER spectroscopy taken in December 2019.
\cite{Terlevich2014} model the H$\alpha$ emission with two broad emission components (one central and one redshifted extremely broad wing) and one narrow blueshifted absorption component. The ultra-broad red wing is no longer present in the Gemini data. A fading ultra-broad red wing was also seen in SDSS1133 \citep{Koss2014}.
Inspection of archival \emph{HST} Cosmic Origins Spectrograph far-UV spectrum shows C~\textsc{iii} $\lambda$1909 and C~\textsc{iv} $\lambda$1549 lines clearly present along with geocoronal Ly-$\alpha$ and O~\textsc{i}/Si~\textsc{ii}.
\subsubsection{X-Ray}
PHL 293B was not detected in 2009 with a 7.7 ks \emph{Chandra} exposure. The upper-limit on the X-ray luminosity is $\sim2.2\times10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. In the AGN scenario, this implies an Eddington ratio below $10^{-5}$ assuming $M_\bullet=10^5\rm\ M_\odot$.
\subsubsection{Radio}
There is no detection in NVSS (1993), FIRST (2002) or VLASS images. From the VLASS sensitivity, we derive an upper limit of on the 5 GHz radio luminosity of $\nu L_{\nu}\sim4\times10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (assuming a flat spectral index).
\subsection{Conflicting Interpretations \& Likely Scenarios} \label{sec:discussion}
To understand the nature of PHL 293B, we investigate the following possible scenarios: a) low-mass AGN driven by a massive black hole, b) young stellar wind, c) tidal disruption event, d) luminous blue variable (LBV) star outburst, or e) long-lived SN IIn observed at late-times. In Table~\ref{tab:1}, we summarize the major observational properties of PHL 293B and evaluate each scenario. Scenarios (a) and (b) are unlikely given the recent fading of broad H$\alpha$ emission.
The origin of the narrow emission lines is likely the H~\textsc{ii} region ionized primarily by stellar emission from the massive star cluster. The observed continuum variability of $\sim$10 percent implies that most of the continuum originates from the cluster and nebular region. The presence of the high-velocity Fe~\textsc{ii} absorption implies a relatively cool medium in front of the continuum source, both extended by tens of parsecs. Therefore the Fe~\textsc{ii} absorption should also be extended by at least several tens of parsecs, implying a shell or LBV wind expanding at $\sim$800 km s$^{-1}$.
The fading of the light curve and broad emission is unusual for non-transient phenomena such as a stellar wind. This challenges the interpretation of \cite{Terlevich2014} of a superwind driven by a young stellar wind. Also, \cite{Tenorio-Tagle2015} point out that the dynamical time of an expanding shell with speed 800 km s$^{-1}$ would put the shock well outside of the galaxy given the age of the star cluster. Our observations also warrant a more skeptical look at the strongly-radiative stationary cooling wind, possibly driven by old supernova remnants, as proposed by \cite{Tenorio-Tagle2015}. While many observational features of PHL 293B can be explained by these scenarios, these authors assume no strong photometric or spectral variability in their models.
A tidal disruption event would also be highly unusual given the P Cygni absorption and unusually long-lived broad emission and small-amplitude photometric variability. Furthermore, the broad line width of $\sim 1500$ km s $^{-1}$ is several times smaller than expected for a typical tidal disruption event \citep{Arcavi2014}.
The optical and spectroscopic variability could arise from two different mechanisms (e.g. the optical variability could be purely stellar in origin with the P Cygni-like feature arising from another source). However, in this Letter we restrict ourselves to the simplest single mechanism which most likely explains all the observed features. Therefore, we argue the nature of the spectral features and variability of PHL 293B is due to a long-lived transient event. We devote the remainder of this section to investigating the remaining likely scenarios of an LBV outburst or long-lived SN IIn.
\subsubsection{Luminous Blue Variable Star Outburst}
LBVs are massive stars in a critical phase in stellar evolution located in the upper-left of the H-R diagram \citep{Humphreys1994}. Every star more massive than about $50\rm\ M_\odot$ will go through the LBV phase. Therefore, LBVs should be more common in BCD galaxies because the high star formation rates and low metallicities enables formation of massive stars.
\cite{Izotov2009} and \cite{Izotov2011} argue that the P Cygni-like spectral features of PHL 293B are evidence for an LBV in its star-forming region. Many of the spectral features observed in PHL 293B such as broad emission, narrow blueshifted absorption lines, and Fe~\textsc{ii} multiplet and Ca~\textsc{ii} infrared triplet lines are seen in LBV spectra \citep{Munari2009,Humphreys2017}. These features can often be seen in the long and fainter quiescent S Doradus phases. However, this seems inconsistent with the high luminosity of the LBV of $2.5$ -- $5.0\times10^6\ \rm{L_\odot}$ found by \citet{Allan2020}.
In addition, \cite{Terlevich2014} argue that the properties of PHL 293B are unusual of observed LBVs. The 800 km s$^{-1}$ blueshifted terminal velocity would be the largest ever reported for an LBV (with $\eta$ Carinae at $\sim 500$ km s$^{-1}$; \citealt{Leitherer1994}). These differences are attributed to the LBV undergoing a strong outburst and to effects at very low metallicity by \cite{Izotov2009}. However, this is not consistent with the \emph{lower} blueshifted absorption velocities of LBVs in the two low-metallicity dwarf galaxies NGC 2366 ($\sim 250$ km s$^{-1}$; \citealt{Drissen1997}) and IC 1613 ($\sim 300$ km s$^{-1}$; \citealt{Herrero2010}).
\cite{Izotov2011} also note broad H$\alpha$ luminosity of PHL 293B of $\sim10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ from 2001--2009 is about ten times greater than the LBV in NGC 2366 \citep{Petit2006} when corrected for extinction. They conclude the LBV in PHL 293B must therefore be amongst the most luminous known and undergoing a strong outburst. However, the lack of any large photometric variability in any of the photometric epochs dating back to 1949 is challenging to this scenario.
LBVs, even in extragalactic settings, typically exhibit baseline variability of roughly 1 mag or larger on decade timescales, with sporadic and unpredictable eruptions observed in many cases \citep{Walborn2017}. In particular, P Cygni and $\eta$ Carinae have undergone massive outbursts of several magnitudes in recorded history. Although a short outburst may have been missed by the photometric gaps in PHL 293B, LBVs should continue to exhibit both photometric variability greater than $0.1$ mag even after an outburst \citep[e.g.][]{Smith2011}. Although long-term trends at this level have been observed in some LBVs, there is no evidence of the expected variability on shorter timescales in PHL 293B. In addition, demonstrable variability of spectral features during or shortly after an eruption should be observed \citep[e.g.][]{Richardson2011,Petit2006}. Any LBV in a relatively quiescent state that might explain the low-level of photometric variability in PHL 293B is difficult to reconcile with the long-lived broad emission lines and high terminal speed of the shock.
\citet{Allan2020} conclude the LBV is exiting its eruptive phase, is becoming obscured, or has collapsed directly into a black hole without producing a bright SN. The authors do not comment on Fe~\textsc{ii} absorption line variability. We expect these absorption features to be gone too if the shell of ejecta has expanded considerably or if the LBV has disappeared or become obscured.
\subsubsection{Long-Lived Type IIn Supernova} \label{sec:sn}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{LHa.eps}
\caption{H$\alpha$ luminosity versus time. SDSS1133 \citep{Koss2014}, SN 1988Z \citep{Aretxaga1999,Smith2017}, and SN 2005ip \citep{smith2009,Smith2017} are shown for comparison. The measurement refers to the total H$\alpha$ luminosity if not specified. We assume the SN in PHL 293B took place on January 1 1996. The data for PHL 293B prior to this work are estimated as $10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ \citep{Izotov2009,Izotov2011,Terlevich2014} (whose measurements vary depending on how the broad emission is modeled, but are all consistent with $10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$). The UVES measurement was taken in non-photometric conditions and is therefore omitted. Uncertainties are dominated by systematic uncertainties, which are difficult to quantify exactly, but are typically $\pm$20 percent. \label{fig:haevol}}
\end{figure*}
If the features of PHL 293B are due to an evolving young SN remnant, it falls into the rare Type IIn class. That is, a core-collapse SN with broad and narrow Balmer lines \citep{Schlegel1990,Filippenko1997}. P Cygni-like narrow absorption lines are commonly observed in SNe IIn \citep[e.g.][]{Salamanca2002}. The spectral features are due to the ejecta from a massive progenitor star interacting with the circumstellar medium. There is evidence that this scenario arises when a strong mass loss from an LBV-like progenitor undergoes sustained interaction with a dense circumstellar medium (e.g. \citealt{Koss2014,Smith2017} and references within).
Some Type I and II SNe show high-velocity blueshifted Fe~\textsc{ii} lines \cite[e.g.][]{Chugai2004,Young2010,Smith2010} and infrared Ca~\textsc{ii} triplet lines \cite[e.g.][]{Taddia2013}. Missing associated Fe~\textsc{ii}/Ca~\textsc{ii} emission lines could be due to an asymmetric explosion, or the emission lines could be very weak and broad at late-times making them difficult to detect. The 800 km s$^{-1}$ blueshift of the absorption features in PHL 293B's spectrum is not unusual for an expanding envelope of SN IIn ejecta which can exceed 1000 km s$^{-1}$ in some cases \citep[e.g. SN 2009ip;][]{Foley2011,Smith2014}, but is anomalously high for an LBV wind. Furthermore, the broad emission width in the SDSS and X-SHOOTER spectra of FWHM $\sim 10^3$ km s$^{-1}$ is not unusual \citep[e.g.][]{Nyholm2017}. Sustaining broad emission of $10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ over 15 years requires an energy of $\sim 5\times10^{47}$ ergs, well below the canonical SN kinetic energy budget of $10^{51}$ ergs.
A remarkably similar transient known as SDSS1133 was discovered by \cite{Koss2014} in the BCD galaxy Mrk 177. Like PHL 293B, its broad emission persists for over a decade with broad $L_{\rm{H}\alpha}\sim7\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at day 4000. SDSS1133 also showed an ultra-broad H$\alpha$ emission. A growing number of \emph{bona fide} SNe IIn are known to display broad emission that persists for a decade or longer. We show the broad H$\alpha$ luminosity versus time in Fig.~\ref{fig:haevol} in comparison with the long-lived SNe IIn SDSS1133, SN 1988Z, and SN 2005ip \citep{Aretxaga1999}. The SDSS spectra of SDSS1133 and PHL 293B are shown for comparison in Appx.~\ref{apdx2}.
It is possible the SN IIn-like event occurred sometime between September 1995 and September 1998 when no photometry is available. In some cases, SNe IIn light curves exhibit ``bumps'' several years after the explosion \citep[e.g.][]{Nyholm2017}.
The VLASS upper limit implies the transient is not radio-loud like some very luminous SNe \citep{Smith2017}. In the case of SDSS1133, \emph{Swift} detected X-ray emission with an estimated X-ray luminosity of $1.5\times10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ 12 years after the SN \citep{Koss2014}. The X-ray upper limit of PHL 293B of $2.2\times10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in 2009 is an order of magnitude less than SDSS1133. Assuming the SN in PHL 293B took place in 1996, it was observed with \emph{Chandra} $\sim$13 years after its outburst. SN IIn generally emit X-rays above a few $10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ even several years after the SN~\citep[e.g.][]{Bregman1992}, however their X-ray emission is very diverse and may approach the X-ray limit of PHL 293B 13 years after the outburst \citep[see Fig. 3 of ][]{Dwarkadas2012}. This perhaps indicates the outburst in PHL 293B was non-terminal or the X-ray emission has declined steeply at late-times.
\begin{deluxetable*}{l|ccccc}
\tablenum{1}
\tablecaption{Source properties and possible scenarios}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablehead{
Source Property & \colhead{LBV outburst} & \colhead{Stellar Wind} & \colhead{AGN} & \colhead{SN IIn} & \colhead{TDE}
}
\decimalcolnumbers
\startdata
Broad emission lines ($L_{\rm H\alpha}\sim10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$) & unusually large & YES & YES & YES & unusually low \\
Decade long-lived broad emission & unusual & YES & YES & unusual & NO \\
Recent dissipation of broad emission & YES & NO & NO & YES & YES \\
P Cygni-like profile & YES & YES & unusual & YES & NO \\
Fe~\textsc{ii} absorption lines & YES & YES & unusual & YES & NO \\
800 km s$^{-1}$ blueshift of absorption lines & unusually high & NO & YES & YES & NO \\
Lack of X-rays ($\lesssim 2.2\times10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$) & YES & YES & NO & unusual & YES \\
Lack of high ionization lines ($\lesssim 120$ eV) & YES & YES & unusual & YES & YES \\
small-amplitude optical variability & unusually small & NO & YES & YES & unusually low \\
\enddata
\tablecomments{YES: the observational feature can be readily explained by the proposed scenario. NO: cannot be explained without invoking an exotic or contrived scenario. Unusual: can be explained but it is unusual of observed systems.
\label{tab:1}}
\end{deluxetable*}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
The most plausible explanations for the recent dissipation of the broad emission after an unusually persistent phase are an LBV outburst followed-by a slow, weakly variable phase or a very long-lived SN IIn event. The latter is more likely given the lack of short-timescale variability and the slowly-fading light curve. The similarity to the persistent transient of \cite{Koss2014} in a similar BCD galaxy is of note. In this case, the SN occurred sometime between 1988 and 1998 and continued to slowly evolve until today. However, in our case, the evidence for an LBV progenitor is only circumstantial.
The question, ``why are there not more dwarf starburst galaxies with broad emission as strong as PHL 293B?'' is raised when considering the stationary wind scenario. The unusual nature of PHL 293B and SDSS1133 can be well-understood if they are due to rare stellar transient phenomena. However, high-resolution spectroscopic observations should be conducted in coming years to study its spectral behavior in detail.
We reiterate the warning of \cite{Filippenko1989} that the long-lived spectral features seen of some SNe II can be AGN impostors. This is the case especially at late-times when the features are due to ejecta-circumstellar medium interaction as well as SNe at low bolometric luminosities. We extend this warning to low-mass AGN, noting that late-time SN variability can mimic AGN-like variability~\citep[also see][]{Aretxaga1997,Aretxaga1999b}. Perhaps the dense circumstellar medium of metal-poor massive stars plays an important role in extending the lifetime of the broad emission. \cite{Izotov2008} and \cite{Izotov2010} identified a handful of low-metallicity compact emission-line galaxies with persistent broad H$\alpha$ emission. They suggested these systems could be low-mass AGNs. However, no characteristic hard X-ray emission was seen in \emph{Chandra} images \citep{Simmonds2016, 2017ApJ...836...20B}. If the sample of \cite{Izotov2008}, \cite{Izotov2009sn}, \cite{Izotov2010}, \cite{Koss2014}, and PHL 293B can be explained by similar mechanisms, then perhaps such long-lived transients are more common in low-metallicity dwarf galaxies. However, the H$\alpha$ luminosity of the \cite{Izotov2008} sample is much larger than PHL 293B. In these scenarios, only follow-up spectroscopy on decade-long or greater timescales can be definitive.
Analysis of difference imaging light curves with the Legacy Survey of Space and Time at Vera C. Rubin Observatory would determine if the source continues to exhibit low-levels of variability or not. We expect little or no continued variability if the SN was terminal. However, we expect continued small-amplitude variability if the progenitor is still present.
\acknowledgments
We thank Yuri Izotov for helpful correspondence. We thank Tom Diehl and Chris Lidman for helpful comments. C.J.B. is grateful to Kedar Phadke and Gautham Narayan for useful discussion, and to the Illinois Graduate Survey Science Fellowship for support. We thank the referee, Roberto Terlevich, for useful comments and corrections which improved this work.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\'{i}a e Innovaci\'{o}n Productiva (Argentina), Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova\c{c}\~{a}o (Brazil), and Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (Republic of Korea).
Support for V.F.B. was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF7-180161 issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060.
Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS-IV acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is www.sdss.org.
SDSS-IV is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the
Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science,
Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) /
University of Tokyo, the Korean Participation Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Leibniz Institut f\"ur Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP),
Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg),
Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik (MPA Garching),
Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE),
National Astronomical Observatories of China, New Mexico State University,
New York University, University of Notre Dame,
Observat\'ario Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University,
Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,
United Kingdom Participation Group,
Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico, University of Arizona,
University of Colorado Boulder, University of Oxford, University of Portsmouth,
University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin,
Vanderbilt University, and Yale University.
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain,
the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the National Center for Supercomputing
Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago,
the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University,
the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A\&M University, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos,
Funda{\c c}{\~a}o Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo {\`a} Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient{\'i}fico e Tecnol{\'o}gico and
the Minist{\'e}rio da Ci{\^e}ncia, Tecnologia e Inova{\c c}{\~a}o, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Collaborating Institutions in the Dark Energy Survey.
The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energ{\'e}ticas,
Medioambientales y Tecnol{\'o}gicas-Madrid, the University of Chicago, University College London, the DES-Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh,
the Eidgen{\"o}ssische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Z{\"u}rich,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ci{\`e}ncies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC),
the Institut de F{\'i}sica d'Altes Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Ludwig-Maximilians Universit{\"a}t M{\"u}nchen and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe,
the University of Michigan, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Portsmouth,
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, the University of Sussex, Texas A\&M University, and the OzDES Membership Consortium.
Based in part on observations at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
The DES data management system is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers AST-1138766 and AST-1536171.
The DES participants from Spanish institutions are partially supported by MINECO under grants AYA2015-71825, ESP2015-66861, FPA2015-68048, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597, and MDM-2015-0509,
some of which include ERDF funds from the European Union. IFAE is partially funded by the CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya.
Research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research
Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) including ERC grant agreements 240672, 291329, and 306478.
We acknowledge support from the Brazilian Instituto Nacional de Ci\^encia
e Tecnologia (INCT) e-Universe (CNPq grant 465376/2014-2).
This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics.
\vspace{5mm}
\facilities{SDSS, DES, Gemini(GMOS-N)}
\software{astropy, hotpants, PyQSOFit
}
|
\section{\label{sec:Introduction}Introduction}
The desire to identify and understand
universal critical properties of phase transitions in disordered systems has been
motivating, over several decades, advances in numerical and analytical descriptions of
disordered and interacting systems, such as new field-theoretical approaches~\cite{Efetov:book,Kamenev:book,BelitzKirkpatrick:review},
renormalisation-group methods~\cite{DasguptaMa,Fisher:strongRG,AltmanEtAl:OneDRG,Levitov_1990,Levitov2,Burin:MBLclaims} and scaling theories~\cite{Cardy:ScalingBook}.
A significant portion of those developments was driven by the studies of the Anderson localisation-delocalisation
transitions (see Refs.~\onlinecite{Mirlin:review,MirlinEvers:R2,Efetov:book} for a review),
commonly believed to be the only possible disorder-driven transitions in non-interacting systems.
The last several years have also seen an upsurge of research activity (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Syzranov:review} for a review)
on non-Anderson disorder-driven transitions, i.e. disorder-driven transitions in universality classes distinct from those of
Anderson localisation. Such transitions (or possibly sharp crossovers~\footnote{\label{foot1} It has recently been debated (for example, in
Refs.~\onlinecite{Nandkishore:rare,Sbierski:WeylVector,Mafia:rare,Gurarie:AvoidedCriticality,BuchholdAltland:rare,BuchholdAltland:rare2}),
in the context of Weyl semimetals,
if these transitions survive non-perturbative rare-region effects or get converted to sharp crossovers.
We do not distinguish between true phase transition and sharp crossovers in this paper,
provided the non-Anderson critical scaling exists in a parametrically
large interval of lengths.})
have been first proposed~\cite{Fradkin1,Fradkin2}
for Weyl semimetals. They have later been demonstrated~\cite{Syzranov:WeylTransition,SyzranovGurarie:duality,Syzranov:review} to occur in all systems
with the power-law quasiparticle dispersion $\propto k^{\alpha}$ in high
dimensions~\cite{Syzranov:review,SyzranovGurarie:duality} $d>2|\alpha|$.
These systems include, but are not limited to,
arrays of trapped ultracold ions which exhibit power-law hopping of excitations~\cite{Monroe:longrange,Islam:longrange,Blatt:chain1,Blatt:chain2,RodriguezMalyshev:veryveryFirst,Rodriguez:firstPowerLaw,Malyshev:firstPowerLaw,Moura:firstPowerLaw,Xiong2003:roughScaling,Garttner:longrange},
high-dimensional semiconductors, quantum kicked rotors~\cite{Syzranov:review} and certain disordered
supercoductive systems~\cite{TikhonovFeigleman:PowerLawSupercond}.
Apart from non-Anderson universality classes, such systems display critical scaling of the density of states
(which does not exist for Anderson transitions), unconventional behaviour of Lifshitz tails~\cite{Suslov:rare,Nandkishore:rare,Syzranov:unconv},
energy-level statistics and ballistic-transport properties~\cite{Syzranov:review}.
Most studies of the unconventional non-Anderson transitions to date have been focussing on Weyl semimetals,
the best known and experimentally available systems predicted to exhibit them.
Obtaining the critical exponents at these transitions in Weyl semimetals
has been the goal of dozens of analytical and numerical studies (see, e.g., Refs.~\onlinecite{ShindouMurakami,GoswamiChakravarty,RyuNomura,KobayashiOhtsukiHerbut:scaling,Syzranov:WeylTransition,Syzranov:unconv,LouvetFedorenko:theirFirst,RoyJuricic:superuniversality,Syzranov:TwoLoop,PixleyHuse:missedPoint,Sbierski:superAccurate,BeraRoy:inaccurateNumerics,LiuOhtsuki:LateNumerics,Balog2018:porousMedium}).
3D Weyl semimetals do not have any small parameters at the transition point and all analytical methods of their description
are, strictly speaking, uncontrolled. In contrast with the Anderson localisation transitions in 3D, certain features of the non-Anderson transitions
in Weyl semimetals are described remarkably accurately by means of perturbative one-loop RG calculations
controlled by the parameter $\varepsilon=2-d$ with setting $\varepsilon=-1$ at the end of the calculation.
For example,
the one-loop RG result $z=3/2$ for the dynamical critical exponent $z$ matches the numerical results~\cite{KobayashiOhtsukiHerbut:scaling,PixleyHuse:missedPoint,Sbierski:superAccurate,BeraRoy:inaccurateNumerics,LiuOhtsuki:LateNumerics}
within the error of the numerical simulations (1-2\%).
Other results, such as the values of the correlation-length exponent $\nu$, are more controversial (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Syzranov:review} for a review): most
numerical studies (see, e.g., Refs.~\onlinecite{KobayashiOhtsukiHerbut:scaling,RoyJuricic:superuniversality,PixleyHuse:missedPoint,Pixley2015a:AndersonLocalization,Sbierski:superAccurate,BeraRoy:inaccurateNumerics,LiuOhtsuki:LateNumerics,Klier2019:SCBAtransition}) report errors as large as $10-15\%$, with up to $50\%$ differences in the values of $\nu$ between different studies.
The errors in determining the
correlation-length exponents at such transitions come from the inaccuracies
of the simulations of the critical scaling of the density of states, which have been used to determine the critical properties of the transition
in all studies to date, with the exception of Ref.~\onlinecite{Sbierski:superAccurate}
(where a finite-size analysis of the conductance has been carried out).
Because the density of states vanishes or nearly vanishes on one side of a non-Anderson transition,
accurate determination of the transition point is challenging,
which may lead to substantial errors in determining
the correlation-length exponent. Furthermore, the transition point may be additionally obscured by rare-region effects,
whose role is also being debated in the literature~\cite{Note1}.
These controversies, together with the need for better understanding of non-Anderson criticality,
has motivated us to propose and study in this paper a model exhibiting non-Anderson disorder-driven transitions
which, on the one hand, is controlled by a small tunable parameter $|\varepsilon|\ll1$ and, on the other hand, exhibits the critical scaling
of a non-vanishing observable allowing for an accurate determination of the critical properties.
We study a one-dimensional disordered chain where the quasiparticle dispersion hosts two nodes, i.e. points
with the chiral dispersion
$\pm |k|^\alpha \sign k$, where the momentum $k$ is measured from each node and $\alpha<1/2$.
While transitions in one-dimensional models with power-law dispersions have been studied
numerically previously~\cite{RodriguezMalyshev:veryveryFirst,Rodriguez:firstPowerLaw,Malyshev:firstPowerLaw,Moura:firstPowerLaw,Xiong2003:roughScaling,Garttner:longrange},
the model considered here combines several ingredients which allow us to determine the critical properties of the transition
rather precisely.
On the one hand, the energies of the nodes are robust against disorder (similarly to that in Ref.~\onlinecite{Garttner:longrange}
and in contrast with Refs.~\onlinecite{RodriguezMalyshev:veryveryFirst,Rodriguez:firstPowerLaw,Malyshev:firstPowerLaw,Moura:firstPowerLaw,Xiong2003:roughScaling}), which is essential for the accurate
identification of the transition point,
as the non-Anderson disorder-driven transition takes place for states at only one energy. On the other hand, the system
exhibits a critical scaling of the Thouless conductance,
a quantity which,
unlike the density of states, remains finite at the transition.
The finite-size scaling analysis of the Thouless conductance allows us
to obtain the correlation-length exponent as a function of the parameter $\varepsilon=2\alpha-1$
and compare the result with the prediction of the analytical perturbative-RG descriptions controlled by the small parameter $\varepsilon$.
We find that, contrary to the common expectation, the numerical result for the correlation-length exponent is inconsistent with the predictions of the perturbative RG approaches.
As non-Anderson disorder-driven transitions may be described by deterministic interacting field theories in the
replica, supersymmetric or Keldysh representations, the approach we develop here may be used more broadly to verify the convergence of
the $\varepsilon$-expansions in interacting field theories.
\section{\label{sec:Summary}Summary of the results}
In this work,
we focus on the numerical analysis of the correlation length-exponent $\nu(\varepsilon)$
as a function of the parameter $\varepsilon=2\alpha-1$, where $\alpha$ characterises the dispersion
$\pm k^\alpha\sign k$ near several points (nodes) in momentum space (see Sec.~\ref{sec:Model}
for a full description of the model and Eq.~\eqref{eq:H0} for the dispersion for all momenta).
We use the critical scaling of a quantity similar to the Thouless conductance $g$, introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:Thouless},
for an accurate determination of the correlation-length exponent for the parameter $|\varepsilon|$
in the interval $|\varepsilon|=0.1\ldots 0.5$.
Studying the critical properties of the transition for $|\varepsilon|\ll 1$ allows us not only to compare the numerical results with the analytical
perturbative
RG predictions, justified in the limit of small $\varepsilon$, but also to neglect possible non-perturbative rare-region effects~\cite{Note1},
exponentially suppressed~\cite{Syzranov:unconv,Syzranov:review} by the parameter $1/|\varepsilon|$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{kSpace2_box_alpha04_obsmedian.pdf}
\includegraphics{results_nu}
\caption{\label{fig:Summary}
Results for the critical properties of the non-Anderson disorder-driven transition. (a) Median $\tilde{g}$
of the Thouless conductance distribution for various system sizes $L=2M$ and
disorder amplitudes $W$. The solid lines show the fourth-order polynomial fit of the scaling function $\tilde{g}\left[u\left(W-W_{c}\right)L^{1/\nu}\right]$ with $u(w)=w+b w^2$ (see Appendix \ref{appendix-FSS}). The vertical line shows the critical amplitude
$W=W_c$ obtained from the fit.
The linear function $18W$ is added to the conductance $\tilde{g}$ on the vertical axis for
better visibility of the crossing.
(b) The inverse correlation-length exponent $1/\nu$, obtained from the scaling analysis for various $\varepsilon$,
as a function of $\varepsilon$. The solid line shows the dependence $1/\nu=3|\varepsilon|/2$, which describes
accurately
the numerical data in the limit of small $\varepsilon$, in contrast with the
prediction $1/\nu_{RG}=|\varepsilon|$ of the analytical RG approach showed by the dashed line.}
\end{figure}
Our results for the critical properties are summarised in Fig~\ref{fig:Summary}.
Panel (a) shows the finite-size scaling of the median $\tilde{g}$ of the conductance distribution as a function of the system size and disorder strength for representative $\alpha=0.4$
($|\varepsilon|=0.2$). For strong disorder, $\tilde{g}$ decreases with system size $L$, whereas the opposite trend is observed for weak disorder.
These regimes are separated by a critical disorder amplitude $W_c$, a unique crossing point for data traces pertaining to different system sizes. Around $W_c$, we fit the data with a polynomial scaling function (solid lines) to find the correlation-length exponent $\nu$. Based
on the data for five different values of $\varepsilon$, we find the asymptotic
dependence (Fig. \ref{fig:Summary}b)
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\nu}=\frac{3}{2}|\varepsilon|\label{eq:y}.
\end{equation}
Surprisingly, this result is in contradiction with the prediction of the perturbative one-loop RG analysis,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\nu_{RG}}=|\varepsilon|,
\end{align}
believed to be exact in the limit of $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$.
We present the details of the analytical RG analysis for the model under consideration in Appendix~\ref{appendix-RG}.
As further
checks of this unexpected result, we (i) confirm the consistency of our
value of $\nu(|\varepsilon|=0.2)=\ensuremath{ 3.163 \pm 0.041}$ with the scaling analysis of the density of states
(see Sec. \ref{sec:DOS} and Fig. \ref{fig:DOS}), and (ii) find an unusual scaling of the critical
dimensionless disorder strength $\gamma_{c}\propto |\varepsilon|^{2/3}$
(Fig. \ref{fig:gammac}) which also contradicts the predictions of the analytical RG approach but is consistent with earlier results for a similar
one-dimensional model.\cite{Moura:firstPowerLaw}
\section{\label{sec:Model}Model and Observable}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics{dispersion_M41_alpha04.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:ModelObservable}
The dispersion $H_{0}(k)$ in a disorder-free system as a
function of $k$ for $\alpha=0.4$. The solid line depicts the continuum dispersion
while the blue points indicate the placement of discrete momenta ($M=41$)
in the finite-size version of the model.}
\end{figure}
We consider a model described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{0}(k)=\begin{cases}
\left|k-\pi/2\right|^{\alpha}\, \sign(k-\pi/2), & 0<k<\pi,\\
\left|k+\pi/2\right|^{\alpha}\,\sign(k+\pi/2), & -\pi<k<0,\\
\infty, & \mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:H0}
\end{equation}
The dispersion is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:ModelObservable}. Near the momenta $k=\pm \pi/2$, hereinafter
referred to as {\it nodes}, the dispersion has the power-law form and lacks reflection symmetry.
The singular dispersion $\propto |k\pm \pi/2|^\alpha\sign (k\pm \pi/2)$ near the nodes corresponds to the power-law hopping
$\propto 1/|x|^{1+\alpha}\sign x$ in coordinate space at large distances $x$. Disorder-driven transitions in similar models with
power-law hopping, corresponding to the dispersion $\propto k^\alpha$ which is even with respect to the momentum inversion $k\rightarrow -k$), have been studied numerically in Refs.~\onlinecite{RodriguezMalyshev:veryveryFirst,Rodriguez:firstPowerLaw,Malyshev:firstPowerLaw,Moura:firstPowerLaw,Xiong2003:roughScaling}.
Because the dispersion considered here is odd with respect to inverting the momentum measured from the node and the
momentum states with energies above and below the nodes have equal weights, the energies of the nodes
are not renormalised if the system is exposed to quenched short-range-correlated disorder with zero average.
Because only the states at the node energies undergo the non-Anderson disorder-driven transitions, the absence of the renormalisation
of the energies of the nodes helps us identify such states more accurately.
A model with the dispersion $\propto k^\alpha \sign k$, the single-node version of the dispersion \eqref{eq:H0},
has been studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{Garttner:longrange}. In that model, the quasiparticles can move only in one direction and cannot
be backscattered. By contrast, the dispersion considered here allows for the scattering between the two nodes
in the presence of the random potential, which
leads to the critical scaling of a quantity similar to the Thouless conductance,~\cite{EdwardsThouless:firstShift,Thouless:review} which we describe below.
The Thouless conductance does not vanish at the critical point, unlike the density of states,
and thus allows for a significantly more precise determination of the critical properties of the transition.
We discretise the dispersion (\ref{eq:H0}) on a lattice in
momentum space and represent the dispersion in the form $H_{0}=\sum_{k}\left|k\right\rangle H_{0}(k)\left\langle k\right|$
where the sum runs over $k_{m}=\frac{2\pi m}{L}$ with $m=-M,...,M-1$.
Here, $M$ is an odd integer and $L=2M$. These $k$-points
fall symmetrically around the nodes while avoiding the momenta $\pm \pi/2$ of the nodes.
The density of states in the absence of disorder is given by
$\rho_{\text{clean}}(E)=2\left|E\right|^{1/\alpha-1}/(2\pi\alpha)$,
where the energy $E$ is measured from the energies of the nodes.
We generate disorder on a real-space grid of $4M$ sites with spacing
$1/2$. On each lattice site $i$, the disorder potential $U_{i}$
is drawn from a box distribution $U_{i}\in\left[-\sqrt{3}W,+\sqrt{3}W\right]$
leading to the disorder averaged correlator $\left\langle U_{i}U_{j}\right\rangle _{\text{dis}}=\delta_{i,j}W^{2}$.
In addition, we subtract the mean for each disorder realisation to ensure
$\sum_{i}U_{i}=0$. We then Fourier-transform the generated random potential, $U=\sum_{k\neq k^{\prime}}\left|k^{\prime}\right\rangle U(k^{\prime}-k)\left\langle k\right|$.
Because the potential is real, $U(k)=U^{\star}(-k)$.
We emphasise that, since the dispersion \eqref{eq:H0} is not periodic in momentum space, there is no Umklapp scattering in our model.
The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $H=H_{0}+U$ are found by exact diagonalisation.
We note that the Hamiltonian matrix in coordinate space is not sparse due to the long-range character of the hopping.
{\it Scaling observable.}
In what immediately follows, we describe a quantity similar to the Thouless conductance, which we use in order to identify the non-Anderson disorder-driven
transition.
The Thouless conductance~\cite{EdwardsThouless:firstShift,Thouless:review, Braun:ThoulessConductance} is
usually defined (up to a coefficient of $1/\delta$, with $\delta$ being the mean level spacing) as
a response of the energy $E_{n}$ of an eigenstate $\left|n\right\rangle $
to an adiabatic twist of the phase $\phi$ in the boundary conditions~\cite{Thouless:review}.
Such a twist for the system considered here corresponds to the replacement $k\rightarrow k+\frac{2\pi}{L}\phi$
in the dispersion (\ref{eq:H0}).
In order to study the criticality, we analyse the quantity
\begin{equation}
g=\left|{\partial_{\phi}^{2}E_{n_{0}}|_{\phi=0}}/{E_{n_{0}}}\right|,
\label{eq:gTh}
\end{equation}
where $E_{n_{0}}$ is the energy, measured from the node energy, of the eigenstate $n_0$ with the smallest absolute value $|E_{n_{0}}|$
at $\phi=0$.
The Thouless conductance~\cite{EdwardsThouless:firstShift,Thouless:review, Braun:ThoulessConductance}
in systems with a constant density of states in a certain energy interval matches Eq.~\eqref{eq:gTh}
with the replacement $E_{n_{0}} \rightarrow \delta$, where $\delta$ is the mean level spacing in the respective interval.
While the density of states in the system considered here vanishes at the nodes, the quantity $E_{n_{0}}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:gTh}
plays a role similar to that of the mean level spacing $\delta$ in the conventional definition of the Thouless conductance.
For simplicity, we refer to the quantity \eqref{eq:gTh} as the Thouless conductance in the rest of the paper.
According to the second-order perturbation theory, a phase twist of $\phi$ at the boundary of the system is
equivalent to adding the perturbation $H_{\phi}(k)\simeq\left(\frac{2\pi}{L}\phi\right)h_{\phi}^{(1)}(k)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi}{L}\phi\right)^{2}h_{\phi}^{(2)}(k)$
to the Hamiltonian $H$, where
\begin{align}
h_{\phi}^{(1)}(k) & =\mp\alpha|k\pm k_0|^{\alpha-1},
\label{h1}\\
h_{\phi}^{(2)}(k) & =\mp\alpha\left(\alpha-1\right)\mathrm{sgn}(k\pm k_0)|k\pm k_0|^{\alpha-2},
\label{h2}
\end{align}
with the upper and lower sign corresponding, respectively, to $0<k<\pi$ and $-\pi<k<0$.
The terms of higher orders in $\phi$ do not affect the Thouless conductance defined by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:gTh}).
We emphasise that the discretisation of momenta, which we use in this paper,
allows us to avoid non-analyticities of $H_{0}(k)$ at the nodal points at $k=\pm \pi/2$.
Utilising Eqs.~\eqref{h1}-\eqref{h2}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\partial_{\phi}^{2}E_{n_0}|_{\phi=0} =\left(\frac{2\pi}{L}\right)^{2}\left[\left\langle n_0|h_{\phi}^{(2)}\left(k\right)|n_0 \right\rangle
\right. \nonumber\\ \left.
+2\sum_{m\neq n_0}\frac{\left|\left\langle m|h_{\phi}^{(1)}\left(k\right)|n_0 \right\rangle \right|^{2}}{E_{n_0}-E_{m}}\right].
\label{DerivativeDefinition}
\end{align}
In the numerical analysis described below, we use Eq.~\eqref{DerivativeDefinition} in order to determine numerically the Thouless conductance
defined by Eq.~\eqref{eq:gTh}.
\section{\label{sec:Thouless}Scaling of Thouless conductance}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{kSpace2_box_alpha04_M451median_histograms.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Pg}
Normalized probability distribution of the Thouless conductance
obtained for $\sim10^{5}$ disorder realizations in the case $\alpha=0.4$,
$M=451$ and $W=0.49,0.50,...,0.56$ (bottom to top). The dot indicates the position of the median conductance
$\tilde{g}$. Each curve is offset vertically for better visibility, with the thin horizontal line corresponding to
vanishing probability density.}
\end{figure}
Near a continous phase transition, the universal critical exponent
$\nu$ describes the divergence of the correlation length~\cite{Cardy:ScalingBook} $\xi\propto |w|^{-\nu}$
as a function of the tuning
parameter that vanishes at the transition point. In this paper, we use the deviation $w=W-W_{c}$ of the disorder amplitude
$W$ from the critical value $W_c$ as the tuning parameter.
The exponent $\nu$ may be determined from the behaviour of a dimensionless observable $\tilde{g}$ that depends on
the system size $L$ only via the dimensionless ratio $L/\xi$, or, equivalently $\tilde{g}(W,L)=\tilde{g}(wL^{1/\nu})$.
In particular, the critical amplitude $W_{c}$
may be found as the amplitude at which $\tilde{g}(W,L)$ is independent
of the system size $L$.
The exponent $\nu$ may then be obtained from a polynomial fitting procedure.~\cite{Slevin:QHPTscaling,Slevin2009:QHPTirrelevantCorrection,Slevin2014:PolynomialFitting}
The outstanding challenge in the context of the non-Anderson transition
is to find an appropriate scaling variable. The density of states
at zero energy, commonly used for the studies of such transitions~\cite{Syzranov:review},
or its dimensionless generalisations, are not suitable
for finite-size scaling analysis due to the vanishing of the density of states at the transition point
(possibly up small contributions from rare-region effects~\cite{Suslov:rare,Nandkishore:rare,Syzranov:unconv,BuchholdAltland:rare2,Note1}).
Here, we demonstrate numerically that the Thouless conductance
defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:gTh}) is a suitable scaling variable.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Pg} we show the probability density of the Thouless conductance for $\alpha=0.4$ and $M=451$,
obtained for $\sim10^{5}$ disorder realizations.
The distribution function $P(g)$ is approximately log-Gaussian.
The scaling hypothesis discussed above applies also to the distribution function $P(g)$.
As it is not practical to work with the full distribution, in what follows
we restrict ourselves to the scaling analysis of only the median $\tilde{g}$.
We note, however, that choosing the typical conductance $\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\mathrm{ln}\,g})$ yields rather similar results.
The standard error of the median conductance is calculated using the asymptotic variance formula $\sigma_{\tilde{g}}^{2}=1/[4P(\tilde{g})^{2}n]$,
where $n$ is the total number of disorder realisations for a particular data point $(W,L)$ and the
probability density is approximated by a smooth interpolation of the observed histogram.
In Fig. \ref{fig:Summary}a , we plot $\tilde{g}(W,L)$ for $\alpha=0.4$ (corresponding to $|\epsilon|=0.2$) over a range of disorder strengths $W$ and for various system sizes $L$. We observe that data traces for different $L$ cross at one point,
demonstrating the critical scaling behaviour.
To check further the validity of the scaling hypothesis and extract the correlation-length exponent $\nu$, we use the polynomial fitting procedure\cite{Slevin:QHPTscaling,Slevin2009:QHPTirrelevantCorrection,Slevin2014:PolynomialFitting} detailed in Appendix \ref{appendix-FSS}.
This procedure relies on expanding the scaling function $\tilde{g}[u(w)L^{1/\nu}]$ as a low-order polynomial and allows
for quadratic and higher-order corrections in the dependence of the relevant scaling variable $u(w)=w+{\cal O}(w)$ on $w$.
The parameters $\nu$ and $W_{c}$ and the polynomial coefficients are obtained from a least-squares fit (solid lines).
For $\alpha=0.4$ ($|\varepsilon|=0.2$), we find $\nu=\ensuremath{ 3.163 \pm 0.041}$.
We use the same method to determine the critical exponent $\nu$
for all values of
$\alpha$ (see Appendix A). The results for $\nu$ and $W_c$ as a function of $\varepsilon=2\alpha-1$ are shown,
respectively, in Figs.~\ref{fig:Summary}b and \ref{fig:gammac}.
\section{\label{sec:DOS}Scaling of the density of states}
Most studies to date have relied on the scaling form~\cite{KobayashiOhtsukiHerbut:scaling}
of the density of states for the numerical determination
of the critical exponents.
In what immediately follows, we demonstrate that
the scaling of the density of states in the model considered here is consistent with the results
obtained from the finite-size scaling analysis of the Thouless conductance.
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Thouless}, simulating numerically the density of states
does not allow for an accurate determination of the critical disorder amplitude $W_c$,
which is why we use the result $W_{c}=0.5267$ obtained from the finite-size scaling of the Thouless conductance
to fit the scaling of the density of states for a system with $\alpha=0.4$.
The disorder-averaged density of states
$\rho(E\approx 0)$ for the system size $M=8001$ and various
disorder strengths around $W_{c}$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DOS}a.
We obtain that the density of states $\rho(E\approx 0,W)$ is strongly suppressed for
$W \leq W_c$ and grows rapidly at larger $W$. Our results are consistent, to a good accuracy,
with the scaling form~\cite{KobayashiOhtsukiHerbut:scaling}
\begin{equation}
\rho(E=0,W>W_{c})\propto (W-W_c)^{(1-z)\nu}\label{eq:DOS_E=0},
\end{equation}
where $z$ is the dynamical critical exponent, given
by $z=1/2+{\cal O}(\varepsilon)$ according to the perturbative RG calculations.
Numerically, the value of the dynamical exponent may be obtained from the scaling of the integrated
density of states (i.e. the number of states with energies between $0$ and $E$)
$N(E)=\int_{0}^{E}d\epsilon\,\rho(\epsilon)\propto E^{1/z}$ at $W=W_c$.
Our data for $W=0.53$ close
to $W_{c}$ is consistent with $z=1/2$ (dashed line) within a few-percent error.
In Fig. \ref{fig:DOS}c, we show the numerical data for $\rho(E=0,W>W_{c})$
vs. $W-W_{c}$ in a log-log plot (dots).
The dependence is consistent with Eq.~(\ref{eq:DOS_E=0}) with the correlation-length exponent $\nu=3.163$
obtained from the finite-size scaling above (solid line).
On the contrary, the prediction $\nu_{RG}=1/|\varepsilon|$ of the one-loop RG (dashed
line) is clearly inconsistent with the numerical data.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics{kSpace2_box_Alpha1d_ED_M8001_alpha04_DOS.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:DOS}
(a) Density of states $\rho(E,W)$ for $\alpha=0.4$
and $M=8001$ (dots). The solid lines are guides to the eye. (b) The
integrated density of states close to criticality ($W=0.53$) is consistent
with the scaling form $N(E)\propto E^{1/z}$ with $z=1/2$ (dashed line).
(c) The zero-energy density of states (dots) follows the
scaling $\rho(E=0,W>W_{c})\propto w^{(1-z)\nu}$ with $z=1/2$ and
$\nu=3.163$ obtained from the finite-size scaling
(solid line), but not with the analytical RG prediction $\nu_{RG}=1/|\varepsilon|$ (dotted line).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics{results_gammac.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:gammac}The dimensionless critical disorder strength $\gamma_c=W_{c}^{2}/\Lambda_{0}^{\varepsilon}$
obtained from the finite-size scaling of the Thouless conductance as
a function of $\varepsilon$. The behaviour is consistent with the power-law fitting $\gamma_c\propto|\varepsilon|^{2/3}$ (solid line)
and is distinct from the analytical prediction $\gamma_c\propto|\varepsilon|^{1}$ based on a one-loop perturbative RG calculation
(dashed line).}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{sec:Discussion}Discussion and outlook}
To summarise, in this paper we proposed and studied a one-dimensional model for the non-Anderson disorder-driven transitions.
This model presents a rather convenient platform for investigating the non-Anderson criticality, as the system
has a tunable small parameter $\varepsilon$ that controls the criticality.
The model considered here
exhibits the critical scaling of an observable (Thouless conductance) which does not vanish at the transition,
unlike the density of states usually used in such studies, and thus allows for an accurate characterisation of the criticality.
In our model, the energies of the states, for which the non-Anderson transition occurs, are not subject to renormalisation by disorder,
which allows us to additionally increase the accuracy of the results.
Utilising the small parameter $\varepsilon$ allows us not only to study numerically the non-Anderson criticality within the expected range
of applicability of the analytical perturbative RG approaches, but also to neglect possible non-perturbative rare-region
effect~\cite{Suslov:rare,Nandkishore:rare,Note1}, exponentially suppressed by the large parameter $1/|\varepsilon|$ in the limit $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$.
This ensures the observability of the critical scaling in a parametrically large interval of disorder strengths and length scales.
Furthermore, the approach we develop here may be used to analyse
the convergence of $\varepsilon$-expansions in interacting field theories similar to those describing
the disordered high-dimensional systems.
Our data demonstrates the correlation-length critical exponent $1/\nu=3|\varepsilon|/2+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^2)$ in the limit of small
$\varepsilon$, which, contrary to the common expectation, is
distinct from the prediction $1/\nu_{RG}=|\varepsilon|+{\cal O}(\varepsilon^2)$ of the perturbative RG approach.
Furthermore, the scaling of the dependence of the critical disorder strength on $|\varepsilon|$
is given by $\gamma_{c}\propto |\varepsilon|^\frac{2}{3}$, in accordance with the earlier study in Ref. \onlinecite{Moura:firstPowerLaw}
and in disagreement with the expectation $\gamma_{c}\propto |\varepsilon|$ from the perturbative RG analysis.
At the same time, the numerical result for dynamical exponent, $z=\frac{1}{2}+{\cal O}(\varepsilon)$, agrees well with RG predictions.
Similar agreement between the numerical values of the dynamical exponent $z$ and the one-loop RG results are observed
for Weyl semimetals, while the results for the correlation-length exponent $\nu$ are controversial (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Syzranov:review}
for a review).
We leave for future studies the origin of the disagreement
between the numerical and the perturbative RG results for the correlation-length exponent in the limit of small $\varepsilon$.
This disagreement may mean the breakdown of small-$\varepsilon$ expansions in the RG approaches or, for example, the existence of
spontaneously generated operators in the field theories for non-Anderson transitions, which have been overlooked
in the previous analytical studies of these transitions.
Such a possibility and the controversy around the values of the correlation-length exponents in Weyl semimetals
call for a fresh analytical investigation of the non-Anderson criticality in these systems.
Assuming that the critical behaviour at the criticality is determined by one relevant coupling $\tilde{\gamma}$,
our numerical results for the dependence of the critical disorder strength and the correlation-length exponent on $\varepsilon$
are consistent with the beta-function $\beta(\tilde\gamma)=\varepsilon\tilde\gamma+(\tilde{\gamma})^\frac{5}{3}+\ldots$,
where $\ldots$ stands for the terms of higher orders in $\tilde{\gamma}$. We leave for future studies the investigation of the possible nature of
such variables.
\section{Acknowledgements.} We thank Thomas Klein-Kvorning and Vlad Kozii for useful discussions. Our work has been financially supported by the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina through grant LPDS 2018-12 (BS)
and the Hellman foundation (SS).
\onecolumngrid
\newpage
|
\section{\quad An overview, preliminaries and basic set-up}
Given non-negative integers $d$, $g$ and $r\ge 3$, let $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ be the Hilbert scheme of smooth curves parametrizing smooth irreducible and non-degenerate curves of degree $d$ and genus $g$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^r$.
It seems that the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ was first announced by Severi in the papers \cite{Sev1} \& \cite{Sev}. Severi asserts with an incomplete proof that $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ is irreducible for $d\ge g+r$ and more generally, $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ is irreducible in the Brill-Noether range $$\rho (d,g,r):=g-(r+1)(g-d+r)\ge 0.$$
\vskip 4pt
After Severi, the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ has been studied by several authors. Ein proved irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ in the range $d\ge g+r$ for $r=3$ and $r=4$; cf. \cite[Theorem 4]{E1}
and \cite[Theorem 7]{E2}.
\vskip 4pt
For families of curves in $\mathbb{P}^3$ of lower degree $d\le g+2$, the most updated result is that any non-empty $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,3}$ is irreducible for every $d\ge g$; cf. \cite[Theorem 1.5]{KK}, \cite[Proposition 2.1 and Proposition 3.2 ]{KKL}, \cite[Theorem 3.1]{I} and \cite{KKy1}.
Note that even in the range $d\ge g$ and $r=3$, the Brill-Noether number may well become negative, however there is no reducible $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{d,g,3}$ in this range. The reducible examples of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,3}$ occur only when $d\le g-1$, e.g. $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{8,9,3}$ or $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{9,10,3}$ both of which have two components. In every such known reducible example of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{d,g,3}$ when $d\le g-1$, the Brill-Noether numbers is negative.
\vskip 4pt
For families of curves in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^4$ of lower degree $d\le g+3$ beyond the range $d\ge g+4$, there has been some extensions of the result of Ein. Hristo Iliev proved the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,4}$ for $d=g+3$, $g\ge 5$ and $d=g+2$, $g\ge 11$; cf. \cite{I}. Note that the genus restriction on the genus $g$ in these results is equivalent to the condition $\rho(g+3,g,4) > 0$ or $\rho(g+2, g,4)>0$. The non-negativity (or positivity) of the Brill-Noether number indeed assures the existence of a distinguished unique component of the Hilbert scheme dominating the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_g$ and sometimes this makes the problem rather easier to handle. However, outside the Brill-Noether range, i.e. in the range $\rho (d,g,r)<0$, the problem usually becomes more subtle and one needs somewhat thorough knowledge or {\it case by case} analysis of the classes of projective curves under consideration.
For a fixed value $d$ near to the genus $g$ and small $r$, the genus becomes rather small if the Brill-Noether number is negative. Indeed methods of the proof of the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{g+2,g,4}$ for low genus cases - which is an extension of the result of H. Iliev regarding the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{g+2,g,4}$ - significantly differ from those in the Brill-Noether range; cf. \cite[Corollary 2.2]{KKy2}.
\vskip 4pt
On the other hand, there are several examples violating the original Severi's assertion due to many authors; cf. \cite[Proposition 9]{E2}, \cite{Keem}, or \cite{CKP}. Despite all these {\it denumerably many} counterexamples to the Severi's assertion, it is worthwhile to stress that all the reducible counterexamples (in the Brill-Noether range) are those such that all the extra components consist of non linearly normal curves. In this regard, we denote by $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{d,g,r}$ the union of those components of ${\mathcal{H}}_{d,g,r}$ whose general element is linearly normal. For a detailed explanation and sources in the literature regarding the
Hilbert scheme of linear normal curves $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{d,g,r}$, the reader are advised to refer \cite{BFK} or \cite[Remark 1.1]{KK3} and references therein.
In this article, we show that $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ is non-empty for $g\ge 9$ and irreducible except for $g=9$ and $g=12$ outside the the Brill-Noether range; i.e. $g\le 14$.
\vskip 4pt
The following remarks would help the readers to get down to the main issues of the Hilbert scheme business of this kind.
\begin{rmk}\label{review}
(1) It has been shown in \cite{KK3} that any non-empty $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ is irreducible for $g\neq 9$, inside or outside the Brill-Noether range. Note that a non-empty $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{d,g,4}$ is known to be irreducible only in the range $d\ge g+2$ by those results due to Ein, H. Illiev and the authors which were already mentioned.
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
(2) However, at least to the knowledge of the authors, the irreducibility of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ has not been fully settled yet. In \cite{KK3} the irreducibility of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ was shown by the irreducibility of the Severi variety and the fact that the family of complete linear systems on moving curves corresponding to $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ has the expected dimension, which is not directly applicable to other possible components consisting of non-linearly normal curves.
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
(3) In this paper the author would like to make an attempt for a settlement of the irreducibility of
$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ outside the Brill-Noether range, and hopefully the methods we employ in this article may shed light on handling the cases inside the Brill-Noether range as well.
\end{rmk}
The organization of this paper is as follows. After we briefly recall several basic preliminaries in the remainder of this section, we start the next section with the two reducible examples of $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ for $g=9$ and $g=12$.
\vskip 4pt
We then proceed to deal with the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ for some low genus $g$, e.g. $g=10$ or $g=11$.
\vskip 4pt
For notations and conventions, we usually follow those in \cite{ACGH} and \cite{ACGH2}; e.g. $\pi (d,r)$ is the maximal possible arithmetic genus of an irreducible and non-degenerate curve of degree $d$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^r$. Throughout we work over the field of complex numbers.
\vskip 4pt
Before proceeding, we recall several related results which are rather well-known; cf. \cite{ACGH2}.
Let $\mathcal{M}_g$ be the moduli space of smooth curves of genus $g$. For any given isomorphism class $[C] \in \mathcal{M}_g$ corresponding to a smooth irreducible curve $C$, there exist a neighborhood $U\subset \mathcal{M}_g$ of the class $[C]$ and a smooth connected variety $\mathcal{M}$ which is a finite ramified covering $h:\mathcal{M} \to U$, as well as varieties $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{W}^r_d$ and $\mathcal{G}^r_d$ proper over $\mathcal{M}$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $\xi:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{M}$ is a universal curve, i.e. for every $p\in \mathcal{M}$, $\xi^{-1}(p)$ is a smooth curve of genus $g$ whose isomorphism class is $h(p)$,
\item[(2)] $\mathcal{W}^r_d$ parametrizes the pairs $(p,L)$ where $L$ is a line bundle of degree $d$ and $h^0(L) \ge r+1$ on $\xi^{-1}(p)$,
\item[(3)] $\mathcal{G}^r_d$ parametrizes the couples $(p, \mathcal{D})$, where $\mathcal{D}$ is possibly an incomplete linear series of degree $d$ and dimension $r$ on $\xi^{-1}(p)$ - which is usually denoted by $g^r_d$.
\end{enumerate}
\vskip 4pt
Let $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ ($\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_\mathcal{L}$ resp.) be the union of components of $\mathcal{G}^{r}_{d}$ whose general element $(p,\mathcal{D})$ of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ ($\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_\mathcal{L}$ resp.) corresponds to a very ample (very ample and complete resp.) linear series $\mathcal{D}$ on the curve $C=\xi^{-1}(p)$. Note that an open subset of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ consisting of points corresponding to smooth irreducible and non-degenerate curves is a $\mathbb{P}\textrm{GL}(r+1)$-bundle over an open subset of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$. Hence the irreducibility of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ guarantees the irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$. Likewise, the irreducibility of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_\mathcal{L}$ ensures the irreducibility of
$\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}^\mathcal{L}$.
\vskip 4pt
We also make a note of the following well-known facts regarding the schemes $\mathcal{G}^{r}_{d}$ and $\mathcal{W}^r_d$; cf. \cite[Proposition 2.7, 2.8]{AC2}, \cite[2.a]{H1}, \cite[Ch. 21, \S 3, 5, 6, 11, 12]{ACGH2} and \cite[Theorem 1]{EH}. Following classical terminology, a base-point-fee linear series $g^r_d$ which is not very ample ($r\ge 2$) on a smooth curve $C$ is called {\it birationally very ample} when the morphism
$C \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^r$ induced by the $g^r_d$ is generically one-to-one (or birational) onto its image; cf. \cite[p. 570]{EH2},
\begin{prop}\label{facts}
For non-negative integers $d$, $g$ and $r$, let $\rho(d,g,r):=g-(r+1)(g-d+r)$ be the Brill-Noether number.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] The dimension of any component of $\mathcal{G}^{r}_{d}$ is at least $3g-3+\rho(d,g,r)$ which is denoted by $\lambda(d,g,r)$. Moreover, if $\rho(d,g,r)\geq0$, there exists a unique component $\mathcal{G}_0$ of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ which dominates $\mathcal{M}$(or $\mathcal{M}_g$).
\item[\rm{(2)}] Suppose $g>0$ and let $X$ be a component of $\mathcal{G}^{2}_{d}$ whose general element $(p,\mathcal{D})$ is such that $\mathcal{D}$ is a birationally very ample linear series on $\xi^{-1}(p)$. Then
\[\dim X=3g-3+\rho(d,g,2)=3d+g-9.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rmk}\label{principal}
(1)
In the Brill-Noether range, the unique component $\mathcal{G}_0$ of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ (and the corresponding component $\mathcal{H}_0$ of $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ as well) which dominates $\mathcal{M}$ or $\mathcal{M}_g$ is called the ``principal component".
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
(2) In the range $d\le g+r$ inside the Brill-Noether range, the principal component $\mathcal{G}_0$ which has the expected dimension is one of the components of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_\mathcal{L}$ (cf. \cite[2.1 page 70]{H1}), and therefore $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_\mathcal{L}$ or
$\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}^\mathcal{L}$ and hence $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}$ is non-empty.
If one can show that $\mathcal{G}_0$ is the only component of
$\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}_\mathcal{L}$ ( $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}$ resp.), the irreducibility of
$\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r}^\mathcal{L}$ ( $\mathcal{H}_{d,g,r} $ resp.) would follow immediately.
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
(3) However outside the Brill-Noether range, such a distinguished component
does not exist and this is one of the reasons why the problem becomes rather subtle.
\end{rmk}
We will utilize the following upper bound of the dimension of an irreducible component of $\mathcal{W}^r_d$, which was proved and used effectively in \cite{I}.
A base-point-free linear series $g^r_d$ on $C$ is called {\it compounded of an involution (compounded for short)} if the morphism induced by the linear series gives rise to a non-trivial covering map $C\rightarrow C'$ of degree $k\ge 2$.
\begin{prop}[\rm{\cite[Proposition 2.1]{I}}]\label{wrdbd}
Let $d,g$ and $r\ge 2$ be positive integers such that $d\le g+r-2$ and let $\mathcal{W}$ be an irreducible component of $\mathcal{W}^{r}_{d}$. For a general element $(p,L)\in \mathcal{W}$, let $b$ be the degree of the base locus of the line bundle $L=|D|$ on $C=\xi^{-1}(p)$. Assume further that for a general $(p,L)\in \mathcal{W}$ the curve $C=\xi^{-1}(p)$ is not hyperelliptic. If the moving part of $L=|D|$ is
\begin{itemize}
\item[\rm{(a)}] very ample and $r\ge3$, then
$\dim \mathcal{W}\le 3d+g+1-5r-2b$;
\item[\rm{(b)}] birationally very ample, then
$\dim \mathcal{W}\le 3d+g-1-4r-2b$;
\item[\rm{(c)}] compounded, then
$\dim \mathcal{W}\le 2g-1+d-2r$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\section{\quad Irreducibility of $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$}
We first recall several relevant results from \cite[Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2]{KK3}.
\begin{rmk}\label{linearnormal}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] Every non-empty $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}^\mathcal{L}$ is irreducible unless $g=9$.
\item[\rm{(2)}] $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}^\mathcal{L}=\emptyset$ for $g\leq8$.
\item[\rm{(3)}] For $g=9$, $\mathcal{H}_{10,9,4}=\mathcal{H}_{10,9,4}^\mathcal{L}$ is reducible with two components of dimensions $42$ and $43$.
\item[\rm{(4)}] For $g=10$, $\mathcal{H}_{11,10,4}=\mathcal{H}_{11,10,4}^\mathcal{L}$ is irreducible of the expected dimension $46$.
\item[\rm{(5)}] For $g=12$, $\mathcal{H}_{13,12,4}$ is reducible with two components of the same expected dimension $54$, whereas
$\mathcal{H}_{13,12,4}^\mathcal{L}$ is irreducible.
\item[\rm{(5)}] The non-emptiness $\mathcal{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ (hence $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ as well) and the existence of the extra components in the reducible cases above is rather clear from the proof in \cite[Proposition 2.2]{KK3}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}
We make a note of the following lemma which will avoid unnecessary repetitions in the course of the proof of our result.
\begin{lem}\label{double}
The residual series $\mathcal{E}=|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|$ of a possibly incomplete very ample (and special) linear series $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}$ cannot induce a double covering $C\stackrel{\eta}{\rightarrow} E$ onto a curve of genus $h\ge 0$ so that the base-point-free part of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}$ is a pull back of a non-special linear series on the target curve $E$ via $\eta$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Note that the complete $|\mathcal{D}|=g^r_d$ is very ample if $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}$ is. Let $C\stackrel{\eta}{\rightarrow}E\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^s$ be the double covering induced by the base-point-free part of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|$ and let $h$ be the genus of the curve $E$. We may assume $s:=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}\ge 2$ and $h\ge 1$ since for $s=1$ or $h=0$, $C$ is hyperelliptic and a hyperelliptic curve does not have a special very ample linear series.
\vskip 4pt \noindent Let $\Delta$ be the base locus of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}$ and $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}-\Delta|=\eta^*(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F})$ for some complete, non-special and base-point-free $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}=g^s_f$ on $E$ where $s=g-d+r-1$. Since $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}$ is non-special, $s=f-h$.
Choose any $t\in E$, set $u+v:=\eta^*(t)$ and we have
\begin{eqnarray*} s+1&\le&\dim\eta^*(|g^s_f+t|)\le\dim|\eta^*(\mathcal{F}+t)|=\dim|\eta^*(\mathcal{F})+u+v|\\&=& \dim|\mathcal{E}-\Delta+u+v| = \dim|K_C-\mathcal{D}-\Delta +u+v|\\
&\le&
\dim|K_C-(\mathcal{D}-u-v)|.
\end{eqnarray*}
By Riemann-Roch, it follows that $$\dim |\mathcal{D}-u-v|=d-2-g+h^0(C, K_C-(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}-u-v)))\ge r-1$$ and hence $|\mathcal{D}|$ is not very ample, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Since the irreducibility (or the reducibility) of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ were treated fully in
\cite{KK3} for $g=9, 10,12$ as in Remark \ref{linearnormal}, we focus on the three remaining cases $g=11$, $g=13$ and $g=14$ which are also outside the Brill-Noether range.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
We will use the following dimension estimate of a component $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^r_{g+1}$ corresponding to a possible extra component of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ other than the one corresponding to the
irreducible $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$.
\begin{lem} \label{easy}Assuming that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ is not irreducible, we let $\mathcal{H}$ be an extra component of $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ other than $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{g+1,g,4}$. Let $\mathcal{G}\subset\mathcal{G}^r_d$ be the component corresponding to $\mathcal{H}$, i.e. $\mathcal{H}$ is a $\mathbb{P}GL(5)$-bundle over $\mathcal{G}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}\neq\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}_\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}$.
Let $\mathcal{W}\subset \mathcal{W}^{r}_{g+1}$ be the component containing the image of the natural rational map
${\mathcal{G}}\overset{\iota}{\dashrightarrow} \mathcal{W}^{r}_{g+1}$ with $\iota (\mathcal{D})=|\mathcal{D}|$.
We also let $\mathcal{W}^\vee\subset \mathcal{W}^{r-2}_{g-3}$ be the locus consisting of the residual series of elements in $\mathcal{W}$, i.e. $$\mathcal{W}^\vee =\{(p, \omega_C\otimes L^{-1}): (p, L)\in\mathcal{W}\}.$$ Let $b$ be the degree of the base locus of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$.
Then $r\ge 5$ and we have the following dimension estimate of the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] If the base-point-free part of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ is very ample, then $b=0$ and
$$\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee=4g-5r+2.$$
\item[\rm{(2)}] If the base-point-free part of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ is birationally very ample, then
$$4g-5r+2\le \dim\mathcal{W}=\dim\mathcal{W}^{\vee}\le4g-4r-2-2b.$$
In particular, if $r=5$ we have $b=0$.
\item[\rm{(3)}] If the base-point-free part of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ is compounded,
$$4g-5r+2\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee\le3g-2r.$$
In particular we have $g\le 3r-2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} By Remark \ref{linearnormal}(1), a general element $(p,\mathcal{D})\in\mathcal{G}$ is such that $\mathcal{D}$ is an incomplete $g^4_{g+1}$ on $C=\xi^{-1}(p)$ hence $r:=\dim |\mathcal{D}|\ge 5$.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(1) By Proposition \ref{facts}(1) and Proposition \ref{wrdbd}(a), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda (g+1,g,4)&=&4g-18\le\dim\mathcal{G}\le\dim\mathbb{G}(4,r)+\mathcal{W}\\&=&\dim\mathbb{G}(4,r)+\dim \mathcal{W}^{\vee}\\
&\le& 5(r-4)+3(g-3)+g+1-5(r-2)-2b\\
&=&4g-18-2b
\end{eqnarray*}
and hence $b=0$ and $$\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee=4g-18-5(r-4)=4g-5r+2.$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(2) By Proposition \ref{facts}(1) and Proposition \ref{wrdbd}(b), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
4g-18&\le&\dim\mathcal{G}\le\dim\mathbb{G}(4,r)+\mathcal{W}=\dim\mathbb{G}(4,r)+\dim \mathcal{W}^{\vee}\\
&\le& 5(r-4)+3(g-3)+g-1-4 (r-2)-2b\\
&=&4g-22+r-2b.
\end{eqnarray*}
hence
\begin{equation*}
4g-5r+2\le \dim\mathcal{W}=\dim\mathcal{W}^{\vee}\le4g-4r-2-2b.
\end{equation*}
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(3) By Proposition \ref{wrdbd}(c), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
4g-18&\le&\dim\mathcal{G}\le\dim\mathbb{G}(4,r)+\mathcal{W}=\dim\mathbb{G}(4,r)+\dim \mathcal{W}^{\vee}\\
&\le&5(r-4)+ 2g-1+(g-3)-2(r-2)\\
&=&3g+3r-20.
\end{eqnarray*}
implying
$$4g-5r+2\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee\le3g-2r.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk} The following lemma is rather technical but is useful in transferring the original problem into lower degree cases. Indeed it is a slight variation of a claim which appeared in the course of the proof of a key lemma in \cite[Lemma 2.3]{KKy1}. For the convenience of the readers, a similar proof is provided.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lem}\label{diagram} Assuming that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ is not irreducible, we let $\mathcal{H}$ be an extra component of $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ other than $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{g+1,g,4}$. Let $\mathcal{G}\subset\mathcal{G}^r_d$ be the component corresponding to $\mathcal{H}$.
Let $\mathcal{W}\subset \mathcal{W}^{r}_{g+1}$ and $\mathcal{W}^\vee\subset \mathcal{W}^{r-2}_{g-3}$ be as in Lemma \ref{easy}. Assume further that a general element
of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ is base-point-free and birationally very ample.
Then there is a locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\subset \ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^{r-3}_{g-5}$ such that
$$\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}=\dim{W}^\vee.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We consider the following obvious diagram:
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-5}\underset{\mathcal{M}}{\times}\mathcal{W}_2 &\stackrel{q}\dashrightarrow
\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-3}\\
\\
\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-270}{\reflectbox{$\dashrightarrow$}}}\vcenter{\rlap{$\scriptstyle{{\pi}}\,$}}
\\
\\
\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-5}
\end{array}
\]
where $q(\mathcal{E}',\mathcal{O}_C(R+S))=\mathcal{E}'\otimes\mathcal{O}_C(R+S)$ and $\pi(\mathcal{E}',\mathcal{O}_C(R+S))=\mathcal{E}'$. Since a general element $(p,\mathcal{E})\in\mathcal{W}^\vee\subset\mathcal{W}^{r-2}_{g-3}\subset\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-3}$ is birationally very ample and base-point-free, $q^{-1}(\mathcal{E})\neq\emptyset$ for a general $(p,\mathcal{E})\in\mathcal{W}^\vee$. Let $\Sigma$ be a component of $q^{-1}(\mathcal{W}^\vee)$ such that $q(\Sigma )=\mathcal{W}^\vee$. Since a general $(p,\mathcal{E})\in\mathcal{W}^\vee$ is assumed to be birationally very ample, we see that $\dim q^{-1}(\mathcal{E})=0$ and hence \[\dim\Sigma = \dim\mathcal{W}^\vee.\] We set
$\mathcal{Z}:=\pi({\Sigma})\subset\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-5}$ and consider the following induced diagram:
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-5}\underset{\mathcal{M}}{\times}\mathcal{W}_2\supset\Sigma & \stackrel{q}\dashrightarrow &
\mathcal{W}^\vee\subset\mathcal{W}^{r-2}_{g-3}\subset\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-3}\\
\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-270}{\reflectbox{$\dashrightarrow$}}}\vcenter{\rlap{$\scriptstyle{{\pi}}\,$}} &
\\
\\
\quad\quad\mathcal{W}^{r-3}_{g-5}\supset\mathcal{Z} &
\end{array}
\]
We now argue that $\dim \pi^{-1}(\mathcal{E}')=0$ for a general $(p,\mathcal{E}')\in\mathcal{Z}$ as follows.
\noindent
\noindent
We choose $(p,\mathcal{E})\in\mathcal{W}^\vee$ and fix $(p, \mathcal{E}')\in\mathcal{Z}$ such that $(\mathcal{E}', \mathcal{O}_C(R+S))\in q^{-1}(\mathcal{E})$ for some $R, S\in C=\xi^{-1}(p)$, i.e. $\mathcal{E}\cong\mathcal{E}'\otimes\mathcal{O}_C(R+S)$. Recall that by our initial setting, $\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}^{-1}=|\mathcal{D}|\in\mathcal{W}\subset\mathcal{W}^r_{g+1}$ is a very ample line bundle for a general $\mathcal{E}\in\mathcal{W}^\vee\subset\mathcal{W}^{r-2}_{g-3}$.
We also note that the very ample, base-point-free and complete linear system $|\mathcal{D}|=\omega_C\otimes \mathcal{E}^{-1}=\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}'^{-1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_C(-R-S)$ is a subsystem of
$\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}'^{-1}$. Hence $\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}'^{-1}$ is birationally very ample; otherwise the isomorphism induced by the very ample $\mathcal{D}$ on $C=\xi^{-1}(p)$ onto its image factors non-trivially through the morphism induced by $\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}'^{-1}$, which is an absurdity. Therefore by noting that $\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}'^{-1}=g^{r+1}_{g+3}$,
there are only finitely many choices
of $\mathcal{O}_C(-\widetilde{R}-\widetilde{S})$'s such that
$$\omega_C\otimes\mathcal{E}'^{-1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_C(-\widetilde{R}-\widetilde{S})=g^r_{g+1}\in \mathcal{W}\subset\mathcal{W}^r_{g+1},$$ i.e. $(\mathcal{E}', \mathcal{O}_C(\widetilde{R}+\widetilde{S}))\in\Sigma$ or equivalently $\mathcal{E}'\otimes\mathcal{O}_C(\widetilde{R}+\widetilde{S})\in\mathcal{W}^\vee$, which implies $\dim \pi^{-1}(\mathcal{E}')=0$. By semi-continuity, we have
$\dim \pi^{-1}(\mathcal{E}')=0$ for a general $(p,\mathcal{E}')\in\mathcal{Z}$ and hence
\[
\dim\mathcal{Z}=\dim\Sigma.
\]
\end{proof}
The following theorem will be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{main} for the case $g=14$, which asserts that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11.14, 3}$ is reducible with exactly two components and each of them has the minimal possible dimension.
\begin{thm} \label{residual}The Hilbert scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11.14, 3}$ is reducible with two components and both of them have the same expected dimension $44$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Let $C$ be a smooth curve of genus $g=14$ and $d=11$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$. By Riemann-Roch on $C$, the dimension of $H^0(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathcal{I}_C(4))$ is at least
$$h^0(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3, \ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))-h^0(C,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))=35-(44-14+1)=4,$$
and hence $C$ lies on quartic surfaces, which may well be reducible.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(1) Let $C$ lie on a (unique) quadric $Q$. By solving $d=11=a+b$ and $g=14=(a-1)(b-1)$, we see that $C$ is a curve of type $(a,b)=(3,8)$ on a smooth quadric. Let $\mathcal{I}_2$ be the family of such curves arising in this way, which is clearly irreducible. By counting the number of parameters of the family of such pairs $(C,Q)$ we readily have $$\dim\mathcal{I}_2=h^0(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathcal{O}(2))-1+h^0(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1\times\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1, \mathcal{O}(a,b))-1
=44=4\cdot d.$$ It is not clear at this point if $\mathcal{I}_2$ is open and dense in a component of the Hilbert scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11.14, 3}$, which will be answered in the affirmative at the end of the proof.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(2) Next we assume that $C$ lie on a (unique) smooth cubic surface $S$, which is isomorphic to $\mathbb{P}^2$ blown up at $6$ points and embedded by anti-canonical linear system $|-K_S|$ in $\mathbb{P}^3$. We denote by $\mathcal{O}_S(a;b_1,\cdots ,b_6)$ the invertible sheaf on $S$ associated to the Cartier divisor
$al-\sum^6_{i=1}b_ie_i$ on $S$, where $l$ is the pull-back of a line in $\mathbb{P}^2$ and $e_i ~(1\le i\le 6)$ are the six exceptional divisors. Setting $C\sim al-\sum^6_{i=1}b_ie_i$, we have $$\deg C =3a-\sum b_i=11, C^2=a^2-\sum b_i^2=2g-2-K_S\cdot C=37.$$
By Schwartz's inequality, one has $$(\sum b_i)^2\le 6(\sum b_i^2)$$ and substituting
$\sum b_i=3a-11$, $\sum b_i^2=a^2-37$ we obtain $$3a^2-66a+343\le 0,$$ implying
$9\le a\le 13$. After elementary but rather tedious numerical calculation, we arrive at the following possibilities for
the $7$-tuple $(a; b_1, \cdots , b_7)$;
(i) $(9; 3,3,3,3,2,2)$ (ii) $(10; 4,4,3,3,3,2)$ (iii) $(11; 5,4,4,3,3,3)$
(iv) $(12; 5,5,4,4,4,3)$
(v) $(13; 5,5,5,5,4,4),$
\vskip 4pt \noindent and by a simple numerical check, in all five cases the curve $C$ is linearly equivalent on $S$ to $D+3H$ where $D$ is a disjoint union of two of the $27$ lines on the cubic.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
For $L=\mathcal{O}_S(a;b_1,\cdots ,b_6)$, by Riemann-Roch on $S$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
h^0(S,L)&=&h^1(S,L)-h^2(S,L)+\chi(S)+\frac{1}{2}(L^2-L\cdot\omega_S)\\
&=&h^1(S,L)-h^2(S,L)+1+\frac{1}{2}(C^2+\deg C)\\
&=&h^1(S,L)-h^2(S,L)+1+\frac{1}{2}(37+11)
\end{eqnarray*}
\vskip 4pt \noindent
By Serre duality we have, $$h^1(S,L)=h^1(S, \omega_S\otimes L^{-1})=h^1(S,\mathcal{O}_S(-(a+3)l+\sum(b_i+1)e_i).$$
Since $E:=(a+3)l-\sum(b_i+1)e_i$ is (very) ample we have $$h^1(S,L)=h^1(S,\mathcal{O}_S(-(a+3)l+\sum(b_i+1)e_i))=0$$ by Kodaira's vanishing theorem.
We further note the divisor $-E$ is not linearly equivalent to an effective divisor; if it were, one would have $-E\cdot l=-(a+3)\ge 0$ whereas $l^2=1\ge 0$, a contradiction. Hence it follows that $$h^2(S,L)=h^0(S,\omega_S\otimes L^{-1})=h^0(S,\mathcal{O}_S(-E)=0$$ and we obtain $$h^0(S,L)=25.$$ Therefore the sublocus $\mathcal{I}_3$ of $\mathcal{H}_{11,14,3}$ consisting of curves lying on a smooth cubic has dimension strictly less than the minimal possible dimension of a component of the Hilbert scheme $\mathcal{H}_{11,14,3}$;
$$\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_3=\dim H^0(\mathbb{P}^3, \mathcal{O}(3))-1+\dim |\mathcal{O}_S(a;b_1,\cdots ,b_6)|=43<4\cdot 11,$$ hence $\mathcal{I}_3$ is not dense in a component of $\mathcal{H}_{11,14,3}$. Indeed $\mathcal{I}_3$ is in the boundary of the component $\overline{\mathcal{I}_4}$ (the closure of $\mathcal{I}_4$), which we are going to describe later. On the other hand,
we see easily that the locus $\mathcal{I}_3$ is not in the closure $\overline{\mathcal{I}_2}$ by semicontinuity; note that a general member of the irreducible locus $\overline{\mathcal{I}_2}$ is trigonal whereas a general member $C$ in a component of the sublocus $\mathcal{I}_3$ has a base-point-free pencil of degree $6$ cut out on $C$ by the linear system $|2l-\sum^4_{i=1}b_ie_i|$. However such $C$ has gonality $k$ strictly greater than $3$ by Casteluovo-Severi inequality; if
$k\le 3$, then $g=14\le (k-1)(6-1)\le 10$, an absurdity.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(3) It is possible that there might exist components of $\mathcal{H}_{11,14,3}$ whose general element lies only on a singular cubic surface. However, one may argue that no such component exists as follows.
Note that every singular cubic surface $S\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$ is one of the following three types.
\vskip 4pt
(i) $S$ is a normal cubic surface with some double points only.
(ii) $S$ is a normal cubic cone.
(iii) $S$ is not normal, which may possibly be a cone.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
For the case (i), let $S$ be a normal cubic surface which is not a cone. By a work due to John Brevik \cite[Theorem 5.24]{Brevik}, every curve on $S$ is a specialization of curves on a smooth cubic surface. Therefore we are done for the case (i).
\vskip 4pt \noindent
For the case (ii), we let $C$ be a smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$ on a normal cubic cone $S$. Recall that
(a) $g=1+d(d-3)/6-2/3$ if $C$ passes through the vertex of $S$
(b) $g=1+d(d-3)/6$, otherwise
\noindent
which can be found in \cite[Proposition 2.12]{Gruson} as an application of C. Segre formula.
However $(d,g)=(11,14)$ satisfies neither of the above.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(iii) Let $C$ be a smooth curve of degree $d$ and genus $g$ on a non-normal cubic surface $S$. Recall that if $S$ is a cone, then $S$ is a cone over a singular plane cubic, in which case $S$ is a projection of a cone $S'$ over a twisted cubic in a hyperplane in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^4$ from a point not on $S'$. Furthermore, the minimal desingularization $\tilde S$ of $S'$ is isomorphic to the ruled surface
$$\mathbb{F}_3=\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}} (\mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1}(3)),$$
which is the blow-up of the cone $S'$ at the vertex.
If $S$ is not a cone, then $S$ is a projection of a rational normal scroll $$S''\cong\tilde S\cong\mathbb{F}_1=\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}} (\mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1}(1)\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1}(2))\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^4$$ from a point not on $S''$.
In both cases, we have $\text{Pic}~ \tilde S=\mathbb{Z}h\otimes \mathbb{Z}f \cong\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes 2}$, where $f$ is the class of a fiber of $\tilde S \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^1$ and $h=\pi^*(\mathcal{O}_S(1))$ with $\tilde S\stackrel{\pi}{ \rightarrow} S$. Note that $h^2=3, f^2=0$, $h\cdot f=1$ and $K_{\tilde S}\equiv -2h+f$. Denoting by $\tilde C\subset\tilde S$ the strict transformation of the curve $C\subset S$, we let $k:=(\tilde C \cdot f)_{\tilde S}$ be the intersection number of $\tilde C$ and $f$ on $\tilde S$. We have $\tilde C \equiv kh+(d-3k)f=kh+(11-3k)f$.
By adjuntion formula, it follows that
$$g=14=\frac{(2\cdot 11-3k-2)(k-1)}{2},$$ which does have an integer solution and we are done with the case (iii).
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(3) Finally we assume that $C$ does not lie on a quadric or a cubic. Since every smooth curve $C$ of genus $g=14$ of degree $d=11$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$ lies on at least $$h^0(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3, \ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))-h^0(C,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))=35-(44-14+1)=4$$ independent quartics, we see in this case that $C$ is
is residual to a curve $D\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$ of degree $e=5$ and genus $h=2$ in the complete intersection of two (irreducible) quartics
by the well-known formula relating degrees and genus of directly linked curves in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$;
\begin{equation*}
2(g-h)=(s+t-4)(d-e).
\end{equation*}
\vskip 4pt \noindent
Consider the locus
$$\Sigma\subset\mathbb{G}(1,\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}(H^0(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))))=\mathbb{G}(1,34)$$
of pencils of quartic surfaces whose base locus consists of a curve $C$ of degree $d=11$ and genus $g=14$ and a quintic $D$ of genus $h=2$ where $C$ and $D$ are directly linked via a complete intersection of quartics, together with the two obvious maps
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hskip -48pt\mathbb{G}(1,34)\supset\Sigma&\stackrel{\pi_C}\dashrightarrow
\quad\mathcal{I}_4\subset \hskip 3pt\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11,14,3}\\
\\
\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-270}{\reflectbox{$\dashrightarrow$}}}\vcenter{\rlap{$\scriptstyle{{\pi_D}}\,$}}
\\
\\
\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{5,2,3},
\end{array}
\]
where $\mathcal{I}_4$ is the image of $\Sigma$ under $\pi_C$.
A quintic $D\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$ of genus $h=2$ lies on at least $$h^0(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))-h^0(D,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}(4))=35-19=16$$ independent quartics.
Note that $C\in\mathcal{I}_4\subset\hskip 4pt\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11.14.3}$ is directly linked to $D\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{5,2,3}$ which in turn is directly linked to a line $L$ via complete intersection of a quadric and a cubic. From the basic relation
$$\dim H^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_C(m))=\dim H^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_D(s+t-4-m))$$
where $C$ and $D$ are directly linked via complete intersection of surfaces of degrees $s$ and $t$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{h1}h^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_C(4))=h^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_D(0))=h^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_L(2+3-4-0))=0
\end{equation}
and
$$h^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_D(4))=h^1(\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{I}_L(2+3-4-4))=0.$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
Therefore $\pi_D$ is generically surjective with fibers open subsets of $\mathbb{G}(1,15)$. Since $\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{5.2.3}$ is known to be irreducible (cf.\cite{E1} or \cite[page 51]{H1}), it follows that $\Sigma$ is irreducible and $$\dim\Sigma=\dim\mathbb{G}(1,15)+\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{5.2.3}=28+4\cdot 5=48.$$ On the other hand, since every $C\in\mathcal{I}_4$ lies on exactly $4$ independent quartics by (\ref{h1}), $\pi_C$ is generically surjective with fibers open in $\mathbb{G}(1,3)$. Finally it follows that the locus $\mathcal{I}_4$ is irreducible of dimension
$$\dim\Sigma-\dim\mathbb{G}(1,3)=44=4\cdot11.$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
Since the irreducible loci $\mathcal{I}_2$ and $\mathcal{I}_4$ have the same dimension, one may deduce that general element in $\mathcal{I}_2$ is not a specialization of a curve in $\mathcal{I}_4$ (and vice versa). Furthermore, together with the irreducibility of the loci $\mathcal{I}_2$ and $\mathcal{I}_4$, this implies that both are dense in the two components $\overline{\mathcal{I}_2}$
and $\overline{\mathcal{I}_4}$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11,14,3}$. We also remark that the locus $\mathcal{I}_3$\footnote{From the referee, the authors were informed of an alternative way to see that a curve $C$ in $\mathcal{I}_3$ is a limit of curves not lying on a cubic surface using results by Martin-Deschamps and Perrin \cite[Proposition 2.3, Lemma 2.4 and Proposition 4.1]{MP}. } sits in the boundary of the second component $\overline{\mathcal{I}_4}$ as was explained earlier.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{main} For $g=11, 13$ and $14$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}]
$\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ is irreducible and $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\mathcal{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$,
\item[\rm{(2)}]
$\dim\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\lambda(g+1,g,4)+\dim\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}} GL(5)$,
\item[\rm{(3)}]
and is generically reduced.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We retain all the notations used in Lemma \ref{easy}; $\mathcal{H}$ is an extra component of $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ other than $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{g+1,g,4}$, $\mathcal{G}\subset\mathcal{G}^r_d$ is the component corresponding to $\mathcal{H}$,
$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}\subset \ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^r_{g+1}$ is the component corresponding to $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}$ where
$r=\dim|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|$ for a general $(p,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D})\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}$ and so on.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
{\textbf[$g=11$]} Note that $r=5$ since there does not exist a special $g^6_{g+1}=g^6_{12}$ on a non-hyperelliptic curve by Clifford's theorem; a hyperelliptic curve cannot be embedded in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^r$, $r\ge 2$ as a curve of degree $g+1$ with a special hyperplane series.
We also note that a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ is neither very ample nor birationally very ample; if so, the base-point-free part of a general $\mathcal{E}=g^3_8\in \mathcal{W}^\vee$ induces a birational morphism (or an embedding) into $\mathbb{P}^3$ and the genus of $C$ is at most $\pi(8,3)=9$ by the Castelnuovo genus bound. Therefore a general element of $\mathcal{W}^\vee$ is compounded. We further note that
$\mathcal{E}$ is base-point-free, otherwise $\mathcal{E}$ has at least degree two base locus in which case the Clifford's theorem applies. Therefore $\mathcal{E}$ induces degree two morphism $C\stackrel{\eta}{\rightarrow}E$ onto an elliptic curve $E\subset \mathbb{P}^3$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=\eta^*(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F})$ for some non-special $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}=g^3_4$ on the elliptic curve $E$, which is impossible by Lemma \ref{double}. Hence there is no extra component of $\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ other than $\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{g+1,g,4}$, which is already irreducible of expected dimension.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
One easily sees that $\mathcal{H}_{12,11,4}=\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{12,11,4}$ is non-empty. A non-singular model of a plane curve of degree $8$ with one ordinary $4$-fold points and $4$ nodes embeds into a Del Pezzo surface in $\mathbb{P}^4$ by the linear system of cubics through these $5$ points as a smooth curve of degree $d=3\cdot 8-1\cdot 4-4\cdot 2=12$ and genus $g=21-6-4\cdot 1=11$; cf. \cite[Theorem 1.1]{rathman}.
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
{\textbf[$g=13$]} For $g=13$, we also have $r=\dim|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|=5$ for a general $(p,\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D})\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}$ since $\pi (14,r)\le 11$ for $r\ge 6$.
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
(a)
Assume that the morphism induced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=|K_C-\mathcal{D}|=g^3_{10}$ is compounded. If $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}$ is base-point-fee, then
$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}$ induces a double covering $C \stackrel{\eta}{\rightarrow} E\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$ onto a curve $E$ of genus at most two (by the Castelnuovo genus bound applied to $E$) and $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=g^3_{10}=\eta^*(\mathcal{F})$ for some $\mathcal{F}=g^3_5$, which is complete, non-special and base-point-free linear series on $E$. However this is impossible by
Lemma \ref{double}.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
Suppose that a general element $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ has a non-empty base locus $\Delta$.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
If $\deg\Delta=1$, then
the moving part of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=g^3_{10}$ is a $g^3_9$ inducing a 3-sheeted map $C\stackrel{\zeta}{\rightarrow} D$ onto a rational normal curve $D\subset \mathbb{P}^3$, i.e. $C$ is trigonal.
Let $g^1_3$ be the unique trigonal pencil (by Castelnuovo-Severi inequality) on $C$.
Note that $$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=|K_C-\mathcal{D}|=|3g^1_3|+\Delta$$
and take $\Gamma\in C_2$ such that $\Delta+\Gamma\in g^1_3$.
We then have
$$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}+\Gamma|=|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}+\Gamma|=|4g^1_3|$$
and it follows that $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}-\Gamma|=|K_C-4g^1_3|=g^4_{12}$ and therefore
$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}$ is not very ample, a contradiction.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
In case $\deg\Delta=2$, $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}-\Delta|=g^3_8$ induces a double covering onto an elliptic curve, which is impossible by Lemma \ref{double}.
The case $\deg\Delta\ge 3$ never occurs by obvious reasons; Clifford's theorem etc..
Therefore we conclude that a general element of $\mathcal{W}^{\vee}$ cannot be compounded.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(b)
Suppose that the moving part of a general element of $\mathcal{W}^{\vee}\subset\mathcal{W}^{3}_{g-3}$ is very ample and take a general $|K_C-\mathcal{D}|=g^3_{10}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$. Note that the the genus $g=13$ is larger than the second Castelnuovo genus bound $\pi_1(10,3)$;
$$\pi_1(10,3)=\frac{(g-4)(g-5)}{6}=12<g=13<\pi(10,3)=16$$ and hence by basic Castelnuvo theory the curve embedded by a very ample $g^3_{10}$ must lie on a quadric surface in $\mathbb{P}^3$; cf. \cite[Corollary 3.14, page 97]{H1}. However
there is no integer pair $(a,b)$ satisfying $a+b=10$ and $(a-1)(b-1)=13=g$.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(c)
Therefore the moving part of a general element of $\mathcal{W}^{\vee}\subset\mathcal{W}^{3}_{g-3}$ is birationally very ample and let $b$ be the degree of the base locus $B$ of a general element of $\mathcal{W}^{\vee}$.
By Lemma \ref{easy}(2), we have
$b=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{equal2}4g-23\le \dim\mathcal{W}=\dim\mathcal{W}^{\vee}\le4g-22.
\end{equation}
\vskip 4pt \noindent
By Lemma \ref{diagram}, we have a irreducible closed locus $\mathcal{Z}\subset\mathcal{W}^2_{g-5}$ such that $\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}$. Note that the base-point-free part of general element of $\mathcal{Z}$ is not very ample; $g=13$ is not a genus of a smooth plane curve.
If the base-point-free part of general element of $\mathcal{Z}$ is birationally very ample, then by Proposition \ref{wrdbd}(b) (applied to the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$), we have
$$\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}=\dim\mathcal{W}\le 3(g-5)+g-1-8=4g-24, $$ which is not compatible with the above (\ref{equal2}).
Therefore the only remaining possibility is that a general element of $\mathcal{Z}\subset\mathcal{W}^2_{g-5}$ is compounded and let $\Delta$ be the base locus of a general element $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}=g^2_8\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ with $\delta=\deg\Delta$. One of the following may occur; note that $\delta\le 2$ and $\delta\neq 1$ by Clifford's theorem etc.
\noindent
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] $C$ is a double covering of a curve $E$ of genus $2$ with a two sheeted map $C\stackrel{\zeta} \rightarrow E$ and $\mathcal{F}=\zeta^*({g^2_4})$; $\delta=0$.
\noindent
\item[\rm{(2)}] $C$ is a double covering of a smooth plane quartic $F$ with a two sheeted map $C\stackrel{\eta}\rightarrow F$ and $\mathcal{F}=\eta^*(|K_F|)=\eta^*(g^2_4)$; in the case $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}$ is
a pull-back of the special $|K_F|$ on the quartic $F$ and $\delta=0$.
\noindent
\item[\rm{(3)}] $C$ is bi-elliptic with a bi-elliptic covering $C\stackrel{\phi} \rightarrow E$ and $\mathcal{F}=\phi^*(g^2_3)+\Delta$; $\delta =2$.
\noindent
\item[\rm{(4)}]
$C$ is trigonal and $\mathcal{F}=2g^1_3+\Delta$; $\delta=2$.
\noindent
\item[\rm{(5)}] $C$ a $4$-gonal curve with $\mathcal{F}=2g^1_4$; $\delta=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\vskip 4pt
\noindent
We now choose a general $(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F},p)\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_{g-5}$ and set $$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}+\Gamma|\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^3_{g-3}$$ where $\Gamma =t+s\in C_2$ is obtained from a singularity of the image curve of the morphism $\xi^{-1}(p)=C\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^3$ induced by
a birationally very ample and base-point-free $g^3_{10}=|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}+\Gamma|=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}=|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(1) and (3): One may argue that the residual series $|\mathcal{D}|=|K_C-\mathcal{F}-\Gamma|$ is not very ample, virtually in the same manner as in the proof of Lemma \ref{double} as follows. If $C\stackrel{\zeta}\rightarrow E$ is a double covering onto a curve $E$ of genus $2$, then $$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}|=\zeta^*(g^2_4)=|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}-t-s|=|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}-t-s|$$
and hence
$$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|=|K_C-\zeta^*(g^2_4)-t-s|.$$ We take $r'+s'\in C_2$ which is the conjugate divisor of the divisor $t+s\in C_2$ with respect to the double covering $\zeta$.
Then we have
$$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}-t'-s'|=|K_C-\zeta^*(g^2_4)-t-s-t'-s'|=|K_C-\zeta^*(g^4_6)|=g^4_{12}$$
hence $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|$ is not very ample. The case (3) is almost identical to (1) which we omit.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
For the case (2), a calculation similar to the above or applying Proposition \ref{wrdbd}(c) to the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ fails to work. Instead we argue as follows. Recall that under our current circumstance, the double covering $\eta$ onto a smooth plane quartic is induced by a (general) element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_{g-5}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_8$, which is a subseries of a birationally very ample base-point-free $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^3_{10}$. To be precise, consider the following diagram which is adopted to the current situation which appeared in the proof of Lemma \ref{diagram};
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{W}^{2}_{8}\underset{\mathcal{M}}{\times}\mathcal{W}_2\supset\Sigma & \stackrel{q}\dashrightarrow &
\mathcal{W}^\vee\subset\mathcal{W}^{3}_{10}\subset\mathcal{W}^{2}_{10}\\
\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-270}{\reflectbox{$\dashrightarrow$}}}\vcenter{\rlap{$\scriptstyle{{\pi}}\,$}} &
\\
\\
\quad\quad\quad\mathcal{W}^{2}_{8}\supset\mathcal{Z} & \quad\stackrel{\zeta}{\dashrightarrow}\quad&\mathcal{X}_{2,3} \subset\mathcal{M}_g
\end{array}
\]
\vskip 4pt \noindent
where $\mathcal{X}_{n,\gamma}$ denotes the locus in $\mathcal{M}_g$ corresponding to curves
which are n-fold coverings of smooth curves of genus $\gamma$. By de Franchis theorem (cf. \cite{Sommese}), the fiber in $\mathcal{Z}$ of the rational map $\zeta$ over a general class $[C]\in\zeta (\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z})\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{2,3}$ is finite. As we saw in the proof of Lemmma \ref{diagram}, $\pi$ is a generically finite map and hence over $(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}',p)\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ we have finitely many $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}_C(R+S)$'s in the second factor of the locus $\Sigma$ so that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}'\otimes\ensuremath{\mathcal}{O}_C(R+S)\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$.
Therefore upon choosing a general $[C]\in\zeta(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z})\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{2,3}$, we arrive at an element $\mathcal{E}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$. The ambiguities in choosing an element among the finite fiber of $\zeta$ as well as the fiber of $\pi$ do not affect the following dimension count. In other words, we arrive at finitely many
$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ and all the $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}$'s obtained in this way lie on $W^3_{10}(C)$.
By the well-known Riemann's moduli count \cite[Satz 1]{Lange} $$\dim\mathcal{X}_{n,\gamma}\le 2g+(2n-3)(1-\gamma)-2,$$ one has
\begin{eqnarray*}
4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee=\dim\mathcal{W}\le\dim\mathcal{X}_{2,3}
\le 2g-4,
\end{eqnarray*}
a contradiction.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(4) Since a trigonal curve $C$ of genus $g\ge 5$ has a unique trigonal pencil $g^1_3$, we have the following well defined rational map induced from the construction of the sublocus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_8$.
\begin{align*}
& \ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\quad\stackrel{\psi}{\dashrightarrow}\quad\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^1_{g,3}\underset{\mathcal{M}}{\times}\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}_2\quad\stackrel{\pi_2}{\dashrightarrow}\quad\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^1_3\quad\stackrel{\kappa}{\dashrightarrow}\quad\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,3}\\
&\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F} \mapsto (g^1_3, |\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}-2g^1_3|=\Delta)
\end{align*}
where $\pi_2$ is the second projection and $\kappa$ is a natural birational map.
We now claim that the composition $\tau :\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z} \dashrightarrow \ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,3}$ of the above maps is a generically finite map.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
Take the residual series of $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}$;
$$|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|=\mathcal{E}=g^3_{10}=|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}+\Gamma|=|2g^1_3+\Delta+\Gamma|=|2g^1_3+\Delta+R+S|,$$ so that
$$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|=|K_C-2g^1_3-(R+S)-\Delta|.$$
Note that $\dim|2g^1_3+U+V|=\dim|2g^1_3|=2$ for any $U+V\in C_2$ and hence $$\dim|K_C-2g^1_3-(R+S)|=\dim|K_C-2g^1_3|-2=6.$$
We also note that a very ample $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}$ is a subseries of $|K_C-2g^1_3-(R+S)|$ and hence the series $|K_C-2g^1_3-(R+S)|$ is birationally very ample, which is also base-point-free.
Therefore it follows that there exists only finitely many choice of $\Delta$'s subject to the condition
$$5=\dim|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|=\dim|K_C-2g^1_3-(R+S)-\Delta|=\dim|K_C-2g^1_3-(R+S)|-1.$$
and hence $\tau$ is generically finite.
By this claim follows that
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,3}=2g+1,$$
which is a contradiction.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(5) In this case we have $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}=2g^1_4$ for a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$, which is complete. Note that on a $4$-gonal curve $C$ of genus $g\ge10$ which is not bi-elliptic, there exists a unique $g^1_4$ and hence we have a natural generically injective rational map
$$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\stackrel{\pi}{\dashrightarrow} \ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,4}.$$
and it follows that
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le \dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,4}=2g+3$$ and hence the rational map $\pi$ is dominant. Recall that on a general $4$-gonal curve $C$,
$|K_C-2g^1_4|$ is very ample; cf. \cite{B}. Hence it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}\dim|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}|&=&\dim|K_C-\ensuremath{\mathcal}{E}|=\dim|K_C-\mathcal{F}-\Gamma|\\&=&\dim|K_C-2g^1_4-R-S|=\dim|K_C-2g^1_4|-2=6-2=4
\end{eqnarray*} which is a contradiction.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
{\textbf[$g=14$]}
As in the cases of lower $g$, we have $r=5$, otherwise the Castelnuovo bound for a very ample $g^6_{15}=g^6_{g+1}$ is $\pi(15,6)=13$ which is less than $g=14$.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(a) If a general element of $\mathcal{W}^{\vee}$ is compounded, then by Lemma \ref{easy} (3), $g\le 3r-2=13$, which is impossible.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(b) If a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^3_{11}$ is very ample, then $\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee=4g-23$ by Lemma \ref{easy} (1). Indeed $4g-23$ is the maximal possible dimension of any $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{V}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^3_{11}$ consisting of very ample linear series by Proposition \ref{wrdbd} (a).
Therefore it follows that over the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^3_{11}$ generically consisting of very ample complete linear series, there is a component $\tilde{\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}}$ of the Hilbert scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{11,14,3}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g-3,g,3}$ such that
$$\dim\tilde{\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee +\dim\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}} GL(4)=4g-23+15=48,$$
which is impossible
by
Theorem \ref{residual}.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(c) Therefore a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee$ is birationally very ample which base-point-free by Lemma \ref{easy} (2). By Lemma \ref{diagram}, we take the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_{g-5}$ such that
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^\vee=\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}\le 4g-22.$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(i) Base-point-free part of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ is not very ample since $g=14$ is not a genus of a smooth plane curve.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(ii) Base-point-free part of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ birationally very ample by Proposition \ref{wrdbd} (2); if so $4g-23\le \dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le 3(g-5)+g-1-4\cdot 2=4g-24$, a contradiction.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(iii) Therefore the base-point-free part of a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ is compounded. We list up all the possibilities according to the degree $\delta$ of the base locus $\Delta$ of a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(1)}] $\delta=0$; A general $(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}, p)\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a triple covering $C=\xi^{-1}(p)\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$ onto an elliptic curve.
\item[\rm{(2)}] $\delta=1$; A general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a double covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto a curve of genus $2$.
\item[\rm{(3)}] $\delta=1$; A general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a double covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto a non-hyperelliptic curve of genus $3$.
\item[\rm{(4)}] $\delta=1$; A general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a $4$-sheeted covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto a rational curve.
\item[\rm{(5)}] $\delta=3$; A general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a double covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto an elliptic curve.
\item[\rm{(6)}] $\delta=3$; A general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a triple covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto a rational curve.
\end{enumerate}
\vskip 4pt \noindent
Instead of carrying out a precise dimension estimate in all the cases above as we did in the case $g=13$, we will make straight forward dimension estimate this time. Our estimate is rather crude but this is sufficient for our purpose.
By assuming that a general element of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ is compounded, we have a sequence of rational maps defined as follows.
\begin{align*}
&{\hskip -8pt}{\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_{g-5}}&&{\hskip -12pt\ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}^2_{g-5-\delta}\underset{\mathcal{M}}{\times} \ensuremath{\mathcal}{W}_\delta}\\
&\hskip -2pt\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-90}{\reflectbox{$\subset$}}}&&\hskip 8pt\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-90}{\reflectbox{$\subset$}}}\\
&\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z} \quad\quad\quad\stackrel{\psi}{\dashrightarrow }&&\quad\Lambda\quad\quad\stackrel{\varphi}{\dashrightarrow} \quad\ensuremath{\mathcal}{K}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{n,\gamma}\quad\hookrightarrow\quad\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}_g\\
&& \mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{90}{\reflectbox{$=$}}}\hskip -17pt
\\&&\{(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}',\Delta)|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}'+\Delta=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\}\hskip -70pt
\\&\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-90}{\reflectbox{$\in$}}}&&\hskip 8pt\mathrel{\rotatebox[origin=t]{-90}{\reflectbox{$\in$}}}
\\&\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F} \hskip 30pt\longmapsto &&(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}',\Delta)
\end{align*}
\vskip 4pt \noindent
$\psi$ is the map sending $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}$ to the pair $(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}', \Delta))$ where $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}'$ is the moving part of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}$ and $\Delta$ is the base locus.
The second dotted arrow $\varphi$ is the map assiging the base-point-free part $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}'$ to its isomorphism class in an appropriate $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{n,\gamma}$ determined by the compounded $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}'$. It is clear that the first arrow $\psi$ is well defined and generically injective. We stress that $\varphi$ is also well defined by the Castelnuovo-Severi inequality so that there is only one choice of multiple covering upon choosing a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$. However the fiber of $\varphi$ over a point in the image may have dimension more than the degrees of freedom choosing the base locus.
\vskip 4pt \noindent For example,
in the case (1), $\Delta=\emptyset$ and there is no second factor
and $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{K}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{3,1}\subset\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}_g$. Given a triple cover of an elliptic curve $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$ represented by a point $p\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{3,1}$, the fiber of $\varphi$ over $p$ is inside $\tau^*(W^2_3(E))=\tau^*(J(E))$ which is one dimensional.
Hence it follows that $$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\tau^*(J(E))+\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{3,1}\le 1+ 2g-2$$ leading to an absurdity. For the remaining possible cases, we may come up with similar numerical absurdities as follows.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm{(2)}] $\delta=1$, a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a double covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$ onto a curve $E$ of genus $2$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}=\tau^*(g^2_4)+\Delta$.
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\tau^*(J(E))+\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{2,2}+\delta\le 2+ 2g-3+ 1=2g$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
\item[\rm{(3)}]
$\delta=1$; a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a double covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$ onto a non-hyperelliptic curve of genus $3$ and and $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}=\tau^*(|K_E|)$.
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\tau^*(|K_E|))+\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{2,3}+\delta\le 2g-4+\delta=2g-3$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
\item[\rm{(4)}] $\delta=1$; a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a $4$-sheeted covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto a rational curve.
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,4}+\delta \le 2g+3+1=2g+4$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
\item[\rm{(5)}] $\delta=3$; a general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a double covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto an elliptic curve.
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\tau^*(J(E))+\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{X}_{2,1}+\delta\le 2g+2$$
\vskip 4pt \noindent
\item[\rm{(6)}] $\delta=3$; A general $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}\in\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}$ induces a triple covering $C\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow}E$
onto a rational curve.
$$4g-23\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{Z}\le\dim\ensuremath{\mathcal}{M}^1_{g,3}+\delta\le 2g+1+3=2g+4$$
\end{enumerate}
We could have used a variation of Lemma \ref{double} in the cases (2) and (5) to deduce that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{D}$ from which $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{F}$ is induced is not very ample, as we did in the case for $g=13$. Also note that the above estimate is rather rough, i.e. the possible choice of the base locus is usually finite under several other conditions of ours.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
For all the three Hilbert schemes we treated, we showed $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ and hence $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ is irreducible since $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ is. On the other hand, in \cite[Theorem 2.1]{KK3}, one proves the irreducibility of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ by showing that
the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}_\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}$ corresponding to a component of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ is birational to the locus $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{G}'\subset\mathcal{G}^2_{g-3}$ corresponding to the Severi variety $\Sigma_{g-3,g}$, which is irreducible and has the expected dimension. Therefore $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}^\ensuremath{\mathcal}{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ has the expected dimension.The generically reducedness of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\mathcal{H}^\mathcal{L}_{g+1,g,4}$ follows from the fact that the dimension of the singular locus of $\mathcal{G}'\subset \mathcal{G}^{2}_{g-3}$ does not exeed $g-8<\lambda(g+1,g,4)=\lambda(g-3,g,2)=4g-18$; cf. \cite[Proposition (2.9)]{AC2}. Thus $\mathcal{G}'$ is generically reduced and since $\mathcal{G}_\mathcal{L}$ is birational to $\mathcal{G}'$ it follows that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}=\mathcal{H}_{g+1,g,4}^\mathcal{L}$ is also generically reduced.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk} (1) It should be remarked that for $g=15$, one can show the irreducibility of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g+1,g,4}$ by a similar method we used for the case $g=14$.
As an intermediate step (such as Theorem 2.6), one may show that the Hilbert scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{12,15,3}=\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{g-3,g,3}$ is of the minimal possible dimension $4(g-3)$ (and is irreducible in this case) by using the fact that $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{8,5,3}$ is irreducible of dimension $4\cdot 8$ whose general element is directly linked to the one in $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{12,15,3}$ via complete intersection of a quartic and a quintic; recall that the irreducibility of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{8,5,3}$ is known by \cite{E1} or \cite{KK}. It is worthwhile to remark that there is no component of $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{12,15,3}$ whose general element corresponds to a curve $C$ on a quadric or a cubic surface. For example, one can eliminate the possibility for a general element of (a component of) $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{12,15,3}$ lying on a smooth cubic as follows. Note that smooth space curves of degree $d$ and genus $g$ on a smooth cubic surface form a finite union of locally closed irreducible family in $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{H}_{d,g,3}$ of dimension $d+g+18$ if $d\ge 10$ by \cite[Proposition B.1]{Gruson}. Since $d+g+18< 4d$ for $(d,g)=(12,15)$, it follows that this family does not constitute a component. In fact, we could have used \cite[Proposition B.1]{Gruson} directly in the course of the proof of Theorem \ref{residual} instead of going through thorough computation. We leave the other details for interested readers.
\vskip 4pt \noindent
(2) Note that $\rho (g+1,g,4)=0$ for $g=15$ and one may expect that the same tactics using linkage theory as above or as the case $g=14$ may work for $g\ge 16$ in general. However, when the genus $g$ and the degree $d$ of the family of curves in question is large, the curve often needs to lie on surfaces of rather high degree. Usually such curves are not necessarily linked to another curve which is easier to describe or we know much of.
\end{rmk}
\bibliographystyle{spmpsci}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro} World population has witnessed social and monetary
misfortunes from the spreading of vector-borne diseases since
subsequent centuries \cite{gubler1991,gubler1998,Gub2009}. Many intervention strategies have been
researched and implemented to fight against the diseases, most of
which are based on suppressing vector population and shielding
humans from contacts with vectors \cite{Vincent2016,Kamareddine2012}. Despite learnable
seasonality of the prominent meteorological factors, therefore of
the vector population, the disease-related incidences continue to
remain cyclical \cite{WAS2019}. Questionable here are thus, the sureness
and regularity in implementing such intervention strategies.
Media reports have played a significant role in influencing
individuals' states of mind and practices during epidemics \cite{Salathe2012, Zhou2019},
keeping them aware of surrounding infection threats. Such
computerized information nowadays is openly accessible from numerous
sources including direct news from broad communications (e.g.\
radios, televisions, newspapers, booklets) and catchphrases/hashtags
from social media (e.g.\ Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). The latter
can especially gauge further detailed information including
geospatial labels into a certain sphere only under short typing. The
main task of the media in the context of anti-disease campaign is to
scatter incidence data and regularly flag up related themes
including possible causes, symptoms, worsening effects, data
forecasts, clinical accessibility, prevention strategies, and
emergent solutions \cite{Collinson2014,Collinson2015}. It is a moderately modest method for
reporting centralized information regarding neighbours' wellbeing
and can certainly return much broader influence,
notwithstanding that outbreak data can be hardly accessible through
personal approaches. In response, individuals educated by
media can play safe ranging from injecting vaccines, smearing
repellent fluids, wearing defensive clothing, to staying away from
social contacts with infected humans and from endemic regions
\cite{Collinson2015}. Educated infective humans may likewise take measures to ban
themselves from being exposed to others to diminish infectivity.
Recently, a number of modeling studies have been done to evaluate
the impacts of media reports on the change of individual conducts
against the spread of infectious diseases. Except the statistical distribution-matching \cite{YHB2010}, classical linear regression \cite{RR2007} and game-theoretic approach
\cite{Che2009}, the existing mathematical models in this context engineer
differential equations -- typically SIR-type models -- as to govern
incidence pattern. The latter mostly fall into two ideas. The first
idea highlights media as to give feedback to a system for the
infectivity lessens as the number of infective individuals gets
larger. Placement of the corresponding measures depends on the types
of actions taken against the disease spread. In case of
vaccination-like preventive actions, the feedback serves as a rate
in taking up susceptible hosts \cite{SM2014}. In case of repellence
against contacts, it usually serves as modification of the infection
or contact rate. To this later case, the infection rate is likely to
be a decreasing function of the infective (and exposed)
subpopulation, which can be either a rational function \cite{LC2008,Li2009,Zhao2018}, an
exponential function \cite{CSZ2007,Liu2007,Zhou2019} or a rather generalized version \cite{CTZ2008}. The second idea includes the
introduction of ``aware'' subpopulation from the original
susceptible, infected, and recovered subpopulation \cite{Agaba2017,Basir2018,Misra2011}. The rate
at which an ``unaware'' individual becomes ``aware'' can thus be
modeled as an (increasing) function of the infective host
subpopulation \cite{SM2014} and/or a certain measure for the intensiveness
of media reports \cite{MSS2011,Misra2011,GRS2015,Agaba2017}. Another view also sees a two-way
relationship, as such intensiveness increases along with an
increasing number of incidences \cite{MSS2011,Agaba2017}.
In this paper, we present a model that follows the first idea. The
governing equations are, possibly the simplest SISUV model with
constant host population and saturating vector population. A novelty
here is the introduction of an alarming incidence level $j^{\ast}$,
below which medical departments can never transfer information to
media holders for either time, interest, or financial restrictions.
We further develop two models for the infection rate. The first
model portrays a non-increasing infection rate, which is based on
the situation where the hosts keep up the pace in taking up
preventive measures along with ever-streaming media reports.
Notwithstanding different treatment in the model, previous
investigation \cite{LC2008} equivalently indicates the supercritical-type
of bifurcation of the model system. The second model considers the
scenario where the alarming outbreak $j^{\ast}$ is defined as the
maximum number of patients the available hospitals in the observed
region can accommodate. The case that the disease is endemic in
``developing'' regions also sets additional factors why human's
exposure to infection can get higher with the incidence level. The
infection rate accordingly decreases due to media reports, yet it
revolves as the incidence level gets higher due to poverty,
reluctance in taking up preventive measures, tiresomeness, perceiving the disease as being easily curable, absence
of medical access, and presence of hungrier vectors.
For more realistic touching, we include a seasonal forcing in the
vector population due to meteorological factors. Periodical climatic
patterns have been argued to be one of the most influential
conditions that catalyze the infection processes \cite{Babin2003,Bartley2002}. This stems
from the observation that disease vectors essentially look for the
most favorable ambient temperature, humidity, wind speed and water
precipitation surrounding their life cycle \cite{Bicout2015,Cheong2013}. In some tropical
and subtropical regions, for example Jakarta, Indonesia \cite{WAS2019},
Taiwan \cite{WGL2007} and Sisaket, Thailand \cite{WJJ2013}, meteorological factors
might be too random under a small time scale, but they often exhibit
apparent long-term trends with certain periodicities. At this point,
the behavior of meteorological factors, and therefore that of
incidence levels, become more ``understandable''. This fact gives us
useful information for more accurate forecasts and the
implementation of disease controls.
However, due to a natural discrepancy on the lifespans of vector and
host, such model might portray significantly different solution
trajectories under the variation of the lifespan ratio $\epsilon$.
Added with another assumption on the infection rates, the ratio
variation gives birth to a singularly perturbed system. This allows
the field of the vector dynamics to entirely be controlled by
$\epsilon$. Two traditional results are underlying: critical
manifold, the surface representing the equilibrium of the system
under the assumption that the vector lifespan is infinitesimal
($\epsilon=0$), and slow manifold, a (locally attractive) surface as
perturbation of the critical manifold in case of full stability for
$\epsilon>0$. Therefore, as the reminder we go towards answering the
following questions: What is the stability status of the critical
manifold? How can solution trajectories confine to the slow
manifold, before approaching the critical manifold and ultimately a
stable equilibrium? How is the slow manifold approximated? How many
are and how are the stability statuses of the endemic equilibria?
How do the periodic solutions behave with respect to the basic
reproductive number and the alarming incidence level? How to see if
the periodic solutions expand with the amplitude of the seasonal
forcing? What happens to the periodic solutions in case
$\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ and $\epsilon\lesssim 1$?
\section{Model derivation}\label{sec2}
Let $N:=S+I$ denote a total host population size on the observed
region, which is assumed to be constant due to a relatively tiny
increment rate on a usual time scale of the vector dynamics. This
population size shares a time-dependent population size of
susceptible hosts $S$ and that of passively infective hosts $I$.
Analogously, $M:=U+V$ denotes a total vector population size,
comprising a population size of susceptible vectors $U$ and that of
actively infective vectors $V$. Our point of departure in the
modeling consists in reducing the following SISUV model
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SISUV}
\begin{split}
S'&= \mu(N-S)-\tilde{\beta} SV+\gamma I,\\
I'&=\tilde{\beta}
SV-(\gamma+\mu)I,\\
U'&=\Lambda -\tilde{\rho} UI-\theta U,\\
V'&=\tilde{\rho} UI-\theta V.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, $\mu$ denotes the host natural mortality rate, assumed to be
the same as the natural natality rate for the sake of the constancy
of $N$. In the vector dynamics, $\Lambda,\theta$ denote the
recruitment rate and natural mortality rate, respectively. The
parameters $\tilde\beta$ and $\tilde{\rho}$ denote the rate of
infection from an infective vector to a susceptible human and that
from an infective human to a susceptible vector, respectively. The
parameter $\gamma$ denotes the recovery rate that exclusively
contains information regarding loss of immunity. As a specific
feature of the model, we highlight the dependency of the vector
reproduction to the seasonally periodic climatic factors. Taking
into account only climatic factors of \emph{commensurable} periods,
i.e.\ those that share rational dependencies, we can model (cf. \cite{WAS2019})
\begin{equation*}\label{seasonality}
\Lambda = \xi + \zeta \cos (2\pi\omega t)
\end{equation*}
where $\xi,\zeta,\omega,\omega^{-1}$ denote an intercept, an
amplitude, a frequency and the corresponding period, respectively.
On the view of the selected climatic factors, $\omega^{-1}$ shall be
associated with the least common multiple of the commensurable
periods. The amplitude $\zeta$ serves as a tuning parameter for the
importance of seasonality. For the sake of well-posedness and
simplicity, we assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zeta}
0\leq \zeta <\xi.
\end{equation}
Accordingly, the total vector population satisfies
\begin{equation*}
M'=\xi + \zeta \cos (2\pi\omega t)-\theta M,\quad M(0)=M_0.
\end{equation*}
The above equation leads to the exact solution
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M}
M=\left(M_0-\bar{M}-\zeta A_c\right)\mathrm{e}^{-\theta t}+\bar{M}+\zeta
A_c\cos(2\pi\omega t)+\zeta A_s\sin(2\pi\omega t),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theta}
\bar{M}:=\frac{\xi}{\theta},\quad
A_c:=\frac{\theta}{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2},\quad
A_s:=\frac{2\pi\omega}{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}.
\end{equation}
It is clear that the population size converges to a periodic
solution as $t\rightarrow\infty$.
For the sake of scaling, we shall divide the host and vector
dynamics with reference constants. In the host dynamics, $N$ would
be the usual choice. In the vector dynamics, we appoint the average
of $M$ on one full period $[0,\omega^{-1}]$. However, the first term
in $M$ as in \eqref{eq:M} makes the averaging varying depending on
the domain undertaken. Therefore, we restrict $M_0$ as to satisfy
$M_0-\bar{M}-\zeta A_c=0$ so that $M$ becomes periodic and yield
\begin{equation*}\label{assumption}
\omega\int_0^{\omega^{-1}}M(t)\,\text{d}t=\bar{M}\quad\text{and}\quad
\omega\int_0^{\omega^{-1}}V(t)\,\text{d}t\leq \bar{M}.
\end{equation*}
The latter holds due to the fact that the nonnegative orthant is
invariant under the flow of \eqref{eq:SISUV}. If seasonality is
negligible ($\zeta=0$), then one yields an identity $M=M_0=\bar{M}$.
We thus define the following scaling
\begin{equation}\label{eq:h}
\frac{M}{\bar{M}}=1+\zeta h(t),\quad\text{where}\quad
h(t):=\frac{A_c}{\bar{M}}\cos(2\pi\omega
t)+\frac{A_s}{\bar{M}}\sin(2\pi\omega t).
\end{equation}
It is apparent to see that $h$ is $\omega^{-1}$--periodic. Under the
following definitions
\begin{equation*}
s:=\frac SN, \quad j:=\frac IN, \quad u:=\frac U{\bar M}, \quad
v:=\frac V{\bar M},\quad\beta:=\tilde{\beta}\bar{M},\quad
\kappa:=\gamma+\mu,\quad \rho:=\tilde{\rho} N
\end{equation*}
together with the constancy of $N$, the system \eqref{eq:SISUV}
reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jv}
\begin{split}
j'&=\beta(1-j)v-\kappa j,\\
v'&=\rho(1+\zeta h-v)j-\theta v.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The time scale $t$ in the model~\eqref{eq:jv} is defined on weekly
basis.
According to Esteva--Vargas \cite{EV1998}, both $\beta$ and $\rho$ convey
entities that lead the contact between host and vector to successful
infection. These include the mosquito biting rate and an effectivity
measure representing how successful a mosquito bite leads to virus
transmission. The former is dependent on hosts' mobility that leads
them to sites where the vector population concentrates and how
exposed their skins are. The latter is what we can assume to be
constant on the population level, even though empirical evidence
shows its dependence on age \cite{JC2010}. We assume that most infected
hosts are hospitalized, meaning that they are kept in isolated,
hygienic rooms where vectors are less likely to present.
Consequently, either more hosts are hospitalized or more infective
vectors are surrounding hospitals cannot change the mode of mosquito
bites to infected hosts. It thus is justifiable to assume that
$\rho$ is constant. As far as $\beta$ is concerned, it is the aim of
the current study to model $\beta$ as a function of the infected
host class $j$, i.e.\ taking into account the social awareness
between susceptible hosts in the observed region.
Sections~\ref{sec:report}--\ref{sec:nonreport} are devoted to the
corresponding discussions. In what follows, however, a general
$\beta=\beta(j)$ apparently affords some preliminary analyses, which
will be used in the subsequent sections.
\section{Analysis under time scale separation}
\subsection{Assumptions leading to time scale separation}\label{sec:asump}
As a first step we assume that $\rho,\theta$ are unobservable.
Suppose that data on infected hosts and infected vectors are given,
where both fluctuate at certain orders of magnitude, around certain
medians $(\bar{j},\bar{v})$. Suppose that $\theta$ is pre-specified.
On the virtue of data assimilation, $\rho$ can be traced. At this
stage, we may assume that the data are not heavily fluctuating,
since then $\rho\slash \theta\approx \bar{v}\slash
(\bar{j}(1-\bar{v}))=\text{constant}$ due to Euler approximation on
$v$--dynamics in \eqref{eq:jv} under negligible seasonality
($\zeta=0$). A large $\theta$ in the model returns significant
natural deaths, implying smaller vector lifespan,
therefore $\rho$ has to be chosen equivalently large to keep the
model solution portraying the data. When $\theta$ is assigned with a
smaller value, or larger vector lifespan, then a smaller
force of infection $\rho$ would be preferable to keep the model
solution at the same order of magnitude as when using a larger
$\theta$. From the system, we deduce that the host and vector
lifetime duration fulfil the condition $\mu^{-1}\gg \theta^{-1}$,
making both dynamics run on disparate time scales. Accordingly,
there exists an \emph{adiabatic parameter} $\epsilon$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:epsilon}
0<\epsilon\ll 1
\end{equation}
such that $\theta=\mu\slash \epsilon$. By such definition, the adiabatic parameter $\epsilon$ can also be the \emph{vector--host lifespan ratio}. Since $\rho\slash \theta$ is
constant where both $\rho$ and $\theta$ are variable, there exists a
parameter $\rho_{\epsilon}$ such that $\rho\slash
\theta=\rho_{\epsilon}\slash \mu=\rho_{\epsilon}\slash (\epsilon
\theta)$, implying $\rho_{\epsilon}=\epsilon \rho$. It is assumed
that $\rho_{\epsilon},\mu$ be specified beforehand, while
$\rho,\theta$ adjust accordingly based on the variation of
$\epsilon$. Here we present numerical values of the parameters
involved in the model, except where $\epsilon$ and $\zeta$ vary,
satisfying \eqref{eq:epsilon} and \eqref{eq:zeta} respectively.
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\centering \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}\toprule
$\mu^{-1}$ & $\gamma^{-1}$ & $\rho_{\epsilon}$ & $\theta$ & $\rho$ &
$\xi$ & $\omega^{-1}$ & $\bar{M}$ & $A_c$ & $A_s$ & $M_0$\\ \hline
$[\text{w}]$ & $[\text{w}]$ & $[\text{w}^{-1}]$ & $[\text{w}^{-1}]$
& $[\text{w}^{-1}]$ & $[\text{mos.}\times\text{w}^{-1}]$ &
$[\text{w}]$ & $[\text{mos.}]$ & $[\text{w}]$& $[\text{w}]$ &
$[\text{mos.}]$\\ \hline
$75\times 48$ & $24$ & $1.8\times 10^{-5}$ & $\mu\slash\epsilon$ & $\rho_{\epsilon}\slash\epsilon$ & $10^{4}$ & $52$ & $\xi\slash\theta$ &
$\frac{\theta}{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}$ & $\frac{2\pi\omega}{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}$ & $\bar{M}+\zeta A_c$ \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
} \caption{\label{tab:par}Parameter values and units used in the
model simulations.}
\end{table}
The appearance of the adiabatic parameter $\epsilon$ also rescores the
amplitude of the seasonal forcing in the model \eqref{eq:jv}. Let
$\text{Ampl}[\cdot]$ denotes the maximal amplitude of a functional
argument with periodic behaviour. We get
\begin{equation*}
\text{Ampl}[h]=\sqrt{\frac{A_c^2+A_s^2}{\bar{M}^2}}=\frac{1}{\bar{M}\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}}=\frac{\mu}{\xi\epsilon\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}},
\end{equation*}
where $h$ is as given in \eqref{eq:h}. We would thus like to study
the possible impact of letting $\epsilon$ varying on the periodic
solutions emanating from $\zeta>0$. Further consequence reveals that
\begin{equation*}
\text{Ampl}\left[\frac{M}{\bar{M}}\right]=1+\zeta\cdot\text{Ampl}[h]=1+\left(\frac{\mu}{\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}}\right)\left(\frac{\zeta}{\epsilon}\right)\sim\frac{\zeta}{\epsilon}.
\end{equation*}
We see here that the maximal amplitude of the seasonal forcing
$M\slash \bar{M}$ is equivalent to the amplitude $\zeta$, but
inversely equivalent to $\epsilon$. As things develop, we will see
how the $(\zeta,\epsilon)$-variations lead to distinctive maximal
amplitudes of not only vector trajectories, but also host
trajectories.
\subsection{Slow--fast system in the absence of seasonality}\label{sec:slowfast}
The point of departure in the analysis is to see how the autonomous
system behaves with respect to the adiabatic parameter $\epsilon$.
From the time scale separation, we discover a singularly perturbed
system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:slowfast}
\left.\begin{array}{rl}
j'&\!\!\!\!=J_0(j)+J_1(j)v\\
\epsilon v'&\!\!\!\!=V_0(j)+V_1(j)v
\end{array}\!\!\right\}x'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(x)=(\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^j,\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^{v})(x)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
J_0(j):=-\kappa j,\quad J_1(j):=\beta(j)\cdot (1-j),\quad
V_0(j):=\rho_{\epsilon}j,\quad V_1(j):=-\rho_{\epsilon}j-\mu,
\end{equation*}
and $j,v$ correspond to the \emph{slow} and \emph{fast dynamics},
respectively. The \emph{critical manifold} of this system is
characterized by the curve $(j,v^{\ast}(j))_{j\in\mathcal{D}}$ where
$v^{\ast}(j)=-V_0(j)\slash V_1(j)=\rho_{\epsilon}j\slash
(\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu)$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is a connected subset of $[0,1]$.
The according slow dynamics should then be governed by
$j'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^j(j,v^{\ast}(j))$ in the critical manifold. This vector field
is continuously differentiable with bounded derivative, guaranteeing
the existence and uniqueness of $j$. Since
$\left.\partial_v\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^{v}\right|_{(j,v^{\ast})}=V_1(j)<0$, then the
critical manifold is \emph{normally hyperbolic} \cite{Kue2015} and moreover, asymptotically stable.
We use $v\mapsto \mathcal{V}(j,v):v\mapsto\frac{1}{2}(v-v^{\ast})^2$ for the
according Lyapunov function. It is clear that $\mathcal{V}$ has the
nondegenerate minimum at the critical manifold, where
$\mathcal{V}'=(v-v^{\ast})\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^{v}\slash\epsilon=-(\rho_{\epsilon}j\slash
\epsilon+\mu\slash\epsilon)(v-v^{\ast})^2\leq -2(\mu\slash\epsilon)
\mathcal{V}$ owing to $j\in \mathcal{D}$. Due to $0<\epsilon\ll 1$, there exists a
positive constant $L$ where the inequality $\epsilon \mathcal{V}'\leq -2\mu
\mathcal{V}+2\mu L\epsilon \sqrt{\mathcal{V}}$ holds still. Dividing both sides by
$2\sqrt{\mathcal{V}}$ and solving the differential inequality forward in
time, we obtain the \emph{slaving condition} for the critical
manifold
\begin{equation}\label{eq:slaving}
|v(t)-v^{\ast}(t)|\leq K|v_0-v^{\ast}_0|\mathrm{e}^{-\mu t\slash
\epsilon}+L\epsilon,\quad v^{\ast}_0=\rho_{\epsilon}j_0\slash
(\rho_{\epsilon}j_0+\mu)\text{ and }K>0.
\end{equation}
This shows that the fast dynamics evolve to the critical manifold
with respect to the \emph{slow time scale} $t$. Moreover, at
$t=\mathcal{O}(\epsilon|\!\log\epsilon|)$, any fast dynamics starting from a
neighbourhood of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$ of the critical manifold reaches a
neighbourhood of order $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$ of it. This is in agreement
with the standard result from Tikhonov \cite[Theorem~11.1]{Kha2002}. Under the slaving
condition~\eqref{eq:slaving}, $(t,\epsilon)$--approximation to the solution of
\eqref{eq:slowfast} can be calculated using e.g.\
O'Malley--Vasil'eva expansion \cite{Ver2007}. This facilitates an easier
way to approximate the solution by dissevering the calculation into
those with respect to orders of $\epsilon$.
Here we skip the asymptotic expansions and take a step further. We
are instead looking for an intermediate locally attractive manifold,
to which all nearby solution trajectories confine, which ultimately
coincides with the critical manifold as $\epsilon=0$. This
intermediate manifold is what is known as the \emph{slow manifold}.
The fact that the critical manifold is asymptotically stable,
Fenichel \cite{Fen1979,Jon1995,KK2002} shows that it perturbs with
$\epsilon>0$ to the slow manifold. We
reemploy the slow--fast system \eqref{eq:slowfast} and obtain an
approximation of $v$--state in the slow manifold $v=v(j,\epsilon)$
using center manifold analysis around the critical manifold. To do
so, we first keep away $\epsilon$ from appearing in front of the
derivative term by introducing a \emph{fast time scale}
$\tau:=t\slash \epsilon$ to the system. Note that, again, $t$ shall
be first specified and $\tau$ adjusts accordingly. The system is
then equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fast}
\begin{split}
j'&= \epsilon\left(J_0(j)+J_1(j)v\right),\\
v'&= J_0(j)+J_1(j)v,\\
\epsilon'&=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now the apostrophe indicates the time derivative with respect to
$\tau$. The last system admits the concatenated critical manifold
$(j,v^{\ast},0)$ as its non-hyperbolic equilibrium, i.e.\ the
Jacobian has the eigenvalues
$0,\left.\partial_v\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^{v}\right|_{(j,v^{\ast})},0$. Of course,
$v^{\ast}$ is the equilibrium of the $v$--dynamics in
\eqref{eq:fast} and is asymptotically stable due to
$\left.\partial_v\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^{v}\right|_{(j,v^{\ast})}<0$. This asymptotic
stability of the critical manifold could have never been achieved
unless $v^{\ast}$ is asymptotically stable in the center manifold.
Locally, a slow manifold
$(j,v(j,\epsilon),\epsilon)_{(j,\epsilon)\in\mathcal{D}_{\epsilon}}$, where
$\mathcal{D}_{\epsilon}\subset [0,1]^2$, acts as a center manifold
and the asymptotic stability of the critical manifold makes it
locally attractive. According to Center Manifold Theorem, there
exists a realization of the slow manifold
$v(j,\epsilon)=v^{\ast}+\mathcal{O}(\lVert (j,\epsilon)\rVert^2)$, which can
be written in the following abstraction
\begin{equation}\label{eq:approxv}
v(j,\epsilon)=\sum_{i\geq 0}\epsilon^i\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_i(j),
\end{equation}
where $\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_0=v^{\ast}$. According to either \eqref{eq:slowfast} or
\eqref{eq:fast}, this ansatz solves the partial differential
equation
$\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^v=\text{d}_{\tau}v=\partial_jv\text{d}_{\tau}j+\partial_{\epsilon}v\text{d}_{\tau}\epsilon=\epsilon\partial_jv\textnormal{\textbf{f}}^j$
due to $\text{d}_{\tau}\epsilon=0$, which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pde}
V_0+V_1v(j,\epsilon)=\epsilon
\partial_jv(j,\epsilon)\left(J_0+J_1v(j,\epsilon)\right).
\end{equation}
To calculate the slow manifold $v(j,\epsilon)$ numerically, we
require to fix $\epsilon$ and have certain known point(s) as the
initial condition. If $v(j,\epsilon)=v^{\ast}(j)$, then the
left-hand side of \eqref{eq:pde} vanishes and the right-hand side of
it leaves us either $\text{d}_jv^{\ast}=0$, which can never be the
case for arbitrary $j$, or $J_0+J_1v^{\ast}=0$. The latter
supplements with the fact that the slow manifold intersects with the
critical manifold at the equilibria of the slow dynamics.
Unfortunately, the only reliable points for the initial conditions
are the equilibria, but they give indefinitenesses to start the
computation, $\partial_jv=0\slash 0$. Due to this reason we opt to
approximate the slow manifold. The job is done by rearranging
\eqref{eq:pde}, whereby
\begin{equation*}
-V_0\epsilon^0+\mathlarger{\sum_{i\geq
0}}\left(-V_1\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_i\right)\epsilon^i+\left(J_0\text{d}_j\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_i+\frac{J_1}{2}\text{d}_j\sum_{\substack{m,n\geq
0:~m\neq
n,\\m+n=i}}\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_m\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_n\right)\epsilon^{i+1}+\left(\frac{J_1}{2}\text{d}_j\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_i^2\right)\epsilon^{2i+1}=0.
\end{equation*}
At the expense of vanishing all the coefficients of $\epsilon^i$,
one further yields
\begin{equation*}
0=-V_0\delta_{i0}-V_1\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_i+J_0\text{d}_j\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_{i-1}+\frac{J_1}{2}\text{d}_j\sum_{\substack{m,n\geq
0:~m\neq
n,\\m+n=i-1}}\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_m\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_n+\frac{J_1}{2}\text{d}_j\hat{\textnormal{\textbf{g}}}^2,\quad\text{where}\quad
\hat{\textnormal{\textbf{g}}}=\begin{cases}
\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_{\frac{i-1}{2}},&i\text{ odd}\\
0,&i\text{ even}\\
\end{cases}.
\end{equation*}
We have used $\delta_{ij}$ denoting the usual Kronecker delta. This
last equation is a linear equation in $\textnormal{\textbf{g}}_i$ whose solution can be
calculated straightforward and exhibits a recursion relation.
Surely, disclosing more higher orders is possible but laborious. In
the sequel, we will see how solution trajectories of the model
approach the slow manifold, before approaching the critical manifold
and ultimately approaching stable equilibria of the slow
dynamics in the critical manifold. Numerically approximated slow
manifolds in the virtue of the above discussion will also be
displayed alongside.
\subsection{Periodic solutions of the full system}
This section presents a check for the existence of
$\omega^{-1}$--periodic solutions of~\eqref{eq:jv} under the
activation of seasonal forcing $\zeta>0$, which will be used in the
subsequent discussions. The basic idea highlighting the result has
been adopted from \cite{Sid2013}. Let $\hat{x}$ be an existing equilibrium
of the autonomous counterpart $x'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(x;\zeta=0)$. Suppose that we
impose an initial condition $x_0\in U_1(\hat{x})$ for some
neighbourhood $U_1(\hat{x})$ and $|\zeta|<\zeta_1$ for some
$\zeta_1$ such that a unique solution $x=x(t;x_0,\zeta)$ exists. Now
we are looking for an existing periodic solution $x(t;x_0,\zeta)$
surrounding the equilibrium $\hat{x}$, i.e.\
$x(t+\omega^{-1};x_0,\zeta)=x(t;x_0,\zeta)$ for all time $t\geq 0$.
This can be rephrased to looking for a suitable $\zeta$--dependent
initial condition $x_0(\zeta)$ that leads to the periodic solution.
A first step to this, an auxiliary function $S(x_0,\zeta):=
x(\omega^{-1};x_0,\zeta)-x_0$ is set up towards finding $x_0(\zeta)$
that zeros $S$ using Implicit Function Theorem around the point
$(\hat{x},0)$. Owing to regularity of $\beta$, the vector field
$\textnormal{\textbf{f}}$ becomes continuously differentiable in time $t\in\mathbb{R}_+$, state
$x\in [0,1]\times\mathbb{R}_+$, and $\zeta\in (-\zeta_{1},\zeta_{1})$. The
function $\partial_{x_0}x(t;\hat{x},0)$ satisfies the linear
equation
\begin{equation*}
\text{d}_t\partial_{x_0}x(t;\hat{x},0)=\left.\partial_{x_0}
\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(x;\zeta)\right|_{(\hat{x},0)}=\partial_{x}\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(\hat{x};0)^{\top}\partial_{x_0}
x(t;\hat{x},0), \quad \partial_{x_0} x(0;\hat{x},0)=\mathds{1}.
\end{equation*}
Further linear equation for $\partial_{\zeta}x$ can also be derived
to show that continuity of $\textnormal{\textbf{f}}$ gives continuous differentiability
of $S$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times (-\zeta_1,\zeta_1)$. It then holds
$\partial_{x_0}S(\hat{x},0)=\partial_{x_0}x(\omega^{-1};\hat{x},0)-\mathds{1}=\exp(\partial_{x}\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(\hat{x};0)\omega^{-1})-\mathds{1}$.
We want to know under which condition this matrix has a bounded
inverse. Let $v$ be an eigenvector of $\partial_{x}\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(\hat{x};0)$
that associates with an eigenvalue $\lambda$. The Taylor expansion
for matrix exponential gives us
$(\exp(\partial_{x}\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(\hat{x};0)\omega^{-1})-\mathds{1})
v=(\exp(\omega^{-1}\lambda)-1) v$, making
$\exp(\omega^{-1}\lambda)-1$ the associated eigenvalue of
$\partial_{x_0}S(\hat{x},0)$. It remains to show that for any
eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the Jacobian $\partial_{x}\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(\hat{x};0)$,
$\exp(\omega^{-1}\lambda)-1$ can never be zero or
\begin{equation}\label{eq:check}
\lambda\neq 2\pi\omega i\mathbb{Z}
\end{equation}
where $i,\mathbb{Z}$ denote the imaginary number and the set of
integers, respectively.
One sufficient condition for the invertibility of
$\partial_{x_0}S(\hat{x},0)$ is to have a negative trace of the
Jacobian. By the Implicit Function Theorem, there exist a domain
$U_2(\hat{x})\times(-\zeta_{2},\zeta_{2})$ and a continuously
differentiable function $x_0(\zeta)$ for which $(\zeta, x_0(\zeta))$
is defined on this domain such that $S(x_0(\zeta),\zeta)=0$ or
eventually $ x(\omega^{-1}, x_0(\zeta),\zeta)= x_0(\zeta)$. Since
$\textnormal{\textbf{f}}$ is $\omega^{-1}$--periodic over time, then $x(t+\omega^{-1},
x_0(\zeta),\zeta)= x(t, x_0(\zeta),\zeta)$ if and only if
$x(\omega^{-1}, x_0(\zeta),\zeta)= x_0(\zeta)$. The desired domain
for $(x_0,\zeta)$ for the existence of the $\omega^{-1}$--periodic
function can then be restricted to $\left\{U_1(\hat{x})\cap
U_2(\hat{x})\right\}\times
\left\{(-\zeta_{1},\zeta_{1})\cap(-\zeta_{2},\zeta_{2})\right\}$.
Note that such a negative trace of the Jacobian would give a
dissipative autonomous system with the exponential dissipative rate
given by the trace, which is another way to see that the autonomous
system contracts to a set of measure zero. Added by
Dulac--Bendixson's criterion, the negative trace naturally
guarantees non-existence of a limit cycle in the nonnegative
quadrant for the autonomous system. When seasonal forcing is
activated, this condition prevents the birth of a trajectory where a
limit cycle is interfered by such seasonal forcing, i.e.\ a torus.
\subsection{Approximation of periodic solutions}\label{sec:approx}
Here we center the investigation on what would be the behaviour of
the periodic solutions under variation of the amplitude $\zeta$ and
adiabatic parameter $\epsilon$. The sinusoidal function $\phi=\zeta
h$ where $h$ is as in \eqref{eq:h} can be seen as the solution of
the differential equation $(\phi',\psi')=(\psi,-4\pi^2\omega^2\phi)$
where $(\phi,\psi)(0)=(\zeta A_c\slash \bar{M},2\zeta
A_s\pi\omega\slash \bar{M})$. Under the autonomous setting, the
entire system decouples into
\begin{equation}\label{eq:full}
\begin{split}
j'&=\beta(j)\cdot(1-j)v-\kappa
j,\\
v'&=\rho(1+\phi-v)j-\theta v,\\
\phi'&=\psi,\\
\psi'&=-4\pi^2\omega^2\phi.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $(\hat{j},\hat{v})$ denote an equilibrium state of
$(j,v)$--dynamics. The only equilibrium state of
$(\phi,\psi)$--dynamics is $(\hat{\phi},\hat{\psi})=(0,0)$ with
purely imaginary eigenvalues, leading to the fact that any
equilibrium of \eqref{eq:full} is non-hyperbolic. As an intermediate, let us recall the numerical
estimates for observable parameters from Tab.~\ref{tab:par} to get
an idea of how large $\phi,\psi$ would be. We apparently obtain
$$
\text{Ampl}[\phi]=\zeta\cdot\text{Ampl}[h]=\left(\frac{\mu}{\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}}\right)\left(\frac{\zeta}{\epsilon}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad\text{Ampl}[\psi]=2\pi\omega\cdot
\text{Ampl}[\phi].
$$
We also observe from the estimates that
$\text{Ampl}[\phi],\text{Ampl}[\psi]\sim \zeta\slash\epsilon$.
Providing that $\epsilon>\mu\zeta\slash\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}$, we can employ Center
Manifold Theorem to have a realization of $(j,v)$--dynamics in the
center manifold given by
\begin{align*}
j(\phi,\psi)&=\hat{j}+a_1\phi^2+a_2\phi\psi+a_3\psi^2+\mathcal{O}(\lVert (\phi,\psi)\rVert^3),\\
v(\phi,\psi)&=\hat{v}+b_1\phi^2+b_2\phi\psi+b_3\psi^2+\mathcal{O}(\lVert
(\phi,\psi)\rVert^3).
\end{align*}
One can naturally neglect the third-order terms by the preceding
estimates of $\phi,\psi$. It remains to determine the constants
appearing in the ansatzs by, instead of proximity optimization,
equating $j',v'$ from the actual dynamics and the ansatzs as well as
focusing solely on small-order terms:
\begin{align*}
j'&=(2a_1\phi+a_2\psi)\psi+(2a_3\psi+a_2\phi)(-4\pi^2\omega^2\phi)=\left.\beta(j)\cdot(1-j)v-\kappa j\right|_{j(\phi,\psi),v(\phi,\psi)},\\
v'&=(2b_1\phi+b_2\psi)\psi+(2b_3\psi+b_2\phi)(-4\pi^2\omega^2\phi)=\left.\rho(1+\phi-v)j-\theta
v\right|_{j(\phi,\psi),v(\phi,\psi)}.
\end{align*}
Depending on how complicated $\beta$ is, the computations of the
constants can get laborious. Prominent from this investigation is
that the periodic ansatzs of $j,v$ in the center manifold perturb
from the equilibrium states $\hat{j},\hat{v}$ with sinusoidal
functions of amplitudes equivalent to $(\zeta\slash\epsilon)^2$ in
case $\epsilon>\mu\zeta\slash\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}$. In case $\epsilon\leq
\mu\zeta\slash\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}$, the higher orders in the center manifold
approximation matter and $\epsilon$ takes the lead in extending the
amplitude. Therefore, no small-order polynomial approximation of the periodic
solutions can be envisaged. A crude estimate on the vector lifespan
$\theta^{-1}\approx 4\text{w}$ gives $\epsilon=\mu\slash\theta
=4\mu\geq 4\mu\zeta\slash\xi> \mu\zeta\slash\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}\approx 3.6\mu\zeta\slash\xi$, suggesting that the second-order
approximation is already quite reasonable. The preceding exposition gives us a new
tool in designing the model to have periodic solutions that will
correct the assimilation to given data. In Section~\ref{sec:asump},
the solution of the autonomous model was deduced to portray lightly fluctiative data
irrespective of $\epsilon$. In case the seasonal forcing is
activated, we can make use of both $\zeta$ and $\epsilon$ to create
an amplitude that delineates that of the data. Questionable is thus
how to correctly specify the numerical value of $\rho_{\epsilon}$.
We have just foreseen the use of the model for data assimilation
under specification of three unobservable parameters.
\section{When hospitals can accommodate an unlimited number of patients}\label{sec:report}
Note, first of all, that both $j$ and $I$ can be treated equally in
the modeling since $j$ is linearly proportional to $I$. In such
case, we can directly initiate models of the infection rate $\beta$ as a function of
$j$. Suppose that in the absence of disease, $j=0$, the introduction
of infective vector population gives rise to a certain driving
force, represented by the initial infection rate $\beta_0$. We suppose that $\beta$ stays
more-or-less constant while the hosts are still unaware of the
ongoing infections, then initiates decrement around a certain
reference point $j^{\ast}\in [0,1)$. This threshold $j^{\ast}$
indicates the alarming incidence level under which medical
departments can never transfer information to media holders for
either time, interest or financial restrictions. The interval on
which such driving force decreases, i.e.\ $j^{\ast}\leq j$, is that
when the humans stay alarmed of the ever increasing infections,
i.e.\ where self-precautions and hospitalizations are urgently
undertaken. Of course, such awareness can never be achieved unless
the media keep reporting on current infection cases. When $j$
increases further, a slow downturn in the infection rate is
assigned due to fewer contacts between hosts and vectors. When $j$
is close to the maximum ($j=1$), $\beta$ saturates to a certain
level $\beta_{1}<\beta_0$, since most of the hosts are aware of the
danger and to be equipped with uniform self-defence system, also
many of them are hospitalized. The preceding description leads us to
the following summary on $\beta$:
\begin{enumerate
\item[(A1)] $\beta(j)>0$ for all $j\in [0,1]$,\label{item:A1}
\item[(A2)] $\beta_0=\beta(0)>\beta(1)=\beta_1$,
\item[(A3)] $\beta'(j)=0$ for $j\in [0,j^{\ast}]$ and $\beta'(j)<0$ for all $j\in (j^{\ast},1]$.\label{item:A3}
\end{enumerate}
The slow dynamics $j$ in the critical manifold are governed by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:slow}
j'=J_0(j)+J_1(j)v^{\ast}(j)=\beta(j)\cdot(1-j)\frac{\rho_{\epsilon}j}{\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu}-\kappa
j.
\end{equation}
We know that $[0,1]$ is invariant due to the boundary conditions
$j'(0)=0$ and $j'(1)<0$. At the end of Section~\ref{sec:slowfast},
we came into understanding that whichever equilibrium of
\eqref{eq:slow} should be where the critical and slow
manifold intersect. The equation \eqref{eq:slow} has the trivial equilibrium,
known as \emph{disease-free equilibrium}, $j=0$. It is instantly
verifiable that the Jacobian
$\left.\text{d}_{j}j'\right|_{j=0}=\beta_0\rho_{\epsilon}\slash
\mu-\kappa=\kappa(\beta_0\rho_{\epsilon}\slash \mu \kappa - 1)<0$,
providing that the \emph{basic reproductive number}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:R0}
\mathcal{R}_0:=\sqrt{\beta_0\rho_{\epsilon}\slash \mu \kappa}<1.
\end{equation}
At this point, we acquire local asymptotic stability of $j=0$. If
$\mathcal{R}_0>1$, then $j=0$ is unstable. If $\mathcal{R}_0=1$, then one can take a
small $\varepsilon>0$ and easily verify that
$\left.j'j\right|_{j=\varepsilon}=-(\kappa+\beta(\varepsilon))\varepsilon^2+\beta(\varepsilon)\varepsilon>0$
due to $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow
0^+}\beta(\varepsilon)\varepsilon\slash
(\kappa+\beta(\varepsilon))\varepsilon^2=\beta_0\slash
(\kappa+\beta_0)\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0^+}1\slash
\varepsilon=\infty$. This indicates that $j=0$ is repelling in the
positive real.
Calculating a nontrivial solution, i.e.\ \emph{endemic equilibrium},
is quite straightforward. Factoring out $j$ from \eqref{eq:slow}, we
are in the position to solve
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nontrivial}
E(j):=\beta(j)\cdot (1-j)\rho_{\epsilon}-\kappa
(\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu)=0.
\end{equation}
Observe that
$E(0)=\beta_0\rho_{\epsilon}-\mu\kappa=\mu\kappa(\mathcal{R}_0^2-1)$,
$E(1)=-\kappa (\rho_{\epsilon}+\mu)<0$ and $E'(j)=\beta'(j)\cdot
(1-j)\rho_{\epsilon}-\beta(j)\cdot\rho_{\epsilon}-\kappa\rho_{\epsilon}<0$
for all $j\in(0,1]$ due to (A1)--(A3). We acquire a dichotomy. If
$\mathcal{R}_0\leq 1$, then there exists no endemic equilibrium. If
$\mathcal{R}_0>1$, then there exists a unique endemic equilibrium
$j=j_e\in (0,1)$ approaching the disease-free equilibrium as
$\mathcal{R}_0\rightarrow 1^{+}$, i.e.\ due to fixed $E(1)$.
Furthermore, as we calculate the Jacobian, it turns out to be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ep}
\left.\text{d}_jj'\right|_{j=j_e}=\left.\text{d}_j\frac{E(j)\cdot
j}{(\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu)}\right|_{j=j_e}=\left.\frac{E'(j)\cdot
j}{(\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu)} + E(j)\cdot
\frac{\mu}{(\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu)^2}
\right|_{j=j_e}=\frac{E'(j_e)\cdot j_e}{(\rho_{\epsilon}j_e+\mu)}
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sgn}
\text{sign}\left(\left.\text{d}_jj'\right|_{j=j_e}\right)=\text{sign}(E'(j_e)).
\end{equation}
Additionally attributed to $\mathcal{R}_0>1$ is thus the local
asymptotic stability of the endemic equilibrium. After all, the preceding
exposition shows that the slow dynamics using $\beta$ fulfilling
(A1)--(A3) exhibits a supercritical bifurcation at
$\mathcal{R}_0=1$. Note that the bifurcation profile cannot change
with the adiabatic parameter $\epsilon$ due to
$\mathcal{R}_0$'s independency on it. Moreover, the similar
bifurcation would appear in case $\beta$ is strictly monotonically
decreasing. This stems from the simple fact that the analysis is
independent on $j^{\ast}$, i.e.\ that one can thus set $j^{\ast}=0$
in (A3). Similar results of supercritical bifurcation with respect
to $\mathcal{R}_0$ using non-increasing $\beta$ can also be seen in
\cite{LC2008}.
As $\epsilon>0$, we still keep the full system \eqref{eq:jv} on our
hand. Apparently, the Jacobians evaluated at the disease-free
equilibrium $(0,0)$ and endemic equilibrium $(j_e,v_e)$ with
$v_e=v^{\ast}(j_e)$ have the traces
$$
-\beta_0v_e-\kappa-\theta\quad\text{and}\quad
\beta'(j_e)\cdot(1-j_e)v_e-\beta(j_e)\cdot v_e- \kappa-\rho
j_e-\theta
$$
respectively, which are clearly negative. One can thus not expect to
have purely imaginary eigenvalues for each Jacobian, fulfilling the
existence check \eqref{eq:check}. A closing statement in this
section is that there always exist $\omega^{-1}$--periodic solutions
surrounding the equilibria.
\section{Limited medical access and the increase of infection rate}\label{sec:nonreport}
Here we consider a scenario where the available hospitals in the
observed region can only accommodate a certain population share
$j^{\ast}\in [0,1)$. As such, the alarming incidence level
$j^{\ast}$ gains a new definition. We consider a setting where no
reports to the media are initiated in case hospitals still manage to
shelter patients. Unawareness of the susceptible hosts for the case
$j\leq j^{\ast}$ thus leads to a constant $\beta=\beta_0$. A
decrement in $\beta$ happens when the media keep reporting not only the
current endemicity, but also the absence of medical access. The phase, in which case a sudden
decrement in the infection rate happens, is what we consider as that when susceptible hosts
\emph{overreact} to the advancing disease propagation and that there
is nowhere to go for cure.
Let us now consider a situation where the investigated vector-borne
disease is endemic in a developing region. By developing we point at
the human tendency of disobeying regulations towards healthy life
and inability as well as unwillingness to regularly afford
household's preventive medicines. It is also ubiquitous that developing regions be identical with ``population explosion'' and limited medical access. The fact that vector-borne
diseases, such as dengue, are endemic in areas of relatively hot
temperature and high air humidity that befit well with vector
breeding, the concepts of putting on full-cover clothing and
smearing repellent fluids sound counter-intuitive. Other measures
such as disseminating \emph{temephos}, cleaning household vessels,
and fumigation usually go on individual basis and require a big
campaign for the effectivity in a population scale \cite{SNP2018}. The fact
that disease vectors, such as \emph{Aedes aegypti} mosquitoes, only
bite during daylight also makes such small self-defence measures
prone to discontinuation. Despite high awareness about the
disease and preventive measures,
a study has shown that typical vector-borne disease with a low case-fatality
rate is perceived deadly by only a portion of susceptible humans,
while others perceive it easily curable \cite{WB2013}. Here we consider
the situation where $\beta$ revolves in the likelihood of disowning
preventive measures, absence of hospitals, poverty, and perceiving
the disease of being easily curable. A prominent psychological
trigger can be seeing through increasing incidences in the
neighbourhood with despair, as continuous usage of preventive
measures can seemingly not suppress the incidence level. Another
unforeseeable phenomenon when $j$ increases further, such that the
estimate of mosquito population $v^{\ast}(j)$ also increases, is
that the susceptible humans are evermore surrounded by hungrier
vectors \cite{SRD2012}. This surely gives additional correction to $\beta$
for sufficiently large $j$. In summary, we consider $\beta$ that
satisfies:
\begin{enumerate
\item[(B1)] $\beta(j)>0$ for all $j\in [0,1]$,\label{item:B1}
\item[(B2)] $\beta'(j)=0$ for $j\in [0,j^{\ast}]$ with $\beta(0)=\beta_0$ and $\beta'(j)<0$ for all $j\in (j^{\ast},c]$ for a certain positive $c<1$,\label{item:B2}
\item[(B3)] $\beta'(j)>0$ for all $j\in (c,1]$ and slowly saturates to $\beta(1)=\beta_1$.\label{item:B3}
\end{enumerate}%
Based on the preceding specifications, we propose the following
ansatz
\begin{equation*}
\beta(j):=a+\frac{b|j-c|}{d+|j-j^{\ast}|}
\end{equation*}
for some constants $a,b,c,d$. Relying on (B2), we can compute $b,d$
to have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newbeta}
\beta(j):=a+\frac{(\beta_0-a)|j-c|}{c-j^{\ast}+|j-j^{\ast}|}.
\end{equation}
This formula clearly produces spikes at $j^{\ast}$ and $c$. The
parameter $a$ represents the minimum value of $\beta$, which is
attained at $c$. This definition also means $\beta_0\geq a$.
Moreover, there are several ways to treat $\beta$ as to study
bifurcation. The basic idea is to keep some parameters fixed, while
others vary. Since we look further upon the variation of equilibria
with respect to that of the basic reproductive number, varying
$\beta_0$ shall do the job. We additionally assume that $a$,
$j^{\ast}$ and $c$ are observable, leading to the variation of
$\beta_1$ as $\beta_0$ varies. This way also provides flexibility in
to which level $\beta$ ultimately increases when $j$ gets larger.
Further analysis also shows that $1-c<1-j^{\ast}$, leading to
$\beta_1<\beta_0$ for all possible choices of $\beta_0$. Finally,
the realization of $\beta$ for a certain set of parameters can be
seen in Fig.~\ref{fig-beta-curve}. There we have classified the
domain $[0,1]$ into three regimes based on the value of the
incidence level $j$.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering \psfrag{j}{\large$j$}\psfrag{beta}{\large$\beta(j)$}
\psfrag{jst}{$j^{*}$}\psfrag{c}{$c$}\psfrag{B0}{$\beta_{0}$}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{beta-curve}
\caption{Behavior of the infection rate considering media reporting
and several factors persuading increment for larger $j$. The curve
is computed for $a=0.53$, $\beta_{0}=1.5$, $j^{*}=0.17$ and
$c=0.19$, see \eqref{eq:newbeta}. The infection rate defines three
operation modes: low infection regime ($j\leq j^{*}$), middle
infection regime ($j^{*}< j\leq c$) and high infection regime
($j>c$).}\label{fig-beta-curve}
\end{figure}
As far as the slow dynamics $j$ in the critical manifold is
concerned, we still get from \eqref{eq:slow} using $\beta$ in
\eqref{eq:newbeta} the disease-free equilibrium $j=0$. The same
investigation over the Jacobian $\text{d}_jj'$ shows local
asymptotic stability of the equilibrium in case $\mathcal{R}_0<1$
and instability in case $\mathcal{R}_0\geq 1$.
Now let us analyze the existence of endemic equilibria. The most
important insights from the formulation of $\beta$ in
\eqref{eq:newbeta} are that $\beta\rightarrow \beta_0$ as
$j^{\ast}\rightarrow c^-$ and that $\beta<\beta_0$ as $c>j^{\ast}$.
Let us recall the function $E$ in \eqref{eq:nontrivial} for the
purpose of finding endemic equilibria. The entities
$E(0)=\mu\kappa(\mathcal{R}^2_0-1)$ and
$E(1)=-\kappa(\rho_{\epsilon}+\mu)<0$ remain unchanged. The
aforementioned insights further reveal that $E$ is bounded above by
a linear function in $j$, i.e.\
$$
E(j)\leq
\beta_0(1-j)\rho_{\epsilon}-\kappa(\rho_{\epsilon}j+\mu)=-(\beta_0\rho_{\epsilon}+\kappa\rho_{\epsilon})j+E(0)\quad\text{for
all }j\in [0,1],
$$
where the equality holds for $c=j^{\ast}$. With this finding, the
existence analysis becomes much simple. If $\mathcal{R}_0\leq 1$,
then $E(0)\leq 0$ and $E$ can never have roots in $(0,1]$, therefore
no endemic equilibrium is prevailing. For the sake of further
analysis, let us reveal
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ej}
E(j^{\ast})=\frac{\rho_{\epsilon}(2+c-3j^{\ast})}{c-j^{\ast}}\beta_0-\rho_{\epsilon}\frac{2a(1-j^{\ast})}{c-j^{\ast}}-\rho_{\epsilon}(\kappa+2a).
\end{equation}
If $\mathcal{R}_0>1$, we can consider two cases: $E(j^{\ast})\leq 0$
and $E(j^{\ast})>0$, each of which is dependent on $\beta_0$. The
former gives the existence of a unique endemic equilibrium in
$(0,j^{\ast}]$, which is locally asymptotically stable due to
$E'<0,E=0$ at that point, see \eqref{eq:sgn}. The latter case
$E(j^{\ast})>0$ requires information on
$E(c)=a(1-c)\rho_{\epsilon}-\kappa(c\rho_{\epsilon}+\mu)$, which is
surely greater than $E(1)$. When $E(c)>0$, we have the existence of
a unique endemic equilibrium in $(c,1)$, which is also locally
asymptotically stable. When $E(c)=0$, we need to check the shape of
$E$ on $(c,1]$ in order to estimate the other endemic equilibria
therein. We found that
\begin{align}
E'(c^+)&=\frac{\rho_{\epsilon}(1-c)}{2(c-j^{\ast})}\beta_0-a\rho_{\epsilon}\frac{1-j^{\ast}}{2(c-j^{\ast})}-\rho_{\epsilon}(a+2\kappa),\label{eq:Epc}\\
E''(j)&=\frac{-4\rho(\beta_0-a)(c-j^{\ast})(1+c-2j^{\ast})}{(j+c-2j^{\ast})^3}<0\quad\text{for
all }j\in (c,1]\label{eq:Epp}
\end{align}
in case $c>j^{\ast}$. The second result indicates that $E$ is concave
on $(c,1]$. We see that two endemic equilibria can exist in case
$\beta_0$ makes $E'(c^+)>0$. Suppose that this is indeed the case.
We naturally lose the information regarding the stability of $j=c$
due to non-uniqueness of $E'(c)$ due to the non-unique subgradients. The
other equilibrium in $(c,1)$ surely is locally asymptotically stable
because of $E'<0$.
The last case $E(c)<0$ gives a unique endemic equilibrium in
$(j^{\ast},c)$, which is, again, locally asymptotically stable due
to \eqref{eq:sgn}. From \eqref{eq:Ej} and \eqref{eq:Epc}, we come to
understand that $\beta_0$ acts to ``pull'' the curve of $E$ towards
positivity on $(c,1]$, until then the curve delineates the
decreasing straight line as $E$ devolves. Therefore, depending on
how close $c$ and $j^{\ast}$ are and how large $\beta_0$ is, we can
have either none, one, or two more endemic equilibria in $(c,1)$. In
case one endemic equilibrium is found in $(c,1)$, it should be
equipped with $E=E'=0$, which leads us to unknown status regarding
its stability. In case two endemic equilibria are found, it thus is
obvious that the smaller one is unstable, while the larger one is
locally asymptotically stable due to \eqref{eq:sgn}. Another
obviousness is that the equilibrium in $(j^{\ast},c)$ and the
smaller equilibrium in $(c,1)$ become closer to each other as
$j^{\ast}$ and $c$ get closer. As far as $E(c)<0$ is concerned, we
can derive a sufficient condition such as $a\leq\kappa c\slash
(1-c)$ that will lead to it, where more certainty can be gained as
$c$ walks towards $1$.
We are now analyzing the existence of periodic solutions surrounding
the existing equilibria. Suppose that $\zeta>0$ and $\epsilon>0$.
Let $(\hat{j},\hat{v})$ be an equilibrium of the full system where
$\hat{v}=v^{\ast}(\hat{j})$. The Jacobian of the system evaluated at
the equilibrium in terms of the function $E$ takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jac}
\partial_{x}\textnormal{\textbf{f}}(\hat{x};0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{\rho_{\epsilon}\hat{j}+\mu}\left(E'(\hat{j})\hat{j}-\kappa\mu\right)& \beta(\hat{j})\cdot(1-\hat{j})\\
\rho(1-\hat{v})&-\rho\hat{j}-\theta
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
Suppose that $\beta_0$ is large enough such that four equilibria are
present. When $\hat{j}=0$, one can easily verify that the trace of
the Jacobian is negative, avoiding having purely imaginary
eigenvalues. Therefore, a $\omega^{-1}$--periodic solution
surrounding the disease-free equilibrium $(0,0)$ exists, which turns
to be the equilibrium itself. One can easily verify this by the fact that the
disease-free equilibrium solves the non-autonomous model
irrespective to the values of $\zeta$. The endemic equilibria
corresponding to the smallest and largest $\hat{j}$ were shown to
fulfill $E'(\hat{j})<0$, making the trace of the Jacobian negative.
This evidence, once again, shows that $\omega^{-1}$--periodic
solutions surrounding the two endemic equilibria exist. The
equilibrium corresponding to $\hat{j}$ in between the other two
endemic equilibria discovers $E'(\hat{j})>0$. Variation in
$E'(\hat{j})\hat{j}-\kappa\mu$ can thus make the trace obtain either
a negative, zero, or a positive value. In case the trace is zero,
then $E'(\hat{j})\hat{j}-\kappa\mu$ must have been positively large
enough, but then the determinant of the Jacobian becomes negative.
We acquire two real roots of the same absolute value that solely
oppose in sign. Therefore, a $\omega^{-1}$--periodic solution
surrounding this middle endemic equilibrium also exists.
\section{Numerical analysis of the model via path-following methods}
The epidemic model considering the infection rate introduced in the
previous section can be studied in the framework of
\emph{piecewise-smooth dynamical systems} \cite{BBC2004}. This
type of systems arises typically when some kind of nonsmooth
phenomenon is considered, such as (soft) impacts, switches,
friction, etc. The system response in this case is determined by a
piecewise-smooth vector field due to the presence of discrete events
producing discontinuities in first or higher-order derivatives of
the solution. In our epidemic model, the nonsmoothness is produced
by sharp transitions in the force of infection due to the social
behavior towards media reports as well as poverty and reluctance in
applying measures against the spread of the disease.
In general, a piecewise-smooth dynamical system can be defined in
terms of two main components: a collection of (smooth) vector fields
and \emph{event functions}. In this way, the system is characterized
by a number of operation modes, each of which is associated with a
specific smooth vector field. On the other hand, the event functions
define the boundary for the operation modes, in such a way that
whenever the solution crosses transversally a certain boundary
defined by (usually the zero-set of) an event function, the system
changes to a different operation mode governed by a (possibly)
different vector field. In this way, any solution of the
piecewise-smooth dynamical system can be represented by a sequence
of \emph{segments}, which consists of a pair given by a smooth
vector field describing the model behavior and an event function
that defines the terminal condition for the operation mode. More
details about this formulation can be found in
\cite{TD2008,DS2013}.
\subsection{Mathematical setup}\label{sec:pws}
For the numerical study of the underlying epidemic model via
continuation methods, it is convenient to write the governing
equations in autonomous form. To do so, we will consider the
following nonlinear oscillator that will be appended to the system
\cite{KOG2007}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-nonosc}
\begin{cases}
p'=p+2\pi\omega q-p\left(p^2+q^2\right),\\
q'=q-2\pi\omega p-q\left(p^2+q^2\right),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with the asymptotically stable solution $p(t)=\sin(2\pi\omega t)$
and $q(t)=\cos(2\pi\omega t)$. In this way, we can write the
periodically forced system \eqref{eq:jv} in the autonomous setting,
which then allows us to study the model via numerical continuation
methods. Let us define
$\alpha:=(\beta_{0},a,j^{*},c,\kappa,\mu,\epsilon,\rho_{\epsilon},\xi,\omega,\zeta)\in\left(\mathbb{R}^+\right)^{10}\times\mathbb{R}^+_{0}$
and $z(t):=(j(t),v(t),p(t),q(t))\in\left(\mathbb{R}^+_{0}\right)^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^2$ as the
parameters and state variables of the system, respectively, where
$\mathbb{R}^+_{0}$ stands for the set of nonnegative real numbers. As
explained above, any solution of the considered Dengue epidemic
model can be divided into the following segments (see also Fig.\
\ref{fig-beta-curve}).
\textbf{Low infection regime}. This segment occurs when the
incidence level is low (i.e.\ $j\leq j^{*}$). Therefore, the media
do not apprise susceptible hosts of such a state. Emanating from
\eqref{eq:jv} coupled with the seasonal forcing, the model behavior
during this regime is governed by the (smooth) ordinary differential
equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq-LI-ode}
z'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}_{\text{\tiny
LI}}(z,\alpha):=\left(\setstretch{1.5}\begin{array}{c}
\beta_{0}(1-j)v-\kappa j\\
\dfrac{\rho_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\left(1+\frac{\zeta A_c}{\bar{M}}q+\frac{\zeta A_s}{\bar{M}}p-v\right)j-\dfrac{\mu}{\epsilon}v\\
p+2\pi\omega q-p\left(p^2+q^2\right)\\
q-2\pi\omega p-q\left(p^2+q^2\right)
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
This segment terminates when the incidence level
increases beyond $j^{*}$, which can be detected via the \emph{event
function} $h_{1}(z(t),\alpha):=j(t)-j^{*}=0$. In this case, the
system switches to the operation regime given below.
\textbf{Middle infection regime}. During this operation mode, the
incidence level lies in the window $j^{*}< j\leq c$, where the
hospitals cannot accept more patients and appeal for regular reports
eventually made by the media. As a result of \emph{overreaction},
the rest of susceptible hosts forcefully mobilize everything to keep
them on the safe zone. This has then the effect of decreasing the
force of infection, thus eventually decreasing the infection rate
(see Fig.\ \ref{fig-beta-curve}). During this regime, the model
obeys the following equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq-MI-ode}
z'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}_{\text{\tiny
MI}}(z,\alpha):=\left(\setstretch{1.5}\begin{array}{c}
\left(a-\dfrac{(\beta_{0}-a)(j-c)}{j+c-2j^{*}}\right)(1-j)v-\kappa j\\
\dfrac{\rho_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\left(1+\frac{\zeta A_c}{\bar{M}}q+\frac{\zeta A_s}{\bar{M}}p-v\right)j-\dfrac{\mu}{\epsilon}v\\
p+2\pi\omega q-p\left(p^2+q^2\right)\\
q-2\pi\omega p-q\left(p^2+q^2\right)
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
This regime terminates in two ways. First, the incidence level
decreases below $j^{*}$, in which case $h_{1}(z(t),\alpha)=0$.
Consequently, the system switches back to the low infection regime
defined above. Second, the incidence level increases beyond $c$,
which can be detected via the vanishing \emph{event function}
$h_{2}(z(t),\alpha):=j(t)-c=0$. If this occurs, then the system
operates under the regime defined next.
\textbf{High infection regime}. This regime certifies the increasing
infection rate with the incidence level $j>c$ (see Fig.\
\ref{fig-beta-curve}). The hypothetical causes were due to poverty,
hungrier vectors, absence of medical access, reluctancy in regularly
taking up preventive measures, and despair caused by long lasting
high levels of incidences despite keeping up caution. The model
behavior during this regime then obeys the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq-HI-ode}
z'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}_{\text{\tiny
HI}}(z,\alpha):=\left(\setstretch{1.5}\begin{array}{c}
\left(a+\dfrac{(\beta_{0}-a)(j-c)}{j+c-2j^{*}}\right)(1-j)v-\kappa j\\
\dfrac{\rho_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\left(1+\frac{\zeta A_c}{\bar{M}}q+\frac{\zeta A_s}{\bar{M}}p-v\right)j-\dfrac{\mu}{\epsilon}v\\
p+2\pi\omega q-p\left(p^2+q^2\right)\\
q-2\pi\omega p-q\left(p^2+q^2\right)
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
This segment terminates when the level of incidences decreases below
$c$ (i.e.\ $h_{2}(z(t),\alpha)=0$), in such a way that the system
operates then under the middle infection regime defined above.
Under this setting, the epidemic model introduced in the previous
section can be written as a piecewise-smooth dynamical system as
follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq-pws}
\begin{cases}
z'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}_{\text{\tiny LI}}(z,\alpha), & j\leq j^{*}\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }(\mbox{low infection regime}),\\
z'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}_{\text{\tiny MI}}(z,\alpha), & j^{*}< j\leq c\mbox{
}\mbox{ }\mbox{ }(\mbox{middle infection regime}),\\
z'=\textnormal{\textbf{f}}_{\text{\tiny HI}}(z,\alpha), & j>c\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{
}(\mbox{high infection regime}).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Numerical investigation of the epidemic model
subject to one-parameter variations}
In this section, our main goal is to study the behavior of the model
\eqref{eq-pws} when selected parameters are varied. For this
purpose, we introduce a solution measure in order to interpret the
numerical results in the context of the considered epidemiological
scenario. Suppose that $(j,v,p,q)$ is a bounded periodic solution of
system \eqref{eq-pws} with the fundamental period $\omega^{-1}$.
Under this assumption, we define the following solution measure
\begin{equation}\label{eq-jmax}
j_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}:=\max_{0\leq t\leq \omega^{-1}}j(t),
\end{equation}
which gives the peak of incidence level within the time window
$[0,\omega^{-1}]$. Therefore, one of the main concerns is to
investigate under what conditions $j_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ can
be kept as low as possible. In addition, we consider the solution
measure
\begin{equation}\label{eq-jP}
j_{\mbox{\scriptsize p}}:=\max_{0\leq t\leq
\omega^{-1}}j(t)-\min_{0\leq t\leq \omega^{-1}}j(t),
\end{equation}
which gives the peak-to-peak amplitude of the $j$-component of the
periodic solution.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\psfrag{a}{\large(a)}\psfrag{b}{\large(b)}\psfrag{J1}{\large$j$}
\psfrag{V1}{\large$v$}\psfrag{D}{\Large$j$}\psfrag{E}{\Large$v$}
\psfrag{MJ}{\Large$j_{\mbox{\scriptsize
max}}$}\psfrag{zeta}{\Large$\zeta$}\psfrag{jst}{\large$j^{*}$}\psfrag{c}{\large$c$}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bif-diag-zeta}
\caption{One-parameter continuation of the periodic response shown
in panel (a) (inner diagram) with respect to the amplitude of
seasonality effects $\zeta$, for the parameter values given in
Table~\ref{tab:par}, with $a=0.53$, $\beta_{0}=1.5$, $j^{*}=0.17$,
$c=0.19$ and $\epsilon=9.8\times10^{-4}$. The left panel depicts the
behavior of the peak of incidence level $j_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$
(see \eqref{eq-jmax}) as the parameter $\zeta$ varies. The labels
GR$i$ stand for grazing solutions shown in panel (b) (GR1 in blue,
GR2 in green, GR3 in black), while the point P1 marks the initial
periodic solution taken at $\zeta=7500$. Vertical red lines in the
phase plots stand for the discontinuity boundaries defined at
$j=j^{*}$ and $j=c$.}\label{fig-bif-diag-zeta}
\end{figure}
To analyze the behavior of the model \eqref{eq-pws}, we employ
path-following (numerical continuation) methods for piecewise-smooth
dynamical systems. Numerical continuation is a well-established
approach for comprehensive investigation of a model dynamics subject
to parameter variations \cite{KOG2007}, with particular focus on
the detection of parameter values for which the system behavior
suffers significant changes (bifurcations). In the present work, we
employ the continuation software COCO (Computational Continuation
Core \cite{DS2013}), a versatile development and analysis
platform oriented to the numerical treatment of continuation
problems solved via MATLAB. In particular, we will make extensive
use of the COCO-toolbox `hspo', which implements a set of numerical
routines for the path-following and bifurcation study of periodic
orbits of piecewise-smooth dynamical systems.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\psfrag{a}{\large(a)}\psfrag{b}{\large(b)}\psfrag{c}{\large(c)}\psfrag{J}{\Large$j$}\psfrag{V}{\Large$v$}
\psfrag{MJ}{\Large$j_{\mbox{\scriptsize
max}}$}\psfrag{B0}{\Large$\beta_{0}$}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bif-diag-B0}
\caption{(a) One-parameter continuation of the periodic response
shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-zeta}(a) with respect to
$\beta_{0}$ (see \eqref{eq:newbeta}). In this diagram, the blue
curve represents continuation of periodic solutions, while the red
line stands for continuation of the disease-free equilibria. Solid
and dashed lines depict stable and unstable solutions, respectively.
The labels BP, F$i$ and GR$i$ represent a branching point, fold and
grazing bifurcations of limit cycles, respectively, while the labels
P$i$ correspond to coexisting solutions found for $\beta_{0}=1.5$
(see panel (c)). The closed curve D$_{1}$--D$_{2}$ represents
schematically a hysteresis loop of the system. Panel (b) shows the
solution manifold computed during the one-parameter continuation
around the bifurcation point BP.}\label{fig-bif-diag-B0}
\end{figure}
The point of departure for the numerical study is the periodic
solution shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-zeta}(a) (inner diagram),
whereas previous sections solely afford the study on their
existence, not the stability. The periodic solutions are hereby
computed for the parameter values given in Tab.~\ref{tab:par}. Via
one-parameter continuation, we investigate how this solution is
affected by the amplitude of the seasonal forcing $\zeta$ (see
\eqref{seasonality}). The corresponding result is shown in Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-zeta}, which presents the behavior of the peak of
incidence level $j_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ with respect to
$\zeta$. As analytically foreseen in Section~\ref{sec:approx}, the
peak of incidence level grows with $\zeta$. Note that larger $\zeta$
means higher seasonal variation of the vector population due to
meteorological factors (humidity, rainfall, temperature, etc.). As
explained in Section \ref{sec:pws}, the model \eqref{eq-pws} belongs
to the class of piecewise-smooth dynamical systems, which, in
contrast to smooth dynamical systems, can undergo the so-called
\emph{grazing} bifurcation \cite{BBC2004}. It occurs when a limit
cycle makes (quadratic) tangential contact with a discontinuity
boundary, defined by an event function introduced in Section
\ref{sec:pws}. In our case, there are two discontinuity boundaries,
given at $j=j^{*}$ and $j=c$. Consequently, during our investigation
we found three grazing bifurcations, located at
$\zeta\approx5.9192\times10^3$ (GR1), $\zeta\approx6.7175\times10^3$
(GR2) and $\zeta\approx8.0143\times10^3$ (GR3). Phase plots of the
corresponding grazing periodic solutions are depicted in Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-zeta}(b), where the tangential intersections with
the discontinuity boundaries can clearly be seen. A remarkable
feature of the bifurcation diagram shown in Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-zeta}(a) is the strong growth of the peak after
the grazing bifurcation GR2. This phenomenon is produced precisely
due to the crossing of the solution through the boundary $j=c$,
after which it is assumed that the impact of media vanishes or the
information has become tediously irrelevant for the susceptible
subpopulation, and therefore the force of infection increases
rapidly (see Fig.\ \ref{fig-beta-curve}).
Let us now investigate the behavior of the model \eqref{eq-pws} when
$\beta_{0}$ (see \eqref{eq:newbeta} and Fig.\ \ref{fig-beta-curve})
varies. The response curve can be seen in Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}(a). To discuss the obtained result, let us
begin from the left part of the diagram, where $\beta_{0}$ is small.
If this is the case, the system presents an asymptotically stable
disease-free equilibrium represented by the solid red line. This
means that the incidence level among the population will decrease in
time until it disappears (for $t\to\infty$). During this regime, we
have that $\mathcal{R}_0<1$ (see \eqref{eq:R0}). When $\mathcal{R}_0$ becomes larger
than one (at $\beta_{0}\approx0.6473$), the disease-free equilibrium
loses stability, and a branch of endemic periodic solutions is born.
The latter gives rise to a branching point labeled BP (see Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}(b)). Note that after this BP point, a
significant increment of the peak of incidence level can be
observed, until the grazing bifurcation GR1
($\beta_{0}\approx0.7795$) is found. This is then followed by a
sluggish increment of the endemic equilibrium state. The reason
behind is because after the bifurcation point GR1 (where the
periodic solution makes a tangential contact with the discontinuity
boundary $j=j^{*}$ from below), the solution crosses the threshold
$j=j^{*}$, at which it is assumed that the media give regular
reports about the disease spread among the susceptible population.
Therefore, people take preventive measures in such a way that the
infection rate decreases significantly (see Fig.\
\ref{fig-beta-curve}). If $\beta_{0}$ grows further, two additional
grazing points are found at $\beta_{0}\approx1.1624$ (GR2, grazing
contact with $j=c$) and $\beta_{0}\approx1.5837$ (GR3, grazing
contact with $j=j^{*}$ from above). For larger $\beta_{0}$, a
\emph{fold} bifurcation happening at the fold point F1
($\beta_{0}\approx1.7757$) is detected, where the periodic solution
becomes unstable. This unstable periodic response undergoes another
grazing bifurcation at $\beta_{0}\approx1.6660$ (GR4, grazing
contact with $j=c$) and recovers stability at the fold point F2
($\beta_{0}\approx1.1494$). After this point, the solution remains
stable with the increasing peak of incidence level as $\beta_{0}$
gets larger.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering \psfrag{a}{\large(a)}\psfrag{b}{\large(b)}
\psfrag{J}{\Large$j$}\psfrag{MJ}{\Large$j_{\mbox{\scriptsize
max}}$}\psfrag{jst}{\Large$j^{*}$}\psfrag{t}{\Large$t$}\psfrag{jm1}{\footnotesize$j_{\mbox{\tiny
max}}\approx0.59$}\psfrag{jm2}{\footnotesize$j_{\mbox{\tiny
max}}\approx0.21$}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bif-diag-jst}
\caption{(a) One-parameter continuation of the periodic response
shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-zeta}(a) with respect to $j^{*}$
(see \eqref{eq:newbeta}). Labels and figure codes are defined as in
Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}. (b) Time plot of two (coexisting)
stable periodic solutions computed for $j^{*}=0.17$ (P1,
P2).}\label{fig-bif-diag-jst}
\end{figure}
Another remarkable feature of the bifurcation diagram shown in Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}(a) is the interplay between the fold
bifurcations F$1$ and F$2$ giving rise to \emph{hysteresis} in the
system, which schematically is represented by the closed curve
D$_{1}$--D$_{2}$ plotted in the figure. Moreover, the fold points
F$1$ and F$2$ define a parameter window for which the system
presents coexisting solutions (see Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}(c)),
including the (unstable) disease-free equilibrium. A similar
scenario can be observed if now $j^{*}$ is considered as the
bifurcation parameter, see Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-jst}(a). As
before, a series of codimension-1 bifurcations are found along the
bifurcation diagram, located at $j^{*}\approx0.1434$ (GR1, grazing
contact with $j=j^{*}$ from above), $j^{*}\approx0.1561$ (GR2,
grazing contact with $j=c$), $j^{*}\approx0.1727$ (GR3, grazing
contact with $j=j^{*}$ from above), $j^{*}\approx0.1751$ (GR4,
grazing contact with $j=c$), $j^{*}\approx0.1769$ (F1, fold
bifurcation) and $j^{*}\approx0.1243$ (F2, fold bifurcation). As in
the previous case, the interaction between the fold points produces
a hysteresis loop, which in turn gives rise to the phenomenon of
\emph{multistability}, found for $j^{*}$ between F2 and F1. For
instance, at the initial value $j^{*}=0.17$, two stable (endemic)
periodic solutions can be found (at the test points P1 and P2),
depicted in Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-jst}(b). In the current
scenario, the solution at P2 can be identified as a ``desirable''
solution, owing to the low peak of incidence level
($j_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}\approx0.21$). However, due to the
multistability, a sufficiently large perturbation to the system may
produce an undesired jump to the solution at P1, for which the peak
of incidence level is about three times larger
($j_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}\approx0.59$), hence posing the risk of
a collapse of the available medical capabilities. In order to avoid
such an undesired scenario, one needs then to set $j^{*}$ as low as
possible (more precisely, below than $j^{*}\approx0.1243$ where the
fold bifurcation F2 occurs), which defines the point where the media
gives regular reports among the susceptible subpopulation thereby
encouraging people to take preventive measures.
The last part of the numerical study consists of investigating the
behavior of the model as the adiabatic parameter $\epsilon$ varies.
The result is presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig-diag-epsilon} using
parameter values in Tab.~\ref{tab:par}. When the seasonal forcing is
deactivated, Section~\ref{sec:slowfast} has shown how nearby
solution trajectories approach the locally attractive slow manifold
($\epsilon>0$) before approaching the critical manifold and
ultimately stable equilibria, due to the slaving condition. Panels
(a) and (b) depict the preceding phenomenon for different
realizations of $\epsilon$. The first-order (red curve) and
second-order approximation of the slow manifold (blue curve) are
presented in the figure, whereby the two approximates and the actual
slow manifold meet and are close to the critical manifold as
$\epsilon$ is sufficiently small (Panel (b)). Panel (a) exclusively
shows how the higher-order terms surpass the influence of $\epsilon$
in the approximates, making them irregularly jumping around as
$\epsilon$ is rather large. This irregularity is worsened by the
fact that the model involves a piecewise-smooth vector field. Panels (c)
and (d) are obtained via one-parameter continuation of the periodic
solution P1 displayed in Fig.\ \ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}(c), using
$\epsilon$ as the control parameter. The numerical study reveals
that the (peak-to-peak) amplitude of the periodic solutions does not
vary significantly for $\epsilon$ small. This behavior, however,
notably changes when $\epsilon$ crosses a certain threshold
$\epsilon_{c}\approx0.0021$, when $\zeta=7560$. From this point on, the amplitude
decreases proportionally to $1/\epsilon^2$, as can be seen in Fig.\
\ref{fig-diag-epsilon}(c). This critical value can be computed from
\eqref{eq:M} as (neglecting transients and considering that
$\theta=\mu\slash \epsilon$ and $\rho=\rho_{\epsilon}\slash
\epsilon$), which is given by
$$\epsilon_{c}=10\frac{\mu\zeta}{\xi}.$$
This gives the $\epsilon$-value for which the constant component
($\bar{M}$) becomes ten times the amplitude of seasonality
($\zeta$). This means that for $\epsilon\geq\epsilon_{c}$, the
seasonal effects become less significant, and therefore the
amplitude of the periodic solutions decreases with $\epsilon$. The
quadratic decrement can be seen from \eqref{eq:theta}, \eqref{eq:h}
and \eqref{eq:jv}, hence producing a periodic excitation with
amplitude proportional to $1/\epsilon^2$. The preceding finding
provides additional novelty as apposed to the result in
Section~\ref{sec:approx} where $\epsilon\geq
\mu\zeta\slash\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}\approx 3.6\mu\zeta\slash\xi>\epsilon_c\slash 10$ makes the second-order
approximations eligible for replacing the actual periodic solutions.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\psfrag{a}{\large(a)}\psfrag{b}{\large(b)}\psfrag{c}{\large(c)}\psfrag{d}{\large(d)}\psfrag{J}{\Large$j$}\psfrag{V}{\Large$v$}
\psfrag{logP}{\Large$\log\left(j_{\mbox{\scriptsize
p}}\right)$}\psfrag{logeps}{\Large$\log\left(\epsilon\right)$}\psfrag{slope}{\large
Slope $\approx$ -2}\psfrag{ec}{\large $\epsilon_{c}\approx0.0021$}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diag-epsilon}
\caption{Behavior of the model as the adiabatic parameter
(vector--host lifespan ratio) $\epsilon$ varies. Panels (a) and (b)
show phase portraits around the first-order (red curve),
second-order approximation of the slow manifold (blue curve) and the
critical manifold (black curve) computed for $\epsilon=10^{-2}$ and
$\epsilon=10^{-3}$, respectively. The small black circles encode the
existing equilibria, where the slow and critical manifold intersect.
Panel (c) shows the behavior of the peak-to-peak amplitude (see
\eqref{eq-jP}) of the periodic solution P1 displayed in Fig.\
\ref{fig-bif-diag-B0}(c). Panel (d) depicts the family of periodic
solutions obtained along the curve in (c). The arrow indicates the
direction of increasing $\epsilon$.}\label{fig-diag-epsilon}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In a rundown, the following work is done in the paper. We reduce and
rescale the simple host--vector, SISUV model into an IU model. A
periodic recruitment rate of the vector population is assigned to
take into account the influence of meteorological factors. The
argument about infected hosts kept in hospitals tells us that the
infection rate due to a contact between a susceptible vector and an
infected host is constant and sufficiently small. The other
infection rate from a typical contact between a susceptible host and
an infected vector is modelled as a function of the infected host
subpopulation. Under further assumptions, we designate a singular
perturbed system under the variation of the vector--host lifespan
ratio. In further examination, we center our work around
understanding the interplay between the media-triggered infection
rate, the periodic solutions surrounding equilibria of the
autonomous system, and the lifespan ratio variation. Two scenarios
for the infection rate are considered in this regard. The first
scenario puts forward a non-increasing infection rate, where the entire stability analysis returns a supercritical bifurcation. Moreover, a larger
alarming incidence level $j^{\ast}$ has been shown to give a larger
endemic equilibrium at the same magnitude of the basic reproductive
number. Keeping in mind the existence of the two notable equilibria,
two periodic solutions exist surrounding the equilibria, i.e.\ when
the seasonal forcing is activated. The second scenario presents a
new definition for the alarming incidence level $j^{\ast}$, i.e.\ a
maximal number of infected population share the available hospitals
can accommodate. This builds up an outline where the infection rate
decreases when $j>j^{\ast}$, but not long after at $c>j^{\ast}$,
poverty, reluctance in taking up preventive measures, despair,
tiresomeness, perceiving the disease as being easily curable, absence of medical access, and the exploding number of
hungrier vectors make the infection rate start to bounce up and gets
larger with the incidence level.
The following results are underlying regarding the second scenario.
We found a supercritical bifurcation when the basic reproductive
number is equal to one, also two fold bifurcations corresponding to
the switch from stable to unstable also from unstable to stable
endemic equilibrium branch. A similar result is also found from
numerical investigation over the stability of the existing periodic
solutions. For both autonomous and non-autonomous case, we acquire a
hysteresis loop. When the initial infection rate $\beta_0$ (or
eventually the basic reproductive number) increases, the presence of
\emph{overreaction} among the susceptible subpopulation attributed to
media reports helps suppress the endemicity level to a small order
of magnitude. Until then, $\beta_0$ is large enough that the
endemicity level jumps to a significantly larger value. We found that the closer $c$ and
$j^{\ast}$ are, the higher the possibility of encountering such a
hysteresis. In contrast, when $c$ is in the far right of $j^{\ast}$,
only a small endemic equilibrium can be obtained. All these mean
that overreaction is a bad response to the ever-increasing outbreak,
as a slow pace with sureness in the longevity and regularity in
applying preventive measures can have a better solution. A similar investigation over $j^{\ast}$ also gives a
hysteresis, therefore a sudden jump to a larger value in the endemicity level.
Notwithstanding the new definition for the alarming incidence level,
which the decision maker can always make up, we come to the same
conclusion as in the first model for the infection rate. We have
shown that overestimating alarming incidence level provides a good
solution to reduce the endemicity rather underestimating it, in any
way. When $j^{\ast}$ is sufficiently small, we have shown that no
jump to a blow-up is envisaged, also that the endemicity can be
suppressed as low as possible. As far as the lifespan ratio
$\epsilon$ is concerned, it turns to give us flexibility in
designing the model as to have solutions that may be comparable to
empirical data. For the sample case
$\mu\zeta\slash\xi\sqrt{\theta^2+4\pi^2\omega^2}\approx 3.6\mu\zeta\slash\xi\approx 7.56\times 10^{-4}<\epsilon=10^{-3}<\epsilon_c\approx 2.1\times 10^{-3}$,
we know that the critical manifold gives a quite good approximation to
the solution, whereby a second-order approximation for the periodic
solutions can be chosen for fast computation on an extremely large
time domain. We acquire both model reduction and small-order
approximation at the same time. Data assimilation using this model
with periodic datasets can be possible outlook.
\section*{Declaration of Competing Interest}
No conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The second author has been supported by the DAAD Visiting
Professorships programme at the University of Koblenz-Landau. The third author is supported by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (Kemenristek DIKTI) with PUPT research grant scheme.
|
\section{Numerical solution of the Schr\"odinger equation}\label{sec:model}
\subsection{Outline of the model}
We model the ballistic transmission of electrons through the two QPCs in series with an open region of grounded 2DES in between by solving the Schr\"odinger equation for a single electron in a 2DES with leads and a potential landscape that implements the QPCs, the lens and the impurities. We treat the 2DES at cryogenic temperatures as a degenerate Fermi gas but take into account energy broadening of the emitted electrons by both, temperature and a finite bias. Supported by experimental results (not shown), we assume coherent transport between the QPCs. However, standing waves between the QPCs due to multiple coherent reflections cannot be resolved because of energy broadening caused by temperature and applied voltage. We model the QPCs using potentials that change slowly on the scale of the Fermi wavelength such that no reflections occur as long as the potential maximum stays below the chemical potential of the 2DES. Our approach is to divide the simulation region into parallel slices of width $\Delta x$ for which we solve the scattering problem exactly. Concatenation of the resulting slice-by-slice scattering matrices in the correct order yields the scattering matrix of the complete simulation region from which we then extract the transmission probabilities $T_{N,M}$ for emitter and detector QPCs on the $N$th and $M$th plateau for a direct comparison with experiments.
The problem of a single electron moving in a magnetic field $B$ and a spatial potential $\Phi(x,y)$ is described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H = \frac{1}{2m^\star} \left(- i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{r}} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A}(x,y)\right)^2 + \Phi(x,y)
\end{equation}
where $m^\star$ and $e$ are the effective mass and charge of the electron and $c$ is the speed of light.
While we calculate the solutions at fixed energy $E$, we account for the energy distribution of charge carriers due to finite temperature and source drain voltage by sampling over the energy distribution of the electrons.
The simulation region is sketched in \fig{fig:sketch}{}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/sketch_potential.pdf}
\caption{Sketch of the simulation region of our model. Gradients on the left and right side denote attached leads. The shapes of two QPCs and a lens which we model by the applied potential $\Phi(x,y)$ are roughly indicated. Our model includes absorbing potentials (red crosses) at the boundaries in y direction to absorb carriers that leave the simulation region.
\label{fig:sketch}}
\end{figure}
Assuming ballistic transport the potential $\Phi(x,y)$ models two QPCs and a tunable lens in between. We calculate the transmission through QPC$_2$ (detector) for electrons emitted by QPC$_1$ (emitter), i.e., the principal direction of particle flow is along the x-axis. We attach leads to the two boundaries of the simulation region at $x=0$ and $x=L$, each of which is a semi-infinite conducting 2DES without magnetic field. The real sample used in our experiments and shown in Fig. 1(a) of the main text contains four additional ohmic contacts arranged symmetrically along the sides to ground the 2DES region between the two QPCs. These macroscopic and diffusive contacts absorb electrons scattered to the sides such that they cannot escape through one of the two QPCs. We simulate the side contacts by an absorbing potential along the boundaries of the simulation region in $y$-direction together with periodic boundary conditions in $y$-direction which allow an expansion in terms of plane waves. Along the $x$-axis we divide the simulation region into exactly solvable vertical slices (parallel to the $y$-axis) by approximating the potential
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x,y) \simeq \sum_i \Phi(x_i,y) \delta(x - x_i)
\label{eq:qm_phi}
\end{equation}
where we choose a normalization of the Dirac delta function such that $\int_{-\infty}^\infty \text{d}x \delta(x) = \Delta x$, where $\Delta x = x_{i+1} - x_i$. The normalization is chosen to preserve $\int_{x=0}^L \text{d}x \Phi(x,y)$, where $L$ is the length of the simulation region in $x$ direction, compare \fig{fig:sketch}{}. We include a magnetic field $\vec{B}(x) = B(x)\hat{e}_z$ perpendicular to the 2DES which is approximated by
\begin{equation}
B(x) \simeq \sum_i B(x_i) \delta(x - x_i) .
\label{eq:qm_B}
\end{equation}
We choose the corresponding vector potential as $\vec{A}(x) = A_y(x) \hat{e}_y$, where $A_y = \int_0^x \text{d}x'B(x') = \sum_{x_i < x} B(x_i) \Delta x$.
The magnetic field is constant within the region between the QPCs but vanishes in the leads and in the regions with finite QPC potential at $0 \leq x \leq x_1$ and $x_2 \leq x \leq L$. Neglecting the magnetic field within the QPC regions is justified as the cyclotron radius is much larger than the QPC constriction size. To avoid reflections due to discontinuities of $B$ at $x=x_1$ and $x = x_2$, we turn on the magnetic field slowly on the scale of the Fermi wavelength. The solution converges when the slide width $\Delta x$ is much smaller than the Fermi wavelength.
\subsection{Scattering problem in a nut-shell}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/sketch_scattering_region_2.pdf}
\caption{Sketch of the model used to compute the scattering matrix per slice. We compose the scattering matrix from two contributions: a) the propagative motion described by the Hamiltonian $H$ defined in \eq{eq:propagation} between two scattering slices at $x$ and $x+\Delta x$ and b) the scattering off the potential $\Phi(x,y)$ per slice at each $x$. The regions I and III are the semi infinite regions with Hamiltonian $H_0 = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m^\star} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}$.
\label{fig:sketch_scattering}}
\end{figure}
For solving the scattering problem, between $x=0$ and $x=L$ we expand the wavefunction along the vertical slices (in $y$-direction) in plane waves characterized by the transverse wavenumber $q$.
Making use of the linearity of the scattering problem we calculate the scattering matrix of each individual slice separately. For each slice we further divide the problem into a free propagation
between $x_i$ and $x_{i + 1}$ setting $\Phi = 0$ and $B = 0$, and the actual scattering events at $x_i$ accounting for the potential and the magnetic field as defined in equations \eqref{eq:qm_phi} and \eqref{eq:qm_B}, respectively.
The ``propagative motion'' is sketched in \fig{fig:sketch_scattering}a and the ``scattering events'' in \fig{fig:sketch_scattering}b. Regions I and III are temporarily added supplementary semi-infinite regions described by the trivial Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_0 = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m^\star} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\, .
\label{eq:H0}
\end{equation}
These supplementary leads are completely removed in the last step, where we concatenate the slices in the order of appearance from left to right. Before the final concatenation process we add the semi-infinite leads for $x<0$ and $x>L$ to the system. For the region with $B=0$, the scattering matrix of the uniform leads is sketched in \fig{fig:sketch_scattering_leads}{}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/sketch_scattering_region_leads.pdf}
\caption{Sketch of the model used to compute the scattering matrix of the attached left lead. The lead Hamiltonian $H_{\text{lead}}$ as given in equation \eqref{eq:Hlead} contains only kinetic energy terms. The right region is described by the Hamiltonian $H_0$. For the right leads the setup is mirrored and the boundary between the regions is at $x=L$.
\label{fig:sketch_scattering_leads}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Details of the calculation}\label{sec:matrices}
The scattering matrix $S_{q', q}$ is the unitary matrix that relates the amplitudes of ingoing waves $a_q, d_q$ to the scattered amplitudes of outgoing waves $b_{q'}, c_{q'}$ left and right of the scattering region.
The scattering event may change the wavenumber of the ingoing wave from $q$ to $q'$.
The scattering matrix is defined as
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{q'} \\
c_{q'}
\end{pmatrix} & = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \text{d}q S_{q', q} \begin{pmatrix}
a_{q} \\
d_{q}
\end{pmatrix} \\
& = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \text{d}q \begin{pmatrix}
t_{q', q} & r'_{q', q} \\
r_{q', q} & t'_{q', q}
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
a_{q} \\
d_{q}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
where $t_{q', q}$ ($t'_{q', q}$) and $r_{q', q}$ ($r'_{q', q}$) are transmission and reflection matrices for waves incident from the left (right), respectively.
The scattering matrix for the propagative slices is solved in a model as sketched in \fig{fig:sketch_scattering}a. The Hamiltonian $H$ in region II implementing the propagation of the plane wave eigenmodes from $x_i$ to $x_{i+1}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:propagation}
H = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^\star} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{(\hbar q - \frac{e}{c} A_y(x_i))^2}{2m^\star} .
\end{equation}
where the term $\frac{e}{c} A_y(x_i)$ describes the piecewise constant vector potential corresponding to the magnetic field as defined in eq. \eqref{eq:qm_B}. For this geometry, the transmission matrices read
\begin{equation}
t_{q', q} = \frac{2 k k_x e^{- i k \Delta x} \delta(q - q')}{2 \cos \left(k_x \Delta x \right) k k_x -i \sin \left(k_x \Delta x \right) \left( k^2 + k_x^2 \right)}
\end{equation}
and $t'_{q', q} = t_{q', q} e^{2 i k \Delta x}$ and the reflection matrices are
\begin{equation}
r_{q', q} = r'_{q', q} = \frac{i \sin \left( k_x \Delta x \right) \left( k_x^2 - k^2 \right) \delta(q - q')}{2 \cos \left(k_x \Delta x \right) k k_x -i \sin \left(k_x \Delta x \right) \left( k^2 + k_x^2 \right)}
\end{equation}\\
with the wavenumber along $x$ in regions I and III $k = \sqrt{2 m^\star E / \hbar^2}$ and the wavenumber along $x$ in region II $k_x = \sqrt{2 m^\star E / \hbar^2 - (q - \frac{e}{\hbar c} A_y(x))^2}$. The scattering matrix is diagonal in the wavenumber $q$. In the propagative region with $\Phi(x,y) = 0$ they satisfy $k^2 = k_x^2 + q^2$.
To implement the potential $\Phi(x,y)$, we solve the scattering problem for a slice $\Phi(x_i, y) \delta (x-x_i) $ in the geometry depicted in \fig{fig:sketch_scattering} b). The transmission and reflection matrices are
\begin{equation}
t = t' = 2 \left( 2 \mathbb{1} + \frac{2 i m^\star \Delta x}{\hbar^2 k} \mathbf{\Phi} (x_i) \right)^{-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
r = r' = \left( 2 \mathbb{1} + \frac{2 i m^\star \Delta x}{\hbar^2 k} \mathbf{\Phi} (x_i)\right)^{-1} \cdot \left( \frac{- 2 i m^\star \Delta x}{\hbar^2 k} \mathbf{\Phi} (x_i) \right)
\end{equation}\\
where $\mathbb{1}$ is the identity matrix and $\mathbf{\Phi}_{q_1, q_2}(x_i) = \Phi_{q_1 - q_2}(x_i)$ is the Toeplitz matrix formed by the Fourier transform of the potential $\Phi_q(x_i) = \int_W \text{d}y \Phi(x_i, y) e^{- i q y}$ with $W$ the width of the simulation region along $y$.
For the leads at the left and right boundary of the simulation region, we assume that there is no magnetic field. The vector potential in the left (right) leads is equal to the vector potential at the left (right) boundary of the simulation region $A_y^\text{lead} = A_y(0)$ ($A_y^\text{lead} = A_y(L)$).
The Hamiltonian in the leads is
\begin{equation}
H_\text{lead} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^\star} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{(\hbar q - \frac{e}{c} A_y^\text{lead})^2}{2m^\star} .
\label{eq:Hlead}
\end{equation}
In a scattering geometry for a left lead as in Fig. \ref{fig:sketch_scattering_leads}, the transmission amplitudes read
\begin{equation}
t_{q', q} = t'_{q', q} = \frac{2 \sqrt{k_x k} }{k + k_x} \delta(q - q')
\end{equation}
if $E \geq (\hbar q - \frac{e}{c} A_y(0))^2 / 2 m^\star$ and $t_{q', q} = t'_{q', q} = 0$ else.
The reflection amplitudes read
\begin{equation}
r_{q', q} = - r'_{q', q} = \frac{k_x - k }{k + k_x} \delta(q - q').
\end{equation}
For the leads right of the scattering region, the constant vector potential is $A_y^\text{lead} = A_y(L)$ and $r$ and $r'$ are exchanged.
The concatenated scattering matrix $S_{12}$ of two adjacent regions 1, 2 with 1 left of 2 can be computed from the individual scattering matrices $S_1$, $S_2$ as
\begin{align}
t_{12} & = t_2 \left(\mathbb{1} - r'_1 r_2\right)^{-1} t_1 \\
r_{12} & = r_1 + t'_1 r_2 (\mathbb{1} - r'_1 r_2)^{-1} t_1 \\
t'_{12} & = t'_1 \left(\mathbb{1} + r_2 (\mathbb{1} - r'_1 r_2)^{-1} r'_1\right) t'_2 \\
r'_{12} & = r'_2 + t_2 \left(\mathbb{1} - r'_1 r_2\right)^{-1} r'_1 t'_2 .
\end{align}
To compose the scattering matrix of the complete system, we concatenate all propagating and potential scattering matrices ordered from left to right and complete the calculation by concatenating with the lead scattering matrices.
\subsection{Transmission matrix}
In the main article we expressed the total transmission probability in terms of a transmission matrix $T_{N ,M} = \sum_{n, m}^{N, M} t_{n, m}$ for emitter and detector QPC on the $N$th and $M$th conductance plateaus. Here, $t_{n, m}$ are the individual probabilities for an electron emitted from the $n$th mode to transmit through the $m$th subband of the detector. We present them in \fig{fig:transmission}a.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figures/A/tmatrix.pdf}
\caption{
(a) Calculated transmission probabilities ---for $\vl=0$ (no lens) and a flat electrostatic potential between the perfectly aligned QPCs --- averaged over energy to simulate temperature and source-drain voltage broadening. Each square shows $t_{n,m}(B)$ between the $n$th mode of QPC$_1$ and the $m$th mode of QPC$_2$ for $1\le n,m\le 7$. $B=0$ at vertical symmetry axes. For $N=M=7$ the total transmission is the sum of all shown elements $T_{N,M}=\sum_{n,m=1}^{N,M}t_{n,m}$.
(b) Transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M=7}=\sum_{m=1}^{7} t_{N,m}$ also plotted in Fig.\ 2(c) of the main article. They correspond to the sum of the colored elements in each row of the matrix in panel a.}
\label{fig:transmission}
\end{figure}
This approach is exact as long as the eigenmodes do not depend on $N$ and $M$ and coherent reflections between the QPCs can be neglected. The latter is fulfilled in our experiments as the dephasing length is small compared to the distance between the QPCs $l_\phi\simeq0.5\,\mu\text{m}\ll l$. However, in Ref.\ \cite{Geier2020-1} we show that the lateral confinement potential of the QPCs is modified by Coulomb screening as the mode number increases. As a consequence the eigenmodes are also affected and the transmissions $t_{n, m}$ depend on $N$ or $M$, respectively. The descriptive picture presented in the main article is a good approximation as long as the change of the confinement potential between subsequent plateaus of the QPCs is small.
While the approximation works quite well for our experiments, in our numerical calculations described in the sections above we nevertheless directly calculate the total transmission $T_{N ,M}$ for the realistic electrostatic potential which we determined from the experimental subband spacings \cite{Geier2020-1}.
For completeness in \fig{fig:transmission}b we present the transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M=7}=\sum_{n=1}^{7}t_{n,M=7}$ each corresponding to summing up all elements in a row of the matrix in panel (a). These transmission differences are also discussed in the main article, cf.\ Fig.\ 2 of the main article.
\subsection{Analytic description of QPC potentials}
\label{sec:QPC potentials in the numerical simulations}
In a separate work in Ref.~\onlinecite{Geier2020-1} we show that the confinement potential at the center of our gate defined QPCs on the $N \leq 2$ conductance plateau is well described by a parabola while for $N \geq 3$ it is best described by a hard-wall potential.
Below we introduce a two dimensional continuation of both the hard-wall and parabolic potential.
We assume that the magnetic field can be neglected within the QPC regions in both quantum and classical simulations. This is a good approximation as long as the magnetic length is large compared to the channel width at the QPCs, as in all our measurements presented here.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/QPCPotential2d_N7_Envelope.pdf}
\caption{(a) Hard-wall potential modeling a QPC on the $N = 7$th conductance plateau with parameters from table~\ref{tab:QPC_Parameters}.
(b) Envelope function $e(x; \omega_x)$ as defined in eq. \eqref{eq:envelope} (blue) and the smoothed version used in the quantum mechanical simulation (orange).
(c) Smooth potential modeling a parabolic QPC on the $N = 7$'th conductance plateau.
}
\label{fig:potentials}
\end{figure}
\textit{Hard-wall potential.}
The electrostatic potential realizing the QPCs based on a hard-wall model can be defined within the QPC regions $0 \leq x \leq x_1$ and $x_2 \leq x \leq L$ as
\begin{equation}
\phi(x,y)= \begin{cases}
e(x, \omega_x) \phi_0 & |y| \leq \frac{W}{2} + \sqrt{(R_0 - \frac{W}{2})^2 - x^2} \\
4 e(x, \omega_x) E_\text{F}^0 & \text{else}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:classical_slit}
\end{equation}
where $e(x, \omega_x)$ is an envelope function as described below and $E_\text{F}^0$ is the Fermi energy of the free 2DES, i.e. the kinetic energy of electrons in the free 2DES at the Fermi edge.
The electrostatic potential \eqref{eq:classical_slit} has a discontinuity along two semicircles modeling the semicircular shape of the split gates defining the QPC. The width $W$ and the offset potential $\phi_0$ at the QPC center determines the mode structure of the QPC. These parameters can be determined from source-drain bias voltage spectroscopy \cite{Geier2020-1} and the result is summarized in table \ref{tab:QPC_Parameters}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
$N$ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\
\hline
$W$\,(nm) & 58 & 84 & 111 & 134 & 160 & 193 & 221 \\
\hline
$\Phi_0 / \ef^0$ & 0.62 & 0.52 & 0.47 & 0.41 & 0.38 & 0.41 & 0.41 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quantum well width $W$ and offset potential relative to the Fermi energy $\Phi_0/ \ef^0$ for a hard-wall confinement potential determined from source-drain bias spectroscopy in Ref.~\cite{Geier2020-1}}
\label{tab:QPC_Parameters}
\end{table}
The radius $R = R_0 - W/2$ of the semicircles decreases with increasing width of the QPC center modeling the shrinking of the gate depleted region when the gate voltage is increased.
In our simulations we set $R_0 = 400$\,nm which yields a slightly larger distance between the centers of the semicircles than in the QPC gate geometry ($d/2 = 275$\,nm). The value of $R_0$ is chosen in order to find better agreement in the width of the transmission profile $T(B)$ with the magnetic deflection experiments. The correction accounts for uncertainties in the precise determination of the electrostatic QPC potential.
In current direction we assume a parabolic transition of the electrostatic potential between the 1D channel and the free 2DES in order to ensure a reflectionless transmission through the QPCs. This is implemented by a smooth version of the envelope function
\begin{equation}
e(x; \omega_x) = \begin{cases}
0, & |x| \geq \frac{L_\text{QPC}}{2} \\
1 - \frac{m \omega_x^2 x^2}{2 E_\text{F}^0}, & \text{else}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:envelope}
\end{equation}
where the channel length $L_\text{QPC} = \frac{2}{\omega_x} \sqrt{\frac{2 E_\text{F}^0}{m}} = 2 R_0 - W$ such that the function $e(x, \omega_x)$ is continuous. The potential as well as the envelope function are plotted in \fig{fig:potentials}{}. In the quantum mechanical simulation, we use a version of $e(x, \omega_x)$ that connects smoothly to $\Phi(x > x_1, y) = 0$ over a length $L_\text{QPC} / 12$ on both sides of the QPC as shown in \fig{fig:potentials}{b}.
\textit{Parabolic saddle point potential.}
For comparison, a potential that has a parabolic saddle point at the QPC center and connects continuously to the free regions with vanishing potential can be defined as
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x,y) = e(x; \omega_x) \left(\Phi_0 + \frac{m \omega_y^2 y^2}{2} \right) .
\label{eq:QPCpotential_sim}
\end{equation}
where $\hbar \omega_y$ is the subband spacing. To simulate a QPC at the $N$'th conductance plateau we set $\Phi_0 = E_\text{F}^0 - n \hbar \omega_y$.
\subsection{Implementation of the lens potential in our numerical model}
In \fig{fig:lenspotential-implementation}{}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/A/lenspotential-implementation.pdf}
\caption{Model implementation of the lens potential surrounded by free 2DES at zero potential (blue). The lens gate voltage $\vl=-0.64$\,V corresponds to the focusing condition.
}
\label{fig:lenspotential-implementation}
\end{figure}
we illustrate the lens potential implemented in our numerical model, accounting for our lens calibration described in detail in Sec. \ref{sec:calibration} below. The lens represents a region of finite potential in the otherwise free 2DES. The region of finite potential mimics the shape of the lens gate, cf. Fig. 1(a) in the main paper, with the width $W=1780$\,nm and lens radius $R=750$\,nm. The potential width is additionally increased by $\Delta W / \Delta \vl = 75$\,nm/V, taking into account the measured depletion length caused by the electric field effect. A dip in the center of the lens is caused by a piezoelectric potential, described in Sec. \ref{sec:calibration} below. To avoid unrealistic sharp edges of the lens potential we model the potential transitions by smooth step functions.
\section{Comparison between quantum mechanical and classical solution}
\label{sect:classicalModel}
In order to identify coherence effects we compare our results with a classical simulation of the magnetic deflection experiment. To compute the current for classical electrons we sample the lateral distribution function at the center (in current direction) of the emitter. We solve the phase space trajectory of each sampling point numerically and determine whether it transmits through the detector and hence contributes to the current. In the classical simulation we neglect trajectories that involve multiple reflections between the QPCs.
In \fig{fig:QM_vs_Classical}{a}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/A/Transmission_Harmonic_QM_vs_Classical-2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of quantum mechanically (full lines) and classically (dashed lines) transmissions through the two QPCs in series calculated for the harmonic electrostatic QPC potential in the perfectly aligned geometry and without the electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist caused by the piezoelectric effect. (a) $T_{N,M}(B)$ and (b) corresponding first transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M}(B)=T_{N,M}(B)-T_{N-1,M-1}(B)$. Both emitter and detector QPC are set to the same conductance plateau $N=M=1,3,5,7$.
\label{fig:QM_vs_Classical}}
\end{figure}
we show the classically and quantum mechanically computed magnetic deflection transmission profiles $T(B)$ for a perfectly aligned geometry and without the electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist. Both computations were performed with identical parameters using the harmonic QPC potential. The quantum mechanical solution exhibits oscillations that reflect the mode structure of the waves emitted from the QPC. These coherent oscillations are absent in the transmission profile for classical electrons.
The envelope of the transmission profile of coherent electrons coincides with the classical result for large magnetic field strengths. For small magnetic fields there are electron trajectories involving reflections between the QPCs that contribute to the current through the setup. These trajectories are included in the quantum mechanical calculation but are neglected in the classical calculation. They yield an overall enhanced transmission for small magnetic field strengths in the quantum mechanical calculation compared to our classical solution.
In our experiments coherent Fabry-Perot like oscillations caused by standing waves between the QPCs are averaged out, as expected for the dephasing length of $l_\phi = 500\,$nm due to bias and temperature broadening, cf.\ Fig. 2 of the main article. In our quantum mechanical calculation we account for the broadening by energy averaging. Nevertheless, the quantum mechanical solution in \fig{fig:QM_vs_Classical}{a} contains high frequency oscillations at small magnetic fields which are a remnant of the Fabry-Perot oscillations after averaging over the energy distribution of transmitting electrons. These remnants of the Fabry-Perot oscillations are vulnerable to geometric imperfections and weak disorder contributing additional phase shifts to interfering paths. Therefore they are most pronounced in the perfectly aligned geometry without electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist.
In \fig{fig:QM_vs_Classical}{b} we present the calculated first transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M}(B)=T_{N,M}(B)-T_{N-1,M-1}(B)$, again using $N=M$. As for $T(B)$ in panel (a), the classical solution is a smooth maximum, while the quantum mechanical result oscillates strongly with $N=M$ main maxima reflecting the QPC mode structure.
The lateral mode structure of the QPCs is visible in both, experimental results and quantum mechanical solution of their serial transmission, cf.\ Fig. 2 of the main article. In contrast to the Fabry-Perot like oscillations discussed above the lateral mode structure remains stable as long as the dephasing length is larger than the lateral distance of two adjacent maxima in the interference pattern of emitted electrons.
\section{Emission profiles for hard-wall versus parabolic lateral potentials}
In this section we compare the calculated emission profiles for our two models introduced in section \ref{sec:QPC potentials in the numerical simulations} describing the electrostatic QPC potential.
\subsection{QPC emission profiles}
The beam profiles are calculated from the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation, namely the spatially resolved probability density of an electron emitted from the QPC at the Fermi energy. In \fig{fig:beamprofiles}{}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figures/A/hardwall-vs-parabolic.pdf}
\caption{Beam profiles of electrons emitted from a QPC with hard-wall potential a), b) and a parabolic potential c), d) as defined in section \ref{sec:QPC potentials in the numerical simulations}. In a), c), the QPCs are set to the first conductance plateau. In b), d), the QPCs are set to the seventh conductance plateau. We include a sketch of the lens gate accounting for a widening of the lens potential of around $100$\,nm for the voltage at the focus point. Figure e) shows the extracted full width half maximum (FWHM) of the beams as a function of the position $x$ in the free region between the QPCs. The black dot denotes the lens aperture and position.
}
\label{fig:beamprofiles}
\end{figure}
we compare the beam profiles for the hard-wall versus parabolic potential. The beam profiles of the hard-wall potential have a wider wist and smaller divergence compared to the parabolic potential. This tendency is additionally presented in \fig{fig:beamprofiles}e by plotting the full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) of the respective beams as a function of the distance to the QPC.
\subsection{Magnetic deflection and electrostatic focusing properties}
In \fig{fig:hardwall_vs_parabola_TVLB}{}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/hardwall_vs_parabola_TVLB.pdf}
\caption{Simulated magnetic deflection transmission probabilities $T(\Phi_\text{L}, B)$ with finite electrostatic lens potential $\Phi_\text{L}$ for emitter and detector QPC set to $N = M = 7$ conducting channels with (a) hard-wall QPC potential model and (b) parabolic QPC potential model.}
\label{fig:hardwall_vs_parabola_TVLB}
\end{figure}
we compare the combined magnetic deflection with electrostatic focusing, namely the transmission probabilty through the two QPCs for $B\ne0$ and $\vl\ne0$, assuming a hard-wall (panel a) versus parabolic QPC (b) potential for $N = M = 7$. Both QPC models show electrostatic focusing. The main differences between the two models is that the parabolic QPC potential exhibits a broader transmission profile at vanishing lens potential and a reduced transmission at the focal point. Both differences are caused by the larger divergence of the parabolic QPC potential. The larger divergence of the QPC potential implies that not all electrons can be captured by the lens, cf.\ \fig{fig:beamprofiles}{}, and therefore a reduced transmission at the focal point.
From our experimental data we concluded that all electrons are captured by the lens, in contradiction to the beam profile of the parabolic QPC potential. Furthermore, the measured magnetic field dependence of the transmission profile at $\vl=0$ is in better agreement with the predictions of the hard-wall model than those of the parabolic confinement model.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{figures/A/TB+DeltaTB_different_VL-ideal.pdf}
\caption{Calculated transmissions $T(B)$ and the corresponding first differences $\Delta T(B)= T_{N,M}(B)-T_{N-1,M}(B)$ for $1\le N\le7$ and $M=7$ assuming a perfect lens potential without dip and QPCs perfectly alligned along the lens` principle axis. The focus point is varied from
(a,d) behind the detector at $\vl=-0.47$\,V ($\Phi_\text L\simeq0.25\ef$),
(b,e) on the detector at $\vl=-0.64$\,V ($\Phi_\text L\simeq0.50\ef$) and
(c,f) between emitter and detector at $\vl=-0.85$\,V ($\Phi_\text L\simeq0.75\ef$).
}
\label{fig:TB-different-VL-ideal}
\end{figure*}
\section{Lateral mode structure near focal point}
Figures 3(a) and\ 3(b) of the main article display the measured vs.\ calculated transmission through both QPCs in series with $N=M=7$ as a function of $B$ and the lens gate voltage \vl. Modulations as a function of $B$ (vertical cuts, constant \vl) can be interpreted in terms of the lateral mode structure in the current profile emitted from a QPC. For $\vl=0$ we find strong modulations as a function of $B$, see also Fig.\ 2(a) of the main article. For $\vl=-0.64\,$V the emitted current is focused on the detector QPC and the modulation in $B$ almost completely disappears. As we tune \vl\ from $0$ via the focus condition to $\vl<-0.64\,$V the focal point moves from behind the detector onto the detector and finally in front of the detector. Hence, for $\vl<-0.64\,$V we see again a modulation in $B$.
For clarity we have also calculated this transition for the case of $1\le N\le7$ and $M=7$, for the same conditions as for Figs.\ 2(b) and 2(c) of the main article. In \fig{fig:TB-different-VL-ideal}{} we display $T(B)$ for three values of \vl, namely $\vl>-0.64\,$V in panel (a), $\vl=-0.64\,$V in (b) $\vl<-0.64\,$V in (c) and then the corresponding first differences $\Delta T = T_{N,M}-T_{N-1,M}$ in the line below. Here we assumed a perfect lens without dip and perfectly aligned QPCs. Clearly the mode structure is almost gone under focusing condition for $\vl=-0.64\,$V. The qualitative differences between the modulation in $T(B)$ on the two sides of the focal point, i.e., for $\vl>-0.64\,$V vs.\ $\vl<-0.64\,$V are a consequence of the lateral coherence of the ballistic electron beam. This interference effect is sensitive to the detailed electrostatic potential landscape of the lens which, in turn, depends on \vl.
In \fig{fig:TB-different-VL-real}{}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{figures/A/TB+DeltaTB_different_VL-real.pdf}
\caption{Calculations at same conditions as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:TB-different-VL-ideal} beside that we include the electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist and the slight lateral misalignment of the QPC positions discussed with the focus point being
(a,d) behind the detector at $\vl=-0.47$\,V ($\Phi_\text L\simeq0.25\ef$),
(b,e) on the detector at $\vl=-0.64$\,V ($\Phi_\text L\simeq0.50\ef$) and
(c,f) between emitter and detector at $\vl=-0.85$\,V ($\Phi_\text L\simeq0.75\ef$).
}
\label{fig:TB-different-VL-real}
\end{figure*}
we present the same calculations, but this time including our geometric imperfections, i.e., the electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist and the slight lateral shifts of the QPCs discussed in all detail below. As a result, the symmetry in $B$ is broken and details of $T(B)$ are modified. However, we still observe the same qualitative focusing effect at $\vl=-0.64\,$V.
\section{Measurement conditions and sample properties}\label{sec:conditions}
\subsection{Experimental setup}
The presented experimental data are all direct current (dc) measurements using the current amplifiers model 1211 of DL Instruments. As voltage sources for the gates and the source-drain voltage we used the model 7651 of Yokogawa.
All measurements presented in the main article or the appendix were performed in a helium-3 evaporation cryostat and, if not stated otherwise, at a temperature of $T_\text B\simeq250\,$mK. For the presented data we applied a source-drain voltage of $V=-1\,$mV across the emitter QPC unless stated otherwise. Control measurements with $V=-0.1\,$mV at $T_\text B\simeq250\,$mK result in almost identical curves. Measurements with the temperature raised to 4\,K or more cause a broadening of the steps between conductance plateaus of the QPC pinch-off curves and, related, a broadening of the oscillations in $I(B,\vl)$.
We parameterize our experimental curves in terms of the mode numbers $N$ of QPC$_1$ and $M$ of QPC$_2$, which define the quantized conductance plateaus via $N,M=G_{1,2}/G_\text Q$ and $G_\text Q=2e^2/h$. If not stated otherwise, we adjust the applied gate voltages such that the QPCs are tuned close to the centers of the respective conductance plateaus. The measurement in Section~\ref{sec:measurement_QPCeigenmodes} demonstrates that this approach is viable.
\subsection{Inhomogeneous lens potential}\label{sec:lens_dip}
Our lens shows abberation. The main reason is a dip of the electrostatic potential located below the center of the lens gate. The potential dip is caused by strain below the lens gate which built up during cooldown due to the different thermal expansion coefficients of the metal gate and the (Al,Ga)As wafer. For the given lens geometry and its alignment in $\left<110\right>$-crystal direction the built-up strain generates a constant electric field via the piezoelectric effect. It gives rise to a symmetric potential dip along the lens (in the $y$-direction) which reflects the lens geometry. Comparison with literature confirms that the dip can lower the local electrostatic potential by a few meV \cite{Asbeck1984,Tanaka1997}. Experimentally we find a dip depth of $\Delta_\text{dip}\simeq4.2\,$meV, see the end of Section~\ref{sec:calibration}. This potential modulation is a general feature of on-chip electrostatic lenses on a piezoelectric material and should be taken into account for future lens designs.
\subsection{Misalignment of the nanostructures}\label{sec:nanostructure-shifts}
In \fig{fig:nanostructure-shifts}{a}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/A/nanostructure-shifts.pdf}
\caption{
(a) AFM image of the sample surface. Light color corresponds to the metal gates. Green bars depict the lateral shifts of the QPCs from the waist of the lens (dashed horizontal line) by $80$\,nm and $260$\,nm, respectively.
(b) Measured transmission $T(B,\vl)$ through both QPCs in series at $N=M=1$ at a source drain voltage $V=-1$mV.
(c) Calculated $T(B,\vl)$ for $N=M=1$ for the lateral misalignments measured in (a) including a electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist as discussed in section \ref{sec:lens_dip} .
(d) Calculated $T(B,\vl)$ for $N=M=1$ for a perfectly symmetric sample without electrostatic potential dip at the lens waist.
(e) Calculated $T(B=0,\vl)$ cuts for $N=M=1$ as in (b) but with varying dephasing length $l_\phi$.
}
\label{fig:nanostructure-shifts}
\end{figure}
we present an atomic force microscope (AFM) image of the sample. It reveals that both QPCs are shifted [downwards in \fig{fig:nanostructure-shifts}a] with respect to the lens waist, QPC$_1$ by $\simeq80$\,nm and QPC$_2$ by $\simeq260$\,nm (green bars). For the calculations we used slightly smaller shifts for a slightly better agreement with theory. As discussed in the main paper, a lateral misalignment of the two QPCs in respect to the lens breaks the symmetry and together with the electrostatic potential dip reduces the mode-to-mode coupling and the ballistic transmission through the two QPCs in series. The effect is strongest at small values of $N$ and $M$ because the lower modes emit narrower electron beams. In \fig{fig:nanostructure-shifts}{b} we present the measured serial transmission $T(B,\vl)$ for $N=M=1$. The transmission is small and asymmetric with respect to $B-B_0=0$.
An according numerical calculation in panel (c) qualitatively reproduces this behavior. For clarity, in panel (d) we also present the model prediction for a hypothetical sample with perfectly positioned QPCs and a lens without electrostatic potential dip.
\subsection{Influence of the quantum point contact eigenmodes} \label{sec:measurement_QPCeigenmodes}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/A2.pdf}
\caption{Measured detector current $I(\vl)$ at $B=B_0$ for the emitter (QPC$_1$) tuned to the center of the first plateau ($N=1$) at source-drain voltage $V=-1$\,mV while the detector (QPC$_2$) is tuned to various values between $M=1$ and $M=2$ by varying $V_2$. The detector configurations are indicated in the lower inset.
\label{fig:Lens-N=1_M=1,2-transition}}
\end{figure}
The lower inset of \fig{fig:Lens-N=1_M=1,2-transition}{} plots the detector pinch-off curve for $M\le2$. In the main figure we present the detector current, i.e., the current through both QPCs in series as a function of the lens gate voltage $V_\text L$ at $B=0$. The emitter QPC$_1$ is tuned to its first conductance plateau ($N=1$) while the detector is tuned to various points between $1\le M\le2$ as indicated in the inset. Traces $I(\vl)$ measured with the detector on one and the same plateau are almost identical even in small details. In contrast, we observe large variations between traces with different detector conductance. This result demonstrates that the current profile between the QPCs is directly related with the occupied eigenmodes of the QPCs. The latter stay unchanged as long as both QPCs remain on their respective plateaus. However, the mode structure and current profile rapidly change as soon as the conductance of one of the QPCs is changed.
\subsection{Influence of coherent electron dynamics}
\label{sec:origin_osc_TVl}
The traces $I(V_\text L)$ in \fig{fig:Lens-N=1_M=1,2-transition}{} display strong oscillations, which depend on the mode occupation of the QPCs, i.e., $N$ and $M$. They are stronger for smaller $N, M$, lower temperature and smaller source drain voltage $V$, indicating an origin in terms of coherent standing waves (i) between the two QPCs or (ii) between emitter or detector QPC and the lens. Furthermore, (iii) the presence of the electrostatic potential dip at the center of the lens causes diffraction of the electron beam resulting in a modulated transmission profile $T(V_\text{L}=0, B)$ as seen both in experiment, Figure \ref{fig:nanostructure-shifts} panel (b), and in the simulation Figure \ref{fig:nanostructure-shifts} panel (c) as bent stripes of local transmission maxima. Due to the asymmetry of the sample, this diffraction results in oscillations of the transmission along horizontal cuts of the transmission profile, e.g., for $B=0$.
As the interference pattern strongly depends even on slight disorder and the precise realization of the electrostatic potential, a one-to-one comparison with a numerical simulation is difficult. In order to qualitatively explain the oscillations in $I(V_\text L)$ in \fig{fig:Lens-N=1_M=1,2-transition}{}, we compare simulated $T(V_\text{L}, B=0)$ cuts with varying dephasing length $l_\phi = 0.5\,\mu$m, $l_\phi = 5\,\mu$m and $l_\phi = \infty$ shown in \ref{fig:nanostructure-shifts} (e). The fast oscillations for small negative lens voltages $\vl > - 0.6$V are consistent with an interpretation in terms of standing waves between the two QPCs as they are strong for a dephasing length much larger than the distance between the QPCs $l_\phi = \infty$ while they are averaged out for a dephasing length $l_\phi\le 5\,\mu$m of the order of the distance between the QPCs. The oscillations at large negative lens voltages $\vl < - 0.6$V can originate both from (ii) coherent standing waves between the QPC and the lens and (iii) the lens voltage tuning the diffraction pattern through the $B=0$ cut. The former exist only if the lens voltage $\vl$ is negative enough such that electrons approaching a sufficiently smooth electrostatic potential $\Phi (\vl)$ are reflected if their forward momentum is smaller than $\sqrt{2 m^* ( E_\text{F}^0 - \Phi_\text{L})}$.
As the experiment was conducted at $T=250\,$mK with a source drain voltage of $-1\,$mV corresponding to a dephasing length of $0.5\,\mu$m, oscillating current contributions due to standing waves between lens and the QPCs are averaged out. Thus, the simulation supports the conclusion that the large oscillations in the experimental data at $\vl < -0.6\,$V of Fig. \ref{fig:Lens-N=1_M=1,2-transition} are caused by (iii) the tuning of the diffraction pattern through the $B=0$ cut. This conclusion is in agreement with the measured and simulated $T(\vl,B)$ profile for emitter and detector plateaus $N=M=1$ in Fig. \ref{fig:nanostructure-shifts} (b) and (c), respectively. Note, that the simulated $T(\vl,B)$ profile in a symmetric geometry without electrostatic potential dip at lens waist does not exhibit these oscillations.
\subsection{Current density modulation due to the piezoelectric potential dip}
To further demonstrate the impact of the piezoelectric potential dip at the lens waist, we calculate the current density emitted from a hard-wall QPC for $N=1$ and $N=7$ in the presence of the electrostatic potential dip but an otherwise flat potential. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:beamprofiles_dip}.
{\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/A/beamprofiles.pdf}
\caption{Current density emitted from the hard-wall QPC (a) at $N=1$ and (b) at $N=7$ accounting for the piezoelectric potential dip at the lens waist but an otherwise flat potential. We sketch the edge of the lens gate for comparison.}
\label{fig:beamprofiles_dip}
\end{figure}}
For $N=1$ the calculated current density emitted from the QPC is a gaussian beam. Scattering off the dip gives rise to a diffraction pattern in the current density.
Signatures of this diffraction pattern are visible both in the experimental and theoretical current profiles $T(\vl, B)$, c.f.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig:nanostructure-shifts}(b) and (a), as oscillating current maxima for fixed $\vl$, in particular for lens gate voltages above the focal point.
Comparison to the calculated current density and current profiles $T(\vl, B)$ in the absence of the potential dip, c.f.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig:beamprofiles}(a) and Fig. \ref{fig:nanostructure-shifts}(d), respectively, shows that the observed oscillations discussed here are indeed a signature of diffraction from the potential dip.
For $N=7$, the current density emitted from the QPC is a superposition of all seven QPC modes. As electrons emitted in different modes are uncorrelated, the diffraction pattern due to scattering off the dip averages out details of the individual modes and is much less pronounced compared to $N=1$.
The main consequence of the presence of the dip is a reduction of the current along the principal axis (besides for a small distance, where the current density at the principal axis is enhanced). In particular, the maxima at $B\simeq\pm15\,$mT of our measured $I(B)$ data at $\vl = 0$, c.f.\ Fig.\ 2(a) of the main paper or Fig.\ \ref{fig:I(B)_det-M=7_em-N=1,...,7}, can be explained with scattering off the electrostatic potential dip.
In comparison, the calculations without potential dip, c.f.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig:beamprofiles}(b) and \fig{fig:QM_vs_Classical}{}, respectively, does not show pronounced maxima at $B\simeq\pm15$\,mT but instead displays a current maximum at $B=0$.
A direct comparison between our experimental current profiles $I(B)$ at $\vl = 0$, c.f.\ Fig.\ 2(a) in the main paper, and the calculations without the electrostatic potential dip, c.f.\ Fig.\ \ref{fig:QM_vs_Classical}, indicates that our experimental results are strongly influenced by the presence of the dip.
Finally, we wish to point out that the observed distribution of minima and maxima in the current differences $\Delta T$, shown in Figs.\ 2(b) and 2(c) of the main paper, is a clear signature of the mode structure of the QPCs. In our calculations we cannot model the observed pattern of oscillations for all $1\le N\le7$ based on scattering off the electrostatic dip. This argument still holds, even if we include disorder scattering assuming identical disorder potentials for all $N$.
\section{Lens calibration}\label{sec:calibration}
The variations between the dispersion relations of light with the momentum $\propto1/c$ and that of massive particles results in different refraction laws. The momentum of the relevant electrons is in our case proportional to its Fermi velocity \vf. In optics, the refractive index of a medium is defined as the ratio of the vacuum light speed $c$ to the phase velocity $c_\text m$ of light in the medium, $n_\text m=c/c_\text m$. In analogy, we define the relative refractive index of our electrostatic lens as $\nr=\vf^0/\vfl$, where $\vf^0$ is the Fermi velocity of electrons in the bulk 2DES away from the lens and \vfl\ its counterpart below the lens gate.
The focusing properties of a lens can be calculated by requiring a smooth transition between regions of different refractive index, i.e.\ that the component of the momentum in the plane of the interface of changing refractive index remains constant. Snell's law for light then reads
\begin{equation}
\text{for photons:\quad}n_\text m=\frac c{c_\text m}=\frac{\sin\delta_1}{\sin\delta_2}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\delta_1$ is the angles of incidence (in vacuum) and $\delta_2$ the angle of refraction (in the lens). In contrast for electron optics we find a different refraction law \cite{Spector1990,Sivan1990}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:snell}
\text{for electrons:\quad}\nr=\frac{\vf^0}{\vfl}=\sqrt{\frac{\ef^0}{\efl}}=\frac{\sin\delta_2}{\sin\delta_1}\,,
\end{equation}
where we introduced the kinetic energies $\ef^0$ and \efl\ in the bulk 2DES away from the lens and below the lens gate. As a consequence, to achieve focusing for $\nr>1$, an optical lens must be convex while an electrostatic lens must be concave.
Quantitative predictions of the focusing properties of our lens require a calibration of the electrostatic potential $\Phi_\text L=\ef^0-\efl$ induced by the lens gate as a function of the voltage \vl\ applied to it. Below, we compare two different methods to experimentally calibrate the lens. Comparison between the two methods reveals the dip of the lens potential discussed in Sec.\ \ref{sec:lens_dip} above.
\subsection{Landau-level lens calibration}
\label{sec:LL_calibration_lens}
A viable method to calibrate the height of a barrier is to measure the reflection of quantum-Hall edge-channels in a strong perpendicular magnetic field $B$. The edge channels are a consequence of the orbital quantization of the density of states of the 2DES in Landau levels (LLs) with quantum number $l=1, 2, 3, \dots$. Taking into account the Zeeman splitting each LL results in two spin-resolved energy levels quantized at
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LL-energies}
E_\pm(l)=\hbar\omegac\left(l-\frac12\right)\pm\frac12g\mu_\text BB\,,
\end{equation}
where $\omegac=eB/m^{*}$ is the cyclotron frequency, $e$ is the elementary charge, $m^\star=0.067m_0$ is the effective electron mass in GaAs with the free electron mass $m_0$, $g$ the Landee g-factor with $g\simeq-0.36$ in GaAs and $\mu_\text B$ the Bohr magneton. We indicate the corresponding spin polarized edge channels by their filling factor $\nu=1,2,3,\dots$ defined as $\nu=2 \ef^0 /\hbar\omegac$. For instance at $\nu=2.25$ the lowest two edge channels, corresponding to the lowest LL, are completely filled and one quarter of the states of (spin-up polarized) third level are also occupied.
In our calibration measurements we apply a constant $B$ such that the bulk 2DES (away from the gates) has an integer filling factor. By sweeping \vl\ we then gradually increase the lens barrier, hence decrease \efl\ and the filling factor beneath the lens gate $\nu_\text l$. Thereby, we detect the successive reflection of the individual edge channels at the barrier in terms of the corresponding resistance changes. In \fig{fig:LL-cal-setup}{a}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/A/LL-calibration-setup.pdf}
\caption{(a) Photograph of the sample. Six ohmic contacts (spotty meander structures) at the periphery are numbered consecutively. The 2DES containing mesa is surrounded by a thin black line. Golden metal gates are used to define the two QPCs while the lens gate is colored in green.
(b) Scanning electron micrograph of the central lens gate (green) on the GaAs surface (gray). Locations of ohmic contacts are indicated by the numbers.
(c) Sketch of current carrying edge channels connecting the ohmic contacts 1--6 in the quantized Hall regime at integer filling factor $\nul=2$ beneath the lens gate and $\nu=4$ elsewhere.
(d) Illustration of the reflection of edge channels. Edge channels corresponding to the red quantized energy levels (with $\nu=3, 4$) are reflected at the lens barrier if its height caused by applying a negative voltage $\vl>0$ to the lens gate fulfills $\Phi_\text L\ge\hbar\omegac$.
}
\label{fig:LL-cal-setup}
\end{figure}
we present an overview photograph of the wafer surface including bond pads and ohmic contacts in the periphery. The position of the ohmic contacts, labeled by numbers 1--6, in respect to the lens gate are also indicated in panels (b) and (c), which show an SEM image of the central part of the lens gate and a sketch of the quantum Hall measurement set-up, respectively. In panel (c) we assume the filling factor of $\nu=4$ in the bulk but $\nu_\text l=2$ below the lens gate, such that the third and the fourth edge channel (red) are reflected off the lens. As illustrated in \fig{fig:LL-cal-setup}d, this reflection occurs for $\efltilde<\nu_\text L/2\,\hbar\omegac=\hbar\omegac$. Here \efltilde\ denotes the maximum of $\efl(y)$ taking into account a possible dip of $\Phi_\text L(y)$ in the center of the lens. In our sketch \efltilde\ is centered in the gap between two LLs, such that below the lens gate [precisely at the minimum of $\Phi_\text L(y)$] all states corresponding to filling factors $\nu=1$ and 2 are occupied while states at higher energies, e.g.\ for $\nu=3$ and 4, are empty. Based on the Landauer-B\"uttiker approach \cite{Buettiker1988,Haug1988} we expect to find the longitudinal resistance measured between contacts 3 and 2 across the lens
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/calibration-pinchoffs-4T.pdf}
\caption{Longitudinal resistance $R_{32}(\vl)$ defined in \eq{eq:Rlong} in panel (a) and transverse resistance $R_{36}(\vl)$ defined in \eq{eq:Rtrans} in (b). Each curve has been measured at constant $B$ and fixed bulk filling factor $\nu$ with $V=-400\,$mV applied at a $1$M$\Omega$ series resistor causing an approximately constant current of $I\simeq400$\,nA flowing from contact 1 into the grounded contact 4. Horizontal lines indicate plateaus expected at filling factors $(\nu,\nul)$ according to \eq{eq:Rlong} in (a) and \eq{eq:Rtrans} in (b) [not all expected plateaus are shown]. Our calibration points in the centers of the open circles are at identical values of \vl\ in (a) and (b).
Top sketches: Four-terminal circuits of our Landau-level calibration measurements.
}
\label{fig:Calibration_Resistance}
\end{figure*}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rlong}
R_{32}=\frac{V_3-V_2}{I_{41}}=\frac he^2 \left(\frac 1\nu_\text L-\frac 1\nu\right)\,,
\end{equation}
while applying a constant current between contacts 1 and 4. Likewise, between contacts 3 and 6 we expect to measure the transversal resistance across the lens gate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rtrans}
R_{36}=\frac{V_3-V_6}{I_{41}}=\frac he^2 \frac 1\nu_\text L\,.
\end{equation}
For simplicity and without a considerable loss of accuracy we restrict the analysis of our calibration experiment to even filling factors $\nu$ and $\nu_\text L$ (and disregard features allocated to odd $\nu_\text L$). In \fig{fig:Calibration_Resistance}a we present the results of four terminal resistance measurements for the setups described by \eq{eq:Rtrans} and in panel (a) and according to \eq{eq:Rlong} in panel (b). Each curve has been measured at constant $B$ and bulk filling factors $\nu=4, 6, 8, 10, 12$ while decreasing the filling factor beneath the lens gate by sweeping \vl\ from 0 to the pinch-off point at $-1.2$\,V.
Instead of the expected monotonous steps between resistance plateaus we often find local resistance maxima. This phenomenon is related with an additional tunnel current between reflected edge channels via localized states below the thin barrier and has also been observed in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Haug1988}. Where our measurements are close enough to the expected resistance plateaus (at the resistance values indicated by horizontal lines) we choose the center of these plateaus as calibration points $\vl(\nul)$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LL-calibration}
\frac{\efltilde}{\ef^0}=\frac{\nu_\text L}{\nu}\,,
\end{equation}
see \fig{fig:LL-Calibration+pinchoff-determination}{a} for the final calibration result. As expected, the calibration points obtained in this way turn out to be almost identical for the two alternative methods presented in \fig{fig:Calibration_Resistance}{}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/LL-Calibration+pinchoff-determination}
\caption{(a) Calibration by edge channel reflection. Each point corresponds to a circle in Fig. \ref{fig:Calibration_Resistance}{} (same colors). Error bars correspond to the plateau widths in Fig. \ref{fig:Calibration_Resistance}{}.
(b) Solid black line: measured lens pinch-off curve at $B=0$ and no additional QPCs defined ($V_1=V_2=0$). The pinch-off voltage is $V^\text{p}_\text{L}\simeq-1.2$\,V. Dashed red line: calculated transmission through a (one-dimensional $250$\,nm wide parabolic) barrier fitted to the depletion onset of the lens’ pinch-off curve. It provides a rough estimate of the depletion voltage $V_\text{L}^\text{d}\simeq-1.02$\,V where the 2DES is depleted beneath wide gates, i.e.\ outside of the central dip.
Inset: For $\vl\lesssim V_\text{L}^\text{d}$ the measured pinch-off resembles quantized conductance steps pointing to a one-dimensional conducting channel through the central dip.
}
\label{fig:LL-Calibration+pinchoff-determination}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=2.0\columnwidth]{figures/A/Lens-vs-B.pdf}
\caption{(a) Calculated serial transmission $T(\efl,B)$ through two QPCs tuned to the 7th conductance plateau for a symmetric sample and a flat lens potential without potential dip. A dashed black line traces one of the main current maxima.
(b) $T(\efl,B)$ including the slight lateral shifts of the QPCs and the lens (cf. section \ref{sec:nanostructure-shifts}) and the potential dip at the lens waist. (c) Measured transmission $T(\vl,B)$. A dashed black line traces one of the main current maxima. A point-by-point scaling of the two lines in (a) and (c) results in the calibration $\efl(\vl)$.}
\label{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration}
\end{figure*}
The dependence $\efltilde(\vl)$ is a fingerprint of our heterostructure. The non-linear relation reveals a corresponding lens voltage dependent capacitance between the lens gate and the 2DES beneath. We conjecture that this behavior is related with a high-resistance conducting layer, a delta doped layer located between the wafer surface and the 2DES. Because the carrier density (and mobility) in this layer, too, depends on the gate voltage it causes a \vl-dependent screening between lens gate and 2DES.
In \fig{fig:LL-Calibration+pinchoff-determination}{b} we show (as a solid line) the pinch-off curve $G(\vl)$ of the lens gate measured at $B=0$. Related with the concave shape of the lens gate it develops a few quantized conductance steps at integer multiples of $G_\text Q$, emphasized in the inset. They indicate a potential dip at the center of the lens forming a weakly confined QPC. Such a dip can be explained in terms of the piezoelectric effect of GaAs which gives rise to a sizable inhomogeneous build-in electric field below the lens gate. The piezo-field is caused by strain in response to stress at the metal-semiconductor interface built up during cool-down because of the different thermal expansion coefficients of the materials. The detailed build-in field depends on the geometry and orientation (as the piezo tensor is anisotropic) of the lens but can alter the potential $\Phi_\text L\text (x,y)$ locally by up to several meV \cite{Asbeck1984,Tanaka1997}.
Our LL calibration measures the absolute minimum of the barrier height, reduced at the dip located at the center of the lens. However, the focusing properties of a lens are naturally predominantly determined by its curvature and potential further away from its very center.
\subsection{Self-consistent calibration}
\label{sec:self-consistent_calibration}
Our second calibration method is more suited to determine the lens potential away from its center. It relies on a self-consistent comparison of the measured focusing properties of the lens with our theoretical predictions. In \fig{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration}{} we present the transmission $T$ through both QPCs in series and tuned to their 7th conductance plateaus ($N=M=7$). In panel (c) we re-plot the measured data $T(B,\vl)$ already presented in Fig.\ 3(a) of the main article. Tracking and comparing the measured versus predicted current maxima as function of $B$ and \vl\ versus \efl, cf.\ dashed lines, provides the seeked relation for $\efl(\vl)$. This tracking procedure relies on identifying the absolute current maximum as a function of $B$. To demonstrate the feasibility of this procedure we present in \fig{fig:I(B)-VL-cuts}{}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/F5-28.pdf}
\caption{Measured detector current $I(B)$ for $N=M=7$ for three different values of \vl. The inset illustrates the three-terminal circuit.
\label{fig:I(B)-VL-cuts}}
\end{figure}
$I(B)$ for three different values of \vl, corresponding to three vertical cuts through Fig.\ 3(a) of the main article. The absolute current maximum moves from positive to negative values of $B$ as \vl\ is decreased. At $\vl=-0.64\,$V (red line) the current at $B-B_0=0$ is strongly enhanced, indicating electrostatic focusing.
Note, that the tracked current maximum for $N=M=7$ corresponds to a trajectory between the QPCs which does not touch the very center of the lens. This way we try to avoid the influence of the dip at the center of the lens for the present calibration. Consequently, in our calculations we assume a homogeneous (flat) lens potential $\Phi_L(\vl)=\ef^0-\efl(\vl)$ independent of $y$ but disregard the dip in the center of the lens.
In addition to tracking the current maximum, we use the following prominent points to adjust the quantitative calibration result: (i) at the focus point measured at $\vl=-0.64$\,V our calculation predicts $\efl=0.49\ef^0$; (ii) we assume that the lens gate (away from its center, where it has a dip) has a negligible effect on the local potential at $\vl=0$: $\Phi_\text L(\vl=0)=0$; and (iii) as discussed above we estimate the pinch-off point for the lens away from the center dip to occur at $\vl\simeq-1.02$\,V which leads to $\Phi_\text L(\vl\simeq-1.02$\,V$)=\ef^0$.
In \fig{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration+dip}{}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/selfconsistent-cal.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the two calibration methods, plotting $\Phi_\text L/\ef^0=1-1/\nr^2$. The blue solid line indicates the result of the self-consistent and the colored symbols that of the LL lens calibration. The dashed black line is parallel to the solid line but vertically shifted to fit the LL calibration points. The vertical shift corresponds to the dip depth $\Delta_\text{dip}$.
Top right inset: lateral lens potential with parabolic dip of width $W_\text{dip}$ and depth $\Delta_\text{dip}$ in its center. The lens potential $\Phi_\text L$, \efl\ and $\efltilde=\Delta_\text{dip}+\efl$ depend on \vl\ while the bulk Fermi energy $\ef^0$ is a material property. The corresponding dip curvature is $\omega_\text{dip}=1.06\times10^{12}$\,s$^{-1}$, its depth $\Delta_\text{dip}=4.2$\,meV and its width $W_\text{dip}=270$\,nm.
Bottom left inset: calculated quantum mechanical current density emitted from QPC$_1$ with $N=7$. The outer flanks of the beam miss the dip of the lens potential and are unaffected by it.
}
\label{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration+dip}
\end{figure}
we present the obtained relation as a solid line in comparison with our LL lens calibration (symbols).
Assuming in our calculations a flat lens potential $\Phi_L(\vl)=\ef^0-\efl(\vl)$ independent of $y$, we disregard the dip in the center of the lens. As such, the self-consistent calibration approximately averages the lens potential weighted by the actual lateral current distribution (in $y$-direction). For $N=M=7$ the lateral current distribution has two pronounced maxima away from the center of the lens, as visible, e.g., in the inset of \fig{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration+dip}{}. Underpinned by measured data, we argue that the current density is much smaller in the dip region, such that our second calibration mostly probes the lens potential away from its center.
\subsection{Determination of the inhomogeneous lens potential}
With our second calibration method we predominantly determined the lens properties away from its center, hence outside its potential dip, while with our first calibration method we measured precisely the minimum of the electrostatic lens potential. Hence, we interpret the difference between the two results as being the depth of the dip. In \fig{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration+dip}{} it is indicated as $\Delta_\text{dip}$. Our data are consistent with a constant $\Delta_\text{dip}(\vl)$, i.e., independent of \vl. This is expected if the electric field is generated by strain combined with the piezoelectric effect.
The pinch-off curve of the lens plotted in \fig{fig:LL-Calibration+pinchoff-determination}{b} provides additional information about the shape of the central potential dip. Using the LL lens calibration we determine from the step width between the two lowest quantized conductance plateaus the corresponding one-dimensional subband spacing: $\Delta E_{01}\simeq0.7$\,meV. For a rough estimation we assume a parabolic potential dip in $y$-direction, which is centered in an otherwise flat barrier:
\begin{align*}
\Phi_\text{dip}(y) &= \Phi_L(\vl)-\Delta_\text{dip}+\dfrac{1}{2}m^\star \omega_\text{dip}^2 y^2\, &\text{for }|y|<w_\text{dip}/2\\
\Phi_\text{dip}(y) &= \Phi_L(\vl)\, &\text{for }|y|\ge w_\text{dip}/2
\end{align*}
where $\omega_\text{dip}=\Delta E_{01}/\hbar$ is its curvature and $W_\text{dip}=2\hbar/\Delta E_{01}\sqrt{2\Delta_\text{dip}/m^\star}\simeq270$\,nm its width at $\Phi_\text{dip}(y)=\Phi_L(\vl)$, \fig{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration+dip}{}. The dip width is indicated by the central gray region of the lens gate in the inset of \fig{fig:selfconsistent-Calibration+dip}{}. It is small enough to corroborate our assumption that the dip has only little influence on our second calibration method.
In \fig{fig:Imp-vs-Imp+Dip}{}
{\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/dip-vs-nodip.pdf}
\caption{Blue dots: measured magnetic-field dependent transmission through both QPCs at $N=1,M=7$, $T_{N=1,M=7}(B)$. Lines are calculated $T_{N=1,M=7}(B)$. Dashed magenta line: for a flat 2DES (without dip) and perfect alignment of the QPCs. Dashed gray line: including the potential dip for perfectly aligned QPCs. Black solid line: including both the potential dip and the misalignment of the QPCs with respect to the lens.
}
\label{fig:Imp-vs-Imp+Dip}
\end{figure}}
we visualize the effect of the lateral misalignment of the QPCs with the lens as well as the potential dip in the center of the lens. The figure plots magnetic deflection data measured at $N=1$ and $M=7$ in comparison to our model prediction for the case of (i) perfect symmetry and no potential dip (pink dashed), (ii) perfect symmetry but the potential dip included (gray dashed), and (iii) QPCs simulated at their actual laterally shifted positions and potential dip included (black solid line). The dip splits the current peak centered at $B-B_0=0$ in two while the symmetry is preserved. The misalignment of the QPCs breaks the symmetry, in addition. The remaining deviations between model and measurement can be interpreted as our incomplete knowledge of the detailed electrostatic potential landscape.
\section{Circuit characterization -- diffusive transport contributions}
\label{sec:circuit-charaterization}
The focus of our main article is on ballistic transport phenomena in the coherent transport regime. However, the ohmic resistances of the electrical leads inevitably cause diffusive carrier transport as well. We therefore need a clean separation between the ballistic and diffusive contributions to the current $I=\ibal+\idif$. In this section we demonstrate how we achieve such a separation.
Both, $\ibal$ and $\idif$ can be directly determined from our magnetic deflection measurements as displayed in Fig.\ 2(a) of the main article. In \fig{fig:side_resistance-sketch}a
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/A/side_resistance-sketch}
\caption{(a) Measured detector current $I_{N,N}(B)$ flowing through QPC$_2$ for the source-drain voltage of $V=-1\,$mV applied to the emitter, QPC$_1$. The region in between the QPCs is connected to ground. No lens is defined, $\vl=0$. The data correspond to one data set shown in Figure 2(a) of the main article but without artificial offsets. Both QPCs are tuned to the $N$th conductance plateau, respectively. (b) Inset: Simplified circuit diagram assuming diffusive transport. $R$ are the almost identical ohmic resistances of the leads, $G_{1,2}$ the tunable conductances of the QPCs’, $V$ the applied source-drain voltage and $V_0$ the input offset voltage of the current amplifier. Emitter, side and detector currents are labeled as $I_\text{em}$, $I_\text{side}$ and $I$ [corresponding to $I_{N,N}$ in (a)]. Black squares: Diffusive contribution of the detector current $\idif/NG_Q(N)$. \idif\ is the average value of $I_{N,N}$ within the magnetic field regions shaded in gray in panel (a). The red line is a linear least squares fit to the data. Using \eq{eq:Ioffapprox} it allows to extract the lead resistance $R=150\pm 7\,\Omega$ as well as the amplifier offset voltage $V_0=-2.8\pm0.6\,\mu$V.
}
\label{fig:side_resistance-sketch}
\end{figure}
we plot one of the sets of these $I(B)$ measurements for $N=M$. However, in contrast to the main article we plot the raw data without artificial offsets between the curves. There is no lens defined between the QPCs as $\vl=0$. At high enough magnetic fields, here for $|B-B_0|>35$\,mT, the cyclotron diameter of the ballistic electron orbits becomes smaller than the distance between the two QPCs, $2R_\text c=m^\star\vf/|e(B-B_0)|< l/2=2.3\,\mu$m, such that ballistic carriers emitted from one QPC can no longer reach the second QPC. This is the case in the regions shaded in gray in \fig{fig:side_resistance-sketch}a, hence, here the current still flowing through the detector QPC is diffusive (and independent of $B$). The diffusive current \idif\ is caused by the voltage drop across the detector, QPC$_2$. In the inset of \fig{fig:side_resistance-sketch}{b} we sketch a simplified circuit diagram of our setup which contains its ohmic resistances relevant in the diffusive transport regime. For simplicity we assume identical resistances, $R$, of all leads indicated in Fig.\ 1(a) of the main article as crossed squares. Note that independent characterization measurements of the sample with all gates grounded, i.e.\ no QPCs and no lens defined, yielded indeed approximately identical lead resistances of $R=144.2\pm 0.5\,\Omega$ for the six leads of the sample. These resistances are dominated by that of the ohmic contacts. $1/G_1$ and $1/G_2$ are the tunable resistances of the two QPCs, $V_0$ is the input offset voltage of the current amplifier and $V$ the applied source-drain voltage. Using Kirchhoff's circuit laws with the QPC conductances $G_1=G_2=NG_Q$ we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ioff}
\dfrac{\idif}{NG_Q}=\dfrac{XV-\left(5X+4\right)V_0}{6X^2+10X+4}\,;\quad X\equiv NG_Q R
\end{equation}
Since we are interested in $N\le7$ we find $NG_Q R<0.08\ll1$ and can approximate \eq{eq:Ioff} in first order with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ioffapprox}
\dfrac{\idif}{NG_Q}\simeq -V_0+\dfrac{V+5V_0}{4}NG_Q R
\end{equation}
In \fig{fig:side_resistance-sketch}{b} we present $\idif/(NG_Q)$ as a function of the mode number $N$ of the two QPCs using $V=-1$\,mV. The solid line is a linear fit which confirms \eq{eq:Ioffapprox}. The fit parameters are $V_0=(-2.8\pm 0.6)\,\mu$V and $R=(150\pm 7)\,\Omega$, in good agreement with our preliminary characterization measurements.
To determine the conductance of the QPCs plotted in the pinch-off curves in Fig.\ 1(b) of the main article we likewise take into account the lead resistance $R$ by using
\begin{equation}
G=\left(\dfrac VI-2R\right)^{-1}\,,
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the voltage applied across the QPC in a two-terminal measurement and $I$ the corresponding measured current flowing through the QPC and its leads in series. The actual value of the lead resistance is thereby taken as a fit-parameter for each individual setup (depending on which leads are left floating and which QPC is being measured) to account for small variations in the resistances of the various leads.
We close this section by recalling our definition of the transmission through both QPCs in series, $T_{N,M}=I_{N,M}^\text{ball}/(G_\text Q V)$ with $G_\text Q=2e^2/h$. For $N=M$ we write $T_{N,N}=I_{N,N}^\text{ball}/(G_\text Q V)$. Note, that we thereby subtract the diffusive current, $\ibal=I-\idif$, such that we compare only the contribution of electrons moving ballistically between emitter and detector. The transmission defined in terms of the ballistic current can therefore directly be compared with our model calculations.
\section{Further measurements}
\subsection{Magnetic deflection measurements}
For completeness we plot in \fig{fig:T_N_M=7}{a}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figures/A/T_N_M=7-data.pdf}
\caption{
(a) Current through two QPCs in series with the detector fixed at $M=7$ while the emitter is opened from $N=1$ to $N=7$ as a function of the perpendicular magnetic field, $I_{N,M=7}(B)$. Data are vertically shifted for clarity. (b) Measured transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M=7}=\left(I_{N,M=7}^\text{ball}-I_{N-1,M=7}^\text{ball}\right)/\left(G_\text QV\right)$ (blue dots); model curves $\Delta T_{N,M=7}=\sum_{m=1}^7 t_{N,m}$ (dashed lines) and calculated $\Delta T_{N,M=7}$ taking into account the potential dip at the lens and the misalignment of the QPCs and lens (solid black lines).}
\label{fig:T_N_M=7}
\end{figure}
the raw data used for the transmission differences presented in Fig.\ 2(c) of the main article. The detector QPC is fixed at $M=7$ while we vary the emitter conductance between plateaus $1\le N\le7$.
In \fig{fig:T_N_M=7}{b} we plot the corresponding measured transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M=7}=\left(I_{N,M=7}^\text{ball}-I_{N-1,M=7}^\text{ball}\right)/\left(G_\text QV\right)$ (blue dots, gray dots correspond to reversed current direction, cf. main article). Additionally, we show the corresponding calculated transmission differences $\Delta T_{N,M=7}=\sum_{m=1}^7 t_{N,m}$ with the pairwise transmission coefficients $t_{n,m}(B)$ as defined in the main article and $n=N$. We present the model curves for assuming a perfect (flat) 2DES (dashed magenta lines) and for the case of including the piezoelectric potential dip of the lens as well as the lateral misalignment of the QPCs (solid black lines) as discussed in Sections \ref{sec:self-consistent_calibration} and \ref{sec:nanostructure-shifts}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/F5-13a.pdf}
\caption{Measured detector current $I(B)=\idif+\ibal(B)$ with the detector tuned to $M=7$ while the emitter is opened from $N=1$ to $N=7$.
(a) Diffusive current contribution $\idif$ (symbols). The line is a model curve according to \eq{eq:diffusive_current} using the lead resistance $R=150\,\Omega$, determined in Sec.\ \ref{sec:circuit-charaterization} and the fit parameter $V_0=-1.07\,\mu$V.
(b) Ballistic current $\ibal(B)$. The inset sketches the three-terminal measurement circuit.
\label{fig:I(B)_det-M=7_em-N=1,...,7}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/F5-14a.pdf}
\caption{Measured detector current $I(B)=\idif+\ibal(B)$ with the detector (QPC$_2$) opened from $M=1$ to $M=7$ while the emitter (QPC$_1$) remains at $N=3$.
(a) Diffusive current contribution $\idif$ (symbols). The line is a model curve according to \eq{eq:diffusive_current} using the lead resistance $R=150\,\Omega$, determined in Sec.\ \ref{sec:circuit-charaterization} and the fit parameter $V_0=-5.96\,\mu$V.
(b) Ballistic current $\ibal(B)$. The inset sketches the three-terminal measurement circuit.
\label{fig:I(B)_em-N=3_det-M=1,...,7}}
\end{figure}
In \fig{fig:I(B)_det-M=7_em-N=1,...,7}{b} we replot the blue data set shown \fig{fig:T_N_M=7}{} after subtracting the diffusive current contribution, following the procedure introduced in Sec.\ \ref{sec:circuit-charaterization}, which we plot in \fig{fig:I(B)_det-M=7_em-N=1,...,7}{a} as a function of $N=G_\text{emitter}/G_Q$. In this measurement $\vl=0$, while we apply the voltage $V=-1$\,mV across the emitter QPC with the intermediate region being grounded, see inset in panel (b). Generalizing \eq{eq:Ioff} for the case of $N\ne M$ and for $G_1=NG_Q$ being the emitter and $G_2=MG_Q$ the detector conductance we can predict the diffusive current contribution from Kirchhoff's law for the circuit sketched in \fig{fig:side_resistance-sketch}b to be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diffusive_current}
\idif=G_Q M\dfrac{VRG_Q N-V_0\left(5RG_Q N+4\right)}{6(RG_Q)^2NM+5RG_Q(N+M)+4}
\end{equation}
where $R=150\,\Omega$ was determined in Sec.\ \ref{sec:circuit-charaterization}, while the offset voltage of the current amplifier $V_0$ is again fit-parameter as it can slightly drift between measurements. The solid line in panel (a) is a model curve according to \eq{eq:diffusive_current} for $V_0=-1.07\mu$V. In panel (b) we present the ballistic current $\ibal(B)$. As expected $\ibal(B)$ increases with the emitter conductance, reflecting the mode structure of the system of coupled QPCs.
In \fig{fig:I(B)_em-N=3_det-M=1,...,7}{} we plot comparable data, but for the emitter (QPC$_1$) tuned to $N=3$ and the detector with varying conductance $1\le M\le7$. The solid line in panel (a) is a model curve according to \eq{eq:diffusive_current} for $V_0=-5.96\mu$V. The apparent differences between $\ibal(B)$ for fixed $M=7$ versus fixed $N=3$ can be explained in terms of different elements of the transmission matrix contributing to the ballistic current, cf.\ Sec.\ \ref{sec:matrices}. This, however, is beyond the scope of the present article.
\subsection{Electrostatic focusing experiments}
In \fig{fig:Lens-M=7,N=1,...,7}{a}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/F5-20b+norm.pdf}
\caption{(a) Measured detector current $I(\vl)$ at $B=B_0$ with the detector (QPC$_2$) tuned to $M=7$ while the emitter (QPC$_1$) is opened from $N=1$ to $N=7$ from the bottom to top. The inset sketches the three-terminal measurement circuit.
(b) Same data but normalized to $I_0=\left<I(\vl>-0.1)\right>$. Upper left inset: $I_0(N)$. Lower right inset: Maximum current enhancement compared to $I_0$ averaged over the shaded region -0.66\,V$<\vl<-0.62$\,V.
\label{fig:Lens-M=7,N=1,...,7}}
\end{figure}
we use QPC$_1$ as emitter and vary its conductance through $N=1\dots7$ while we use QPC$_2$ tuned to $M=7$ as detector. Here we plot the detector current $I(\vl)$ at $B=B_0$ instead of sweeping $B$ as above. In panel (b) we present the same data but normalized to the current near $\vl=0$, i.e.\ $I(\vl)/I_0$ with $I_0=\left<I(\vl>-0.1)\right>$. For completeness we also plot $I_0(N)$ in the upper left inset. In the lower right inset of panel (b) we instead display the current maximum $I_\text{max}/I_0$ averaged over the shaded region of \vl\ as a function of $N$. Besides strong fluctuations for $N\le3$, the ratio $I_\text{max}/I_0$ increases with $N$. This behavior demonstrates that focusing works better for larger $N$. We expect this trend, because (i) the dip in the center of the lens potential near the optical axis leads to additional scattering. For higher modes, the current density shifts more and more to the flanks of the Hermite-Gaussian beam such that most carriers avoid the dip and hit the outer parts of the lens.
In \fig{fig:I(B,VL)-em_N=2-det_M=7}{}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/F5-31.pdf}
\caption{Transmission $T(B,\vl)$ at $B=B_0$ with the detector (QPC$_2$) tuned to $M=7$ while the emitter (QPC$_1$) is tuned to $N=2$.
\label{fig:I(B,VL)-em_N=2-det_M=7}}
\end{figure}
we show a focusing experiment plotting $I(B,\vl)$ as in Fig.\ 3(a) of the main article but for $N=2$ and $M=7$ instead of $N=M=7$. The figure demonstrates that focusing works independently of the detailed mode structure of the QPCs. In particular, the focusing condition is still best fulfilled for $\vl=-0.64\,$V as the lens properties are independent of the current density profile.
\subsection{Possible influence of disorder between the two QPCs}
\label{sec:disorder-potential}
Disorder can influence the transport properties of mesoscopic devices even if the mean-free-path exceeds the device size by far. In this regime we expect small angle scattering, e.g.\ originated by charged defects such as the ionized donor atoms, to have a small influence on the quantum mechanical phase of the carrier dynamics. However, even a single hard-wall, i.e., large angle scatterer can alter the ballistic properties completely by reflecting carriers and thereby generating an uncontrolled standing waves pattern. Above, we have demonstrated that our experimental results can be explained by accounting for the existing geometric imperfections, in our case a slight misalignment of the QPCs, and an imperfect lens caused by a potential dip related with the piezoelectric effect.
To experimentally explore the influence of disorder, we performed the some of our measurements twice in separate runs. However, between the two runs we warmed the sample up to room temperature, illuminated it with daylight and than cooled it back down. Because this procedure affects many defects by excitation and diffusion, the potential landscape induced by defects should vary between the two runs. We present a typical result in \fig{fig:modestructure-different_runs}{},
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{figures/A/modestructure-different_runs}
\caption{Serial transmission $T(B)$ through both QPCs, tuned to $N=M=7$. Black dots: measured $T(B)$ in run I. Red triangles: same measurement after warming up, illuminating and cooling down the sample again (run II).}
\label{fig:modestructure-different_runs}
\end{figure}
which shows the measured transmission through both QPCs as a function of the magnetic field for $N=M=7$. The two curves are very similar with identical features for both runs. We conclude, that the traces $T(B)$ are not strongly influenced by disorder, at most by energetically stable defects which remained unchanged despite our resetting procedure. We tested this scenario and found, that we could describe our measurements using an alternative scenario, assuming a perfect sample (without misalignments and with a flat lens potential) but which contains a single hard-wall scatterer. To completely exclude the possibility of disorder related influences we had to repeat our measurements but using a perfect sample.
\subsection{Effect of a global topgate}
Finally, we study the effect of a global top gate, which covers the entire structure of interest including both QPCs and the lens gate. The top gate is electrically isolated and separate from the gates defining the QPCs and the lens by means of an approximately 130\,nm thick layer of cross-linked PMMA, see inset of \fig{fig:topgate-measurement}{}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{figures/A/additional_data/F5-33.pdf}
\caption{Measurements with a voltage $V_\text{T}$ applied to a global topgate which covers the entire structure of interest, i.e.\ the QPCs and the lens. The inset sketches the setup. The main panel shows the detector (QPC$_1$) current $I(\vl)$ at $B=B_0$ for $N=M=7$ for $V_\text{T}=+0.5$\,V (black line) versus $V_\text{T}=-2$\,V (red).
\label{fig:topgate-measurement}}
\end{figure}
By applying a voltage $V_\text{T}$ to the topgate, we can vary the carrier density, hence, the Fermi energy $\ef^0$ of the 2DES. In \fig{fig:topgate-measurement}{} we plot two curves $I(\vl)$ measured at different values of $V_\text{T}$. They display two clear differences: (i) a more negative $V_\text{T}$ causes a decreased carrier density. This can be seen in terms of a shift of the pinch-off point, in our case by $\simeq40\,$mV. If the lens were not affected by the top-gate voltage, the focus point should shift in the same direction and by the same amount along \vl. In contrast, (ii) the focus point is shifted in the opposite direction than the pinch-off point. It indicates, that in the plane of the 2DES the electric field distribution beneath the lens gate is influenced not only by \vl\ but also by $V_\text{T}$ (in particular along the edge of the lens gate). Because this field distribution defines the lens properties, it demonstrates that a global top gate can be used to fine tune the properties of an electrostatic lens.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction}
The energy output of active galactic nuclei (AGN) is thought to be dominated by the accretion of material onto a supermassive black hole (SMBH; \citealt{ShakuraSunyaev73}). Here, the accreting material forms a disc which is considered to be geometrically-thin and optically-thick with thermal emission from the inner regions peaking in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelength band. While dependent on the precise properties of the accretion flow, the UV emission arises from material typically located $\sim$10--1\,000 gravitational radii ($r_{\rm g} = GM/c^{2}$) from the SMBH. Now, while AGN are generally observed to emit light across the whole of the electromagnetic spectrum, both thermal and non-thermal components of emission make up the broad-band spectral energy distribution (SED). Of particular interest is emission in the X-ray band, where the X-rays are thought to arise from inverse-Compton scattering of thermal UV photons produced in the disc. This scattering is likely caused by a `corona' of electrons, which are believed to be hot ($T \sim 10^{9}$\,K) and optically-thin in nature. The corona is expected to lie close to the SMBH (perhaps within a few tens of $r_{\rm g}$; \citealt{HaardtMaraschi93}) and produces a power-law-like continuum of X-rays. The vast energy release from the accretion process is responsible for heating both the disc and the corona. In turn, via illumination, the disc can be further heated. However, as the fraction of released energy that heats the corona is not well known, it is not currently clear to what extent external or internal process dominate the heating of the disc.
One issue that arises when studying AGN with the current generation of observatories is that we are unable to directly resolve their innermost regions. This is because i) AGN are highly compact sources, and ii) we can only observe them at great distances. Nevertheless, we can use alternative methods to indirectly infer information about the dominant physical processes in these systems. Thus, we can improve our understanding of the structures and geometries that AGN are composed of. Of particular interest are variability studies. In principle, these powerful techniques enable us to map out the structure of the accretion flow, which is expected to have a stratified temperature structure with the hotter, UV-emitting regions closer in and the cooler, optically-emitting regions farther out. In many AGN, strongly variable UV emission is observed. On short timescales (e.g. $\sim$days-weeks), the UV emission is less variable than the emission in the X-ray band \citep{MushotzkyDonePounds93}. However, a correlation between the UV and X-ray variability may be expected if the respective emission regions are both modulated by the local accretion flow. Within this framework, two mechanisms in which the variability may be coupled are favoured in the literature --- (i) Compton up-scattering of UV photons to X-rays by the hot corona (e.g. \citealt{HaardtMaraschi91}), and (ii) thermal reprocessing of X-ray photons in the accretion disc \citep{GuilbertRees88}. In either case, the observed time delays are determined by the light-crossing time between the two respective emission sites. Meanwhile, on much longer timescales (i.e. $\gg$ months), high-amplitude variations are typically observed to be larger in the optical band than in the X-ray band (e.g. NGC\,5548: \citealt{Uttley03}; MR\,2251$-$178: \citealt{Arevalo08}). This is a strong sign that, on longer timescales, the optical emission drives the X-ray variations with propagating local accretion rate ($\dot{m}_{\rm acc}$) fluctuations serving as a strong candidate for this process.
In order to enhance our understanding of the connection between various emission components, we can analyze the correlated variable components of emission in distinct wavelength bands. Correlated variability on short timescales has been observed between the optical, UV and X-ray bands in a number of type-1 Seyfert galaxies. Examples include MR\,2251$-$178 \citep{Arevalo08}, Mrk\,79 \citep{Breedt09}, NGC\,3783 \citep{Arevalo09}, NGC\,4051 \citep{AlstonVaughanUttley13}, NGC\,5548 \citep{McHardy14, Edelson15} and Ark\,120 \citep{Lobban18}. The observed correlated variability is typically discussed within the framework of disc reprocessing, which could allow us to constrain the temperature structure of the disc and test predictive models, including the standard $\alpha$-disc model \citep{ShakuraSunyaev73}. In this context, primary X-rays, which are produced in the corona, illuminate the accretion disc and are reprocessed. This results in the production of UV and optical photons, whose production is delayed with respect to the X-rays. This additional portion of variable emission will have a time delay, $\tau$, which is governed by the light-crossing time between the respective emission sites. As such, large-amplitude X-ray variations may be expected to produce delayed emission, which is both wavelength-dependent and smaller in amplitude. These variable components of optical and UV emission will be superimposed on the more dominant fraction of optical/UV emission, which may be ``intrinsic'' (e.g. produced by internal viscous heating). However, on the timescales relevant to the disc reprocessing model, additional intrinsic emission is expected to be relatively constant.
In the case of a standard geometrically-thin, optically-thick accretion disc, the disc will be hotter at inner radii and cooler towards outer radii. The temperature will be dependent upon black hole mass ($\propto M_{\odot}^{-1/4}$) and Eddington ratio [$\propto (\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm Edd})^{1/4}$; see equation 3.20 of \citealt{Peterson97}] . Combining this with Wien's law ($\lambda_{\rm max} = 2.9 \times 10^{7}/T$) provides an estimate on the emission-weighted radius in a given wavelength band. Assuming that the time delays are then governed by the light-crossing time then yields the expected relation: $\tau \sim \lambda^{4/3}$ \citep{CackettHorneWinkler07}. Note that this relation is expected to hold whether the disc is heated internally or externally.
However, the predictions of the reprocessing scenario have been challenged by some recent results. Crucially, measured time lags have implied that the physical separations between emitting regions are larger than one might expect from considering standard accretion disc models (e.g. \citealt{CackettHorneWinkler07, Edelson15}). In essence, at any given radius, discs appear to be hotter than predicted in the \citet{ShakuraSunyaev73} case, and so to find the expected temperature, one must move out to larger radii, hence resulting in observing longer lags. For instance, in NGC\,5548, \citet{Edelson15} measure a disc size of $\sim$0.35 $\pm 0.05$\,light-days at 1\,367\,\AA\, which is significantly larger than expected from standard disc models. Similar results have also arisen from independent microlensing studies (Q\,2237$+$0305: \citealt{Mosquera13}) with suggestions that disc sizes are up to a factor of $\sim$4 larger than expected \citep{Morgan10}. Additionally, \citet{Jiang17} studied lags in a sample of 240 quasars in the Pan-STARRS Medium Deep Fields, also finding {\it g} to {\it r}-, {\it i}-, and {\it z}-band lags $\sim$2--3 times larger than predicted. This has led to suggestions by some authors (e.g. \citealt{GardnerDone17}) that the observed UV and optical lags do not, in fact, originate in the accretion disc itself. Instead, the suggestion is that they may arise from reprocessing of the far UV emission by optically-thick clouds via bound-free transitions in the inner broad line region (BLR) --- see \citet{KoristaGoad01}. The fact that bound-free UV continuum emission in the BLR is contributing to the observed lags is supported by the discovery of a marked excess in the 3\,000--4\,000\,\AA\ lag spectrum in NGC\,4395 \citep{Cackett18}. Alternatively, improvements in accretion disc models (e.g. inhomogeneous discs: \citealt{DexterAgol11} may also help to resolve these issues. Given the potential challenges posed to standard accretion theory by these multiwavelength campaigns, it is important to continue to characterise the accretion discs of a comprehensive sample of AGN covering a wide range of black hole masses, Eddington ratios and various other source parameters.
In this paper, we focus on Ark\,120, a nearby Seyfert galaxy ($z = 0.0327$; \citealt{OsterbrockPhillips77}). Assuming standard cosmological parameters (i.e. $H_{0} = 71$\,km\,s$^{-1}$; $\Omega_{\Delta} = 0.73$; $\Omega_{\rm M} = 0.27$), Ark\,120 resides at a distance of 142\,Mpc. Meanwhile, studies using the reverberation-mapping technique show that the mass of the central SMBH is $M_{\rm BH} = 1.5 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{8}$\,$M_{\odot}$ \citep{Peterson04}, which is relatively high in terms of reverberation-mapped AGN. Ark\,120 forms part of the subclass of AGN known as `bare' AGN and is the X-ray-brightest of its type ($F_{\rm 0.3-10\,keV} \sim 7 \times 10^{-11}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$). \citet{Vaughan04} analyzed high-resolution grating data using {\it XMM-Newton} \citep{Jansen01} and found that the column density, $N_{\rm H}$, of any line-of-sight warm absorber in Ark\,120 is a factor of 10 or more lower than in typical type-1 Seyfert galaxies (also see \citealt{Reeves16}). Therefore, Ark\,120 provides us with one of the clearest views of the regions closest to the central SMBH. However, we do note that in \citet{Reeves16}, our analysis of long-exposure, high signal-to-noise observations using high-resolution grating spectra with {\it XMM-Newton} and {\it Chandra} discovered a number of ionized emission lines in the soft X-ray band. We interpreted these as originating from an X-ray-emitting constituent of the optical-UV BLR on sub-pc scales and, as such, they are likely suggestive of significant columns of highly-ionized X-ray-emitting material existing outside of our line-of-sight. We also note that the prominent Fe\,K$\alpha$ emission line at 6.4\,keV --- which is resolved by the {\it Chandra} grating --- has a full-width at half-maximum of $4\,700^{+2\,700}_{-1\,500}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, consistent with originating in the BLR \citep{Nardini16}.
Ark\,120 is a source which is consistently bright at optical / UV / X-ray wavelengths (although we note a pronounced drop in the X-ray flux in 2013; \citealt{Matt14}), while displaying strong wavelength-dependent variability (e.g. \citealt{Gliozzi17}). In \citet{Lobban18}, we analyzed a $\sim$6-month monitoring campaign of Ark\,120 with the {\it Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory} (hereafter: {\it Swift}; \citealt{Gehrels04}). By analyzing cross-correlation functions (CCFs), we were able to detect a significant time delay between the X-ray emission and the {\it Swift} {\it U}-band (effective wavelength: 3\,465\,\AA). Using the interpolated correlation function (ICF) and Monte-Carlo simulations, we found a delay of $\tau = 2.4 \pm 1.8$\,days. This value is consistent with the expected radial separation of $\sim$300\,$r_{\rm g}$ between the two emission sites with a light-crossing time of $\sim$2\,light-days, assuming a standard $\alpha$-disc. Curiously, this raises the question of whether there is any contamination from the BLR continuum in this measurement --- and, if not, why not for this source? Here, we report on a new 50-day monitoring campaign of Ark\,120 using {\it Swift} and additional ground-based observations, primarily using the {\it Skynet Robotic Telescope Network}\footnote{\url{https://skynet.unc.edu/}}.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction} \label{sec:data_reduction}
Here, we describe the observations and subsequent data reduction.
\subsection{Swift} \label{sec:swift_data_reduction}
Ark\,120 was observed with {\it Swift} over a $\sim$50-day period from 2017-12-05 to 2018-01-24 (obsID: 00010379XXX). In total, {\it Swift} performed 45 observations on a roughly daily basis, each with an exposure typically $\sim$1\,ks in length. In this paper, data from two of {\it Swift}'s instruments are used: the X-ray Telescope (XRT; \citealt{Burrows05}) and the co-aligned Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT; \citealt{Roming05}).
\subsubsection{The XRT} \label{sec:swift_xrt}
Given the brightness of Ark\,120, all XRT data were acquired in ``windowed timing'' (WT) mode, providing 1-D imaging data at the orientation of the roll angle of the spacecraft. We used the online XRT ``products builder''\footnote{\url{http://swift.ac.uk/user_objects/}} \citep{EvansBeardmorePage09} to extract useful counts. The purpose of the products builder is to perform all necessary processing and calibration, accounting for additional systematics arising from uncertainties on the source position in WT mode\footnote{\url{http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_curves/docs.php\#systematics}}. The result is a series of spectra and light curves which have been calibrated and background-subtracted. Observational constraints mean that the target source is not always observable by {\it Swift}. Consequently, observations are occasionally split up into `snapshots' (i.e. with fractional exposure $= 1$)\footnote{Subsequently, an XRT `snapshot' refers to periods of time where the fractional exposure $= 1$. Meanwhile, the entirety of a {\it Swift} pointing is referred to as an `observation'.}. In our Ark\,120 monitoring campaign, we obtained 48 useful snapshots across the 45 XRT observations. 47 of our snapshots have exposure times $> 100$\,s. Across the full $\sim$50-day monitoring campaign, the total useful XRT exposure was 39.8\,ks, with a time-averaged corrected count rate of $0.98 \pm 0.01$\,ct\,s$^{-1}$ and a flux of $\sim$3.2 $\times 10^{-11}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ from 0.3--10\,keV. We also note that pile-up is not expected to be an issue given that the WT-mode observed count rate is $\ll 100$\,ct\,s$^{-1}$ (see \citealt{Romano06}).
\subsubsection{The UVOT} \label{sec:swift_uvot}
The UVOT provides simultaneous coverage in the UV/optical bands in a 17` $\times$ 17` field. The available wavelength range is possibly as wide as $\sim$1\,700--6\,500\,\AA. During each pointing, we acquired data with the V, B and UVW1 filters. Their peak effective wavelengths are 5\,468, 4\,329 and 2\,600\,\AA, respectively. Visual inspections of the UVOT images reveals that the observations were steady, totalling 37, 42 and 42 usable frames for the {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} filters, respectively. The total respective exposures are $\sim$4.4, 5.2 and 28.2\,ks, while the respective time-averaged corrected count rates are $30.98 \pm 0.12$ (mag $\sim$ 14.2)\footnote{Magnitudes are quoted using the Vega system.}, $62.06 \pm 0.15$ (mag $\sim$ 14.6) and $46.36 \pm 0.05$\,ct\,s$^{-1}$ (mag $\sim 13.3$). Source counts we extracted using the HEA\textsc{soft}\footnote{\url{http://heasarc.nasa.gov/lheasoft/}} (v.6.24) task \textsc{uvotsource}. This uses the latest version of the calibration database (\textsc{caldb}) to perform aperture photometry, correcting for scaled background subtraction, coincidence loss, etc. We used a 5\,arcsec source extraction radius. Meanwhile, background counts were extracted from a larger circular region in an area of blank sky separate from the source. As first pointed out by \citet{Edelson15}, `dropouts' occasionally occur in {\it Swift} UVOT light curves, likely arising from localized regions of low sensitivity on the detector (also see \citealt{Breeveld16}). The effect is more pronounced for the UV filters than the optical filters. \citet{Edelson19} provide a list of detector regions responsible for these dropouts. We cross-checked these detector regions with our source position for each observation and find that none of our {\it Swift} pointings is affected by dropouts in this campaign. The weighted mean flux densities in the three UVOT bands are found to be: {\it V} $= 8.01$\,mJy (weighted standard deviation, $\sigma = 0.25$\,mJy), {\it B} $= 5.80$\,mJy ($\sigma = 0.21$\,mJy), and {\it UVW1} $= 4.40$\,mJy ($\sigma = 0.19$\,mJy).
\subsection{Co-ordinated ground-based optical observations} \label{sec:ground-based}
Co-ordinated monitoring of Ark\,120 in the optical band was performed with several ground-based telescopes located on five continents. However, the majority of data were gathered with the {\it Skynet Robotic Telescope Network}. All telescopes we used are equipped with CCD detectors and sets of wide-band filters. Due to redundancy of the telescopes, we were able to secure observations almost daily, covering the period between 2017-12-06 and 2018-04-12 (the end of the 2017/18 observing season). Data were taken primarily with the {\it B} and {\it I} filters but, on a few nights, the target was also observed using the {\it V} and {\it R} filters. Using the Johnson-Cousins {\it UBVRI} photometric system, the effective central wavelengths for the {\it U}, {\it B}, {\it V}, {\it R}, and {\it I} filters are, respectively: 3\,656, 4\,353, 5\,477, 6\,349, and 8\,797\,\AA. We note that some data have been excluded from further analysis after their quality inspection. The details about the telescopes we used for this campaign are listed in Table~\ref{tab:ground-based_log}.
The calibration of raw images (i.e. bias, dark and flat-field correction) acquired with the
{\it Skynet} telescopes was done with the network pipeline software. Meanwhile, for those images acquired at other sites, this was performed using the \textsc{image reduction \& analysis facility} (IRAF)\footnote{\url{http://ast.noao.edu/data/software}}. We extracted magnitudes of stars using the \textsc{c-munipack} package\footnote{\url{http://c-munipack.sourceforge.net/}}. Differential photometry was performed with the aperture method by a single person (UP-S) to ensure uniformity in the results. The final differential photometry results were independently checked with the \textsc{phot} IRAF routine by
a second person (JK). We have used the same comparison (Ra: $05^{\rm{h}}16^{\rm{m}}13.9^{\rm{s}}$, Dec: $-00^{\circ}09{\arcmin}03{\arcsec}$) and control (TYC 4752-1081-1,
Ra: $05^{\rm{h}}16^{\rm{m}}26.231^{\rm{s}}$, Dec: $-00^{\circ}09{\arcmin}04{\farcs}79$)
stars for all observations. We chose the radius of apertures separately for images acquired with each telescope, based on the pixel scale of each individual instrument. Such an approach provided the same angular size, leading to the most reliable results. Finally, the {\it R}-band data acquired with the 1\,m telescope was reduced following standard procedures for image reduction, including bias, dark current and flat field corrections performed with IRAF. The images were also cosmic-ray corrected and astrometry was performed using the index files from \url{Astrometry.net} \citep{Lang10}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
\toprule
Observatory & Nights & Telescope & Filter(s) \\
\midrule
Astronomical Obs., & \multirow{2}{*}{2} & \multirow{2}{*}{50\,cm} & \multirow{2}{*}{{\it B},{\it I}} \\
Krak\'{o}w, Poland \\
Astronomical Station & \multirow{2}{*}{7} & \multirow{2}{*}{60\,cm} & \multirow{2}{*}{{\it B},{\it V},{\it R}.{\it I}} \\
Vidojevica, Serbia \\
Belogradchik, Bulgaria & 4 & 60\,cm & {\it B},{\it I} \\
Cerro Tololo Inter- & \multirow{2}{*}{53} & \multirow{2}{*}{PROMPT-5,6\&8} & \multirow{2}{*}{{\it B},{\it R},{\it I}} \\
American Obs., Chile \\
Dark Sky Obs., USA & 26 & DSO-14/17 & {\it B},{\it V},{\it R},{\it I} \\
ETP Observatories, Spain & 20 & 40\,cm & {\it V},{\it R},{\it I} \\
Meckering Obs., Australia & 51 & PROMPT-MO & {\it B},{\it I} \\
Mt. Suhora Obs., Poland & 16 & 60\,cm & {\it B},{\it I} \\
Northern Skies Obs., USA & 1 & NSO-17-CDK & {\it V},{\it R},{\it I} \\
Perth Obs., Australia & 5 & R-COP & {\it B},{\it V},{\it R},{\it I}\\
Weihai Obs. of & \multirow{2}{*}{20} & \multirow{2}{*}{100\,cm} & \multirow{2}{*}{{\it B},{\it I}} \\
Shandong Univ., China \\
Wise Obs., Izrael & 16 & 1\,m & {\it R} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{An observation log for our co-ordinated ground-based monitoring campaign of Ark\,120 detailing the name and location of the observatory, the number of observing nights, and the telescope and filters used.}
\label{tab:ground-based_log}
\end{table}
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
Here, we summarize the results of our Ark\,120 monitoring campaign.
\subsection{Light curves} \label{sec:lightcurves}
We begin by showing the light curves of Ark\,120. In Fig.~\ref{fig:swift_lcs}, we plot the four $\sim$50-day {\it Swift} light curves: broad-band 0.3--10\,keV XRT (black circles), UVOT {\it UVW1} (blue diamonds), UVOT {\it B} (green squares) and UVOT {\it V} (red crosses). We overlay each possible pair of light curves for visual comparison across six panels. It is clear that variability is detected in all four wavelength bands, with a pronounced drop in flux occurring around the middle of the observation and lasting for around 20 days before recovering at the end of the observation. Meanwhile, the X-rays appear to display stronger variability, with a hint of the onset of the drop in flux occurring in the X-ray band prior to the longer-wavelength bands.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=17.8cm]{2017_swift_lcs.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The overlaid light curves from the 2017 {\it Swift} campaign. Four bands are shown in total: the 0.3--10\,keV XRT band (black circles), the UVOT {\it UVW1} band (blue diamonds), the UVOT {\it B} band (green squares) and the UVOT {\it V} band (red crosses).}
\label{fig:swift_lcs}
\end{figure*}
We attempt to quantify the strength of the variability by computing the `excess variance', which accounts for the measurement uncertainties, which are expected to contribute to the total observed variance. This method of calculating the intrinsic source variance is explored in \citet{Nandra97}, \citet{Edelson02} and \citet{Vaughan03}. To summarize, the excess variance is calculated as: $\sigma^{2}_{\rm XS} = S^{2} - \overline{\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}}$. Here, $S^{2}$ represents the sample variance, and is defined as: $S^{2} = 1/(N-1)\sum^{N}_{i=1}(x_{i}-\overline{x})^{2}$, where $x_{i}$ is the observed measurement value, $\overline{x}$ is its arithmetic mean and $N$ is the total number of measurements. Meanwhile, $\overline{\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}}$ represents the mean square error and is defined as: $\overline{\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}} = (1/N)\sum^{N}_{i=1}\sigma^{2}_{{\rm err,}i}$, where $\sigma_{\rm err}$ is the measurement uncertainty. We can then use the excess variance to calculate the fractional root mean square variability: $F_{\rm var} = \sqrt{(\sigma^{2}_{\rm XS}/\overline{x}^{2})}$. This can be expressed as a per cent. A description of the method for estimating the uncertainty on $F_{\rm var}$ is given in appendix B of \citet{Vaughan03}. In the regime where the variability is well-detected (i.e. $S^{2} \gg \overline{\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}}$), this can be estimated as: $err(F_{\rm var}) \approx \sqrt{(\overline{\sigma^{2}_{\rm err}}/N)}\cdot(1/\overline{x})$.
Applying the above method to the broad-band 0.3--10\,keV XRT data allows us to estimate the fractional variability to be $F_{\rm var} = 29.4 \pm 1.3$\,per cent. Meanwhile, as expected, as we move towards longer wavelengths, the strength of the observed variability on the timescale probed here diminishes: UVOT {\it UVW1}: $F_{\rm var} = 3.8 \pm 0.3$\,per cent; UVOT {\it B}: $F_{\rm var} = 2.8 \pm 0.4$\,per cent; UVOT {\it V}: $F_{\rm var} = 1.8 \pm 0.5$\,per cent.
We briefly investigated the energy-dependence of the X-ray variability by splitting the XRT data into two separate bands: 0.3--1\,keV (a `soft' band) and 1--10\,keV (a `hard' band). While significant variability is detected in both bands, we find that the soft band displays slightly stronger variability, with $F_{\rm var} = 36.1 \pm 2.1$\,per cent, compared to $F_{\rm var} = 26.5 \pm 1.3$\,per cent in the hard band. This is likely due to variations in a prominent steep component of the soft excess (see \citealt{Lobban18, Porquet18}). We searched for a correlation between the two bands by plotting the observed count rates against one another, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xrt_hard_vs_soft}. The two bands appear to show a strong positive correlation, which we confirm by computing the Pearson correlation coefficient\footnote{The Pearson correlation coefficient is defined as: $r = [\sum_{i}(x_{i} - \overline{x})(y_{i} - \overline{y})] / [(\sqrt{\sum_{i}(x_{i} - \overline{x})^{2}})(\sqrt{\sum_{i}(y_{i} - \overline{y})^{2}})]$, where $x$ and $y$ refer to the values of the two datasets. The correlation coefficient takes a value between $r = -1$ and $r = +1$, where $-1$ implies a perfectly linear negative correlation, $+1$ implies a perfectly linear positive correlation and a value of $0$ implies zero correlation.}, $R = 0.796$ ($p$-value $< 10^{-5}$). We also fitted a straight line function to the data of the form: $S = aH + b$, where $S$ and $H$ refer to the soft and hard bands, respectively, $a$ is the slope and $b$ is the offset. We find a best-fitting slope of $a = 0.76 \pm 0.03$ with an offset of $b = -0.07 \pm 0.02$. Owing to the substantial scatter present in the data, however, the fit statistic is poor: $\chi^{2} = 327$ for $46$ degrees of freedom (d.o.f.). Given the strong correlation between the two bands, we proceed to use the entire 0.3--10\,keV XRT bandpass for the remainder of the paper.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{xrt_hard_vs_soft.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The `hard' X-ray count rate (1--10\,keV) plotted against the `soft' band rate (0.3--1\,keV) from the {\it Swift} XRT. The dashed grey line shows the line of best-fit with a best-fitting slope of $0.76 \pm 0.03$ and an offset of $-0.07 \pm 0.02$.}
\label{fig:xrt_hard_vs_soft}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:swift_flux-flux}, we plot the count rates from the {\it Swift} snapshots from all XRT and UVOT bandpasses against one another. Given the simultaneity of these measurements, these `flux-flux' plots effectively measure the correlation where the time delay approaches zero ($\tau \approx 0$; i.e. the offsets between the XRT and UVOT start/stop times are effectively zero in comparison to the sampling time). In Section ~\ref{sec:ccfs}, we then investigate the wavelength-dependent variability of the source as a function of time delay. The upper three panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:swift_flux-flux} plot the 0.3--10\,keV XRT data against the three UVOT light curves. A positive linear correlation is generally observed, although it is observed to be weak, likely due to the enhanced small-timescale variability observed in the X-ray band compared to the longer-wavelength bands observed by the UVOT. Again, we test the linearity of the correlation by fitting straight-line functions. To summarize: XRT vs {\it UVW1}: $r = 0.374$ ($p = 0.019$), $a = 2.42 \pm 0.49$, $b = 43.9 \pm 0.5$ ($\chi^{2}/{\rm d.o.f.} = 135/37$); XRT vs {\it B}: $r = 0.307$ ($p = 0.057$), $a = 2.27 \pm 0.75$, $b = 59.8 \pm 0.8$ ($\chi^{2}/{\rm d.o.f.} = 85/37$); XRT vs {\it V}: $r = 0.117$ ($p = 0.503$), $a = 0.40 \pm 0.50$, $b = 30.5 \pm 0.5$ ($\chi^{2}/{\rm d.o.f.} = 45/33$). These values are listed in Table~\ref{tab:flux-flux_results}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\toprule
Filters & $r$ & Slope & Offset & $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ \\
\midrule
XRT$_{\rm H}$ - XRT$_{\rm S}$ & $0.796$ & $0.76 \pm 0.03$ & $-0.07 \pm 0.02$ & $327/46$ \\
XRT - {\it UVW1} & $0.374$ & $2.42 \pm 0.49$ & $43.9 \pm 0.5$ & $135/37$ \\
XRT - {\it B} & $0.307$ & $2.27 \pm 0.75$ & $59.8 \pm 0.8$ & $85/37$ \\
XRT - {\it V} & $0.117$ & $0.40 \pm 0.50$ & $30.5 \pm 0.5$ & $45/33$ \\
{\it UVW1} - {\it B} & $0.880$ & $1.03 \pm 0.12$ & $14.3 \pm 5.4$ & $20/39$ \\
{\it UVW1} - {\it V} & $0.696$ & $0.38 \pm 0.08$ & $13.3 \pm 3.6$ & $24/35$ \\
{\it B} - {\it V} & $0.550$ & $0.28 \pm 0.07$ & $13.4 \pm 4.2$ & $31/35$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Table showing the results of linear fits to the `flux-flux' plots shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:swift_flux-flux}. The Pearson correlation coefficient is denoted by $r$, while XRT$_{\rm H}$ and XRT$_{\rm S}$ refer to the 1--10 and 0.3--1\,keV XRT bands, respectively. See Section~\ref{sec:lightcurves} for details.}
\label{tab:flux-flux_results}
\end{table}
Meanwhile, much tighter positive linear correlations are observed between the various UVOT bands. Again, to summarize (also see Table~\ref{tab:flux-flux_results}): {\it UVW1} vs {\it B}: $r = 0.880$ ($p < 10^{-5}$), $a = 1.03 \pm 0.12$, $b = 14.3 \pm 5.4$ ($\chi^{2}/{\rm d.o.f.} = 20/39$); {\it UVW1} vs {\it V}: $r = 0.696$ ($p < 10^{-5}$), $a = 0.38 \pm 0.08$, $b = 13.3 \pm 3.6$ ($\chi^{2}/{\rm d.o.f.} = 24/35$); {\it B} vs {\it V}: $r = 0.880$ ($p =4 \times 10^{-4}$), $a = 0.28 \pm 0.07$, $b = 13.4 \pm 4.2$ ($\chi^{2}/{\rm d.o.f.} = 31/35$). The tighter constraints and increased robustness of the correlations between the {\it UVW1}, {\it B} and {\it V} bands is likely a result of the lack of short-term variability observed at these longer-wavelength bands relative to the X-rays.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=17.8cm]{swift_flux-flux.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The count rates from the {\it Swift} XRT (0.3--10\,keV) and the three UVOT filters plotted against one another from each snapshot. A positive correlation is apparent in each case, with a time delay, $\tau \approx 0$. `H' and `S' refer to the harder (shorter wavelength) and softer (longer wavelength) bands, respectively.}
\label{fig:swift_flux-flux}
\end{figure*}
We now introduce the Ark\,120 data from our accompanying, overlapping ground-based monitoring programme. We acquired well-sampled data with a long baseline in two wavelength bands: {\it B} and {\it I}. The light curves are shown in Figs~\ref{fig:b_vs_uvot_lc} and~\ref{fig:i_vs_uvot_lc}. In both cases, we overlay the {\it Swift} UVOT light curves for a visual comparison. The ground-based {\it B}-band monitoring shows strong variability over the $\sim$96-day period with a measured fractional variability of $F_{\rm var} = 3.8 \pm 0.2$\,per cent. Unfortunately, the {\it B}-band monitoring campaign did not commence until $\sim$32 days after the start of the {\it Swift} campaign and, as such, only overlaps by $\sim$18 days. Nevertheless, the sharp dip in the light curve appears to be very well matched with the {\it Swift} {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} light curves. Meanwhile, the ground-based I-band light curve has a longer $\sim$129-day baseline, overlapping with the entirety of the {\it Swift} campaign. The {\it I}-band variability is suppressed somewhat compared to its {\it B}-band ground-based counterpart, with $F_{\rm var} = 1.1 \pm 0.1$\,per cent, although the variability in the light curve again appears to track the variations in the {\it Swift} wavelength bands. Finally, we also show the {\it R}- and {\it V}-band light curves in the lowermost panels of Figs~\ref{fig:b_vs_uvot_lc} and~\ref{fig:i_vs_uvot_lc}. However, we do not use these in the subsequent correlation analysis due to the sporadic nature of the sampling.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{2017_b_vs_uvot_r_vs_v_lc.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The ground-based {\it B}-band light curve overlaid on the three {\it Swift} UVOT light curves: {\it V} (red crosses), {\it B} (green squares) and {\it UVW1} (blue diamonds). Meanwhile, the lowermost panel shows the {\it R}-band light curve (cyan stars) superimposed on the {\it V}-band light curve (magenta triangles).}
\label{fig:b_vs_uvot_lc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{2017_i_vs_uvot_r_vs_v_lc.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The ground-based {\it I}-band light curve overlaid on the three {\it Swift} UVOT light curves: {\it V} (red crosses), {\it B} (green squares) and {\it UVW1} (blue diamonds). Meanwhile, the lowermost panel shows the {\it R}-band light curve (cyan stars) superimposed on the {\it V}-band light curve (magenta triangles).}
\label{fig:i_vs_uvot_lc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Cross-correlation functions} \label{sec:ccfs}
Having presented the light curves and quantified their variability, we now proceed to search for any long time delays between the emission between various wavelength bands. The standard method for estimating correlations between two time series is to compute the cross-correlation function (CCF; \citealt{BoxJenkins76}). In this generalized approach to linear correlation analysis, one measures correlation coefficients between two time series, allowing for a linear time shift between them. In essence, this provides a measure of the strength of the correlation, $r$, for a given shift in time, $\tau$. However, when computing the CCF, a primary requirement is that the two time series be evenly sampled in time. Such even sampling is often difficult to achieve in astronomy, and is not the case with our combined {\it Swift} and ground-based monitoring campaign. As such, we can approximate the CCF by turning to the discrete correlation function (DCF; \citealt{EdelsonKrolik88}). By using the DCF, we can measure the correlation between sets of data pairs ($x_{i}$, $y_{j}$), where each given pair has a time lag: $\Delta \tau_{ij} = t_{j} - t_{i}$ (where $t$ corresponds to the middle of the given time bin). Then, we collect the complete set of unbinned discrete correlations (with the lags associated with each pair):
\begin{equation} {\rm UDCF}_{ij} = \frac{(x_{i} - \overline{x})(y_{j} - \overline{y})}{\sqrt{(\sigma^{2}_{x} - e^{2}_{x})(\sigma^{2}_{y} - e^{2}_{y})}}, \label{eq:udcf} \end{equation}
where $e_{x}$ is the error on the measurement for any given data point in time series, $x$. We then bin this over the range: $\tau - \Delta \tau / 2 \leq \Delta \tau_{ij} < \tau + \Delta \tau / 2$ and, finally, average over the total number of pairs of measurements that fall within each bin:
\begin{equation} r({\rm DCF}_{ij}) = \frac{1}{M} {\rm UCDF}_{ij}. \label{eq:dcf} \end{equation}
Note that the arithmetic means and variances used in equation~\ref{eq:udcf} may be calculated either `globally' or `locally'. In the former case, one uses the mean and variance obtained from the entire population, whereas in the latter case, these are computed from only the data points contributing to that given lag bin. We have applied both methods to our analysis presented here, but find no significant difference in the results obtained. In the case of equation~\ref{eq:dcf}, we also note that the correlation coefficient, $r$, takes a value between $-1$ (implying a perfect negative correlation) and $+1$ (implying a perfect positive correlation). A value of $r = 0$ would signify that the data are completely uncorrelated.
We firstly focus on the {\it Swift} campaign. In the case of our CCF estimates presented here, we use the mean count rates from each stable UVOT exposure and available XRT (0.3--10\,keV) snapshot. We set the time value, $t$, at the mid-point of each exposure bin. Now, while the {\it Swift} campaign is $\sim$50 days in length, when moving towards longer lags, fewer data pairs are available to contribute to the DCF. As such, the certainty on the DCF estimates at longer lags becomes greatly reduced. Additionally, as discussed in \citet{Press78}, the presence of light curves affected by ``red-noise'' can significantly impact lag measurements typically greater than $\sim$1/3--1/2 of the total duration of the light curve. Consequently, we compute and show the DCFs over the range $-25 < \tau < +25$ days. We compute DCFs using time bin sizes of $\Delta \tau = 1$ and $\Delta \tau = 2$ days (although we only show the $\Delta \tau = 1$\,day DCFs in the plots for clarity). Note that $\Delta \tau = 1$\,day roughly equals the observed sampling rate of the {\it Swift} campaign. We also ensure that there are $> 25$ flux pairs per bin.
We begin by computing the DCFs between the X-rays and the three available UVOT bands; i.e. XRT vs {\it V}, XRT vs {\it B} and XRT vs {\it UVW1}. The 1-day DCFs ($\Delta \tau = 1$\,day) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xrt_vs_uvot_ccfs} (upper panel: black circles). Note that a positive lag indicates that the first wavelength band is leading the second wavelength band. In this instance, this means the shorter wavelength emission (i.e. X-rays) leading the emission at longer wavelengths.
The three time series are moderately positively correlated at zero lag ($\pm 0.5$\,days): XRT vs {\it V}: $r = 0.240 \pm 0.155$; XRT vs {\it B}: $r = 0.340 \pm 0.138$; XRT vs {\it UVW1}: $r = 0.418 \pm 0.130$. The DCFs appear to have a strong (and relatively broad) positive skew in all three cases, actually peaking in the $+\Delta\tau$ regime: XRT vs {\it V}: $\tau_{\rm peak} = 14 \pm 0.5$\,days ($r = 0.704 \pm 0.178$); XRT vs {\it B}: $\tau_{\rm peak} = 13 \pm 0.5$\,days ($r = 0.847 \pm 0.065$); XRT vs {\it UVW1}: $\tau_{\rm peak} = 12 \pm 0.5$\,days ($r = 0.846 \pm 0.103$). These DCF values are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:ccf}, along with the results of computing the DCF using $\Delta \tau = 2$\,days, which are consistent with the 1-day DCFs within the uncertainties. We did also estimate the DCF centroids, which we calculated from the mean of all data points with $r$ values falling within $0.8 \times r_{\rm peak}$. We performed a similar approach in \citet{Lobban18}; see also \citet{Gliozzi17}. For the XRT vs {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} cases, we find $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 13.25$, $10.73$ and $10.23$\,days for the $\Delta\tau = 1$\,day DCFs, respectively. Again, these are listed in Table~\ref{tab:ccf}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=17.8cm]{2017_xrt_vs_uvot_b_v_uvw1_dcf_icf_dist.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The estimated CCFs obtained using the {\it Swift} XRT and UVOT data. From left to right, we show the CCFs comparing the XRT vs {\it V}, XRT vs {\it B} and XRT vs {\it UVW1} light curves, respectively. Upper panels: the DCFs (black circles), where $\Delta \tau = 1$\,day, and the ICFs (red diamonds), where $\Delta \tau = 0.5$\,days. Lower panels: the distribution of the centroid peaks obtained from the ICF analysis for each of the three cases. The 90\,per cent confidence intervals (based on 10\,000 simulations) are shown by the dashed vertical red lines. See Section~\ref{sec:ccfs} for details.}
\label{fig:xrt_vs_uvot_ccfs}
\end{figure*}
In addition to calculating the DCF, we also used the interpolated correlation function (ICF; \citealt{GaskellSparke86,WhitePeterson94}). When computing the ICF, we perform linear interpolation between consecutive data points in the first light curve in such a way that we achieve regular sampling. Comparing the interpolated data points with the real values in the second light curve then allows us to measure the CCF for any arbitrary lag, $\tau$. We then perform the reverse process by interpolating over the second light curve and using those values with the real values from the first light curve. Finally, we average the results and calculate the linear correlation coefficient by:
\begin{equation} r({\rm ICF}_{ij}) = \frac{\sum^{N}_{i,j=1} (a_{i} - \overline{a})(b_{j} - \overline{b})}{\left(\sqrt{\sum^{N}_{i=1} (a_{i} - \overline{a})^{2}}\right)\left(\sqrt{\sum^{N}_{j=1} (b_{j} - \overline{b})^{2}}\right)}. \label{eq:icf_r} \end{equation}
We then repeat this process over a wide range of lags and find the value of $\tau$ for which $r$(ICF) is maximized. Here, we use time bins of width $\Delta \tau = 0.5$\,days as this is approximately half of the observed sampling rate in the {\it Swift} light curves. This is because a resolution / accuracy can be achieved that is greater than the typical sampling rate, assuming that the functions involved are relatively smooth, as appears to be the case in Ark\,120 (see \citealt{Peterson01}). We show the XRT vs UVOT ICFs in Fig.~\ref{fig:xrt_vs_uvot_ccfs} (upper panel: red diamonds), where it is clear that the 1-day DCFs and 0.5-day ICFs match up well.
Meanwhile, uncertainties on the ICF lags are estimated using the combined flux randomisation (`FR') and random subset selection (`RSS') methods, described in \citet{Peterson98}. The purpose of this method is to modify the data points making up the individual light curves and recalculating $r$(ICF) $N$ times (here, $N = 10\,000$) in order to build up a distribution of lag values. We use FR to randomly deviate each data point assuming a Gaussian distribution of the uncertainties on the count rate / flux ($\sigma_{a,b} = e_{a,b}$). Meanwhile, we use RSS to randomly draw data points from the light curves, reducing the sample size by a factor of up to $\sim$1$/e \approx 0.37$. This technique is similar to ``bootstrapping'' methods and is used to test for any sensitivity of the CCF to individual points in the light curve.
Based on our ICF results, the ICF peaks at $r = +0.734$ between the XRT and {\it V} bands, with a lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 10.20 \pm 10.81$\,days (centroid, $\tau_{\rm cent} = 11.90 \pm 7.33$\,days). Between the XRT and {\it B} bands, the peak correlation coefficient is $r = +0.799$, with a lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 10.59 \pm 5.62$\,days ($\tau_{\rm cent} = 10.80 \pm 4.08$\,days). Meanwhile, between the XRT and {\it UVW1} bands, we find $r = +0.825$, with a lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 10.36 \pm 5.64$\,days ($\tau_{\rm cent} = 10.60 \pm 2.87$\,days). We summarize these results in Table~\ref{tab:ccf}. In addition, Fig.~\ref{fig:xrt_vs_uvot_ccfs} (lower panel) also shows the distribution of the centroid of the peaks for each pair of wavelength bands, which we calculate using all the points whose values fall within $r > 0.8r_{\rm peak}$. Finally, we also show the 90\,per cent confidence intervals (based on our 10\,000 simulations) via the vertical dashed red lines. While the uncertainties on the peak lags / centroids are large, they do suggest a non-zero solution in all three cases, which is indicative of the shorter-wavelength emission (X-rays) systematically leading the longer-wavelength emission ({\it V}, {\it B}, {\it UVW1}). We note that, while the uncertainties on the peak time lag in the X-ray vs V case are so large that they are consistent with zero, we do find a positive non-zero solution for the lag centroid.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=17.8cm]{2017_uvot_dcf_icf_dist.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The estimated CCFs obtained using the {\it Swift} UVOT data. From left to right, we show the CCFs comparing the {\it UVW1} vs {\it V}, {\it UVW1} vs {\it B} and {\it B} vs {\it V} light curves, respectively. Upper panels: the DCFs (black circles), where $\Delta \tau = 1$\,day, and the ICFs (red diamonds), where $\Delta \tau = 0.5$\,days. Lower panels: the distribution of the centroid peaks obtained from the ICF analysis for each of the three cases. The 90\,per cent confidence intervals (based on 10\,000 simulations) are shown by the dashed vertical red lines. See Section~\ref{sec:ccfs} for details.}
\label{fig:uvot_ccfs}
\end{figure*}
Moving on from the X-rays, we also compute CCFs between the various {\it Swift} UVOT bands: {\it UVW1} vs {\it V}, {\it UVW1} vs {\it B} and {\it B} vs {\it V}. In all three cases, the light curves appear to be well-correlated at zero lag: $r = +0.698 \pm 0.136$, $r = +0.871 \pm 0.107$ and $r = +0.543 \pm 0.145$, respectively. In the first case ({\it UVW1} vs {\it V}), we find that the 1-day DCF peaks at $\tau_{\rm peak} = -1 \pm 0.5$\,days ($r = +0.712 \pm 0.139$), although the moderate positive skew leads to a centroid estimate of $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 1.67$\,days. Meanwhile, both the {\it UVW1} vs {\it B} and {\it B} vs {\it V} DCFs peak at $\tau_{\rm peak} = 0 \pm 0.5$\,days: $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 0.89$\,days and $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 3.67$\,days, respectively. The values are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ccf} and the DCFs are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:uvot_ccfs} (upper panels: black circles). We did also compute DCFs with $\Delta \tau = 2$\,days (see Table~\ref{tab:ccf}) - again, the results are consistent with those acquired using a 1-day bin width.
In terms of the ICFs (Fig.~\ref{fig:uvot_ccfs}; upper panels: red diamonds), we find a peak at $r = +0.742$ between the {\it UVW1} and {\it V} bands, with a lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = -1.23 \pm 8.40$\,days (centroid, $\tau_{\rm cent} = 0.27 \pm 5.97$\,days). Between the {\it UVW1} and {\it B} bands, the peak correlation coefficient is $r = +0.893$, with a lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 0.71 \pm 2.64$\,days ($\tau_{\rm cent} = 0.68 \pm 2.35$\,days). Meanwhile, between the {\it B} and {\it V} bands, we find $r = +0.656$, with a lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 1.26 \pm 8.66$\,days ($\tau_{\rm cent} = 0.49 \pm 7.54$\,days). We summarize these results in Table~\ref{tab:ccf}, while the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:uvot_ccfs} shows the distribution of the centroid of the peaks. It is clear that the peak lags between the various UVOT wavelength bands are all consistent with zero and so we do not detect any significant time lag.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=17.8cm]{2017_b_xrt_uvw1_vs_i_dcf_icf_dist.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{The estimated CCFs obtained using data from both ground-based telescopes and {\it Swift} in the cases where we detect a lag. From left to right, we show the CCFs comparing the ground-based {\it B}- vs {\it I}-band data, the {\it Swift} XRT vs {\it I}-band data, and the {\it Swift UVW1} vs ground-based {\it I}-band data, respectively. Upper panels: the DCFs (black circles), where $\Delta \tau = 1$\,day, and the ICFs (red diamonds), where $\Delta \tau = 0.5$\,days. Lower panels: the distribution of the centroid peaks obtained from the ICF analysis for each of the three cases. The 90\,per cent confidence intervals (based on 10\,000 simulations) are shown by the dashed vertical red lines. See Section~\ref{sec:ccfs} for details.}
\label{fig:b_xrt_uvw1_vs_i_ccfs}
\end{figure*}
Finally, we also compute CCFs utilizing data from the longer ground-based monitoring campaign. We firstly compare the {\it B}-band with the {\it I}-band. According to the DCF ($\Delta \tau = 1$\,day), the two bands are only weakly positively correlated at zero lag, with $r = +0.263 \pm 0.034$, with the peak lag occurring at $\tau_{\rm peak} = 2 \pm 0.5$\,days ($r = +0.598 \pm 0.031$), with an estimated peak centroid of $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 3$\,days. As with our other DCFs, these results are consistent with a DCF using $\Delta \tau = 2$\,days. The DCF is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:b_xrt_uvw1_vs_i_ccfs} (upper-left panel: black circles) and the results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ccf}. Moving on to the ICF, we find a peak correlation coefficient of $r = +0.647$, corresponding to a peak lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 4.17 \pm 4.11$\,days, with a peak centroid of $\tau_{\rm cent} = 3.46 \pm 0.86$\,days. The ICF is shown in the upper-left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:b_xrt_uvw1_vs_i_ccfs} (red diamonds), while the peak centroid distribution is shown in the lower-left panel. These ICF results suggest a detection of a positive lag with the shorter-wavelength emission ({\it B}-band) leading the longer-wavelength emission ({\it I}-band).
Given that our ground-based {\it I}-band data overlap with the entirety of our {\it Swift} light curves, we also compute CCFs between our ground-based monitoring and {\it Swift} bands. Although our 0.3--10\,keV XRT vs {\it I}-band CCFs are noisy, we do find a strong positive skew, despite the weak correlation at zero lag ($r = +0.201 \pm 0.070$). As with our previous CCFs involving the X-ray emission, the estimated peaks of the lag and centroid from the DCF are large: $\tau_{\rm peak} = 9 \pm 0.5$ and $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 8.2$\,days. In terms of the ICF, we find the correlation to peak at $\tau_{\rm peak} = 12.33 \pm 5.03$\,days with $r = +0.527$. The peak centroid is $\tau_{\rm cent} = 12.34 \pm 4.83$\,days. This, again, is suggestive of the X-rays leading longer-wavelength emission with a long time delay. We also note a tentative detection of a time delay comparing the {\it Swift UVW1} data with the {\it I} band. Here, we find that the 1-day DCF peaks at $\tau_{\rm peak} = 1 \pm 0.5$\,days ($r = +0.618 \pm 0.075$) with $\tau_{\rm cent} \sim 3.75$\,days. Meanwhile, the ICF suggests a peak lag of $\tau_{\rm peak} = 2.63 \pm 2.45$\,days ($r = +0.588$) with a peak centroid of $\tau_{\rm cent} = 2.69 \pm 2.05$\,days. Comparing the {\it Swift B}- and {\it V}-band data with our ground-based coverage, however, does not yield a detection of a lag. From the ICF, in the {\it B} vs {\it I} case: $\tau_{\rm peak} = 1.29 \pm 2.98$\,days ($r = +0.558$) and $\tau_{\rm cent} = 1.33 \pm 2.77$\,days. In terms of {\it V} vs {\it I}: $\tau_{\rm peak} = 1.85 \pm 5.11$\,days ($r = +0.507$) and $\tau_{\rm cent} = 1.86 \pm 4.96$\,days. In the former case, the 90\,per cent confidence intervals on the peak of the centroid are $-2.76 - 6.05$\,days, while, in the latter case, they are $-8.26 - 6.76$\,days. So, while the best-fitting values are all positive (i.e. suggestive of shorter-wavelength emission leading longer-wavelength emission), they remain consistent with zero within our uncertainty estimates. Our combined {\it Swift} $+$ ground-based CCFs where we detect a lag are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:b_xrt_uvw1_vs_i_ccfs} (middle panels: XRT vs {\it I}; right panel: {\it UVW1} vs {\it I}). The results, along with the {\it Swift} {\it B}- and {\it V}-band cases, are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ccf}. We note that, due to the sporadic sampling of the ground-based {\it R}- and {\it B}-band data, neither the DCF nor ICF allow us to obtain any useful or significant correlations using these data. Nevertheless, these lag detections with regard to our overlapping {\it I}-band light curves serve to highlight the importance of co-ordinated ground-based optical observations.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Bands} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{1-day DCF} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{2-day DCF} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{0.5-day ICF} \\
& $\tau_{\rm peak}$ & $\tau_{\rm cent}$ & $r$ (DCF) & $\tau_{\rm peak}$ & $\tau_{\rm cent}$ & $r$ (DCF) & $\tau_{\rm peak}$ & $\tau_{\rm cent}$ & $r$ (ICF) \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{(days)} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(days)} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(days)} \\
\midrule
X-ray vs {\it V} & $14 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$13.25 & $+0.704 \pm 0.178$ & $14 \pm 1$ & $\sim$13 & $+0.652 \pm 0.164$ & $10.20 \pm 10.81$ & $11.90 \pm 7.33$ & $+0.734$ \\
X-ray vs {\it B} & $13 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$10.73 & $+0.847 \pm 0.065$ & $12 \pm 1$ & $\sim$10 & $+0.804 \pm 0.105$ & $10.59 \pm 5.62$ & $10.80 \pm 4.08$ & $+0.799$ \\
X-ray vs {\it UVW1} & $12 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$10.23 & $+0.846 \pm 0.103$ & $12 \pm 1$ & $\sim$9 & $+0.819 \pm 0.095$ & $10.36 \pm 5.64$ & $10.60 \pm 2.87$ & $+0.825$ \\
{\it UVW1} vs {\it V} & $-1 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$1.67 & $+0.712 \pm 0.139$ & $0 \pm 1$ & $\sim$3 & $+0.629 \pm 0.154$ & $-1.23 \pm 8.40$ & $0.27 \pm 5.97$ & $+0.742$ \\
{\it UVW1} vs {\it B} & $0 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$0.89 & $+0.871 \pm 0.107$ & $0 \pm 1$ & $\sim$0 & $+0.841 \pm 0.100$ & $0.71 \pm 2.64$ & $0.68 \pm 2.35$ & $+0.893$ \\
{\it B} vs {\it V} & $0 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$3.67 & $+0.680 \pm 0.136$ & $0 \pm 1$ & $\sim$3 & $+0.587 \pm 0.167$ & $1.26 \pm 8.66$ & $0.49 \pm 7.54$ & $+0.656$ \\
Ground: {\it B} vs {\it I} & $2 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$3.00 & $+0.598 \pm 0.031$ & $2 \pm 1$ & $\sim$3 & $+0.539 \pm 0.034$ & $4.17 \pm 4.11$ & $3.46 \pm 0.86$ & $+0.647$ \\
X-ray vs {\it I} & $9 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$8.2 & $+0.498 \pm 0.071$ & $10 \pm 1$ & $\sim$9 & $+0.467 \pm 0.052$ & $12.33 \pm 5.03$ & $12.34 \pm 4.83$ & $+0.527$ \\
{\it UVW1} vs {\it I} & $1 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$2.86 & $+0.618 \pm 0.075$ & $4 \pm 1$ & $\sim$3 & $+0.547 \pm 0.056$ & $2.63 \pm 2.45$ & $2.69 \pm 2.05$ & $+0.588$ \\
{\it B} vs {\it I} & $1 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$-0.25 & $+0.575 \pm 0.077$ & $2 \pm 1$ & $\sim$1 & $+0.518 \pm 0.055$ & $1.29 \pm 2.98$ & $1.33 \pm 2.77$ & $+0.558$ \\
{\it V} vs {\it I} & $5 \pm 0.5$ & $\sim$2.00 & $+0.514 \pm 0.082$ & $6 \pm 1$ & $\sim$3 & $+0.402 \pm 0.061$ & $1.85 \pm 5.11$ & $1.86 \pm 4.96$ & $+0.507$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The CCF results for our monitoring campaign of Ark\,120, as described in Section~\ref{sec:ccfs}. The $\tau_{\rm peak}$ and corresponding $r$ values refer to where the DCFs / ICFs peak. Meanwhile, the range of $\tau_{\rm lag}$ values for the DCF merely denotes the bin width.}
\label{tab:ccf}
\end{table*}
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:discussion}
We have presented the multiwavelength variability results from a combined {\it Swift} $+$ ground-based monitoring campaign of the variable Seyfert 1 active galaxy, Ark\,120. In Section~\ref{sec:lightcurves}, we presented the X-ray and UV light curves. We find the general trend to be that the shorter-wavelength emission (i.e. X-rays) is more highly variable (varying by a factor of $\sim$3 on timescales of $\sim$weeks), although significant variability is also observed at longer wavelengths (e.g. {\it V}, {\it B}, {\it UVW1}), with observed variations on the scale of up to $\sim$10\,per cent on the timescale of roughly a week. The more suppressed variability towards longer wavelengths (e.g. {\it V}- and {\it B}-bands) may be an expected consequence of increased light dilution from the host galaxy. In contrast, the shorter-wavelength emission (e.g. {\it UVW1}) arises from regions much closer to the peak of the `big blue bump' in the spectral energy distribution, where one may expect to observe a higher amplitude of intrinsic variability on relatively shorter timescales. The host-galaxy contribution in Ark\,120 is estimated by \citet{Porquet19} following a flux-variation gradient method proposed by \citet{Choloniewski81} using {\it XMM-Newton} data (also see \citealt{Winkler92, Winkler97, Glass04, Sakata10}). The resultant estimates of the flux contribution in the central extraction aperture are: {\it V} (5\,430\,\AA) $= 56 \pm 4$\,per cent, {\it B} (4\,500\,\AA) $= 17 \pm 5$\,per cent, {\it U} (3\,440\,\AA) $= 15 \pm 7$\,per cent.\footnote{We note that these values are based on the {\it XMM-Newton} Optical Monitor photometry bands. The effective wavelengths are comparable to the corresponding filters on-board the {\it Swift} UVOT.}. Assuming quasi-constant host-galaxy components of emission at these flux levels and that they are at a roughly similar level in the corresponding {\it Swift} UVOT filters would raise the $F_{\rm var}$ measurements of the {\it B}- and {\it V}-band emission arising from the central AGN from those measured in Section~\ref{sec:lightcurves} to around $\sim$3.3 and $\sim$4.2\,per cent, respectively.
We find clear linear positive correlations between the three UVOT bands assuming roughly zero time delay ($\tau \approx 0$), which are significant at the $> 99$\,per cent level. Meanwhile, the X-rays are observed to roughly correlate with these variations, although with significantly larger levels of scatter due to the higher level of intrinsic variability in the 0.3--10\,keV band. These results are qualitatively similar to those reported in \citet{Edelson19} based on the four most intensively-sampled AGN with {\it Swift}. In Section~\ref{sec:ccfs}, we searched for time-dependent inter-band correlations by calculating DCFs and ICFs. Our 1-day and 2-day DCFs typically show strong correlations between the X-ray and UVOT bands. The X-ray vs UVOT DCFs typically peak at $\tau > 10$\,days, while the DCFs between the {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} bands typically peak at around $\tau \sim 0$\,days. All the DCFs appear to be positively skewed, leading to positive estimates for the peak centroids. We also estimate the ICFs ($\Delta \tau = 0.5$\,days) for each pair of wavelength bands and estimate the error on the time lag and centroid by performing Monte Carlo simulations. We find that, within the uncertainties, the UVOT {\it UVW1} vs {\it V}, {\it UVW1} vs {\it B} and {\it B} vs {\it V} ICFs are all consistent with peaking at zero lag. As such, we do not claim any detection of an inter-band time delay in these cases. However, we do find a positive lag between the X-rays and the {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} bands: $\tau_{\rm cent} = 11.90 \pm 7.33$\,days ($\tau_{\rm peak} = 10.20 \pm 10.81$), $\tau_{\rm cent} = 10.80 \pm 4.08$\,days ($\tau_{\rm peak} = 10.59 \pm 5.62$) and $\tau_{\rm cent} = 10.60 \pm 2.87$\,days ($\tau_{\rm peak} = 10.36 \pm 5.64$\,days), respectively. The uncertainties in the X-ray vs {\it V} case are very large due to a lower variability-to-noise ratio, although the lag centroid is still found to take on a positive value. Nevertheless, we do exercise caution in interpreting the XRT-to-UVOT lags given that we only sampled one major minimum in our {\it Swift} light curves. Meanwhile, we also find tentative evidence of a lag based on our ground-based monitoring, with the {\it B}-band leading the {\it I}-band with an estimated time lag of $\tau_{\rm cent} = 3.46 \pm 0.86$\,days ($\tau_{\rm peak} = 4.17 \pm 4.11$\,days). This is consistent with the {\it B}-to-{\it I}-band lag found by \citet{Sergeev05} with data obtained at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, who find $\tau_{\rm peak} = 3.04^{+1.33}_{-1.81}$\,days and $\tau_{\rm cent} = 3.79^{+2.52}_{-1.64}$\,days. Additionally, by combining {\it Swift} data with our ground-based observations, we also find evidence of lags between the {\it Swift} XRT / UVOT {\it UVW1} bands and the ground-based {\it I} band with $\tau_{\rm cent} = 12.34 \pm 4.83$\,days ($\tau_{\rm peak} = 12.33 \pm 5.03$\,days) and $\tau_{\rm cent} = 2.69 \pm 2.05$\,days ($\tau_{\rm peak} = 2.63 \pm 2.45$\,days), respectively.
Numerous type-1 Seyfert galaxies have displayed evidence for short-timescale correlations between the X-ray, UV and optical bands (e.g. MR\,2251$-$178: \citealt{Arevalo08}; Mrk\,79: \citealt{Breedt09}; NGC\,3783: \citealt{Arevalo09}; NGC\,4051: \citealt{Breedt10,AlstonVaughanUttley13}; NGC\,5548: \citealt{McHardy14,Edelson15}). Such correlations are routinely interpreted in terms of a disc-reprocessing scenario. Here, UV and optical photons are produced via the reprocessing of incident X-ray photons illuminating the accretion disc. While the bulk of the optical / UV emission may be expected to be `intrinsic' to the source (e.g. arising via internal viscous heating), this is expected to remain steady on long timescales. Conversely, an additional component of observed emission may be variable, if originating via reprocessing of the primary X-rays. Such a scenario would produce a natural time delay between the X-rays and the UV / optical photons, determined by the light-crossing time between the emission sites. In the case of an optically-thick disc, the emission at longer wavelengths should be delayed with respect to the shorter-wavelength emission with the expected relation: $\tau \propto \lambda^{4/3}$ \citep{CackettHorneWinkler07}.
In a disc reprocessing scenario, we can estimate the location of the reprocessing sites for the case of Ark\,120. Assuming a standard, optically-thick accretion disc ($\alpha = 0.1$; $H/R = 0.01$; a central, compact X-ray source at $6$\,$r_{\rm g}$ above the mid-plane) with $L/L_{\rm Edd} = 0.1$ \citep{Porquet18} and $M_{\rm BH} = 1.5 \times 10^{8}$\,$M_{\odot}$ \citep{Peterson04}, we can use \citet{Peterson97} (equations 3.20 and 3.21) to estimate emission-weighted radii for the wavelength bands used here (also see \citealt{Edelson15}). We can estimate the temperature of the disc at a given radius using Wien's Law: $\lambda_{\rm max} = 2.9 \times 10^{7}/T$, where $\lambda$ is the peak effective wavelength measured in \AA\ and $T$ is the temperature in units of Kelvin, K. In the case of the three {\it Swift} UVOT filters used here, the peak effective wavelengths translate into the following temperatures: {\it V} (5\,486\,\AA): 5\,304\,K; {\it B} (4\,329\,\AA): 6\,699\,K; {\it UVW1} (2\,600\,\AA): 11\,154\,K. The temperature-radius dependence is then given by:
\begin{equation} T(r) \approx 6.3 \times 10^{5} \left(\frac{\dot{M}}{\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}}\right)^{1/4} M_{8}^{-1/4} \left(\frac{r}{R_{\rm S}}\right)^{-3/4}{\rm K}, \label{eq:temp_radius} \end{equation}
where the temperature at a given radius, $T(r)$, is measured in Kelvin, $\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ is the mass accretion rate compared to the Eddington rate, $M_{8}$ is the mass of the central black hole in units of $10^{8}$\,M$_{\odot}$, and $r/R_{\rm S}$ is the radius from the central black hole in units of the Schwarzschild radius ($R_{\rm S} = 2GM/c^{2}$). In the case of the {\it Swift} {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} filters, this yields distances of 236.7, 173.7 and 88.0\,$R_{\rm S}$, respectively. Assuming the Schwarzschild radius for Ark\,120 is $R_{\rm S} = 4.5 \times 10^{13}$\,cm, this translates to respective radii from the central X-ray producing region of $1.1 \times 10^{16}$, $7.7 \times 10^{15}$ and $3.9 \times 10^{15}$\,cm. Assuming that the lags are dominated by the light-crossing time, we can express these in units of light-days: X-rays-to-{\it V}: $4.1$; X-rays-to-{\it B}: $3.0$; X-rays-to-{\it UVW1}: $1.5$\,light-days. In contrast, we note that the viscous timescale for the disc in Ark\,120 would be on a timescale of $> 10^{3}$\,years (or at least $\sim$days-weeks if the disc is geometrically thick; also see \citealt{Porquet19}). The predicted distances are listed in Table~\ref{tab:lag-results} alongside the measured time delays from our correlation functions for comparison. We also include the X-ray-to-{\it U}-band lag from our analysis in \citet{Lobban18}. We note that our predicted $\alpha$-disc lags are based on Wien's Law --- however, using a more realistic flux-weighted radius (assuming that $T \propto R^{-3/4}$; \citealt{ShakuraSunyaev73}) actually predicts lags that are a factor of a few smaller (also see Table~\ref{tab:lag-results} and \citealt{Edelson19} equation 1). Finally, we consider the energetics of the reprocessing model and find consistency with the absolute change in our observed UV / X-ray luminosities. While the X-ray variations are a factor of $\sim$12--15 larger than those in the UV band, they are also $\sim$6--8 times weaker in luminosity. Therefore, the large variations in the X-ray band are enough to drive the smaller variations in the higher-luminosity UV band.
Meanwhile, in the case of the ground-based monitoring, the expected distances of the material producing emission in the {\it B} (4\,353\,\AA) and {\it I} (8\,797\,\AA) bands are 174.8 and 446.2\,$R_{\rm S}$ from the central black hole, respectively. This translates to radii of $7.9 \times 10^{15}$ and $2.0 \times 10^{16}$\,cm, respectively, yielding light-crossing times of $3.0$ and $7.8$\,light-days from the central black hole and a distance of $4.8$\,light-days between the two sites. This and the expected time delays from the combined {\it Swift} $+$ ground-based analysis are also listed in Table~\ref{tab:lag-results}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\toprule
Filters & Distance & Distance \\
& ($\alpha$-disc) & (ICFs) \\
& (light-day) & (light-day) \\
\midrule
X-ray (12.4\,\AA) - {\it V} (5\,468\,\AA) & 4.1 [1.6] & $11.90 \pm 7.33$ \\
X-ray (12.4\,\AA) - {\it B} (4\,329\,AA) & 3.0 [1.2] & $10.80 \pm 4.08$ \\
X-ray (12.4\,\AA) - {\it UVW1} (2\,600\,AA) & 1.5 [0.6] & $10.60 \pm 2.87$ \\
{\it UVW1} (2\,600\,AA) - {\it V} (5\,468\,AA) & 2.6 [1.0] & $0.27 \pm 5.97$ \\
{\it UVW1} (2\,600\,AA) - {\it B} (4\,329\,AA) & 1.5 [0.6] & $0.68 \pm 2.35$ \\
{\it B} (4\,329\,AA) - {\it V} (5\,468\,\AA) & 1.1 [0.4] & $0.49 \pm 7.54$ \\
Ground: {\it B} (4\,353\,\AA) - {\it I} (8\,797\,\AA) & 4.8 [1.8] & $3.46 \pm 0.86$ \\
X-ray (12.4\,\AA) vs {\it I} (8\,797\,\AA) & 7.8 [3.0] & $12.34 \pm 4.83$ \\
{\it UVW1} (2\,600\,\AA) vs {\it I} (8\,797\,\AA) & 6.3 [2.4] & $2.69 \pm 2.05$ \\
{\it B} (4\,329\,\AA) vs {\it I} (8\,797\,\AA) & 4.8 [1.8] & $1.33 \pm 2.77$ \\
{\it V} (5\,468\,\AA) vs {\it I} (8\,797\,\AA) & 3.7 [1.4] & $1.86 \pm 4.96$ \\
\midrule
$^{\ast}$X-ray (12.4\,\AA) - {\it U} (3\,465\,\AA) & 2.0 [0.9] & $2.4 \pm 1.6$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{A comparison of the estimated radial distances of the UV-/optical-producing regions from the central black hole assuming a standard $\alpha$-disc model with the measured time delays (based on peak centroids) from our cross-correlation functions. The $\alpha$-disc values are calculated using Wien's Law while the values in parentheses are calculated using the flux-weighted radius approach. $^{\ast}$This value is taken from our {\it Swift} analysis described in \citet{Lobban18}.}
\label{tab:lag-results}
\end{table}
It is clear that our measured time delays using just the {\it Swift} UVOT filters are consistent within the uncertainties with the predictions from standard accretion theory. However, unlike the X-ray-to-UVOT cases, these time delays are also consistent with zero. We cannot rule out the contribution of any opposite-direction lag (i.e. longer-wavelength-to-shorter-wavelength) potentially smearing out the centroid of the CCF, although the physical origin of such a mechanism that may be responsible for this on the timescales probed here remains unclear. In any case, our measurement uncertainties on the lag centroids in these bands are large. So, although they’re consistent with zero, they’re also still consistent with the predicted lags from a standard disc model. However, in the case of the X-ray-to-{\it V}, X-ray-to-{\it B}, X-ray-to-{\it UVW1}, and X-ray-to-{\it I} CCFs, our measured time lags are significantly larger than predicted (by a factor of up to a few). We note that these differ from the results described in \citet{Lobban18} in which we find that the {\it U}-band ($3\,465$\,\AA) emission lags behind the X-ray emission in Ark\,120 with an average delay of $\tau = 2.6 \pm 1.4$\,days (consistent with the value predicted by the standard thin-disc model). While we see no evidence to suggest that the behaviour of the AGN is significantly different in this campaign compared to the one analyzed in \citet{Lobban18}, the shorter baseline ($\sim$50\,days versus $\sim$150\,days) means that we sample fewer turning points in the light curve, which likely leads to the much larger uncertainties in our lag measurements presented here.
In studies of this nature, it is common practice to plot the inter-band time delay as a function of central wavelength (e.g. see \citealt{Edelson15, Edelson17, Edelson19}). We show this in Fig.~\ref{fig:wavelength_vs_lag} where we use the ground-based {\it I}-band filter ($8\,797$\,\AA) as the reference band. As the standard thin-disc model predicts a relation between time delay and wavelength of $\tau \propto \lambda^{4/3}$ \citep{CackettHorneWinkler07}, we tested this by comparing the data to a function of the form: $\tau = \tau_{0}[(\lambda/\lambda_{0})^{4/3}-1]$. Here, $\lambda_{0} = 8\,797$\,\AA, corresponding to the effective wavelength of the {\it I} band. As the {\it I}-band autocorrelation function is, by default, zero, we exclude this datapoint from the fit, although we do show it on the plot for visualisation. As our campaign only affords us five data points, we do not fit for the slope, which we instead keep fixed at a value of $4/3$. We do, however, allow the normalization, $\tau_{0}$, to vary. The fit is shown by the red dashed line. The fit is acceptable ($\chi^{2} / {\rm d.o.f.} = 3.27/4$) with a best-fitting value for the normalization of $\tau_{0} = 5.3 \pm 1.2$. Therefore, despite our larger-than-expected time delays relative to the X-ray band, we cannot rule out a divergence from the $\tau \propto \lambda^{4/3}$ relation predicted by reprocessing models from a standard thin disc. However, we stress that our measurement uncertainties are large and that we can only fit over five data points. As such, we exercise caution in interpreting the results.
In an analysis of NGC\,4593, \citet{Cackett18} find an excess in their wavelength-dependent lag continuum at around $\sim$3\,600\,\AA. They attribute this to bound-free H emission from the diffuse continuum in high-density BLR clouds, as per the picture presented in \citet{KoristaGoad01}. However, in the case of NGC\,4395, the effect seems to be localised around the Balmer jump at $\sim$3\,646\,\AA, whereas we observe longer-than-expected time delays from emission at $\sim$2\,600, $\sim$4\,329, $\sim$5\,468, and $\sim$8\,797\,\AA\ with respect to the X-rays. An alternative suggestion may be that the {\it UVW1}-, {\it B}-, {\it V}-, and {\it I}-band emission regions are situated more co-spatially than standard thin-disc accretion models suggest. Additionally, we should also consider the precision in our measurements when estimating predicted time delays. For example, in an analysis of Mkn\,509, \citet{PozoNunez19} find that the discrepancy in their observed vs predicted time delays may arise from an underestimation of the black hole mass based on the assumed geometry-scaling factor of the BLR. In the case of Mkn\,509, they find that, through modelling H$\alpha$ light curves, their larger scaling factor results in a black hole mass $\sim$5-6 times more massive than previously reported in the literature, consistent with their observed time delays. In the case of Ark\,120, in order to scale the size of the accretion disc to match the observed X-ray-to-{\it UVW1} time delay would require the black hole mass to be scaled to $M_{\rm BH} \sim 1.8-4.1 \times 10^{9}$\,M$_{\odot}$ or $M_{\rm BH} \sim 7.1-16.2 \times 10^{9}$\,M$_{\odot}$ depending on whether Wien's Law or the flux-weighted radius is used and assuming our adopted value of $\dot{M} / \dot{M}_{\rm Edd} = 0.1$. This corresponds to an increase of tens-to-hundred times the currently reported reverberation-mapped value of $\sim$1.5 $\times 10^{8}$\,M$_{\odot}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{wavelength_vs_lag_i-band-ref.eps}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Our measured time delays from our {\it Swift} $+$ ground-based monitoring campaign as a function of wavelength. We use the {\it I}-band filter as the reference band and, as the autocorrelation function of this band is, by default, zero, we omit this datapoint from the fit, but merely show it for visualisation (blue star) as this is the point at which the fit is forced to pass through zero on the {\it y} axis. The two {\it B}-band data points correspond to the {\it Swift} UVOT and ground-based filters: {\it Swift} data are shown as black circles while the ground-based {\it B}-band data point is shown as a green star. The dashed red line shows a fit of the form $\tau = \tau_{0}[(\lambda/\lambda_{0})^{4/3}-1]$, where we allow the normalization, $\tau_{0}$, to vary. Although our measurement uncertainties are large, the fit is formally consistent with the predicted $\tau \propto \lambda^{4/3}$ relation from standard thin-disc theory.}
\label{fig:wavelength_vs_lag}
\end{figure}
A number of other recent results have posed challenges for standard disc-reprocessing scenarios with continuum reverberation studies suggesting that accretion discs are larger than predicted by standard accretion theory (i.e. the thin disc model) --- i.e. at given radii, discs are hotter than predicted by \citet{ShakuraSunyaev73} and finding the expected temperature requires moving out to larger radii, and hence observing longer lags. In particular, the `AGN STORM' campaign on NGC\,5548 has implied that the accretion disc is $\sim$3 times larger than predicted \citep{McHardy14, Edelson15, Fausnaugh16}. In addition to the AGN STORM campaign, a series of studies on other AGN have come to similar conclusions --- e.g. NGC\,2617 \citep{Shappee14}, NGC\,6814 \citep{Troyer16}, NGC\,3516 \citep{Noda16} and Fairall\,9 \citep{Pal17}. In addition, \citet{Buisson17} analyzed a sample of 21 AGN with {\it Swift} and find that the UV lags generally appear to be longer than expected for a thin disc (also see \citealt{Jiang17}). Furthermore, independent microlensing studies have also implied that discs are larger than expected (possibly by up to a factor of $\sim$4; \citealt{Morgan10, Mosquera13}). In the case of NGC\,4593, \citet{Cackett18} discovered a marked excess in their high-resolution lag spectrum in the 3\,000--4\,000\,\AA\ range, coinciding with the Balmer jump (3\,646\,\AA). This implies that the effects of bound-free UV continuum emission in the BLR are strongly contributing to the observed lags. Indeed, \citet{GardnerDone17} have also argued that the observed optical and UV lags do not originate in the accretion disc but instead are due to reprocessing of the far UV emission by optically-thick clouds in the inner BLR (also see \citealt{Edelson19} for more discussion on such physical models). In the case of our Ark\,120 campaign, one might expect such a scenario to moderately impact the {\it UVW1} band (2\,600\,\AA) but less so the {\it B}, {\it V}, and {\it I} bands --- however, we detect larger-than-predicted lags in all of these bands relative to the X-rays. As such, it may be the case that Ark\,120 is another example of an AGN whose accretion disc appears to exist on a larger scale than predicted by the standard thin-disc model. Given our detection here of larger-than-expected X-ray-to-UV lags, Ark\,120 remains an appropriate target for a more comprehensive monitoring campaign (i.e. with {\it Swift}) in order to sample the multiwavelength variability more extensively flux and in time.
\section{Summary} \label{sec:summary}
To summarize, we have analyzed a multiwavelength monitoring campaign of Ark\,120 --- a bright, nearby Seyfert galaxy. We used co-ordinated observations using the {\it Swift} satellite ($\sim$50\,days) and a series of ground-based observatories, covering roughly 4 months, and primarily using the {\it Skynet Robotic Telescope Network}. We find well-correlated variability at optical, UV and X-ray wavelengths and, by performing cross-correlation analysis, measure time delays between various emission bands. In particular, we find that the {\it Swift} {\it V}, {\it B} and {\it UVW1} bands and the ground-based {\it I} band are all delayed with respect to the X-ray emission, with measured lag centroids of $11.90 \pm 7.33$, $10.80 \pm 4.08$, $10.60 \pm 2.87$, and $12.34 \pm 4.83$\,days, respectively. These are energetically consistent with a disc reprocessing scenario, but the measured time delays are observed to be longer than those predicted by standard accretion theory. Therefore, Ark\,120 may be another example of an active galaxy whose accretion disc appears to exist on a larger scale than predicted by the standard thin-disc model. Additionally, via our ground-based monitoring, we detect further inter-band time delays between the {\it I} and {\it B} bands ($\tau_{\rm cent} = 3.46 \pm 0.86$\,days), highlighting the importance of co-ordinated optical observations. As such, Ark\,120 will be the target of a proposed future longer, simultaneous, co-ordinated, multiwavelength BLR-/accretion-disc-mapping campaign.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research has made use of the NASA Astronomical Data System (ADS), the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) and is based on observations obtained with the NASA/UKSA/ASI mission {\it Swift}. This work made use of data supplied by the UK {\it Swift} Science Data Centre at the University of Leicester and we acknowledge the use of public data from the {\it Swift} data archive. This research was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia via Project No 176011 ``Dynamical and kinematics of celestial bodies and systems''. AL is an ESA research fellow and also acknowledges support from the UK STFC under grant ST/M001040/1. SZ acknowledges support from Nardowe Centrum Nauki (NCN) award 2018/29/B/ST9/01793. EN acknowledges funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk\l{}odowska-Curie grant agreement no. 664931. GB acknowledges the financial support by the Polish National Science Centre through the grant UMO2017/26/D/ST9/01178. AM acknowledges partial support from NCN award 2016/23/B/ST9/03123. RB acknowledges the support from the Bulgarian NSF under grants DN 08-1/2016, DN 18-13/2017, DN 18-10/2017 and KP-06-H28/3 (2018). SH is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 11873035, the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong province (No. JQ201702), and the Young Scholars Program of Shandong University (No. 20820162003). We also thank our anonymous referee for a careful and thorough review of this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Computed tomography (CT) is one of the most widely used
medical imaging modality for showing anatomical
structures
\cite{you2018structurally,liu2019machine,xu2019accurate,xu2019whole}.
The foremost
concern of CT examination is the associated exposure
to radiation, which is known to increase the lifetime
risk for death of cancer \cite{hobbs2018physician}.
The radiation dose can be lowered at the cost
of image quality
\cite{you2018structurally},
and the resulted
images are denoised for enhanced perceptual quality
and diagnostic confidence from radiologists.
Various deep neural network (DNN) based methods
exist for CT image
denoising \cite{shan20183,wolterink2017generative,chen2017low,yang2018low}, which require paired clean
and noisy images for training.
Yet simulations are usually used to generate
such paired data, where the synthetic noise patterns
can be different from the real ones, leading to
biased training results \cite{kang2018cycle}.
To address this issue, recently
cycle-consistent adversarial denoising
network (CCADN) was
proposed in \cite{kang2018cycle}, which
formulates CT image denoising as an
image-to-image translation
problem without paired training
data.
CCADN consists of two generators:
one transforms noisy CT images (domain $X$)
to clear ones (domain $Y$) and
the other transforms clear CT images (domain $Y$)
to noisy ones (domain $X$).
Both generators are trained
by adversarial
loss. In addition,
cycle-consistency loss
and identity loss are utilized
to gain better performance
\cite{zhu2017unpaired}, which
will be discussed in detail in
Section~\ref{method}. However,
since CCADN only
contains two domains $X$ and $Y$,
its efficacy
degrades as the noise becomes
stronger leading to larger
differences between $X$ and $Y$
that are harder to learn.
To tackle this issue, we propose to
establish an intermediate domain
between the original
noisy image domain $X$ and clear image domain
$Y$,
and decompose the denoising task into multiple
coupled steps such that each step is easier
to learn by DNN-based models.
Specifically, we construct an additional domain $Z$
with images of intermediate noise level between
$X$ and $Y$. These images can be
considered as a step stone in the
denoising process and provide additional
information for the training of the
denoising network.
The multi-step framework particularly suits the
denoising problem: while it is difficult to
either find or define a good collection of
images in the ``half-cat, half dog" domain
in ``cat-to-dog'' type of image translation
problems, a domain $Z$ of images with
intermediate
level of noise exist naturally.
With the new domain $Z$, we further propose a
multi-cycle-consistent adversarial network to
perform the multi-step denoising, which
builds multiple cycles of different
scales (global cycles and local cycles)
between the domains while
enforcing the corresponding cycle-consistencies.
In the experiments, we find that both
global cycles and local cycles are
necessary for the success of MCCAN,
which combined outperforms the state-of-the-art
competitor CCADN.
\section{Methodology}
\label{method}
Given training images that are either labelled as noisy
(domain $X$) or clear (domain $Y$), we first construct
a new domain $Z$ which contains images with an
intermediate noise level between $X$
and $Y$. How to obtain $Z$ is flexible in practice.
In our experiments, it is obtained from
$X$ and $Y$ by
separating out those images
with intermediate noise
level.
With CT images from three domains,
the multi-step
denoising architecture of MCCAN
is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}(a). We train four
convolutional neural networks as generators and
three as discriminators.
Arrows in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}(a) define how images
are transformed in the training stage. Specifically,
the generator $G_{X\to Z}$ aims
to transform an image from $X$ to $Z$.
$G_{Z\to X}$, $G_{Z\to Y}$, and
$G_{Y\to Z}$ can be
interpreted similarly. Discriminators
$D_X$, $D_Y$,
and $D_Z$ aim to distinguish the ``real''
images originally belonging to the domains
$X$, $Y$, and $Z$
from the ``fake'' images transformed from
other domains respectively.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.48\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.65in]{images/MICCAI1a.pdf}}
\centerline{(a)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.63in]{images/MICCAI1b3.pdf}}
\centerline{(b)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) Structure of MCCAN and (b) its cycles. The arrows inside each domain denote the computation of cycle-consistency loss. The solid and dashed arrows across domains form global and local cycles, respectively. For clarity, we only show cycles from left to right. Symmetric cycles going from right to left also exist but are not shown.}
\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure}
As the MCCAN structure in
Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}(a) contains
thee domains, there are multiple
ways in which we can construct
cycles (paths where an image from a
source domain is transformed through
one (in \cite{zhu2017unpaired})
or several other domains (in this paper)
and back to the source domain) for
cycle-consistent loss.
In particular, we introduce two types of
cycles as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp}(b).
In this figure, each dot represents an
image, which is color-coded based on the domain.
The solid ones represent the images
originally in the domain
(``real'' ones), and the hollow ones
represent those transformed
from another domain (``fake'' ones).
As such, the dashed arrows form the
{\bf local cycles}, each of which
goes across only two adjacent domains.
On the other hand, the solid arrows
constitute a {\bf global cycle} that
starts from $X$ through
$Z$, $Y$, $Z$, and back to $X$ sequentially.
Note that in the figure we only show
half of the cycles (from left to right)
for clarity, and the other half which
are from right to left and symmetric
to the ones shown also exist.
We then enforce cycle-consistency
loss, which measures
the difference between the original
images and the final images
produced at the end of the
cycle as represented by
the small arrows within
each domain in Fig~\ref{fig:comp}(b).
Ideally, the images transformed
back to the source domain should
be identical to the original ones.
The cycle-consistency loss is
applied to every cycle, no matter
whether it is local or a global.
The global
cycles are important for the denoising
performance due to the following reason.
In the inference stage, an input noisy
CT image $x$ in domain $X$ will be transformed
by $G_{X\to Z}$ and $G_{Z\to Y}$ sequentially,
which means $G_{X\to Z}$ and $G_{Z\to Y}$
are coupled by data dependency. Without
global cycles, $G_{X\to Z}$ and $G_{Z\to Y}$
will be trained independently. Thus, errors of
the prediction of noise at intermediate steps
may be accumulated as processing progresses.
The global cycles enable the joint training
of the generators, which models the denoising
path used in the inference stage for
better consistency.
The local
cycles are also important to address two issues in the training.
First, the global cycles go through
all the four generators and
have long paths for the gradient
to back-propagate, which makes the
end-to-end optimization
difficult. The locals cycles are shallow and have
shorter paths for the gradient to
back-propagate. Second,
adversarial training only enforces
the generators to output
``fake'' images identically distributed as
the original ``real'' images in the
intermediate domain $Z$.
However, they do not necessarily preserve
the meaningful content in the inputs,
which is critical for the denoising task.
The local cycle-consistency supervises each generator
to learn to transform images while preserving their
meaningful content from the inputs more easily.
In summary, our MCCAN has two major advantages
over CCADN. First, it decomposes the one-step transform
into multiple steps using images in a constructed
intermediate domain as a step stone. Second, it not only
incorporates global cycles that model the denoising path in
the inference stage for consistency, but also uses local
cycles that provide strong supervision to facilitate the
more challenging training process. In the experiments we
find that MCCAN outperforms CCADN.
Note that in the discussion so far, only one
intermediate domain was assumed. It is also
possible to include more than one intermediate
domains with more global and local cycles. However,
our study suggests that any additional domains beyond
one will not introduce further performance
gain in the dataset we explored.
Finally, we state the training objective used in our framework.
Denote $\{G\}$ and $\{D\}$ as the set of generators
and discriminators respectively.
Denote $I\in \{X,Y,Z\}$ as one domain and $D_I$ as the
discriminator associated with domain $I$.
We let $C_i$ be a cycle and $P_{i,j}$ be a path
of half $C_i$ that has the same source domain,
where $i, j$ are used to distinguish different
cycles and paths merely.
For example, $X\rightarrow Z\rightarrow X$ is
a cycle, saying $C_1$,
thus we can have $P_{1,1} = X \rightarrow Z$,
and $P_{1,2} = Z \rightarrow X$, which are both
half cycles of $C_1$.
$\{P_{I}\}$ represents the
set of all the paths that end at
domain $I$. We denote $I_{C_i}$ as the
source domain of $C_i$ and
$G_{P_{i,j}}$ as the ordered function composition
of the generators in $P_{i,j}$. Thus,
the total adversarial loss is
\begin{align}
\label{equ:loss_gan_xy}
\mathcal{L}_{GAN}(\{G\}, \{D\}) =\sum_{ I\in\{X,Y,Z\}} \sum_{ P_{i,j}\in\{P_I \}}\mathcal{L}_{GAN}(I,P_{i,j})
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{L}_{GAN}(I,P_{i,j})$ is the adversarial loss associated with domain $I$ and the transform path $P_{i,j}$. $\mathcal{L}_{GAN}(I,P_{i,j})$ is obtained by
\begin{align}
\label{equ:loss_gan_xy_i}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_{GAN}(I,P_{i,j}) &=
\mathbb{E}_{y\sim p_{data}(I)}
[\log{D_{I}(y)}]\\
&+ \mathbb{E}_{x\sim p_{data}(I_{C_i})}
[log(1-D_{I}(G_{P_{i,j}}(x)))]
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $p_{data}(I)$ is the distribution of
``real'' images in the domain $I$ and $D_I(x)$
represents the probability determined by
$D_I$ that $x$ is a ``real'' image from
domain $I$ rather than a ``fake'' one
transformed by generators from another
domain.
The cycle-consistency loss is associated
with each $C_i$, defined as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{cyc}}(\{G\},C_i) = \mathbb{E}_{x\sim p_{\text{data}}(I_{C_i})}[|G_{C_i}(x)-x|_1].
\end{align}
The final optimization problem we solve in
the training stage is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\{G\}^* &= \arg\min_{\{G\}}\max_{\{D\}}( \mathcal{L}_{GAN}(\{G\}, \{D\})\\
&+\lambda \sum_{C_i\in \{C\}} \mathcal{L}_{cyc}(\{G\}, C_i).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is set to 10 in our experiments.
\section{Experiments and Results}
\subsection{Experiments Setup}
\label{DataGeneration}
The original dataset contains 200
normal-dose 3D CT images
and 200 low-dose ones from
various patients for training, and separate
11 images for test. All examinations
are performed with a wide detector
256-slice MDCT scanner (Brilliance iCT;
Philips Healthcare) providing 8cm of
coverage.
Each 2D CT image is of size
512$\times$512, which is then
randomly cropped into 256$\times$256
for data augmentation.
We construct the additional domain $Z$ with
images of intermediate noise
level from these clear and noisy scans
to make the number of scans in each
domain comparable. There are CT images with
more noise than usual from clear scans that
use high dose radiation, and vice versa,
because the noise variation cannot be
controlled quantitatively.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.5in]{images/M2a.pdf}}
\centerline{(a)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.5in]{images/M2b.pdf}}
\centerline{(b)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.5in]{images/M2c.pdf}}
\centerline{(c)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.5in]{images/M2d.pdf}}
\centerline{(d)}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.2in}
\caption{Comparison of (a) CCADN, (b) MCCAN without global cycles (c) MCCAN without local cycles, and (d) MCCAN. For the clarity of presentation, we only show cycles from left to right and symmetric cycles from right to left also exist.}
\label{fig:compexp}
\end{figure}
We compare MCCAN with a state-of-the-art
CT denoising framework
CCADN \cite{kang2018cycle}.
In order to see how the local cycles and
global cycles contribute to the final
performance, we also implement and compare
MCCAN without local cycles
and without global cycles
respectively as ablation study.
The various structures are
shown in Fig. \ref{fig:compexp}.
We train all the networks
following the setting in
\cite{zhu2017unpaired}. Our
implementation will be available
online.
We ensure that all
network sizes and number of
training epochs are the same
for fair comparisons.
\begin{figure
\vspace{-.02in}
\begin{minipage}[b]{1.\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.9in]{images/miccai/Origin.PNG}}
\centerline{(a) Original noisy CT images}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{1.\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.9in]{images/miccai/cg.PNG}}
\centerline{(b) Images denoised by CCADN\cite{kang2018cycle}}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.02in}
\begin{minipage}[b]{1.\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.9in]{images/miccai/cg.PNG}}
\centerline{(c) Images denoised by MCCAN without global cycles}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.02in}
\begin{minipage}[b]{1.\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.9in]{images/miccai/dc.PNG}}
\centerline{(d) Images denoised by MCCAN without global cycles}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-.02in}
\begin{minipage}[b]{1.\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=0.9in]{images/miccai/c.PNG}}
\centerline{(e) Images denoised by MCCAN}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\vskip -0.2in
\caption{Noisy and denoised
images for qualitative evaluation.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{images/miccai/OneFullCycle.PNG}
\vspace{-.2in}
\caption{An image transformed through X$\rightarrow$Z$\rightarrow$Y$\rightarrow$Z$\rightarrow$X cycle in Fig.~\ref{method}. The noise level decreases along X$\rightarrow$Z$\rightarrow$Y and increases along Y$\rightarrow$Z$\rightarrow$X, which conforms to our design.}
\label{fig:ImageInCycle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Qualitative Evaluation}
We choose three representative low-dose
CT images in the test dataset as shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:overview}(a) for qualitative evaluation.
The corresponding denoised images by
CCADN, MCCAN without local cycles,
MCCAN without global cycles, and MCCAN are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview}(b)-
\ref{fig:overview}(e)
respectively.
Numbered areas are
homogeneous regions, while areas
with edges between heterogeneous
regions are zoomed for visibility
in Fig. \ref{fig:overview}.
From the figures we can see that
CCADN can successfully reduce noise in the
original images. MCCAN without local
cycles completely fails to produce
reasonable results. A more closer
examination of the images reveal that
interestingly the background and the
substances are approximately swapped
compared with the original images. This is
because the high-level
features of content distribution are
still kept even with such swap,
and the discriminator cannot identify
the generated image as
``fake'' because of the structure diversity in
the training dataset. This aligns with
our discussion on the importance of
local cycles in Section~\ref{method}.
On the other hand, MCCAN without global cycles
can successfully
denoise the image and achieves similar
quality compared with CCADN.
This is expected as MCCAN without global
cycles is essentially formed
by two cascaded CCADNs.
Finally, with both local and global
cycles, the complete MCCAN
has the smallest noise visually.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{Mean and SD (normalized) of the selected areas in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview}(a). }
\label{table:199_idose}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Area \#1} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Area \#2} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Area \#3} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Area \#4} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Area \#5}\\
\cline{2-11}
& Mean & SD & Mean & SD & Mean & SD & Mean & SD & Mean & SD\\
\hline
Original & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00\\
\hline
CCADN\cite{zhu2017unpaired} & 0.93 & 0.85 & 1.03 & 0.79 & 1.03 & 0.80 & 0.94 & 0.78 & 1.03 & 0.78\\
\hline
MCCAN w/o local cycles & 0.02 & 0.38 & 0.24 & 1.02 & 0.11 & 0.71 & 0.02 & 0.42 & 0.28 & 1.31\\
\hline
MCCAN w/o global cycles & 0.89 & 0.78 & 1.03 & 0.77 & 1.03 & 0.80 & 0.906 & 0.73 & 1.03 & 0.81\\
\hline
MCCAN & 0.88 & \textbf{0.76} & 1.04 & \textbf{0.68} & 1.03 & \textbf{0.71} & 0.89 & \textbf{0.71} & 1.04 & \textbf{0.68}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{table*}
To further illustrate the efficacy of the
MCCAN structure, Fig.~\ref{fig:ImageInCycle}
shows how an image is transformed along a
global cycle (the path
X$\rightarrow$Z$\rightarrow$Y$\rightarrow$Z$\rightarrow$X). From the figure we can
see that $X\rightarrow Z \rightarrow Y$ is
an effective two-step denoising process
while $Y \rightarrow Z \rightarrow X$
incrementally adds noise back.
\subsection{Quantitative Evaluation}
Following existing works \cite{wolterink2017generative,yang2018low,arapakis2014using},
we use the mean and standard deviation (SD)
of pixels in homogeneous regions of
interest chosen by radiologists
to quantitatively judge the quality
of CT images.
The mean value reflects substance information.
Although the closer to that in the origin
image the better, mean value can fluctuate
within a range.
On the other hand, the standard
deviation reflects the noise level.
It should be as low as possible, which is
more sensitive than the mean value
in the denoising task.
Five homogeneous areas
chosen by radiologist are used
for the quantitative evaluation, which
are annotated by red rectangles in
Fig.~\ref{fig:overview} and numbered from 1 to 5.
The normalized quantitative results are shown in
Table \ref{table:199_idose}.
CCADN can reduce the standard deviation in the five
areas by 15\%, 21\%,
21\%, 22\% , and 22\%
respectively, with resulting
mean values close to those of the original images.
Although MCCAN without local cycles
achieves smallest standard
deviation in Areas 1, 3 and 4, it leads to
meaningless output with large mean deviation
from the original images, which corresponds
to the structure loss
in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview}(c).
MCCAN without global cycles has
similar performance
compared with CCADN.
with mean values close to original and standard
deviation reduction by 22\%, 23\%, 20\%,
27\%, and 19\% respectively.
Finally, the complete MCCAN behaves the
best among all the methods:
Within reasonable mean range,
the standard deviations
are decreased the most
by 24\%, 32\%, 29\%, 29\%, and 32\%
from the original CT images respectively.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we propose multi-cycle-consistent
adversarial network (MCCAN)
for CT image denoising. MCCAN builds
intermediate domains and enforces both
local and global cycle-consistency.
The global cycle-consistency
couples all generators together to model the
whole denoising process, while
the local cycle-consistency imposes
effective supervision on the denoising process
between adjacent domains.
Experiments show that both local and global
cycle-consistency are important for the
success of MCCAN and it outperforms
the state-of-the-art competitor.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{}
\keywords{ Word embedding, spectral methods, dimensionality reduction, nonlinear functionals, word2vec, the skip-gram model}
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction }
Word2vec was introduced by Mikolov \textit{et al.} \cite{mikolov2013efficient} as an unsupervised scheme for embedding words based on text corpora. We will try to introduce the idea in the simplest possible terms
and refer to \cite{mikolov2013efficient,goldberg2014word2vec, grover2016node2vec} for the way it is usually presented.
Let $\left\{x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n\right\}$ be a set of elements for which we aim to compute a numerical representation. These may be words, documents, or nodes in a graph.
Our input consists of an $n \times n$ matrix $P$ with non-negative elements $P_{ij}$, which
encode, by a numerical value, the relationship between the set $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n$ and a set of context elements $\{c_j\}_{j=1}^n$. The meaning of contexts is determined by the specific application, where in most cases the set of contexts is equal to the set of elements (i.e. $c_i= x_i$ for any $i\in \{1,\ldots,n\}$) \cite{goldberg2014word2vec}.
The larger the value of $P_{ij}$, the larger the connection between $x_i$ and $c_j$. For example, such a connection can be quantified by the probability that a word appears in the same sentence as another word. Based on $P$, Mikolov defined an energy function which depends on two sets of vector representations $\{w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ and $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$. Maximizing the functional with respect to these sets yields $\{w_1^*,\ldots,w_n^*\}$ and $\{v_1^*,\ldots,v_n^*\}$ which can serve as a low dimensional representations for the words and contexts respectively. Ideally, this embedding should encapsulate the relations captured by the matrix $P$.
Assuming a uniform prior over the $n$ elements, the energy function $L: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, introduced by Mikolov et. al \cite{mikolov2013efficient} can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:skip_gram_function}
L(w, v) = \left\langle w, Pv\right\rangle - \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp(w_i v_j)\right).
\end{equation}
The exact relation between \eqref{eq:skip_gram_function} and the formulation in \cite{mikolov2013distributed} appears in supplementary material.
Word2vec is based on maximizing this expression over all $(w,v) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n$
$$ (w^*, v^*) = \argmax_{(w,v)} L(w,v).$$
There is no reason to assume that the maximum is unique. It has been observed that if $x_i$ and $x_j$ are similar elements in the data set (namely, words that frequently appear in the same sentence), then $v_i^*, v_j^*$ or $w_i^*, w_j^*$ tend to have similar numerical values. Thus, the values $\left\{w_1^*, \dots, w_n^*\right\}$ are useful for
embedding $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$.
One could also try to maximize the symmetric loss that arises from enforcing $w=v$ and is given by $L:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:symmetric_loss}
L(w) = \left\langle w, Pw\right\rangle - \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp(w_i w_j)\right).
\end{equation}
In Section \ref{sec:Examples} we show that the symmetric functional yields a meaningful embedding for various datasets. Here, the interpretation of the functional is straight-forward: we wish to pick $w \in \mathbb{R}^n$ in a way that makes $\left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle$ large. Assuming $P$ is diagonalizable,
this is achieved for $w$ that is a linear combination of the leading eigenvectors.
At the same time, the exponential function places a penalty over large entries in $w$.
Our paper initiates a
rigorous study of the energy functional $L(w)$, however, we emphasize that a complete description of the energy landscape $L(w)$ remains an interesting open problem.
We also emphasize that our analysis has direct implications for computational aspects as well: for instance, if one were interested in maximizing the nonlinear functional, the maximum of its linear approximation (which is easy to compute) is a natural starting point.
A simple example is shown in Figure 1: the underlying dataset contains $200$ points in $\mathbb{R}^{10}$ where
the first $100$ points are drawn from a Gaussian distribution, and the second $100$ points are drawn from a second Gaussian distribution. The matrix $P$ is the row-stochastic matrix induced by a
Gaussian kernel $K_{ij} = \exp(-\|x_i - x_j\|^2/\alpha)$ where $\alpha$ is a scaling parameter discussed in Section \ref{sec:Examples}. We observe that, up to scaling, the maximizer of the energy functional (black) is well approximated
by the spectral methods introduced below.
\section{Motivation and Related works }
Optimizing over energy functions such as \eqref{eq:skip_gram_function} to obtain vector embeddings is done for various applications, such as words \cite{mikolov2013distributed}, documents \cite{le2014distributed} and graphs \cite{narayanan2017graph2vec}.
Surprisingly, very few works addressed the analytic aspects of optimizing over the word2vec functional.
Hashimoto et. al. \cite{hashimoto2016word} derived a relation between word2vec and stochastic neighbor embedding \cite{hinton2003stochastic}.
Cotterell et. al. \cite{cotterell2017explaining} showed that when $P$ is sampled according to a multinomial distribution, optimizing over \eqref{eq:skip_gram_function} is equivalent to exponential family PCA \cite{collins2002generalization}.
If the number of elements is large, optimizing over \eqref{eq:skip_gram_function} becomes impractical. As an efficient alternative, Mikolov et. al. \cite{mikolov2013distributed} suggested a variation
based on negative sampling.
Levy and Goldberg \cite{levy2014neural} showed that if the embedding dimension is sufficiently high, then optimizing over the negative sampling functional suggested in \cite{mikolov2013distributed} is equivalent to factorizing the shifted Pointwise Mutual Information matrix.
This work was extended in \cite{qiu2018network}, where similar results were derived for additional embedding algorithms such as \cite{grover2016node2vec,perozzi2014deepwalk,tang2015line}.
Decomposition of the PMI matrix was also justified by Arora et. al. \cite{Arora2015RandomWO}, based on a generative random walk model.
A different approach was introduced by
Landgraf \cite{landgraf2017word2vec},
that related the negative sampling loss function to logistic PCA.
In this work,
we focus on approximating the highly nonlinear word2vec functional by Taylor expansion. We show that in the regime of embedding vectors with small magnitude, the functional can be approximated by the spectral decomposition of the matrix $P$.
This draws a natural connection between word2vec and classical,
spectral embedding methods such as \cite{belkin2003laplacian,coifman2006diffusion}. By rephrasing
word2vec as a spectral method in the ‘small vector limit’, one gains access to a large
number of tools that allow one to rigorously establish a framework under which word2vec
can enjoy provable guarantees, such as in \cite{singer2017spectral,belkin2007convergence}.
\section{Results}
We now state our main results. In \S 3.1 we establish that the energy functional $L(w,v)$ has a nice asymptotic expansion around $(v,w) = (0,0) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n$ and corresponds naturally to a spectral method in that regime. Naturally, such an asymptotic expansion is only feasible if one has some control over the size of the entries of the extremizer. We establish in \S 3.2 that the vectors maximizing the functional are not too large. The results in \S 3.2 are closely matched by numerical results: in particular, we observe that $\|w\| \sim \sqrt{n}$ in practice, a logarithmic factor smaller than our upper bound. The proofs are given in \S 4 and explicit numerical examples are shown in \S 5. In \S 6 we show empirically that the relation between word2vec and the spectral approach holds also for embedding in more than one dimension.
\subsection{First order approximation for small data.} The main idea is simple: we make an ansatz assuming that the optimal vectors are roughly of size $\|w\|,\|v\|\sim 1 $. If we assume that the vectors $w,v$ are fairly `typical' vectors of size $\sim 1$,
then each entry is expected to scale approximately as $\sim n^{-1/2}$.
Our main observation is that this regime is governed by a regularized spectral method. Before stating our theorem, let $ \lesssim $ denote the inequality up to universal multiplicative constants.
\begin{theorem}[Spectral Expansion]\label{thm:second_approx}
If $\|v\|_{\infty}, \|w\|_{\infty} \lesssim n^{-1/2}$, then
$$ L(w, v) = \left\langle w, Pv \right\rangle - \frac{1}{n} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}{w_i} \right) \left( \sum_{j=1}^{n}{v_j} \right) - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,j = 1}^{n}{\frac{w_i^2 v_j^2}{2}} - n \log{n} + \mathcal{O}(n^{-1}).$$
\end{theorem}
Naturally, since we are interested in maximizing this quantity, the constant factor $n \log{n}$ plays no role. The leading terms can be rewritten as
$$ \left\langle w, Pv \right\rangle - \frac{1}{n} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}{w_i} \right) \left( \sum_{j=1}^{n}{v_j} \right) = \left\langle w, \left( P - \frac{1}{n} \textbf{1} \right) v \right\rangle,$$
where $\textbf{1}$ is the matrix all of whose entries are 1. This suggests that the optimal $v,w$ maximizing the quantity should simply be the singular vectors associated
to the matrix $ P - \frac{1}{n} \textbf{1}$.
The full expansion has a quadratic term that serves as an additional regularizer.
The symmetric case (with ansatz $v = w$) is particularly simple, since we have
$$ L(w) = \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle - \frac{1}{n} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}{w_i} \right)^2 - \frac{\|w\|^4}{2n} -n \log{n} + \mathcal{O}(n^{-1}).$$
Assuming $P$ is similar to a symmetric matrix, the optimal $w$ should be well described by the leading eigenvector of $\left( P - \frac{1}{n} \textbf{1} \right)$ with
an additional regularization term ensuring that $\|w\|$ is not too large. We consider this simple insight to
be the main contribution of this paper, since it explains succinctly why an algorithm like word2vec has a chance to be successful. We also give a
large number of numerical examples showing that in many cases the result obtained by word2vec is extremely similar to what we obtain from
the associated spectral method.
\vspace{1.5em}
\subsection{Optimal vectors are not too large}
Another basic question is as follows: how large is the norm of the vector(s) maximizing the energy function? This is of obvious importance in practice, however, as seen in Theorem 3.1, it
also has some theoretical relevance: if $w$ has large entries, then clearly one cannot hope to capture the exponential nonlinearity with a polynomial expansion. Assuming $\|P\| \leq 1$, the global maximizer $w^*$ of the second-order approximation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sec_approximation}
L_2(w) = \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle - \frac{1}{n} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}{w_i} \right)^2 - \frac{\|w\|^4}{2n} - n \log{n},
\end{equation}
satisfies
$$ \|w^*\| \leq \sqrt{2n}.$$
This can be seen as follows: if $\|P\| \leq 1$, then $\left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle \leq \|w\|^2$. Plugging in $w=0$ shows that the
maximal energy is at least size $-n\log{n}$. For any vector exceeding $\sqrt{2n}$ in size, we see that the energy is less than that establishing the bound.
We obtain similar boundedness properties for the fully nonlinear problem for a fairly general class of matrices.
\begin{theorem}[Generic Boundedness.] Let $P \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ satisfy $\|P\| < 1$. Then
$$ w = \arg\max_{w} ~~ \left\langle w, Pw\right\rangle - \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp(w_i w_j)\right),$$
satisfies
$$ \| w\|^2 \leq \frac{n \log{n}}{1-\|P\|}.$$
\end{theorem}
While we do not claim that this bound is sharp, however it does nicely illustrate that the solutions of the optimization problem must be bounded. Moreover,
if they are bounded, then so are their entries; more precisely, $\|w\|^2 \lesssim n$ implies that, for `flat' vectors, the typical entry is of size $\lesssim 1$ and thus
firmly within the approximations that can be reached by a Taylor expansion.
It is clear that a condition such as $\|P\| < 1$ is required for boundedness of the solutions. This can be observed by considering the row-stochastic matrix
$$ P = \begin{pmatrix} 1-\varepsilon & \varepsilon \\ \varepsilon & 1-\varepsilon \end{pmatrix}.$$
Writing $w = (w_1, w_2)$, we observe that the arising functional is quite nonlinear even in this simple case. However, it is fairly easy to understand the behavior of the gradient ascent method on the $w_1-$axis since
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial w_1} L(w_1, w_2) \big|_{w_2=0} = 2 w_1 \left( 1 - \varepsilon - \frac{e^{w_1^2}}{1 + e^{w_1^2}} \right),
\end{eqnarray*}
is monotonically increasing until $w_1 \sim \pm \sqrt{\log{\varepsilon^{-1}}}$. Therefore it is, a priori, unbounded since $\varepsilon$ can be arbitrarily close to 0.
In practice, one often uses word2vec for matrices whose spectral norm is $\|P\|=1$ and which have the additional property of being row-stochastic.
We also observe empirically
that the global optimizer $w^*$ has a mean value close to 0 (the expansion in Theorem 3.1 suggests why this would be the case). We achieve a similar boundedness theorem in which the only relevant operator norm is that of the operator restricted to the subspace of vectors having mean 0.
\begin{theorem}
[Boundedness for row-stochastic matrices]
\label{thm:upper_bound}
Let $P \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ be a row-stochastic matrix and let
$$ P_S: \left\{w \in \mathbb{R}^n: w_1 + \dots + w_n = 0\right\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n,$$
denote the restriction of $P$ to that subspace
and suppose that $\|P_S\| < 1$. Let
$$ w = \arg\max_{w} ~~ \left\langle w, Pw\right\rangle - \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp(w_i w_j)\right).$$
If $w$ has a mean value sufficiently close to 0,
$$ \left|\left\langle w, \frac{\textbf{1}}{\sqrt{n}} \right\rangle\right| \leq \frac{1-\|P_S\|}{3}\|w\|,$$
where $\textbf{1} = (1,1,1,\dots, 1)$, then
$$ \|w\|^2 \leq \frac{2n \log{n}}{1 - \|P_S\|}.$$
\end{theorem}
The $2 \times 2$ matrix given above, illustrates that some restrictions are necessary, in order to obtain a nicely bounded gradient ascent.
There is some freedom in the choice of the constants in Theorem 3.3.
Numerical
experiments show that the results are not merely theoretical: extremizing vectors tend to have a mean value sufficiently close to 0 for the theorem
to be applicable.
\vspace{1.5em}
\subsection{Outlook}
Summarizing, our main arguments are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The energy landscape of the word2vec functional is well approximated by a spectral method (or regularized spectral method) as long as the entries of
the vector are uniformly bounded. In any compact interval around 0, the behavior of the exponential function can be appropriately
approximated by a Taylor expansion of sufficiently high degree.
\item There are bounds that suggests that the energy of the embedding vector scale as $\sqrt{n\log n}$; this means that, for `flat' vectors, the individual entries grow at most like $\sqrt{\log{n}}$. Presumably this is an artifact of the proof.
\item Finally, we present examples in \S 4 showing that in many cases the embedding obtained by maximizing the word2vec functional are indeed accurately predicted by the second order approximation.
\end{enumerate}
This suggests various interesting lines of research: it would be nice to have refined versions of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 (an immediate goal being
the removal of the logarithmic dependence and perhaps even pointwise bounds on the entries of $w$). Numerical experiments indicate that Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 are at
most a logarithmic factor away from being optimal. A second natural avenue of research proposed by our paper is to differentiate the behavior of
word2vec and that of the associated spectral method: are the results of word2vec (being intrinsically nonlinear) truly different from the behavior of the
spectral method (arising as its linearization)? Or, put differently, is the nonlinear aspect of word2vec that is \textit{not} being captured by the spectral method
helpful for embedding?
\section{Proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 3.1]
We recall our assumption of $\|w\|_{\infty} \lesssim n^{-1/2}$ and $\|v\|_{\infty} \lesssim n^{-1/2}$ (where the implicit constant affects all subsequent constants).
We remark that the subsequent arguments could also be carried out for any $\|w\|_{\infty}, \|v\|_{\infty} \lesssim n^{-\varepsilon}$ at the cost of different error terms;
the arguments fail to be rigorous as soon as $\|w\|_{\infty} \sim 1$, since then, a priori, all terms in the Taylor expansion of $e^x$ could be of roughly the
same size. We start with the Taylor expansion
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^n e^{w_i v_j} &= \sum_{j=1}^n \left( 1 + w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2} + \mathcal{O}\left( n^{-3} \right)\right) \\
&= n + \sum_{j=1}^n \left(w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left( n^{-2} \right).
\end{align*}
In particular, we note that
$$ \left| \sum_{j=1}^n \left(w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2} \right)\right| \lesssim 1.$$
We use the series expansion
$$ \log{(n + x)} = \log{n} + \frac{x}{n} - \frac{x^2}{2n^2} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|x|^3}{n^3}\right)$$
to obtain
\begin{align*}
\log \left(\sum_{j=1}^n e^{w_i v_j} \right) &= \log{n} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \left(w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2}\right) \\
&- \frac{1}{2n^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2} \right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(n^{-3}).
\end{align*}
Here, the second sum can be somewhat simplified since
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2n^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2} \right)^2 &= \frac{1}{2n^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n \left(w_i v_j + \mathcal{O}(n^{-2}) \right) \right)^2\\
&= \frac{1}{2n^2} \left(\mathcal{O}(n^{-1}) + \sum_{j=1}^n w_i v_j \right)^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{2n^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n w_i v_j \right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(n^{-3})\\
&= \frac{w_i^2}{2n^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n v_j \right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(n^{-3})\\
\end{align*}
Altogether, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^n \log \left(\sum_{j=1}^n e^{w_i v_j} \right) &= \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \log{n} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \left(w_i v_j + \frac{ w_i^2 v_j^2}{2}\right) - \frac{w_i^2}{2n^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n v_j \right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(n^{-3}) \right)\\
&= n \log{n} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,j = 1}^{n}{w_i v_j} + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,j = 1}^{n}{\frac{w_i^2 v_j^2}{2}} \\
&- \frac{1}{n^2} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}{ \frac{w_i^2}{2}} \right) \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}{ v_j} \right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(n^{-2}).
\end{align*}
Since $\|w\|_{\infty}, \|v\|_{\infty} \lesssim n^{-1/2}$, we have
$$ \frac{1}{n^2} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}{ \frac{w_i^2}{2}} \right) \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}{ v_j} \right)^2 \lesssim n^{-1}$$
and have justified the desired expansion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 3.2]
Setting $w = 0$ results in the energy
$$ L(w) = -n \log{n}.$$
Now, let $w$ be a global maximizer. We obtain
\begin{align*}
- n \log{n} &\leq \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle - \sum_{i=1}^n \log \left(\sum_{j=1}^n e^{w_i w_j} \right) \\
&\leq \|P\| \|w\|^2 - \sum_{i=1}^n \log \left( e^{w_i^2} \right) \leq (\|P\| - 1)\|w\|^2
\end{align*}
which is the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 3.3]
We expand the vector $w$ into a multiple of the constant vector of norm 1, the vector
$$ \frac{\textbf{1}}{\sqrt{n}} = \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}, \dots, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right),$$
and the orthogonal complement via
$$ w = \left\langle w, \frac{\textbf{1}}{\sqrt{n}} \right\rangle \frac{\textbf{1}}{\sqrt{n}} + \left(w - \left\langle w, \frac{\textbf{1}}{\sqrt{n}} \right\rangle \frac{\textbf{1}}{\sqrt{n}} \right),$$
which we abbreviate as $w = \tilde w + (w - \tilde w)$. We expand,
\begin{align*}
\left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle &= \left\langle \tilde w, P \tilde w \right\rangle + \left\langle \tilde w, P(w-\tilde w) \right\rangle + \left\langle w-\tilde w, P\tilde w \right\rangle + \left\langle w-\tilde w, P(w-\tilde w) \right\rangle.
\end{align*}
Since $P$ is row-stochastic, we have $P \tilde w = \tilde w$ and thus $ \left\langle \tilde w, P \tilde w \right\rangle = \|\tilde w\|^2$. Moreover, we have
$$ \left\langle w-\tilde w, P\tilde w \right\rangle = \left\langle w-\tilde w, \tilde w \right\rangle = 0$$
since $w - \tilde w$ has mean value 0. We also observe, again because $w - \tilde w$ has mean value 0, that
$$ \left\langle \tilde w, P(w-\tilde w) \right\rangle = \left\langle \tilde w, P_S(w-\tilde w) \right\rangle.$$
Collecting all these estimates, we obtain
$$ \frac{ \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle}{\|w\|^2} \leq \frac{\|\tilde w\|^2}{\|w\|^2} + \frac{\|\tilde w \|}{\|w\|} \frac{ \|w - \tilde w\|}{\|w\|} \|P_S\| + \frac{ \|w - \tilde w\|^2}{\|w\|^2} \|P_S\|.$$
We also recall the Pythagorean theorem,
$$ \|\tilde w\|^2 + \|w - \tilde w\|^2 = \|w\|^2.$$
Abbreviating $x=\|\tilde w\|/\|w\|$, we can abbreviate our upper bound as
$$ \frac{ \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle}{\|w\|^2} \leq x^2 + x\sqrt{1-x^2} \|P_S\| + (1-x^2)\|P_S\|.$$
The function,
$$ x \rightarrow x\sqrt{1-x^2} + (1-x^2)$$
is monotonically increasing on $[0,1/3]$. Thus, assuming that
$$ x = \frac{\|\tilde w\|}{\|w\|} \leq \frac{1-\|P_S\|}{3},$$
we get, after some elementary computation,
\begin{align*}
\frac{ \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle}{\|w\|^2} &\leq \left(\frac{1-\|P_S\|}{9} \right)^2 + \frac{1-\|P_S\|}{9} \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{1-\|P_S\|}{9} \right)^2} \|P_S\| \\
&+ \left(1-\left(\frac{1-\|P_S\|}{9} \right)^2\right)\|P_S\| \leq 0.2 + 0.8\|P_S\|.
\end{align*}
However, we also recall from the proof of Theorem 3.2 that
$$ \sum_{i=1}^{n} -\log\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{w_i w_j}} \right) \leq - \|w\|^2.$$
Altogether, since the energy in the maximum has to exceed the energy in the origin, we have
\begin{align*}
-n \log{n} \leq \left\langle w, Pw \right\rangle - \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log\left( \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{w_i w_j}} \right) \leq \left( 0.2 + 0.8 \|P_S\| \right)\|w\|^2 - \|w\|^2
\end{align*}
and therefore,
$$ \|w\|^2 \leq \frac{2 n \log{n}}{1 - \|P_S\|}.$$
\end{proof}
\section{Examples}
\label{sec:Examples}
We validate our theoretical findings by comparing, for various datasets, the representation obtained by the following methods: (i) optimizing over the symmetric functional in \eqref{eq:skip_gram_function}, (ii) optimizing over the spectral method suggested by Theorem \ref{thm:second_approx} and (iii) computing the leading eigenvector of $P - \frac{1}{n} \textbf{1}$.
We denote by $w$, $\hat w$ and $u$ be the three vectors obtained by (i)-(iii) respectively.
The comparison is performed for two artificial datasets, two sets of images, a seismic dataset and a text corpus.
For the artificial, image and seismic data, the matrix $P$ is obtained by the following steps: we compute a pairwise kernel matrix
\begin{eqnarray*}
K(x_i,x_j) = \exp\bigg( -\frac{||x_i-x_j||^2}{\alpha}\bigg),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\alpha$ is a scale parameter set as in \cite{lafon2006data} using a max-min scale. The max-min scale is set to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:MaxMin}
\alpha= \underset{j}{\max} [ \underset{i,i\neq j}{\min} (||{x}_i-{x}_j||^2)],i,j=1,...n.
\end{eqnarray} This global scale guarantees that each point is connected to at least one other point. Alternatively, adaptive scales could be used as suggested in \cite{kernelscaling}. We then compute $P$ via
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{ij} = K_{ij}\big/\sum_{l=1}^N K_{il}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The matrix $P$ can be interpreted as a random walk over the data points, (see for example \cite{coifman2006diffusion}). Theorem \ref{thm:second_approx} holds for any matrix $P$ that is similar to a symmetric matrix, here we use the common construction from \cite{coifman2006diffusion}, but our results hold for other variations as well.
To support our approximation in Theorem \ref{thm:second_approx}, we compute the correlation coefficient between $u$ and $\hat w$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho(u,\hat w)=\frac{(u-\mu)^T(\hat w-\hat \mu)}{\|u-\mu\| \|\hat w- \hat \mu\|},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mu$ and $\hat \mu$ are the means of $u$ and $\hat w$ respectively.
A similar measure is done for $ w$ and $u$.
In addition, we illustrate that the norm $\|w\|$ is comparable to $\sqrt{n}$, which supports the upper bound in Theorem \ref{thm:upper_bound}.
\subsection{Noisy Circle}
\label{subsec:noisy_circle}
Here, the elements $\{x_1,...,x_{200} \in \mathbb{ R}^2 \}$ are generated by adding Gaussian noise with mean $0$ and $\sigma^2=0.1$ to a unit circle (see the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:circle}). The right panel shows the extracted representations $w$, $\hat{w}$ along with the leading eigenvector $u$ scaled by $\sqrt{\lambda n}$ where $\lambda$ is the corresponding eigenvalue. The correlation coefficients $\rho(w,u)$ and $\rho(\hat{w},u)$ are equal to $0.98$, $0.99$ respectively.
\subsection{Binary MNIST}
Next, we use a set of $300$ images of the digits $3$ and $4$ from the MNIST dataset \cite{mnist}. Two examples from each category are presented in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:mnist}. Here, the extracted representations $w$ and $\hat{w}$ match the values of the scaled eigenvector $u$ (see right panel of Figure \ref{fig:mnist}). The correlation coefficients $\rho(w,u)$ and $\rho(\hat w,u)$ are both higher than $0.999$.
\subsection{COIL100}
In this example, we use images from Columbia Object Image Library (COIL100) \cite{coil100}. Our dataset contains $21$ images of a cat captured at several pose intervals of $5$ degrees (see left panel of Figure \ref{fig:coil100}). We extract the embedding $w$ and $\hat{w}$ and reorder them based on the true angle of the cat at every image. In the right panel, we present the values of the reordered representations $w$, $\hat{w}$ and $u$ overlayed with the corresponding objects. The values of all representations are strongly correlated with the angle of the object. Moreover, the correlation coefficients $\rho(w,u)$ and $\rho(\hat w,u)$, are $0.97$ and $0.99$ respectively.
\subsection{Seismic Data}
Seismic recordings could be useful for identifying properties of geophysical events. We use a dataset collected in Israel and Jordan, described in \cite{seismic}. The data consists of $1632$ seismic recordings of earthquakes and explosions from quarries. Each recording is described by a sonogram with $13$ frequency bins, and $89$ time bins \cite{joswig} (see the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:sonograms}). Events could be categorized into $5$ groups using manual annotations of their origin. We flatten each sonogram into a vector, and extract embeddings $w$, $\hat{w}$, and $u$. In the right panel of this figure, we show the extracted representations of all events. We use dashed lines to annotate the different categories and sort the values within each category based on $u$. The coefficient $\rho(w,v)$ is equal to $0.89$, and $\rho(\hat w,v)=1$.
\subsection{Text Data}
As a final evaluation we use a corpus of words from the book ``Alice in Wonderland'' as processed in \cite{alicetext}. To define a co-occurrence matrix, we scan the sentences using a window size covering $5$ neighbors before and after each word. We subsample the top $1000$ words in terms of occurrences in the book. The matrix $P$ is then defined by normalizing the co-occurrence matrix. In Figure \ref{fig:alice} we present centered and normalized versions of the representations $w$, $\hat{w}$ and the leading left singular vector $v$ of $P- \frac{1}{n} \textbf{1}$. The coefficient $\rho(w,v)$ is equal to $0.77$, and $\rho(\hat w,v)=1$.
\section{Multi-dimensional Embedding}
\label{sec:experiment high dim}
In Section \ref{eq:sec_approximation} we have demonstrated that under certain assumptions, the maximizer of the energy functional in \eqref{eq:symmetric_loss} is governed by a regularized spectral method. For simplicity, we have restricted our analysis to a one dimensional symmetric representations, i.e.
$w=v\in R^N$. Here, we demonstrate empirically that this result holds even when embedding $n$ elements $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ in higher dimensions.
Let $w_i \in R^d$ be the embedding vector associated with $x_i$, where $d\ll n$ is the embedding dimension. The symmetric word2vec functional is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:high-dim}
L(W) = \text{Tr}(W ^T P W) -\sum_{i=1}^n \log \Bigg( \sum_{j=1}^n \exp(w^T_i w_j) \Bigg),
\end{equation}
where $W=[w_1,\ldots,w_n]^T \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$. A similar derivation to the one presented in Theorem \ref{thm:second_approx} (the one dimensional case) yields the following approximation of \eqref{eq:high-dim},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:approx_highdim}
L_2 (W) = \text{Tr}\big( W^T (P - \frac{1}{n}\V{1} \big) W) - \frac{\|W^TW\|_F^2}{2n} -n\log n.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that both the symmetric functional in \eqref{eq:high-dim} and its approximation in \eqref{eq:approx_highdim} are invariant to multiplying $W$ with an orthogonal matrix. That is, $W$ and $WR$ produce the same value in both functionals, where $R\in O(d)$.
To understand how the maximizer of \eqref{eq:high-dim} is governed by a spectral approach, we perform the following comparison. (i) We obtain the optimizer $ W$ of \eqref{eq:high-dim} via gradient descent, and compute its left singular vectors, denoted $u_1,\ldots,u_d$.
(ii) We compute the right singular vectors of $P-\frac1n \bf 1$, denoted by $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_d$. (iii) Compute the pairwise absolute correlation values $\rho(u_i, \psi_j) .$
We experiment on two datasets: (1) A collection of $5$ Gaussians, and (2) images of hand written digits from MNIST. The transition probability matrix $P$ was constructed as described in Section \ref{sec:Examples}.
\vspace{0.2 in}
\subsection{Data from distinct Gaussians}
In this experiment we generate a total of $2500$ samples, consisting of five sets of size $500$. The samples in the $i$-th set are drawn independently according to a Gaussian distribution $\mathcal N (r\cdot i\cdot \textbf 1, 2\cdot I)$, where $\textbf{1}$ is a $10-$ dimensional all ones vector, and $r$ is scalar that controls the separation between the Gaussian centers.
Figure \ref{fig:corr_gauss_high} shows the absolute correlation value of the pairwise correlation between $u_1,\ldots,u_4$ and $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_4$ for $r = 8,9, \text{ and } 10$. The correlation between the result obtained via the word2vec functional \eqref{eq:high-dim} and the right singular vectors of $P-\frac1n \textbf{1}$ increase when the separation between the Gaussians is high.
\vspace{0.1 in}
\subsection{Multi-class MNIST}
The data consists of $10,000$ samples from the MNIST hand-written dataset with $1,000$ images from each digit ($0-9$). We compute a $10-$dimensional word2vec embedding $W$ by optimizing \eqref{eq:high-dim}.
Figure \ref{fig:highd2} shows the absolute correlation between the $u_1,\ldots,u_{10}$ and $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_{10}$. As evident from the correlation matrix, the results obtained by both methods span similar subspaces.
\subsection{Figures}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{two-clusters-new.jpg}
\caption{Illustration of point set drawn from two distinct Gaussian distributions. The result of maximizing over the word2vec functional (black) is closely tracked (up to scale) by the optimizer of the spectral method (blue) and the eigenvector (red). In Figure \ref{fig:hist}, we present a scatter plot comparing the values of $\hat{w}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda n} u$.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{circle_combined.jpg}
\caption{Left: $200$ elements on the noisy circle data set. Points are generated by adding noise drawn from a two dimensional Gaussian with zero mean and a variance of $0.1$. Right: The extracted representations based on the symmetric loss $w$, second order approximation $\hat w$ and leading eigenvector $u$. In Figure \ref{fig:hist}, we present a scatter plot comparing the values of $\hat{w}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda n} u$.}
\label{fig:circle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{mnist_in.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{MNIST.jpg}
\caption{Left: handwritten digits from the MNIST dataset. Right: The extracted representations $w$, $\hat{w}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda n u}$, the leading eigenvector of $ P - \frac{1}{n} \textbf{1}$. In Figure \ref{fig:hist}, we present a scatter plot comparing the values of $\hat{w}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda n} u$. In Figure \ref{fig:hist}, we present a scatter plot comparing the values of $\hat{w}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda n} u$. }
\label{fig:mnist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{coil_in.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.52\textwidth]{coil100-large.jpg}
\caption{Left: $21$ samples from COIL100 dataset. The object is captured at several unorganized angles.
Right:
The sorted values of the representations $w$,$\hat{w}$ and $u$, along with the corresponding object. Here, the representation correlates with the angle of the object. In Figure \ref{fig:hist}, we present a scatter plot comparing the values of $\hat{w}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda n} u$.}
\label{fig:coil100}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{sonogram_example_b.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{sonogram_embedding.jpg}
\caption{Left: $4$ samples from the sonogram dataset, of different event types.
Right:
The values of the representations $w$,$\hat{w}$ and $u$. Dashed lines annotate the different categories of the events (based on event type and quarry location). Within each category the representations are ordered based on the value of $u$.}
\label{fig:sonograms}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{alice.jpg}
\caption{Word representation based on ``Alice in Wonderland''. The values of the representations $w$,$\hat{w}$ and $v$ are sorted based on the singular vector $v$. We normalized all representations to unit norm. }
\label{fig:alice}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{compare_eigvec.jpeg}
\caption{Scatter plots of the scaled eigenvector of $P-\frac{1}{n}\bf{1}$, denoted by $u$, and the minimizer of the approximated functional (in Eq. \ref{eq:sec_approximation}), denoted by $\hat{w}$. From top left to bottom right, results based on data from: two Gaussian clusters, a circle, binary MNIST images and COIL 100.
}
\label{fig:hist}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{dist-8-equal.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{dist-9-equal.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{dist-10-equal.jpg}
\caption{Word2vec embedding of a collection of Gaussians. We use $2500$ points generated according to five distinct Gaussians $\mathcal N (r\cdot i\cdot \textbf 1, 2\cdot I)$, where $\textbf{1}$ is a $10-$ dimensional all ones vector, and $r$ is scalar that controls the separation between the Gaussian centers. The figure shows the absolute correlation between $u_1,\ldots,u_4$ and $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_4$ for $r=8,9, \text{ and }10$.
For each value of $r$, we compute the sum of diagonal elements in the correlation matrix.
This results demonstrate the strong agreement between word2vec embedding and the spectral representation based on $P-\frac{1}{n} \textbf{1}$.
}
\label{fig:corr_gauss_high}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{word2vec_multiclass_Mnist_0.jpg}
\caption{Word2vec embedding of samples from multiclass MNIST. We use $10000$ samples drawn from the MNIST handwritten dataset. The figure shows the absolute correlation between the $u_1,\ldots,u_{10}$ and $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_{10}$. This results provide another empirical evidence that the eigenvectors of $P-\frac{1}{n}\bm 1$ are a good proxy for word2vec embedding. }
\label{fig:highd2}
\end{figure}
\paragraph*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank James Garritano and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. This work was supported by National Science Foundation DMS-1763179, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
As data becomes an essential driver of innovation and service, how to quantify the value of data is an increasingly important topic of inquiry with policy, economic, and machine learning (ML) implications.
In the policy arena, recent proposals, such as the Dashboard Act in the U.S. Senate, stipulate that large companies quantify the value of data they collect.
In the global economy, the business model of many companies involves buying and selling data.
For ML engineering, it is often beneficial to know which type of training data is most valuable and, hence, most deserving of resources towards collection and annotation.
As such, a principled framework for data valuation would be tremendously useful in all of these domains.
Recent works initiated a formal study of data valuation in ML \cite{datashapley,jia2019towards}.
In a typical setting, a data set $B = \{z_i\}$ is used to train a ML model,
which achieves certain performance, say classification accuracy $0.9$.
The data valuation problem is to
assign credit amongst the training set, so that each point gets an ``equitable'' share for its contribution towards achieving the $0.9$ accuracy.
Most works have focused on leveraging \emph{Shapley value} as the metric to quantify the contribution of individual $z_i$.
The focus on Shapley value
is in large part
due to the fact that
Shapley uniquely satisfies basic properties for equitable credit allocation \cite{shapley1953value}.
Empirical experiments also show that data Shapley is very effective -- more so than leave-one-out scores -- at identifying points whose addition or removal substantially impacts learning \cite{ghorbani2017interpretation,datashapley}.
At a high-level, prior works on data Shapley require three ingredients: (1) a fixed training data set of $m$ points; (2) a learning algorithm; and (3) a performance metric that measures the overall value of a trained model.
The goal of this work is to significantly reduce the dependency on the first ingredient.
While convenient, formulating the value based on a \emph{fixed data set} disregards crucial statistical considerations and, thus, poses significant practical limitations.
In standard settings, we imagine that data is sampled from a distribution $\mathcal{D}$; measuring the Shapley value with respect to a fixed data set
ignores this underlying distribution.
It also means that the value of a data point computed within one data set
may not make sense when the point is transferred to a new data set.
If we actually want to buy and sell data, then it is important that the value of a given data point represents some intrinsic quality of the datum within the distribution.
For example, a data seller might determine that $z$ has high value based on their data set
$B_s$
and sell $z$ to a buyer at a high price.
Even if the buyer's data set
$B_b$
is drawn from a similar distribution as
$B_s$,
the existing data Shapley framework
provides no guarantee of consistency between the value of $z$ computed within
$B_s$
and within
$B_b$.
This inconsistency may be especially pronounced in the case when
the buyer has significantly less data than the seller.
\subsection*{Our contributions}
\paragraph{Conceptual.} Extending prior works on data Shapley, we formulate and develop a notion of \emph{distributional Shapley value} in Section~\ref{sec:dshapley}.
We define the distributional variant in terms of the original data Shapley:
the distributional Shapley value is taken to be the expected data Shapley value, where the data set is drawn i.i.d.\ from the underlying data distribution.
Reformulating this notion of value as a statistical quantity allows us to prove that the notion is stable with respect to perturbations to the inputs as well as the underlying data distribution.
Further, we show a mathematical identity that gives an equivalent definition of distributional Shapley as an expected marginal performance increase by adding the point,
suggesting an unbiased estimator.
\textbf{Algorithmic.}~ In Section~\ref{sec:alg}, we develop this estimator into a novel sampling-based algorithm, \textsc{$\D$-Shapley}.
In contrast to prior estimation heuristics, \textsc{$\D$-Shapley} comes with strong formal approximation guarantees.
Leveraging the stability properties of distributional Shapley value and the simple nature of our algorithm, we develop theoretically-principled optimizations to \textsc{$\D$-Shapley}.
In our experiments across diverse tasks, the optimizations lead to order-of-magnitude reductions in computational costs while maintaining the quality of estimations.
\textbf{Empirical.}~ Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:case}, we present a data pricing case study that demonstrates the consistency of values produced by \textsc{$\D$-Shapley}.
In particular, we show that a data broker can list distributional Shapley values as ``prices,'' which a collection of buyers all agree are fair (i.e.\ the data gives each buyer as much value as the seller claims).
In all, our results demonstrate that the distributional Shapley framework represents a significant step towards the practical viability of the Shapley-based approaches to data valuation.
\subsection*{Related works}
Shapley value, introduced in \cite{shapley1953value}, has been studied extensively in the literature on cooperative games and economics \cite{shapley1988shapley}, and has traditionally been used in the valuation of private information and data markets~\cite{kleinberg2001value,agarwal2019marketplace}.
Our work is most directly related to recent works that apply Shapley value to the data valuation problem.
\cite{datashapley} developed the notion of ``Data Shapley'' and provided algorithms to efficiently estimate values.
Specifically, leveraging the permutation-based characterization of Shapley value, they developed a ``truncated Monte Carlo'' sampling scheme (referred to as \textsc{TMC-Shapley}), demonstrating empirical effectiveness across various ML tasks.
\cite{jia2019towards} introduce several additional approximation methods for efficient computation of Shapley values for training data; subsequently, \cite{jia2019efficient} provided an algorithm for exact computation of Shapley values for the specific case of nearest neighbor classifiers.
Beyond data valuation, the Shapley framework has been used in a variety of ML applications, e.g.\ as a measure of feature importance \cite{cohen2007shap4,kononenko2010shap1,datta2016shap2,lundberg2017shap3,chen2018shapley}.
The idea of a distributional Shapley value bears resemblance to the Aumann-Shapley value \cite{aumann}, a measure-theoretic variant of the Shapley that quantifies the value of individuals within a continuous ``infinite game.''
Our distributional Shapley value focuses on the tangible setting of finite data sets drawn from a (possibly continuous) distribution.
\section{Distributional Data Valuation}
\label{sec:dshapley}
\subsection*{Preliminaries}
Let $\D$ denote a data distribution supported on a universe $\Z$.
For supervised learning problems, we often think of $\Z = \X \times \Y$ where $\X \subseteq \R^d$ and $\Y$ is the output, which can be discrete or continuous.
For $m \in \N$, let $S \sim \D^m$ a collection of $k$ data points sampled i.i.d.\ from $\D$.
Throughout, we use the shorthand $[m] = \set{1,\hdots,m}$ and let $k \sim [m]$ denote a uniform random sample from $[m]$.
We denote by $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$ a potential function\footnote{We use $\Z^* = \bigcup_{n\in \N} \Z^n$ to indicates any finite Cartesian product of $\Z$ with itself; thus, $\pot$ is well-defined on the any natural number of inputs from $\Z$.} or performance metric, where for any $S \subseteq \Z$, $\pot(S)$ represents abstractly the value of the subset. While our analysis applies broadly, in our context, we think of $\pot$ as capturing both the \emph{learning algorithm} and the \emph{evaluation metric}.
For instance, in the context of training a logistic regression model, we might think of $\pot(S)$ as returning the population accuracy of the empirical risk minimizer when $S$ is the training set.
\subsection{Distributional Shapley Value}
Our starting point is the data Shapley value, proposed in \cite{datashapley,jia2019towards} as a way to valuate training data equitably.
\begin{definition}[Data Shapley Value]
Given a potential function $\pot$
and data set $B \subseteq \Z$ where $\card{B} = m$, the data Shapley value of a point $z \in B$ is defined as
\begin{gather*}
\sh(z;\pot,B) \triangleq \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^m \frac{1}{\binom{m-1}{k-1}} \sum_{\substack{S \subseteq B\setminus\set{z}:\\\card{S}=k-1}} \left(\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)\right).
\end{gather*}
\end{definition}
In words, the data Shapley value of a point $z \in B$ is a weighted empirical average over subsets $S \subseteq B$ of the marginal potential contribution of $z$ to each $S$;
the weighting is such that each possible cardinality $\card{S} = k \in \set{0,\hdots,m-1}$ is weighted equally.
The data Shapley value satisfies a number of desirable properties; indeed, it is the unique valuation function that satisfies the Shapley axioms\footnote{For completeness, the axioms -- symmetry, null player, additivity, and efficiency -- are reviewed in Appendix~\ref{app:axioms}.}. Note that
as the data set size grows, the absolute magnitude of individual data points' values typically scales inversely.
While data Shapley value is a natural solution concept for
data valuation,
its formulation leads to several limitations.
In particular, the values may be very sensitive to the exact choice of $B$; given another $B' \neq B$ where $z \in B \cap B'$, the value $\sh(z;\pot,B)$ might be quite different from $\sh(z;\pot,B')$.
At the extreme, if a new point $z' \not \in B$ is added to $B$, then in principle, we would have to rerun the procedure to compute the data Shapley values for all points in $B \cup \set{z'}$.
In settings where our data are drawn from an underlying distribution $\D$,
a natural extension to the data Shapley approach would parameterize the valuation function by $\D$,
rather than the specific draw of the data set.
Such a distributional Shapley value should be more stable, by removing the explicit dependence on the draw of the training data set.
\begin{definition}[Distributional Shapley Value]
Given a potential function $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$, a distribution $\D$ supported on $\Z$, and some $m \in \N$, the distributional Shapley value of a point $z \in \Z$ is the expected data Shapley value over data sets of size $m$ containing $x$.
\begin{equation*}
\val(z;\pot,\D,m) \triangleq \E_{B \sim \D^{m-1}}\left[\sh\left(z;\pot,B \cup \set{z}\right)\right]
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
In other words, we can think of the data Shapley value as a random variable that depends on the specific draw of data from $\D$.
Taking the distributional Shapley value $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ to be the expectation of this random variable eliminates instability caused by the variance of $\sh(z;\pot,B)$.
While distributional Shapley is simple to state based on the original Shapley value, to the best of our knowledge, the concept is novel to this work.
We note that, while more stable, the distributional Shapley value inherits many of the desirable properties of Shapley, including the Shapley axioms and an expected efficiency property; we cover these in Appendix~B.
Importantly, distributional Shapley also has a clean characterization as the expected gain in potential by adding $z \in \Z$ to a random data set (of random size).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Dshapley}
Fixing $\pot$ and $\D$, for all $z \in \Z$ and $m \in \N$,
\begin{equation*}
\val(z;\pot,\D,m) = \E_{\substack{k \sim [m]\\S \sim \D^{k-1}}}\left[\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)\right]
\end{equation*}
That is, the distributional Shapley value of a point is its expected marginal contribution in $\pot$ to a set of i.i.d.\ samples from $\D$ of uniform random cardinality.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The identity holds as a consequence of the definition of data Shapley value and linearity of expectation.
\begin{align*}
\val(z;\pot,\D,m) &= \E_{D \sim \D^{m-1}}\left[\sh(z;\pot,D \cup \set{z})\right]\\
&=\E_{D \sim \D^{m-1}}\left[\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^m \frac{1}{\binom{m-1}{k-1}} \sum_{\substack{S \subseteq D:\\\card{S}=k-1}} \left(\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)\right)\right]\\
&= \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^m \frac{1}{\binom{m-1}{k-1}} \E_{D \sim \D^{m-1}}\left[\sum_{\substack{S \subseteq D:\\\card{S}=k-1}} \left(\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)\right)\right]\\
&=\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^m \E_{S \sim \D^{k-1}} \left[\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)\right]\addtag\label{thm:Dshapley:pf}\\
&=\E_{\substack{k \sim [m]\\S \sim \D^{k-1}}} \left[\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)\right]
\end{align*}
where (\ref{thm:Dshapley:pf}) follows by the fact that $D \sim \D^{m-1}$ consists of i.i.d.\ samples, so each $S \subseteq D$ with $\card{S} = k-1$ is identically distributed according to $\D^{k-1}$.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Example: mean estimation.} Leveraging this characterization, for well-structured problems, it is possible to give analytic expressions for the distributional Shapley values.
For instance, consider estimating the mean $\mu$ of a distribution $\D$ supported on $\R^d$.
For a finite subset $S \subseteq \R^d$, we take a potential $\pot(S)$ based on the empirical estimator $\hat{\mu}_S$.
\begin{align*}
\pot_\mu(S) &= \E_{s \sim \D}\left[\norm{s - \mu}^2\right] - \norm{\hat{\mu}_S - \mu}^2
\end{align*}
\begin{proposition}
Suppose $\D$ has bounded second moments.
Then for $z \in \Z$ and $m \in \N$, $\val(z;\pot_\mu,\D,m)$ for mean estimation over $\D$ is given by
\begin{gather*}
\frac{\E_{S \sim \D^m}\left[\pot(S)\right]}{m} +
\frac{C_m}{m}\cdot \left(\E_{s \sim \D}\left[\norm{s-\mu}^2\right] - \norm{z - \mu}^2\right)
\end{gather*}
for an explicit constant $C_m = \Theta(1)$ determined by $m$.
\end{proposition}
Intuitively, this proposition (proved in Appendix~\ref{app:meanest}) highlights some desirable properties of distributional Shapley: the expected value for a random $z \sim \D$ is an uniform share of the potential for a randomly drawn data set $S \sim \D^m$; further, a point has above-average value when it is closer to $\mu$ than expected.
In general, analytically deriving the distributional Shapley value may not be possible.
In Section~\ref{sec:alg}, we show how the characterization of Theorem~\ref{thm:Dshapley} leads to an efficient algorithm for estimating values.
\subsection{Stability of distributional Shapley values}
Before presenting our algorithm, we discuss stability properties of distributional Shapley, which are interesting in their own right, but also have algorithmic implications.
We show that when the potential function $\pot$ satisfies a natural stability property, the corresponding distributional Shapley value inherits stability under perturbations to the data points and the underlying data distribution.
First, we recall a standard notion of deletion stability, often studied in the context of generalization of learning algorithms \cite{bousquet2002stability}.
\begin{definition}[Deletion Stability]
For potential $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$ and non-increasing $\beta:\N \to [0,1]$, $\pot$ is $\beta(k)$-deletion stable if for all $k \in \N$ and $S \in \Z^{k-1}$, for all $z \in \Z$
\begin{equation*}
\card{\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)} \le \beta(k).
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
We can similarly discuss the idea of replacement stability, where we bound $\card{\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S \cup \set{z'})}$;
note that by the triangle inequality, $\beta(k)$-deletion stability of $\pot$ implies $2\beta(k)$-replacement stability.
To analyze the properties of distributional Shapley, a natural strengthening of replacement stability will be useful, which
we call \emph{Lipschitz stability}.
Lipschitz stability is parameterized by a metric $d$,
requires the degree of robustness under replacement of $z$ with $z'$ to scale according to the distance $d(z,z')$.
\begin{definition}[Lipschitz Stability]
Let $(\Z,d)$ be a metric space.
For potential $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$ and non-increasing $\beta:\N \to [0,1]$, $\pot$ is $\beta(k)$-Lipschitz stable with respect to $d$ if for all $k \in \N$, $S \in \Z^{k-1}$, and all $z,z' \in \Z$,
\begin{equation*}
\card{\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S \cup \set{z'})} \le \beta(k) \cdot d(z,z').
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
By taking $d$ to be the trivial metric, where $d(z,z') = 1$ if $z \neq z'$, we see that Lipschitz-stability generalizes the idea of replacement stability; still,
there are natural learning algorithms that satisfy Lipschitz stability for nontrivial metrics.
As one example, we show that Regularized empirical risk minimization over a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) -- a prototypical example of a replacement stable learning algorithm -- also satisfies this stronger notion of Lipschitz stability.
We include a formal statement and proof in Appendix~\ref{app:rkhs}.
\paragraph{Similar points receive similar values.}
As discussed, a key limitation with the data Shapley approach for fixed data set $B$ is that we can only ascribe values to $z \in B$.
Intuitively, however, we would hope that if two points $z$ and $z'$ are similar according to some appropriate metric, then they would receive similar Shapley values.
We confirm this intuition for distributional Shapley values when the potential function $\pot$ satisfies Lipschitz stability.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:stable:points}
Fix a metric space $(\Z,d)$ and a distribution $\D$ over $\Z$; let $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$ be $\beta(k)$-Lipschitz stable with respect to $d$.
Then for all $m \in \N$, for all $z,z' \in \Z$,
\begin{equation*}
\card{\val(z;\pot,\D,m) - \val(z';\pot,\D,m)} \le \E_{k \sim [m]}\left[\beta(k)\right]\cdot d(z,z').
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For any data set size $m \in \N$, we expand $\val(z';\pot,\D,m)$ to express it in terms of $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$.
\begin{align*}
\val(z';\pot,\D,m)
&=
\E_{\substack{k \sim [m]\\S \sim \D^{k-1}}}\left[U(S \cup \set{z'}) - U(S)\right]\\
&= \E_{\substack{k \sim [m]\\S \sim \D^{k-1}}}\left[U(S \cup \set{z}) - U(S)\right] + \E_{\substack{k \sim [m]\\S \sim \D^{k-1}}}\left[U(S \cup \set{z'}) - U(S \cup \set{z})\right]\\
&\le \val(z;\pot,\D,m) + \E_{k \sim [m]}\left[\beta(k)\right]\cdot d(z,z')\addtag \label{thm:eqn:lipx}
\end{align*}
where (\ref{thm:eqn:lipx}) follows by the assumption that $\pot$ is $\beta(k)$-Lipschitz stable and linearity of expectation.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:stable:points} suggests that in many settings of interest, the distributional Shapley value will be Lipschitz in $z$.
This Lipschitz property also suggests that, given the values of a (sufficiently-diverse) set of points $Z$, we may be able to infer the values of unseen points $z' \not \in Z$ through interpolation.
Concretely, in Section~\ref{sec:alg:speedup}, we leverage this observation to give an order of magnitude speedup over our baseline estimation algorithm.
\paragraph{Similar distributions yield similar value functions.}
The distributional Shapley value is naturally parameterized by the underlying data distribution $\D$.
For two distributions $\D_s$ and $\D_t$, given the value $\val(z;\pot,\D_s,m)$, what can we say about the value $\val(z;\pot,\D_t,m)$?
Intuitively, if $\D_s$ and $\D_t$ are similar under an appropriate metric, we'd expect that the values should not change too much.
Indeed, we can formally quantify how the distributional Shapley value is stable under distributional shift under the Wasserstein distance.
For two distributions $\D_s,\D_t$ over $\Z$,
let $\Gamma_{st}$ be the collection of joint distributions over $\Z \times \Z$, whose marginals are $\D_s$ and $\D_t$.\footnote{That is, for all $\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}$, if $(s,t) \sim \gamma$, then $s \sim \D_s$ and $t \sim \D_t$.}
Fixing a metric $d$ over $\Z$, the Wasserstein distance is the infimum over all such couplings $\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}$ of the expected distance between $(s,t) \sim \gamma$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eqnerstein}
W_1(\D_s,\D_t) \triangleq \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}} ~\E_{(s,t)\sim \gamma} \left[d(s,t)\right]
\end{equation}
We formalize the idea that distributional Shapley values are stable under small perturbations to the underlying data distribution as follows.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:stable:dist}
Fix a metric space $(\Z,d)$ and let $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$ be $\beta(k)$-Lipschitz stable with respect to $d$. Suppose $\D_s$ and $\D_t$ are two distributions over $\Z$.
Then, for all $m \in \N$ and all $z \in \Z$,
\begin{gather*}
\card{\val(z;\pot,\D_s,m) - \val(z;\pot,\D_t,m)} \le \frac{2}{m} \sum_{k =1}^{m-1} k \beta(k) \cdot W_1(\D_s,\D_t).
\end{gather*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For notational convenience, for any $z \in \Z$ and subset $S \subseteq \Z$, we denote $\Delta_z \pot(S) = \pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)$.
Thus, fixing $z \in \Z$, we can write $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ as $\E_{k \sim [m]}\E_{S \sim \D^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S)\right]$.
We analyze $\E_{S \sim \D^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S)\right]$ for each fixed $k \in \set{2,\hdots,m}$ separately.\footnote{Note that for a fixed potential $U$, $m=1$ is uninteresting because both sides of the inequality are $0$; in particular, $\card{S}$ is always $0$, so the LHS is given by the difference $U(z) - U(z)$.}
Let $\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}$ be some coupling of $\D_s$ and $\D_t$.
Then, we can expand the expectation as follows.
\begin{align}
\E_{S \sim \D_s^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S)\right]
&=
\E_{S\times T \sim \gamma^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S)\right]\label{thm:eqn:wass:coup1}\\
&= \E_{S\times T
}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S) - \Delta_z \pot(T)\right] + \E_{S\times T
}\left[\Delta_z \pot(T) \right]\label{thm:eqn:wass:linearity}\\
&= \E_{S\times T
}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S) - \Delta_z \pot(T)\right] + \E_{T \sim \D_t^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(T)\right]\label{thm:eqn:wass:coup2}
\end{align}
where (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:coup1}) and (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:coup2}) follow by the assumption that the marginals of $\gamma$ are $\D_s$ and $\D_t$; and (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:linearity}) follows by linearity of expectation.
To bound the first term of (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:coup2}), we expand the difference between $\Delta_z \pot(S)$ and $\Delta_z \pot(T)$ into a telescoping sum of $k$ pairs of terms, where we bound each pair to depend on a single draw $(s_i,t_i) \sim \gamma$.
For $S,T \in \Z^k$ and $i \in \set{0,\hdots,k}$, denote by $Z_i = \left(\bigcup_{j=i+1}^k s_j\right) \cup \left(\bigcup_{j=1}^i t_j\right)$; note that $Z_0 = S$ and $Z_k = T$.
Then, we can rewrite $\Delta_z \pot(S) - \Delta_z \pot(T)$ as follows.
\begin{align*}
\Delta_z \pot(S) - \Delta_z \pot(T)
&= \sum_{i=1}^k \Delta_z \pot(Z_{i-1}) - \Delta_z \pot(Z_i)
\end{align*}
Now suppose $\pot$ is $\beta(k)$-Lipschitz stable with respect to $d$; note that this implies $\Delta_z \pot$ is $2\beta(k)$-Lipschitz stable (because $\beta$ is non-increasing).
Then, we obtain the following bound.
\begin{align}
\E_{S\times T \sim \gamma^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(S) - \Delta_z \pot(T)\right]
&=
\E_{S\times T \sim \gamma^{k-1}}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \Delta_z \pot(Z_{i-1}) - \Delta_z \pot(Z_i)\right] \notag\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \E_{S,T \sim \gamma^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_z \pot(Z_{i-1}) - \Delta_z \pot(Z_i)\right]\notag \\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}
\E_{\substack{s_i,t_i \sim \gamma\\R \in \Z^{k-2}}}
\left[\Delta_z \pot(R \cup \set{s_i}) - \Delta_z \pot(R \cup \set{t_i})\right] \label{thm:eqn:wass:neighbor}\\
&\le 2\beta(k-1) \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \E_{(s_i,t_i) \sim \gamma}[d(s_i,t_i)]\label{thm:eqn:wass:stable}\\
&\le 2(k-1)\beta(k-1) \cdot \E_{(s,t) \sim \gamma}[d(s,t)]\label{thm:eqn:wass:iid}
\end{align}
where (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:neighbor}) notes $Z_{i-1}$ and $Z_i$ differ on only the $i$th data point; (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:stable}) follows from the assumption that $\Delta_z \pot$ is $2\beta(k)$-Lischitz stable and linearity of expectation; and finally (\ref{thm:eqn:wass:iid}) follows by the fact that each draw from $\gamma$ is i.i.d.
Finally, we note that the argument above worked for an arbitrary coupling in $\Gamma_{st}$; thus, we can express the difference in values in terms of the infimum over $\Gamma_{st}$.
\begin{align*}
&\val(z; \pot,\D_s,m) - \val(z; \pot,\D_t,m)\\
&\le \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}}~\E_{k \sim [m]}\left[\E_{S\times T \sim \gamma^{k-1}}\left[\Delta_ \pot(S) - \Delta_z \pot(T)\right]\right]\\
&\le \frac{2}{m} \sum_{k = 2}^m (k-1)\beta(k-1) \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}} \E_{(s,t) \sim \gamma}[d(s,t)]\\
&= \frac{2}{m} \sum_{k=1}^{m-1} k\beta(k) \cdot W_1(\D_s,\D_t)
\end{align*}
where the first summation is taken over $k \in \set{2,\hdots,m}$ as the term associated with $k=1$ is $0$.
\end{proof}
Note that the theorem bounds the difference in values under shifts in distribution holding the potential $\pot$ fixed.
Often in applications, we will take the potential function to depend on the underlying data distribution.
For instance, we may take to be a measure of population accuracy, e.g.\ $\pot_{\D_s} = 1-\E_{z \sim \D}\left[\ell_S(z)\right]$,
where $\ell_S(z)$ is the loss on a point $z \in \Z$ achieved by a model trained on the data set $S \subseteq \Z$.
In the case where we only have access to samples from $\D_s$, we still may want to guarantee that $\val(z;\pot_{\D_s},\D_s,m)$ and $\val(z;\pot_{\D_t},\D_t,m)$ are close.
Thankfully, such a result follows by showing that $\pot_{\D_s}$ is close to $\pot_{\D_t}$, and another application of the triangle inequality.
For instance, when the potential is based on the population loss for a Lipschitz loss function, we can bound the difference in the potentials, again, in terms of the Wasserstein distance.
\begin{align*}
\pot_{\D_t}(Z) - \pot_{\D_s}(Z) &=
\E_{s \sim \D_s}\left[\ell_Z(s)\right] - \E_{t \sim \D_t}\left[\ell_Z(t)\right]\\
&=\inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}}\E_{(s,t) \sim \gamma}\left[\ell_Z(s) - \ell_Z(t)\right]\\
&\le \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{st}}\E_{s,t}\left[L \cdot d(s,t)\right]\\
&\le L \cdot W_1(\D_s,\D_t).
\end{align*}
\section{Efficiently Estimating Distributional Shapley Values}
\label{sec:alg}
Here, we describe an estimation procedure, \textsc{$\D$-Shapley}, for computing distributional Shapley values. To begin, we assume that we can actually sample from the underlying $\D$.
Then, in Section~\ref{sec:alg:speedup}, we propose techniques to speed up the estimation and look into the practical issues of obtaining samples from the distribution.
The result of these considerations is a practically-motivated variant of the estimation procedure, \textsc{Fast-$\D$-Shapley}.
In Section~\ref{sec:alg:empirical}, we investigate how these optimizations perform empirically; we show that the strategies provide a way to smoothly trade-off the precision of the valuation for computational cost.
\subsection{Obtaining unbiased estimates}
The formulation from Theorem~\ref{thm:Dshapley} suggests a natural algorithm for estimating the distributional Shapley values of a set of points.
In particular, the distributional Shapley value $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ is the expectation of the marginal contribution of $z$ to $S \subseteq \Z$ on $\pot$, drawn from a specific distribution over data sets.
Thus, the change in performance when we add a point $z$ to a data set $S$ drawn from the correct distribution will be an unbiased estimate of the distributional Shapley value.
Consider the Algorithm~\ref{alg}, \textsc{$\D$-Shapley}, which given a subset $Z_0 \subseteq \Z$ of data, maintains for each $z \in Z_0$ a running average of $\pot(S \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S)$ over randomly drawn $S$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\label{alg}~\textsc{$\D$-Shapley}}
\textbf{Fix:} \emph{potential $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$; distribution $\D$; $m \in \N$}
\textbf{Given:} \emph{data set $Z \subseteq \Z$ to valuate; \# iterations $T \in \N$}
\begin{algorithmic}
\FOR{$z \in Z$}
\STATE $\val_1(z) \gets 0$\hfill\texttt{// initialize estimates}
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$t = 1,\hdots,T$}
\STATE Sample $S_t \sim \D^{k-1}$ for $k \sim [m]$
\FOR{$z \in Z$}
\STATE $\Delta_z\pot(S_t) \gets \pot(S_t \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S_t)$
\STATE $\val_{t+1}(z) \gets \frac{1}{t}\cdot \Delta_z\pot(S_t) + \frac{t-1}{t}\cdot \val_t(z)$
\\\hfill\texttt{// update unbiased estimate}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE \textbf{return} $\set{(z,\val_T(z)) : z \in Z}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In each iteration, Algorithm~\ref{alg} uses a fixed sample $S_t$ to estimate the marginal contribution to $\pot(S_t \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S_t)$ for each $z \in Z$.
This reuse correlates the estimation errors between points in $Z$, but provides computational savings.
Recall that each evaluation of $\pot(S)$ requires training a ML model using the points in $S$; thus,
using the same $S$ for each $z \in Z$ reduces the number of models to be trained by $\card{Z}$ per iteration.
In cases where the $\pot(S \cup \set{z})$ can be derived efficiently from $\pot(S)$, the savings may be even more dramatic; for instance, given a machine-learned model trained on $S$, it may be significantly cheaper to derive a model trained on $S \cup \set{z}$ than retraining from scratch \cite{ginart2019making}.
The running time of Algorithm~\ref{alg} can naively be upper bounded by the product of the number of iterations before termination $T$, the cardinality $\card{Z}$ of the points to valuate, and the expected time to evaluate $\pot$ on data sets of size $k \sim [m]$.
We analyze the iteration complexity necessary to achieve $\eps$-approximations of $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ for each $z \in Z$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:iterations:uniform}
Fixing a potential $U$ and distribution $\D$, and $Z \subseteq \Z$, suppose $T \ge \Omega\left(\frac{\log(\card{Z}/\delta)}{\eps^2}\right)$.
Algorithm~\ref{alg} produces unbiased estimates and with probability at least $1-\delta$,
$\card{\val(z;\pot,\D,m) - \val_T(z)} \le \eps$.
for all $z \in Z$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
When understanding this (and future) formal approximation guarantees, it is important to note that we take $\eps$ to be an \emph{absolute} additive error.
Recall, however, that $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ is normalized by $m$; thus, as we take $m$ larger, the \emph{relative} error incurred by a fixed $\eps$ error grows.
In this sense, $\eps$ should typically scale inversely as $O(1/m)$.
\end{remark}
The claim follows by proving uniform convergence of the estimates for each $z \in Z$.
Importantly, while the samples in each iteration are correlated across $z,z' \in Z$, fixing $z \in Z$, the samples $\Delta_z\pot(S_t)$ are independent across iterations.
We include a formal analysis in Appendix~\ref{app:alg}.
\subsection{Speeding up $\D$-Shapley: theoretical and practical considerations}
\label{sec:alg:speedup}
Next, we propose two principled ways to speed up the baseline estimation algorithm.
Under stability assumptions, the strategies maintain strong formal guarantees on the quality of the learned valuation.
We also develop some guiding theory addressing practical issues that arise from the need to sample from $\D$.
Somewhat counterintuitively, we argue that given only a fixed finite data set $B \sim \D^M$, we can still estimate values $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ to high accuracy, for $M$ that grows modestly with $m$.
\paragraph{Subsampling data and interpolation.}
Theorem~\ref{thm:stable:points} shows that for sufficiently stable potentials $\pot$, similar points have similar distributional Shapley values.
This property of distributional Shapley values is not only useful for inferring the values of points $z \in \Z$ that were not in our original data set, but also suggests an approach for speeding up the computations of values for a fixed $Z \subseteq \Z$.
In particular, to estimate the values for $z \in Z$ (with respect to a sufficiently Lipschitz-stable potential $\pot$) to $O(\eps)$-precision, it suffices to estimate the values for an $\eps$-cover of $Z$, and interpolate (e.g.\ via nearest neighbor search).
Standard arguments show that random sampling is an effective way to construct an $\eps$-cover \cite{har2011geometric}.
As our first optimization, in Algorithm~\ref{alg:fast}, we reduce the number of points to valuate through subsampling.
Given a data set $Z$ to valuate, we first choose a random subset $Z_p \subseteq Z$ (where each $z \in Z$ is subsampled into $Z_p$ i.i.d.\ with some probability $p$); then, we run our estimation procedure on the points in $Z_p$; finally, we train a regression model on $(z,\val_T(z))$ pairs from $Z_p$ to predict the values of the points from $Z \setminus Z_p$.
By varying the choice of $p \in [0,1]$, we can trade-off running time for quality of estimation: $p\approx 1$ recovers the original \textsc{$\D$-Shapley} scheme, whereas $p\approx 0$ will be very fast but likely produce noisy valuations.
\paragraph{Importance sampling for smaller data sets.}
To understand the running time of Algorithm~\ref{alg} further, we denote the time to evaluate $\pot$ on a set of cardinality $k \in \N$ by $R(k)$.\footnote{We assume that the running time to evaluate $\pot(S)$ is a function of the cardinality of $S$ (and not other auxiliary parameters).}
As such, we can express the asymptotic expected running time as $\card{Z} \cdot T \cdot \E_{k \sim [m]}\left[R(k)\right]$.
Note that when $\pot(S)$ corresponds to the accuracy of a model trained on $S$, the complexity of evaluating $\pot(S)$ may grow significantly with $\card{S}$.
At the same time,
as the data set size $k$ grows, the marginal effect of adding $z \in Z$ to the training set tends to decrease; thus, we should need fewer large samples to accurately estimate the marginal effects.
Taken together, intuitively,
biasing the sampling of $k \in [m]$ towards smaller training sets could result in a faster estimation procedure with similar approximation guarantees.
Concretely, rather than sampling $k \sim [m]$ uniformly, we can importance sample each $k$ proportional to some non-uniform weights $\set{w_k : k \in [m]}$, where the weights decrease for larger $k$.
More formally, we weight the draw of $k$ based on the stability of $\pot$.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:fast} takes as input a set of importance weights $w = \set{w_k}$ and samples $k$ proportionally; without loss of generality, we assume $\sum_{k} w_k = 1$ and let $k \sim [m]_w$ denote a sample drawn such that $\Pr[k] = w_k$.
We show that for the right choice of weights $w$, sampling $k \sim [m]_w$ improves the overall running time, while maintaining $\eps$-accurate unbiased estimates of the values $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$.
\begin{theorem}[Informal]
\label{thm:biased}
Suppose $\pot$ is $O(1/k)$-deletion stable and can be evaluated on sets of cardinality $k$ in time $R(k) \ge \Omega(k)$.
For $p \in [0,1]$ and $w = \set{w_k \propto 1/k}$,
Algorithm~\ref{alg:fast} produces estimates that with probability $1-\delta$, are $\eps$-accurate for all $z \in Z_p$ and
runs in expected time
\begin{align*}
RT_w(m) &\le \tilde{O}\left(p\cdot \card{Z} \cdot \frac{\log(\card{Z}/\delta)\cdot R(m)}{\eps^2m^2}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
To interpret this result, note that if the subsampling probability $p$ is large enough that $Z_p$ will $\eps$-cover $Z$, then using a nearest-neighbor predictor as $\mathcal{R}$ will produce $O(\eps)$-estimates for all $z \in Z$.
Further, if we imagine $\eps = \Theta(1/k)$, then the computational cost grows as the time it takes to train a model on $m$ points scaled by a factor logarithmic in $\card{Z}$ and the failure probability.
In fact, Theorem~\ref{thm:biased} is a special case of a more general theorem that provides a recipe for devising an appropriate sampling scheme based on the stability of the potential $\pot$.
In particular, the general theorem (stated and proved in Appendix~\ref{app:alg}) shows that the more stable the potential, the more we can bias sampling in favor of smaller sample sizes.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{\label{alg:fast}~\textsc{Fast-$\D$-Shapley}}
\textbf{Fix:} \emph{potential $\pot:\Z^* \to [0,1]$; distribution $\D$; $m \in \N$}
\textbf{Given:} \emph{valuation set $Z \subseteq \Z$; database $B \sim \D^M$; \#~iterations $T \in \N$;\\subsampling rate $p \in [0,1]$; importance weights~$\set{w_k}$; regression algorithm $\mathcal{R}$}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Subsample $Z_p \subseteq Z$ s.t.\ $z \in Z_p$ w.p.\ $p$ for all $z \in Z$
\FOR{$z \in Z_p$}
\STATE $\val_1(z) \gets 0$\hfill\texttt{// initialize estimates}
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$t = 1,\hdots,T$}
\STATE Sample $S_t \sim B^{k-1}$ for $k \sim [m]_w$
\FOR{$z \in Z_p$}
\STATE $\Delta_z\pot(S_t) \gets \pot(S_t \cup \set{z}) - \pot(S_t)$
\STATE $\val_{t+1}(z) \gets \frac{1}{t}\cdot \frac{\Delta_z\pot(S_t)}{w_k m} + \frac{t-1}{t}\cdot \val_t(z)$
\\\hfill\texttt{// update unbiased estimate}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE $h \gets \mathcal{R}\left(\set{(z,\val_T(z)) : z \in Z_p}\right)$
\\\hfill\texttt{// regress on (z,val(z)) pairs}
\STATE \textbf{return} $\set{(z,h(z)) : z \in Z}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Estimating distributional Shapley from data.}
Estimating distributional Shapley values $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ requires samples from the distribution $\D$.
In practice, we often want evaluate the values with respect to a distribution $\D$ for which we only have some database $B \sim \D^M$ for some large (but finite) $M \in \N$.
In such a setting, we need to be careful; indeed, avoiding artifacts from a single draw of data is the principle motivation for introducing the distributional Shapley framework.
In fact, the analysis of Theorem~\ref{thm:biased} also reveals an upper bound on how big the database should be in order to obtain accurate estimates with respect to $\D$.
As a concrete bound, if $\pot$ is $O(1/k)$-deletion stable and we take $\eps = \Theta(1/m)$ error, then the database need only be
\begin{equation*}
M \le \tilde{O}\left(m \cdot \log(\card{Z}/\delta)\right).
\end{equation*}
In other words, for a sufficiently stable potential $\pot$,
the data complexity grows modestly with $m$.
Note that, again, this bound leverages the fact that in every iteration, we reuse the same sample $S_t \sim \D^k$ for each $z \in Z$.
See Appendix~\ref{app:alg} for a more detailed analysis.
In practice, we find that sampling subsets of data from the database with replacement works well; we describe the full procedure in Algorithm~\ref{alg:fast}, where we denote an i.i.d.\ sample of $k$ points drawn uniformly from the database as $S \sim B^k$.
Finally, we note that ideally, $m$ should be close to the size of the training sets that model developers to use; in practice, these data set sizes may vary widely.
One appealing aspect of both \textsc{$\D$-Shapley} algorithms is that when we estimate values with respect to $m$, the samples we obtain also allow us to simultaneously estimate $\val(z;\pot,\D,m')$ for any $m' \le m$.
Indeed, we can simply truncate our estimates to only include samples corresponding to $S_t$ with $\card{S_t} \le m'$.
\subsection{Empirical performance}
\label{sec:alg:empirical}
We investigate the empirical effectiveness of the distributional Shapley framework by running experiments in three settings on large real-world data sets.
The first setting uses the UK Biobank data set, containing the genotypic and phenotypic data of individuals in the UK~\cite{sudlow2015ukb}; we evaluate a task of predicting whether the patient will be diagnosed with breast cancer using 120 features.
Overall, our data has 10K patients (5K diagnosed positively); we use 9K patients as our database ($B$), and take classification accuracy on a hold-out set of 500 patients as the performance metric ($\pot$).
The second data set is Adult Income where the task is to predict whether income exceeds $\$50$K/yr given 14 personal features~\cite{Dua:2019}.
With 50K individuals total, we use 40K as our database, and classification accuracy on 5K individuals as our performance metric.
In these two experiments, we take the maximum data set size $m = 1$K and $m=5$K, respectively.
For both settings, we first run \textsc{$\D$-Shapley} without optimizations as a baseline.
As a point of comparison, in these settings the computational cost of this baseline is on the same order as running the \textsc{TMC-Shapley} algorithm of \cite{datashapley} that computes the data Shapley values $\sh(z;\pot,B)$ for each $z$ in the data set $B$.
Given this baseline,
we evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed optimizations, using weighted sampling and interpolation (separately), for various levels of computational savings.
In particular, we vary the sampling weights $\set{w_k}$ and subsampling probability $p$ to vary the computational cost (where weighting towards smaller $k$ and taking $p$ smaller each yield more computational savings).
All algorithms are truncated when the average absolute change in value in the past $100$ iterations is less than $1\%$.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/speedup_logistic.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Point removal performance.}
Given a data set and task, we iteratively a point, retrain the model, and evaluate its performance.
Each curve corresponds to a different point removal order, based on the estimated distributional Shapley values (compared to random).
For example, the $10\%$ curve correspond to estimating values with $10\%$ of the baseline computation of Algorithm~\ref{alg}.
We plot classification accuracy vs.\ fraction of data points removed from the training set, for each task and each optimization method.
\label{fig:logistic}}
\end{figure}
To evaluate the quality of the distributional Shapley estimates, we perform a point removal experiment, as proposed by \cite{datashapley}, where given a training set, we iteratively remove points, retrain the model, and observe how the performance changes.
In particular, we remove points from most to least valuable (according to our estimates), and compare to the baseline of removing random points.
Intuitively, removing high value data points should result in a more significant drop in the model's performance.
We report the results of this point removal experiment using the values determined using the baseline Algorithm~\ref{alg}, as well as various factor speed-ups (where $t\%$ refers to the computational cost compared to baseline).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/speedup_r2.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Smooth trade-off between computation and recovery.}
For each task, we plot the $R^2$ coefficient between the values computed using Algorithm~\ref{alg} vs.\ the relative computational cost (as in Figure~\ref{fig:logistic}).
The results show that there is a smooth trade-off between the recovery precision of the distributional Shapley values and the cost, across a wide range of learning algorithms.
\label{fig:speedup}}
\end{figure}
As Figure~\ref{fig:logistic} demonstrates, when training a logistic regression model, removing the high distributional Shapley valued points causes a sharp decrease in accuracy on both tasks, even when using the most aggressive weighted sampling and interpolation optimizations.
Appendix~\ref{app:exp} reports the results for various other models.
As a finer point of investigation, we report the correlation between the estimated values without optimizations and with various levels of computational savings, for a handful of prediction models.
Figure~\ref{fig:speedup} plots the $R^2$ curves and shows that the optimizations provide a smooth interpolation between computational cost and recovery, across every model type.
It is especially interesting that these trade-offs are consistently smooth across a variety of models using the $01$-loss, which do not necessarily induce a potential $\pot$ with formal guarantees of stability.
In our final setting, we push the limits of what types of data can be valuated.
Specifically, by combining both weighted sampling and interpolation (resulting in a $500\times$ speed-up), we estimate the values of $50$K images from the CIFAR10 data set; valuating this data set would be prohibitively expensive using prior Shapley-based techniques.
In particular, to obtain accurate estimates for each point, \textsc{TMC-Shapley} would require an unreasonably large number of Monte Carlo iterations due to the sheer size of the data base to valuate.
We valuate points based on an image classification task,
and demonstrate that the estimates identify highly valuable points, in Appendix~\ref{app:exp}.
\section{Case Study: Consistently Pricing Data}
\label{sec:case}
Next, we consider a natural setting where a data broker wishes to sell data to various buyers. Each buyer could already own some private data.
In particular, suppose the broker plans to sell the set $S$ and a buyer holds a private data set $B$;
in this case, the relevant values are the data Shapley values $\sh(z;\pot,B \cup S)$ for each $z \in S$.
Within the original data Shapley framework, computing these values requires a single party to hold both $B$ and $S$.
For a multitude of financial and legal concerns, neither party may be willing to send their data to the other before agreeing to the purchase.
Such a scenario represents a fundamental limitation of the non-distributional Shapley framework that seemed to jeopardize its practical viability.
We argue that the distributional Shapley framework largely resolves this particular issue:
without exchanging data up front, the broker simply estimates the values $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$; in expectation, these values will accurately reflect the value to a buyer with a private data set $B$ drawn from a distribution close to $\D$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/selling.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Consistent Pricing.}
Each buyer holds a data set $B$; the seller sells a data set $S$, where $\card{B} = \card{S} = m$.
We compare the values estimated by the seller $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ and $\sh(z;\pot,B \cup S)$.
(a) For various data sets and two data set sizes ($m = 100$ and $m = 500$): in blue, we plot the average rank correlation between $\val(z)$ and $\sh(z)$ for $z \in S$; in red, we plot
the average absolute percentage error between the seller's and buyer's estimates.
(b) Points from $S$ are added to $B$ in three different orders: according to $\val$ ($\D$-Shapley), according to $\sh$ (TMC), and randomly.
The plot shows the change in the accuracy of the model, relative to its performance using the buyer's initial dataset, as the points are added; shading indicates standard error of the mean.
\label{fig:selling}}
\end{figure}
We report the results of this case study on four large different data sets in Figure~\ref{fig:selling}, whose details are included in Appendix~\ref{app:case}.
For each data set, a set of buyers holds a small data set $B$ ($100$ or $500$ points), and the broker sells them a data set $S$ of the same size; the buyers then valuate the points in $S$ by running the \textsc{TMC-Shapley} algorithm of \cite{datashapley} on $B \cup S$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:selling}(a), we show that the rank correlation between the broker's distributional estimates $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$ and the buyer's observed values $\sh(z;\pot,B \cup S)$ is generally high.
Even when the rank correlation is a bit lower ($\approx 0.6$), the broker and buyer agree on the value of the set as a whole.
Specifically, we observe that the seller's estimates are approximately unbiased,
and the absolute percentage error is low, where\\
\begin{equation*}
APE = \dfrac{\card{\sum_{z \in S} \val(z;\pot,\D,m) - \sh(z;\pot,B \cup S)}}{\sum_{z \in S} \val(z;\pot,\D,m)}.
\end{equation*}
In Figure~\ref{fig:selling}(b), we show the results of a point addition experiment for the Diabetes130 data set.
Here, we consider the effect of adding the points of $S$ to $B$ under three different orderings: according to the broker's estimates $\val(z;\pot,\D,m)$, according to the buyer's estimates $\sh(z;\pot,B \cup S)$, and under a random ordering.
We observe that the performance (classification accuracy) increase by adding the points according to $\val(z)$ and according to $\sh(z)$ track one another well; after the addition of all of $S$, the resulting models achieve essentially the same performance and considerably outperforming random.
We report results for the other data sets in Appendix~\ref{app:case}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discuss}
The present work makes significant progress on understanding statistical aspects in determining the value of data.
In particular, by reformulating the data Shapley value as a distributional quantity, we obtain a valuation function that does not depend on a fixed data set; reducing the dependence on the specific draw of data eliminates inconsistencies in valuation that can arise to sampling artifacts.
Further, we demonstrate that the distributional Shapley framework provides an avenue to valuate data across a wide variety of tasks, providing stronger theoretical guarantees and orders of magnitude speed-ups over prior estimation schemes.
In particular, the stability results that we prove for distributional Shapley (Theorems~\ref{thm:stable:points} and \ref{thm:stable:dist}) are not generally true for the original data Shapley due to its dependence on a fixed dataset.
One outstanding limitation of the present work is the reliance on a known task, algorithm, and performance metric (i.e.\ taking the potential $\pot$ to be fixed).
We propose reducing the dependence on these assumptions as a direction for future investigations; indeed, very recent work has started to chip away at the assumption that the learning algorithm is fixed in advance \cite{yona2019s}.
The distributional Shapley perspective also raises
the thought-provoking research question of
whether we can valuate data while protecting the privacy of individuals who contribute their data.
One severe limitation of the data Shapley framework, is that the value of every point depends nontrivially on every other point in the data set.
In a sense, this makes the data Shapley value an inherently non-private value: the estimate of $\sh(z;\pot,B)$ for a point $z \in B$ reveals information about the other points in $B$.
By marginalizing the dependence on the data set, the distributional Shapley framework opens the door for to estimating data valuations while satisfying strong notions of privacy, such as differential privacy \cite{dworkDP}.
Such an estimation scheme could serve as a powerful tool amidst increasing calls to ensure the privacy of and compensate individuals for their personal data \cite{datacoops}.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, scientists from a wide variety of different fields have given considerable attention to the subject of synthetic microswimmers. This focus in research is no coincidence, as such colloids show great promise in biomedical and engineering applications \cite{wang2012nano,wang2013small,nelson2010microrobots}. The design of autonomous swimmers in particular has received significant theoretical and experimental attention \cite{elgeti2015physics,moran2017phoretic}. In an effort to exploit the peculiarities of the associated low-Reynolds number hydrodynamics \cite{purcell1977life}, many different propulsion mechanisms have been invented. These include self-phoretic propulsion, such as chemophoresis \cite{michelin2014phoretic,golestanian2007designing,brady2011particle,walther2013janus} and electrophoresis \cite{ebbens2014electrokinetic,paxton2006catalytically,moran2011electrokinetic}, as well as ultrasound propulsion \cite{gallino2018physics,mou2015single,wang2012autonomous}, bubble propulsion \cite{gibbs2009autonomously,wang2014selecting} and magnetic propulsion \cite{zhang2009characterizing,ghosh2009controlled}.
Despite this remarkable progress, common experimental designs still need to be improved in order to be suitable for sensitive applications, such as non-invasive medicine. Next to potential toxicity of swimmer components or their fuel \cite{gao2015artificial}, the question of waste disposal remains largely open. This can be a serious problem, since artificial micron sized particles in the blood stream have the potential to cause clogging \cite{bacher2017clustering,sauret2018growth,fogelson2015fluid} and may thus pose a significant health risk \cite{nesbitt2009shear,fogelson2015fluid}. It is therefore essential to develop designs for microswimmers that degrade after fulfilling their purpose.
Very recently, novel experimental designs have begun to address these issues. Examples of such colloids include non-toxic magnesium-based bubble propelled swimmers \cite{chen2018magnesium} suitable for aqueous environments, as well as other kinds of inorganic compositions driven by reactions in either acidic or alkaline environments \cite{chen2016transient}. More designs have been proposed using organic compounds that may be 3D-printed \cite{wang20183d} or that self-assemble into nanomotors \cite{tu2017biodegradable}.
These experimental advances raise new theoretical questions. While the dynamics of classical non-dissolving colloids have been studied extensively, the time-evolution of colloid size modifies its stochastic behaviour, and new quantities characterising its physics emerge. The purpose of this paper is therefore to provide theoretical answers to two fundamental questions. First, we examine which material and environmental parameters determine the lifetime of a dissolving spherical microswimmer. Second, we study the influence of dissolution on the stochastic behaviour of both passive and self-propelled colloids. Here, a new dimensionless quantity arises which splits microswimmers into two categories: those that are subject to sufficient amounts of thermal noise during their life time to evolve diffusively, and those that exhibit near-ballistic trajectories that may be exploited for delivery applications. We show that both scenarios may enter for realistic values of the material and environmental parameters. Knowledge of these and their scaling relations is thus essential for the application-specific engineering of degradable microswimmer designs.
The structure of this paper is as follows. We begin by presenting two theoretical models for the dissolution process in \S \ref{sec:Models}, one suitable for designs in which the dissolution process is not driven by a reaction with a fuel in the solvent (such as dissolution by hydrogen bonding), and one for swimmers whose matrix is decomposed by means of a reaction (chemical or enzymatic). For further analysis the latter case is considered in the two limits of slow and fast reaction, the former corresponding to a fixed material flux boundary condition. In all these models we find expressions for the time dependence of the swimmer size, as well as their total lifetime in terms of the essential physical parameters. We present the necessary modification to classical Brownian motion in \S \ref{sec:Passive}, and derive expressions for the passive mean squared displacement of not self-propelling colloids. Based on this, we next derive corresponding expressions for active motion in \S \ref{sec:Active} and validate our results numerically. Finally we discuss the implications of our research on future studies in \S \ref{sec:Discussion}.
\section{Dissolution models}\label{sec:Models}
Inspired by recent experimental realisations, we propose two models for the dissolution of a spherical colloid based on different possibilities for the boundary conditions at its surface. Specifically, we distinguish between the case in which dissolution occurs through binding colloid material to fluid molecules (for example, the case of ionic dissolution in water), which we call non-reacting, and the case of dissolution through a chemical or enzymatic reaction that consumes a fuel. In the latter scenario we distinguish further between the limits of slow and fast reaction, and discuss their physical implications.
As a preamble, we note that, unlike geophysical melting processes~\cite{woods1992melting}, enthalpy plays no role in the dissolution processes considered in our paper. This means the Stefan boundary condition does not apply and the dynamics we derived is different from e.g.~the dissolution of ice crystals in water. While the general dynamics of diffusive dissolution have been considered in the geophysical literature~\cite{zhang1989diffusive}, there has to the best of our knowledge been no study that derived the asymptotic solutions we compute below. This is likely due to the dominance of convection driven processes on relevant geophysical scales that require different modelling~\cite{kerr1995convective}.
\subsection{Non-reacting swimmer}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{NR.jpg}
\caption{Schematic presentation of non-reacting dissolution dynamics. The matrix of the swimmer consists of a substance that dissolves by bonding to the fluid (thus acting as a solvent). Near the boundary, solute is present at a saturation concentration $c_0$ and subject to advective-diffusive transport in the bulk. Dissolution emerges through maintaining a normal concentration gradient at the swimmer surface.}\label{fig:glreac}
\end{figure}
In our first model, we assume that the colloidal particle is composed of a material that dissolves in the surrounding fluid through bonding of solute colloid material to fluid molecules, as illustrated schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:glreac}. We consider this an appropriate model for non-reacting dissolution processes, such as dissolution of many organic compounds as well as ionic salts in water. In order to keep the mathematics simple we make the simplifying assumption that only one species of solute is dissolved into the bulk. This allows us to define the (mass) concentration, $c(\r,t)$, of solute defined as the mass of solute dissolved in a unit volume of solvent, with $c=c_\infty\geq0$ far away from the colloid. Note that this differs from the definition of molar concentration common in chemistry by a factor equal to the molar mass of the solute. We make this choice in order to avoid clutter that would arise from the application of mass conservation below.
In this model and the following we assume the absence of any background flow that would disturb the distribution of solute or reactant in the bulk fluid. This assumption is of course violated for self-propelled particles moving relative to a background fluid. However, we can use a scaling argument to show that this does not affect our leading-order results. Since typical propulsion velocities $U$ are expected to be on the order of a few microns per second, initial colloid radii $R_0$ on the scale of microns \cite{elgeti2015physics} and for many ions in water at room temperature the solute diffusivity is approximately $D_s\sim10^{-9}$~m$^2$/s \cite{haynes2014crc}, the P\'eclet number quantifying the relative important of advection to diffusion for the solute is $\text{Pe}_\text{sol}=R_0U/D_s\sim10^{-4}-10^{-3}$. This indicates that advection of solute can be safely neglected. This remains true even when the P\'eclet number associated with motion of the colloid, $\text{Pe}_\text{col}=R_0U/D$ is large, since the particle is several orders of magnitude larger than a solvent molecule and therefore has a much smaller diffusivity. The same result applies to phoretic slip flows, which are typically of the same strength as the propulsion velocity. In the context of dissolution dynamics, the flows arising from propulsion can therefore be neglected in the transport processes of solute and reactant.
We further assume that the swimmer has a homogeneous mass density, $\rho_s$, and the fluid solvent a constant density, $\rho_l$. In general the density of the solvent depends weakly on the amount of solute dissolved \cite{haynes2014crc}. However, we will soon develop an asymptotic analysis based on the assumption that the solubility is weak and therefore can neglect this effect. Finally, we assume also that the swimmer remains spherical at all times, and that that the dissolution dynamics is independent of any self-propulsion mechanism or background flow. Both these assumptions will be justified \emph{a posteriori} in section \S\ref{sec:physint}. A brief discussion of the case of a partially dissolving swimmer is included our discussion \S\ref{sec:Discussion}.
\subsubsection{Mathematical model}
We consider a spherically symmetric colloid or radius $R(t)$ with initial condition $R(0)=R_0>0$. Near the boundary, there is chemical equilibrium between solute attached to the swimmer surface and present in the fluid. In this case the dissolution process is driven by removal (through diffusion) of solute from a boundary layer into the bulk and subsequent replenishment from the swimmer surface (Fig.~\ref{fig:glreac}). We model this effect by imposing the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
c(R(t),t)=c_0>c_\infty,\quad t\geq 0,
\end{equation}
where $c_0$ is the saturation concentration of solute in the solvent. This condition assumes that the boundary layer is negligibly thin and that the surface reaches chemical equilibrium instantaneously, which may be justified by noting that time scales of interest will be much larger than the molecular collision time, $\tau_{MC}\approx 10^{-13}\text{ s}$ \cite{haynes2014crc}. The other condition we impose is the requirement that the solute is initially distributed homogeneously in the bulk, i.e.
\begin{equation}
c(r,0)=c_\infty,\quad r>R_0.
\end{equation}
Conservation of solute at the boundary gives
\begin{align}
4\pi R^2 \rho_s \frac{dR}{dt}&=-\text{(solute flux into the fluid)}\nonumber\\
&=-\left(-D_s 4\pi R^2 \frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\bigg\rvert_{r=R} \right),
\end{align}
and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3solbc}
\frac{dR}{dt}= \frac{D_s}{\rho_s}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\bigg\rvert_{r=R},
\end{equation}
where $D_s$ is the diffusivity of solute in the solvent.
Furthermore, in the case of unequal densities we also get a non-zero fluid flux at the boundary since by mass conservation there is equality
\begin{equation}
-\dot{R}\rho_s = (-\dot{R}+{\u}\cdot{\hat{\r}})\rho_l
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:uBC}
{\u}\cdot{\hat{\r}} = \dot{R}\frac{\rho_l-\rho_s}{\rho_l},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\r}$ denotes a unit vector in the outward radial direction.
For a self-propelled microscopic colloid in water the Reynolds number, defined as the ratio of colloid radius times velocity divided by kinematic viscosity, is typically on the order of $10^{-9}\ll 1$. Therefore the fluid dynamics obey the incompressible Stokes equations,
\begin{equation}
\mu\nabla^2\u =\nabla p,\quad \nabla\cdot \u=0,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity and $p$ is the pressure field. Solving these with the boundary condition given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:uBC} at $r=R$ leads to the flow of a point source
\begin{equation}\label{eq:flow}
\u=\dot{R}\frac{\rho_l-\rho_s}{\rho_l}\frac{R^2}{r^2}\hat{{\r}}.
\end{equation}
The transport equation for $c(r,t)$ is the standard advection-diffusion equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial c}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot (c\u)=D_s\nabla^2c.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the result of Eq.~\eqref{eq:flow} together with incompressibility and assuming radial symmetry of the solute concentration, this becomes
\begin{align}\label{eq:transport}
\frac{\partial c}{\partial t} + \frac{\rho_l-\rho_s}{\rho_l}\frac{D_s}{\rho_s}\frac{R^2}{r^2}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\bigg\rvert_{r=R}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}= D_s \left(\frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\right),
\end{align}
Next we non-dimensionalise this transport equation using the scalings
\begin{equation}
c^*=\frac{c-c_\infty}{c_0-c_\infty}, \,R^*=\frac{R}{R_0},\, r^*=\frac{r}{R_0},\, t^*=\frac{D_s t}{R_0^2}.
\end{equation}
Substituting in Eq.~\eqref{eq:transport} and dropping stars in what follows for notational convenience, we obtain the colloid dynamics as solution to
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dt}=\alpha_1\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\bigg\rvert_{r=R}
\end{equation}
with $c$ solution to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3soladvdiff}
\frac{\partial c}{\partial t} + \frac{R^2}{r^2}(\alpha_1-\beta_1)\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\bigg\rvert_{r=R}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}= \left(\frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\right),
\end{equation}
with dimensionless boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
c(R(t),t)=1,\,\, t\geq 0,
\quad{\rm and}\quad
c(r,0)=0,\,\, r>1,
\end{equation}
where we have defined the two dimensionless parameters
\begin{equation}
\alpha_1=\frac{c_0-c_\infty}{\rho_s},\quad \beta_1=\frac{c_0-c_\infty}{\rho_l}\cdot
\end{equation}
We note that despite a negligibly small solute P\'eclet number, it was necessary to include an advective term due to volume conservation, whose relative strength is given by $(\alpha_1-\beta_1)$. It is therefore independent of the P\'eclet number and its irrelevance at leading order will be only a consequence of the weak solubility assumption. Only when there is no density mismatch between colloid and fluid is this term identically zero. Furthermore, the swimmer radius remains constant when the solvent is saturated with solute, as may be expected intuitively.
\subsubsection{Asymptotic solution}\label{sec:asympsol}
In order to make analytical progress, we make the assumptions that
\begin{equation}
\alpha_1,\beta_1 \ll 1,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to a {low-solubility} limit for the colloid material. We can then develop an asymptotic expansion to solve for $c$ and $R$. Here we will only calculate the leading-order solution, but our setup allows for calculations to arbitrarily high orders. We proceed by a rescaling of our spatial coordinate as
\begin{equation}
x=\frac{r}{R},\quad y(x,t)=xc(x,t),
\end{equation}
so that our system becomes
\begin{align}
R^2\frac{\partial y}{\partial t}&+R\dot{R}y+(\alpha_1-\beta_1)\left(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}-\frac{y}{x^3}\right)\left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}\bigg\rvert_{x=1}-1\right)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\partial^2 y}{\partial x^2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3rsquared}
R^2=1+2\alpha_1\left(\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}\bigg\rvert_{x=1}dt' -t\right)
\end{equation}
with boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
y(1,t)=1,\quad y(x,0)=0.
\end{equation}
The solution may be written as
\begin{equation}
y(x,t;\alpha_1, \beta_1)=y_0(x,t)+\alpha_1 y_\alpha(x,t) + \beta_1 y_\beta(x,t) +o(\alpha_1,\beta_1).
\end{equation}
The problem for $y_0$ reduces to the one-dimensional heat equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions and its solution is well known to be
\begin{equation}
y_0(x,t) = \text{erfc}\left(\frac{x-1}{2\sqrt{t}}\right),
\end{equation}
whence to leading order
\begin{equation}
R^2=1-2\alpha_1\left(t+2\sqrt{\frac{t}{\pi}}\right),
\end{equation}
or, after reinserting dimensions, we obtain our desired result
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nrradius}
R(t) = R_0\sqrt{1-2\alpha_1\left(\frac{t}{t_s}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{\frac{t}{t_s}}\right)}.
\end{equation}
where $t_s=R_0^2/D_s$ is the diffusive time scale for the solute. An illustration of this decay, along with a comparison to the reacting model is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:rcomp}. Denoting by $T_d$ the finite time at which the particle disappears, and taking into account the order of terms we neglect, we can deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:timeofdeath}
\begin{split}
T_d&=\frac{t_s}{2\alpha_1}\left(1-\sqrt{\frac{8}{\pi}}\sqrt{\alpha_1}+\mathcal{O}(\alpha_1,\beta_1)\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Therefore at leading order, the lifetime of the colloid scales inversely proportional with the solubility and diffusivity of its material, but quadratically with the initial colloid radius $R_0$. However, the correction from the next-to-leading order term remains significant for $\alpha_1\gtrsim10^{-3}$ due to its slow square-root like decay.
\subsubsection{Physical interpretation}\label{sec:physint}
The aim of this section is to provide some physical interpretation for Eq.~\eqref{eq:nrradius}.
For many ions in water at room temperature, the diffusivity is approximately $D_s\sim10^{-9}$~m$^2$/s \cite{haynes2014crc}. In the case of an initially micron-sized colloid this gives
\begin{equation}
t_s\sim 10^{-3}\,{\rm s}.
\end{equation}
The other (previously unknown) time scale in the problem is the swimmer lifetime $T_d$. There is a separation of scales that is to leading order inversely proportional to $\alpha_1$. In the specific example of calcium carbonate with $\alpha_1\approx10^{-6}$ \cite{haynes2014crc}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
T_d\sim 10^{3}\,{\rm s}\sim 10 \text{ min},
\end{equation}
which is a conceivably desirable lifetime for a microswimmer.
The separation of scales has further consequences for the decay rate. For $t\ll t_s$ we have $R^2 \sim 1-4\sqrt{t\alpha_1^2/t_s\pi}$, while for $t\gg t_s$ we obtain the behaviour $R^2\sim1-2\alpha_1 t/t_s$. Therefore the particle size satisfies $R\sim\sqrt{1-2\alpha_1 t/t_s}$ except for a short, transient period on the order of $t_s$. This feature may be explained physically. Initially, the discontinuity in concentration at $r=R$ causes a large concentration gradient and fast dissolution but on the (fast) scale of solute diffusion the system relaxes to equilibrium in a boundary layer of thickness $\sim\sqrt{D_s t_s}$, which is on the order of the colloid size, $R_0$. From this point onwards the colloid is surrounded by a cloud of solute in equilibrium and the process becomes quasi-static. At leading order, the dissolution dynamics therefore reduces to steady diffusion. This gives simultaneously justification to our assumption of sphericity, since the diffusive boundary layer smooths out any surface inhomogeneities.
As an aside, we note while the dissolution process of microbubbles is driven by capillary pressures~\cite{michelin2018collective}, the $R\sim \sqrt{1-t}$ behaviour also emerges in the absence of surface tension, essentially also due to the dominance of diffusive effects.
Finally, we point out that $\alpha_1$ and $\beta_1$ depend only on the material chosen for the swimmer (and its abundance in the bulk fluid). Unsurprisingly, only materials that are considered insoluble on the macroscale yield appreciable microswimmer life times. Hence, together with fine tuning of the initial radius $R_0$, full control of the dissolution dynamics can be achieved through the microswimmer design.
\subsection{Dissolution through reaction}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Zn_reaction.jpg}
\caption{Schematic presentation of the molecular dynamics near the boundary of a reacting colloid. In this example, motivated by experiments in Ref.~\cite{chen2016transient}, zinc is dissolved in acid forming zinc-ions and molecular hydrogen. If $\text{Da}=0$, i.e.~infinitely much H$^+$ is present to sustain the reaction, the dissolution rate is constant. If $\text{Da}>0$, the reaction rate will depend on the amount of fuel present, but not on the amount of product. }\label{fig:znreaction}
\end{figure}
Artificial microswimmers are rarely composed solely of chemically inert materials. Indeed, autophoretic swimmers often consume a fuel in the solvent, like in the widely studied case of catalytic platinum swimmers splitting hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen \cite{moran2017phoretic}. A sketch of the process is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:znreaction} in the specific case of zinc dissolving in acid as realised experimentally by Chen et.\ al.\ \cite{chen2016transient}. An analogous picture may be imagined for the case of biodegradation by enzymes.
A degradable autophoretic colloid might therefore consist of a reactant that will then dissolve into the fluid. To this end, let us consider a fixed reaction-rate boundary condition. It will be important to distinguish between the concentration of fuel $c_f(\r,t)$ and concentration of swimmer substrate $c_s(\r,t)$. For example, in the case of zinc, the fuel concentration might be provided by hydrogen ions in acid, which relates their concentration directly to the pH-value of the solvent, while the concentration of substrate influences the dissolution rate through mass conservation. Notation-wise, we will use the subscript $f$ to refer below to the fuel and the subscript $s$ to the substrate.
\subsubsection{Mathematical model}
The mathematical development is similar to the non-reacting swimmer, with an important change to the boundary conditions. Indeed, unlike Eq.~\eqref{eq:3solbc} where the concentration at the boundary was fixed,
the boundary conditions for the fields $c_s$ and $c_f$ are now given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:28}
-D_s{\bm{n}}\cdot\nabla c_s|_R = k_s c_f,\quad -D_f{\bm{n}}\cdot\nabla c_f|_R = -k_f c_f,
\end{equation}
where $k_s$ and $k_f$ are the constant reaction rates for solute and fuel respectively and $D_f$ the diffusivity of fuel in the solution. Mass conservation for the colloidal particle leads to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rcf}
\frac{dR}{dt}=-\frac{k_s c_f(R)}{\rho_s}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we once again have conservation of fluid volume giving rise to a source flow
\begin{equation}
\u=\dot{R}(1-\rho_s/\rho_l)\frac{R^2}{r^2}{\hat{\r}}.
\end{equation}
Similar to what was done above, we assume that the P\'eclet numbers associated with the solute and the fuel dynamics are small, so that only volume conservation gives rise to advective flows. We can then write the advection-diffusion equation for $c_f$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cf}
\frac{\partial c_f}{\partial t} - (1-\rho_s/\rho_l)\frac{k_sc_f(R)}{\rho_s}\frac{R^2}{r^2}\frac{\partial c_f}{\partial r}= D_f \left(\frac{\partial^2 c_f}{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial c_f}{\partial r}\right).
\end{equation}
Introducing non-dimensionalised variables as
\begin{equation}
c_f^*=\frac{c_f}{c_{f,\infty}}, R^*=\frac{R}{R_0}, r^*=\frac{r}{R_0},t^*=\frac{D_f t}{R_0^2},
\end{equation}
where $c_{f,\infty}$ is the mass concentration of fuel in the bulk,
we may substitute in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Rcf} and \eqref{eq:cf} and dropping stars immediately we find
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial c_f}{\partial t} - \text{Da}(\alpha_2-\beta_2)c_f(R)\frac{R^2}{r^2}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}= \frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{\partial c}{\partial r},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dt}=-\text{Da}\alpha_2 c_f(R),
\end{equation}
with the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&c_f\to 1,\quad&r\to\infty,\\
&\frac{\partial c_f}{\partial r}=\text{Da} c_f,\quad&r=1,\\
&c_f(r,0)=1,\quad&r>1,\\
&R(0)=1,&
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have defined the three dimensionless numbers
\begin{equation}
\text{Da}=\frac{R_0 k_f}{D_f},\quad \alpha_2=\frac{c_{f,\infty}k_s}{\rho_s k_f},\quad \beta_2=\alpha_2\frac{\rho_s}{\rho_l}\cdot
\end{equation}
Here $\text{Da}$ is a Damk\"ohler number for the fuel, indicating the ratio between reactive and diffusive fluxes, while $\alpha_2$ and $\beta_2$ may be interpreted as dimensionless ratios comparing the mass of fuel consumed against the mass of solute shed in the reaction.
Upon rescaling our coordinates according to
\begin{equation}
x=\frac{r}{R},\quad y(x,t)=c_f x,
\end{equation}
our system becomes
\begin{equation}
R^2\frac{\partial y}{\partial t}+R\dot{R}y-\text{Da}(\alpha_2-\beta_2)R \left(\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}-\frac{y}{x^3}\right)y(1,t)=\frac{\partial^2 y}{\partial x^2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
R=1-\text{Da}\alpha_2\int_{0}^{t}y(1,t')dt',
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:robinbc}
y(x,0)=1,\quad \frac{\partial y}{\partial x}(1,t)=\text{Da} y(1,t).
\end{equation}
From here, we can again proceed by means of an asymptotic expansion.
\subsubsection{Asymptotic expansion}
We next assume $\alpha_2 \text{Da},\,\beta_2 \text{Da} \ll 1$ and write the solution as a power expansion
\begin{align}
&y(x,t;\alpha_2, \beta_2;\text{Da})=\nonumber\\
&y_0(x,t;\text{Da})+\alpha_2 y_\alpha(x,t;\text{Da}) + \beta_2 y_\beta(x,t;\text{Da}) +{\rm h.o.t.}
\end{align}
The boundary condition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:robinbc} consitutes a Robin problem and can be solved by considering the quantity $\phi=y-\text{Da}^{-1} \partial y/\partial x$ subject to Cauchy conditions \cite{carslaw1959heat}. The solution for $y_0$ is
\begin{align}
y_0(x,t;\text{Da})=&\text{erf}\left(\frac{x-1}{2\sqrt{t}}\right)\nonumber\\
&+e^{\text{Da}(x-1)+\text{Da}^2 t}\text{erfc}\left(\frac{x-1}{2\sqrt{t}}+\text{Da}\sqrt{t}\right).
\end{align}
It follows that
\begin{equation}
y_0(1,t;\rm{Da}) =e^{\text{Da}^2 t}\text{erfc}\left(\text{Da}\sqrt{t}\right),
\end{equation}
and hence to leading order in $\alpha_2$,
\begin{equation}
R(t)=1-2\alpha_2\sqrt{\frac{t}{\pi}}-\frac{\alpha_2}{\text{Da}}\left[e^{\text{Da}^2 t}\text{erfc}\left(\text{Da}\sqrt{t}\right)-1\right].
\end{equation}
Upon reinserting dimensions we finally arrive at
\begin{align}\label{eq:model3diss}
R(t)=R_0\Bigg\{&1-\alpha_2\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{\frac{t}{t_f}}\nonumber\\
&\left. -\frac{\alpha_2}{\text{Da}}\left[e^{\text{Da}^2 t/t_f}\text{erfc}\left(\text{Da}\sqrt{\frac{t}{t_f}}\right)-1\right]\right\}.
\end{align}
where $t_f=R_0^2/D_f$ is the diffusive time scale for the fuel.
\subsubsection{Slow reaction limit (fixed solute flux)}
Inspired by a study of boundary conditions in the context of finite P\'eclet-number propulsion in Ref.~\cite{michelin2014phoretic}, we may consider separately the limits $\text{Da}\to0$ and $\text{Da}\to\infty$.
Each of these limits will lead to a different model that we will consider in the remainder of this paper.
For small Damk\"ohler number, we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:srradius}
\begin{aligned}
&R(t) = R_0\left[1- \frac{\alpha_2 \text{Da}}{t_f} t +\mathcal{O}\left( \text{Da}^2{\left(\frac{t}{t_f}\right)}^{3/2}\right)\right],\nonumber\\
&\text{as Da}\to 0,\quad\frac{t}{t_f}\lesssim \text{Da}^{-2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
When $\text{Da}=0$, no reaction takes place and the radius of the colloid remains constant. At next to leading order we have linear decay, so the lifetime $T_d$ is
\begin{equation}
T_d=\frac{t_f}{\alpha_2}\text{Da}^{-1} =\frac{R_0\rho_s}{c_{f,\infty}k_s} \quad (\text{Da}\to0),
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the asymptotic expansion to this order. Thus we arrive at a model for the dissolution with a constant solute flux. We note the different scaling compared to the non-reacting model where the lifetime scaled as $T_d\sim R_0^2$. This is indicative of the absence of diffusion in this limit. Note that the model can be recovered from simply applying mass conservation to a flux boundary condition of the form
\begin{equation}
-D_s\frac{\partial c}{\partial r}\bigg\vert_{r=R(t)}=c_{f,\infty}k_s,
\end{equation}
which shows that the flux is equal to $c_{f,\infty}k_s$.
\subsubsection{Fast reaction limit}
Conversely, as $\text{Da}\to\infty$ (still with $\alpha_2 \text{Da}\ll 1$), we find that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:frradius}
\begin{aligned}
&R(t) = R_0\left\{1-\frac{2\alpha_2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{\frac{t}{t_f}} +\mathcal{O}\left(\text{Da}^{-1}\right) \right\},\nonumber\\
&\text{as Da}\to \infty, \quad \frac{t}{t_f}\gtrsim \text{Da}^{-2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In this limit the reaction is infinitely fast, so the boundary condition on the fuel effectively reduces to instantaneous depletion, $c_f(R,t)=0$, and the dissolution rate is limited by the diffusive flux of fuel from the bulk. Correspondingly the lifetime $T_d$ in dimensional units is
\begin{equation}
T_d=\frac{\pi}{4\alpha_2^2}\frac{R_0^2}{D_f}\quad (\text{Da}\to\infty,\alpha_2 \text{Da}\ll 1),
\end{equation}
a result which is again consistent with the expansion. Apart from the introduction of reaction rates, this result is qualitatively different from the non-reacting swimmer insofar as the lifetime depends on the square of swimmer density and reactant concentration at infinity, rather than being inversely proportional to solubility. We remark that in the case of hydrogen ions, the concentration $c_f$ is directly related to the pH value of the solvent, which establishes an experimentally accessible relationship between the pH and swimmer dissolution dynamics.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Rcomp.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the decay dynamics between the three models: decay of the dimensionless colloid radius as a function of dimensionless time. (i) Non-reacting (red solid line; $t_d/T_d=0.01$);
(ii) Slow reaction (green dashed line);
(iii) Fast reaction (blue dash-dotted line).
}\label{fig:rcomp}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:rcomp} we illustrate the different decay behaviour for our three models:
(i) Non-reacting (red solid line, with $t_d/T_d=0.01$);
(ii) Slow reaction (green dashed line);
and (iii) Fast reaction (blue dash-dotted line).
We note for the non-reacting model the decay rate increases with time, whereas it is constant for the slowly reacting, and decreasing for the fast reacting model. In the following two sections, we will explore the important consequences this has for the stochastic behaviour of dissolving microswimmers.
\section{Passive dynamics of dissolving colloids}\label{sec:Passive}
After developing three models for the dissolution of a spherical colloid, we now ask what effect this reduction in size has on its fluctuating trajectory. As will be shown, the mean squared displacement of a stochastic self-propelled particle is given by the sum of the contributions from translational noise and active motion. This allows us to split the analysis into the case of a passive colloid with no intrinsic propulsion mechanism but with translational noise and an active colloid with rotational but no translational diffusion. We treat the former case in this section and consider the motion of self-propelled particles in \S\ref{sec:Active}.
\subsection{Mathematical model}
The change in the dynamics of colloidal particles arises through the time dependence of the translational diffusion coefficient, which is given by the Stokes-Einstein relation \cite{einstein1905motion}
\begin{equation}
D(t)=\frac{k_B T}{6\pi\mu R(t)}\equiv D_0\frac{R_0}{R(t)},
\end{equation}
where $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant, $T$ is absolute temperature and $D_0\equiv D(0)=k_B T/6\pi\mu R_0$. In analogy with classical Brownian motion, we consider the following overdamped Langevin equation for the position of the passive colloidal particle, $\r(t)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pasLangevin}
d\r=\sqrt{2D(t)}d\bm{W}.
\end{equation}
Classically, $\bm{W}(t)$ is white noise with the properties that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:whitenoiseprop}
\langle d\bm{W} \rangle ={\bf{0}},\quad \langle dW_i(t)dW_j(t')\rangle=\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')dt,
\end{equation}
with brackets denoting ensemble averages. The right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasLangevin} therefore varies on two different time scales: the rate of change of $D$ and the time scale of the molecular chaos $\tau_{MC}$ that gives rise to noise. Typically, $\tau_{MC}=\mathcal{O}(10^{-13}s)$ \cite{haynes2014crc}. The mathematical assumption of $\delta$-correlated noise only holds true if $\tau_{MC}$ is very small compared to the time scale of diffusion, which holds true for microscopic colloids. However, since the rate of change of $D$ diverges as the swimmer size tends to 0, this model is expected break down at the very end of the swimmer lifetime. In the case of the non-reacting model this singularity is integrable and poses no problem, whereas for the reacting model we will also include a physical discussion of the breakdown.
For an active self-propelled particle at velocity ${\bf U}(t)$, the right-hand side of the Langevin equation Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasLangevin} includes an additional term ${\bf U}(t)dt$, which is deterministic in the sense that it is uncorrelated with translational white noise (even if ${\bf U}(t)$ is subject to rotational noise). A straightforward integration using the properties in Eq.~\eqref{eq:whitenoiseprop} then shows that the total mean squared displacement is given by the sum of active and passive contributions,
\begin{equation}
\langle r^2 \rangle_{tot} = \langle r^2 \rangle_a + \langle r^2 \rangle_p,
\end{equation}
as claimed.
The stochastic dynamics in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasLangevin} gives rise to a Fokker-Planck equation for the probability for the position of the particle, $P(\r,t)$, as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}= D(t) \nabla^2 P.
\end{equation}
We can solve this by a rescaling of time, introducing $\tau(t)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3deftau}
\tau = \int_{0}^{t} D(s) ds=D_0\int_{0}^{t}\frac{R_0}{R(s)}ds,
\end{equation}
which yields
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \tilde P}{\partial \tau}= \nabla^2 \tilde P.
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{P}(\r,\tau)=P(\r,t)$. In three spatial dimensions this equation has a well known Gaussian solution corresponding to the initial condition of a particle located at the origin,
\begin{equation}
\tilde P(\r,\tau)=\tilde P(r=|\r|,\tau)=\frac{1}{(4\pi\tau)^{3/2}}\exp\left(-\frac{r^2}{4\tau}\right).
\end{equation}
The first two moments are well known to be $\langle \r\rangle = {\bf 0}$ and $\langle {r}^2\rangle = 6\tau$. The total passive mean squared displacement of the particle in its lifetime, $\langle r^2 \rangle_p\equiv\langle r^2 \rangle(T_d)$, is therefore given by the integral
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pasmsd}
\langle r^2 \rangle_p=6D_0\int_{0}^{T_d}\frac{R_0}{R(t)}dt.
\end{equation}
Note that since $R\leq R_0$, the integral has value larger than $T_d$. Therefore dissolution always enhances passive diffusion. All that remains to be done is to calculate the integral for each of our three models.
\subsection{Total root mean squared displacement}
In the following we consider the solutions to Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasmsd}. Bearing in mind the order of terms we neglected in the derivation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:nrradius}, we can integrate Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasmsd} directly to obtain the following result for the non-reacting model
\begin{equation}
\langle {r}^2\rangle_{p} = 6D_0\times\frac{t_s}{\alpha_1}\left(1-\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\sqrt{\alpha_1}+\mathcal{O}(\alpha_1,\beta_1)\right).
\end{equation}
Comparing with Eq.~\eqref{eq:timeofdeath} we can see that at leading order in $\alpha_1$, dissolution enhances the total mean squared displacement by a factor of two. Through the scaling of $t_s$ with $R_0$ we also find that $\langle {r}^2\rangle_p\sim R_0$. This may be tested easily in experiments without affecting the other parameters. Perhaps surprisingly, this also means that in contrast to fixed-size swimmers, the importance of passive Brownian effects increases with swimmer size, since the smaller diffusivity is overcompensated for by the longer life span. The scaling with $\alpha_1$ can be explained the same way, as a colloid with small $\alpha_1$ decays slower, lives longer and therefore travels further.
For the slow reaction model we can use Eq.~\eqref{eq:srradius} in the integration of Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasmsd} to find
\begin{equation}
\langle r^2\rangle(t) =6D_0\times T_d\log\left(\frac{R_0}{R(t)}\right).
\end{equation}
This expression diverges logarithmically as $t\to T_d$. This should not be taken as indicative of superdiffusion, but can be resolved by the breakdown of the Stokes-Einstein relation below a certain colloid size. Past experiments suggest this happens for colloids smaller than a few nanometres in diameter \cite{li2009critical}. Compared to an initial colloid size on the scale of a few microns, this corresponds to 2 to 4 orders of magnitude. Since the divergence of the mean squared displacement is logarithmic, this will give a total mean squared displacement that is greater than that of a non-dissolving colloid by a factor of $\mathcal{O}(1)-\mathcal{O}(10)$. Furthermore, since $D_0T_d$ is independent of $R_0$ for this model, the contribution of passive Brownian motion only depends weakly on the initial colloid size. This is in contrast with the other models, and indicative of the absence of diffusion.
Finally, using Eq.~\eqref{eq:frradius} in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pasmsd} we obtain for the fast reaction limit the result
\begin{equation}
\langle {r}^2 \rangle (t) = 6D_0\times 2T_d\left(\log\left(\frac{R_0}{R(t)}\right)+\frac{R(t)}{R_0}-1\right).
\end{equation}
where again we have a logarithmic divergence as $t\to T_d$. Using previous definitions we find that as in the non-reacting model $\langle {r}^2 \rangle_p\sim R_0$ (+ logarithmic corrections) and also that $\langle {r}^2 \rangle_p\sim \alpha_2^{-2}$. The passive mean squared displacement therefore depends rather sensitively on the availability of fuel for the reaction.
\section{Active motion of dissolving colloids}\label{sec:Active}
After examining the dynamics of passive particles, we now turn to the effect of dissolution on self-propelled microswimmers. For the case of active particles subject to rotational diffusion with coefficient $D_r$, it is well known that self-propulsion at velocity $U$ gives rise to an effective enhanced translational diffusivity \cite{golestanian2007designing}
\begin{equation}
D_{\text{eff}}=D+\frac{U^2}{6D_r},
\end{equation}
for times much longer than $D_r^{-1}$, the time scale of rotational diffusion (i.e.~in the limit $t D_r\gg1$). On scales much shorter than this the motion is instead ballistic, i.e.~$\langle r^2 \rangle \sim U^2 t^2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{sampletraj.jpg}
\caption{2D-projections of sample trajectories for different values of $\gamma$. The colloids initially swim from left to right (see arrow) and dissolve according to the non-reacting model with the same length scale and lifetime.}\label{fig:illustration}
\end{figure}
In this new scenario however, an additional scale is introduced through the swimmer lifetime, $T_d$. It is therefore vital to consider the dimensionless quantity
\begin{equation}
\gamma := D_{r,0}T_d,
\end{equation}
where we define $D_{r,0}=k_BT/8\pi\mu R_0^3$. If $\gamma\lesssim 1$, then the particle disappears before displaying macroscopically diffusive behaviour. Conversely, if $\gamma\gtrsim 1$ we expect trajectories that are qualitatively similar to that of a classically diffusive colloid at long time scales. The qualitative role of $\gamma$ is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:illustration} where we observe three trajectories becoming more curly as time progresses, since diffusivity increases as the swimmer dissolves. However, only colloids with large values of $\gamma$ (here, $\gamma=10$) exist long enough for this effect to become significant, giving rise to a macroscopically `diffusive' trajectory. Conversely, for small $\gamma$ (here, $\gamma=0.1$) trajectories appear macroscopically `ballistic'. Depending on the application, it may be desirable to design swimmers that belong to either of these two regimes. In water at room temperature we have $D_{r,0}^{-1}\approx 6(R_0/\mu \text{m})^3 \text{ s}$ \cite{haynes2014crc}, so depending on the initial colloid size the threshold lifetime ranges from seconds to hours. Therefore both regimes are conceivable for applications and thus relevant to study. We proceed with the development of our theoretical framework to derive expressions for the active mean squared displacement and present analytical solutions for each model both as $\gamma\to 0$ and as $\gamma \to \infty$. We then validate our theoretical results against numerical simulations of the associated Langevin dynamics.
\subsection{Mathematical model}\label{sec:act_matmod}
In the rest of this section we assume that the colloid is subject to Langevin dynamics as
\begin{align}\label{eq:actLangevin}
d\r &=U\bm{e} dt, \\
d\bm{e}&=-2D_r(t)\bm{e} dt+\sqrt{2D_r(t)}\bm{\Pi}(\bm{e})\cdot d\bm{W},
\end{align}
to be understood in the It\^o formulation of stochastic calculus. Here $U$ is the particle self-propulsion speed, $\bm{e}$ the unit vector along the direction of propul d $\Pi_{ij}=\delta_{ij}-e_ie_j$. As is the case for a wide range of phoretic swimmers \cite{moran2017phoretic}, we assume the velocity $U$ to be independent of the swimmer size. Moreover, we set $D=0$ to isolate the effect of active diffusion, which generally exceeds that of (regularised) passive diffusion discussed previously. Since both contribute independently however, they may simply be added together if the total mean squared displacement is desired. We also neglect the details of the propulsion mechanism and possible interactions with our dissolution models.
As in the classical case, the $\bm{e}$-dynamics decouple from the $\r$-dynamics. With the same assumptions regarding the separation of time scales as in the passive case, $\bm{e}(\theta,\phi)$ is therefore subject to the Fokker-Planck equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}P(\theta,\phi,t)=D_r(t)\nabla_{\text{ang}}^2P,
\end{equation}
where $\nabla_{\text{ang}}^2$ denotes the angular part of the Laplacian operator. By introducing a rescaled time $\tau_r(t)$ as
\begin{equation}
\tau_r=\int_0^t D_r(s)ds=D_{r,0}\int_0^t\left(\frac{R_0}{R(s)}\right)^3ds,
\end{equation}
this may be used to show that $\langle \bm{e}(t)\cdot\bm{e}(0)\rangle=\exp(-2\tau_r)$. Therefore we have the following expression for the total active mean squared displacement,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:actmsd}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a = 2U^2\int_{0}^{T_d} dt' \int_{0}^{t'}dt'' \exp\bigg\{{-2\left[\tau_r(t')-\tau_r(t'')\right]} \bigg\}.
\end{equation}
Substituting values for our models and rescaling variables, this gives the following general expressions.
\begin{align}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a&=U^2T_d^2\int_{0}^{\infty}dx'\int_{0}^{x'}dx''\frac{2e^{-2\gamma(x'-x'')}}{(1+x'/2)^3(1+x''/2)^3},\nonumber\\
&\text{(non-reacting)}\label{eq:amsd1}\\
\langle r^2 \rangle_{a}&= U^2T_d^2\int_{0}^{\infty}dx'\int_{0}^{x'}dx''\frac{2e^{-2\gamma(x'-x'')}}{(1+2x')^{3/2}(1+2x'')^{3/2}},\nonumber\\
&\text{(slow reaction)}\label{eq:amsd2}\\
\langle r^2 \rangle_{a}&=U^2T_d^2\int_{0}^{\infty}dx'\int_{0}^{x'}dx''\frac{2e^{-2\gamma(x'-x'')}}{(1+\sqrt{x'})^{3}(1+\sqrt{x''})^{3}}.\nonumber\\
&\text{(fast reaction)}\label{eq:amsd3}
\end{align}
Unfortunately, while these are exact results, it is not possible to evaluate these integrals analytically for arbitrary values of $\gamma$. However, we can derive asymptotic solutions in both the diffusive and ballistic limits, as we now show.
\subsubsection{Diffusive limit ($\gamma\to\infty$)}\label{sec:actdiff}
In the diffusive limit, $\gamma\gg 1$, we can use Watson's lemma to develop an asymptotic expansion, with details given in the Appendix. In the case of a non-reacting swimmer, we find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:actmsd1}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a\sim\frac{2}{5}\frac{U^2T_d}{D_{r,0}}\left[1-\frac{5}{8\gamma}+\dots\right],\quad\gamma\to\infty\quad\text{(non-react.)}.
\end{equation}
As expected, the behaviour is diffusive and the leading-order scaling is
\begin{equation}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a\sim\frac{U^2\mu\rho_s R_0^5}{k_BT D_s(c_0-c_\infty)},\quad\gamma\to\infty\quad\text{(non-reacting)}.
\end{equation}
We notice the appearance of the $2/5$ factor in Eq.~\eqref{eq:actmsd1}, indicating that the enhancement of the diffusivity through active motion is reduced dramatically, to just 40\% of that of a comparable classical colloid. Furthermore, the active mean squared displacement scales as $\sim R_0^5$, making the range of the swimmer extremely sensitive to its initial size. This scaling breaks down for very large swimmers, since it is necessary that $\gamma\sim R_0^{-1}$ is sufficiently large for this expansion to remain valid.
For the slowly reacting swimmer we find in a similar fashion that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:actmsd2}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a\sim\frac{1}{4}\frac{U^2T_d}{D_{r,0}}\left[1-\frac{1}{\gamma}+\dots\right],\quad\gamma\to\infty\quad\text{(slow react.)}.
\end{equation}
with the leading-order scaling
\begin{equation}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a\sim\frac{U^2\mu\rho_s R_0^4}{k_BT c_{f,\infty}k_s},\quad\gamma\to\infty\quad\text{(slow reaction)}.
\end{equation}
We see that the diffusivity in Eq.~\eqref{eq:actmsd2} is reduced even further, to 25\% that of a classical colloid. Finally for the fast reacting swimmer we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:actmsd3}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a\sim\frac{1}{10}\frac{U^2T_d}{D_{r,0}}\left[1-\frac{5}{2\gamma}+\dots\right],\quad\gamma\to\infty\quad\text{(fast react.)/},
\end{equation}
and the leading-order scaling
\begin{equation}
\langle r^2 \rangle_a\sim \frac{U^2\mu \rho_s^2k_f^2 R_0^5 }{k_B T D_fc_{f,\infty}^2 k_s^2},\quad\gamma\to\infty\quad (\text{fast reaction}).
\end{equation}
This third dissolution model gives the strongest reduction of the active mean squared displacement in the diffusive regime, to just 10\% that of a classical colloid.
The strong reduction in mean squared displacement across all three models suggests that it is impractical to rely on active diffusion to transport dissolving microswimmers. Instead designs may be aimed at exploiting the ballistic regime ($\gamma\ll 1$) or making use of external flows and geometries to direct swimmers.
\subsubsection{Ballistic limit ($\gamma\to0$)}\label{sec:actball}
The asymptotic expansions in the ballistic limit are more complicated, and rely on careful splitting of the integration range to tame divergences. With all details shown in the Appendix, we obtain the following leading-order results:
\begin{align}
\langle r^2 \rangle_{a}&=U^2T_d^2\left(1-\frac{16}{3}\gamma+\mathcal{O}(\gamma^{3/2})\right),\nonumber\\
&\text{(non-reacting)}\label{eq:ball1}\\
\langle r^2 \rangle_{a}&=U^2T_d^2\left(1-2\sqrt{\pi}\sqrt{\gamma}+\mathcal{O}(\gamma\log\gamma)\right),\nonumber\\
&\text{(slow reaction)}\label{eq:ball2}\\
\langle r^2 \rangle_{a}&=U^2T_d^2\left(1-4\sqrt{2\pi}\sqrt\gamma+\mathcal{O}(\gamma\log\gamma)\right).\nonumber\\
&\text{(fast reaction)}\label{eq:ball3}
\end{align}
Once again, we observe the same hierarchy among the three models, with the non-reacting swimmer exhibiting the smallest decrease in range compared to a classical colloid, in contrast with a fast reacting swimmer with the same lifetime $T_d$. Note that in this limit not only the coefficient but also the leading-order scaling varies between the models.
We obtain therefore that in both the ballistic and diffusive limit there exists a hierarchy among the three models. The mean squared displacement for a given value of $\gamma$ is always largest for the non-reacting swimmer, followed by the slowly reacting and finally the fast reacting colloid. This may be explained by considering the decay behaviour in
Fig.~\ref{fig:rcomp}. Since the decay rate of the non-reacting swimmer is accelerating, it is only significantly smaller than its original size for a comparatively short proportion of its total lifetime. Since rotational diffusion is strongest for particles of small radius, this means that it is comparatively weakly affected by the enhancement in rotational diffusion. In contrast, colloids decaying according the other two models experience strong rotational diffusion for a significantly longer proportion of their lifetime, leading to less directed motion and smaller overall displacement. In Fig.~\ref{fig:hists} and \ref{fig:scatter} we illustrate this further using results from our numerical simulations.
\subsection{Computational results}\label{sec:Numerics}
\subsubsection{Validation of the method}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Num1.pdf}
\caption{Normalised active mean squared displacement as a function $\gamma$ for the non-reacting model. The solid black line corresponds to direct numerical integration of Eq.~\eqref{eq:amsd1}, while the dashed orange line is our theoretical prediction in Eq.~\eqref{eq:actmsd1} for the large $\gamma$ limit. Each scatter point represents the mean and one standard deviation obtained from $10^3$ Monte-Carlo simulations of the associated Langevin equations. Inset: the small $\gamma$ behaviour, comparing Eq.~\eqref{eq:amsd1} (solid black) with the asymptotic solution Eq.~\eqref{eq:ball1} (dashed orange).}\label{fig:amsd1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Num2.pdf}
\caption{Normalised active mean squared displacement against $\gamma$ for the slow reaction limit of the reacting model. The solid black line corresponds to direct numerical integration of Eq.~\eqref{eq:amsd2}, the dashed orange lines to the theoretical predictions of Eq.~\eqref{eq:actmsd2} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:ball2}, and the scatter points to Monte-Carlo simulations in analogy with Fig. \ref{fig:amsd1}.}\label{fig:amsd2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Num3.pdf}
\caption{Normalised active mean squared displacement against $\gamma$ for the slow reaction limit of the reacting model. The solid black line corresponds to direct numerical integration of Eq.~\eqref{eq:amsd3}, the dashed orange lines to the theoretical predictions of Eq.~\eqref{eq:actmsd3} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:ball3}, and the scatter points to Monte-Carlo simulations in analogy with Fig. \ref{fig:amsd1}.}\label{fig:amsd3}
\end{figure}
In order to test our theoretical approach, we perform direct numerical integrations of our integral expressions for the active mean squared displacement in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:amsd1}-\eqref{eq:amsd3}. We compare them with Monte-Carlo simulations of the associated Langevin dynamics to assert its validity, and subsequently with our analytical predictions for the asymptotic behaviour. The results are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:amsd1}, \ref{fig:amsd2} and \ref{fig:amsd3} for the non-reacting, slowly reacting and fast reacting models respectively. Since the large $\gamma$ limit corresponds to strong rotational diffusion and long lifetimes, the Monte Carlo simulations necessitate very small time steps and very long run times. Depending on the model, such simulations therefore become prohibitively expensive even for moderate values of $\gamma$. Since rotational diffusion is strongest for small colloids, this effect is most pronounced for the fast reacting swimmer whose rate of dissolution is decreasing since this swimmer spends the longest proportion of its lifetime in this regime. Conversely, the non-reacting swimmer is the least expensive to simulate.
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:amsd1}, we obtain excellent agreement between the Langevin dynamics and the predicted mean-squared displacement for a wide range of $\gamma$ values. In the diffusive limit ($\gamma\gg 1$), the next-to leading order asymptotics agree extremely well with the exact result down to $\gamma=\mathcal{O}(1)$ on a log-log scale. In the ballistic limit, divergences begin to appear at $\gamma=\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$. Similar conclusions hold for the slowly reacting swimmer, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:amsd2}. In the case of the fast reacting swimmer, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:amsd3}, the active mean squared displacement is a less smooth function of $\gamma$, leading to stronger diversion from the asymptotic expressions.
\subsubsection{Distribution of spread}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{hist01.pdf}\label{fig:hists1}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{hist1.pdf}\label{fig:hists2}
\end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}{\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{hist10.pdf}\label{fig:hists3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Histograms illustrating the distribution of root mean squared displacement from the initial position for different values of $\gamma$, scaled by the ballistic length scale $L_b=UT_d$ for $\gamma=0.1$ and $\gamma=1$, and the diffusive length scale $L_d=L_b/\sqrt{\gamma}$ for $\gamma=10$. Each histogram is generated from $10^3$ Monte Carlo simulations. Dashed lines indicate sample means.}\label{fig:hists}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\columnwidth]{scatter.pdf}
\caption{Cloud scatter plot of lateral displacement, $r_\perp=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$,
vs.~vertical displacement, $z$, of $10^3$ Monte Carlo simulations in the weakly ballistic regime for our three models compared to the non-dissolving case. All simulations are started at the coordinate origin (filled circle) with initial orientation vertically upwards in Cartesian coordinates $(x,y,z)$. Symbols indicate positions of the colloids at time of disappearance. The non-dissolving data points are generated by initialising a simulation with a given rotational diffusivity $D_r$ and terminating after a time $T$ such that $TD_r=\gamma$. Lengths are scaled by the ballistic length scale $UT_d$.}\label{fig:scatter}
\end{figure}
From these Monte-Carlo simulations, we can deduce further information regarding the spread of particle trajectories. As predicted in \S\ref{sec:act_matmod}, a hierarchy between the models is revealed that applies for a wide range of values of $\gamma$, covering both the ballistic and the diffusive regime. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}, where we show histograms of root-mean-square displacement distributions. For equal values of $\gamma$, the non-reacting model consistently produces the largest displacement. The distribution is strongly peaked for small $\gamma$ (ballistic), but spreads as $\gamma$ shifts to larger values. This may be attributed to the general shift towards diffusion. Contrastingly however, the distribution of the fast-reacting colloids is spread rather widely even in the ballistic regime and in fact peaked much more strongly in the diffusive regime than both the non-reacting and the slowly reacting particles, whose distribution lies between the two others. This is indicative of fast-reacting dissolution fostering diffusive behaviour independent of the parameter $\gamma$.
In order to further illustrate this point, we examine the lateral spread of colloid trajectories in the weakly ballistic regime. In Fig.~\ref{fig:scatter}, we plot the final positions of colloids with identical initial orientations, including non-dissolving particles for comparison. A clear stratification between the models is visible with non-dissolving colloids being closely confined to a spherical cap on the one extreme, and fast reacting colloids in a near-spherical diffusive cloud close to the origin. These also exhibit the smallest absolute lateral spread, while the classical colloids are the most spread out. However, the average angular spread is similar between the models.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:Discussion}
In this paper we provide two fundamental models for the dissolution and stochastic dynamics of self-propelled artificial microswimmers. Inspired by recent experimental realisations, we seek to identify the swimmer decay rates and their influence on translational and rotational diffusivity, and in turn analyse both theoretically and numerically how changes in these modify the distribution of swimmer trajectories. We identify a new dimensionless parameter, $\gamma$ defined as the product of lifetime and initial rotational diffusivity, that classifies colloids with finite lifetime into `ballistic' and `diffusive' types independent of the dissolution process, and study the differences between our dissolution models in three distinct limits for various values of this parameter. We find that for a given value of $\gamma$, particles dissolving in the absence of a reaction behave the most ballistic, whereas colloids reacting at high Damk\"ohler number, defined as the ratio of fuel reactivity and diffusive replenishment, behave the most diffusively. We find that this is due to increasing and decreasing dissolution rates respectively for the different models. Furthermore we derive asymptotic expressions of their mean squared displacement for both small and large values of $\gamma$, and perform extensive Monte Carlo simulations to validate our theoretical results and derive more information about the distribution of spread.
Under experimental conditions, Damk\"ohler numbers of more than about 10 are often very difficult to realise. However, this does not really constrain the applicability of our fast-reacting model, since we only require $t_f/\text{Da}^2\ll T_d$ for the expansion to be valid on the scale of dissolution dynamics. Since typically $t_f\ll T_d$ anyway, we find that even Damk\"ohler numbers of order unity are sufficient for this limit. On the other hand, this argument implies that very small Damk\"ohler numbers are required in the
slow-reaction asymptotic limit, a situation which might not be realisable experimentally. Note however that we include also the general expression of the decay for arbitrary Damk\"ohler number in Eq.~\eqref{eq:model3diss}, for which computations similar to the ones provided in \S\ref{sec:Numerics} may be performed.
Despite this, not all our models can apply to all kinds of microswimmer designs. Specifically, the non-reacting model might be at odds with phoretic self-propulsion. Therefore this model only describes colloids that propel through different mechanisms, such as magnetic swimmers. Furthermore, our statistical results only hold true for microswimmers that are fully degradable. A Janus colloid with, e.g., degradable and inert halves is not going to exhibit divergent diffusivity since the relevant length scale is bounded. Instead such a swimmer would show a decrease in velocity, which if known can be dealt with in a manner similar to our theoretical approach. In this case, however, the changing geometry of the swimmer would likely have to be solved for numerically.
Another important problem that remains to be investigated is the influence of directed motion, such as chemotaxis. Breaking the isotropy of orientational dynamics prevents an analytical investigation similar to the one carried out in this paper since it relies on the result that the directional correlation of a particle decays exponentially. However, we can still address the issue directly in at least one special case. It was shown recently in Ref.~\cite{tuatulea2018artificial} that artificial colloids perform chemotaxis by adjusting their trajectory by means of rotation, translation in the direction to a chemical gradient, and translation at an angle, each with a coefficient of strength that can be calculated from the surface activity and mobility of the colloid. In the case of uniform surface activity, the only coefficient that is non-zero is the one giving rise to translation in the direction of a chemical gradient. In particular, the rotational dynamics remain unaffected. In that case, the swimmer trajectories behave therefore just like we describe in our paper, plus a constant velocity displacing the colloid in the direction of the chemical gradient. Furthermore numerical work will be required to address the full interplay between chemotaxis behaviour and dissolution dynamics.
Before degradable designs may be employed in real-world applications, it will be furthermore necessary to examine the effects of collective dissolution. Since our models are sensitive to the background distribution of fuel and/or solute, the influence of other nearby colloids on their dissolution will be noticeable. It is conceivable that, in analogy with bubbles~\cite{michelin2018collective}, different decay patterns and complex stochastic behaviour emerges. Similar effects may also be triggered by confinement and also warrant further investigation.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 682754 to EL).
\end{acknowledgements}
\section*{Author contributions}
EL conceived the study, AC developed models and performed computations, all authors contributed to the interpretation and writing of the manuscript.
\section*{Conflicts of interest}
There are no conflicts to declare.
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of patterns in permutations has applications when solving a variety of enumeration problems in different areas including algorithms (sortable permutations), algebraic geometry (Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials and Shubert varieties), statistical mechanics (generalizations of gas models), computational biology and even chemistry.
The work of Simion and Schmidt \cite{simion} was the first systematic study of permutation pattern avoidance. Before that, in 1968, Knuth \cite{knuth} showed that the permutation $\pi$ can be sorted by a stack if and only if $\pi$ avoids $231$, and that the stack-sortable permutations are enumerated by the Catalan numbers.
This work is related to the idea of considering permutation patterns for which we have additional constraints for the distance between some pairs of consecutive letters in the pattern's occurrences. For example, when we want two consecutive letters to have a positive gap size in any occurrence of a pattern, we will write $\square$ between these two letters. For instance, a permutation $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2} \cdots \pi_{n}$ avoids $1 \square 2$ if there is no $1\leq i<j\leq n$ with $j\geq i+2$, such that $\pi_{i}<\pi_{j}$. In this paper, we obtain some interesting results related to this type of patterns, and show its usefulness when interpreting other results combinatorially.
\subsection{Definitions}
Permutations in this paper are presented in one-line notation. When we say an $n$-permutation or a permutation of size $n$, we will mean a bijective map from $[n] = \{1,2, \cdots , n\}$ to itself. A sequence of distinct numbers will be just called \emph{sequence}. \emph{An occurrence} of the classical pattern $p$ in a permutation $\pi$ is a subsequence in $\pi$ whose letters are in the same relative order as those in $p$. We use the $\textsf{fl}$ operator to define this formally. Given a sequence of distinct real numbers $u_{1}, u_{2}, \cdots u_{k}$, define $\textsf{fl}(u_{1}, u_{2}, \cdots u_{k})$ to be the permutation $q\in S_{k}$ such that $u_{i}<u_{j}$ if and only if $q_{i}<q_{j}$. A permutation is uniquely defined by the set of its inversions, so this condition uniquely defines $q$. A permutation $\pi\in S_n$ contains a pattern $p = p_{1}p_{2} \cdots p_{k}\in S_{k}$ for $k \leq n$ if there exists $i_{1} < i_{2} < \cdots < i_{k}$ such that $\textsf{fl}(\pi_{i_{1}}\pi_{i_{2}}\cdots \pi_{i_{k}}) = p$. Otherwise, $\pi$
avoids $p$. For instance, the permutation $32514$ has two occurrences of the pattern $231$, namely the subsequences $351$ and $251$ and it avoids the pattern $123$.
\emph{Vincular patterns} allow the requirement that some adjacent letters in a pattern must also be adjacent in the permutation.
We indicate this requirement by underlining the letters that must be adjacent. For instance, if the pattern 3\underline{12} occurs in a permutation $\pi$, then the letters in $\pi$ that correspond to $1$ and $2$ are adjacent. For example, the permutation $621543$ has
only one occurrence of the pattern $3\underline{12}$, namely the subsequence $615$. Vincular patterns were first studied systematically by Babson and Steingr\'{ı}msson in \cite{babson}, under the name “generalized patterns”.
When all the entries of a pattern are required to occur in adjacent positions, we will call the pattern \emph{consecutive}.
We will denote by $S_{n}$ the set of permutations of size $n$ and by $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(p)$ the set of permutations of size $n$ avoiding a pattern $p$. The set of all permutations, of any size, avoiding a pattern $p$ will be denoted $\operatorname{Av}(p)$. Similarly, the set of permutations that avoid all permutations in a set $\Pi$ will be denoted $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\Pi)$ and $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$, respectively. If each number in a sequence $\sigma_1$ is greater than each number in a sequence $\sigma_2$, then we write $\sigma_1 > \sigma_2$. Otherwise, we write $\sigma_1 \ngtr \sigma_2$. Finally, we write $\sigma[<x]$ (resp. $\sigma[>x]$) for the subsequence of elements of $\sigma$ that are less than (resp., greater than) $x$.
A permutation class is a set $C$ of permutations such that every pattern occurring in a permutation in $C$ is also in $C$. Certainly, $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$ is a permutation class for any set of permutations $\Pi$. Two permutations $\sigma , \tau\in S_{k}$ are \emph{Wilf-equivalent} if, for each $n$, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\sigma)|$ equals $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\tau)|$. Whenever we say generating function, we will mean ordinary generating function.
We will write $\square^{r}$ to denote a gap with at least $r$ letters, with $\square \coloneqq \square^{1}$. Therefore avoiding the pattern $12 \square^{2} 3$ will be the same as avoiding occurrences $xyz$ of the classical pattern $123$ for which there are at least two other letters between $y$ and $z$. The patterns containing $\square^{r}$ symbols will be called \emph{distant patterns} (\emph{DPs}) and we will use \emph{gap} and \emph{gap size} for the space between two consecutive letters of a pattern and for its size. Any distant pattern can be written in the form
\begin{equation*}
\square^{r_{0}}q_{1}\square^{r_{1}}q_{2}\square^{r_{2}} \cdots \square^{r_{k-1}}q_{k}\square^{r_{k}},
\end{equation*} where each $r_{i}$ is a non-negative integer and $q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{k}\in S_{k}$. We will also consider tight constraints and we will underline the corresponding part of the pattern in case of a tight constraint as, for example, in $\underline{1\square^{4} 2}3$ to denote that we want to avoid the pattern $123$ with gap size exactly $4$ between the letters $1$ and $2$. DPs without any tight constraints are \emph{classical distant patterns} while DPs having at least one tight constraint are \emph{vincular distant patterns}. If we take a classical pattern $q$ and require the minimal gap size to be the same number $r$ for all pairs of consecutive letters, we will write $\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)$ and we will call these \emph{uniform distant patterns}. For example, $\operatorname{dist}_{3}(312)=3\square^{3}1\square^{3}2$. Note that DPs generalize classical patterns since $q = \operatorname{dist}_{0}(q)$ for any classical pattern $q$. DPs generalize vincular patterns, as well, since one can write any vincular pattern as a vincular distant pattern. Finally, when we say that a distant pattern has size $n$, we mean that the number of its non-square letters is $n$. For example $2\square 1\square^{2} 3$ is a distant pattern of size $3$.
\subsection{Related work and motivation}
The idea of arbitrary constraints for the gap sizes between any two consecutive pattern letters is not new, even though not much has been written on the subject and the topic seems to be not so well explored yet. The thesis of Ghassan Firro \cite{thesis} defines a more general concept of permutation patterns with gap constraints unifying many popular pattern notations. He calls them \emph{distanced patterns} or \emph{d-patterns} and uses a different notation. The distanced patterns described there also allow requiring a gap size to be at most some given number $r$. The thesis itself enumerates the patterns of the kind $xy \square z$ using both a direct bijection and an analytical approach. We have included this result in Section \ref{sec:polygons}. The paper of Hopkins and Weiler \cite{hopkins} describes the concept of uniform distant patterns under the name of \emph{gap patterns} and obtains an important result related to them, as a corollary of their work on pattern avoidance over posets. We state this corollary in Section \ref{sec:len3}.
In his book dedicated to pattern avoidance \cite{Kit11}, Kitaev mentions patterns containing the $\square$-symbol, where the work of Hou and Mansour on the so-called Horse permutations \cite{horsePerm} is listed. There, the authors proved that the permutations avoiding both the classical pattern $132$ and the pattern $1\square\underline{23}$ are in one to one correspondence with the so-called Horse paths.
In \cite{Kit05}, Kitaev introduces \emph{partially ordered patterns} (\emph{POPs}) and \emph{partially ordered generalized patterns} (\emph{POGPs}) which further generalize classical DPs (resp., vincular DPs). While in classical patterns, all of the letters form one totally ordered set (e.g. in $123$, $1<2<3$), in POPs this set is partially ordered. In an occurrence of a distant pattern, an element at the place of a $\square$ is incomparable to any other element which shows us that POPs (and POGPs that allow tight constraints) are indeed generalizations. If we have a classical distant pattern or a vincular distant pattern, we could easily write it as a POP (resp., POGP) by replacing each square with a letter in its own group. POPs were studied in the context of permutations, words and compositions in a series of papers \cite{Kit06,Kit03,Kit05Main,Kit05,Kit07,Kit10,Kit11} including a recent work \cite{Kit19} of Gao and Kitaev where a systematic search of connections between sequences in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) and permutations avoiding POPs of size $4$ and $5$ was conducted. Two other works \cite{callan} and \cite{claessonNon} study avoidance of non-consecutive occurrence of a pattern and this has connections with both POPs and DPs. Another generalization of the DPs are the so-called \emph{place-difference-value patterns} \cite{placeDiff}.
\subsection{Organization of the results}
\textbf{Section \ref{sec:basic}} contains proofs of two basic facts about DPs which set the stage for the later work.
\textbf{Section \ref{sec:len2}} considers the avoidance of classical DPs of size 2, namely $2 \square 1$ and the more general case $2 \square^{r} 1$. While $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 2)|$ was shown to be given by the Fibonacci numbers $F_{n+1}$ in many ways in the past, we use this old result and a technique that can be generally applied to any classical DP to obtain a new summation formula for $F_{n+1}$ (see Section \ref{sec:rec}). In addition, we establish a bijection between the permutations in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{r} 1)$ and the permutations in $S_{n}$ for which any two elements in a cycle differ by at most $r$.
\textbf{Section \ref{sec:len3}} considers the DPs of size $3$. Previous results by Firro and Mansour\cite{thesis, MansourFuncEq}, as well as by Hopkins and Weiler\cite{hopkins} are first listed. Then, we describe briefly our approach towards the enumeration of $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square 3 \square 2)$. The main tool that was used was the block-decomposition approach initiated by Mansour and Vainshtein \cite{MansourVain}. All the details in the proposed approach will be described in a forthcoming article.
In \textbf{Section \ref{sec:vinc}}, we classify the patterns of the form $\underline{ab}\square c$ and $a\square\underline{bc}$. Recursive formulas for $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square\underline{23})|$ and $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square\underline{32})|$ are obtained, which help us to show that $1\square\underline{23}$ is the only pattern among $1\square\underline{23}$, $\underline{12}\square 3$, $1\square 2 \square 3$ and $\underline{123}$ that is avoided by fewer permutations of size $n$, compared to the same pattern after we switch the places of $2$ and $3$. This is somewhat surprising since, as we know, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(123)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(132)|$ (see \cite{simion}). We study consecutive DPs in \textbf{Section \ref{sec:consecutiveDP}}. We will show a simple but surprising relation between these patterns and the question of avoidance of arithmetic progressions in permutations for which still not much is known.
In \textbf{Section \ref{sec:conj}}, we present direct solutions, without using a computer, for two former conjectures of Kuzsmaul \cite{Kuszmaul} which give the generating functions for the permutations avoiding two big sets of size four patterns. These solutions use formulations of the conjectures in terms of distant patterns.
\textbf{Section \ref{sec:SW}} is dedicated to some analogues of the Stanley--Wilf former conjecture for distant patterns. We conclude with \textbf{Section \ref{sec:open}} which lists some open problems.
\section{Two basic facts about distant patterns} \label{sec:basic}
Avoidance of classical distant patterns can be formulated as a statement about simultaneous avoidance of classical patterns. For example, avoiding $1 \square 2$ is equivalent to the simultaneous avoidance of the 3-letter classical patterns $\{123,132,213\}$. In the general case, we have the fact below, where \begin{center}
$x^{(y)} \coloneqq x(x-1)\cdots (x-y+1) = \frac{x!}{(x-y)!}$
\end{center}
denotes the falling factorial.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:simultAv}
The avoidance of $q = \square^{r_{0}}q_{1}\square^{r_{1}}q_{2}\square^{r_{2}} \cdots \square^{r_{k-1}}q_{k}\square^{r_{k}}$, where $\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k}r_{j} = S$, is equivalent to the simultaneous avoidance of $(S+k)^{(S)}$ classical patterns of size $S+k$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If a permutation $\pi$ avoids $q$, then $\pi$ avoids all classical patterns of the kind
\[q' = p_{0,1} \cdots p_{0,r_{0}}q_{1}'p_{1,1}\cdots p_{1,r_{1}}q_{2}'\cdots q_{k-1}'p_{k-1,1} \cdots p_{k-1,r_{k-1}}q_{k}'p_{k,1} \cdots p_{k,r_{k}},
\]
where $p_{i,j}$ are $S$ distinct numbers from $1$ to $S+k$ and $q_{1}',q_{2}',\cdots ,q_{k}'$ are the remaining $k$ numbers from $1$ to $S+k$ and they are in the same relative order as the numbers $q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{k}$, i.e., $\textsf{fl}(q_{1}'$,$q_{2}'$,$\cdots$,$q_{k}') = q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{k}$. Indeed, any occurrence of such classical pattern would be an occurrence of $q$. The number of such classical patterns is $\frac{(S+k)!}{k!}$ since the relative order of exactly $k$ of the positions is fixed. Conversely, if $\pi$ avoids all the listed classical patterns, then it does not have an occurrence of $q$. Assume the opposite and take one such occurrence of $q$: $oc = \pi_{x_{1}}\pi_{x_{2}}\cdots \pi_{x_{k}}$. We know that $x_{1}>r_{0}$, $x_{2}-x_{1}>r_{1}$, etc. Select arbitrary $r_{0}$ letters of $\pi$, preceding $\pi_{x_{1}}$, arbitrary $r_{1}$ letters between $\pi_{x_{1}}$ and $\pi_{x_{2}}$ and so forth. You will obtain a subsequence $s = \pi_{y_{1}}\pi_{y_{2}}\cdots \pi_{y_{S+k}}$ of $\pi$ and $\textsf{fl}(s)$ must be one of the already listed classical patterns of size $S+k$ which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
In fact, if we have some number of squares at the beginning or at the end of a distant pattern, we may consider the same distant pattern, but without those squares due to the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:sqBeginEnd}
For any $r_{1},r_{2}>0$ and a distant pattern $q$, we have
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\square^{r_{1}}q\square^{r_{2}})| = n^{(r)}|\operatorname{Av}_{n-r}(q)|,
\end{equation}
where $r \coloneqq r_{1}+r_{2}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\sigma = \sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots \sigma_{n}\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\square^{r_{1}}q\square^{r_{2}})$, then
\begin{equation*}
\textsf{fl}(\sigma_{r_{1}+1}\cdots \sigma_{n-r_{2}})\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-r}(q).
\end{equation*}
Conversely, any $\sigma = \sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots \sigma_{n}$ for which $\sigma_{1},\cdots,\sigma_{r_{1}}, \sigma_{n-r_{2}},\cdots, \sigma_{n}$ are $r$ arbitrary numbers in $[n]$ and for which $\textsf{fl}(\sigma_{r_{1}+1}\cdots \sigma_{n-r_{2}})\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-r}(q)$, would be such that $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\square^{r_{1}}q\square^{r_{2}})$, since any possible occurrence of $q$ in $\sigma$ would have either less than $r_1$ other elements in front of it or less than $r_{2}$ elements after it.
\end{proof}
The theorem above tells us that it suffices to consider only classical DPs without $\square$ symbols at the beginning or at the end.
\section{Classical DPs of size 2}\label{sec:len2}
By theorem \ref{th:sqBeginEnd}, it suffices to consider $1\square 2$ and $2\square 1$ as the only DPs of size 2. One can obviously see that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 2)|$, by applying the reverse map. Therefore we have only one Wilf-equivalence class here.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:fibo}
For $n\geq 3$,
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)| = F_{n+1},
\end{equation}
i.e., the $(n+1)$st Fibonacci number.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{n}\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)$, then either $p_{n} = n$ or $p_{n-1} = n$ since otherwise $n$ will participate in an inversion that is not of consecutive letters. If $p_{n} = n$ then $p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{n-1}$ must be in $\operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(2 \square 1)$, and for each permutation in $\operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(2 \square 1)$, we obtain a permutation in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)$ after appending the letter $n$ at the end. Thus, we have $|\operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(2 \square 1)|$ permutations in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)$ ending with $n$. If $p_{n-1} = n$, then we must have $p_{n} = n-1$ to prevent $n-1$ from forming a prohibited inversion with $p_{n}$. Thus, in this second case we must have $p_{n-1} = n$ and $p_{n} = n-1$ and the prefix $p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{n-2}$ must be a permutation in $\operatorname{Av}_{n-2}(2 \square 1)$. For each such permutation in $A_{n-2}(2 \square 1)$, we obtain a new one in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)$ by appending $n$ and then $n-1$ to it. Therefore $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 1)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(2 \square 1)| + |A_{n-2}(2 \square 1)|$. It remains to note that $|A_{3}(2 \square 1)| = 3$ and $|A_{4}(2 \square 1)| = 5$.
\end{proof}
This basic result was proved in the seminal paper of Simion and Schmidt \cite{simion}, where they showed that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(123,132,213)| = F_{n+1}$ which as we explained (Theorem \ref{th:simultAv}) is equivalent to the fact above.
One can consider more general settings for distant patterns and look at bigger values of the maximal distance between two consecutive letter of a pattern. Recall that $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{r} 1)$ is the set of all $p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{n}\in S_{n}$ with no inversion $(p_{i},p_{j})$, such that $|i-j|>r$. Apparently, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{m} 1)| = n!$ for $n \leq m
+1$ and $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{0} 1)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(21)| = 1$. The theorem below addresses the general case.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:bijection}
The permutations in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2\square^{r}1)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the permutations in $S_n$ for which, when written in a cycle notation, any two elements in a cycle differ by at most $r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $X = \operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{r} 1)$ be the set of all permutations in $S_n$ that do not have inversions at distance greater than $r$ in their one-line notation representation. Let $Y$ be the set of those permutations in $S_n$ for which any two elements in the same cycle differ by at most $r$. We will describe a bijective map $f:X \to Y$. Consider $p = p_{1}p_{2}\cdots p_{n} \in X$. We will show how to obtain the standard form of $f(p)$ written in cycle notation, i.e., the minimal element of every cycle is at its first position and the cycles are ordered in increasing order of their minimal elements.
Below is the description of $f$: \newline
The number $p_1$ is at position 1, so let us look at the set of positions of all numbers with which $p_1$ is in inversion: $1,2,\cdots , p_{1} - 1$. Denote their positions with $i_{1},i_{2},\cdots , i_{p_{1}-1}$, respectively. These positions are not bigger than $r+1$, since $p\in X$. Then take $(1,i_{p_{1}-1},i_{p_{1}-2},\cdots , i_{1})$ to be the first cycle in the standard form of the cycle decomposition for $f(p)$. Then, let $j$ be the minimal number that is not already used in this cycle decomposition, and let the numbers $p_{j}-1, \cdots , p_{1}+1$ be at positions $j_{p_{j}-1},j_{p_{j}-2}, \cdots , j_{p_{1}+1}$. Take $(j,j_{p_{j}-1},j_{p_{j}-2}, \cdots , j_{p_{1}+1})$ as the next cycle in the standard form of the cycle decomposition for $f(p)$ and continue in the same way afterwards. Note that the length of some of those cycles might be $1$.
Here are two examples:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $n=9,r=3$ and $p = 352149867$, then $f(352149867) = (134)(25)(6798)$.
\item If $n=8,r=4$ and $p = 41352867$, then $f(41352867)=(1352)(4)(687)$.
\end{itemize}
Obviously, $f$ maps each $\sigma \in X$ to a permutation $f(\sigma)$ such that any two numbers in the same cycle of $f(\sigma)$ differ by at most $r$, since these two numbers correspond to indices of two numbers, in the one-line notation of $\sigma$, which are in inversion in $\sigma\in X$. To prove that $f$ is indeed a bijection, we will describe its inverse. Consider $\pi\in Y$ in its standard cycle decomposition form. If the first cycle of $\pi$ is $(\pi_{1}\pi_{2}\cdots \pi_{i_{1}})$, then put the number $i_{1}$ in the first place, then $i_{1}-1$ at position $\pi_{2}$, $i_{1}-2$ at position $\pi_{3}$ and so on. The number $1$ will be placed at position $\pi_{i_{1}}$. Note also that $\pi_{1}$ is always $1$. Next, go to the next cycle $(\pi_{j_{1}}\pi_{j_{2}}\cdots \pi_{j_{i_{2}}})$. We will determine the positions of the next $i_{2}$ numbers: $i_{1}+1,i_{1}+2,\cdots ,i_{1}+i_{2}$. We can see that $\pi_{j_{1}}$ must be the least integer not occurring in the first given cycle. We will place at this position, the number $i_{1}+i_{2}$. Then, $i_{1}+i_{2}-1$ should be placed at position $\pi_{j_{2}}$, $i_{1}+i_{2}-2$ at position $\pi_{j_{3}}$ and so on. One can use the two given examples above for verification.
\end{proof}
The sequences of the numbers $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{r} 1)|$, for different fixed values of $n$ and $r$ are respectively rows and columns of the table described in \cite[A276837]{OEIS}. For example, in the case $r=2$, if we denote $a_{n} = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square^{2} 1)|$, then it is not hard to prove the recurrence
\begin{equation}
a_{n} = a_{n-1} + a_{n-2} + 3.a_{n-3} + a_{n-4}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Recurrence formula for $F_{n+1} = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square 2)|$}
\label{sec:rec}
In an attempt to obtain a general enumeration approach when dealing with DPs, we tried to use a technique that is described in the current subsection. The technique helped us to obtain a recurrence formula for the number of permutations avoiding the distant pattern $1 \square 2$, i.e., a new recurrence formula for the Fibonacci numbers (see Theorem \ref{th:fibo}). The same technique can be used when trying to enumerate the set of avoiders for other DPs.
The idea is that almost all permutations containing a given distant pattern can be obtained by first taking a permutation containing the corresponding classical pattern and then inserting additional numbers between some of the letters (where we have the $\square$ symbol) for a certain occurrence of this classical pattern. Let us describe this more concretely with the following algorithm that we will use for the pattern $1 \square 2$.
\begin{description}
\item [\textbf{Algorithm 1}]\
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1.] For a given $n\geq 3$ and $j\in [n]$, take any $\pi\in S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(12)$.
\item[2.] Find the leftmost $1$ that is part of a classical $12$-pattern and insert the number $j$ immediately after it.
\item[3.] Increase by $1$ the numbers $j,j+1,\ldots ,n-1$, except the $j$ that we just inserted (unless $j=n$, $\pi$ contains another $j$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{description}
This algorithm defines a map $g: A_{n-1} \to B_{n}$, where
$A_{n-1} = (S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(12))\times [n]$ and $B_{n} = S_{n} \setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 2)$. Here is an example: $g(3412,2) = 42513$. The leftmost occurrence of the pattern $12$ in $3412$ is by the first two letters, $3$ and $4$. Therefore we insert $j=2$ immediately after the letter $3$ and then increase the $2,3$ and $4$ in the original permutation. Note that the added number $j$ always keep its value in the final image.
We will first need to show that this map is not far from being injective.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:almostInjective}
No permutation in $B_{n} = S_{n} \setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 2)$, the range of the map $g$, is the image of more than two different elements of $A_{n-1} = (S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(12))\times [n]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume the opposite. Let $\pi = g(\pi_{1},j_{1}) = g(\pi_{2},j_{2}) = g(\pi_{3},j_{3})$ for three different tuples $(\pi_{1},j_{1}), (\pi_{2},j_{2}), (\pi_{3},j_{3}) \in A_{n} = (S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n}(12))\times [n]$. We can see that $j_{1},j_{2}$ and $j_{3}$ must be different since if two of them, say $j_{1}$ and $j_{2}$, are equal then obviously $\pi_{1} = \pi_{2}$ and we will not have different tuples. Now, we know that without loss of generality $1 < c_{j_1} < c_{j_2} < c_{j_3}$ are three different positions for the three different numbers $j_{1},j_{2},j_{3}$ in the final permutation $\pi$. By step 2 of Algorithm 1, after removing $j_1$ from $\pi$, the first occurrence of the classical pattern 12, should be some $\pi_{x}\pi_{y}$, where $x = c_{j_1}-1$. Similarly, after removing $j_2$, the first such occurrence should begin at position $c_{j_{2}}-1 > c_{j_{1}}-1$, but this is only possible if the position $y = c_{j_2}$ since if this is not the case then $\pi_{x}\pi_{y}$ would be an occurrence of 12 that begins before position $c_{j_{2}}-1$. However, after removing $j_3$ from $\pi$ (note that $c_{j_{3}}>c_{j_{2}}$), the first occurrence of 12 should begin at position $c_{j_{3}}-1 > c_{j_1}-1$. Contradiction.
\end{proof}
There are many permutations in $B_{n}$ which are the image of $g$ for two different elements of $A_{n-1}$. An example is $3142\in B_{4}$ since $g(312,4) = g(231,1) = 3142$. The next fact that we will need gives the number of these permutations.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:exactlyTwo}
The number of permutations $\omega$ in $B_{n}$ which are an image of exactly two different elements of $A_{n-1}$, after applying the map g, is given by the sum
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{j=3}^{n-1} (j-2)(n-j)(n-j)!.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi = g(\pi_{1},x) = g(\pi_{2},y)$ for $\pi_{1}, \pi_{2} \in S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(12)$ and $x,y \in [n]$, where the tuples $(\pi_{1},x)$ and $(\pi_{2},y)$ are different. We saw in the proof of Theorem \ref{th:almostInjective} that $x$ and $y$ must be different. Let us denote the positions of $x$ and $y$ in $\pi$ with $i$ and $j$ respectively. Without loss of generality, let $i<j$. We know that after removing $y = \pi_{j}$ from $\pi$, then $\pi_{j-1}\pi_{j+k}$, for some $k \geq 1$, is the first occurrence of the classical pattern 12. Therefore, we should have $\pi_{1}>\pi_{2}> \cdots > \pi_{j-1}$. Since, if we remove $x = \pi_{i}$ from $\pi$, then $\pi_{i-1}\pi_{j}$ must be the first occurrence of $12$, it follows that we must have $\pi_{1}>\pi_{2}> \cdots > \pi_{i-2} > \pi_{j} > \pi_{i-1} > \cdots >\pi_{j-1}$. In other words, the number $\pi_{j}$ is between $\pi_{i-2}$ and $\pi_{i-1}$. Otherwise, we would have a $12-$occurrence ending at $\pi_{j}$ that starts before position $i-1$. We also have that $\pi_{j-t}>\pi_{j+l}$, for any $t = 2,\cdots , j-1$ and $l = 1,\cdots , n-j$, because otherwise when removing $\pi_{j}$ from $\pi$, a $12$-occurrence starting before $\pi_{j-1}$ will be present.
In order to determine $\pi$ completely, we must have the relations between the $n-j+1$ numbers $\pi_{j-1},\pi_{j+1},\pi_{j+2},\cdots , \pi_{n}$. The only constraint that we have is that $\pi_{j-1}$ is not the biggest among them. Thus, when $i$ and $j$ are fixed, we always have $(n-j+1)! - (n-j)!$ possible ways to write $\pi$. Therefore, the number of different permutations $\pi \in S_{n}$ that are an image for two different tuples is
\begin{center}
$\sum\limits_{j=3}^{n-1}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{j-1}[(n-j+1)! - (n-j)!] = \sum\limits_{j=3}^{n-1} (j-2)(n-j)(n-j)!$.
\end{center}
Each term in the latter sum gives us the number of permutations in $\pi\in B_{n}$, where $\pi = g(\pi_{1},x) = g(\pi_{2},y)$ for some $\pi_{1}, \pi_{2} \in S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(12)$ and $x,y \in [n]$, where $x<y$ and $y$ is at position $j$ in $\pi$.
\end{proof}
As we have seen that no permutation in $B_{n}$ is counted more than two times, it remains to obtain the number of permutations in $B_{n}$ that are not an image of $g$ for any permutation in the set of tuples $A_{n-1}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:missing}
The number of permutations in the set $B_{n} \setminus g(A_{n-1})$ is:
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{k=3}^{n-2} (F_{n-k+1}-1)k(k-2)(k-2)! ,
\end{equation}
where $F_{i}$ denotes the $i$-th Fibonacci number.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
An example of a permutation in $B_{n}$ that cannot be obtained as an output of the function $g$ (i.e., with Algorithm 1) for any input in $A_{n-1}$ is the permutation $45132$. The reason is that before the first occurrence of the distant pattern $1 \square 2$, there exist an occurrence of the classical pattern $12$ (which is not an occurrence of $1 \square 2$). We want to obtain a formula for all permutations in $B_{n}$ having this property. Consider one such permutation $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2}\cdots \pi_{n}$ and let the first occurrence of $1 \square 2$ be $\pi_{j}\pi_{j+v}$ for some $j\geq 1$, $v\geq 2$, and $j+v \leq n$. Since, this is the first such occurrence, observe that $\pi_{i}>\pi_{j+d}$, for any $i<j$ and $d\geq 0$. Otherwise we would have another occurrence of $1 \square 2$, preceding $\pi_{j}\pi_{j+v}$. Thus $\pi' = \pi_{1}\cdots \pi_{j-1}$ must be a permutation of the $j-1$ numbers $n-j+2, \ldots , n$ and $\pi'' = \pi_{j}\ldots \pi_{n}$ is simply a permutation of $1, \cdots , (n-j+1)$ for which $\pi_{j} < \pi_{j+v}$ for some $v = 1 \cdots n-j$. This means that $\pi'$ avoids $1 \square 2$, but contains the classical pattern 12. Therefore the number of possibilities for $\pi'$ is $|\operatorname{Av}_{j-1}(1 \square 2)| - |\operatorname{Av}_{j-1}(12)| = F_{j}-1$ since $|\operatorname{Av}_{j-1}(1 \square 2)| = F_{j}$ (Theorem \ref{th:fibo}), $|\operatorname{Av}_{j-1}(12)| = 1$ and $A_{j-1}(12) \subset A_{j-1}(1 \square 2)$. Now, let us denote $k = n-j+1$, for clarity. For $\pi''$, we can see that it could be any $k$-permutation except that it could not start with $k$ or with $(k-1)k$ since if this is the case, then $\pi''$ will not start with an occurrence of the $1 \square 2$ pattern. The latter means that the possible values for $\pi''$ are exactly $k!-(k-1)!-(k-2)! = k(k-2)(k-2)!$. Summing over $k$, we obtain the given formula.
\end{proof}
Now, we are ready to derive the recurrence formula that we want. Note that $|A_{n-1}| = |(S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}(12))\times [n]| = ((n-1)!-1)\cdot n = n!-n$ gives the number of permutations in $B_{n}$ that are the image of the map $g$ for exactly one tuple in $A_{n-1}$. Theorems \ref{th:exactlyTwo} and \ref{th:missing} give the number of permutations being the image of $g$ for $2$ and $0$ tuples in $A_{n-1}$, respectively. We also know that $|B_{n}| = |S_{n} \setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 2)| = n! - F_{n+1}$. Thus using inclusion-exclusion we have:
\begin{equation*}
(n!-F_{n+1}) - \sum\limits_{k=3}^{n-2} (F_{n-k+1}-1)k(k-2)((k-2)!) = (n!-n) - \sum\limits_{j=3}^{n-1} (j-2)(n-j)(n-j)!.
\end{equation*}
After simplifying, we obtain the following recurrence formula for the Fibonacci numbers and respectively for the number of permutations avoiding the distant pattern $1 \square 2$ (or $2 \square 1$):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fiboRec}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square 2)| = F_{n+1} = n + \sum_{k=1}^{n-3} (n-(k+2)F_{n-(k+1)})\cdot k\cdot k!.
\end{equation}
\section{Classical DPs of size 3} \label{sec:len3}
As we can infer from Theorem \ref{th:simultAv}, finding a closed formula for the avoidance set of a distant pattern becomes more complicated as its size increases, because the number of classical patterns that must be simultaneously avoided increases, as well. In this section, we describe some already established results on the DPs of size $3$ with one square ($xy\square z$) and two squares ($x\square y\square z$). Then, we discuss an approach that we have used to obtain the generating function for $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square 3\square 2)|$, which represents one of the two different Wilf-equivalent classes for patterns of the latter kind.
\subsection{Patterns of the kind $xy\square z$}
\label{sec:polygons}
Consider the patterns $xy\square z$ and $x\square yz$, for some permutation $xyz\in S_{3}$. The thesis of Firro \cite{thesis} and two related works \cite{MansourPolygons, MansourFuncEq} give the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:firro123}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(12 \square 3)| = \sum\limits_{k \geq 0} \frac{1}{n-k}\binom{2n-2k}{n-1-2k}\binom{n-k}{k}.
\end{equation}
The same thesis gives two bijections between $12 \square 3$-avoiding permutations and odd-dissections of a given $(n+2)$-gon, which are dissections with non-crossing diagonals so that no $2m$-gons ($m > 1$) appear \cite[A049124]{OEIS}. In fact, it turns out that this is cardinality of the avoidance set for any pattern of the kind $xy \square z$ or $x \square yz$ \cite{thesis}. We know that all classical patterns in $S_{3}$ are avoided by the same number of permutations, namely the Catalan numbers. One might suspect that whenever two classical patterns $p,q\in S_{k}$ are Wilf-equivalent, then inserting a square at the same place in $p$ and $q$ will produce two Wilf-equivalent distant patterns. The computer simulations shows that the former seems to be true for the Wilf-equivalent patterns $\{1234,1243,2143\}$. We have formulated this conjecture in Section \ref{sec:open}.
It was shown in \cite{thesis} that if $xyz\in S_{3}$, then inserting a square between $x$ and $y$ or between $y$ and $z$ always gives us two Wilf-equivalent patterns. It is worth noting that we do not have a similar fact when considering patterns of bigger size. For example, $|\operatorname{Av}_{7}(1 \square 234)| = 3612 \neq 3614 = |\operatorname{Av}_{7}(12 \square 34)|$.
\subsection{Patterns of the kind $x\square y\square z$}
The inverse and the complement map give us at most two Wilf-equivalent permutation classes : $\{\operatorname{dist}_{1}(p)\mid p = 132,231,213,312\}$ and $\{\operatorname{dist}_{1}(p)\mid p = 123,312\}$. Unlike the case of classical patterns in which these are, in fact, one class \cite{simion}, here, these classes are different.
\begin{theorem} (\cite{hopkins})\label{th:123IsLargest}
For $n > 5$,
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{1}(123))| > |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{1}(132))|.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The theorem above is a special case of a result of Hopkins and Weiler \cite[Theorem 3]{hopkins}. In that work they extend the result of Simion and Schmidt that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(123)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(132)|$ from permutations on a totally ordered set to a similar result for pattern avoidance in permutations on partially ordered sets. In particular, they show that $|\operatorname{Av}_{P,n}(132)| \leq |\operatorname{Av}_{P,n}(123)|$ for any poset $P$, where $\operatorname{Av}_{P,n}(q)$ is the number of $n$-permutations on the poset $P$ avoiding the pattern $q$. Furthermore, they classify the posets for which equality holds. Here, we state the corollary of their result generalizing Theorem \ref{th:123IsLargest}, as formulated by the authors.
\begin{theorem} (\cite{hopkins})
For $r \geq 0$ and $n \geq 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(123))| \geq |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(132))|,
\end{equation}
with strict inequality if and only if $r \geq 1$ and $n \geq 2r+4$.
\end{theorem}
Note that in the case $n=2r+3$, $|\operatorname{Av}_{2r+3}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(123))| = |\operatorname{Av}_{2r+3}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(132))|$ since there is only one triple of positions where each of these two patterns can occur in a $(2r+3)$-permutation, namely the positions $1,r+2$ and $2r+3$. So for each such occurrence, we can exchange the elements at positions $r+2$ and $2r+3$ to get an occurrence of the other pattern. A similar statement about consecutive patterns was first proved in \cite{Elizalde2003} with a simple injection. It states that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{123})| > |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{132})|$ for every $n \geq 4$.
The listed facts imply that the monotonic pattern $123$ is avoided more frequently than $132$ when we have two gaps of size exactly $0$ between the letters in each occurrence of the two patterns, or when the minimal constraint for each gap is some fixed positive number. However, when patterns with all possible gap sizes must be avoided, we have an equality since $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(123)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(132)|$. We address this surprising fact in the next section.
Along those lines is another work of Elizalde \cite{Elizalde2012} on consecutive patterns, where he generalizes \cite{Elizalde2003} by proving that the number of permutations avoiding the monotone consecutive pattern $\underline{12 \cdots m}$ is asymptotically larger than the number of permutations avoiding any other consecutive pattern of size $m$. He also proved there that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12 \dots (m-2)m(m-1)})|$ is asymptotically smaller than the number of permutations avoiding any other consecutive pattern of the same size. Similar conjectures can be formulated for distant patterns (see Section \ref{sec:open}).
\subsubsection{The pattern $1 \square 3 \square 2$}
In this subsection, we will roughly describe an approach that one can use to find the generating function $G(x) = \sum\limits_{n\geq 0}^{}|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|x^{n}$, where $q=1\square 3\square 2 = \operatorname{dist}_{1}(132)$. All the details about this proof and the technique, that we use, will be described in a separate, forthcoming, article. Here, we will sketch that proof. To do that, we will need to define the following sets of permutations:
\begin{center}
$\mathbb{H}_1 \coloneqq \{\pi \mid \pi \in \operatorname{Av}(q)$, $|\pi|\geq 1$ and $\pi$ does not have an occurrence of $1\square\underline{32}$ ending at the last position of $\pi$$\}$, and
\end{center}
\begin{center}
$\mathbb{H}_2 \coloneqq \{\pi \mid \pi \in \operatorname{Av}(q)$, $|\pi|\geq 1$ and $\pi$ does not have an occurrence of $\underline{13}\square2$ beginning at the first position of $\pi$ $\}$.
\end{center}
Let us also denote the corresponding generating functions with
\begin{center}
$H_{i}(x) = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}h_{i}(k)x^{k}$,
\end{center}
where $h_{i}(n)$ is the number of permutations of size $n$ in $\mathbb{H}_i$ ($i=1,2$). Now, we can describe a useful decomposition for the permutations in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)$ which is similar, but more complicated, to the one given in \cite{thesis} for the permutations in $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(13\square 2)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:132decompose}
For all $n \geq 1$, $\pi = \alpha n \beta \in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)$ if and only if:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item $\alpha > \beta$, $\alpha,\beta \in \operatorname{Av}(q)$
\item $\alpha \ngtr \beta$, but $\alpha' > \beta'$, where $\alpha = \alpha't_{1}$ and $\beta = t_{2}\beta'$ for some $t_{1},t_{2}\in [n-1]$. and one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\arabic*.]
\item $t_{1}>\beta'$, $t_{2}<\alpha'$, $t_{1}<t_{2}$ and $\alpha',\beta' \in \operatorname{Av}(q)$
\item $t_{1}>\beta'$, $t_{2}\nless\alpha'$, $\beta'\in \operatorname{Av}(q)$ and $\sigma = \alpha't_{1}t_{2}\in\mathbb{H}_1$ with $t_{2}$ not being the smallest element in $\sigma$ and not being the second smallest, after $t_{1}$.
\item $t_{1}\ngtr\beta'$, $t_{2}<\alpha'$, $\alpha'\in \operatorname{Av}(q)$ and $\sigma = t_{1}t_{2}\beta'\in\mathbb{H}_2$ with $t_{1}$ not being the biggest element in $\sigma$ and not being the second biggest, after $t_{2}$.
\item $t_{1}\ngtr\beta'$, $t_{2}\nless\alpha'$, $\sigma_{1} = \alpha't_{2}\in \mathbb{H}_1$ with $t_{2}$ not being the smallest element in $\sigma_{1}$ and $\beta' = x\beta''$, where $x>t_{1}>\beta''$ and $\beta''\in \operatorname{Av}(q)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In this paper, we omit the proof of the fact above. The described decomposition gives us the next result almost directly
\begin{theorem}\label{th:G}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G}
\begin{split}
G(x) = 1 + G(x)(xH_{1}(x) + xH_{2}(x) + x^{3}H_{1}(x)) + G^{2}(x)(x-2x^{2}-x^{3}-x^{4}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In order to obtain $G(x)$, we first express $H_{1}(x)$ as a function of $H_{2}(x)$ and $G(x)$. Then we express $H_{2}(x)$ as a function of $G(x)$ using the block-decomposition method \cite{MansourVain} and an additional fact. These are the main ingredients of our approach. Extensive case analysis and inclusion-exclusion arguments are additionally used. As a result, we obtain a system of two equations each of which is a polynomial of $x$, $G(x)$ and $H_{2}(x)$. We eliminate $H_{2}(x)$ to obtain an equation $P(x,G(x)) = 0$, where $P$ is a polynomial of $G(x)$ with coefficients that are polynomials of $x$. $P$ has $170$ terms with the term of highest total degree being $x^{27}G^{12}$. One could use a generalization of the Lagrange inversion formula discussed in the work of Baderier and Drmota \cite{banderier} to get a closed form expression for the coefficients of $G(x)$ which is our final goal.
\section{Vincular distant patterns}
In this section, we consider a particular kind of vincular distant patterns of size 3. The goal will be to compare the number of permutations avoiding the different kinds of 123 and 132 patterns.
\subsection{Patterns of the form $\underline{ab}\square c$ and $a\square\underline{bc}$}\label{sec:vinc}
There are $12$ patterns of this kind, and the reverse and complement maps give at most three Wilf-equivalence classes listed below. As we will show, these turn out to be different.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\captionsetup{position=below}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||}
\hline
Class 1 & Class 2 & Class 3 \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
$\underline{12} \square 3$ &
$1 \square \underline{32}$ &
$\underline{13} \square 2$ \\
$\underline{32} \square 1$ &
$\underline{21} \square 3$ &
$\underline{31} \square 2$ \\
$1 \square \underline{23}$ &
$\underline{23} \square 1$ &
$2 \square \underline{31}$ \\
$3 \square \underline{21}$ &
$3 \square \underline{12}$ &
$2 \square \underline{13}$ \\ [1ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The Wilf-equivalent classes of $\underline{ab}\square c$ and $a\square\underline{bc}$ patterns.}
\label{table:1}
\end{table}
We will first find a recurrence for the pattern $\underline{12} \square 3$:
\begin{theorem}\label{th:vinc123}
If $a_{n} = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)|$, then $a_{n} = n!$ for $0 \leq n \leq 3$, and for $n \geq 4$ we have
\begin{align*}
a_{n} = a_{n-1} + (n-1)a_{n-2} + \frac{(n+1)(n-2)}{2}a_{n-3} + \\ \sum\limits_{i=4}^{n-1}\left(\binom{n}{i-1}-1\right)a_{n-i} + (n-1)
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $q = \underline{12} \square 3$ and let $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2} \cdots \pi_{n}$ be a permutation of $[n]$ that avoids $q$. We will consider five cases for the position of the number $n$ in $\pi$. Denote this position with $i$, so $\pi_{i} = n$.
\begin{enumerate}[label={Case \arabic*.}]
\item \hspace{3mm}$i=1$: $\pi = n\pi_{2}\cdots\pi_{n}$\\
In this case, $n$ will not participate in any occurrence of $q$ since it can only be the first letter in such occurrence. Thus since $\pi$ avoids $q$ then $\pi_{2} \cdots \pi_{n}$ must avoid $q$. There are $a_{n-1}$ such permutations $\pi_{2}\cdots\pi_{n}\in S_{n-1}$.
\item \hspace{3mm}$i=2$: $\pi = \pi_{1}n \cdots \pi_{n}$\\
Here, $n$ cannot participate in any occurrence of $q$. Neither can $\pi_{1}$, because it could participate only together with $\pi_{2} = n$. Then $\pi_{1}$ can be any of the remaining $n-1$ numbers. Regardless of the choice of $\pi_{1}$, one would have $a_{n-2}$ ways to choose the order of the remaining $n-2$ letters since $\textsf{fl}(\pi_{3}\cdots \pi_{n})$ must avoid $q$. This gives $(n-1)a_{n-2}$ ways to obtain $\pi$.
\item \hspace{3mm}$i=3$: $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2}n\cdots \pi_{n}$\\
The number $n$ cannot be part of a $q$-occurrence, again. Therefore if $n-1$ is in an occurrence of $q$, then it must be the last letter (the '3'). Let $j = \pi^{-1}(n-1)$ be the position of $n-1$ in $\pi$.
\begin{enumerate}[label={Case 3\alph*.}]
\item $j = 1$ or $j = 2$ \\
None of the first three elements of $\pi$ will be part of any occurrence of $q$. Thus we have $2(n-2)a_{n-3}$ permutations $\pi\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)$ with $i=3$ and $j = 1$ or $j = 2$, since we can choose the position, $j$, of $n-1$ in 2 ways and the other of the first 2 letters in $n-2$ ways. The rest of the permutation must avoid $q$ and there are $a_{n-3}$ possibilities for that. We get a $q$-avoiding permutation in all of these cases.
\item $j>3$ \\
Here, since $\pi$ avoids $q$, we must have $\pi_{1}>\pi_{2}$, because otherwise $\pi_{1}\pi_{2}\pi_{j}$ would be a $q$-occurrence. We can determine $\pi_{1}$ and $\pi_{2}$ in $\binom{n-2}{2}$ ways. The number of ways to determine $\pi_{4} \cdots \pi_{n}$ would be again $a_{n-3}$, despite knowing that $n-1$ will be one of these letters, simply because this part of $\pi$ must avoid $q$ and because once we have $\pi_{1}$, $\pi_{2}$ and $\pi_{3}$ fixed, this part will correspond to a permutation in $\operatorname{Av}_{n-3}(q)$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \hspace{3mm}$3<i<n$. $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2}\cdots n\cdots \pi_{n}$\\
Since $\pi$ avoids $q$, the numbers $\pi_{1}$, $\pi_{2}, \cdots \pi_{i-2}$ must be in decreasing order. We have three subcases for the position $j = \pi^{-1}(n-1)$.
\begin{enumerate}[label={Case 4\alph*.}]
\item $j=i-1$: $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2}\cdots \pi_{i-2}(n-1)n\cdots \pi_{n}$\\
The numbers $\pi_{1}, \cdots ,\pi_{i-2}$ must be in decreasing order since $\pi\in \operatorname{Av}(q)$. Once we have chosen these $i-2$ numbers of $\pi$ then neither $\pi_{i-1} = n-1$ nor $\pi_{i} = n$ could participate in a $q$-occurrence and any ordering of the last $n-i$ numbers that avoids $q$ would give us a different $q$-avoider $\pi$. This gives $\binom{n-2}{i-2}a_{n-i}$ permutations for this case.
\item $j<i-1$ (in fact, $j=1$): $\pi = (n-1)\pi_{2}\cdots n\pi_{i+1}\cdots\pi_{n}$\\
This would imply that $j=1$ since $\pi_{1}, \cdots , \pi_{i-2}$ are in decreasing order. If $\pi_{i-2}>\pi_{i-1}$, then we can select $\pi_{2}, \cdots ,\pi_{i-1}$ in $\binom{n-2}{i-2}$ ways which gives $\binom{n-2}{i-2}a_{n-i}$ more $q$-avoiding permutations. Slightly more attention is required for the subcase $\pi_{i-2}<\pi_{i-1}$. In order to avoid $q$, all of $\pi_{i+1}, \cdots , \pi_{n}$ must be smaller than $\pi_{i-1}$, because otherwise $\pi_{i-2}\pi_{i-1}\pi_{k}$ would be a $q$-occurrence for some $k > i$. Now, we should calculate how many different permutations $\pi$ satisfy the described conditions. For clarity, one may look at Figure \ref{fig:vinc123} that visualizes the order of the elements in one such $\pi$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.25]
\node[below] at (-3,2) {$n-1=\pi_{1}$};
\filldraw [black] (-2,2) circle (2.5pt);
\node[below] at (-2,1.5) {$\pi_{2}$};
\filldraw [black] (-1.5,1.5) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (-1.2,1.2) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [black] (-0.9,0.9) circle (1pt);
\node[below] at (-1.2,0.6){$\pi_{i-2}$};
\filldraw [black] (-0.6,0.6) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (-0.3,1.75) circle (2.5pt);
\node[above] at (0,2.25){$n = \pi_{i}$};
\filldraw [black] (0,2.25) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (0.3,1.35) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (0.45,0.75) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (0.7,0.95) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [black] (0.9,0.95) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [black] (1.1,0.95) circle (1pt);
\filldraw [black] (1.4,0.8) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (1.55,0.5) circle (2.5pt);
\filldraw [black] (1.7,1.3) circle (2.5pt);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{sketch of the order of the elements of $\pi$ in Case $4b.$}
\label{fig:vinc123}
\end{figure}
We claim that the number of these permutations is $(\binom{n-2}{i-3}-1)a_{n-i}$. Indeed, we can first choose the last $n-i$ numbers $\pi_{i+1},\pi_{i+2}, \cdots ,\pi_{n}$, and the number $\pi_{i-1}$. Those are the unlabeled elements on Figure \ref{fig:vinc123}. We can do that in $\binom{n-2}{n-i+1} = \binom{n-2}{i-3}$ ways. Out of these choices, only the one where we have selected the smallest numbers, $1,2, \cdots , n-i+1$, would force $\pi_{i-2}>\pi_{i-1}$ which we do not want to happen, so we exclude this single choice. For all the other choices, we simply have that the biggest number among the chosen has to be $\pi_{i-1}$ and the other $n-i$ chosen numbers can be ordered in $a_{n-i}$ ways at positions $i+1$, $i+2$, $\cdots$, $n$. The unchosen $i-3$ numbers are ordered decreasingly after $\pi_{1} = n-1$, at positions $2,3, \cdots , i-2$.
\item $j > i$ \\
In this case, the numbers $\pi_{1}, \cdots , \pi_{i-1}$ must all be in decreasing order. Thus, it suffices just to choose which are they and choose the numbers in the remaining part of the permutation, i.e., we have $\binom{n-2}{i-1}a_{n-i}$ permutations here.
\end{enumerate}
\item \hspace{3mm}$i=n$. $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2}\pi_{3}\cdots n$\\
Again, the numbers $\pi_{1}, \cdots , \pi_{n-2}$ must be in decreasing order, so it suffices to choose $\pi_{n-1}$ in $n-1$ ways.
\end{enumerate}
It remains to observe that in Case 4, after summing the number of $q$-avoiding permutations for the three subcases, we get
\begin{equation*} \label{eq1}
\begin{split}
\left(\binom{n-2}{i-2} + \binom{n-2}{i-2} + \left(\binom{n-2}{i-3}-1\right) + \binom{n-2}{i-1}\right)a_{n-i} & = \\ \left(\binom{n-2}{i-2} + \left(\binom{n-2}{i-3}-1\right) + \binom{n-1}{i-1}\right)a_{n-i} & = \\ \left(\binom{n-1}{i-2} + \binom{n-1}{i-1} -1\right)a_{n-i} = \left(\binom{n}{i-1} -1\right)a_{n-i}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
The first few elements of the sequence $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)|$ for $n\geq 4$ are
\begin{center}
$20,75,316,1464,7359,39815,230306.$
\end{center}
This is not part of any sequence in OEIS.
This enumerates avoidance for Class 1 patterns in Table 1. Similar recurrence can be found for the patterns in Class 2. We give it below using the pattern $1 \square \underline{32}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:vinc132}
If $b_{n} = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{32})|$, then $b_{n} = n!$ for $0 \leq n \leq 3$ and for $n \geq 4$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vinc132}
\begin{split}
b_{n} = b_{n-1} + (n-1)b_{n-2} + \frac{(n+1)(n-2)}{2}b_{n-3} + \\ \sum\limits_{i=2}^{n-3}\left(i\binom{n-2}{i}+\binom{n-1}{i-1}\right)b_{i-1} + (n-1).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The first few elements of the sequence $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{32})|$ for $n\geq 4$ are
\begin{center}
$20,76,326,1544,7954,44164,262456$.
\end{center}
This is not part of any sequence in OEIS.
Theorems \ref{th:vinc123} and \ref{th:vinc132} differ only in the sums in their right-hand sides. Applying the complement map after the reverse map, we see that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{23})|$ for every positive $n$ and we already placed those two patterns in the same of the three classes for the considered set of vincular DPs. Using this, we can easily prove the following
\begin{theorem}\label{th:123less}
If $n>4$, then $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{23})| < |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{32})|$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We just noted that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{23})|$ is given by the number $a_{n}$ from Theorem \ref{th:vinc123}, while $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square \underline{32})|$ is given by the number $b_{n}$ from equation $\eqref{eq:vinc132}$. By substituting $j = n-i+1$, we get that the sum in the right-hand side of equation $\eqref{eq:vinc132}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{j=4}^{n-1}((n-j+1)\binom{n-2}{j-3} + \binom{n-1}{j-1})b_{n-j}.
\end{equation}
Then, in order to obtain this inequality, it suffices to prove that for every $n>4$ and $4 \leq i \leq n-1$:
\begin{equation}\label{ineq:summands}
\binom{n}{i-1}-1 < (n-i+1)\binom{n-2}{i-3} + \binom{n-1}{i-1}.
\end{equation}
This is equivalent to $\binom{n-1}{i-2} -1 < (n-i+1)\binom{n-2}{i-3}$ or $\binom{n-1}{i-2} -1 < \frac{(n-i+1)(i-2)}{n-1}\binom{n-1}{i-2}$. When $n=5$ and $i=4$, we check directly that the latter holds. When $n>5$, one can easily see that $\frac{(n-i+1)(i-2)}{n-1} > 1$, for $4 \leq i \leq n-1$.
\end{proof}
It remains to investigate Class 3. A well known proof technique in the area of permutation patterns helps to do that.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:vinc13sq2}
For all $n\in\mathbb{Z^{+}}$, $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2) = \operatorname{Av}_{n}(13 \square 2)$, which implies that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(13 \square 2)|$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will prove that whenever an $n$-permutation contains the pattern $13 \square 2$, then it must contain the pattern $\underline{13} \square 2$. Take an $n$-permutation $\sigma = \sigma_{1}\sigma_{2} \cdots \sigma_{n}$ containing $q = 13 \square 2$ and let $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{k}$, $1 \leq i<j<k-1 < n$ be an occurrence of $q$ with the smallest possible distance between the $1$ and the $3$, i.e., $d = j-i$ is the smallest possible for such an occurrence. If $d = 1$, then $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{k}$ would be an occurrence of $\underline{13} \square 2$ and we are done. Assume that $d>1$ and then consider the value of $\sigma_{i+1}$. If $\sigma_{i+1}<\sigma_{k}$, then $\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{k}$ would be a $q$-occurrence with $j-(i+1) = d-1 < d$. On the other hand, if $\sigma_{i+1}>\sigma_{k}$, then $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{k}$ would be a $q$-occurrence with $(i+1)-i = 1 < d$, which is again a contradiction.
\end{proof}
The theorem that we just proved and the fact that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(12\square 3)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(13\square 2)|$ (see \cite{thesis} and subsection \ref{sec:polygons}) imply that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)|$ is given by the right-hand side of equation \eqref{eq:firro123} and sequence A049124 in OEIS. It turns out that the patterns in the corresponding Class 3 of Table 1 have the smallest avoiding sets out of the 3 classes.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:123greater}
For all $n \geq 5$, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)| > |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)|$.
\end{theorem}
To establish this fact, we will first need a few additional definitions. For a given pattern $q$, let $\operatorname{Av}_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}(q)$ be the set of $q$-avoiders of size $n$ beginning with $i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k}$ and let $av_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}(q)$ denotes $|\operatorname{Av}_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}(q)|$. Moreover, let $av_{n}(q) \coloneqq|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|$. Let us first prove the following simple lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:key}
If $1\leq i \leq n-1$ and $n\geq 4$, then
\begin{equation*}
av_{i;n}(\underline{13}\square 2) \leq av_{n;n}(\underline{13}\square 2) = av_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, if $1\leq i \leq n-2$, then the inequality is strict, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
av_{i;n}(\underline{13}\square 2) < av_{n;n}(\underline{13}\square 2).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For every $\pi\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, we have that $n\pi \in \operatorname{Av}_{n;n}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, since $n$ cannot participate in any occurrences of $\underline{13}\square 2$, being at first position. Conversely, for every $n\sigma \in \operatorname{Av}_{n;n}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, one have that $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$. Thus, $av_{n;n}(\underline{13}\square 2) = av_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$. In addition, for every $1\leq i \leq n-1$ and $i\sigma \in \operatorname{Av}_{i;n}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, we have $fl(\sigma)\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, which implies that $av_{i;n}(\underline{13}\square 2)\leq av_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$.
Since $n\geq 4$, when $1\leq i \leq n-2$, then we have at least one $n$-permutation $\pi = in\sigma'$, beginning with $i$, where $n\sigma' = \sigma$ is such that $fl(\sigma)\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$ and $i$ is obviously part of an $\underline{13}\square 2$-occurrence. An example is $\pi = ina\cdots (n-1)$ for any $a\in [n]$, where $a\neq i,n,(n-1)$. Therefore, $fl(\sigma)\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, but $\pi = i\sigma \notin \operatorname{Av}_{i,n}(\underline{13}\square 2)$.
\end{proof}
We will need this lemma together with a few other definitions. Given a permutation (pattern) $\sigma$, let $C_{n}(\sigma) = S_{n} \setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\sigma)$ be the permutations of $S_{n}$ containing $\sigma$. Then, let
\begin{center}
$U_{n} \coloneqq C_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)\cap \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)$
\end{center}
and
\begin{center}
$V_{n} \coloneqq \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)\cap C_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)$,
\end{center}
with $u_{n} \coloneqq |U_{n}|$ and $v_{n} \coloneqq |V_{n}|$. In addition, let us denote with $U_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}$ (resp. $V_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}$) the set of permutations in $U_{n}$ (resp. in $V_{n}$) beginning with $i_{1}i_{2}\dots i_{k}$.
Furthermore, let $u_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n} \coloneqq |U_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}|$ and $v_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n} \coloneqq |V_{i_{1},i_{2},\dots ,i_{k};n}|$. Now, we will prove the following
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:almost}
For each $n\geq 4$ and $1\leq i \leq n$,
\begin{center}
$u_{i;n} \leq v_{i;n}$.
\end{center}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that the statement implies $u_{n}\leq v_{n}$ and $|C_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)|\leq |C_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)|$ (resp. $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)|\\{\geq} |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)|$), for each $n\geq 4$. Indeed, if $T_{n} = C_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)\cap C_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)$, then $C_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3) = U_{n}\cup T_{n}$ and $C_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2) = V_{n}\cup T_{n}$. Thus, $u_{n}\leq v_{n}$ implies $|C_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)|\leq |C_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)|$. We will proceed by induction on $n$. One can directly check that $u_{i;4} \leq v_{i;4}$ for each $1\leq i \leq 4$. Now assume that $u_{i;n'} \leq v_{i;n'}$, for each $4\leq n' \leq n-1$ and $1\leq i \leq n'$, for a given $n\geq 5$. Consider $u_{i;n}$ and $v_{i;n}$ for $1\leq i \leq n$. If $i = n$, then using the induction hypothesis, we have $u_{n;n} = u_{n-1}\leq v_{n-1} = v_{n;n}$. Similarly, if $i = n-1$, then we have $u_{n-1;n} = u_{n-1}\leq v_{n-1} = v_{n-1;n}$. Now, let $1\leq i \leq n-2$. By the induction hypothesis, $u_{i,i-k;n} = u_{i-k;n-1}\leq v_{i-k;n-1} = v_{i,i-k;n}$, for each $1\leq k \leq i-1$. It remains to compare the numbers $u_{i,i+k;n}$ and $v_{i,i+k;n}$ for $1\leq k \leq n-i$. Note that when $k\geq 3$, then $u_{i,i+k;n} = 0$, since for these values of $k$, any $n$-permutation beginning with $i(i+k)$ will contain an occurrence of $\underline{13}\square 2$. Similarly, $v_{i,i+k;n} = 0$, when $i+k <n-1$, since for these values of $k$, any $n$-permutation beginning with $i(i+k)$ will contain an occurrence of $\underline{12}\square 3$. We will show that $u_{i,i+1;n}\leq v_{i,n;n}$ and that $u_{i,i+2;n}\leq v_{i,n-1;n}$ which will complete the proof. \\
Consider the sets $U_{i,i+1;n}$ and $V_{i,n;n}$. First, let us look at those $\pi\in U_{i,i+1;n}$ (resp., $\pi \in V_{i,n;n}$) which do not begin with an $\underline{12}\square 3$ occurrence (resp., not with an $\underline{13}\square 2$ occurrence). Then, note that $\pi$ must begin with $(n-2)(n-1)n$ (resp. with $(n-2)n(n-1)$). However, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:notBeg}
u_{n-2,n-1,n;n} = u_{n-3}\leq v_{n-3} = v_{n-2,n;n-1}
\end{equation}
using the induction hypothesis, again.
Now, let us look at those $\pi\in U_{i,i+1;n}$ beginning with a $\underline{12}\square 3$ occurrence. Their number is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final1}
av_{i;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2) - av_{n-2,n-1;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2).
\end{equation}
Indeed, after we remove from $\pi$ its first element $i$ and flatten, we obtain an $(n-1)$-avoider of $\underline{13}\square 2$. Conversely, for any permutation $\pi = i\pi_{2}\dots \pi_{n-1}\in \operatorname{Av}_{i;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$, one can increase by $1$ all the elements of $\pi$ greater than or equal to $i$ and then add $i$ at the beginning, to obtain a permutation in $U_{i,i+1;n}$. This permutation will begin with a $\underline{12}\square 3$ occurrence, unless it begins with $(n-2)(n-1)n$, i.e., when $i=n-2$ and when $\pi\in \operatorname{Av}_{n-2,n-1;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$. Therefore, we should subtract $av_{n-2,n-1;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)$. Respectively, for the number of permutations $\pi \in V_{i,n;n}$, beginning with an $\underline{13}\square 2$ occurrence, one would have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final2}
av_{n-1;n-1}(\underline{12}\square 3) - av_{n-1,n-2;n-1}(\underline{12}\square 3).
\end{equation}
It is not difficult to see that $av_{n-2,n-1;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2) = av_{n-3}(\underline{13}\square 2)$ and that $av_{n-1,n-2;n-1}(\underline{12}\square 3)= av_{n-3}(\underline{12}\square 3)$. Hence, by using expressions \eqref{eq:final1}, \eqref{eq:final2} and equation \eqref{eq:notBeg}, we see that in order to establish that $u_{i,i+1;n}\leq v_{i,n;n}$, it remains to prove the inequality below for each $1\leq i \leq n-2$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inAlmost}
av_{i;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2) - av_{n-3}(\underline{13}\square 2) \leq av_{n-1;n-1}(\underline{12}\square 3) - av_{n-3}(\underline{12}\square 3).
\end{equation}
By lemma \ref{lemma:key}, we have that $av_{i;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2)\leq av_{n-1;n-1}(\underline{13}\square 2) = av_{n-2}(\underline{13}\square 2)$. We also have that $av_{n-1;n-1}(\underline{12}\square 3) = av_{n-2}(\underline{12}\square 3)$. Thus, it suffices to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tmp}
av_{n-2}(\underline{13}\square 2) - av_{n-3}(\underline{13}\square 2) \leq av_{n-2}(\underline{12}\square 3) - av_{n-3}(\underline{12}\square 3).
\end{equation}
Using that $av_{n-3}(q) = av_{n-2;n-2}(q)$ for any of the patterns $q = \underline{12}\square 3$ or $q = \underline{13}\square 2$, as well as the relation
\begin{equation}
av_{i;n-2}(\underline{13}\square 2)\leq av_{i;n-2}(\underline{12}\square 3) \Longleftrightarrow v_{i;n-2}\geq u_{i;n-2},
\end{equation}
we see that equation \eqref{eq:tmp} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-3} v_{i;n-2} \geq \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-3} u_{i;n-2},
\end{equation}
which follows directly, because by the induction hypothesis $u_{i;n-2}\leq v_{i;n-2}$, $\forall 1\leq i \leq n-3$. From equations \eqref{eq:notBeg} and \eqref{eq:final}, we conclude that $u_{i,i+1;n}\leq v_{i,n;n}$.
One could establish that $u_{i,i+2;n}\leq v_{i,n-1;n}$ in almost the same way, by first noticing that $U_{i,i+2;n} = U_{i,i+2,i+1;n}$ and that $V_{i,n-1;n} = V_{i,n-1,n;n}$ since the permutations in $U_{i,i+2;n}$ (resp. in $V_{i,n-1;n}$) do not have a $\underline{13}\square 2$ (resp. a $\underline{12}\square 3$) occurrence. Then, the only thing that remains is to consider the cases $i=n-2$ and $i\neq n-2$ and to use the induction hypothesis and lemma \ref{lemma:key}. In particular, if $i=n-2$, then
\begin{equation}
u_{n-2,n,n-1;n} = u_{n-3}\leq v_{n-3} = v_{n-2,n-1,n;n}.
\end{equation}
If $i\neq n-2$, then $\pi\in U_{i,i+2,i+1;n}$ (resp. in $V_{i,n-1,n;n}$) begins with an $\underline{12}\square 3$ (resp. an $\underline{13}\square 2$) occurrence and
\begin{equation}
u_{i,i+2,i+1;n} = av_{i;n-2}(\underline{13}\square 2) \leq av_{n-2;n-2}(\underline{13}\square 2)
\end{equation}
by lemma \ref{lemma:key}. In addition,
\begin{equation}
av_{n-2;n-2}(\underline{13}\square 2) \leq av_{n-2;n-2}(\underline{12}\square 3) = v_{i,n-1,n;n}
\end{equation}
by the induction hypothesis.
\end{proof}
As we have pointed out, lemma \ref{lemma:almost} implies that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{12} \square 3)|\geq |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{13} \square 2)|$, for each $n\geq 4$. In order to obtain a proof of theorem \ref{th:123greater}, we should just use the second part of lemma \ref{lemma:key} to see that inequality \eqref{eq:inAlmost} is strict when $n-1\geq 4$, i.e., when $n\geq 5$.
We are now ready to formulate an interesting conclusion. The last Theorem \ref{th:123greater} together with Theorem \ref{th:123less}, the result on consecutive patterns of Elizalde \cite{Elizalde2003} and the corollary of the result of Hopkins (Theorem \ref{th:123IsLargest}) imply the following:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:venn}
Consider the set of distant patterns
\begin{equation*}
X = \{1\square\underline{23}, \underline{12}\square 3, 1\square 2 \square 3, \underline{123}\}.
\end{equation*}
Take any pattern $p\in X$ and switch the places of the letters $2$ and $3$ to get a pattern $p'$ in $Y = \{1\square\underline{32},\underline{13}\square 2,1\square 3 \square 2, \underline{132}\}$. We have that $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(p)>\operatorname{Av}_{n}(p')$ for all $n>5$, $p\in X$ and the corresponding $p'\in Y$, except for $1\square \underline{23}$ which is avoided by fewer permutations of size $n$, compared to its counterpart $1\square \underline{32}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.85]
\draw (1,0) circle (1.5);
\node[above] at (0.6,0.2) {$C_{n}(\underline{123})$};
\filldraw[fill = {rgb:black,1;white,10}] (3,0) circle (1.5);
\node[above] at (3.3,0.2) {\resizebox{0.1\hsize}{!}{$C_{n}(1\square\underline{23})$}};
\draw (1,-1.8) circle (1.5);
\node[below] at (0.6,-2) {\resizebox{0.1\hsize}{!}{$C_{n}(\underline{12}\square 3)$}};
\draw (3,-1.8) circle (1.5);
\node[below] at (3.4,-2) {\resizebox{0.1\hsize}{!}{$C_{n}(1\square 2 \square 3)$}};
\draw (6.5,0) circle (1.5);
\node[above] at (6.1,0.2) {$C_{n}(\underline{132})$};
\filldraw[fill = {rgb:black,1;white,10}] (8.5,0) circle (1.5);
\node[above] at (8.8,0.2) {\resizebox{0.1\hsize}{!}{$C_{n}(1\square\underline{32})$}};
\draw (6.5,-1.8) circle (1.5);
\node[below] at (6.1,-2) {\resizebox{0.1\hsize}{!}{$C_{n}(\underline{13}\square 2)$}};
\draw (8.5,-1.8) circle (1.5);
\node[below] at (8.9,-2) {\resizebox{0.1\hsize}{!}{$C_{n}(1\square 3 \square 2)$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Venn diagrams for the $n$-permutations containing $123$ and $132$}
\label{fig:venn}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:venn} depicts the sets of permutations containing each of the patterns in $X$ and $Y$ as a Venn diagram. Corollary \ref{cor:venn} is somewhat surprising since each occurrence of the classical pattern $123$ (resp.$132$) is an occurrence of a pattern in $X$ (resp. $Y$) and as it was shown in \cite{simion}, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(123)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(132)|$. Thus the total "area" of the union of the four sets on the left is the same as the total "area" of the union of the four sets on the right. However, each of the three unmarked sets on the left contains fewer elements than its counterpart on the right.
\subsection{Consecutive distant patterns} \label{sec:consecutiveDP}
Recall that when all the constraints for the gap sizes in a distant pattern are tight, then we call these patterns consecutive distant patterns and we underline the whole pattern to denote that. Considering POGP, Kitaev mentioned in the introduction of \cite{Kit07} that $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{1 \square 2}) = \binom{n}{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor}$. Indeed, we may use that the letters in the odd and the even positions of a permutation avoiding this pattern do not affect each other. Thus we can choose the letters in odd positions in $\binom{n}{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor}$ ways, and we must arrange them in decreasing order. We then must arrange the letters in even positions in decreasing order, too. Using the same reasoning one can easily find, for example $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{1\square^{2}2})$ or $\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{1 \square 2 \square 3})$. This can be further generalized by the fact given below. Recall that if $q = q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{k}$ is a classical pattern of size $k$, then $\underline{q} = \underline{q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{k}}$ is the corresponding consecutive pattern. We also use $\underline{\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)}$ to denote the corresponding consecutive distant pattern $\underline{q_{1}\square^{r}q_{2}\square^{r}\cdots \square^{r}q_{k}}$.
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 11]{Kit05Main}
For a given classical pattern $q$ of size $k$, given distance $r\geq 0$ and a natural $n$, denote $l = \lfloor\frac{n}{r+1}\rfloor$. Set $u \coloneqq n \mod (r+1) \in [0,r]$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:APs}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)})|=\frac{n!}{(l!)^{r+1-u}((l+1)!)^{u}}|A_{l}(\underline{q})|^{r+1-u}|A_{l+1}(q)|^{u}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This gives us a formula for the size of the set of permutations avoiding any consecutive distant pattern, knowing the size of the avoidance set for the corresponding classical consecutive pattern. Corollaries of this simple fact were previously stated in \cite{thesis, MansourPolygons}. We state another simple corollary here, which shows a surprising relationship between the former fact and avoidance of arithmetic progressions in permutations.
\begin{theorem}
The number of permutations of size $n$ avoiding arithmetic progressions of length $k>1$ and difference $r>0$ is $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\underline{\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12\cdots k)})|$, which can be obtained using equation \eqref{eq:APs}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider $\pi\in S_{n}$, containing an arithmetic progression (AP) $\pi_{i_{1}}\pi_{i_{2}}\cdots \pi_{i_{k}}$ of size $k$ and difference $r>0$. I.e., we have $\pi_{i_{1}} = x$, $\pi_{i_{2}} = x+r$,$\cdots$, $\pi_{i_{k}} = x+(k-1)r$ for some $x,r\in [n]$ with $i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots <i_{k}$. Then in the inverse permutation $\pi^{-1}$, $i_{1}i_{2}\cdots i_{k}$ will be an occurrence of the distant pattern $\underline{\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12\cdots k)}$ since $\pi^{-1}(x) = i_{1}$, $\pi^{-1}(x+r) = i_{2}$, $\cdots$, $\pi^{-1}(x+(k-1)r) = i_{k}$. Conversely, if $\pi\in S_{n}$ contains $\underline{\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12\cdots k)}$, then $\pi^{-1}$ contains an AP of length $k$ and difference $r>0$. Therefore, the number of permutations of $[n]$ containing APs of length $k$ and difference $r>0$ equals the number of permutations of $[n]$ containing $\underline{\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12\cdots k)}$. This implies the same for the set of avoiders, i.e., what we aim to prove.
\end{proof}
\section{Interpretations of other results}\label{sec:conj}
Here, we will demonstrate that DPs can be very useful when interpreting already known results (including ones obtained with a computer). One previous work that gives several conjectures about the enumeration of pattern-avoiding classes containing many size four patterns is the work of Kuszmaul \cite{Kuszmaul}. He listed ten conjectures about simultaneous pattern avoidance of many size four patterns. One can find brief solutions, using both computer programs and manual work, to many of these conjectures in the two articles of Mansour and Schork \cite{MansSchork8,MansSchork67}.
Below, we give direct solutions to two of the conjectures without using a computer. To do that, we interpret the respective big set of size four patterns as a smaller set of both classical and distant patterns. Our approach is similar to the technique introduced in \cite{MansCell}.
\begin{theorem} (conjectured in \cite{Kuszmaul}, p.20, sequence 6)
\label{th:conj6}
The generating function of
\begin{equation*}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2431,2143,3142,4132,1432,1342,1324,1423,1243)|
\end{equation*} is given by $C+x^{3}C$, where $C$ is the generating function for the Catalan numbers.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that the set of patterns above can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\Pi = \{\square132, 132\square, 1342\}
\end{equation*}
When $n=1,2,3$, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\Pi)| = 1,2,6$ respectively and these are indeed the first three coefficients of $C+x^{3}C$. Consider values $n\geq 4$. If $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(132)$, then $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\Pi)$. As we know, $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(132)|$ has generating function $C$ \cite{knuth}.
It remains to find the generating function for those $\sigma$ containing $132$, but avoiding $\Pi$. Take one such $\sigma = \sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots \sigma_{n}$ and notice that any occurrence of $132$ in $\sigma$ must have $\sigma_{1}$ as its first letter and $\sigma_{n}$ as its last letter. Otherwise, given that $n\geq 4$, an occurrence of at least one of the patterns $132\square$ or $\square 132$ will be present. Now, let $\sigma_{k} = n$ be the biggest element of $\sigma$. Clearly, $\sigma_{1}\sigma_{k}\sigma_{n}$ must be an occurrence of $132$. If not, then this biggest element must be either at the first or the last position in $\sigma$ and thus $\sigma$ would not contain any $132$-occurrences that either begin at $\sigma_{1}$ or end at $\sigma_n$. In Figure \ref{fig:conj6} are shown three black points representing $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_k$ and $\sigma_{n}$, as well as three segments of the diagram of $\sigma$ denoted with $A$, $B$ and $C$ and defined below. We further show that $\sigma$ will not contain any elements in these three segments. Here is why:
\begin{itemize}
\item $A$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ among $\sigma_{2},\sigma_{3},\cdots ,\sigma_{k-1}$, such that $x<\sigma_{n}$. If there is such $x$, then $x\sigma_{k}\sigma_{n}$ would be a forbidden occurrence of $132$.
\item $B$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ among $\sigma_{k+1},\sigma_{k+2},\cdots ,\sigma_{n-1}$, such that $\sigma_{1}<x<\sigma_{k}$. If there is such $x$, then $\sigma_{1}\sigma_{k}x$ would be a forbidden occurrence of $132$.
\item $C$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ among $\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2},\cdots ,\sigma_{k-1}$, such that $\sigma_{n}<x<\sigma_{k}$. If there is such $x$, then $\sigma_{1}x\sigma_{k}\sigma_{n}$ would be an occurrence of $1342$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, the biggest element $\sigma_{k}$ in $\sigma$ must be at position $2$, i.e., $k=2$ and the only non-empty segment could be the one denoted by $\alpha$ in figure \ref{fig:conj6}. In other words, we must have $\sigma=(n-2)n\alpha(n-1)$, for some permutation $\alpha\in \operatorname{Av}(132)$. Otherwise, an occurrence of $132$, such that $\sigma_{1}= n-2$ is not part of it, would be formed. Conversely, for any $\alpha\in \operatorname{Av}(132)$, $\sigma = (n-2)n\alpha(n-1)$ belongs to $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\node[below] at (-3,2.75) {$\sigma_{1}$};
\filldraw [black] (-3,3) circle (2.5pt);
\node[above] at (0,7.25) {$\sigma_{k}$};
\filldraw [black] (0,7) circle (2.5pt);
\node[below] at (3,4.75) {$\sigma_{n}$};
\filldraw [black] (3,5) circle (2.5pt);
\draw[dotted] (-3,3) -- (3,3);
\draw[dotted] (-3,7) -- (3,7);
\draw[dotted] (-3,5) -- (3,5);
\draw[dotted] (0,7) -- (0,1.5);
\draw[draw=gray] (-2.5,1.5) rectangle ++(2,3.25);
\draw (-2.5,1.5) -- (-0.5,4.75);
\draw (-0.5,1.5) -- (-2.5,4.75);
\node at (-1.5,4.4) {\large{A}};
\draw[draw=gray] (-2.5,5.25) rectangle ++(2,1.5);
\draw (-2.5,5.25) -- (-0.5,6.75);
\draw (-0.5,5.25) -- (-2.5,6.75);
\node at (-1.5,6.4) {\large{C}};
\draw[draw=gray] (0.5,3.25) rectangle ++(2,3.5);
\draw (0.5,3.25) -- (2.5,6.75);
\draw (2.5,3.25) -- (0.5,6.75);
\node at (1.5,6.35) {\large{B}};
\draw[draw=gray] (0.5,1.5) rectangle ++(2,1.25);
\node at (1.5,2.5) {\large{$\alpha$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Decomposition for $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}( \Pi )$ from the proof of Theorem \ref{th:conj6}}
\label{fig:conj6}
\end{figure}
Then, we get $x^{3}C$ for the generating function of the permutations in $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$ containing $132$ and therefore we will have $C+x^{3}C$ for the generating function of $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$, since $C$ is the generating function for $\operatorname{Av}(132)$.
\end{proof}
As we know, $C = 1+xC^{2}$, so we can write
\begin{equation*}
C+x^{3}C = C+x^{3}(1+xC^{2}) = x^{3} + C(1+x^{4}C)
\end{equation*}
and this indeed corresponds to sequence A071742 given by $C(1+x^{4}C)$, as reported in \cite{Kuszmaul}, with the subtle difference that for $n=3$, we have one extra permutation in $\operatorname{Av}_{3}(\Pi)$, namely $132$. The same structure for the decomposition of the permutations in $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$ was also found recently with a computer by Bean et al. who used a particular algorithm called the \emph{Struct algorithm} \cite{bean}. As we saw, rewriting the problem in terms of distant patterns helped us to prove the result directly and to give an interpretation of the already discovered decomposition.
Below, we will give a direct proof to another former conjecture listed in \cite{Kuszmaul}.
\begin{theorem} (conjectured in \cite{Kuszmaul}, p.19, sequence 5)
\label{th:conj5}
The generating function of
\begin{equation*}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2431,2413,3142,4132,1432,1342,1324,1423)|
\end{equation*} is given by $C(1+x^{3}C)$, where $C$ is the generating function for the Catalan numbers.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that the set of permutations above can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\Pi = \{13\square2, 1324, 2431, 3142, 4132\}.
\end{equation*}
If $\sigma$ has no occurrences of $132$ at all, then obviously $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$ and the generating function for these permutations is $C$. Let us consider those $\sigma$ that have some occurrences of $132$ and are in $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$. The set $\Pi$ contains $13\square2$ thus all the occurrences of $132$ in $\sigma$, are occurrences of $1\underline{32}$. Take the occurrence $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{j+1}$ of $1\underline{32}$ that ends at the largest possible position, i.e., with $j$ maximal. Denote by $\alpha$ the segment in $\sigma$ of largest possible size that ends at $\sigma_{i}$ and such that $\alpha<\sigma_{j+1}<\sigma_{j}$. Let us first consider $\sigma' = \sigma_{j+2}\sigma_{j+3}\cdots \sigma_{n}$. We will show that $\sigma'$ is the empty permutation, i.e., $n=j+1$ and the segments $A$,$B$ and $C$, defined below and shown at Figure \ref{fig:conj5} are empty:
\begin{itemize}
\item $A$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ in $\sigma'$, such that $x < \sigma_{j}$ and $x \nless \alpha$. If there is such $x$, then $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}x$ would be an occurrence of $132$ that is not an $1\underline{32}-$occurrence.
\item $B$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ in $\sigma'$, such that $x<\alpha$. If there is such $x$, then $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{j+1}x$ would be an occurrence of 2431 which is not allowed.
\item $C$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ in $\sigma'$, such that $x>\sigma_{j}$. If there is such $x$, then $\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{j+1}x$ would be an occurrence of 1324 which is not allowed.
\end{itemize}
Next, let us consider the segment $\sigma'' = \sigma_{i+1}\cdots \sigma_{j-1}$. We will show that $\sigma''$ is the empty permutation, i.e., the segment $D$, shown at Figure \ref{fig:conj5}, is empty and $i=j-1$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $D$ is empty \\
There is no element $x$ in $\sigma''$, such that $x>\sigma_{j+1}$. If there is such $x$, then $\sigma_{i}x\sigma_{j+1}$ would be an occurrence of $132$ that is not an $1\underline{32}-$occurrence.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.75]
\node at (0.25,7.25) {$\sigma_{j}$};
\filldraw [black] (0,7) circle (2.5pt);
\node at (0.75,6.25) {$\sigma_{j+1}$};
\filldraw [black] (1,6) circle (2.5pt);
\draw[dotted] (0,10) -- (0,2);
\draw[dotted] (1,10) -- (1,2);
\draw[dotted] (-6,7) -- (3,7);
\draw[dotted] (-6,6) -- (1,6);
\draw[draw=gray] (1.5,7.25) rectangle ++(1.5,2.25);
\draw (1.5,7.25) -- (3,9.5);
\draw (3,7.25) -- (1.5,9.5);
\node at (2.25,9.25) {\large{C}};
\draw[draw=gray] (1.5,4) rectangle ++(1.5,2.75);
\draw (1.5,4) -- (3,6.75);
\draw (3,4) -- (1.5,6.75);
\node at (2.25,6.5) {\large{A}};
\draw[dotted] (-4,3.75) -- (3,3.75);
\draw[draw=gray] (1.5,1.25) rectangle ++(1.5,2.25);
\draw (1.5,1.25) -- (3,3.5);
\draw (3,1.25) -- (1.5,3.5);
\node at (2.25,3.25) {\large{B}};
\draw[draw=gray] (-4,4) rectangle ++(2,1.75);
\node at (-3,5) {\large{$\alpha$}};
\node at (-1.65,5) {$\sigma_{i}$};
\filldraw [black] (-2,5) circle (2.5pt);
\draw[draw=gray] (-5.75,6.075) rectangle ++(1.5,0.75);
\draw (-5.75,6.075) -- (-4.25,6.825);
\draw (-4.25,6.075) -- (-5.75,6.825);
\node at (-5,6.4) {E};
\draw[draw=gray] (-5.75,7.25) rectangle ++(1.5,0.75);
\draw (-5.75,7.25) -- (-4.25,8);
\draw (-4.25,7.25) -- (-5.75,8);
\node at (-5,7.6) {F};
\draw[draw=gray] (-1.75,6.075) rectangle ++(1.5,2.075);
\draw (-1.75,6.075) -- (-0.25,8.15);
\draw (-0.25,6.075) -- (-1.75,8.15);
\node at (-1,7.75) {\large{D}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Decomposition for $\sigma\in \operatorname{Av}( \Pi )$ from the proof of Theorem \ref{th:conj5}.}
\label{fig:conj5}
\end{figure}
Finally, consider the segment $\sigma'''$ that is the part of $\sigma$ in front of $\alpha$. We will show that $\sigma'''$ is the empty permutation, i.e., the segments E and F, shown at Figure \ref{fig:conj5} are empty:
\begin{itemize}
\item E is empty \\
There is no element $x$ in $\sigma'''$, such that $x > \sigma_{j+1}$ and $x < \sigma_{j}$. If there is such $x$, then $x\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{j+1}$ would be an occurrence of $3142$, which is forbidden.
\item F is empty \\
There is no element $x$ in $\sigma'''$, such that $x > \sigma_{j}$. If there is such $x$, then $x\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{j+1}$ would be an occurrence of $4132$, which is forbidden.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, we must have $\sigma = \alpha n(n-1)$, where $\alpha$ is non-empty and $\alpha \in \operatorname{Av}(132)$. The latter holds since if $\alpha$ contains 132 then after appending $\sigma_{j}$ at the end, we will get an occurrence of 1324.
Conversely, one may readily check that for each non-empty $\alpha\in \operatorname{Av}(132)$, $\sigma = \alpha n(n-1)$ would be a permutation in $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$.
Thus, the generating function of the number of permutations in $\operatorname{Av}(\Pi)$ is $C + x^{2}(C-1)$, since the generating function of such non-empty $\alpha\in \operatorname{Av}(132)$ is $C-1$. Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation*}
C + x^{2}(C-1) = C + x^{2}xC^{2} = C(1+x^{3}C).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
The sequence of the coefficients for this generating function is given by A071726 in OEIS.
\section{Stanley--Wilf type conjectures for DPs}\label{sec:SW}
A popular former conjecture on the classical permutation patterns formulated independently by Stanley and Wilf states that for any given classical pattern $q$, there exists a constant $c_{q}$, such that $\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|} < c_{q}$, when $n\to \infty$. In 1999, Arratia (\cite{arratia}) observed that this is equivalent to the existence of the limit $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|}$. The conjecture was resolved in 2004 by Markos and Tardos (\cite{MarcusTardos}) who actually proved a conjecture of Füredi and Hajnal, which had been shown earlier to imply the Stanley–Wilf conjecture.
In Theorem \ref{th:simultAv}, we saw that the avoidance of every distant pattern is equivalent to simultaneous avoidance of several classical patterns. The Stanley--Wilf conjecture is true for any of these classical patterns. Thus we will have that $\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|} < const$, for any distant pattern $q$, when $n\to \infty$. Arratia's observation that $|\operatorname{Av}_{m+n}(q)|\geq |\operatorname{Av}_{m}(q)|.|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|$, also holds for distant patterns, if the considered distant pattern does not start with a square. Thus for those kind of distant patterns, we can rely on the Fekete's lemma on subadditive sequences, exactly as Arratia did, to obtain that $\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(dp)|}$ exists. As for the DPs beginning with $r>0$ number of squares, we can use Theorem \ref{th:sqBeginEnd} to write \begin{equation*}
\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\square^{r}q)|} = \sqrt[n]{n^{(r)}|\operatorname{Av}_{n-r}(q)|} = (n^{(r)})^{\frac{1}{n}}|\operatorname{Av}_{n-r}(q)|^{\frac{1}{n-r}\frac{n-r}{n}} \underset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} c_{q},
\end{equation*}
where $q$ is a distant pattern which does not start with a square and \\ $\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|} \longrightarrow c_{q}$. This yields the following Stanley--Wilf type result for DPs.
\begin{theorem}
For any distant pattern $q$, there exists a constant $c>0$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(q)|} \underset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} c_{q}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
An interesting continuation might be to consider avoidance of $\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)$, for a classical pattern $q$ and size of $r$ that increases with $n$. Obviously, if $r\geq n-1$, then $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))| = n!$ for any pattern $q$. However, one may ask what will happen if $r$ is a fixed positive fraction of $n$? Is it true that when $n$ is growing, the number of permutations avoiding the corresponding series of DPs is still always converging to $c^{n}$, for some constant $c$? Below, we show that this is not the case, by using Theorem \ref{th:bijection}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{conj:1}
It is not true that for any given classical pattern $q$, there exist constants $c > 0$ and $0 <c_{1} < 1$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SWlimitFractionalR}
\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))|}\overset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\underset{r= \lfloor c_{1}n \rfloor}{\longrightarrow}} c
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the classical pattern $q = 12$. By Theorem \ref{th:bijection}, the number of $n$-permutations avoiding $1\square^{r}2$, for any $r \geq 1$, will be the same as the number of $n$-permutations for which in each of their cycles, any two elements differ by at most $r$. Denote this set of permutations with $S_{n}^{r}$. Furthermore, let $C_{n}^{r}$ be the set of permutations in $S_{n}$ for which each cycle is of length exactly $r$, except possibly $1$ cycle of smaller length, if $r$ does not divide $n$, and where each cycle is consisted of consecutive elements. Therefore, since $C_{n}^{r}\subseteq S_{n}^{r}$, we can use that $|C_{n}^{r}| \leq |S_{n}^{r}| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square^{r}2)|$. In addition, we have the obvious bound $|C_{n}^{r}| \geq ((r-1)!)^{\lfloor \frac{n}{r} \rfloor}$. Thus for any given $0 < c_{1} < 1$, if $r = \lfloor c_{1}n \rfloor$, then for big enough values of $n$, we have:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square^{r}2) \geq ((r-1)!)^{\lfloor \frac{n}{r} \rfloor} = ((\lfloor c_{1}n\rfloor -1)!)^{\lfloor \frac{n}{\lfloor c_{1}n \rfloor} \rfloor} = ((\lfloor c_{1}n\rfloor -1)!)^{\frac{1}{c_{1}}} \geq \\
((\frac{c_{1}}{2}n)!)^{\frac{1}{c_{1}}} \geq ((\frac{c_{1}n}{2e})^{\frac{c_{1}}{2}n})^{\frac{1}{c_{1}}} = (\frac{c_{1}n}{2e})^{\frac{n}{2}} = \sqrt{Cn^{n}} = \Omega(C^{n}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
for some constant $C>0$. In the last equation, we used the Stirling approximation.
\end{proof}
The latter fact motivates us to consider the following conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:SWfracLimit}
For any given classical pattern $q$ and for every $0<c_{1}<1$, there exists $0<w<1$, such that:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to\infty}(\frac{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{\lfloor c_{1}n\rfloor}(q))|}{n!})^{\frac{1}{n}} = w
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
The approach of Elizalde (\cite[Section 4]{Elizalde2006}) for consecutive patterns might be useful when one tries to prove the latter conjecture, even though this approach cannot be applied directly. Here, we prove one lemma that might help confirming the conjecture.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:SWd}
For any given classical pattern $q\in S_{k}$ and for every $0<c_{1}<1$, there exists $d<1$, such that if $r = \lfloor c_{1}n\rfloor$ and $n \geq k(r+1)$, then
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))| < d^{n}n!.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $n \geq k(r+1)$ for some $c_{1}$ and $n$ and let us take an arbitrary permutation $\pi = \pi_{1}\pi_{2}\cdots \pi_{n}$. We can divide the elements of $\pi$ into roughly $\frac{n}{k}$ non-overlapping subsequences of size $k$, such that if $\pi\in \operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))$, then neither of these subsequences is order-isomorphic to $q$. We are looking for an upper bound and thus such a necessary condition could help. One way to get such a partition into subsequences is to take
\begin{equation*}
\{\pi_{1}\pi_{r+2}\cdots \pi_{(k-1)r+k}, \pi_{2}\pi_{r+3}\pi_{2r+4}\cdots, \pi_{r+1}\pi_{2r+2}\cdots \},
\end{equation*}
with the first element in every next subsequence being the first not yet used element of $\pi$. Denote this family of subsequences by $\mathbb{F}$ and the event that after a uniform sampling of a permutation $\pi$, no subsequence in $\mathbb{F}$ is order isomorphic to $q$ by $E_{\mathbb{F},q}$. Since $|\mathbb{F}|\geq (r+1) > 0$, we will have that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(E_{\mathbb{F},q}) \leq (1-\frac{1}{k!})^{r+1}
\end{equation}
Therefore, if we write $C_{\pi,\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)}$ for the event that $\pi$ contains the pattern $\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)$, then \\ $\mathbb{P}(C_{\pi,\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)}) > 1 - (1-\frac{1}{k!})^{r+1}$ and thus the number of permutations $\pi$ containing $\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q)$ is at least $n!(1 - (1-\frac{1}{k!})^{r+1})$ from which we can deduce that $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))| \leq n!((1-\frac{1}{k!})^{r+1}) = ((1-\frac{1}{k!})^{\frac{r+1}{n}})^{n}n! = d^{n}n!$, for $d = (1-\frac{1}{k!})^{\frac{r+1}{n}}$.
\end{proof}
An analogous fact could be conjectured about the bound from below, which would lead to a proof of Conjecture \ref{conj:SWfracLimit}, since we have Lemma \ref{lemma:SWd}.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:SWlowerBound}
For any given classical pattern $q\in S_{k}$ and for every $0<c_{1}<1$, there exists $c>0$, such that if $r = \lfloor c_{1}n\rfloor$ and $n \geq k(r+1)$, then:
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))| > c^{n}n!.
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
We saw that when $r$ is a positive fraction of $n$, the number of $n$-permutations avoiding the corresponding distant pattern may become huge. Thus it would be reasonable to consider a Stanley--Wilf type conjecture, where $r$ is asymptotically smaller than $\mathcal{O}(n)$, e.g., a function of the kind $n^{c_{2}}$, for $0 < c_{2} < 1$.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:SWexp}
For any given classical pattern $q$, there exist $c_{q} > 0$ and $0 <c_{2} < 1$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))|}\overset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\underset{r= \lfloor n^{c_{2}} \rfloor}{\longrightarrow}} c_{q}
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
If the latter conjecture is true, then one might ask which are the allowable growth rates $c_{q}$ when $c_2$ is a fixed positive constant. Furthermore, an interesting additional question would be to find a function $g(n)$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))|}\overset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\underset{r= \lfloor \Theta(g(n)) \rfloor}{\longrightarrow}} c,
\end{equation*}
for some constant $c>0$, but
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt[n]{|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))|}\overset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\underset{r= \lfloor \Omega(g(n)) \rfloor}{\centernot\longrightarrow}} c,
\end{equation*}
for any $c>0$.
\section{Open problems and future work} \label{sec:open}
In this section, we list some ideas for possible further investigations, related to the current work on distant patterns:
\begin{itemize}
\item The approach using the map $g$ in section \ref{sec:len2} can be applied to the set $A'_{n-1} = S_{n-1}\setminus \operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square 23)\times [n]$ with the hope to find an equation that will give us a recurrence formula for $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1\square 2 \square 3)|$. We have checked that a statement analogous to Theorem \ref{th:almostInjective} holds and that no permutation is the image of $g$ for more than two different elements of $A'_{n-1}$.
\item One can try to prove or refute the following surprising conjecture (see section \ref{sec:polygons} for a discussion):
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:PutSquare}
Choose one of the 3 places between consecutive letters in the patterns $\{1234,1243,2143\}$ and put a square at that place for each of the three given classical patterns. You will obtain three Wilf-equivalent distant patterns. For example
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 234)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(1 \square 243)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(2 \square 143)|
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
We should note that a similar statement does not hold for any two Wilf-equivalent classical patterns, because $|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(4132)| = |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(3142)|$ \cite{stankova}, for all $n>1$, but $|A_{7}(4 \square 132)| = 3592 \neq 3587 = |A_{7}(3 \square 142)|$.
\item Three more conjectures related to the least and most avoided uniform distant patterns can be investigated (see \textbf{section \ref{sec:len3}} for a discussion):
\begin{conjecture} \label{conj:asympt123}
For every $m \geq 3$ and $r \geq 1$, there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for every natural $n > n_{0}$, we have
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12 \cdots m))| \geq |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))|,
\end{equation}
for any given classical pattern $q$ of size $m$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:asympt132}
For every $m \geq 3$ and $r \geq 1$, there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for every natural $n > n_{0}$, we have
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12 \cdots (m-2)m(m-1)))| \leq |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(q))|,
\end{equation}
for any given classical pattern $q$ of size $m$.
\end{conjecture}
A weaker version of these two conjectures would be the one below and a suitable injection establishing the fact is desired.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:asympt123132}
For every $m \geq 3$ and $r \geq 1$, there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for every natural $n > n_{0}$:
\begin{equation}
|\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12 \cdots m))| \geq |\operatorname{Av}_{n}(\operatorname{dist}_{r}(12 \cdots (m-2)m(m-1)))|.
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
\item Section \ref{sec:conj} gives interpretations in terms of distant patterns to six out of the ten conjectures of Kuszmaul, as well as solutions to two of these six conjectures. One may try to give a solution for the remaining four in a similar fashion, using the listed interpretations.
\item The PermPAL database \cite{PermPAL} currently contains about 17000 permutation pattern avoidance results and one may try to find equivalent interpretations in terms of distant patterns, as well as new combinatorial proofs using those interpretations (similar to the two proofs in section \ref{sec:conj}). One may also use the database \cite{PPdatabase}.
\item Section \ref{sec:SW} mentions a few unresolved conjectures, namely Conjecture \ref{conj:SWfracLimit}, \ref{conj:SWlowerBound} and \ref{conj:SWexp}, all related to Stanley--Wilf type results.
\item One may investigate the case of \emph{bivincular distant patterns}, i.e., when we have constraints for the values of the letters in an occurrence of a distant pattern in addition to gap size constraints.
\item Several statistics over permutations avoiding certain distant patterns might be considered and perhaps some facts related to their distribution could be established. We were not able to find much previous work related to the topic.
\end{itemize}
\section*{Acknowledgement} I am grateful to my advisor Bridget Tenner for the helpful comments and the ideas related to this work, as well as to Toufik Mansour for providing me the thesis \cite{thesis}.
|
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:2}
We begin by illustrating our scenario and specifying the assumptions.
\textit{Sequential-measurement set-up.} Each run of the experimental observation comprises of preparation of a physical system followed by two measurements in a sequence using one non-demolishing measurement device as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig}. The measurement device has $n$ (odd) different settings, each of which yields $\pm 1$ outcome. Let's denote the first and second measurement settings by $\mathcal{A}_i$ and $\mathcal{A}_j$ where $i,j\in \{1,\dots,n\}$. The settings are chosen such that $j=i\pm 1$, where from now on the subscript $i$ is taken modulo $n$, that is, $\mathcal{A}_{i\pm n}=\mathcal{A}_i$. We first make the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}\label{as1}
The measurement device only returns the actual post-measurement state.
\end{assumption}
This assumption is necessary, otherwise, any quantum statistics can be reproduced by classical systems. \\
By repeating this experiment many times we can obtain joint probabilities $p(a_i,a_{i\pm1}|\mathcal{A}_i,\mathcal{A}_{i\pm1})$ of two measurements and single probabilities $p(a_i|\mathcal{A}_i)$ of the first measurement, and consequently, their correlation functions,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \mathcal{A}_i \mathcal{A}_{i\pm1}\rangle &=& \sum_{a_i,a_{i\pm1}} a_ia_{i\pm1} p(a_i,a_{i\pm1}|\mathcal{A}_i,\mathcal{A}_{i\pm1}), \nonumber \\
\langle \mathcal{A}_i\rangle &=& \sum_{a_i} a_i p(a_i|\mathcal{A}_i),
\end{eqnarray}
where the measurement outcomes are denoted as $a_i=\pm 1$.
\begin{figure}[http]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{fig.png}
\caption{{\bf Sequential-measurement set-up.} The simplest contextuality scenario comprises of one preparation $\mathcal{P}$ and one measurement device with settings $\mathcal{A}_i$ each of them returns $\pm 1$ outcome. }
\label{fig}
\end{figure}
In quantum theory a two-outcome measurement $\mathcal{A}_i$ is
represented by a pair of operators $K_i,K'_i$ acting on some finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, such that $F_i\equiv K^\dagger_i K_i\leqslant \mathbbm{1}$ and $(K'_i)^\dagger K'_i = \mathbbm{1} - F_i$.
It is often convenient to represent such a binary measurement with the aid of the following operator
\be \label{Ai}
A_i=2F_i-\mathbbm{1}
\end{equation}
that acts on $\mathcal{H}$.
The preparation is represented by a quantum state that, without loss of generality, can be considered pure; we denote it by $|\psi\rangle$.
Kochen-Specker contextuality \cite{csw} pertains to the following assumptions: $(i)$ the measurements are projective, that is, $K_i,K'_i$ are projectors, and $(ii)$ the projectors satisfy certain orthogonality relations, particularly in this scenario, $F_iF_{i\pm 1}=0$ for all $i$, implying $[A_i,A_{i\pm1}]=0$. Such prerequisites about the measurement device are difficult to justify in practice. Since we aim to characterize the quantum devices from their minimal features, we do not make these assumptions. Instead,
we consider a single assumption as given below, which is even weaker than the requirement of projectivity. We will see later that projectivity and orthogonality relations between measurement effects will be derived facts from the maximal violation of our inequality.
\begin{assumption}\label{as2}
The measurements are realized in a particular way such that $K_i$ are Hermitian or, equivalently, $K_i=\sqrt{F_i}$, for all $i$.
\end{assumption}
In other words, whenever the measurement outcome is `+' after measuring $A_i$ \eqref{Ai} the post-measurement state reduces according to the rule of L\"{u}ders instrument, that is,
\begin{equation*}
|\psi\rangle \rightarrow \frac{\sqrt{F_i}|\psi\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle \psi|F_i|\psi\rangle}}.
\end{equation*}
Although, a general expression of $K_i = U\sqrt{F_i}$ for some unitary $U$, such rule for post-measurement evolution appears naturally for unsharp measurements \cite{PhysRevD.33.2253} and other physical scenarios \cite{BUSCH1998,RevModPhys.70.101}.
\\
A general linear expression that can be considered to test nonclassicality (or noncontextuality in the usual scenario) in this set-up is given by,
\be \label{genB}
\mathcal{B} = \sum_i c_i ( \langle \mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{A}_{i+1} \rangle + \langle \mathcal{A}_{i+1}\mathcal{A}_i \rangle ) + \sum_i d_i \langle \mathcal{A}_i\rangle .
\end{equation}
The optimal quantum value of the above expression is defined as
\be \label{genqB}
\eta^Q = \sup_{|\psi\rangle, A_i} \langle \psi|B|\psi\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $B=\sum_i c_i \{ A_i, A_{i+1} \} + \sum_i d_i A_i$ is the quantum operator associated with the expression $\mathcal{B}$ and $A_i$ are of the form \eqref{Ai}. Notice that in the usual scenario, due to commutativity relations, $\{A_i,A_{i+1}\}$ can be replaced by $2A_iA_{i+1}$. The maximal classical value $\eta^C$ (or noncontextual value in the usual scenario \footnote{ Since any noncontextual value assignment pertains to projective measurements with certain orthogonality conditions, here we refer to $\eta^C$ as to the classical value for the relaxed scenario. Indeed, under Assumption \ref{as1} the optimal value in classical theory or any other theory where measurement does not affect the system is given by Eq. \eqref{gennc}. In the ideal scenario $\eta^C$ reduces to the noncontextual value }) is defined as
\be \label{gennc}
\eta^C = \max_{a_i\in \{1,-1\}} \left\{2 \sum_{i} c_i a_ia_{i+1} + \sum_{i} d_i a_i \right\}.
\end{equation}
\textit{KCBS inequality.}
The well known $n$-cycle KCBS noncontextuality inequality \cite{ncycle} is of the form
\be \label{kcbsn}
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{KCBS}}:= - \sum^n_{i=1} \langle \mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{A}_{i+1}\rangle\leqslant \eta^C = n-2 .
\end{equation}
The maximal quantum violation of this inequality is
\begin{equation}
\eta^Q = \frac{3\cos{(\pi/n)}-1}{1+\cos{(\pi/n)}}n
\end{equation}
and it is achieved by the following quantum state
\begin{equation}
|\widehat{\psi} \rangle =\ket{0}\equiv (1,0,0)^{T}, \label{ops}
\end{equation}
and observables
\begin{equation}
\widehat{A}_i = 2 |\widehat{v}_{i} \rangle\! \langle \widehat{v}_{i}| - \mathbbm{1}, \label{opm}
\end{equation}
where $\ket{\widehat{v}_{i}}$ are three-dimensional real
vectors defined as
\be \label{pn}
|\widehat{v}_{i} \rangle = (\cos{\theta},\sin{\theta}\sin{\phi_{i}},\sin{\theta}\cos{\phi_{i}})^{T}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is defined as
$\cos\theta=\sqrt{1/(1+2\alpha)}$, where
\be \label{alpha}
\alpha = \frac{1}{2}\sec\left(\frac{\pi}{n}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\be \label{phi}
\phi_i = \frac{n-1}{n}\pi i .
\end{equation}
Note that $\alpha$ and $\phi_i$ are functions of $n$, which for the sake of simplification is not explicitly specified in their notation.
Let us also remark that $|\widehat{\psi}\rangle \in \mathbbm{C}^3$ and $\widehat{A}_i$ acting on $\mathbbm{C}^3$ denote a particular example of quantum realizations achieving the maximal quantum value of the KCBS inequality \eqref{kcbsn}.
The self-testing properties of the above-mentioned state and measurements based on the violation of KCBS inequality are shown in \cite{bharti}. The proof is based on the optimization method of semidefinite programming under the usual assumptions of contextuality. \\
\textit{Sum-of-squares decomposition.} Let us finally discuss the concept of
sum-of-squares decompositions. Consider a quantum operator $B$ corresponding to some noncontextuality expression $\mathcal{B}$ like the one in \eqref{genqB}.
Now, if for any choice of quantum measurements $A_i$ and some $\eta\in\mathbbm{R}$ one can decompose the shifted operator $\eta\mathbbm{1}-B$ as
\be \label{sosg}
\eta \mathbbm{1} - B = \sum_k E^\dagger_k E_k,
\end{equation}
the maximal quantum value of $\mathcal{B}$ is upper
bounded by $\eta$, i.e., $\langle \psi|B|\psi\rangle \leqslant \eta$ for any quantum state $|\psi\rangle$. We call (\ref{sosg}) a sum-of-squares decomposition associated to $B$. Typically $E_k$ are constructed from the measurement operators $A_i$. The bound $\eta$ is realized by a state and a set of measurements if and only if the following algebraic relation holds true for all $k$,
\be \label{ar}
\quad E_k |\psi\rangle = 0.
\end{equation}
Our self-testing proofs heavily rely on the above relations.
Let us remark that Ref. \cite{lsw} provides an SOS decomposition for the conventional KCBS operator under the assumptions that the measurements $A_i$ are projective and satisfy $[A_i,A_{i\pm1}]=0$. In what follows we
derive an alternative noncontextuality inequality together with the
corresponding SOS decomposition of the form \eqref{sosg}
which does not require making these assumptions.
Furthermore, our SOS is designed in such a way that the algebraic relations \eqref{ar} it implies can be used for self-testing.
\section{Modified KCBS inequality with sum-of-squares decomposition}
We are now ready to present our results. For pedagogical
purposes we begin with the simplest case of $n=5$ and consider
the following modified KCBS expression
\be \label{B5}
\mathcal{B} = - \frac12 \sum^5_{i=1} (\langle \mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{A}_{i+1}\rangle + \langle \mathcal{A}_{i+1}\mathcal{A}_i \rangle ) - \alpha^2 \sum^5_{i=1} \langle \mathcal{A}_i\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is given in \eqref{alpha} with $n=5$. Following \eqref{gennc} it is not difficult to find the maximal classical value of $B$ is $\eta^C=3+\alpha^2$.
\begin{result} [Modified KCBS inequality with SOS]
The maximal quantum value of $\mathcal{B}$ given in Eq. \eqref{B5} with $\alpha=(1/2)\sec(\pi/n)$ is $\eta^Q=3(1+\alpha^2)$.
\end{result}
\begin{proof}
To prove this statement we present the SOS decomposition for the modified KCBS operator
\be \label{kcbsop}
B = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_i \{A_i,A_{i+1}\} - \alpha^2\sum_i A_i.\end{equation}
Let us first define the following Hermitian operators for $i=1,\dots,5$,
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{i,1} &=& -\frac{1}{\alpha^3} (A_i+\alpha A_{i-1}+\alpha A_{i+1}), \nonumber \\
M_{i,2} &=& -\frac{1}{\alpha^4} (-\alpha A_i + A_{i-2} + A_{i+2}),
\end{eqnarray}
and observe that they satisfy the following relations
\begin{equation} \label{B5decom}
- \frac{\alpha^5}{5}\sum_i \left(2M_{i,1}+ \alpha^3 M_{i,2}\right)= \alpha^2\sum_i A_i,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\alpha^5}{5} \sum_i \left( M^2_{i,1} + \frac{\alpha^3}{2} M^2_{i,2} \right) &=& \frac12 \sum_i \{ A_i,A_{i+1} \}\nonumber\\ &&+\frac{1}{2\alpha} \sum_i A^2_i ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the identity $\alpha^2+\alpha=1$ for $\alpha$ given in Eq. \eqref{alpha} with $n=5$.
With the aid of these relations it is straightforward to verify that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SOS0}
&&\hspace{-0.05cm} \frac{\alpha^5}{5} \sum_i \!\left(\mathbbm{1} - M_{i,1} \right)^2 \!+\! \frac{\alpha^8}{10} \sum_i\! \left(\mathbbm{1} - M_{i,2} \right)^2 \!+\! \frac{1}{2\alpha} \sum_i\! \left(\mathbbm{1}-A^2_i \right) \nonumber \\
&&= \left( \alpha^5+\frac{\alpha^8}{2} +\frac{5}{2\alpha} \right)\mathbbm{1} - \frac{\alpha^5}{5}\sum_i \left(2M_{i,1}+ \alpha^3 M_{i,2}\right) \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{0.5cm} + \frac{\alpha^5}{5} \sum_i \left( M^2_{i,1} + \frac{\alpha^3}{2} M^2_{i,2} \right) - \frac{1}{2\alpha} \sum_i A^2_i \nonumber \\
&&= 3(1+\alpha^2) \mathbbm{1} - B,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B$ is given in Eq. \eqref{kcbsop}.
Thus, using the fact that $A^2_i\leqslant \mathbbm{1}$, the above equation constitutes a SOS decomposition \eqref{sosg} of the modified KCBS operator in which
\begin{equation}
E_{k} = \sqrt{\frac{\alpha^5}{5}} (\mathbbm{1} - M_{k,1})
\end{equation}
for $k=1,\ldots,5$;
\begin{equation}
E_{k} = \sqrt{\frac{\alpha^8}{10}} (\mathbbm{1} - M_{k-5,2})
\end{equation}
for $k=6,\ldots,10$;
\be
E_k = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\alpha}\left(\mathbbm{1}-A^2_{k-10}\right)}
\end{equation}
for $k=11,\dots,15$;
and $3+3\alpha^2=4.146$ is the quantum bound of $B$. We can validate that the state and measurements in dimension three \eqref{ops}-\eqref{opm} responsible for optimal value of KCBS inequality achieve this bound.
\end{proof}
Inspired by the above $n=5$ case, let us now derive our modified KCBS expression for more measurements.
Our aim is to obtain a general expression for which the sum-of-squares decomposition
can easily be constructed as the one in Eq. \eqref{SOS0}
and later directly used for self-testing.
To reach this goal, let us consider $n$ two-outcome quantum measurements
represented by operators $A_i$ (\ref{Ai}) acting on some
Hilbert space of unknown but finite dimension.
Let us then consider the expression \eqref{sosg} in which the operators $E_k$ are of the form $\mathbbm{1}-M_k$ with some positive
multiplicative factors, where $M_k$ are constructed from $A_i$. Notice that for such a choice, Eq. \eqref{ar} implies that $M_k$ must be stabilizing operators of the state $|\psi\rangle$ maximally violating our modified KCBS expression, that is, $M_k|\psi\rangle = |\psi\rangle$.
Now, to design the explicit form of $M_k$ we can use the
optimal quantum realization \eqref{ops}-\eqref{opm} of the $n$-cycle KCBS inequality \eqref{kcbsn},
which gives us (see Appendix \ref{app:stab} for details of the derivation)
\be \label{Mik}
M_{i,k} = \bar{\alpha} \left[ \left(1-2\beta_{k}\right) A_i + \beta_{k}(A_{i+k} + A_{i-k}) \right],
\end{equation}
where $i=1,\dots,n$ and $k=1,\dots,(n-1)/2$, whereas
the coefficients $\beta_{k}$ and $\bar{\alpha}$ are given by
\be \label{beta}
\beta_{k} = \frac{1}{2(1-\cos{\phi_{k}})}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar{\alpha} = \frac{1+2\alpha}{1-2\alpha},
\end{equation}
where
$\alpha$, $\phi_{k}$ are defined in Eqs. \eqref{alpha} and \eqref{phi}, respectively.
Let us remark that $M_{i,k},\bar{\alpha}, \beta_i$ are all functions of $n$ which for the sake of simplification is not specified explicitly. Moreover, the operators $M_{i,k}$ defined in \eqref{Mik} act on unknown Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ of finite dimension.
We now go back to the SOS decomposition \eqref{sosg} which is deemed to be of the form
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i,k} c_k \left[\mathbbm{1} - M_{i,k} \right]^2 + d \sum_i \left[\mathbbm{1} -A^2_i \right]
\end{equation}
with some non-negative parameters $c_k,d$ to be determined.
By plugging the expression of $M_{i,k}$ \eqref{Mik} into it and after some rearrangement of indices, we obtain
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sos1}
\sum_{i,k} c_k \left[\mathbbm{1} - M_{i,k}\right]^2 + d \sum_i \left[\mathbbm{1} -A^2_i \right] & = & \left(\sum_k c_k + d \right) n\mathbbm{1} -\left( 2\bar{\alpha} \mathlarger{\sum}\limits_k c_k \right) \sum_i A_i \nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \bar{\alpha}^2 \sum_k c_k \left( 1+6\beta_{k}^2 - 4\beta_{k} \right) -d \right] \sum_i A^2_i \nonumber\\
&&+\bar{\alpha}^2 \sum_i \left[ 2 c_1 \beta_{1} \left(1-2\beta_{1} \right) +c_{\frac{n-1}{2}} \beta^2_{\frac{n-1}{2}} \right] \{A_i,A_{i+1}\} \nonumber \\
&& + \bar{\alpha}^2 \sum_i \sum^{(n-3)/2}_{k=2} \left[ 2 c_{k} \beta_{k} \left(1-2\beta_{k}\right) + c_{f\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)} \beta^2_{f\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)} \right] \{A_i,A_{i+k}\},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f\left(\frac{k}{2}\right) =
\begin{cases}
k/2, & \text{ if $k$ is even} \\
(n-k)/2, & \text{ if $k$ is odd}.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
We want to choose the coefficient $c_k$ so that they are non-negative and all the anti-commutators $\{A_i,A_{i+k}\}$ vanish except for $k=\pm1$.
For that purpose we consider $n=2^m+1$ for $m\in \mathbbm{N}\setminus \{1\}$.
First we take $c_k=0$ whenever $k \neq 2^x$, where $x=0,\dots,m-1$.
It follows from \eqref{sos1} that our requirement is fulfilled if the following set of equations is satisfied
\be \label{ckeqs}
2 c_{2^{x}} \beta_{2^{x}} \left(1-2\beta_{2^{x}}\right) +c_{2^{x-1}} \beta_{2^{x-1}}^2 =0
\end{equation}
for $x=1,\dots,m-1$.
The above equation \eqref{ckeqs} implies for all $x=1,\dots,m-1$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ck/c1}
\frac{c_{2^x}}{c_1} &=& \frac{1}{2^x }\prod^x_{j=1} \frac{ \beta_{2^{j-1}}^2 }{ \beta_{2^j} \left(2\beta_{2^j}-1 \right)} \nonumber \\
&=& \left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{2^{x} \beta_{2^{x}}}\right)^2 \prod^x_{j=1} \sec(\phi_{2^j}) .
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\sec(\phi_{2^j})$ is positive for all $j$ \footnote{Note that $\cos{\phi_{2^j}}=\cos{(\pi 2^j/n)}$ and $0 < \pi 2^j/n < \pi/2, \forall j=1,2,\dots,m-1$.}, $c_{2^x}/c_1$ is also positive. Now, to provide a plausible solution of $c_{2^x}$, it suffices to choose a positive $c_1$. Due to \eqref{ckeqs} the remaining anti-commutators in \eqref{sos1} are $\{ A_i, A_{i+1}\}$ with a factor
\be \label{sos3}
\bar{\alpha}^2 \left[ 2 c_1 \beta_{1} \left(1-2\beta_{1} \right) + c_{2^{m-1}} \beta_{2^{m-1}}^2 \right].
\end{equation}
For simplicity we choose this factor to be 1/2 which implies that $c_1$ is such that
\be \label{c1get}
4 c_1 \beta_{1} \left(1-2\beta_{1} \right) + 2 c_{2^{m-1}} \beta_{2^{m-1}}^2 = \frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}^2 }.
\end{equation}
After substituting $c_{2^{m-1}}$ from Eq. \eqref{ck/c1}, the above gives
\begin{equation} \label{c1}
c_1 = \frac{2^{2m-3}}{\bar{\alpha}^2 }
\frac{1}{2^{2m-1}\beta_{1} \left(1-2\beta_{1} \right) + \beta_{1}^2 \ \prod\limits^{m-1}_{j=1} \sec(\phi_{2^j})}.
\end{equation}
One can readily verify that $c_1$ is positive. Further, we choose
\be \label{d}
d = \bar{\alpha}^2 \ \mathlarger{\sum}\limits_k c_k \left( 1+6\beta_{k}^2 - 4\beta_{k} \right)
\end{equation}
so that all the $A^2_i$ terms vanish and $d$ is positive.
Finally, due to \eqref{ckeqs}, \eqref{c1get} and \eqref{d}, Eq. \eqref{sos1} reads as,
\be \label{sosn}
\sum_{i,k} c_k \left[\mathbbm{1} - M_{i,k} \right]^2 + d \sum_i \left[\mathbbm{1} - A^2_i\right] = \eta_n \mathbbm{1} - B_n,
\end{equation}
where
\be
B_n = - \frac12 \sum_i \{ A_i, A_{i+1} \} - \gamma\sum_i A_i \ , \end{equation}
\be
\gamma = -2 \bar{\alpha} \sum_k c_k \ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{etan}
\eta_n = n\bar{\alpha}^2
\sum_k c_k \left( \frac{1}{\bar{\alpha}^2} + 1+6\beta_{k}^2 - 4\beta_{k} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
and $c_k, d, M_{i,k}$ are defined in \eqref{ck/c1}, \eqref{c1}, \eqref{d} and \eqref{Mik}.
From Eq. \eqref{beta} we know that $\bar{\alpha}$ is a negative quantity and hence $\gamma$ is positive. Thus, our modified $n$-cycle KCBS inequality is
\begin{equation} \label{Bn}
\mathcal{B}_n := - \frac12 \sum_i ( \langle \mathcal{A}_i\mathcal{A}_{i+1}\rangle + \langle \mathcal{A}_{i+1} \mathcal{A}_i \rangle ) - \gamma \sum_i \langle \mathcal{A}_i \rangle
\leqslant \eta_n^C
\end{equation}
whose quantum bound is $\eta_n$ \eqref{etan} and the classical value $\eta^C_n$ is provided in \textit{Result 3}. It follows from the construction of the SOS \eqref{sosn} that the qutrit quantum state and measurements defined in Eqs. \eqref{ops}-\eqref{phi} satisfy the stabilizing relations $M_{i,k}|\psi\rangle=|\psi\rangle$ and $A_i^2|\psi\rangle = |\psi\rangle$, implying the bound $\eta_n$ is tight, or, in other words, the maximal quantum value of
(\ref{Bn}) equals $\eta_n$.
To put the above mathematical analysis in a nutshell, the expression of the noncontextuality inequality \eqref{Bn} is derived such that it meets a SOS decomposition \eqref{sosg} of certain form. This leads us to the following result.
\begin{result}[Modified $n$-cycle expression with SOS]
The maximum quantum value of modified $n$-cycle noncontextuality expression \eqref{Bn} with a SOS decomposition \eqref{sosn} is $\eta_n$ \eqref{etan} (where $n=2^m+1,m\in \mathbbm{N}\setminus \{1\})$.
\end{result}
Let us finally prove the classical bound of our new noncontextuality expression.
\begin{result}[Maximal classical value]
The classical value of $\mathcal{B}_n$ in Eq. \eqref{Bn} is given by $n+\gamma -2$.
\end{result}
\begin{proof}
The classical value can be obtained by assigning $\pm 1$ values to the observables appearing in \eqref{Bn}, that is,
\be \label{Bc}
\eta_n^C = \max_{a_i\in \{1,-1\}} \left\{ - \sum^n_{i=1} a_ia_{i+1} - \gamma \sum^n_{i=1} a_i \right\},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is positive.
Let us say in the optimal assignment there are $k$ number of $a_i$ which are $-1$. We first assume $k> n/2$. When there are $k$ number of $-1$, and $n-k$ number of $+1$, the minimum value of $\sum_i a_ia_{i+1} = 4k - 3n$, and the quantity $\sum_i a_i = n-2k$. Substituting these values in \eqref{Bc} we see
\be \label{ncb3}
\eta_n^C = \left(3-\gamma\right) n - \left(4-2\gamma\right) k.\end{equation}
Therefore, the optimal value of $\eta_n^{C}$ is obtained for the minimum value of $k$, that is, for $k=(n+1)/2$. This implies the right-hand-side of \eqref{ncb3} is $n+\gamma -2$. Similarly, if $k<n/2$, then we have $(n-k)>n/2$, and following a similar argument we can obtain the same bound.
\end{proof}
\section{Self-testing of quantum devices}
An exact self-testing statement provides us the certification of quantum devices, given that we observe an optimal violation of a noncontextuality inequality. However, the observed statistics are unchanged in the presence of auxiliary degrees of freedom (or auxiliary systems) and a global unitary. Therefore, self-testing in the context of state-dependent quantum contextual correlation \cite{bharti,knill} infers unique state and measurements up to these equivalences.
More formally, self-testing of preparation $|\Bar{\psi}\rangle\in\mathbbm{C}^d$ and a set of measurements $\{\Bar{A}_i\}^n_{i=1}$ acting on $\mathbbm{C}^d$ are defined as follows: if a set of observables $\{A_i\}^n_{i=1}$ acting on unknown finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and a state $|\psi\rangle\in\mathcal{H}$
maximally violate a noncontextuality inequality, then there exists an isometry $\Phi:\mathcal{H}\mapsto\mathbbm{C}^d$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Phi|\psi\rangle = |\bar{\psi}\rangle $ ,
\item $\Phi A_i \Phi^{\dagger} = \Bar{A}_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
\end{enumerate}
To obtain self-testing only from the reduced Assumptions mentioned in section \ref{sec:2}, we consider a modified version of the expression $\mathcal{B}_n$ $\eqref{Bn}$ of the following form
\be \label{Bn2}
\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_n := \mathcal{B}_n - \sum_i [p(++|\mathcal{A}_{i+1},\mathcal{A}_{i}) + p(++|\mathcal{A}_{i-1},\mathcal{A}_{i})].
\end{equation}
Since the additional term is non-positive, the classical and quantum bounds of $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_n$ are the same as for $\mathcal{B}_n$. Moreover, it follows from \eqref{sosn} that the SOS decomposition of $\tilde{B}_n$ is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sosn2}
\eta_n \mathbbm{1} - \tilde{B}_n &=& \sum_{i,k} c_k \left[\mathbbm{1} - M_{i,k} \right]^2 + d \sum_i \left[\mathbbm{1} - A^2_i\right] \nonumber \\
&& + \sum_i (K_iK_{i+1})^\dagger(K_iK_{i+1}) \nonumber \\
&& + \sum_i (K_iK_{i-1})^\dagger(K_iK_{i-1}),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{B}_n = B_n - \sum_i (K_iK_{i+1})^\dagger(K_iK_{i+1}) \nonumber \\ - \sum_i (K_iK_{i-1})^\dagger(K_iK_{i-1}) ,
\end{eqnarray}
and $\eta_n$ is again the optimal quantum value of $\tilde{B}_n$ \footnote{ Note that $\protect{K_{i\pm 1}|\psi\rangle / \langle \psi |K_{i\pm1}^\dagger K_{i\pm1}|\psi\rangle }$ is the post-measurement quantum state after $A_{i\pm1}$ is measured and the `+' outcome is obtained. Consequently, $\protect{p(++|\mathcal{A}_{i\pm 1},\mathcal{A}_{i}) = \langle \psi |(K_{i}K_{i\pm 1})^\dagger (K_iK_{i\pm 1})|\psi\rangle } $ }.
Let us now show that our inequality \eqref{Bn2} can be used to make a self-testing statement, according to the above definition, for the state and observables \eqref{ops}-\eqref{opm} maximally violating it.
\begin{result}[Self-testing]
Under the Assumptions \ref{as1} and \ref{as2} stated in Sec. \ref{sec:2}, if a quantum state $\ket{\psi}\in \mathcal{H}$ and a set of $n$ (where $n=2^m+1,m\in \mathbbm{N}\setminus \{1\})$ measurements $A_i$ acting on $\mathcal{H}$ violate the inequality \eqref{Bn2} maximally, then there exists a projection $P:\mathcal{H}\to\mathbbm{C}^3$ and a unitary $U$ acting on $\mathbbm{C}^3$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sn}
& U (P A_iP^\dagger) U^\dagger = 2|\widehat{v}_i \rangle\!\langle \widehat{v}_i | - \mathbbm{1}_3, \nonumber \\
& \quad U(P|\psi\rangle) = (1,0,0)^T,
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\widehat{v}_i\rangle$ are defined in \eqref{pn}.
\end{result}
\begin{proof}
Taking the expectation value of the state $\ket{\psi}$ on both side of the SOS decomposition \eqref{sosn2} of $\mathcal{B}$, we obtain by virtue of
\eqref{ar} that for any $i$ and $k$,
\begin{equation}
M_{i,k}\ket{\psi} = \ket{\psi}.
\end{equation}
In the particular $k=1$ case this condition when combined with
the explicit form of $M_{i,1}$ given in Eq. \eqref{Mik} together with the fact that $\beta_1 = \alpha/(1+2\alpha)$, leads to the following relations for all $i=1,\dots,n$,
\be \label{c}
(A_i + \alpha A_{i+1} + \alpha A_{i-1} ) \ket{\psi} = (1-2\alpha) \ket{\psi}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, from the second term of the SOS decomposition \eqref{sosn2} we get that for all $i=1,\ldots,n$,
\be \label{c'}
A^2_i |\psi\rangle = |\psi\rangle .
\end{equation}
Additionally, due to the last two terms of SOS decomposition \eqref{sosn2} we know $K_iK_{i\pm1}|\psi\rangle =0$ for all $i$, which using Assumption \ref{as2} read $\sqrt{F_i}\sqrt{F_{i\pm1}}|\psi\rangle =0$. Since, $\sqrt{F_i}$ and $F_i$ have the same support, this conditions further imply the following relations for all $i=1,\dots,n,$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{c0}
F_iF_{i\pm1}|\psi\rangle = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Given the relations \eqref{c}, \eqref{c'} and \eqref{c0}, the next Theorem provides the proof for the self-testing statement.
\end{proof}
The self-testing property implies our modified inequality \eqref{Bn2} are non-trivial since any classical value assignment is not equivalent to the realization given in \eqref{sn}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm}
If a set of Hermitian operators $\{A_i\}^n_{i=1}$ (where $n$ is odd) of the form \eqref{Ai} acting on arbitrary finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and a unit vector $\ket{\psi}\in \mathcal{H}$ satisfy the relations \eqref{c},\eqref{c'} and \eqref{c0}, then there exists a projection operator $P:\mathcal{H}\to \mathbbm{C}^3$ and a unitary $U$ acting on $\mathbbm{C}^3$ such that
\eqref{sn} holds true.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We prove this theorem in two steps.
\textit{Step 1.} In the first step, we deduce the effective dimensionality of the observables $A_i$ and the state $\ket{\psi}$.
Let us define a vector space
$V = \text{Span} \{\ket{\psi}, A_1\ket{\psi},A_3\ket{\psi}\}.$ Due to {\it Lemma} \ref{le:v} (stated in Appendix \ref{app:lem}), it suffices to consider the observables $A_i$ and the state $|\psi\rangle$ restricted to $V$.
In other words, {\it Lemma} \ref{le:v} points out that the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ can be decomposed as $V\oplus V^{\bot}$ and all the operators $A_i$ have the following block structure
\be
A_i = \left(\begin{array}{@{}c|c@{}}
\tilde{A}_i & \mathbb{O} \\
\hline
\mathbb{O} & A'_i
\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
wherein $\tilde{A}_i,A'_i$ are acting on $V,V^{\bot}$ respectively.
This allows us to define
\begin{eqnarray}
& \tilde{A}_i = PA_i P^\dagger = 2\tilde{F}_i-\mathbbm{1}, \nonumber \\
& \ket{\tilde{\psi}} = P\ket{\psi} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P$ is the projection operator from $\mathcal{H}$ to $V$, $\tilde{F}_i=PF_i P^\dagger\geqslant 0$ and $\mathbbm{1}$ is the identity operator acting on $V$.
It follows from Eq. \eqref{Ai} and Eqs. \eqref{c0}, \eqref{c}, \eqref{c'} that the projected measurements $\tilde{F}_i$ and the state $\ket{\tilde{\psi}}$ satisfy the following sets of relations for all $i=1,\dots,n$,
\begin{eqnarray}
& \quad \tilde{F}_i\tilde{F}_{i\pm 1}|\tilde\psi\rangle = 0, \label{cond1} \\
& \left(\tilde{F}_i+\alpha\tilde{F}_{i-1}+\alpha\tilde{F}_{i+1}\right)|\tilde\psi\rangle= |\tilde\psi\rangle , \label{cond2} \\
& \tilde{F}^2_i |\tilde\psi\rangle = \tilde{F}_i|\tilde\psi\rangle . \label{cond3}
\end{eqnarray}
\textit{Step 2.}
In the second step, we characterize the observables $\tilde{A}_i$.
With the help of \textit{Lemma} \ref{le:pvm} given in Appendix \ref{app:lem}, we first show that all observables
$\tilde{A}_i$ are of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Aitilde}
\tilde{A}_i=2|v_i\rangle\!\langle v_i| - \mathbbm{1}
\end{equation}
for some normalized vectors $\ket{v_i}\in\mathbbm{C}^3$ such that $\langle v_{i}| v_{i\pm1}\rangle=0$.
The remaining part is the characterization of $\ket{ v_i}$.
By plugging Eq. (\ref{Aitilde}) into Eq. \eqref{cond2}
we obtain that for all $i$,
\begin{equation}\label{relation2}
( | v_i\rangle\!\langle v_i|+\alpha | v_{i-1}\rangle\!\langle v_{i-1}|+\alpha | v_{i+1}\rangle\!\langle v_{i+1}|)|\tilde\psi\rangle=|\tilde\psi\rangle.
\end{equation}
We use the fact that $| v_{i}\rangle, |v_{i\pm1}\rangle$ are orthogonal and multiply $\bra{ v_{i-1}}$
and $\bra{ v_{i+1}}$ with Eq. (\ref{relation2}), which lead us to the following equations
\begin{equation} \label{cond7}
\alpha\langle v_{i-1}| v_{i+1}\rangle\langle v_{i+1}|\tilde\psi\rangle=(1-\alpha)\langle v_{i-1}|\tilde\psi\rangle
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{condition3}
\alpha\langle v_{i+1}| v_{i-1}\rangle\langle v_{i-1}|\tilde\psi\rangle=(1-\alpha)\langle v_{i+1}|\tilde\psi\rangle
\end{equation}
for all $i$. By substituting the term $\langle v_{i-1}|\tilde\psi\rangle$ from the first equation to the second one, we arrive at the following conditions
\begin{equation}\label{ScProd}
\forall i, \quad |\langle v_{i-1}| v_{i+1}\rangle|=\frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Note that, here we use the fact that $\langle v_{i+1}|\tilde\psi\rangle \neq 0$ \footnote{If $\protect{\langle v_{j+1}|\tilde\psi\rangle} = 0$ for some $j$, then \eqref{cond7} implies $\protect{\langle v_{j-1}|\tilde\psi\rangle}$ is also 0, and further \eqref{relation2} implies $\protect{|v_{j}\rangle\!\langle v_{j}|\tilde\psi\rangle = |\tilde\psi\rangle}$. Substituting these in \eqref{relation2} taking $i=j+1$,
we arrive at a relation $\protect{|v_{j+2}\rangle\!\langle v_{j+2} |\tilde\psi\rangle= (1-\alpha)/\alpha |\tilde\psi\rangle}$ which cannot be true for any finite $n$ since $\protect{|v_{j+2}\rangle\!\langle v_{j+2}|}$ has eigenvalues 1,0.}.
Considering the absolute value of both side of \eqref{condition3}
and using \eqref{ScProd} we obtain another set of conditions
\begin{equation} \label{ScProd2}
\forall i, \quad |\langle\tilde{\psi}| v_{i-1}\rangle|=|\langle\tilde{\psi}| v_{i+1}\rangle| .
\end{equation}
And since $n$ is odd, as a consequence of the above equation,
\begin{equation} \label{ScProd2a}
\forall i,j, \quad |\langle\tilde{\psi}| v_{i}\rangle|=|\langle\tilde{\psi}| v_{j}\rangle| .
\end{equation}
Let us try to see what is the most general form of $\ket{ v_i}$
compatible with the above conditions.
First let us exploit the fact that observed probabilities do not change if we rotate the state and measurements by a unitary operation.
We thus choose it so that
$U|\tilde\psi\rangle=(1,0,0)^T\equiv\ket{0}$.
We also notice that any unitary of the following form
\begin{equation}\label{unitary}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & U'
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
with $U'$ being any $2\times 2$ unitary does not change
$\ket{0}$. Later we will use this freedom.
Due to the fact that we are characterizing projectors $\ket{ v_i}\!\langle v_i|$ rather than the vectors themselves, we can always assume the first element of the vector is positive, that is, $\ket{v_i}$ has the form,
\be \label{vigen}
\ket{ v_i} = \left( \cos\theta_i, e^{\mathbbm{i}a_i}\sin\theta_i\sin\phi_i, e^{\mathbbm{i}b_i}\sin\theta_i\cos\phi_i \right)^T.
\end{equation}
The condition \eqref{ScProd2a} implies that all $\cos\theta_i$ are equal and therefore let us denote $\theta_i = \theta$. Plugging these forms of $\ket{v_{i}}$ and $|\tilde\psi\rangle=\ket{0}$ into Eq. \eqref{relation2}, the first element of the vector equation leads to
\be \label{costheta}
\cos\theta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
Next, we use the freedom given by \eqref{unitary}
to bring one of the vectors, say $\ket{ v_n}$,
to $(\cos\theta,0,\sin\theta)^T$ by taking
\begin{equation}\label{phin}
\sin\phi_n=0, \quad e^{\mathbbm{i}b_n}=1 .
\end{equation}
Then, due to the condition $\langle v_1| v_n\rangle=\langle v_{n-1}| v_n\rangle=0$ we infer $e^{\mathbbm{i}b_{1}} ,e^{\mathbbm{i}b_{n-1}}$ are real and without loss of generality we can take
\begin{equation} \label{phij}
e^{\mathbbm{i}b_{1}} = e^{\mathbbm{i}b_{n-1}} = 1
\end{equation}
by absorbing the sign in $\cos\phi_1,\cos\phi_{n-1}$.
Further, we can get rid one of the phases in $\ket{ v_1}$, that is,
\be \label{a1}
e^{\mathbbm{i}a_1}=1,
\end{equation}
and take $\sin(\phi_1)$ to be non-negative by applying another unitary of the form \eqref{unitary},
\begin{equation}
U'=\mathrm{diag}[\pm\exp(-\mathbbm{i}a_1),1]
\end{equation}
that does not change the simplified form of $\ket{v_n}$.
Equating the second and third element of the vector equation \eqref{relation2} for $|\tilde\psi\rangle=\ket{0}$, we obtain the relations
\begin{equation} \label{w1}
e^{\mathbbm{i}a_i} \sin\phi_i + \alpha e^{\mathbbm{i}a_{i-1}} \sin\phi_{i-1}+ \alpha e^{\mathbbm{i}a_{i+1}} \sin\phi_{i+1} = 0,
\end{equation}
and
\be \label{w2}
e^{\mathbbm{i}b_i} \cos\phi_i + \alpha e^{\mathbbm{i}b_{i-1}} \cos\phi_{i-1} + \alpha e^{\mathbbm{i}b_{i+1}} \cos\phi_{i+1} = 0 .
\end{equation}
With the aid of \eqref{phin} and \eqref{a1}, Eq. \eqref{w1} for $i=n$ points out $\sin(\phi_1) = -e^{\mathbbm{i}a_{n-1}} \sin(\phi_{n-1})$ which allows us to consider $e^{\mathbbm{i}a_{n-1}}=1$.
Taking $i=1$ in Eqs. \eqref{w1} and \eqref{w2} and replacing the values of $\sin\phi_n,\cos\phi_n,e^{\mathbbm{i}a_1},e^{\mathbbm{i}b_1},e^{\mathbbm{i}b_n}$ we obtain,
\begin{eqnarray}
& \sin\phi_1+\alpha e^{\mathbbm{i}a_2} \sin\phi_2 = 0, \\
& \cos\phi_1+\alpha+\alpha e^{\mathbbm{i}b_2} \cos\phi_2 = 0 .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, $e^{\mathbbm{i}a_2},e^{\mathbbm{i}b_2}$ are real and can be taken to be 1. Note, here we use the fact that $\sin{\phi_1} \neq 0$ \footnote{If $\sin{\phi_1} = 0$, then $\cos{\phi_1} = \pm 1$ and consequently $\protect{\langle v_n | v_{1} \rangle = \cos{(\theta \mp \theta)}}$ which contradicts the relation $\protect{\langle v_n | v_{1} \rangle = 0}$. Analogously, if we suppose $\cos{\phi_2}=0$, then $\cos{\phi_1}+\alpha = 0$ and $\sin\phi_2=\pm1$. Now, the first equation holds only if $2\alpha^2 = 1$.}. Similarly, by taking $i=2,\dots,n-2$ we conclude for all $i$
\be \label{aibi}
e^{\mathbbm{i}a_i}=e^{\mathbbm{i}b_i}=1.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the condition $\langle v_i| v_{i+1}\rangle =0$ implies,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{varphii}
\phi_{i+1} - \phi_i &=& \cos^{-1}\left(-\frac{\cos^2\theta}{\sin^2\theta} \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{(n-1)\pi}{n}.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, considering $i=n$ in the above Eq. \eqref{varphii} and using $\sin\phi_n=0$ we deduce $\phi_1=(n-1)\pi/n$. We discard the possibility $\phi_1=-(n-1)\pi/n$ since $\sin\phi_1$ is taken to be non-negative. Thus, the equations \eqref{costheta}, \eqref{aibi}, and \eqref{varphii} together with $\phi_1$ establish that the unknown vectors $\ket{ v_i}$ in \eqref{vigen} are unitarily equivalent to $\ket{\widehat{v}_i}$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
Kochen-Specker contextuality captures the intrinsic nature of quantum theory that essentially departs from classicality. It also offers a generalization of quantum correlations beyond nonlocality to a larger class of quantum systems and minimizes the demands to test non-classicality. Therefore, it is a fundamental problem to understand what is the maximal information about the underlying quantum system that can be inferred from the correlations observed in a contextuality experiment, and whether this information can be used for certification of quantum devices from minimal assumptions of their internal functioning.
In this work, we derive self-testing statements for
$n$-cycle scenario using weaker assumptions than those made in previous approaches based on Kochen-Specker contextuality \cite{csw,bharti,knill,bharti2019}. In particular, we do not assume orthogonality relations between measurement effects and projectivity of the measurements. Instead, we consider general two-outcome measurements which
nevertheless obey a single assumption (Assumption \ref{as2}) that the Kraus
operators representing one of the outcomes are uniquely
determined by their corresponding measurement effects.
While ideal measurements are the prerequisite for noncontextuality, our self-testing statement holds beyond such idealizations inferring nonclassicality from the correlations obtained in sequential measurements.
Moreover, we take a different approach, that is, we
use the sum-of-squares 'technique' that has successfully been
used in the Bell scenario to derive maximal quantum violation of certain Bell inequalities as well as in making self-testing statements \cite{Bamps,chainbell,satwap,Kaniewski,sarkar2019selftesting,cui2019generalization,kaniewski2019weak,Augusiak_2019}, but has never been explored for self-testing in the contextuality scenario.
We further remark that self-testing from quantum contextuality is not fully device-independent as far as its original definition is concerned, while, its experimental test does not require space-like separation. The assumption \ref{as1} is critical to verify for practical purposes, however, in future studies, one may try to overcome it by restricting the computational power or the memory of the measurement device. Nonetheless, it is way more powerful than the usual process of tomography. It is also distinct from the self-testing approach in prepare-and-measure scenario \cite{STtavakoli,STfarkas} since no restriction on the dimensionality of the preparation is imposed here.
Although the SOS decompositions hold for a certain number of measurements, a suitable adaptation of our approach in future studies may lead to SOS decompositions for an arbitrary odd number of measurements.
Another direction for further study is to explore whether our approach can be applied to states and measurements of higher dimension than three and whether our self-testing statements can be made robust to experimental imperfections.
From a more general perspective, it would be interesting to design a
unifying approach to self-testing based on Bell nonlocality and quantum contextuality.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported by the Foundation for Polish Science through the First Team project (First TEAM/2017-
4/31) co-financed by the European Union under the European Regional Development Fund.
\bibliographystyle{alphaarxiv}
|
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\iffalse
Hyesoon: I don't think we need to provide background on parallel computing models, or parllel computing challenges.
Just POCL background and may be a brief intruction about RISC-V expecially about special instruction components.
\begin{outline}
\1 Parallel computing models
\2 VLIW
\2 SIMD
\2 SIMT
\1 Parallel Computation challenges
\2 Task scheduling
\2 Communication
\2 Barriers synchronization
\1 OpenCL API
\2 CUDA and others.
\2 POCL Framework and others.
\2 POCL introduction.
\end{outline}
\fi
\subsection{Open-Source OpenCL Implementations} \label{os_opencl_imp}
POCL \cite{POCL} implements a flexible compilation backend based on LLVM, allowing it to support a wider range of device targets including general purpose processors (e.g. x86, ARM, Mips), General Purpose GPU (e.g. Nvidia), and TCE-based processors \cite{TCE} and custom accelerators. The custom accelerator support provides an efficient solution for enabling OpenCL applications to use hardware devices with specialized fixed-function hardware (e.g. SPMV, GEMM). POCL is comprised of two main components: A back-end compilation engine, and a front-end OpenCL runtime API.
The POCL runtime implements the device-independent common interface where the target implementation of each device plugs into POCL to specialize their operations. At runtime, POCL invokes the back-end compiler with the provided OpenCL kernel source. POCL supports target-specific execution models including SIMT, MIMD, SIMD, and VLIW. On platforms supporting MIMD and SIMD execution models such as CPUs, the POCL compiler attempts to pack as many OpenCL work-items to the same vector instruction, then the POCL runtime will distribute the remaining work-items among the active hardware threads on the device with provided synchronization. On platforms supporting SIMT execution model such as GPUs, the POCL compiler delegates the distribution of the work-items to the hardware to spread the execution among its hardware threads, relying on the device to also handle the necessary synchronization. On platforms supporting VLIW execution models such as TCE-based accelerators, the POCL compiler attempts to "unroll" the parallel regions in the kernel code such that the operations of several independent work-items can be statically scheduled to the multiple function units of the target device.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:back}
\subsection{Background of POCL}
\label{subsec:pocl}
POCL is an open-source Performance Portable OpenCL Implementation which supports various types of target devices including general purpose processors (e.g. x86, ARM, Mips), General Purpose GPU (e.g. Nvidia), and custom TCE-based accelerators \cite{TCE}. The custom accelerator support provides an efficient solution for enabling OpenCL applications to use hardware devices with specialized acceleration (e.g. SPMV, GEMM). Figure \ref{fig:pocl} illustrates the system architecture of the POCL framework, which includes a runtime shared library implementing the OpenCL API and an LLVM-based back-end compiler for compiling the kernels.
The POCL runtime implements a the device-independent common interface where each device target implementation plug into to specialize particular operations. This device independent layer implements the common operations needed by the devices such as the compiler driver, the file system abstraction, the memory abstraction, the synchronization and thread library. Figure \ref{fig:pocl_cc} illustrate the sequence diagram of the compilation flow across the various runtime layers, from when the kernel is created to the actual execution on the target device. Among the destination targets, POCL can also export PTX for NVidia devices and HSAIL \cite{HSAIL} IR for HSA compatible devices. At runtime, POCL invoke the back-end compiler with the provided OpenCL kernel source or SPIRV \cite{SPIRV} IR.
The POCL back-end compiler process the provided kernel and apply a custom set of workgroup transformation passes on the kernel to handle barriers and implement low-level device-specific parallelization. There is also a built-in library that implements optimized device-specific OpenCL functions such as math operations (e.g. sin(), cos(), tan()). The reason for supporting this custom library is to provide more efficient implementations of those routine than what LLVM would produce by default. It also enables direct access to custom device instructions when targeting TCE-based accelerators. POCL supports target-specific execution models including SIMT, MIMD, SIMD, and VLIW. On platforms supporting MIMD and SIMD execution models such as CPUs, the POCL compiler attempts to pack as many OpenCL work-items in the work-goup to the same vector instruction if SIMD is supported, then the POCL runtime will distribute the remaining work-items among the active hardware threads on the device with provided synchronization using the Pthread library. On platforms supporting SIMT execution model such as GPUs, the POCL compiler delegates the distribution of the work-items to the hardware to spread the execution among its various SIMT cores, relying on the device to also handle the necessary synchronization. On platforms supporting VLIW execution models such as TCE-based accelerators, the POCL compiler attempts to "unroll" the parallel regions in the kernel code such that the operations of several independent work-items can be statically scheduled to the multiple function units of the target device.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figs/pocl_system_architecture}
\caption{POCL Systems Architecture}
\label{fig:pocl}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{figs/pocl_compilation_flow}
\caption{POCL Compilation flow}
\label{fig:pocl_cc}
\end{figure}1
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper we proposed Vortex that supports an extended version of RISC-V for GPGPU applications. We also modified OpenCL software stack (POCL) to run various OpenCL kernels and demonstrated that. We plan to release the Vortex RTL and POCL modifications to the public.\footnote{currently the github is private for blind review.} We believe that an Open Source version of RISC-V GPGPU will enrich the RISC-V echo systems and accelerate other researchers that study GPGPUs in wider topics since the entire software stack is also based on Open Source implementations.
\section{RISCV Vector Extension Discussion}
\label{sec:related}
\begin{outline}
\1 What are the building blocks to enable a vector processor?
\1 ISA's comparison
\1 Architecture general building blocks
\1 micro-benchmark execution analysis
\1 Another approach to extend RISC-V to support parallel
\1 programming is using vector instructions.
\1 Code examples for simple kernels
\1 We need a figure like this for RISC-V vector and Vortex.
\1 code examples for graph traversals
\1 BFS example for vector coding and GPGPU coding.
\end{outline}
\section{Evaluation}
\subsection{Evaluation Methodology}
\subsubsection{Simulator for exploring ISA options}
We propose five different ISAs for our initial version of Vortex Designs. We will explore other ISA design options using a functional simulator, simX.
simX is a C++ cycle accurate simulator for Vortex RISC-V GPGPU.Figure~\ref{fig:simX} shows the overall view of the simulator. Its impact on the research process is significant as it enables the following: 1) Very quick ISA extensions and performance evaluations, 2) Software targeted research like compiler and algorithms techniques, and 3) dramatically improves and speeds up the hardware development process.
Because simX is built on top of a C++ instruction level emulator that produces trace objects, which are then fed into simX’s pipeline, the actual instruction execution happens in the emulator. Thus, for new ISA extensions to be implemented, the majority of the modifications will be done in this single functioned emulator, leaving the focus on the flow of the outputted trace objects through the simulated pipeline. This allows for very easy evaluations of multiple control flows and ISA research. Moreover, because simX is written in C++, executing benchmarks could be orders of magnitude faster than simulating the RTL.
simX is also very beneficial for compiler and algorithms research. Adding performance counters and analyzing the microarchitectural is much more feasible and quicker to implement in simX. This analysis of microarchitectural events builds a bridge between high-level code and hardware events. This is possible by analyzing the values of the performance counters and the frequency of microarchitectural events for different programs.
Once the ISA has been finalized, and the performance and the benefits have been evaluated, simX also improves the hardware development process in case the hardware cost also needs to be evaluated. It’s a very important tool for debugging, as the whole microarchitectural state could be dumped for every cycle, which would be compared to the microarchitectural of the RTL for verification. In addition, since the ISA would have already been implemented in simX, it gives a much more clear path on the exact modifications that need to be changed to support the ISA on the RTL.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figs/simx.pdf}
\caption{An overview of the simulator diagram}
\label{fig:simX}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Benchmarks}
In this project, first, we will target to pass run the openCL testing benchmark, which gives the basic testing features.
(https://openbenchmarking.org/suite/pts/opencl). The target application benchmark suites are Rodinia (https://rodinia.cs.virginia.edu/doku.php), Shoc (https://github.com/vetter/shoc/wiki), NPB (http://aces.snu.ac.kr/software/snu-npb/) and GraphBig (https://github.com/graphbig/graphBIG).
GraphBig is developed by PI-Kim's research group using CUDA. In this project, we will convert the CUDA based GraphBig benchmark into OpenCL benchmark. GraphBig includes various graph algorithms (BFS, SSSP, Connected components etc.) which are crucuial to evaluate many graph algorithms.
\subsection{Microarchitecture Design space explorations}
Area and power overhead for different warp/SIMD width results
\subsection{Placement and layout}
Layout and placement of the chip.
\section{Evaluation}
This section will evaluate both the RTL Verilog model for Vortex and the software stack.
\subsection{Micro-architecture Design space explorations}
In Vortex design, we can increase the data-level parallelism either by increasing the number of threads or by increasing the number of warps. Increasing the number of threads is similar to increasing the SIMD width and involves the following changes to the hardware: 1) Increasing the GPR memory width for reads and writes, 2) Increasing the number of ALUs to match the number of threads, 3) increasing the register width for every pipeline stage after the GPR read stage, 4) increasing the arbitration logic required in both the cache and the shared memory to detect bank conflicts and handle cache misses, and 5) increasing the number of IPDOM enteries.
Whereas, increasing the number of warps does not require increasing the number of ALUs because the ALUs are multiplexed by a higher number of warps. Increasing the number of warps involves the following changes to the hardware: 1) increasing the logic for the warp scheduler, 2) increasing the number of GPR tables, 3) increasing the number of IPDOM stacks, 4) increasing the number of register scoreboards, and 5) increasing the size of the warp table. It's important to note that the cost of increasing the number of warps is dependant on the number of threads in that warp; thus increasing warps for bigger thread configurations becomes more expensive. This is because the size of each GPR table, IPDOM stack, and warp table are dependant on the number of threads.
Figure~\ref{fig:area} shows the increases in the area and power as we increase the number of threads and warps. The number is normalized to 1 warp and 1 thread support. All the data includes 1Kb 2 way instruction cache, 4 Kb 2 way 4 banks data cache, and an 8kb 4 banks shared memory module.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{figs/powerareacell.pdf}
\caption{Synthesized results for power, area and cell counts for different number of warps and threads }
\label{fig:area}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Benchmarks}
All the benchmarks used for evaluations were taken from the Rodinia \cite{rodinia_bench}, a popular GPGPU benchmark suite.\footnote{The benchmarks that are not evaluated in this paper is due to the lack of support from LLVM RISC-V.}
\subsection{simX Simulator}
Because the benchmarks used in Rodinia Benchmark Suite have large data-sets that took Modelsim a long time to simulate, we used simX, a C++ cycle-level in-house simulator for Vortex with a cycle accuracy within 6\% of the actual Verilog model. Please note that power and area numbers are synthesized from the RTL.
\subsection{Performance Evaluations}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/warpsthreads.pdf}
\caption{Performance of a subset of Rodinia benchmark suite (\# of warps x \# of threads}
\label{fig:perf_mini}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:perf_mini} shows the normalized execution time of the benchmarks normalized to the 2warps x 2threads configuration. As we predict, most of the time, as we increase the number of threads (i.e., increasing the SIMD width.), the performance is improved, but not too much from increasing the number of warps. Some benchmarks get benefits from increasing the number of warps such as bfs, but in most of the cases increasing the number of warps is not translated into performance benefit.
The main reason is that to reduce the simulation time, we warmed up caches and reduced the data set size, thereby the cache hit rate in the evaluated benchmarks was high. Increasing the number of warps is typically useful to hide long latency operations such as cache misses by increasing TLP and MLP; Thus, the benchmark that benefited the most from the high warp count is BFS which is an irregular benchmark.
As we increase the number of threads and warps, the power consumption increases but they do not necessarily produce more performance. Hence, the most power efficient design points vary depending on the benchmark.
Figure~\ref{fig:perf_power_mini} shows a power efficiency metric (similar to performance per watt) which is normalized to the 2 warps x 2 threads configuration.
The results show that for many benchmarks, the most power efficient design is the one with fewer number of warps and 32 threads except for the BFS benchmark. As we discussed earlier since BFS benchmark gets the best performance from the 32 warps x 32 threads configuration, it also shows the most power efficient design point.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/powereff.pdf}
\caption{Power efficiency (\# of warps x \# of threads (Power efficiency and Energy)}
\label{fig:perf_power_mini}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Placement and layout}
We synthesized our RTL using a 15-nm educational library. Using Innovus, we also performed Place and route (PnR). Figure~\ref{fig:die} shows the GDS layout and the power density map of our Vortex processor. From the power density map, we observe that the power is well distributed among the cell area. In addition, we observe the memory including the GPR, data cache, instruction icache and the shared memory have a higher power consumption.
\section{Vortex Parallel Hardware Architecture}
\label{sec:hardware}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.5\columnwidth]{figs/final_vortex_micro.png}
\caption{Vortex Microarchitecture.}
\label{fig:VortexMicro}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figs/warp_scheduler_figure_wc.png}
\caption{This figure shows the Warp Scheduler under different scenarios. In the actual microarchitecture implementation, the instruction is only known the next cycle, however it's displayed in the same cycle in this figure for simplicity.}
\label{fig:warpSched}
\end{figure}
\subsection{SIMT Hardware Primitives} \label{hw_primitives}
SIMT, Single Instruction-Multiple Threads, execution model takes advantage of the fact that in most parallel applications, the same code is repeatedly executed but with different data. Thus, it provides the concept of Warps~\cite{CUDA}, which is a group of threads that share the same PC and follows the same execution path with minimal divergence. Each thread in a warp has a private set of general purpose registers, and the width of the ALU is matched with the number of threads. However, the fetching, decoding, and issuing of instructions is shared within the same warp which reduces execution cycles.
However, in some cases, the threads in the same warp will not agree on the direction of branches. In such cases, the hardware must provide a thread mask to predicate instructions for each thread, and an IPDOM stack, to ensure all threads execute correctly, which are explained in Section~\ref{hw_threads}.
\subsection{Warp Scheduler}
The warp scheduler is in the fetch stage which decides what to fetch from I-cache as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:VortexMicro}. It has two components: 1) A set of warp masks to choose the warp to schedule next, and 2) a warp table that includes private information for each warp.
There are 4 thread masks that the scheduler uses: 1) an active warps mask, one bit indicating whether a warp is active or not, 2) a stalled warp mask, which indicates which warps should not be scheduled temporarily ( e.g., waiting for a memory request), 3) a barrier warps stalled mask, which indicates warps that have been stalled because of a barrier instruction, and 4) a visible warps mask to support hierarchical scheduling policy~\cite{nargpu11}.
Each cycle, the scheduler selects one warp from the visible warp mask and invalidates that warp. When visible warp mask is zero, the active mask is refilled by checking which warps are currently active and not stalled.
An example of the warp scheduler is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:warpSched}(a). This figure shows the normal execution; The first cycle warp zero executes an instruction, then in the second cycle warp zero is invalidated in the visible warp mask, and warp one is scheduled. In third cycle, because there are no more warps to be scheduled, the scheduler uses the active warps to refill the visible mask, and schedules warp zero for execution.
Figure~\ref{fig:warpSched}(b) shows how the warp scheduler handles a stalled warp. In the first cycle the scheduler schedules warp zero. In the second cycle, the scheduler schedules warp one. At the same cycle, because the decode stage identified that warp zero's instruction requires a change of state, it stalls warp zero. In the third cycle, because warp zero is stalled, the scheduler only sets warp one to visible warp mask and schedules warp one again. When warp zero updates its thread mask, the bit in stalled mask will be set to 0 to allow scheduling.
Figure~\ref{fig:warpSched}(c) shows an example of spawning warps. When warp zero executes a \textit{wspawn} instruction (Table~\ref{table:isa}) , which activates warps and manipulates the active warps mask by setting warps two and three to be active. When it's time to refill the visible mask, because it no longer has any warps to schedule, it includes warps two and three. Warps will stay in the Active Mask until they set their thread mask's value to zero, or warp zero utilizes wspawn to deactivate these warps.
\subsection{Threads Masks and IPDOM Stack} \label{hw_threads}
To support the thread concepts provided in Section~\ref{hw_primitives}, a thread mask register and an IPDOM stack have been added to the hardware similar to other SIMT architectures~\cite{Fung:2007:DWF:1331699.1331735}. The thread mask register acts like a predicate for each thread, controlling which threads are active. If the bit in the thread mask for a specific thread is zero, no modifications would be made to that thread's register file and no changes to the cache would be made based on that thread.
The IPDOM stack, illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:VortexMicro} is used to handle control divergence and is controlled by the split and join instructions. These instructions utilize the IPDOM stack to enable divergence as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ifelseimpl}.
When a split instruction is executed by a warp, the predicate value for each thread is evaluated. If there is only one thread active, or all threads agree on a direction, the split acts like a nop instruction and does not change the state of the warp. When there is more than one active thread that contradicts on the value of the predicate, three microarchitecture events occur: 1) The current thread mask is pushed into the IPDOM stack as a fall-through entry, 2) The active threads that evaluate the predicate as false are pushed into the stack with PC+4 (i.e., size of instruction) of the split instruction, and 3) The current thread mask is updated to reflect the active threads that evaluate the predicate to be true.
When a join instruction is executed, an entry is popped out of the stack which causes one of two scenarios: 1) If the entry is not a fall-through entry, the PC is set to the entry's PC and the thread mask is updated to the value of the entry's mask, which enables the threads evaluating the predicate as false to follow their own execution path, and 2) If the entry is a fall-through entry, the PC continues executing to PC+4 and the thread mask is updated to the entry's mask, which is the case when both paths of the control divergence have been executed.
\subsection{Warp Barriers} \label{hw_barriers}
Warp barriers are important in SIMT execution, as it provides synchronization between warps. Barriers are provided in the hardware to support global synchronization between work-groups. Each barrier has a private entry in barrier table, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:VortexMicro}, with the following information: 1) Whether that barrier is currently valid, 2) the number of warps left that need to execute the barrier instruction with that entry's ID for the barrier to be released, and 3) a mask of the warps that are currently stalled by that barrier. However, Figure~\ref{fig:VortexMicro} only shows the per core barriers. There is also another table on multi-core configurations that allows for global barriers between all the cores. The MSB of the barrier ID indicates whether the instruction uses local barriers or global barriers.
When a barrier instruction is executed, the microarchitecture checks the number of warps executed with the same barrier ID. If the number of warps is not equal to one, the warp is stalled until that number is reached and the release mask is manipulated to include that warp. Once the same number of warps have been executed, the release mask is used to release all the warps stalled by the corresponding barrier ID. The same method works for both local and global barriers; however, global barrier tables have a release mask per each core.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\iffalse
\begin{outline}
\1 What's the problem we are trying to solve?
\1 why Parallel computing?
\1 Amdahl's law, Dennard scaling, moore law
\1 Why RiscV?
\1 Exploring minimal ISA changes to support OpenCL
\1 SMIT strength scalar, hiding memory latency with warps
\2 Why minimal?
\1 Main contributions of the paper
\2 A minimal ISA extension to support OpenCL
\2 A SIMT-based RiscV General Purpose GPU
\2 A comparative analysis between Vortex and RiscV Vector extension
\end{outline}
\fi
The emergence of data parallel architectures and general purpose graphics processing units (GPGPUs) have enabled new opportunities to address the power limitations and scalability of multi-core processors, allowing new ways to exploit the abundant data parallelism present in emerging big-data parallel applications such as machine learning and graph analytics. GPGPUs in particular, with their Single Instruction Multiple-Thread (SIMT) execution model, heavily leverage data-parallel multi-threading to maximize throughput at relatively low energy cost, leading the current race for energy efficiency (Green500 \cite{Green500}) and applications support with their accelerator-centric parallel programming model (CUDA \cite{CUDA} and OpenCL \cite{OpenCL}).
The advent of RISC-V~\cite{waterman2011risc, waterman2014risc, asanovic2014instruction}, open-source and free instruction set architecture (ISA), provides a new level of freedom in designing hardware architectures at lower cost, leveraging its rich eco-system of open-source software and tools. With RISC-V, computer architects have designed several innovative processors and cores such as BOOM~v1 and BOOM~v2~\cite{celio2017boomv2} out-of-order cores, as well as system-on-chip (SoC) platforms for a wide range of applications. For instance, Gautschi et al. \cite{gautschi2017near} have extended RISC-V to digital signal processing (DSP) for scalable Internet-of-things (IoT) devices. Moreover, vector processors \cite{zimmer2015risc} \cite{HWACHA} \cite{ARA} and processors integrated with vector accelerators \cite{lee201445nm} \cite{MANIC} have been designed and fabricated based on RISC-V. In spite of the advantages of the preceding works, not enough attention has been devoted to building an open-source general-purpose GPU (GPGPU) system based on RISC-V.
Although a couple of recent work have been proposed for massively parallel computations on FPGA using RISC-V, (GRVI Phalanx) \cite{gray2016grvi}, (Simty) \cite{collange2017simty}, none of them have implemented the full-stack by extending the RISC-V ISA, synthesizing the microarchitecture, and implementing the software stack to execute OpenCL programs. We believe that such an implementation is in fact necessary to achieve the level of usability and customizability in massively parallel platforms.
In this paper, we propose an ISA RISC-V extension for GPGPU programs and microarchitecture. We also extend a software stack to support OpenCL.
This paper makes the following key contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a highly configurable SIMT-based General Purpose GPU architecture targeting the RISC-V ISA and synthesized the design using a Synopsys library with our RTL design.
\item We show that the minimal set of five instructions on top of RV32IM (RISC-V 32 bit integer and multiply extensions) enables SIMT execution.
\item We describe the necessary changes in the software stack that enable the execution of OpenCL programs on Vortex. We demonstrate the portability by running a subset of Rodinia benchmarks~\cite{rodinia_bench}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/Overview}
\caption{Vortex System Overview}
\label{fig:sw}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf ISA extension:} We extend the RISC-V ISA to control warps and threads, and to handle control divergence. We designed the ISA to reduce the microarchitecture and software design complexity without sacrificing functionality or flexibility. (see Section~\ref{sec:RISC-V ISA Extenstion}).
\item {\bf Microarchitecture implementation:} We implement a synthesizable GPGPU model that is highly customizeable and lightweight (see Section~\ref{sec:Microarchitecture Implementation}).
\item {\bf Software model:} We implement the software stack, including a runtime kernel, that supports a standalone GPGPU (i.e., host and the kernel are all executed from the same main thread) and a matrix library, to abstract the hardware and provide useability, extensibility, and flexibility (see Section~\ref{sec:Software Support}).
\end{itemize}
In this paper, besides synthesizing the model and verifying the functionality, we examine the performance of multi-thread applications and the impact of the number of hardware warps and hardware threads on the overall performance. We run a matrix-matrix multiplication benchmark on various configurations to test performance and synthesize the model on an Intel\textsuperscript{\textregistered} Arria\textsuperscript{\textregistered} 10 FPGA to examine the cost.
\fi
\subsection{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
The current challenges in technology scaling \cite{Dark-Silicon} are pushing semiconductor industry towards hardware specialization, creating a proliferation of heterogeneous systems-on-chip, delivering orders of magnitude performance and power benefits compared to traditional general-purpose architectures. This transition is getting a significant boost with the advent of RiscV \cite{RiscV} with its unique modular and extensible ISA, allowing a wide range of low-cost processor design for various target applications. As these processors become specialized, often extending the existing ISA with domain-specific instructions, a challenge arises on how to program them and take advantage of their new capabilities. OpenCL \cite{OpenCL11} is currently the most widely adopted programming framework for heterogeneous platforms available on mainstream CPUs, GPUs, as well as FPGAs \cite{AOCL} and custom DSPs \cite{TIDSP}. Adopting OpenCL across all devices in heterogeneous platforms greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the software stack that drives these platforms, allowing OpenCL applications to scale efficiently as new computing devices are introduced. Additionally, there is a large ecosystem of existing parallel applications written in OpenCL that will now be able to run on those devices.
There is currently no publicly available implementation of OpenCL for RiscV accessible to the open-source community. This is mainly because the vector ISA extension \cite{RiscVV} for RiscV is still under development. However, there are existing implementations of RiscV processors with multi-core support \cite{AX25MP}, including some with custom ISA for parallel processing \cite{ara} \cite{MANIC}, including ours \cite{Vortex} that could greatly benefit from OpenCL to increase adoption. Implementing a flexible compiler framework that makes it easy to port OpenCL to RiscV-based heterogeneous parallel processors is a challenge and this project aims at solving this programming gap.
There exists a wide range of open-source implementations of OpenCL targeting various architectures including X86 with Beignet \cite{Beignet}, Intel Neo \cite{IntelNeo}, Nvidia with libclc \cite{libclc}, AMD with Clover \cite{Clover}, ROCm \cite{ROCm}, ARM with POCL \cite{POCL}, TI DSPs with Shamrock \cite{Shamrock}. POCL \cite{POCL} implements a flexible compilation backend based on LLVM, allowing it to support a wider range of device targets including X86, ARM, AMD, Nvidia, and TCE \cite{TCE}, making it our preferred choice for implementing a RiscV backend. The technical knowledge of our working group in this space with prior work on GPGPU design and implementation \cite{Harp,Vortex}, compiler optimization~\cite{ref1-1,ref1-2,ref1-3,ref1-4} and experience with LLVM \cite{LLVM,ref2-1,ref2-2,ref2-3} compiler toolchain will provide us the intellectual resources for completing this project.
\section{A Minimal ISA Extension for Compute}
\iffalse
\begin{outline}
\1 The RiscV Base ISA
\1 Understanding RiscV ISA extension Cost
\1 Undestanding SIMT ISA overhead
\1 Vortex five instructions set
\end{outline}
\fi
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Proposed SIMT ISA extension.}
\begin{tabular}{||c | c||}
\hline
Instructions & Description \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
wspawn \%numW, \%PC & Spawn W new warps at PC \\
tmc \%numT & Change the thread mask to activate threads\\
split \%pred & Control flow divergence \\
join & Control flow reconvergence \\ [1ex]
bar \%barID, \%numW & Hardware Warps Barrier \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:isa}
\end{table}
\iffalse
\subsection{Vortex SIMT ISA Extension}
Vortex proposes five new instructions that tackle each new primitive that SIMT execution introduces. The hardware implementation of these instructions and their impact on the microarchitecture are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:hardware}, and this section will focus on the software impact and functionality.
\textit{\textbf{wspawn}} instruction spawns {\tt W} number of warps at a PC value. This instructions takes two arguments: 1) The number of warps that the software wants to activate, and 2) The PC the warps should spawn at. This instruction is executed only once by pocl\_spawn(), explained in Section~\ref{vx_runtime}, to activate jobs. It is program's job to set up {\tt W} to be less or equal to the maximum warps that the hardware can handle. This information could be fetched using vx\_getMaxWarps() which utilizes a CSR instruction to query the hardware.
\textit{\textbf{tmc}} instruction is used to control the number of active threads in a warp when a warp is spawned. For example, if a program needs only 4 threads but the width of warp is 32 threads, we use \textit{\textbf {tmc}} to active only 4 threads. It achieves that by manipulates the thread mask register. This instruction only takes one argument, which is the number of threads the software should activate. This instruction is used by pocl\_spawn() explained in Section~\ref{vx_runtime} to activate threads for a job. In addition, the thread mask register is considered part of the ISA extension, and could be read by software using a CSR, control and status register, instruction. tmc instruction is executed once by each warp, thus the number of \textif{\textbf {tmc}} instructions executed is equal to the total number of warps to execute a GPU kernel.
\textit{\textbf{split and join}} instructions are used to address control divergence within threads of the same warp. The split and join instructions should wrap any control divergent region in the code, for example any branch that is computed using the thread ID. This is because in this example each thread in a warp might want to take a different control path. Figure~\ref{fig:ifelseimpl} shows a C code example of the two instructions being used. The split instruction takes a predicate value as an argument, and the join instruction takes no arguments. The microarchitecture implementation and impact of these instructions is explained in more details in Section~\ref{hw_threads}. The usage shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ifelseimpl} ensures that each thread will follow its desired path.
\textbf{barrier} instruction is used for synchronization between hardware warps within the same core and within the whole GPU. This instruction takes two arguments, 1) the barrier ID, and 2) The number of warps that should execute the barrier instruction with the same barrier ID before warps should be released. The MSB of the barrier ID signifies whether the barrier is local within a core or global for all cores.
\subsection{Vortex Software Portability}
In addition to the proposed ISA extension, Vortex leverages the CSR, control and status register, instructions which are a part of the base RISC-V ISA, to query the hardware. The software could query the hardware to get the total number of available hardware warps and hardware threads per warp. Thus, an OpenCL Application, or any application written for Vortex, could run on any Vortex configuration without the need for recompilation.
\fi
\section{introduction}
why GPGPU with RISC-V ?
Why supporting OpenCL?
What's the contributions ?
Showing that only five instructions are need to support GPGPU
\section{background}
\subsection{OpenCL programming models}
probably not much
What ISA needs support for GPGPU?
\subsection{OpenCL requirements}
Background of POCL
\section{ISA extensions}
\subsection{ISA requirements for programming primitives}
Design space explorations
how did we get these five instructions?
Any other alternative design options ?
\section{Micro-architecture of Vortex}
\section{POCL extensions}
\section{Evaluation}
(1) can it really run all OpenCL benchmarks?
OpenCL benchmarks
(2) RISC-V vector vs. Vortex
(3) Hardware synthesize results
\section{related work}
\section{conclusions}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
Table~\ref{tab:opencl} summarizes the current status of open-source OpenCL run-time implementations. POCL shows the most promising path since it supports the most number of ISA, particularly the support for ARM. We decided to use the POCL framework as a baseline for implementing an OpenCL support for RISC-V.
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & Version & Target & status & Url \\ \hline
Intel Bignet & 2.0 & x86 & Closed & https://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet
\\ \hline
Intel Neo &
2.1 &
X86 &
Active &
https://01.org/compute-runtime \\ \hline
POCL &
1.2 &
x86, ARM &
Stable &
https://github.com/pocl/pocl \\
&
&
AMD, TCE, PTX &
&
\\ \hline
ROCm &
1.2 &
AMD &
Stable &
https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute \\ \hline
TI-OpenCL &
1.1 &
TI &
Closed &
https://git.ti.com/opencl/ti-opencl \\ \hline
Shamrock &
1.2 &
TI &
Active &
https://git.linaro.org/gpgpu/shamrock.git
\\ \hline
libclc &
1.2 &
AMD, PTX &
Closed &
https://libclc.llvm.org/
\\\hline
Clover &
1.1 &
AMD &
Closed &
https://people.freedesktop.org/~steckdenis/clover/
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Open Source Open CL implementation status}
\label{tab:opencl}
\end{table}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
\iffalse
\begin{outline}
\1 ARA's RiscV Vector Processor
\1 ARM Vector Extension -> RISC-V Vector Extension
\1 HWACHA's RiscV Vector Processor
\1 simty generalized SIMT execution on RISC-V
\end{outline}
Please discuss this work again since this also extends RISC-V for SIMT. Please also try to cite the papers that are discussed in this paper. The biggest differences between this work and Vortex is that they do not have any software implementations.
https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01622208/document
\fi
ARA \cite{ARA} is a RISC-V Vector Processor that implements a variable-length single-instruction multiple-data execution model where vector instructions are streamed into vector lanes and their execution is time-multiplexed over the shared execution units to increase energy efficiency. Ara design is based on the open-source RISC-V Vector ISA Extension proposal \cite{RISCVV} taking advantage of its vector-length agnostic ISA and its relaxed architectural vector registers. Maximizing the utilization of the vector processors can be challenging, specifically when dealing with data dependent control flow. That is where SIMT architectures like Vortex present an advantage with their flexible scalar-threads that can diverge independently.
HWACHA \cite{HWACHA} is a RISC-V scalar processor with a vector accelerator that implements a SIMT-like architecture where vector arithmetic instructions are expanded into micro-ops and scheduled on separate processing threads on the accelerator. An advantage that Hwacha has over pure SIMT processors like Vortex is its ability to overlap the execution of scalar instructions on the scalar processor which increases hardware complexity for hazard management.
Simty \cite{collange2017simty} processor implements a specialized RISC-V architecture that supports SIMT execution similar to Vortex, but with different control flow divergence handling. In their work, only microarchitecture was implemented as a proof of concept and there was no software stack, and none of GPGPU applications were executed with the architecture.
\section{The OpenCL Software Stack}
\label{sec:software}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/vortex_runtime}
\caption{Vortex Runtime Library}
\label{fig:runtime}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{lstlisting}
vx_intrinsic.s
vx_split:
.word 0x0005206b # split a0
ret
vx_join:
.word 0x0000306b #join
ret
kernel.cl
#define __if(cond) split(cond); \
if(cond)
#define __endif join();
void opencl_kernel(){
int id = vx_getTid();
__if(id<4) {
// Path A
} else {
// Path B
} __endif
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{This figure shows the control divergent \_\_if \_\_endif macro definitions and how they could be used to enable control divergence in OpenCL kernels. Currently, this process is done manually for each kernel.}
\label{fig:ifelseimpl}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Vortex Native Runtime} \label{vx_runtime}
The Vortex software stack implements a native runtime library for developing applications that will run on Vortex and take advantage of the new RISC-V ISA extension. Figure \ref{fig:runtime} illustrates the Vortex runtime layer, which is comprised of three main components: 1) Low-level intrinsic library exposing the new ISA interface, 2) A support library that implements NewLib stub functions \cite{Newlib}, 3) a native runtime API for launching POCL kernels.
\subsubsection{Instrinsic Library}
To enable Vortex runtime kernel to utilize the new instructions without modifying the existing compilers, we implemented an intrinsic layer that implements the new ISA. Figure~\ref{fig:runtime} shows the functions and ISA supported by the intrinsic library. We leverage RISC-V's ABI which guarantees function arguments being passed through the argument registers and return values begin passed through \textit{a0} register. Thus, these intrinsic functions have only two assembly instructions: 1) The encoded 32-bit hex representation of the instruction that uses the argument registers as source registers, and 2) a return instruction that returns back to the C++ program. An example of these intrinsic functions is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ifelseimpl}. In addition, to handle control divergence, which is frequent in OpenCL kernels, we implement \_\_if and \_\_endif macros shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ifelseimpl} to handle the insertion of these intrinsic functions with minimal changes to the code. These changes are currently done manually for the OpenCL kernels. This approach achieves the required functionality without restricting the platform or requiring any modifications to the RISC-V compilers.
\subsubsection{Newlib Stubs Library}
Vortex software stack uses the NewLib \cite{Newlib} library to enable programs to use the C/C++ standard library without the need to support an operating system. NewLib defines a minimal set of stub functions that client applications need to implement to handle necessary system calls such as file I/O, allocation, time, process, etc..
\subsubsection{Vortex Native API}
The Vortex native API implements some general purpose utility routines for applications to use. One of such routines is \textit{pocl\_spawn()} which allows programs to schedule POCL kernel execution on Vortex. \textit{pocl\_spawn()} is responsible for mapping work groups requested by POCL to the hardware: 1) It uses the intrinsic layer to find out the available hardware resources, 2) Uses the requested work group dimension and numbers to divide the work equally among the hardware resources, 3) For each OpenCL dimension, it assigns a range of IDs to each available warp in a global structure, 4) It uses the intrinsic layer to spawn the warps and activate threads, and finally 5) Each warp will loop through the assigned IDs, executing the kernel every time with a new OpenCL \textit{global\_id}. Figure~\ref{fig:pocl_spawn} shows an example. In the original OpenCL code, the \textit{kernel} is called once with global/local sizes as arguments. POCL wraps the kernel with three loops and sequentially calls with the logic that converts x,y,z to global ids. For a Vortex version, warps and threads are spawned, then each thread is assigned a different work-group to execute the kernel. POCL provides the feature to map the correct \textit{wid}, which was a part of the baseline POCL implementation to support various hardware such as vector architecture.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/pocl_spawn}
\caption{SIMT Kernel invocation modification for Vortex in POCL}
\label{fig:pocl_spawn}
\end{figure}
\subsection{POCL Runtime}
We modified the POCL runtime, adding a new device target to its common device interface to support Vortex. The new device target is essentially a variant of the POCL basic CPU target with the support for pthreads and other OS dependencies removed to target the NewLib interface. We also modified the single-threaded logic for executing work-items to use Vortex's \textit{pocl\_spawn} runtime API.
\subsection{Barrier Support}
Synchronizations within work-group in OpenCL is supported by barriers. POCL's back-end compiler splits the control-flow graph (CFG) of the kernel around the barrier and splits the kernel into two sections that will be executed by all local work-groups sequentially.
\iffalse
\subsection{POCL Backend Compiler}
POCL backend compiler is responsible for generating the OpenCL kernel binaries given their source code. The first modification we did to the back-end compiler was to enable offline compilation of OpenCL kernels from a host computer and modifying the build process to generate the kernels as static libraries instead of shared libraries for compatibility with newlib's lack of dynamic load API support. To enable support multi-kernel OpenCL programs, we implemented static kernel registration pass at the end of the compilation process that will attach an auto-registration stub to each generated static kernel such that they will automatically register themselves on the Vortex device at runtime as a built-in OpenCL function.
The first change in supporting RiscV is modifying POCL to support offline compilation to remove the runtime dependency on LLVM. Figure \ref{fig:pocl_riscvv} illustrates the new POCL system stack implementation on RiscV. The offline compilation phase takes as input the kernel source and compiles it into a native binary. At runtime, the kernel library is loaded by the POCL runtime via the OpenCL \textit{clCreateProgramWithBinary} API call. This software architecture assumes platforms that support the Linux subsystems with the Pthread library. It is our proposed setup for evaluating RiscV processors with the Vector Extension \cite{RiscVV} where parallelism is distributed between multi-threading at the workgroup level and SIMD computation inside the kernel.
\paragraph{Static Kernel Registration} To support Vortex, the Linux and Pthread dependencies will have to be removed because currently not supported on the platform. Vortex doesn't implement shared library support which is needed for loading kernels at runtime on trhe device. To workaround this limitation, we propose implementing a static registration API for POCL kernel (RegLib) that we will enable automatic registration of statically linked kernels. The library will also provides mechanism for querying registered kernels at runtime. The implementation of this API will be based on the existing LLVM compiler passes automatic registration design. Figure \ref{fig:pocl_vortex} illustrates the offline compiler changes for Vortex. During kernel compilation, the registration stub will be added to the kernel binary as an additional step in the linker phase.
\fi
\section{Discussions with Vector ISAs}
Another approach to extend RISC-V to support parallel
programming is using vector instructions.
Code examples for simple kernels
We need a figure like this for RISC-V vector and Vortex.
code examples for graph traversals
BFS example for vector coding and GPGPU coding.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6in]{figs/vector_code.pdf}
\caption{Caption}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{ISA extensions}
\label{sec:RISC-V ISA Extenstion}
This section describes our proposed ISA extension that enables building SIMT using RISC-V. To accomplish the desired behaviour, we introduce five new instructions, and a thread mask register, to the RISC-V ISA, which were inspired by HAPR ISA~\cite{Kersey:2017:LSC:3132402.3132426}. The proposed five new instructions are RISC-V R-Type instructions and fit in one opcode. These instructions are intended to be the minimal set of instructions to introduce SIMT functionality to an architecture that supports OpenCL. They are designed to address the three new concepts that SIMT introduces: hardware warps, hardware threads, and control divergence.
\paragraph{Warp Control} \label{wc}
The \textit{wspawn} instruction is intended to address the introduction of hardware warps to the architecture; The instruction spawns w number of inactive warps at a specific PC values. There are two major differences between this instruction and the old Vortex ISA/Harp ISA: 1) It spawns an arbitrary number of warps in one instruction, compared to the old ISA where 32 instructions had to be executed to spawn 32 warps, and 2) It does not require copying register values from one register file to another, thus it's more efficient.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c| }
\hline
wspawn \%warps, \%PC \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\paragraph{Thread Control} \label{tc}
We propose \textit{tmc} instruction to address the introduction of SIMD lanes. \textit{tmc} instruction activates and deactivates lanes by controlling the thread mask register for the executing warp. The thread mask register could be read as a Control and Status register (CSR) and contains a bit for each thread singnifying whether the thread is currently active or not. For example, if \%NumThreads is equal to five, then lanes zero to four will be activated and the five least significant bits of the thread mask will be set to one. \textit{tmc} instruction is also used to halt execution of warps by setting \%ThreadNum equal to zero.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c| }
\hline
tmc \%NumThreads \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\paragraph{Control Divergence}
\textit{split} and \textit{join} instructions are used to handle control divergence. Control divergence, which occurs when the threads in the same hardware warp want to follow distinct execution paths, is handled by a hardware immediate postdominator (IPDOM) stack~\cite{Kersey:2017:LSC:3132402.3132426}. The \%predicate is set by any of the 32 general-purpose registers and it is considered true by the \textit{split} instruction if there's a non-zero value stored in the register. \textit{split} instruction pushes information about the current state of the thread mask and the predication result for all hardware threads into the IPDOM stack and \textit{join} pops out of the IPDOM stack (more details in Section~\ref{Control Divergence}). If a \textit{join} is executed without a corresponding \textit{split}, an exception will be thrown.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c| }
\hline
split \%predicate \\
join \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c| }
\hline
split \%numWarps, \%barrierID \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\paragraph{Barriers}
\textit{bar} instruction is used as a hardware barrier for warps. When a warp executes the \textit{bar} instruction its execution is halted until numWarps execute the \textit{bar} instruction with the same barrierID. In addition, the value of the barrierID encodes whether this barrier is private to the core or is public to other cores.These private and public will be used to control work-group level synchronizations. Understanding different types of barrier ISA options and exploring design choices is one of the major tasks of our ISA extension studies. Barrier instructions are also strongly connected with memory models and program models, which we will also explore together.
\subsubsection{Microarchitecture}
\label{sec:Microarchitecture Implementation}
\ignore{
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Our proposed SIMT ISA extension.}
\begin{tabular}{||c | c||}
\hline
Instructions & Description \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
wspawn & Spawn new warps. \\
tmc & Change the thread mask to activate threads\\
split & Control flow divergence \\
join & Control flow reconvergence \\ [1ex]
bar & Hardware warp barrier
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:isa}
\end{table}
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{figs/vortex_microarchitecture.pdf}
\caption{Vortex Micro architecture}
\label{fig:vortex_micro}
\end{figure}
The aim of Vortex GPGPU is to make a lightweight GPGPU that is highly customizable to target specific applications. Vortex GPGPU is a 32-bit 5-stage pipeline that supports RISC-V's integer and multiplication extensions (RV32IM) on top of the instructions mentioned in Section ~\ref{sec:RISC-V ISA Extenstion}. Compared to a basic RISC-V pipeline, Vortex has 1) a hardware warp scheduler that contains the PC and thread mask registers and an IPDOM stack for each hardware warp 2) A banked GPR that contains the general registers for each thread in each warp, 3) A banked Dcache module that supports multiple memory accesses per cycle, and 4) a shared memory module. In addition, the execute stage has a vector ALU that supports the SIMD lanes; However, the number size of the Vector ALU does not have to be equal to the number of hardware threads or lanes available. Thus, the latency of the execute stage will depend on the number of execution units in the configuration. Vortex supports a fully customizable warp and threads per warp configuration, L1 cache, and a banked shared memory module. An instruction being executed by a warp is only fetched and decoded once, but executes on the operands and destination registers for each hardware thread in a warp.
\paragraph{Warps} \label{Warp Scheduler}
The Issue stage contains a warp scheduler which implemented as a fine-grain scheduler which is a lightweight scheduler that and hides the latency for hazards for each warp. It stores a state that keeps track of which hardware warps are active and it supports the proposed Vortex ISA. In addition, issue stage also contains the thread mask and IPDOM stack, which handles control divergence. Thus, all the ISA modifications is implemented there as the hardware modifications required to support the ISA are very little.
\paragraph{Control Divergence} \label{Control Divergence}
One of the biggest challenges in SIMT processors is control divergence which leaves the pipeline highly underutilized because of its dynamic nature~\cite{Fung:2007:DWF:1331699.1331735}. However, to maintain a simplistic approach, a hardware IPDOM stack~\cite{Kersey:2017:LSC:3132402.3132426} is used to handle control divergence. The IPDOM stack works by maintaining a private thread mask register for each warp that stores a mask of the current running threads. When a \textit{split} instruction is reached, the current state of the thread mask and the inverse of the new thread mask, along with PC+4, are pushed onto the IPDOM stack. The next instruction continues with the new thread mask. When \textit{join} instruction is reached, the stack is popped and the pipeline either jumps to the PC popped from the stack, or falls through to the current PC+4.
\paragraph{Memory}
Similar to Volta architecture, Vortex supports both an L1 data cache and shared memory module~\cite{Jia2018DissectingTN}. The L1 cache implementation is parameterizable by number of banks, number of ways, cache size, and block size. Because the data cache is banked, Vortex could achieve high memory throughput given there are no bank misses.
Moreover, the shared memory module is extremely parallelizable. Each hardware thread has a one-cycle access if there are no bank misses. Vortex matrix library is optimized to reduce bank conflicts. The shared memory module is mapped to addresses 0xFF000000 to (0xFF000000 + shared memory size). This address space is interleaved for each bank by word; The word at 0xFF000000 is stored in bank 0, 0xFF000004 is stored at bank 1, ... for a number of banks equal to the number of hardware threads in the configuration.
|
\chapter[Random-Order Models]{Random-Order Models}\label{chap:rt}
\begin{abstract}
\medskip
This chapter introduces the {\em random-order model} in online
algorithms. In this model, the input is chosen by an adversary, then
randomly permuted before being presented to the algorithm. This
reshuffling often weakens the power of the adversary and
allows for improved algorithmic guarantees. We show such improvements
for two broad classes of problems: packing problems where we must pick
a constrained set of items to maximize total value, and covering
problems where we must satisfy given requirements at minimum total
cost. We also discuss how random-order model relates to other stochastic models
used for non-worst-case competitive analysis.
\qedsymb
\end{abstract}
\medskip
\medskip
\tableofcontents
\newpage
\section{Motivation: Picking a Large Element}
\label{sec:intro}
Suppose we want to pick the maximum of a collection of $n$ numbers.
At the beginning, we know this cardinality $n$, but nothing
about the range of numbers to arrive. We are then presented distinct
non-negative real numbers $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n$ one by one; upon
seeing a number $v_i$, we must either immediately pick it, or
discard it forever. We can pick at most one number. The goal is to
maximize the expected value of the number we pick, where the expectation
is over any randomness in our algorithm. We want this expected value to
be close to the maximum value
$v_{\max} := \max_{i \in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}} v_i$. Formally, we want to
minimize the \emph{competitive ratio}, which is defined as the ratio of
$v_{\max}$ to our expected value. Note that this maximum $v_{\max}$ is independent
of the order in which the elements are presented, and is unknown to our
algorithm until all the numbers have been revealed.
If we use a deterministic algorithm, our value can be arbitrarily
smaller than $v_{\max}$, even for $n=2$. Say the first number $v_1 = 1$. If
our deterministic algorithm picks $v_1$, the adversary can present
$v_2 = M \gg 1$; if it does not,
the adversary can
present $v_2 = \nicefrac{1}{M} \ll 1$. Either way,
the adversary can make the competitive ratio as bad as it wants by making $M$ large.
Using a randomized algorithm helps only a little: a na\"{\i}ve
randomized strategy is to select a uniformly random position
$i \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$ up-front and pick the $i^{th}$ number
$v_i$. Since we pick each number with probability $1/n$, the expected
value is $\sum_i v_i/n \geq v_{\max}/n$. This turns out to be the best
we can do, as long the input sequence is controlled by an adversary and
the maximum value is much larger than the others. Indeed, one strategy
for the adversary is to choose a uniformly random index $j$, and present
the request sequence $1, M, M^2, \ldots, M^j, 0, 0, \ldots, 0$---a
rapidly ascending chain of $j$ numbers followed by worthless numbers. If
$M$ is very large, any good algorithm must pick the last number in the
ascending chain upon seeing it. But this is tantamount to guessing $j$,
and random guessing is the best an algorithm can do. (This intuition
can be made formal using Yao's minimax lemma.)
These bad examples show that the problem is hard for two reasons: the
first reason being the large range of the numbers involved, and the
second being the adversary's ability to carefully design these difficult
sequences. Consider the following way to mitigate the latter effect:
what if the adversary chooses the $n$ numbers, but then the numbers are
shuffled and presented to the algorithm in a uniformly random order?
This random-order version of the problem above is commonly known as the
\emph{secretary problem}: the goal is to hire the best secretary (or at
least a fairly good one) if the candidates for the job appear in a
random order.
Somewhat surprisingly, randomly shuffling the numbers changes the
complexity of the problem drastically. Here is the elegant $50\%$-algorithm:
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Reject the first $n/2$ numbers, and then
\item Pick the first number
after that which is bigger than all the previous numbers (if any).
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:50Percent}
The 50\%-algorithm gets an expected value of at least $v_{\max}/4$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume for simplicity all numbers are distinct.
The algorithm definitely picks $v_{\max}$ if the highest number is
in the second half of the random order (which happens with probability
$\nicefrac12$), and also the second-highest number is in the first half
(which, conditioned on the first event, happens with probability at
least $\nicefrac12$, the two events being positively
correlated). Hence, we get an expected value of at
least $v_{\max}/4$. (We get a stronger guarantee: we pick the highest
number $v_{\max}$ itself with probability at least $\nicefrac14$, but we will not explore this
expected-value-versus-probability direction any further.)
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Model and a Discussion}
The secretary problem, with the lower bounds in the worst-case setting
and an elegant algorithm for the random-order model, highlights the fact
that sequential decision-making problems are often hard in the
worst-case not merely because the underlying \emph{set} of requests is
hard, but also because these requests are carefully woven into a
difficult-to-solve \emph{sequence}. In many situations where
there is no adversary, it may be reasonable to assume that the ordering
of the requests is benign, which leads us to the random-order model.
Indeed, one can view this as a \emph{semi-random} model from
Chapter~9, where
the input is first chosen by an adversary and then randomly perturbed
before being given to the algorithm.
Let us review the \emph{competitive analysis} model for worst-case
analysis of online
algorithms (also discussed in Chapter~24). Here, the adversary chooses a sequence
of requests and present them to the algorithm one by
one. The algorithm must take actions to serve a request before seeing
the next request, and it cannot change past decisions. The actions have
rewards, say, and the \emph{competitive ratio} is the optimal reward for
the sequence (in hindsight) divided by the algorithm's reward. (For
problems where we seek to minimize costs instead of maximize rewards,
the competitive ratio is the algorithm's cost divided by the optimal
cost.) Since the algorithm can never out-perform the optimal choice, the
competitive ratio is always at least $1$.
Now given any online problem, the \emph{random-order model} (henceforth the
\emph{RO model}) considers the setting where the adversary first chooses
a \emph{set} $S$ of requests (and not a sequence). The elements of this
set are then
presented to the algorithm in a uniformly random order. Formally, given
a set $S = \{r_1, r_2, \ldots, r_n\}$ of $n = |S|$ requests, we imagine
nature drawing a uniformly random permutation $\pi$ of
$\{1,\ldots, n\}$, and then defining the input sequence
to be
$ r_{\pi(1)}, r_{\pi(2)}, \cdots,
r_{\pi(n)}$. As before, the online algorithm sees these requests one by
one, and has to perform its irrevocable actions for $r_{\pi(i)}$ before
seeing $r_{\pi(i+1)}$.
The length $n$ of the input sequence may also be
revealed to the algorithm at the beginning, depending on the problem.
The competitive ratio (for maximization problems) is defined as the
ratio between the optimum value for $S$ and the expected value of
the algorithm, where the expectation is now taken over both the randomness
of the reshuffle $\pi$ and that of the algorithm. (Again, we use the convention
that the competitive ratio is at least one, and hence have to flip the
ratio for minimization problems.)
A strength of the RO model is its simplicity, and that it captures other
commonly considered stochastic
input models. Indeed, since the RO model does not assume the algorithm
has any prior knowledge of the underlying set of requests (except
perhaps the cardinality $n$), it captures situations where the input
sequence consists of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)
random draws from some fixed and unknown distribution. Reasoning
about the RO model avoids over-fitting the algorithm to any particular
properties of the distribution, and makes the algorithms more general
and robust by design.
Another motivation for the RO model is
aesthetic and pragmatic: the simplicity of the model makes it a good
starting point for designing algorithms. If we want
to develop an online algorithm (or even an offline one) for some
algorithmic task, a good step is to first solve it in the RO model, and
then extend the result to the worst-case setting. This can be useful
either way: in the best case, we may succeed in getting an algorithm for the worst-case setting
using the insights developed in the RO model. Else the extension may
be difficult, but still we know a good algorithm under the (mild?)
assumption of random-order arrivals.
Of course, the assumption of uniform random orderings may be
unreasonable in some settings, especially if the algorithm performs
poorly when the random-order assumption is violated. There have been
attempts to refine the model to require less randomness from the input
stream, while still getting better-than-worst-case performance. We
discuss some of these in \S\ref{sec:redRandom}, but much
remains to be done.
\subsection{Roadmap}
In \S\ref{sec:dynkin} we discuss an optimal algorithm for the
secretary problem. In \S\ref{sec:sec-ext} we give algorithms to choose
multiple items instead of just a single one, and other maximization
packing problems. In \S\ref{sec:comb} we discuss minimization problems.
In \S\ref{sec:others} we present some specializations and extensions
of the RO model.
\section{The Secretary Problem}
\label{sec:dynkin}
We saw the
$50\%$ algorithm
based on the idea of using the first half of the random order
sequence to compute a threshold that weeds out ``low'' values.
This idea of choosing a good threshold will be a
recurring one in this chapter.
The choice of waiting for half of the
sequence was for simplicity: a right choice is to wait for
$\nicefrac1e\approx 37\%$ fraction, which gives us the $37\%$-algorithm:
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Reject the first $n/e$ numbers, and then
\item Pick the first number
after that (if any) which is bigger than all the previous numbers.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\saveforlong{We will give two
proofs that this change increases the probability of picking the largest number
to $37\%$. The first proof uses combinatorial arguments, whereas the
second is based on linear-programming.
}
(Although $n/e$ is not an integer, rounding it to the nearest integer does
not impact the guarantees substantively.)
Call a number a \emph{prefix-maximum}
if it is the largest among the numbers revealed before it. Notice
being the maximum is a property of just the set of numbers, whereas
being a prefix-maximum is a property of the random sequence and the
current position. A \emph{wait-and-pick} algorithm is one that rejects
the first $m$ numbers, and then picks the first prefix-maximum
number.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:secy} As $n \rightarrow \infty$,
the 37\%-algorithm picks the highest number with probability at least
$\nicefrac1e$. Hence, it gets
expected value at least $v_{\max}/e$. Moreover, $n/e$ is the optimal
choice of $m$ among all wait-and-pick algorithms.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If we
pick the first prefix-maximum after rejecting the first $m$ numbers, the probability we pick the maximum is
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{t = m+1}^n \Pr[ v_t \text{ is max} ] \cdot
\Pr[ \text{max among first $t-1$ numbers falls in first $m$ positions}]
\\
&\stackrel{(\star)}{=} \sum_{t = m+1}^n \frac1n \cdot \frac{m}{t-1} \quad = \quad
\frac{m}{n} \big(H_{n-1} - H_{m-1}\big),
\end{align*}
where $H_k = 1+\frac12+\frac13+ \ldots+\frac1k$ is the $k^{th}$
harmonic number. The equality $(\star)$ uses the uniform random order.
Now using the approximation $H_k \approx \ln k + 0.57$ for large $k$, we get the
probability of picking the maximum is about $\frac{m}{n} \ln
\frac{n-1}{m-1}$ when $m,n$ are large.
This quantity has a maximum value of $1/e$ if we choose $m = n/e$.
\end{proof}
Next we show
we can replace any strategy (in a
comparison-based model) with a wait-and-pick strategy
without decreasing
the probability of picking the maximum.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:secyTight}
The strategy that maximizes the probability of
picking the highest number can be assumed to
be a wait-and-pick strategy.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Think of yourself as a player trying to maximize the probability
of picking the maximum number. Clearly, you should reject the next number $v_i$
if it is not prefix-maximum. Otherwise, you should pick $v_i$ only
if it is prefix-maximum
and the probability of $v_i$ being the maximum is more than the probability
of you picking the maximum in the remaining sequence. Let us calculate
these probabilities.
We use Pmax to abbreviate ``prefix-maximum''.
For position $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, define
\begin{align*}
f(i) &= \Pr[ v_i \text{ is max}\mid v_i \text{
is Pmax} ]
\stackrel{(\star)}{=} \frac{\Pr[ v_i \text{ is max} ]
}{\Pr[v_i \text{ is Pmax}]} \stackrel{(\star\star)}{=} \frac{1/n}{1/i} =
\frac{i}n,
\end{align*}
where equality $(\star)$ uses that the maximum is also a prefix-maximum,
and $(\star\star)$ uses the uniform random ordering. Note that $f(i)$
increases with $i$.
Now consider a problem where the numbers are again being revealed in a random
order but we must reject the first $i$
numbers. The goal is to still maximize the probability of picking the highest of the $n$ numbers. Let $g(i)$ denote the
probability that the optimal strategy for this problem picks the global maximum.
The function $g(i)$ must be a non-increasing function of $i$, else we could just ignore
the $(i + 1)^{st}$ number and set $g(i)$ to mimic the strategy for $g(i + 1)$. Moreover,
$f(i)$ is increasing. So from the discussion above, you should not pick a prefix-maximum
number at any
position $i$ where $f(i) < g(i)$ since you can do better on the suffix. Moreover, when
$f(i) \geq g(i)$, you should pick $v_i$
if it is prefix-maximum, since it is
worse to wait. Therefore, the approach of waiting until $f$ becomes greater than $g$
and thereafter picking the first prefix-maximum is an optimal strategy.
\end{proof}
Theorems~\ref{thm:secy} and~\ref{thm:secyTight} imply for $n \to \infty$
that no algorithm can pick the maximum with probability
more than $1/e$. Since we placed no bounds on the number magnitudes, this can
also be used to show that for any $\eps>0$, there exist an $n$
and numbers $\{v_i\}_{i \in \{1,\ldots, n\}}$
where every algorithm has expected value
at most $(1/e+\eps) \cdot \max_i v_i$.
\saveforlong{
A ``modern'' proof of this result uses linear-programming (LP). This
approach is robust and gives algorithms even when we add some kinds of
constraints to the problem. The approach involves writing down an LP
that captures some properties of any feasible solution, solving this LP
optimally, and converting this solution into an algorithm with success
probability equal to the objective value of this LP.
\begin{proof}
Let us fix an optimal strategy. (By the proof above, we know what this
strategy is, but let us ignore that for now.) We just assume that it
does not pick any number that is not a local best, as such a
number cannot be the global best either.
Let $p_i$ be the probability that this strategy picks the number at
position $i$. Let $q_i$ be the probability that we pick the number at
position $i$ \emph{conditioned on the number being a local best}. So
$q_i = \frac{p_i}{1/i} = i\cdot p_i$.
Now, the probability of picking the highest number is
\begin{align}
& \ts\sum_i \Pr[ v_i \text{ is global best and we pick it} ]
\notag \\
&= \ts \sum_i \Pr[ v_i \text{ is global best} ] \cdot q_i
\quad = \quad \sum_i \frac{1}{n} q_i \quad = \quad \sum_i \frac{i}{n} p_i. \label{eq:7}
\end{align}
What are the constraints? Clearly $p_i \in [0,1]$. But also
\begin{align}
p_i &= \Pr[ \text{ pick $v_i \mid v_i$ is local best} ] \cdot \Pr[
v_i \text{ is local best} ] \notag \\
&\leq \Pr[ \text{ did not pick any of } v_1, \ldots,v_{i-1} \mid v_i \text{
is local best} ] \cdot (1/i). \label{eq:6}
\end{align}
Not picking the first $i-1$ numbers is independent of $i$ being
local
best, so we can remove the conditioning to get
\begin{align*}
\textstyle{ p_i \leq \frac{1}{i} \cdot \big(1 - \sum_{j < i} p_j \big). } \label{eq:5}
\end{align*}
Hence, the success probability of any strategy (and hence of the
optimal strategy) is upper-bounded by the following LP in variables
$p_i$:
\begin{align*}
\ts \max \quad \sum_i \frac{i}{n}\cdot p_i & \\
\text{subject to ~~} i\cdot p_i &\leq \ts 1 - \sum_{j < i} p_j \qquad \forall i \in \{1,
\ldots, n\}\\
p_i &\in [0,1].
\end{align*}
It can be checked that the solution $p_i = 0$ for $i \leq \tau$
and $p_i =\frac{\tau}{n}(\frac1{i-1} - \frac1i)$ for $\tau \leq i \leq
n$ satisfies the constraints; here $\tau$ is defined by the smallest
value such that $H_{n-1} - H_{\tau - 1} \leq 1$. (By duality, we can
also show this is the optimal LP solution!)
Here is how to convert this LP solution into an algorithm: if the
current element $v_i$ is a local best, and we have not picked a number
already, we pick $v_i$ with probability
$\frac{i p_i}{1 - \sum_{j < i} p_j}$. (This expression lies in the
interval $[0,1]$ by the LP constraint for $i$, so the algorithm is
well-defined.) Moreover, multiplying this expression with the
probability that we have not picked an element earlier, and using the
calculation in~(\ref{eq:6})) implies that we pick $v_i$ with
probability $p_i$. Finally, a calculation similar to~(\ref{eq:7})
shows that our algorithm's probability of picking the global best is
$\sum_i ip_i/n$, which is the same as the LP value.
\end{proof}
As mentioned above, the LP approach is extendable and
robust, and it makes adding constraints easy. For example, note that the
optimal strategy does not pick anything in the first $n/e$ timesteps,
and then picks numbers with varying probabilities. If we imagine this
modeling people interviewing for a job, this gives candidates an
incentive to not come early in the order. To avoid this behavior, we may
want that for each position $i$, the probability of picking the item at
position $i$ is the same. By setting all $p_i = p$ and changing the
constraints slightly (e.g., we may now want to pick numbers even when
they are not the local best), this general approach extends to give an
algorithm picking $v_{\max}$ with probability
$1 - 1/\sqrt{2} \approx 29\%$.
}
\newcommand{\bp}{\mathbf{p}}
\section{Multiple-Secretary and Other Maximization Problems}
\label{sec:sec-ext}
We now extend our insights from the single-item case to
settings where we can pick multiple items. Each item has a value, and we
have constraints on what we can pick (e.g., we can pick at most $k$
items, or pick any acyclic subset of
edges of a graph). The goal is to maximize the total value. (We
study minimization problems in \S\ref{sec:comb}.)
Our algorithms can be broadly classified
as being \emph{order-oblivious} or \emph{order-adaptive}, depending on the
degree to which they rely on the random-order assumption.
\subsection{Order-Oblivious Algorithms}
\label{sec:order-obliv-algor}
The 50\%-strategy for the single-item secretary problem has an
interesting property: if each number is equally likely to lie in the
first or the second half, we pick $v_{\max}$ with
probability $\nicefrac14$ even if the arrival sequence within the
first and second halves is chosen by an adversary. To formalize this
property, define an \emph{order-oblivious} algorithm as one with the
following two-phase structure: in the first phase (of some length
$m$) the algorithm gets a uniformly-random subset of $m$ items,
but is not allowed to pick any of these items. In the second phase, the
remaining items arrive in an adversarial order, and only now can the
algorithm pick items while respecting any constraints that
exist. (E.g., in the secretary problem, only one item may be picked.)
Clearly, any order-oblivious algorithm runs in the random-order model
with the same (or better) performance guarantee, and hence we can
focus our attention on designing such algorithms. Focusing on
order-oblivious algorithms has two
benefits. Firstly, such algorithms are easier to design and analyze,
which becomes crucial when the underlying constraints become more
difficult to reason about. Secondly, the guarantees of such algorithms can be
interpreted as holding even for adversarial arrivals, as long as we have
offline access to some samples from the underlying distribution (discussed
in \S\ref{sec:others}). To make things concrete, let us
start with the simplest generalization of the secretary problem.
\subsubsection{The Multiple-Secretary Problem: Picking $k$ Items}
\label{sec:k-items}
We now pick $k$ items to maximize the expected sum of their
values: the case $k=1$ is the secretary problem from the previous
section. We associate the items with the set $[n] = \{1, \ldots,
n\}$, with item $i \in [n]$ having value $v_i \in \R$; all values
are distinct. Let $S^\star \sse [n]$ be the set of $k$ items of
largest value, and let the total value of the set $S^\star$ be
$V^\star := \sum_{i \in S^\star} v_i$.
It is easy to get an algorithm that gets expected value
$\Omega(V^\star)$, e.g., by splitting the input sequence of length $n$
into $k$ equal-sized portions and running the single-item algorithm
separately on each of these, or by setting threshold $\tau$ to be the
value of (say) the $\ceil{\nicefrac{k}3}^{th}$-highest value item in the
first $50\%$ of the items and picking the first $k$ items in the second
half whose values exceed $\tau$ (see
Exercise~\ref{exer:multItemConstant}). Since both these algorithms
ignore a constant fraction of the items, they lose at least a constant
factor of the optimal value in expectation. But
we may hope to do better. Indeed, the $50\%$ algorithm obtains
a (noisy) estimate of the threshold between the maximum value item and
the rest, and then picks the first item above the threshold. The
simplest extension of this idea would be to estimate the threshold
between the top $k$ items, and the rest. Since we are picking
$k \gg 1$ elements, we can hope to get accurate estimates of this
threshold by sampling a smaller fraction of the stream.
The following (order-oblivious) algorithm formalizes this intuition.
It gets an
expected value of $V^\star(1 - \delta)$, where $\delta \to 0$ as
$k \to \infty$. To achieve this performance, we get an accurate estimate of the
$k^{th}$ largest item in the entire sequence after ignoring only
$\delta n$ items, and hence can start picking items much earlier.
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set $\eps = \delta = O\big( \frac{\log k}{k^{1/3}}\big)$.
\item \emph{First phase:} ignore the first $\delta n$
items. \\Threshold $\tau \gets$
value of the $(1-\eps)\delta k^{th}$-highest valued
item in this ignored set.
\item \emph{Second phase:} pick the first $k$ items seen that have value greater than $\tau$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:kItemObiv} The order-oblivious
algorithm above for the multiple-secretary problem has expected value
$V^\star (1 - O(\delta))$, where
$\delta = O\big( \frac{\log k}{k^{1/3}}\big)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The $\delta n$ items ignored in the first phase contain
in expectation $\delta k$ items from $S^\star$, so we lose expected value
$\delta V^\star$. Now a natural threshold would be the
$\delta k^{th}$-highest value item among the ignored items. To account
for the variance in how many elements from $S^\star$ fall among the
ignored elements, we set a slightly
higher threshold of the $(1-\eps)\delta k^{th}$-highest value.
Let $v' := \min_{i \in S^\star} v_i$ be the lowest value item we
actually want to pick. There are two failure modes for this
algorithm: (i)~the threshold is too low if $\tau < v'$, as then we may
pick low-valued items, and (ii)~the threshold is too high if fewer
than $k - O(\delta k)$ items from $S^\star$ fall among the last
$(1-\delta)n$ items that are greater than $\tau$. Let us see why
both these bad events happen rarely.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Not too low}: For event~(i) to happen, fewer than
$(1-\eps)\delta k$ items from $S^\star$ fall in the first $\delta n$
locations: i.e., their number is less than $(1-\eps)$ times its
expectation $\delta k$. This has probability at most
$\exp(-\eps^2 \delta k)$ by Chernoff-Hoeffding concentration bound
(see the aside below). Notice if $\tau \geq v'$ then we never run out of
budget $k$.
\item {\em Not too high}: For event~(ii), let $v''$ be
the $(1-2\eps)k^{th}$-highest value in $S^\star$. We expect
$(1- 2\eps)\delta k$ items above $v''$ to appear among the
ignored items, so the probability that more than $(1-\eps) \delta k$
appear is $\exp(-\eps^2 \delta k)$ by Chernoff-Hoeffding
concentration bound. This
means that $\tau \leq v''$ with high probability, and moreover most
of the high-valued items appear in the second phase (where we will
pick them whenever event~(i) does not happen, as we don't run
out of budget).
\end{itemize}
Finally, since we are allowed to lose $O(\delta V^\star)$ value,
it suffices that the error probability $\exp(-\eps^2 \delta k)$
be at most $O(\delta) = 1/\poly(k)$. This requires us to set $\eps^2
\delta k = \Omega(\log k)$, and a good choice of parameters is $\eps = \delta = O\big( \frac{\log k}{k^{1/3}}\big)$.
\end{proof}
An aside: the familiar Chernoff-Hoeffding concentration bounds
(Exercise~1.3(a) in Chapter~8) are for
sums of bounded \emph{independent} random variables, but the RO model has
correlations (e.g., if one element from $S^\star$
falls in the first $\delta n$ locations, another is slightly
less likely to do so). The easiest fix to this issue is to ignore not
the first $\delta n$ items, but instead a random number of items with
the number drawn from a $\text{Binomial}(n,\delta)$ distribution with
expectation $\delta n$. In this case each item has probability $\delta$
of being ignored, independent of others.
A second way to achieve independence is to imagine each arrival
happening at a uniformly and independently chosen time in $[0,1]$. Algorithmically, we can
sample $n$ i.i.d.\ times from $\text{Uniform}[0,1]$, sort them in
increasing order, and assign the $i^{th}$ time to the $i^{th}$ arrival.
Now, rather than ignoring
the first $\delta n$ arrivals, we can ignore arrivals happening before
time $\delta \in [0,1]$.
Finally, a third alternative is to not strive for independence, but
instead directly
use concentration bounds for sums of exchangeable random variables.
Each of these three alternatives offers different
benefits, and one alternative might be much easier
to analyse than the others, depending on
the problem at hand.
The loss of $\approx V^\star/k^{1/3}$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:kItemObiv}
is not optimal. We will see an
order-adaptive algorithm in the next section which achieves an expected value
of $V^\star \big(1 - O\big(\sqrt{\nicefrac{\log k}{k}}\big) \big)$. That algorithm
will not use a single threshold, instead will adaptively refine its
threshold as it sees more of the
sequence.
But first, let us discuss a few more order-oblivious
algorithms for other combinatorial constraints.
\subsubsection{Maximum-Weight Forest}
\label{sec:forest}
Suppose the items arriving in a random order are the $n$ edges of a
(multi-)graph $G=(V,E)$, with edge $e$ having a value/weight
$v_e$. The algorithm knows the graph at the beginning, but not the
weights. When the edge $e$ arrives, its weight $v_e$ is revealed, and we
decide whether to pick the edge or not. Our goal is to pick a subset of
edges with large total weight that form a forest (i.e., do not contain a cycle). The
target $V^\star$ is the total weight of a maximum-weight
forest of the graph: offline, we can solve this problem using, e.g.,
Kruskal's greedy algorithm. This \emph{graphical secretary} problem generalizes
the secretary problem: Imagine a graph with two vertices and
$n$ parallel edges between them. Since any two edges
form a cycle, we can pick at most one edge, which models the
single-item problem.
As a first step towards an algorithm, suppose all the
edge values are either $0$ or $v$ (but we don't know in advance which
edges have what value). A greedy algorithm is to pick the next weight-$v$ edge whenever possible, i.e.,
when it does not create cycles with previously picked edges. This
returns
a max-weight
forest, because the optimal solution is a maximal forest among the subset of
weight-$v$ edges, and every maximal forest in a graph has the same
number of edges.
This suggests
the following algorithm for general values: if we know some value $v$ for which there is a
subset of acyclic edges, each of value $v$, with total weight
$\geq \frac{1}{\alpha} \cdot V^\star$, then we can get an
$\alpha$-competitive solution by greedily picking value-$v$ edges
whenever possible.
How do we find such a value $v$ that gives a good approximation?
The Random-Threshold algorithm below uses
two techniques: \emph{bucketing} the values and \emph{(randomly) mixing}
a collection of algorithms. We assume that all values are powers of
$2$; indeed, rounding values down to the closest power of $2$ loses at
most a factor of $2$ in the final guarantee.
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Ignore the first $n/2$ items and let $\hat{v}$ be their highest
value.
\item Select a uniformly random $r \in \{0,\ldots, \log n\}$, and set
threshold $\tau := \hat{v}/2^r$.
\item For the second $n/2$ items, greedily pick any item of value at
least $\tau$ that does not create a cycle.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:maxWtdForestLog}
The order-oblivious Random-Threshold algorithm for the graphical secretary problem
gets an expected value $\Omega \big(\frac{V^\star}{\log n}\big)$.
\end{theorem}
\onlyforshort{
Here is the main proof idea: either most of the value is in a
single item (say $v_{\max}$), in which case when $r=0$
(with probability $1/\log n$) this mimics
the $50\%$-algorithm.
Else, we can assume that $v_{\max}$ falls in the first half, giving
us a good estimate without much loss. Now, very little of $V^\star$ can
come from items of value less than $v_{\max}/n$ (since there are only
$n$ items). So we can focus on $\log n$ buckets of items whose values
lie in $[v_{\max}/2^{i+1}, v_{\max}/2^i)$. These buckets, on average,
contain value $V^*/\log n$ each, and hence picking a random one does well.
}
\saveforlong{
\begin{proof}
What does the optimum solution $S^\star$ (with value $V^\star$)
look like? Let $v_{\max}$ be the maximum value of any edge/item
in $S^{\star}$. If $v_{\max} \geq V^\star/4$, we could run
the single-item order-oblivious algorithm to get an expected value
of $v_{\max}/4 = \Omega(V^\star)$.
Else, define ``bucket'' $B_i$ to be edges of value exactly
$v_{\max}/2^i$. We claim that the items in $S^\star$ that lie within
buckets $B_0, B_1, \ldots, B_{\log_2 n}$ have total value at least
$\nicefrac{V^\star}{2}$. Indeed, if not,
at least $\nicefrac{V^\star}{2}$ of $S^\star$'s value must come from
items of value less than $v_{\max}/2^{\log_2 n} = v_{\max}/n$. But
there are at most $n-1$ edges in the forest $S^\star$. Even if each
of those edges contributes $v_{\max}/n < V^\star/(4n)$, we cannot get
$V^\star/2$ value from them, a contradiction. Hence, we get that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:maxWtForest}
\textstyle{ \sum_{i=0}^{\log n} ({v_{\max}}/{2^i}) \cdot |S^\star \cap B_i| \quad \geq \quad
{V^\star}/{2}.}
\end{equation}
Moreover, for any of these buckets $i$,
we could run the algorithm that picks items of
value exactly $v_{\max}/2^i$, and get a value of
${v_{\max}}/{2^i} \cdot |S^\star \cap B_i|$.
The difficulty is that we know neither $v_{\max}$, nor whether
$v_{\max} \geq V^\star/4$, nor which of these buckets to choose. Hence
the idea is to ``mix'' all the above algorithms by randomly choosing
between them.
It is easy to see that if $v_{\max} \geq V^\star/4$, the single-item
algorithm does well. Else, condition on $v_{\max}$ is in the first
half (which happens with probability $\nicefrac12$), so
$\hat{v} = v_{\max}$. Moreover, for any choice of
$r=i \in \{0,\ldots, \log n\}$ (which happens with probability
$\Theta(\nicefrac{1}{\log n})$), the second half contains in expectation half the
elements of $S^\star \cap B_i$; now
using~\eqref{eq:maxWtForest}, our algorithm gets value
$\Omega(V^\star/\log n)$ in expectation.
\end{proof}
}
\paragraph{An Improved Algorithm for Max-Weight Forests.}
The Random-Threshold algorithm above used relatively few properties of the max-weight forest.
Indeed, it extends to
downward-closed set systems with the property that if all values are $0$ or $v$ then picking the next
value-$v$ element whenever possible gives a near-optimal solution.
However, we can do better using properties
of the underlying graph. Here is a constant-competitive algorithm for graphical secretary
where the main idea is to decompose the
problem into several disjoint single-item secretary problems.
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Choose a uniformly random permutation $\widehat{\pi}$
of the vertices of the graph.
\item For each edge $\{u,v\}$, direct it from $u$ to $v$ if
$\widehat{\pi}(u)<\widehat{\pi}(v)$.
\item Independently for each vertex $u$, consider the edges directed
\emph{towards} $u$ and run the order-oblivious $50\%$-algorithm on these edges.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:maxWtdForestO1}
The algorithm above for the graphical secretary problem is order-oblivious and gets
an expected value at least $\nicefrac{V^\star}{8}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The algorithm picks a forest, i.e., there
are no cycles (in the undirected sense) among the picked edges.
Indeed, the highest numbered vertex (w.r.t. $\widehat{\pi}$) on any
such cycle would have two or more incoming edge picked, which is not
possible.
However, since we restrict to picking only one incoming edge per vertex, the
optimal max-weight forest $S^\star$ may no longer be
feasible. Despite this, we claim there is a
forest with the one-incoming-edge-per-vertex restriction, and expected value
$V^\star/2$. (The randomness here is over the choice of the permutation
$\widehat{\pi}$, but not of the random order.) Since the $50\%$-algorithm gets a quarter of this
value (in expectation over the random ordering), we get the
desired bound of $V^\star/8$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{graphicalEPS}
\caption{The optimal tree: the numbers on the left are those given
by $\widehat{\pi}$. The grey box numbered $4$ is the root. The edges in the right are those retained in
the claimed solution.}\label{fig:graphical}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To prove the claim, root each component of $S^\star$ at an
arbitrary node, and associate each non-root vertex $u$ with the unique
edge $e(u)$ of the undirected graph on the path towards the root. The proposed solution
chooses for each vertex $u$, the edge $e(u) = \{u,v\}$ if
$\widehat{\pi}(v) < \widehat{\pi}(u)$, i.e., if it is
directed \emph{into} $u$ (Figure~\ref{fig:graphical}). Since this event happens
with probability $1/2$, the proof follows by linearity of
expectation.
\end{proof}
This algorithm is order-oblivious because the $50\%$-algorithm has the property.
If we don't care about order-obliviousness, we can instead use the
$37\%$-algorithm and get expected value at least $\nicefrac{V^\star}{2e}$.
\subsubsection{The Matroid Secretary Problem}
One of the most tantalizing generalizations of the secretary problem is
to \emph{matroids}. (A matroid defines a notion of \emph{independence}
for subsets of elements, generalizing linear-independence of a
collection of vectors in a vector space. E.g., if we define a subset of edges to be
independent if they are acyclic, these form a ``graphic'' matroid.)
Suppose the $n$ items form the ground set elements of a known matroid,
and we can pick only subsets of items that are independent
in this matroid. The weight/value $V^\star$ of the max-weight independent set
can be computed offline by the obvious generalization of Kruskal's
greedy algorithm.
The open question is to get an expected value of $\Omega(V^\star)$ online in
the RO model. The approach from Theorem~\ref{thm:maxWtdForestLog} gives
expected value $\Omega(V^\star/\log k)$, where $k$ is the largest size of an
independent set (its \emph{rank}). The current best algorithms
(which are also order-oblivious) achieve an expected value of
$\Omega(V^\star/\log \log k)$. Moreover, we can obtain $\Omega(V^\star)$
for many special classes of matroids by exploiting their special
properties, like we did for the graphic matroid above; see the notes for
references.
\subsection{Order-Adaptive Algorithms} \label{sec:orderAdap}
The order-oblivious algorithms above have several benefits, but their
competitive ratios are often worse than \emph{order-adaptive}
algorithms where we exploit the randomness of the entire arrival order.
Let us revisit the problem of picking $k$ items.
\subsubsection{The Multiple-Secretary Problem Revisited}
\label{sec:multi-secy-II}
In the order-oblivious case of Section~\ref{sec:k-items}, we ignored the
first $\approx k^{-1/3}$ fraction of the items in the first phase, and
then chose a fixed threshold to use in the second phase. The length of
this initial phase was chosen to balance two competing concerns: we
wanted the first phase to be short, so that we ignore few items, but we
wanted it to be long enough to get a good estimate of the $k^{th}$
largest item in the entire input. The idea for the improved algorithm is to
run in multiple phases and
use time-varying thresholds. Roughly, the algorithm uses the first
$n_0 = \delta n$ arrivals to
learn a threshold for the next $n_0$ arrivals, then it computes a new
threshold at time $n_1 = 2 n_0$ for the next $n_1$ arrivals, and so on.
As in the order-oblivious algorithm, we aim for the
$(1-\eps)k^{th}$-largest element of $S^\star$---that $\eps$ gives us a
margin of safety so that we don't pick a threshold lower than the
$k^{th}$-largest (a.k.a.\ smallest) element of $S^\star$. But we vary
the value of $\eps$. In the beginning, we have low confidence,
so we pick items cautiously (by setting a high $\eps_0$ and
creating a larger safety margin). As we see more elements, we are more
confident in our estimates, and can decrease the $\eps_j$ values.
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set $\delta := \sqrt{\frac{\log k}{k}}$. Denote $n_j := 2^j\delta n$
and ignore first $n_0 = \delta n$ items.
\item For $j \in [0,\log \nicefrac1\delta]$, phase $j$ runs on
arrivals in \emph{window} $W_j := (n_{j}, n_{j+1}]$
\begin{itemize}
\item
Let $k_j := (k/n) n_j$ and let $\eps_j := \sqrt{\delta/2^j}$.
\item Set threshold $\tau_j$ to be the $(1-\eps_j)k_j^{th}$-largest
value among the first $n_j$ items.
\item Choose
any item in window $W_j$ with value above $\tau_j$ (until budget $k$ is
exhausted).
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:kItemsAdap} The order-adaptive
algorithm above for the
multiple-secretary problem has expected value
$V^\star \big(1 - O\big(\sqrt{\frac{\log k}{k}}\big) \big)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\ignore{
The algorithm runs in phases where for
$j \in [0,\log \nicefrac1\delta]$ and $n_j := 2^j\delta n$,
Phase~$j$ runs on a \emph{window} $W_j := (n_{j}, n_{j+1}]$.
Let $k_j := 2^j \delta k$ so that we expect to
see $k_j$ items from the optimal set $S^\star$ in the first $n_j$
items. Let $\eps_j := \sqrt{\delta/2^j}$. After seeing $n_j$ items, the
threshold $\tau_j$ is the value of the $(1-\eps_j)k_j^{th}$-largest
item among these $n_j$ items. The algorithm ignores the items
before $n_0$, and then in each subsequent window $W_j$ it chooses
any items with value at least $\tau_j$.
}
\ignore{
Set $\delta := \sqrt{\frac{\log k}{k}}$ and $\eps := \delta/2$. For
integers $j \in [0,\log \nicefrac1\delta]$, define
$n_j := 2^j\delta n$ and $k_j := 2^j \delta k$ so that we expect to
see $k_j$ items from the optimal set $S^\star$ in the first $n_j$
items. Define the $j^{th}$ \emph{window} $W_j := (n_{j}, n_{j+1}]$,
and let $\eps_j := \sqrt{\delta/2^j}$. After seeing $n_j$ items, the
threshold $\tau_j$ is the value of the $(1-\eps_j)k_j^{th}$-largest
item among these $n_j$ items. The algorithm ignores the items
before $n_0$, and then in each subsequent window $W_j$ it chooses
any items with value at least $\tau_j$.
}
As in Theorem~\ref{thm:kItemObiv}, we first show that none of the
thresholds $\tau_j$ are ``too low'' (so we never run out of budget $k$).
Indeed, for $\tau_j$ to lie below $v' := \min_{i \in S^\star} v_i$,
less than $(1-\eps_j)k_j$ items from $S^\star$ should fall in
the first $n_j$ items. Since we expect $k_j$ of them, the probability of
this is at most $\exp(-\eps_j^2 k_j) = \exp(-\delta^2 k) = 1/\poly(k)$.
Next, we claim that $\tau_j$ is not ``too high'': it is
with high probability at most the
value of the $(1 - 2 \eps_j) k^{th}$ highest item in $S^\star$
(thus all thresholds are at most $(1 - 2 \eps_0) k^{th}$ highest value).
Indeed, we expect $(1- 2 \eps_j) k_j$ of these
highest items
to appear in the first $n_j$ arrivals, and the probability that more
than $(1-\eps_j) k_j$ appear is $\exp(-\eps_j^2 k_j) = 1/\poly(k)$.
Taking a union bound over all $j \in [0,\log \nicefrac1\delta]$, with high
probability all thresholds are neither too high nor too low. Condition on
this good event.
Now any of the top $(1-2\eps_0)k$ items will be picked if it
arrives after first the $n_0$ arrivals (since no threshold is too high
and we never run out of budget $k$),
i.e., with probability $(1- \delta)$. Similarly, any item
which is in top $(1-2 \eps_{j+1})k$, but not in top $(1-2 \eps_{j})k$, will be
picked if it arrives after $n_{j+1}$, i.e., with probability $(1- 2^{j+1}\delta)$. Thus
if $v_{\max} = v_1 > \ldots > v_k$ are the top $k$ items, we get
an expected value of
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{i = 1}^{(1-2\eps_0)k} v_i (1-\delta) + \sum_{j = 0}^{\log
\nicefrac1\delta -1} ~\sum_{i = (1-2\eps_j)k}^{(1-2\eps_{j+1})k} v_i
(1-2^{j+1}\delta).
\end{gather*}
This is at least $V^\star(1-\delta) - \nicefrac{V^\star}k \big( \sum_{j = 0}^{\log
\nicefrac1\delta } 2\eps_{j+1}k \cdot 2^{j+1}\delta \big)$ because
the negative terms are maximized when the
top $k$ items are all equal to $\nicefrac{V^\star}k$. Simplifying, we get
$V^\star(1- O(\delta))$, as claimed.
\end{proof}
The logarithmic term in $\delta$
can be removed (see the notes), but the loss of $\sqrt{k}$ is essential.
Here is a sketch of the lower bound. By Yao's minimax lemma, it suffices
to give a distribution over instances that causes a large loss for any
deterministic algorithm.
Suppose each item has value $0$ with
probability $1- \frac{k}{n}$, else it has value $1$ or $2$ with equal
probability. The number of non-zero items is therefore
$k \pm O(\sqrt{k})$ with high probability, with about half $1$'s and half
$2$'s, i.e., $V^\star = 3k/2 \pm O(\sqrt{k})$. Ideally, we want to pick all the $2$'s and then
fill the remaining $k/2 \pm O(\sqrt{k})$ slots using the $1$'s. However, consider
the state of the algorithm after $n/2$ arrivals. Since the
algorithm doesn't know how many $2$'s will arrive in the second half, it
doesn't know how many $1$'s to pick in the first half. Hence, it will
either lose about $\Theta(\sqrt{k})$ $2$'s in the second half, or it will
pick $\Theta(\sqrt{k})$ too few $1$'s from the first half. Either way, the
algorithm will lose $\Omega(V^\star/\sqrt{k} )$ value.
\subsubsection{Solving Packing Integer Programs} \label{sec:LPsRandOrder}
The problem of picking a max-value subset of $k$ items
can
be vastly generalized. Indeed, if each item $i$ has size
$a_i \in [0,1]$ and we can pick items having total size $k$, we get the knapsack
problem. More generally, suppose we have $k$
units each of $d$
different resources, and item $i$ is specified by the amount
$a_{ij} \in [0,1]$ of each resource $j \in \{1,\ldots,d\}$ it uses if
picked; we can pick any subset of items/vectors which can be supported by our
resources.
Formally, a set of $n$ different $d$-dimensional vectors
$\ba_1, \ba_2, \ldots, \ba_n \in [0,1]^d$ arrive in a random order, each
having an associated value $v_i$. We can pick any
subset of items subject to the associated vectors summing to at most $k$ in each
coordinate. (All vectors and values are initially unknown,
and on arrival of a vector we must irrevocably pick or
discard it.) We want to maximize the expected
value of the picked vectors. This gives
a packing
integer program:
\begin{equation*}
\max \sum_i v_i x_i \quad \text{s.t.} \quad \sum_i x_i \ba_i
\leq k \cdot \mathbf{1} \text{~~and~~} x_i \in \{0,1\}, \label{eq:packlp}
\end{equation*}
where the vectors arrive in a random order. Let
$V^\star := \max_{\mathbf{x} \in \{0,1\}^d}\{ \mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{x} \mid A\mathbf{x} \leq k
\mathbf{1}\}$ be the optimal value, where $A \in [0,1]^{d\times n}$ has
columns $\ba_i$. The multiple-secretary problem is modeled by
$A$ having a single row of all ones.
By extending the approach from Theorem~\ref{thm:kItemsAdap}
considerably, one can achieve a competitive ratio of
$(1 - O(\sqrt{(\log d)/k}))$. In fact, several algorithms using
varying approaches are known, each giving the above competitive ratio.
We now sketch a weaker result.
To begin, we
allow the variables to be fractional ($x_i \in [0,1]$) instead of
integers ($x_i \in \{0,1\}$).
Since we assume the capacity $k$ is much larger than
$\log d$, we can use randomized rounding to go back
from fractional to integer solutions with a little loss in value.
One of the key ideas is that
learning a threshold
can be viewed as learning optimal dual values for this linear
program.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:LPs}
There exists an algorithm to solve packing LPs in the RO model to
achieve expected value $V^\star \big(1 - O( \sqrt{\frac{d\log n}{k}}) \big)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}(Sketch) The proof is similar to that of
Theorem~\ref{thm:kItemsAdap}. The algorithm uses windows of
exponentially increasing sizes and (re-)estimates the optimal duals in
each window. Let $\delta := \sqrt{\frac{d\log n}{k}}$; we will
motivate this choice soon. As before, let $n_j = 2^j \delta n$,
$k_j = (k/n) n_j$, $\eps_j = \sqrt{\delta/2^j}$, and the window
$W_j = (n_j, n_{j+1}]$. Now, our thresholds are the $d$-dimensional
optimal dual variables $\pmb{\tau}_j$ for the linear program:
\begin{equation}
\textstyle {\max \sum_{i=1}^{n_j} v_i x_i \quad \text{s.t.} \quad
\sum_{i=1}^{n_j} x_i \ba_i \leq (1-\eps_j)k_j \cdot \mathbf{1}
\text{~~and~~} x_i \in [0,1].} \label{eq:LPAdap}
\end{equation}
Having computed $\pmb{\tau}_j$ at time $n_j$, the algorithm picks an
item $i\in W_j$ if $v_i \geq \pmb{\tau}_j \cdot \ba_i$. In the
$1$-dimensional multiple-secretary case, the dual is just the value of
the $(1-\eps_j)k_j^{th}$ largest-value item among the first $n_j$,
matching the choice in Theorem~\ref{thm:kItemsAdap}. In general, the
dual $\pmb{\tau}_j$ can be thought of as the
price-per-unit-consumption for every resource; we want to select $i$
only if its value $v_i$ is more than the total price
$\pmb{\tau}_j \cdot \ba_i$.
Let us sketch why the dual vector $\pmb{\tau}_j$ is not ``too low'':
i.e., the dual $\pmb{\tau}_j$ computed is (with high probability) such
that the set
$\{ \ba_i \mid \pmb{\tau}_j \cdot \ba_i \leq v_i, i \in [n] \}$ of all
columns that satisfy the threshold $\pmb{\tau}_j$ is still feasible.
Indeed, suppose a price vector $\pmb{\tau}$ is \emph{bad}, and using
it as threshold on the entire set causes the usage of some resource to
exceed $k$. If $\pmb{\tau}$ it is an optimal dual at time $n_j$, the
usage of that same resource by the first $n_j$ items is at most
$(1-\eps_j)k_j$ by the LP~\eqref{eq:LPAdap}. A Chernoff-Hoeffding
bound shows that this happens with probability at most
$\exp(-\eps_j^2 k_j) = o(1/n^d)$, by our choice of $\delta$. Now the crucial idea is to prune
the (infinite) set of dual vectors to at most $n^d$ by only
considering a subset of vectors using which the algorithm makes
different decisions. Roughly, there are $n$ choices of prices in each
of the $d$ dimensions, giving us $n^d$ different possible bad dual
vectors; a union-bound now gives the proof.
\end{proof}
As mentioned above, a stronger version of this result has an additive loss
$O(\sqrt{\frac{\log d}{k}}) V^\star$. Such a result is interesting only
when $k \gg \log d$, so this is called the ``large budget''
assumption. How well can we solve packing problems without such an
assumption?
Specifically, given a downwards-closed family $\calF \subseteq 2^{[n]}$,
suppose we want to pick a subset of items having high total value and
lying in $\calF$.
For the
information-theoretic question where computation is not a concern, the
best known upper bound is $\Omega(V^\star/\log^2 n)$, and
there
are families where $\Omega(V^\star/\frac{\log n}{\log\log n})$ is not
possible (see Exercise~\ref{exer:packLowerBound}). Can we close this
gap? Also, which downward-closed families $\calF$ admit efficient
algorithms with good guarantees?
\subsubsection{Max-Weight Matchings}
\label{sec:combAuctionsRandom}
Consider a bipartite graph on $n$ agents and $m$ items.
Each agent $i$ has a value $v_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ for
item $j$. The maximum-weight matching problem is to
find an assignment
$M:[n] \rightarrow [m] $ to maximize $\sum_{i\in [n]} v_{iM(i)}$
such that no item $j$ is assigned to more than
one agent, i.e., $|M^{-1}(j)| \leq 1$ for all $j \in [m]$.
In the online setting, which
has applications to allocating advertisements, the $m$ items are given
up-front and the $n$ agents arrive one by one. Upon arriving, agent $i$
reveals their valuations $v_{ij}$ for $j \in [m]$, whereupon we may irrevocably
allocate one of the remaining items to $i$.
Let $V^\star$ denote the value of the optimal matching. The case of
$m=1$ with a single item is exactly the single-item secretary problem.
\ignore{
Consider a bipartite graph on $n$ agents and $m$ items. Each agent
$i \in [n]$ has a \emph{valuation} function
$f_i: 2^{[m]} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ for subsets of items. The
\emph{welfare maximization} problem is to partition the items into $n$
sets where agent $i$ is allocated set $S_i$ of items; the goal is to
maximize the total \emph{welfare} $\sum_i f_i(S_i)$. (See the notes for
connections to combinatorial auctions.) In the online setting, which
has applications to allocating advertisements, the $m$ items are given
up-front and the $n$ agents arrive one by one. Upon arriving, agent $i$
reveals their valuation function $f_i$, whereupon we need to irrevocably
allocate a subset $S_i$ of the remaining items to them. Let $V^\star$ denote the optimal welfare. The case of
$m=1$ with a single item is exactly the single-item secretary problem.
For simplicity, we study the practically interesting and computationally
tractable case of \emph{unit-demand} functions, where each agent's value
for a set $S$ is given by their value for the best single item in
$S$. I.e., there are ``edge'' values $v_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$
for $i\in [n]$ and $j\in [m]$ such that $f_i(S) = \max_{j\in S}
v_{ij}$. In this case, we only assign singleton sets to players,
and the ideal solution is a max-value matching in the bipartite graph.
}
The main algorithmic technique in this section almost seems na\"{\i}ve
at first glance: after ignoring the few first arrivals, we make each
subsequent decision based on an optimal solution of the arrivals until
that point, \emph{ignoring} all past decisions. For the matching
problem, this idea translates to the following:
\begin{algo}
Ignore the first $n/e$ agents. When agent $i \in (n/e,n]$
arrives:
\begin{enumerate
\item Compute a max-value matching $M^{(i)}$ for the first $i$
arrivals (ignoring past decisions).
\item If $M^{(i)}$ matches the current agent $i$ to item $j$, and if $j$
is still available, then allocate $j$ to agent $i$; else, give
nothing to agent $i$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
(We assume that the matching $M^{(i)}$ depends only on the
identities of the first $i$ requests, and is independent of their
arrival order.)
We show the power of
this idea by proving that it gives optimal competitiveness for
matchings.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:MWM-basic}
The algorithm gives a matching with expected value at least $V^\star/e$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
There are two insights into the proof. The first is that the matching
$M^{(i)}$ is on a random subset of $i$ of the $n$ requests, and so has
an expected value at least $(i/n) V^\star$. The $i^{th}$
agent is a random one of these and so gets expected value $V^\star/n$.
The second idea is to show, like in Theorem~\ref{thm:secy}, that if
agent $i$ is matched to item $j$ in $M^{(i)}$, then $j$ is
free with probability $\frac{n}{e i}$. Indeed, condition on the set,
but not the order, of first $i$ agents (which fixes $M^{(i)}$) and
the identity of the $i^{th}$ agent (which fixes $j$). Now for any
$k \in (n/e, i)$, the item $j$ was allocated to the $k^{th}$ agent
with probability at most $\frac{1}{k}$ (because even if $j$ is matched
in $M^{(k)}$, the probability of the corresponding agent being the
$k^{th}$ agent is at most $1/k$). The arrival order of the first $k-1$
agents is irrelevant for this event, so we can do this
argument for all $s<k$: the probability
$j$ was allocated to the $s^{th}$ agent, conditioned on $j$ not
being allocated to the $k^{th}$ agent,
is at most $\frac{1}{s}$.
So the probability that $j$ is available for agent $i$ is at least
$\prod_{n/e<k<i} \big( 1 - \frac{1}{k}\big) \approx \frac{n}{e i}$.
Combining these two ideas and using linearity of expectation, the
expected total matching value is at least
$ \sum_{i=1+n/e}^n \big( \nicefrac{n}{e i} \cdot \nicefrac{V^\star}{n} \big) \approx \nicefrac{V^\star}{e}.
$
\end{proof}
This approach can be extended to combinatorial auctions where
each agent $i$ has a submodular (or an XOS) valuation $v_i$
and can be assigned a subset $S_i \subseteq [m]$ of items;
the goal is to maximize total welfare $\sum_i v_i(S_i)$.
\ignore{ submodular and XOS valuation
functions {(see notes)}: such functions have a property that
after fixing any allocation $S_1\cup\ldots \cup S_n$, there exist
natural \emph{linear} ``support'' prices $\bf{v}_i$ that satisfy
$f_i(S_i) = \sum_{j\in S_i} v_{ij}$, which essentially reduces the
analysis to singleton sets. }
Also, this approach of following the
current solution (ignoring past decisions) extends to solving
packing LPs: the algorithm solves a slightly scaled-down version of the current LP
at each step $i$ and sets the variable $x_i$
according to the obtained solution.
\section{Minimization Problems}
\label{sec:comb}
We now study \emph{minimization} problems in the RO
model. In these problems the goal is to {minimize} some notion of cost
(e.g., the length of augmenting paths, or the number of bins) subject to
fulfilling some requirements. All the algorithms in this section are
order-adaptive. We use $OPT$ to denote both the optimal solution on the
instance $S$ and its cost.
\subsection{Minimizing Augmentations in Online Matching}
\label{sec:matching}
We start with one reason why the RO model might help for online discrete
minimization problems. Consider a problem to be ``well-behaved'' if
there is always a solution of cost $\approx OPT$ to serve the remaining
requests. This is clearly true at the beginning of the input sequence,
and we want it to remain true over time---i.e., poor choices in the past
should not cause the optimal solution on the remaining requests to
become much more expensive. Moreover, suppose that the problem cost is
``additive'' over the requests. Then satisfying the next request, which
by the RO property is a random one of $i$ remaining requests, should
cost $\approx OPT/i$ in expectation. Summing over all $n$ requests gives
an expected cost of
$\approx OPT(\frac1n + \frac{1}{n-1} + \ldots + \frac12 + 1) = O(\log
n)\, OPT$. (This general idea is reminiscent of that for max-weight
matchings from \S\ref{sec:orderAdap}, albeit in a
minimization setting.)
To illustrate this idea, we consider an online bipartite matching problem.
Let $G = (U, V, E)$ be a bipartite graph with $|U|=|V|=n$. Initially
the algorithm does not know the edge set $E$ of the graph, and hence
the initial matching $M_0 = \emptyset$. At each time step
$t \in [1, n]$, all edges incident to the $t^{th}$ vertex
$u_t \in U$ are revealed. If the previous matching $M_{t-1}$ is no
longer a maximum matching among the current set of edges, the algorithm
must perform an augmentation to obtain a maximum matching $M_t$. We do
not want the matchings to change too drastically, so we define the cost
incurred by the algorithm at step $t$ to be the length of the augmenting
path $M_{t-1} \triangle M_t$. The goal is to minimize the total cost of
the algorithm. (For simplicity, assume $G$ has a perfect
matching and $OPT = n$, so we need to augment at each step.)
A natural algorithm is \emph{shortest augmenting path} (see Figure~\ref{fig:SAP}):
\begin{algo}
When a request $u_t \in U$ arrives:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Augment along a shortest alternating path $P_t$ from $u_t$ to some
unmatched vertex in $V$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{matchingEPS}
\caption{(i) The graph $G$ with a perfect matching shown by dashed edges. (ii) An
intermediate matching $M_2$. (iii) The matching $M_3$ after the
next request arrives at $d$.}\label{fig:SAP}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:SAP}
The shortest augmenting path algorithm incurs in total $O(n \log n)$
augmentation cost in expectation in the RO model.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix an optimal matching $M^*$, and consider some time step during the
algorithm's execution. Suppose the current maximum matching $M$ has
size $n-k$. As a thought experiment, if all the remaining $k$ vertices
in $U$ are revealed at once, the symmetric difference $M^* \triangle
M$ forms $k$ node-disjoint alternating paths from these remaining $k$
vertices to unmatched nodes in $V$. Augmenting along these paths
would gives us the optimal matching. The sum of lengths of these paths
is at most $|M^*|+|M| \leq 2n$. (Observe that the cost of the optimal
solution on the remaining requests does increase over time, but only
by a constant factor.) Now, since the next vertex is chosen uniformly at
random, its augmenting path in the above collection---and hence the
\emph{shortest} augmenting path from this vertex---has expected length
at most $2n/k$. Now summing over all $k$ from $n$ down to
$1$ gives a total expected cost of $2n \big(\frac1n + \frac{1}{n-1}
+ \ldots + \frac12 + 1 \big) = 2nH_n = O(n \log n)$, hence
proving the theorem.
\end{proof}
This $O(\log n)$-competitiveness guarantee happens to be tight for this
matching problem in the RO model; see Exercise~\ref{exer:minAug}.
\subsection{Bin Packing}
\label{sec:binpacking}
In the classical bin-packing problem (which you may recall from Chapter~8), the request sequence consists of
items of sizes $s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_n$; these items need to be packed into
bins of unit capacity. (We assume each $s_i \leq 1$.) The goal is to
minimize the number of bins used. One popular algorithm is \textsc{Best
Fit}:
\begin{algo}
When the next item (with size $s_t$) arrives:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the item does not fit in any currently used bin, put it in a
new bin. Else,
\item Put into a bin where the resulting empty space is minimized (i.e.,
where it fits ``best'').
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
\textsc{Best Fit} uses no more than $2\,OPT$ bins in the worst
case. Indeed, the sum of item sizes in any two of the bins is strictly
more than $1$, else we would never have started the later of these
bins. Hence we use at most $\lceil 2 \sum_i s_i \rceil$ bins, whereas $OPT$ must be at
least $\lceil \sum_i s_i \rceil$, since each bin holds at most unit total size. A more sophisticated analysis
shows that \textsc{Best Fit} uses $1.7\, OPT + O(1)$ bins on any request
sequence, and this multiplicative factor of $1.7$ is the best possible.
The examples showing the lower bound of $1.7$ are intricate, but a
lower bound of $\nicefrac32$ is much easier to show, and also
illustrates why \textsc{Best Fit} does better in the RO model. Consider
$n/2$ items of size $\nicefrac12^- := \nicefrac12 - \eps$, followed by
$n/2$ items of size $\nicefrac12^+ := \nicefrac12 + \eps$.
While the optimal solution uses $n/2$
bins, \textsc{Best Fit} uses $3n/4$ bins on this adversarial sequence,
since it pairs up the $\nicefrac12^-$ items with each other, and then
has to use one bin per $\nicefrac12^+$ item. On the other hand, in the
RO case, the imbalance between the two kinds of items behaves very
similar to a symmetric random walk on the integers. (It is
exactly such a random walk, but conditioned on starting and ending at
the origin). The number of $\nicefrac12^+$ items that occupy a bin by
themselves can now be bounded in terms of the maximum deviation from the
origin (see Exercise~\ref{ex:bin-p}), which is $O(\sqrt{n \log n}) =
o(OPT)$ with high probability. Hence on this instance \textsc{Best Fit} uses only
$(1+o(1))\, OPT$ bins in the RO model, compared to $1.5\, OPT$ in the
adversarial order. On general instances, we get:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:BP}
The \textsc{Best Fit} algorithm uses at most $(1.5 + o(1))\, OPT$ bins
in the RO setting.
\end{theorem}
\onlyforshort{The key insight in the proof of this result is a
``scaling'' result, saying that any $\eps n$-length subsequence of the
input has an optimal value $\eps OPT$, plus lower-order terms. The
proof uses the random order property and
concentration-of-measure. Observe that the worst-case example does not
satisfy this scaling property: the second half of that instance has
optimal value $n/2$, the same as for the entire instance. (Such a
scaling property is often the crucial difference between the
worst-case and RO moels: e.g., we used this in the algorithm for
packing LPs in \S\ref{sec:LPsRandOrder}.)
}
\saveforlong{
\begin{proof}(Sketch)
The proof of this result has two insights. The first is a ``scaling'' result
which uses the random order property and concentration-of-measure. It
says that for any $t$, if we look at the sub-instance given by the first
(or the last) $t$ requests, the optimal bin-packing solution on that
sub-instance uses about $\frac{t}{n} OPT$ bins, plus or minus
$O(\sqrt{OPT \log OPT})$ with high probability. Observe such a claim is
not true for adversarial instances (e.g., the one with $\nicefrac12^-$
and $\nicefrac12^+$-sized items).
Hence, for any choice of $t^*$ if we consider the two subinstances given
by requests in $\{1, \ldots, t^*\}$ and $\{t^*+1, \ldots, n\}$, the
optimum values on this prefix and suffix sum to $OPT$ plus lower order
terms, by the scaling result above. If we choose a time $t^*$ such that
the algorithm is $1.5$-competitive on both the subinstances, we'd be
done.
The second insight is this choice of $t^*$. Indeed, let $t^*$ be
the last timestep when (a)~the arriving item of size $s_{t^*}$ satisfies
$s_{t^*} \leq \nicefrac13$, and also (b)~the algorithm places this item
into a bin with at least $\nicefrac12$ empty space before getting this
item. If there is no such time, set $t^* = 0$.
By the properties of \textsc{Best Fit}, every other bin (except the one
getting item $t^*$) must be full to at least
$1 - s_{t^*} \geq \nicefrac23$---so the algorithm is $1.5$-competitive
on the subinstance $\{1,\ldots,t^*\}$. Moreover, any bins opened after
this time (except maybe the last one) will contain two items of size
$> \nicefrac13$ or one item of size $> \nicefrac12$, and it is easy to
argue now that \textsc{Best Fit} is $1.5$-competitive for these bins.
\end{proof}
}
The exact performance of \textsc{Best Fit} in RO model remains
unresolved: the best known lower bound uses
$1.07\, OPT$ bins. Can we close this gap? Also, can we analyze other
common heuristics in this model? E.g., \textsc{First Fit} places the
next request in the bin that was started the earliest, and can
accommodate the item. Exercise~\ref{exer:binPacking} asks you to
show that the \textsc{Next Fit} heuristic does not
benefit from the random ordering, and has a competitive ratio of $2$ in
both the adversarial and RO models.
\subsection{Facility Location}
\label{sec:facility-location}
A slightly different algorithmic intuition is used for the \emph{online
facility location} problem, which is related to the $k$-means and
$k$-median clustering problems.
In this problem, we are given a metric space $(V,d)$ with point set $V$, and distances
$d: V\times V \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ satisfying the triangle
inequality. Let $f \geq 0$ be the cost of opening a facility; the
algorithm can be extended to cases where different locations have
different facility costs. Each
request is specified by a point in the metric space, and let
$R_t = \{r_1, \ldots, r_t\}$ be the (multi)-set of request points that
arrive by time $t$. A solution at time $t$ is a set $F_t \sse V$ of
``facilities'' whose opening cost is $f\cdot |F_t|$, and whose
connection cost is the sum of distances from every request to its
closest facility in $F_t$, i.e.,
$\sum_{j \in R_t} \min_{i \in F_t} d(j,i)$. An open facility remains
open forever, so we require $F_{t-1} \sse F_t$. We want the algorithm's
total cost (i.e., the opening plus connection costs) at time $t$ to be
at most a constant times the optimal total cost for $R_t$ in the RO
model. Such a result is impossible in the adversarial arrival model,
where a tight $\Theta(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$ worst-case
competitiveness is known.
There is a tension between the two components of the cost: opening more
facilities increases the opening cost, but reduces the connection cost.
Also, when request $r_t$ arrives,
if its distance to its closest facility in $F_{t-1}$ is more than $f$,
it is definitely better (in a greedy sense) to open a new facility at
$r_t$ and pay the opening cost of $f$, than to pay the connection cost
more than $f$. This suggests the following algorithm:
\begin{algo}
When a request $r_t$ arrives:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $d_t := \min_{i \in F_{t-1}} d(r_t, i)$ be its distance to
the closest facility in $F_{t-1}$.
\item Set $F_t \gets F_{t-1} \cup \{r_t\}$ with probability
$p_t := \min\{1, d_t/f\}$, and $F_t \gets F_{t-1}$ otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
Observe that the choice of $p_t$ approximately balances the expected
opening cost $p_t \cdot f \leq d_t$ with the expected connection cost
$(1-p_t) d_t \leq d_t$. Moreover, since the set of facilities increases
over time, a request may be reassigned to a closer facility later in the
algorithm; however, the analysis works even assuming the request $r_t$
is permanently assigned to its closest facility in $F_t$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:FACLOC}
The above algorithm is $O(1)$-competitive in the RO model.
\end{theorem}
The insight behind the proof is a charging argument that first
classifies each request as ``easy'' (if they are close to a facility in
the optimal solution, and hence cheap) or ``difficult'' (if they are far
from their facility). There are an equal number of each type, and the
random permutation ensures that easy and difficult requests are roughly
interleaved. This way, each difficult request can be paired with its
preceding easy one, and this pairing can be used to bound their cost.
\saveforlong{
\begin{proof}(Sketch)
For simplicity assume that $f = 1$, and all distances are at most $1$,
so that $\min \{1, d_t/f\} = d_t$. Consider some facility $i^*$ in
the optimal solution, and let $S$ be the set of request indices served
by it, i.e., those for which the closest facility is $i^*$. Let
$d^* := \frac{1}{|S|} \sum_{j \in S} d(r_j,i^*)$ be the distance from
an average request point in $S$ to the facility~$i^*$. The optimal
cost to open facility $i^*$ and serve these requests is
\[ OPT_S := \textstyle f + \sum_{j \in S} d(r_j,i^*) = 1 + |S| d^*. \]
Observe that in our algorithm, each request point $r_t$ pays $f=1$
with probability $\min(1,d_t/f) = d_t$, and $d_t$ otherwise. Summing
these two, the expected cost for request $r_t$ is at most $2d_t$, and
hence it suffices to show that the algorithm's cost for requests in $S$,
which is $\sum_{j \in S} d_j$, is at most $O(1) \cdot OPT_S$.
Sort all requests in $S$ in order of their distance from the facility
$i^*$, and call the first half the ``close'' requests $C$, and the
second half the ``distant'' requests $D$. The close requests are at
distance at most $2d^*$ from the facility by Markov's
inequality. Note that once we open a facility $j$ in $C$, each of the
subsequent requests $j'$ pays at most
$d_{j'} \leq d(j',j) \leq d(j',i^*) + d(j,i^*) \leq d(j',i^*) + 2d^*$,
which sum to at most $OPT_S + 2d^*|S| \leq 3OPT_S$. Hence, we need to
bound the cost incurred by requests that arrive before any facility is
opened inside $S$.
We first ``charge'' the distant requests to the close requests. Indeed,
consider the (random) arrival ordering: each distant request $j \in D$
charges to its preceding close request $j' \in C$ in this ordering (if
any). Since $j$ can use the same facility as $j'$, the distance
$d_j \leq d_{j'} + d(r_j, r_{j'}) \leq d_{j'} + d(r_j, i^*) +
d(r_{j'}, i^*) $. Now by the random ordering and the fact that
$|C| = |D|$, each close request $j' \in C$ only has a single distant
request $j \in D$ charging to it in expectation, so summing gives that
$\E[\sum_{j \in D} d_j] \leq \E[\sum_{j \in C} d_j] + O(OPT_S)$. (The
distant requests that come before all close requests have to be
charged separately as below; we skip the details.)
Finally, it remains to bound the expected cost for the close requests
before we open any close facilities: for each request $j$, we pay
$d_j$ and the process stops (since we open a facility) with
probability $d_j$, else we continue. A simple calculation shows that
the total expected cost is at most $1$.
\end{proof}
To summarize: we used the random ordering to create a matching between
the distant (``difficult'') and the close (``easy'') requests, and charged
the former to the latter. The latter we bounded by the triangle
inequality, and the fact that we open facilities with probability
proportional to how much we pay at each step.
}
\newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
\section{Related Models and Extensions}
\label{sec:others}
There have been other online models related to RO arrival.
Broadly, these models can be classified either as ``adding more
randomness'' to the RO model by making further stochastic assumptions on
the arrivals, or as ``limiting randomness'' where the arrival sequence
need not be uniformly random. The former lets us exploit the
increased stochasticity to design algorithms with better performance
guarantees; the latter help us quantify the robustness of the
algorithms, and the limitations of
the RO model.
\subsection{Adding More Randomness} \label{sec:addRandom}
The RO model is at least as general as the
\emph{i.i.d.\ model}, which assumes a probability distribution $\calD$
over potential requests where each request is an independent draw from
the distribution $\calD$. Hence, all the above RO results immediately
translate to the i.i.d.\ model. Is the converse also true---i.e., can we
obtain identical algorithmic results in the two models? The next case
study answers this question negatively, and then illustrates how to use
the knowledge of the underlying distribution to perform better.
\iffalse
Clearly, such a request sequence satisfies the RO property; however, the
i.i.d.\ model can often be easier to argue about (due to the lack of
correlations between requests), and better algorithms are possible.
There is a further distinction to be made: the algorithm may either be
given some form of access to distribution $\calD$ (the \emph{known
i.i.d.} case), or it may not (the \emph{unknown i.i.d.} case). The
latter model is much closer to random arrivals; e.g., for the
secretary problem, an $e$-competitiveness is the best
possible result in both unknown i.i.d.\ and RO models. However, we can
do better in the known i.i.d.\ case.
\fi
\iffalse
\subsubsection{Single item in the i.i.d.\ model}
Consider the single-item problem for which we saw an $e$-competitive
algorithm in the RO model in Theorem~\ref{thm:secy}. Can we do better
when the values are i.i.d.\ draws from a \emph{known} distribution?
We have already seen one answer to this question in Chapter~8. Indeed,
the single-item \emph{prophet inequality} implies that for known value
distributions we can be $2$-competitive, even when these
distributions are not identical and are presented in an adversarial
arrival order. For identical value distributions, an improved
$\approx 1.34$-competitive algorithm is possible by adaptively changing the
thresholds. We show a weaker, simpler algorithm that uses a \emph{fixed}
threshold.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:singleItemIID}
For i.i.d.\ arrivals from a known value distribution $\calD$, there
exists a fixed-threshold $\nicefrac{e}{(e-1)}$-competitive
algorithm.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $v_1, \ldots, v_n$ be the random variables denoting $n$
independent draws from $\calD$ which arrive one by one, and
let $v_{\max} = \max_{i = 1}^n v_i$ denote their maximum.
Since we know the distribution, we can compute a threshold
$\tau$ such that $\Pr[v_{\max} \geq \tau] = 1-1/e$. (For simplicity,
we assume $\calD$ is a continuous distribution over the
reals, so this is well-defined.)
The algorithm picks the first value that is at least $\tau$.
The crucial idea is to view the process as a sequence of buyers
arriving with the $i^{th}$ buyer having a value of $v_i$ for some
item. The item has a price of $\tau$, and the first buyer who exceeds
the price (say buyer $i$) gets the item. This results in
\emph{revenue} $\tau$ to the seller and \emph{utility} $(v_i - \tau)$
to the buyer; hence the value picked is the sum of the seller's
revenue and the buyer's utility. By the choice of the threshold, the item
is sold with probability $1-1/e$, and hence we get
$\E[\text{revenue}] = (1-1/e)\tau$. We now show that
$\E[\text{utility}]\geq (1-1/e)\cdot (\E[\max_i v_i] - \tau)$, which
after summing implies expected value is at least
$ (1-1/e)\cdot \E[\max_i v_i].$
For the proof, we associate each arrival with a ``time'' as follows:
we pick $n$ times uniformly at random from $[0,1]$, and sort them
to get $T_1 \leq \ldots \leq T_n$. We now imagine that the value $v_i$
arrives at time $T_i$. For a lower bound on the utility, we claim that
the probability with which no item is picked until time $t$
is at least
$\exp(-t)$. Indeed, $\Pr[\text{nothing picked until } t] = \prod_i
\Pr[v_i \text{ not picked until } t] =
\big(1-t \cdot \Pr[v_i > \tau]\big)^n \geq \exp(-t)$ (see
Exercise~\ref{exer:singleItemFixedThresh}). Now,
\begin{align*}
\E[\text{utility}] &= \int_{t=0}^1 \textstyle{\sum_i} \Pr[\text{nothing picked until $i$} \mid T_i =t] \cdot \E[(v_i - \tau)^+] \cdot dt \\
& \geq \int_{t=0}^1 \textstyle{\sum_i} \exp(-t) \cdot \E[(v_i - \tau)^+] dt ~~\geq~~ (1-1/e)\cdot \big( \E[\max_i v_i] - \tau \big),
\end{align*}
where the last inequality uses $\sum_i \E[(v_i - \tau)^+] \geq \E[(\max_i v_i - \tau)^+]$.
\end{proof}
The above algorithm used its knowledge of the distribution to compute a
good threshold and improve over the RO model; in the next example we
will build a solution on $n$ samples from the distribution to prepare for the actual $n$ requests.
\fi
\subsubsection{Steiner Tree in the RO model}
\label{sec:steiner-tree}
In the online Steiner tree problem, we are given a metric space $(V,d)$, which can be
thought of as a complete graph with edge weights $d(u,v)$; each request
is a vertex in $V$. Let $R_t = \{r_1, \ldots, r_t\}$ be the
(multi)-set of request vertices that arrive by time~$t$. When a
request $r_t$ arrives, the algorithm must pick some edges $E_t \subseteq
\binom{V}{2}$, so that edges $E_1 \cup \cdots \cup E_t$ picked till
now connect $R_t$ into a single component. The cost of each edge
$\{u,v\}$ is its length $d(u,v)$, and the goal is to minimize the total cost.
The first algorithm we may imagine is the greedy algorithm, which picks a
single edge connecting $r_t$ to the closest previous request in
$R_{t-1}$. This greedy algorithm is $O(\log n)$-competitive for any
request sequence of length $n$ in the worst-case. Surprisingly, there
are lower bounds of $\Omega(\log n)$, not just for adversarial arrivals,
but also for the RO model. Let us discuss how the logarithmic
lower bound for the adversarial model translates to one for
the RO model.
There are two properties of the Steiner tree problem that make this
transformation possible. The first is that duplicating requests does not
change the cost of the Steiner tree, but making many copies of a request
makes it likely that one of these copies will appear early in the RO
sequence. Hence, if we take a fixed request sequence $\sigma$, duplicate
the $i^{th}$ request $C^{n-i}$ times (for some large $C > 1$), apply a uniform random
permutation, and remove all but the first copy of each original request,
the result looks close to $\sigma$ with high probability.
Of course, the sequence length increases from $n$
to $\approx C^n$, and hence the lower bound goes from
being logarithmic to being doubly
logarithmic in the sequence length.
We now use a second property of Steiner tree: the worst-case examples
consist of $n$ requests that can be given in $\log n$ batches, with
the $i^{th}$ batch containing $\approx 2^i$ requests---it turns out that
giving so much information in parallel does not help the algorithm. Since we
don't care about the relative ordering within the batches, we can
duplicate the requests in the $i^{th}$ \emph{batch} $C^i$
times, thereby making the resulting request sequences of length $\leq
C^{1+\log n}$. It is now easy to set $C = n$ to get a
lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$, but a careful
analysis allows us to set $C$ to be a constant, and get an
$\Omega(\log n)$ lower bound for the RO setting.
\subsubsection{Steiner Tree in the i.i.d. model}
\label{sec:steiner-tree-iid}
Given this lower bound for the RO model, what if we make stronger
assumptions about the randomness in the input? What if the arrivals are
i.i.d.\ draws from a probability distribution? We now have to make an
important distinction, whether the distribution is known to the
algorithm or not. The lower bound of the previous section can easily be
extended to the case where arrivals are from an \emph{unknown}
distribution, so our only hope for a positive result is to
consider the i.i.d.\ model with \emph{known} distributions. In other
words,
each request is a random vertex of the graph, where
vertex $v$ is requested with a known probability $p_v \geq 0$ (and
$\sum_v p_v = 1$). Let $\mathbf{p} = (p_1, p_2, \ldots, p_{|V|})$ be the
vector of these probabilities. For simplicity, assume that we know the
length $n$ of the request sequence.
The \emph{augmented greedy} algorithm is the following:
\begin{algo}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $A$ be the (multi-)set of $n-1$ i.i.d.\ samples from the
distribution $\bf{p}$, plus the first request $r_1$.
\item Build a minimum spanning tree $T$ connecting all the vertices
in $A$.
\item For each subsequent request $r_i$ (for $i \geq 2$):
connect $r_i$ to the closest vertex in $A \cup R_{i-1}$ using a
direct edge.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algo}
Note that our algorithm requires minimal knowledge of the underlying
distribution: it merely takes a set of samples that are
stochastically identical to the actual request sequence, and builds the
``anticipatory'' tree connecting this sample. Now the hope is that the
real requests will look similar to the samples, and hence will have
close-by vertices to which they can connect.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Steiner-iid}
The augmented greedy algorithm is $4$-competitive for the Steiner tree problem in
the setting of i.i.d.\ requests with known distributions.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since set $A$ is drawn from the same distribution as the actual
request sequence $R_n$, the expected optimal Steiner tree on $A$ also
costs $OPT$. The minimum spanning tree to connect up $A$
is known to give a
$2$-approximate Steiner tree
(Exercise~\ref{exer:steinerProphet}), so the expected cost
for $T$ is $2OPT$.
Next, we need to bound the expected cost of connecting $r_t$ to the
previous tree for $t \geq 2$. Let the samples in $A$ be called $a_2,
a_3, \ldots, a_n$. Root the tree $T$ at $r_1$, and let the ``share''
of $a_t$ from $T$ be the cost of the first edge on the path from $a_t$
to the root. The sum of shares equals the cost of $T$. Now, the cost
to connect $r_t$ is at most the expected minimum distance from $r_t$
to a vertex in $A \setminus \{a_t\}$. But $r_t$ and $a_t$ are from the
same distribution, so this expected minimum distance is bounded by the
expected distance from $a_t$ to its closest neighbor in $T$, which is
at most the expected share of $a_t$. Summing, the connection costs for
the $r_t$ requests is at most the expected cost of $T$, i.e., at most
$2OPT$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The proof above extends to the setting where different requests are
drawn from different known distributions; see Exercise~\ref{exer:steinerProphet}.
\subsection{Reducing the Randomness}
\label{sec:redRandom}
Do we need the order of items to be uniformly random, or can weaker
assumptions suffice for the problems we care about? This question was
partially addressed in \S\ref{sec:order-obliv-algor} where we saw
order-oblivious algorithms. Recall: these algorithms assume a
less-demanding arrival model, where a random fraction of the adversarial
input set $S$ is revealed to the algorithm in a first phase, and the
remaining input set arrives in an adversarial order in the second
phase. We now discuss some other models that have been proposed to
reduce the amount of randomness required from the input. While some
remarkable results have been obtained in these directions, there is
still much
to explore.
\subsubsection{Entropy of the random arrival order}
\label{sec:entr-rand-arriv}
One principled way of quantifying the randomness is to measure the
entropy of the input sequences: a uniformly random permutation on $n$
items has entropy $\log (n!) = O(n \log n)$, whereas order-oblivious
algorithms (where each item is put randomly in either phase) require at most $\log {{n}\choose{n/2}} \leq n$ bits of entropy. Are
there arrival order distributions with even less entropy for which we
can give good algorithms?
This line of research was initiated by \cite{KKN}, who showed the
existence of
arrival-order distributions with entropy only $O(\log\log n)$ that allow
$e$-competitive algorithms for the single-item secretary problem
(and also for some simple multiple-item problems). Moreover, they showed
tightness of their results---for any arrival distribution with
$o(\log\log n)$ entropy
no online algorithm can be $O(1)$-competitive. This work also
defines a notion of
``almost $k$-wise uniformity'', which requires that the induced
distribution on every subset of $k$ items be close to uniform. They
show that this property and its variants suffice for some of
the algorithms, but not for all.
A different perspective is the following: since the performance analysis
for an algorithm in the RO model depends only on certain randomness
properties of the input sequence (which are implied by the random
ordering), it may be meaningful in some cases to (empirically) verify
these specific properties on the actual input stream. E.g., \cite{BCG}
used this approach to explain the experimental efficacy of
their algorithm computing personalized pageranks in the RO model.
\subsubsection{Robustness and the RO Model}
\label{sec:robust-algorithms}
The RO model assumes that the adversary first chooses all the item
values, and then the arrival order is perturbed at random according to
some specified process. While this is a very appealing framework, one
concern is that the algorithms may over-fit the model. What if, as in
some other semi-random models, the adversary gets to make a small number of
changes \emph{after} the randomness has been added? Alternatively, what
if some parts of the input must remain in adversarial order, and the
remainder is randomly permuted? For instance, say the adversary is
allowed to specify a single item which must arrive at some specific
position in the input sequence, or it is allowed to change the position
of a single item after the randomness has been added. Most current
algorithms fail when faced with such modest changes to the model. E.g.,
the 37\%-algorithm picks nothing if the adversary presents a large item
in the beginning. Of course, these algorithms were not designed to be
robust: but can we get analogous results even if
the input sequence is slightly corrupted?
One approach is to give ``best-of-both-worlds'' algorithms that achieve
a good performance when the input is randomly permuted, and which also
have a good worst-case performance in all cases. For instance,
\cite{MirrokniOZ} and \cite{Raghvendra} give such results for online ad
allocation and min-cost matching, respectively. Since the secretary
problem has poor performance in the worst case, we may want
more refined guarantees, that the performance
degrades with the amount of corruption. Here is a different semi-random
model for the multiple-secretary problem from \S\ref{sec:k-items}. In
the \emph{Byzantine} model, the adversary not only chooses the values of
all $n$ items, it also chooses the relative or absolute
order of some $\eps n$ of these items. The remaining $(1-\eps)n$
``good'' items are then randomly permuted within the remaining
positions. The goal is now to compare to the top $k$ items among only
these good items. Some preliminary results are known for this
model~\citep{BradacGSZ-arXiv19}, but many questions remain open. In
general, getting robust algorithms for secretary problems, or other
optimization problems considered in this chapter, remains an important
direction to explore.
\subsection{Extending Random-Order Algorithms to Other Models}
Algorithms for the RO model can help in designing good algorithms for
similar models. One such example is for the \emph{prophet} model, which
is closely
related to the optimal stopping problem in \S1.1.4 of
Chapter~8. In this model, we are given $n$ independent prize-value distributions $D_1,
\ldots, D_n$, and then presented with draws $v_i \sim D_i$ from these
distributions in \emph{adversarial} order. The threshold rule from
Chapter~8, which picks the first prize with value above some threshold
computable from just the distributions, gets expected value at least
$\frac12 \E[\max_i v_i]$. Note the differences between the prophet and
RO models: the prophet model assumes more about
the values---namely, that they are drawn from
the given distributions---but less about the ordering, since the items
can be presented in an adversarial order. Interestingly,
order-oblivious algorithms in the RO model can be used to get algorithms
in the prophet model.
Indeed, suppose we only have limited access to the distributions $D_i$
in the prophet model: we can only get information about them by drawing
a few samples from each distribution. (Clearly we need at least one
sample from the distributions, else we would be back in the online
adversarial model.) Can we use these samples to get algorithms in this
limited-access prophet model for some packing constraint family $\calF$?
The next theorem shows
we can convert order-oblivious algorithms for the RO model
to this setting using only a single
sample from each distribution.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:orderOblivToProph} Given an
$\alpha$-competitive order-oblivious online algorithm for a packing
problem $\calF$, there exists an $\alpha$-competitive algorithm for
the corresponding prophet model with unknown probability
distributions, assuming we have access to one (independent) sample
from each distribution.
\end{theorem}
The idea is to choose a random subset of items to be
presented to the order-oblivious algorithm in the first phase; for these
items we send in the sampled values available to us, and for the
remaining items we use their values among the actual arrivals. The details
are left as Exercise~\ref{exer:orderOblivToProph}.
\section{Notes}
\label{sec:notes}
The classical secretary problem and its variants have long been studied
in optimal stopping theory; see~\cite{Ferguson-Journal89} for a
historical survey. In computer science, the RO model has been used, e.g., for computational geometry problems,
to get fast and elegant
algorithms for problems like convex hulls and linear
programming; see \cite{Seidel} for a survey in the
context of the \emph{backwards analysis} technique.
The secretary problem
has gained broader attention
due to connections to strategyproof
mechanism design for online auctions
\citep{HajiaghayiKP04,kleinberg}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:secyTight} is due to~\cite{GilbertMosteller}.
\S\ref{sec:order-obliv-algor}: The notion of an order-oblivious
algorithm was first defined by \cite{AKW}. The order-oblivious
multiple-secretary algorithm is folklore. The matroid secretary
problem was proposed by~\cite{BIK07};
Theorem~\ref{thm:maxWtdForestLog}
is an adaptation of their
$O(\log r)$-competitive algorithm for general matroids. Theorem~\ref{thm:maxWtdForestO1},
due to \cite{KorulaPal-ICALP09}, extends to a
${2e}$-competitive order-adaptive algorithm. The current best algorithm is
$4$-competitive~\citep{SotoTV-SODA18}. The only lower bound known is the
factor of $e$ from Theorems~\ref{thm:secy} and~\ref{thm:secyTight}, even for arbitrary matroids, whereas the best
algorithm for general matroids has competitive ratio $O(\log \log
\text{rank})$~\citep{Lachish14,FeldmanSZ15}. See the survey
by~\cite{Dinitz13} for work leading up to these results.
\S\ref{sec:orderAdap}: The order-adaptive algorithms for
multiple-secretary (Theorem~\ref{thm:kItemsAdap}) and for packing LPs
(Theorem~\ref{thm:LPs}) are based on the work of \cite{AWY14}. The
former result can be improved to give
$(1 - O(\sqrt{\nicefrac{1}{k}}))$-competitiveness
\citep{kleinberg}.
Extending work on the AdWords problem (see the monograph
by~\cite{Mehta}), \cite{DevanurHayes09} studied packing
LPs in the RO model.
The optimal results have
$(1 - O(\sqrt{(\log d_{\text{nnz}})/k}))$-competitiveness \citep{KRTV13},
where $d_{\text{nnz}}$ is the maximum number of non-zeros in any column;
these are based on the solve-ignoring-past-decisions approach we used
for max-value matchings.
\cite{Rubinstein-STOC16} and \cite{RS-SODA17} gave
$O(\poly\log n)$-competitive algorithms for general packing problems
for subadditive functions.
Theorem~\ref{thm:MWM-basic}
(and extensions to combinatorial auctions)
is due to \cite{KesselheimRTV-ESA13}.
\S\ref{sec:comb}: Theorem~\ref{thm:SAP} about shortest augmenting paths is due to
\cite{ChaudhuriDKL-INFOCOM09}. A worst-case result of $O(\log^2 n)$ was
given by \cite{BernsteinHR18}; closing this gap remains an open problem.
The analysis of \textsc{Best Fit} in Theorem~\ref{thm:BP}
is by \cite{kenyon}. Theorem~\ref{thm:FACLOC} for facility
location is by \cite{Meyerson}; see \cite{MeyersonMP01} for
other network design problems in the RO setting. The tight
nearly-logarithmic competitiveness for adversarial arrivals is due to
\cite{Fotakis08}.
\S\ref{sec:addRandom}:
Theorem~\ref{thm:Steiner-iid}
for Steiner tree
is by \cite{GargGLS-SODA08}. \cite{GrandoniGLMSS13} and \cite{DehghaniEHLS17} give algorithms for set cover and $k$-server in the
i.i.d.\ or prophet models. The gap between
the RO
and i.i.d.\ models (with \emph{unknown} distributions) remains an interesting
direction to explore. \cite{CorreaDFS-EC19} show that the single-item
problem has the same competitiveness in both models; can we
show similar results (or gaps) for other problems?
\S\ref{sec:redRandom}: \cite{KKN} study connections between
entropy
and the RO model.
The RO model with corruptions was
proposed by \cite{BradacGSZ-arXiv19}, who also give
$(1-\eps)$-competitive algorithms for the multiple-secretary problem
with weak estimates on the optimal value.
A similar model for online
matching for mixed (stochastic and worst-case) arrivals was studied
by \cite{EKM-EC15}. Finally, Theorem~\ref{thm:orderOblivToProph} to
design prophet inequalities from samples is by \cite{AKW}. Connections
between the RO model and prophet inequalities have also been studied via
the prophet secretary model where both the value distributions are given and
the arrivals are in a uniformly random-order~\citep{EHLM-SIDMA17,EHKS-SODA18}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Tim Roughgarden, C. Seshadhri, Matt Weinberg, and Uri Feige
for their comments on an initial draft of this chapter.
|
\section{Introduction}
Redundant robots---which have more \gls{DoF} than required for a task---have been widely studied and deployed due to their intrinsic flexibility.
The higher dimensionality of the joint configuration space \gls{wrt} the task space makes these systems more adaptable as multiple solutions can be found.
\input{figures/fig-intro.tex}
However, this flexibility introduces a higher complexity for both planning and control that rapidly increases with the system and task dimensionality.
For example, computing the joint configuration from a task-space pose, i.e. \gls{IK}, becomes increasingly more challenging with the increase of the redundancy dimension \cite{siciliano,d2001learning}.
This problem is also encountered when dealing with the inverse dynamics problem, which is used to derive the control laws used in interaction control \cite{siciliano,xin2020,keppler2018}.
To address these inverse problems in rigid systems, multiple optimization frameworks and approaches to deal with challenges arising from numerical conditioning have been developed.
Currently, inverse problems for soft robots\footnote{Here, we use soft robots to refer both to systems made from non-rigid materials as well as those with compliant control, e.g., collaborative robots.} and optimization of the task-space dynamics are still open problems \cite{bruder2019}.
A recent approach to robustness for achieving task-space compliance behaviors include systems for increasing the robustness of projections through software by modulating/adapting the references \cite{xin2020}. This robustness can also be achieved by exploiting more complex hardware design that embeds variable mechanical compliance directly into the robot structure and its actuation \cite{keppler2018,braun2013robots}. As an example, \textit{Keppler et al.} have proposed a control architecture that enables to retain both robustness and accurate tracking \cite{keppler2018} while related work has algorithmically optimised spatiotemporal modulation of impedance to achieve tasks more efficientl \cite{nakanishi2011stiffness}. These approaches takes advantages of hardware equipped with Variable Stiffness Actuators (VSAs) --which allows better dynamic performances from the hardware, but they also increase the complexity and cost of motion planning with these system besides the need for very accurate modelling of the VSA structures.
\input{figures/fig-conceptual-overview.tex}
Inverse kinematics solutions and task-space dynamics projections are required for controlling redundant robots and they share similar challenges, as analyzed in depth in \cite{dietrich2015,khatib1993,Vijayakumar-RSS-19}.
In summary, both problems rely on the inversion of the Jacobian matrix, which is non-square in redundant manipulator due to the different task and joint space dimensions \cite{siciliano}.
The pseudo-inverse is a transformation that solves such a problem.
It separates the information regarding robot states into two orthogonal sub-spaces (task-space and null-space), which are not expected to exchange information (i.e., energy).
Therefore, retaining the orthogonality between these two sub-spaces is paramount for the algorithms' stability \cite{dietrich2015,khatib1993,Vijayakumar-RSS-19}.
Maintaining this orthogonality depends on both the robot kinematics and the task -- which can be quite difficult to achieve and maintain, especially during highly variable situations, such as sudden changes in contacts and dynamic interactions (\autoref{fig:intro}).
As one example, the dynamically consistent inverse obtains orthogonality via the minimization of the kinetic energy projected by the null-space into the task-space \cite{Vijayakumar-RSS-19, khatib1987unified}.
Passive controllers have been proposed to theoretically guarantee interaction stability under uncertain interaction conditions, using for instance virtual tanks as energy storage (i.e., path integral) for the non-conservative energy of the controller.
However, their passive behavior trades-off tracking performances to retain safety of interaction, making this framework difficult to deploy in highly variable environments \cite{Dietrich2016}. The result presented in their manuscript focuses on verifying passivity and safety of interaction and does not provide a clear quantitative analysis of task-space tracking performance. However, based on the figure of the Cartesian tracking error reported for the simulation results for a 4-\gls{DoF} planar manipulator, it seems that we can expect about \SI{1}{\centi\meter} residual pose error in the best case scenario (i.e., there is energy in tank).
Moreover, virtual tank impedance controllers are only passive if there is energy left in their virtual tanks.
Due to passivity constraints, the tanks' energy can be only charged from external energy sources \cite{Dietrich2016}.
Realising passive control is made even more difficult when dealing with null-space and task-space controllers.
In fact, as they are orthogonal to each other, tracking the total energy exchanged by the manipulator is challenging \cite{babarahmati2019}.
Another challenge to stability of virtual tank controllers is to maintain the orthogonality between null-space and task-spaces during highly variable tasks.
Higher non-linearity in the dynamics reduces the accuracy in the computation of the orthogonal projection that, consequentially, generates unaccounted energy transfer between the two sub-spaces \cite{Vijayakumar-RSS-19,babarahmati2019}.
This work investigates the possibility of using superimposition of passive task-space controllers to drive redundant manipulators rather than relying on null-space controllers, cf. \autoref{fig:conceptual_overview}.
Conceptually, this follows the idea to generate task-space wrenches at multiple links and map them back to joint-level torques.
To do so, the proposed solution will not need to rely on any mathematical projections (and implicitly, matrix inversions) required by the null-space projections.
Virtual mechanical constraints are instead generated using a superimposition of task-space controllers to control task-space and the redundant degrees of freedom of the manipulators.
However, implementing such a solution will require a controller framework that is intrinsically stable.
The recently proposed \gls{FIC} \cite{babarahmati2019} is a passive controller meeting this requirement.
It relies upon a non-linear stiffness behavior in the task-space to track the energy exchanged between the robot and the environment, and treats the unexpected energy flow from the null-space as an external perturbation.
The controller uses the concept of fractal impedance for the implementation of a passive controller that can provide good performances in both trajectory and force tracking.
Thereby, it detaches the robot stability from the postural optimization, which are currently bounded for interaction controllers relying on \gls{QP} optimization \cite{xin2020}. Furthermore, our proposed method is independent of any specific type of actuation and thus can be used in any torque/force controlled robot.
In summary, our contributions are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Superimposition of Passive Task-Space Controllers} to preserve the primary task by sacrificing a secondary tasks through exploitation of the mechanical redundancy. The priority of the controller is determined by the maximum force exertable by the controller, as will be explained in \autoref{sec:method}. As the framework only relies on the forward computation of kinematics and Jacobian, it is numerically stable and computationally inexpensive. Further, it can be used with uncertain and imprecise dynamics models as it only relies on the kinematics model (\ref{sec:StackOfFIC}).
\item Proposal of a new force profile for a Fractal Attractor which enables a smooth transition between convergence and divergence phases (\ref{sec:SigFractImp}).
\item Validation of our approach both in simulation to test contact interaction with unknown obstacles and in real hardware experiments (\ref{sec:experiments}) to evaluate reference tracking performance for fast reference motion (\ref{sec:results}).
As all open parameters have a physically tractable meaning and the controller is intrinsically stable, online tuning can safely be performed.
\end{enumerate}
We intend to open source our implementation for simulation and hardware experiments with the publication of this manuscript.
\section{Method} \label{sec:method}
The null-space of a redundant manipulator is a set of joint-space configurations having the same end-effector pose. Therefore, null-space optimization frameworks identify the optimal joint-space configuration for a given task. Stack of Task optimization methods are iterative algorithms applying Null-Space optimization to a hierarchy of tasks. Their main limitation is that null-space projections are inserted in the control loop, rendering the controllers susceptible to numerical instability connected with the null-space projections.
The proposed method, shown in \autoref{fig:conceptual_overview}, aims to remove null-space projections from the control loop. Null-space projections are used to account for the external interaction in the whole-body control optimization problem \cite{xin2020}. This type of formulation requires not only to make \textit{a priori} assumptions on the environmental interaction, but it also renders the controller stability dependent on their accuracy. Thus, the controller stability is highly susceptible to erroneous assumptions, which lead only to sub-optimal behaviour in the best case scenario \cite{xin2020}.
The proposed method unravels the co-dependency between stability and assumptions made on the external environment by using a superimposition of task-space controllers that generates virtual force field (i.e., soft mechanical constraints) that pull the robot towards the desired configuration. This is a different approach to handling redundancy compared to the null-space approach. The superimposition of the controller will bias the robot to move towards a certain preferred posture, without guaranteeing that this particular configuration will be reached. In fact, the controller will continuously maintain a mechanical equilibrium between the virtual forces and the environmental interaction without requiring any assumption on the environmental interaction. This implies that the controller is robust to unknown environmental interaction, but is not guaranteed to be in a global optimum. However, it is likely to settle in the closest minimum in the system energetic manifold (i.e., the closest state with mechanical equilibrium).
In synthesis, the relative strength of these virtual constraints will determine the trade-off between the tasks assigned to the controllers and, consequentially, the order in which the task accuracy will be sacrificed. While this method can be applied with any type of task-space controllers, using passive controllers guarantees stability by independently verifying that all the superimposed controllers are stable. Among the different passive controllers, we have chosen the Fractal Impedance Controller due to its explicit formulation of the tasks in terms of virtual mechanical constraints (i.e., desired force/displacement behavior), enabling direct control of the controllers' trade-off policies. For the scope of this paper, an optimization-based inverse kinematics algorithm was used to obtain the reference configuration (\emph{postural optimization}). Forward kinematics is subsequently used to extract the task-space references for the individual superimposed controllers. In place of this postural optimization, more comprehensive planners and frameworks could be used to provide and update the reference configurations.
\subsection{Inverse Problem and Kineto-Static Duality}
\label{sec:IPM}
The generalized inverse of $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m}$ is defined as any matrix $G\in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ that satisfies the following equations:
\begin{equation}
\label{Ginverse}
\begin{cases}
\vec{a}=G \vec{b}+ (I_{n}-GA)\vec{a}_\epsilon=G \vec{b}+ P \vec{a}_\epsilon\\
AGA-A=0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\vec{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$, $\vec{a}_\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $I_n \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is the identity matrix. $P$ is a projection matrix that projects a generic vector $a_\epsilon$ into the null-space of $A$, $\mathcal{N}(A)$.
Redundant robots are more flexible than non-redundant systems, however, they do not have a bijective transformation between generalized coordinates and task-space.
Thus, control algorithms rely on numerical optimization to solve the inverse problem and identify viable strategies. This is task dependent and degenerates when $A$ drops rank (i.e., $det(A)=0$) \cite{Vijayakumar-RSS-19,xin2020}.
Specifically, the rank of the inverse projection matrix drops if the robot is in a singular configuration or the task constraints are violated (e.g., unexpected sudden loss of contact) \cite{Vijayakumar-RSS-19}.
The idea of taking advantage of the kineto-static duality to address the inverse problem has been introduced with the concept of Port-Hamiltonian control in \cite{hogan1985impedanceP1,hogan1985impedanceP2}. In fact, the kinematic joint-space information can be used to derive task-space behavior and task-space force interaction can be used to relate back to joint-space torques:
\begin{equation}
\label{kinetostatic}
\begin{cases}
\vec{\nu}=J \dot{\vec{q}} \\
\vec{\tau}=J^\text{T} \vec{h}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $J\in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m}$ is the geometric Jacobian matrix, $\vec{\nu} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the end-effector twist, $\vec{\dot{q}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the joint velocities' vector and $\vec{h} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the end-effector wrench, $\vec{\tau} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the joint torques' vector.
\subsection{Fractal Impedance Controller} \label{sec:FractImp}
\input{figures/fig-fractal-impedance.tex}
The FIC controls the robot as a non-linear mass-spring system, and generates the attractor in \autoref{fig:2b} around the desired state. The equivalent mechanical system equation is:
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda_c (\vec{q}) \vec{\Ddot{x}} + n(q,\dot{q}) + K(\vec{\tilde{x}}) \vec{\tilde{x}}=F_{Ext}
\end{equation*}
\noindent where $\Lambda_c (\vec{q})$ is the projection of the task-space inertia matrix at the end-effector, $n(q,\dot{q})$ the non-linear robot dynamics and $F_{Ext}$ is the external force.
The state-dependent stiffness gain $K(\vec{\tilde{x}})$ is derived from the desired end-effector interaction properties (i.e., force/displacement), which can be regulated online without affecting stability \cite{babarahmati2019}. For completeness, we provide a proof of stability in \ref{sec:stabilityAnalysis}.
The attractor is implemented using a switching behavior that introduces an additional nonlinear spring which triggers when the system starts converging (i.e., zero crossing of $\vec{\dot{x}}$).
The updated impedance conserves the energy accumulated in the controller while diverging and redistributes the energy altering the trajectory during the convergence, as shown in \autoref{fig:fractal_attractor}.
Therefore, the stability of the controller is guaranteed by the fractal attractor (\autoref{fig:fractal_attractor}). This determines the passivity of the controller and the online adaptability; it is independent of the chosen impedance.
For each \gls{DoF} in the task-space, the \gls{FIC} is given in \autoref{alg:FIC}. The control torques ($\vec{\tau}_{\text{ctr}}$) can be calculated from $\vec{h}_e \in \mathbb{R}^6$ using \eqref{kinetostatic}. Differently from the \gls{FIC} control scheme introduced in \cite{babarahmati2019} on a sharp force/torque saturation, this manuscript introduces a more flexible force profile. The new force profile allows to independently tune the linear, non-linear and saturation behaviors of the controller wrench, making it easier to tune the controller for different tasks.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoLined
\SetKwData{Left}{left}
\SetKwData{Up}{up}
\SetKwFunction{FindCompress}{FindCompress}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{output}
\Input{Convergence$/$Divergence, $\tilde{x}$, $\tilde{x}_{\text{max}}$}
\Output{$h_{\text{e}}$}
\eIf{diverging from ${x_{\text{d}}}$}{
$h_{\text{e}}=f(\tilde{x})= K(\tilde{x})\tilde{x}$\\
}{
$h_{\text{e}} = \frac{4 E(\tilde{x}_{\text{max}})}{\tilde{x}_{\text{max}}^2} (0.5\tilde{x}_{\text{max}} -\tilde{x})$\\
}
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} where:\\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} ${x_{\text{d}}}$ is the desired position \\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $h_{\text{e}}$ is the desired force at the end-effector \\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $\tilde{x}$ is the pose error \\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $K(\tilde{x})$ is the nonlinear stiffness\\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $x_\text{e}$ is the end-effector position\\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $\tilde{x}=x_\text{d}-x_\text{e}$ is the position error \\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $\tilde{x}_{\text{max}}$ is the maximum displacement reached at the end of the divergence phase \\
\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl} $E$ is the energy associated with the divergence profile of the impedance controller \\
\caption{Mono-dimensional \gls{FIC}}
\label{alg:FIC}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Sigmoidal Force Profile for Fractal Impedance} \label{sec:SigFractImp}
The \gls{FIC} relies on a stiffness profile.
The profile proposed in \cite{babarahmati2019} results in fast changes in stiffness, and only allows limited task-dependent tuning of the profile.
Therefore, we propose a sigmoidal force profile for an easier definition of the stiffness profile, allowing to better adapt the robot impedance behavior to the different task.
Similarly to the profile proposed by \cite{babarahmati2019}, the sigmoidal profile is fully determined based on the maximum force ($F_{\text{Max}}$) to be exerted at a chosen position error ($|\tilde{x}|=\tilde{x}_{\text{b}}$).
Here, the position error is defined as the difference between the desired end-effector pose and the current pose ($\tilde{x}=x_d-x$).
We introduce an additional displacement parameter ($|\tilde{x}|=\tilde{x}_{0}$) which describes the minimum displacement to activate the nonlinear impedance, as shown in \autoref{fig:2c}.
The proposed force profile thus becomes:
\begin{equation}
\label{ForceProf}
F_{\text{K}}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
K_0 \tilde{x}, & |\tilde{x}|<\tilde{x}_{0}\\\\
\text{sgn} (\tilde{x}) (\Delta F (1-e^{-\frac{|\tilde{x}| - \tilde{x}_0}{b}})+& \\
+ K_0 \tilde{x}_0), & \tilde{x}_{0}\le |\tilde{x}|<\tilde{x}_{b}\\\\
\text{sgn}(\tilde{x}) F_{\text{Max}}, & \text{Otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $b=(\tilde{x}_\text{b}-\tilde{x}_\text{0})/S$ is the characteristic length, $S$ determines the shape of the sigmoid curve and $\Delta F =(F_{\text{Max}} - K_0.\tilde{x}_0)$. In this work, we use $S=20$ to ensure force saturation before $\tilde{x}_\text{b}$.
The proposed force profile can further be associated to an energy (\autoref{fig:2d}) that is an unbounded Lipschitz function.
It therefore respects the requirement for Lyapunov's stability by the fractal attractor controller \cite{babarahmati2019}.
For the proposed force profile, this becomes:
\begin{equation}
\label{EnergyProf}
E_{\text{K}}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0.5 K_0 \tilde{x}^2, & |\tilde{x}|<\tilde{x}_{0}\\\\
F_{\text{Max}}|\tilde{x}| -&\\
+F_{\text{Max}}\tilde{x}_0 + (K_0\tilde{x}_0^2)/2 -&\\
+(1-e^{-\frac{|\tilde{x}| - \tilde{x}_0}{b}})b\Delta F,
& \tilde{x}_{0}\le |\tilde{x}|<\tilde{x}_{b}\\\\
F_{\text{Max}}|\tilde{x}|-&\\
+F_{\text{Max}}\tilde{x}_0 + (K_0\tilde{x}_0^2)/2 -&\\
+(1-e^{-\frac{\tilde{x}_b - \tilde{x}_0}{b}})b\Delta F, & \text{Otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Controller Superimposition for the Control of Redundant Robots} \label{sec:StackOfFIC}
We propose to implement the same solution using virtual soft mechanical constraints generated by a superimposition of task-space controllers that drive the robot to assume a commanded reference posture.
The benefit of using impedance controllers based on fractal impedance is that their passivity allows for superimposition without compromising overall system stability.
Therefore, the total torque vector ($\vec{\tau_{\text{tot}}}$) can be computed by the superimposition of controllers as:
\begin{equation}
\label{TControllerStack}
\begin{array}{ll}
\vec{\tau}_{\text{tot}}=\sum_{i=1}^n J_i^\text{T}h_{ei}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $J_i$ and $h_{ei}$ are the Jacobian and the wrench generated by the impedance controller of the $i^{th}$-link, as depicted in \autoref{fig:conceptual_overview}.
\section{Evaluation} \label{sec:experiments}
We evaluate our proposed method using a 7-\gls{DoF} torque-controlled Kuka LWR3+ manipulator in both simulation and hardware experiments. We apply a superimposition of two task-space controllers: A 6-\gls{DoF} \gls{FIC} controller at the end-effector ($7^{th}$ link) and a 3-\gls{DoF} \gls{FIC} controller at the elbow ($4^{th}$ link of the KuKA URDF) for postural control.
\input{figures/fig-simulation-overview.tex}
\input{figures/TableI.tex}
To generate pose references for each of the controllers, we perform an optimization to obtain a configuration satisfying the end-effector reference. Here, we use a one-step variant of \gls{AICO} \cite{toussaint2009robot}.
Note, while the end-effector pose reference can be passed in directly to the end-effector controller, a postural optimization is used in this case to obtain a pose reference for the null-space or additional superimposed controllers. We extract the reference pose for each of the controllers using forward kinematics.
\subsection{Reference Trajectories}
The figure-of-8 (i.e., lemniscate) trajectory has been selected to show the dynamic behavior of the robot. The trajectory is composed of two orthogonal sinusoidal trajectories. The vertical trajectory has an amplitude of \SI{0.2}{\meter} and the transverse trajectory amplitude is \SI{0.1}{\meter}. The figure-of-8 trajectory is particularly demanding due to its multiple velocity inversions and wide joint movements range. Thus, introducing high variability of both the Jacobian and the inertial behavior of the robot.
We test the figure-of-8 reference motion in both simulation and hardware experiments.
In hardware experiments, we further test a sinusoidal trajectory with an amplitude of \SI{0.5}{\meter} and velocities up to about \SI{0.7}{\meter\per\second}. The straight-line experiment enabled us to test interaction and robustness at higher speeds.
\subsection{Simulation Experiments}
We simulate the robot using the Gazebo physics simulator and apply the Superimposition of Passive Task-Space Controllers control scheme directly without compensating for gravity, Coriolis, or other dynamic effects (in contrast to \cite{babarahmati2019}), i.e., as a model-free compliant controller.
For the simulation experiments, we compare nominal tracking performance with an interaction scenario where an unsensed environment obstacle has been introduced, cf. \autoref{fig:gazebo_unsensed_force_interaction}.
\subsection{Hardware Experiments}
In our hardware experiments, we use a Kuka LWR3+ robot. We control the manipulator using the \gls{FRI} at \SI{333.3}{\hertz} in \emph{joint impedance} mode with all gains set to zero to enable feed-forward torque control. Note, unlike our simulation experiments the Kuka's built-in controller compensates for dynamic effects and gravity.
On the real robot the tracking of the figure-of-8 trajectory has also been tested with and without a human operator applying random perturbations. The values used in the controller for the simulation and the experiments are reported in \autoref{CtrParam}. It shall also be noted that during the experiment we have kept the minimum set of controlled \gls{DoF} required to fully control the 3 \gls{DoF} of redundancy for the assigned tasks, being the task invariant to the configuration of the $7^{th}$ \gls{DoF} due to the symmetric geometry of the end-effector in the manipulator (\autoref{fig:intro}).
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\input{figures/fig-simulation-results.tex}
\input{figures/fig-hw-results.tex}
To complement the plots in this section, the reader is recommended to watch the supplementary video demonstrating the tracking and interaction both in simulation and hardware experiments. We also include a sequence demonstrating the safe behavior of the controller during calibration of the \gls{FIC} parameters given in \autoref{CtrParam}.
The simulation results are shown in \autoref{fig:Sim_8-NOInt} for the free motion, and in \autoref{fig:Sim_8-WInt} for the interaction behavior. They show that the robot can be successfully controlled without dynamic compensation, and that it can achieve dexterous dynamic behaviors.
The tracking \glspl{RMSE} at the end-effector are recorded without interaction as RMSE$_\text{x}=\SI{5.6}{\milli\meter}$, RMSE$_\text{y}=\SI{4.6}{\milli\meter}$, and RMSE$_\text{z}=\SI{6.1}{\milli\meter}$. For simulation with interaction with an obstacle: RMSE$_\text{x}=\SI{13.2}{\milli\meter}$, RMSE$_\text{y}=\SI{4.2}{\milli\meter}$, and RMSE$_\text{z}=\SI{5.5}{\milli\meter}$.
I.e., the tracking performance degrades in one dimension impacted by the obstacle ($x$), while being virtually unaffected in $y$ and $z$.
The experimental data for the hardware experiments of the figure-of-8 trajectory are shown in \autoref{8-NOInt} and \autoref{8-Int}.
The errors recorded during free motion are: RMSE$_\text{x}=7.6$ \si{\milli\meter}, RMSE$_\text{y}=1.5$ \si{\milli\meter}, and RMSE$_\text{z}=8.6$ \si{\milli\meter}.
The perturbations do not affect the tracking performance at the end-effector task, but they are fully compensated by the deflection from the secondary task target at the elbow joint, as shown in \autoref{8-Int}b.
The \gls{RMSE} during interaction are RMSE$_\text{x}=20.3$ \si{\milli\meter}, RMSE$_\text{y}=7.9$ \si{\milli\meter}, and RMSE$_\text{z}=9.1$ \si{\milli \meter}.
The results for the straight-line trajectory experiment (\autoref{Line-NoInt} and \autoref{line-Int}) show an ability of the controller to complete the task and reject perturbations by reducing tracking on the secondary task.
The errors are RMSE$_\text{x}=6.1$ \si{\milli\meter}, RMSE$_\text{y}=4.6$ \si{\milli\meter}, and RMSE$_\text{z}=6.7$ \si{\milli \meter}.
The RMSE for interaction are RMSE$_\text{x}=9.6$ \si{\milli\meter}, RMSE$_\text{y}=7.7$ \si{\milli\meter}, and RMSE$_\text{z}=7.3$ \si{\milli\meter}.
It shall also be remarked how the robot remained safe to interact with despite the high joint feed-forward torques involved in the motions, which reached $\approx30$ \si{\newton\meter} for both the 8 trajectory and the linear trajectory.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
The results show the proposed method enables an intrinsically stable control framework for redundant robots which does not rely on inverse dynamics and projection matrices.
The proposed method is robust to unknown environmental interactions and singularities, where safe means that the robot does not show erratic behaviors even while perturbed or when there is a sudden change in the desired task (e.g., sudden acceleration/deceleration). The RMSE data show how the robot keeps the minimum tracking accuracy (i.e., maximum error) contained under \SI{1}{\centi\meter} for the unperturbed experiments, which is in line with the task requirement set in the controller parameters $x_\text{b}=\SI{1.1}{\centi\meter}$. This results are in line with the results obtained in \cite{babarahmati2019}, and they are lower than other impedance controller frameworks that usually have error of few centimeters \cite{dietrich2015,Dietrich2016}.
The introduction of significant perturbation degrades the minimum tracking accuracy to \SI{2}{\centi\meter}, but the controller remains stable and it is able to recover once the perturbation ends. It shall be remembered that the trade-off between accuracy and robustness is a known trade-off in interaction control frameworks \cite{ott2010unified}. While admittance control may provide better accuracy, it requires accurate knowledge of interaction force intensity and direction in all the points of contact with the environment. On the other hand, impedance controllers provide better safety of interaction but sacrifice tracking accuracy in favor of compliance \cite{ott2010unified,xin2020}. Variable impedance controllers have been proposed as a solution to this dilemma, but the stability requirements on the impedance updates are often very stringent and difficult to retain under highly variable environmental conditions \cite{angelini2019online,li2018force}. The proposed framework provides the better of both worlds providing good tracking accuracy while retaining the robustness typical of impedance controllers; furthermore, it enables online adjustment of the impedance profiles \cite{babarahmati2019}.
The data also confirm our hypothesis that redundant robot interaction behavior can be accurately defined without any \textit{a priori} knowledge of the system dynamics model, being \autoref{TControllerStack} the control command.
In our simulation experiments, we show that the tracking performance in this work is similar to the results reported in \cite{babarahmati2019} that relied on a compensation of the robot dynamics and the use of a null-space controller. This latest result is particularly important because robots' mechanical properties such as inertia and joints friction matrices are often difficult to retrieve and highly unreliable \cite{bruder2019, vasudevan2017}.
The knowledge of the actuation characteristics and the kinematic structure are still necessary for the implementation of the proposed method. However, they are both normally accurate, and easier to obtain if not available.
\input{figures/fig-hw-results-straight-line.tex}
The FIC controller generates an asymptotically stable potential field around the target state that enables direct superimposition of multiple controllers without compromising the system stability.
The controller superimposition generates a force field that acts as a trade-off cost function determining the preferred path of motion in robot's configuration space.
The force upper-bound of the controllers guarantees that the loss of accuracy in the main task is contained $x_\text{b}$ until the condition are compatible with the mechanical characteristics of the system.
Especially, if we consider that the proposed method is a compliant postural controller, where accurate tracking is subordinate to robustness of interaction.
In other words, the controller stabilizes the robot around a desired posture relying on the non-linear stiffness profile to compensate for its non-linear and environmental interaction, sacrificing the redundancy task before degrading the end-effector task beyond the selected accuracy.
This is confirmed by both the simulation and the experimental data, showing how the FIC controller tries and successfully keeps the accuracy under \SI{0.11}{\centi\meter} in unperturbed conditions.
The data also describe that the controller fully sacrifices the redundancy task in the attempt of retaining the same accuracy while experiencing external perturbation that exceed its mechanical limits, as shown in \autoref{fig:Sim_8-WInt}, \autoref{8-Int} and \autoref{line-Int}.
The data show that the proposed method can achieve a highly dynamic interaction using variable impedance at the controller level. The FIC also enables online tuning of the impedance behavior and is robust to reduce bandwidth in the feedback signals \cite{babarahmati2019}, allowing to switch from rigid to soft behaviors seemingly. Nevertheless, the performances are strictly related to the physical hardware capabilities, and a higher band-pass in the mechanics of the robot implies a higher stiffness to mass ratio. Therefore, it will be interesting to study these capabilities by deploying in hardware equipped with VSA to conduct a systematic experiment on these properties. Furthermore, it may also enable the switching from a model-based (e.g., the one proposed in \cite{keppler2018}) to a data-driven control of their non-linear actuators dynamics. It is worth also noting that, at the current stage, it is impossible to compare the results of these types of architectures due to their different hardware requirements.
Nevertheless, we can say that both of them achieve non-linear impedance behavior and robustness to highly dynamic interactions. The fractal impedance controller hardware requirements are less stringent, and it has a simpler formulation. The results presented in \cite{keppler2018} indicate that the DLR robot can achieve a stiffer behavior. However, it is impossible to discriminate if they are connected solely to a hardware superiority or there is also a controller component in play.
The superimposition of task-space controllers also opens new possibilities for improving controllability and dexterity for compliant robots, developing human motor control theory, and robust control architecture for learning algorithms.
In fact, the dynamics of soft robots are even more challenging to model than rigid dynamics \cite{bruder2019}, as the dynamic modelling of robots is founded on the assumption of rigidity \cite{siciliano}. In regards to human motor control, having a framework that enables robustness and dexterity of interaction will enable to overcome the current limitation of the \gls{PMP} model, which still relies on inverse matrices for trajectory optimization \cite{tommasino2017,tiseo2018}.
Finally, the learning algorithms are currently facing the challenges of performing a system identification to guarantee the stability of the learned behavior.
The proposed method removes this challenge and the learning component can focus on learning how to synchronize the task-space controller to maximize the efficiency and the dexterity of the robot.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
The experimental results confirmed our hypothesis that it is possible to control a redundant robot with a superimposition of task-space controllers.
This approach renders the architecture intrinsically robust to singularity and fully passive which guarantees stability.
It is important to properly balance the strength of the controllers to guarantee that the secondary tasks do not interfere with the end-effector controller, which may result challenging under certain conditions. Nevertheless, unbalanced controllers may interfere with the action efficacy, but not with the robustness and stability of interaction.
The proposed framework does not require any \textit{a priori} knowledge of the system dynamics parameters (i.e., Inertia, Friction, and Gravity).
It suited for applications where the stability of interaction to unpredictable environments is more important than the tracking accuracy.
Future work will focus on improving the coordination among the secondary task-space controllers to improve the tracking accuracy of the end-effector task as well as systems were coupling effects may be introduced.
\section*{To do list}
\begin{itemize}
\item Finalise Simulations Method
\item Add a figure with task-space controllers representation
\item Revise Introduction to be aligned with final message
\item Run Simulations and Write Results down results
\item Write Discussion, Conclusion and Abstract
\item (Gazebo) Check if we should add the viscous dissipation as in \cite{babarahmati2019} to account for model errors
\end{itemize}
\section*{Potential contributions}
\begin{itemize}
\item \cite{babarahmati2019} uses a fixed null-space resolution term in Alg. 1. Here, we use a Stack of FICs to get around the null-space resolution.
\item "Claim increase robustness to unpredicted/unknown obstacles. Obviously, the target has to be within the reach of the terminal part of the manipulator"
\item tbc: Dealing with orientations - we may want to look into this closer
\item Model-free impedance controller - to the best of our knowledge the first implementation/demonstration of this [comparison to previous: Previous used a model-based gravity compensation; our work does not. It can also be used to play arbitrary trajectories]
\end{itemize} |
\section{Introduction}
Studies of ultrafast demagnetization was pioneered by Beaurepaire \textit{et al.}\cite{beaurepaire1996}, who demonstrated that the optical excitation of a ferromagnetic material - using a short pulsed laser could quench the magnetic moment on sub-picosecond timescales. The exact underlying microscopic mechanisms responsible for the transfer of angular momentum have been strongly debated for more than 20 years \cite{scholl1997,koopmans2005unifying,koopmans2010explaining}. Ultrafast laser-induced demagnetization has now become an intense field of research not only from fundamental point of view but also from a technological aspect, due to an appealing possibility to further push the limits of operation of information storage and data processing devices \cite{kirilyuk2016}. Both experiment \cite{cinchetti2006spin,stamm2007femtosecond,dalla2007influence,walowski2008energy,carpene2008dynamics,koopmans2010explaining,roth2012temperature,mathias2012probing,rudolf2012ultrafast,eschenlohr2013ultrafast,turgut2013controlling,kirilyuk2016} and theory \cite{zhang2000laser,koopmans2005microscopic,krauss2009ultrafast,steiauf2009elliott,bigot2009coherent,battiato2010superdiffusive,essert2011electron,atxitia2011ultrafast} report that all of the 3d ferromagnets (Fe, Ni and Co) and their alloys, show characteristic demagnetization times in the sub-picosecond range, while 4f metals exhibit a complicated two-step demagnetization up to several picoseconds after the excitation pulse \cite{koopmans2010explaining,radu2015ultrafast}.
In this work, we have made element specific investigations of the ultrafast magnetization dynamics of a half-metallic Heusler alloy. This class of alloys has been investigated intensively, especially concerning the magnetic properties, ever since the discovery in 1903, when Heusler \textit{et al.} reported that alloys like $\mathrm{Cu_{2}MnAl}$ exhibit ferromagnetic properties, even though none of its constituent elements was in itself ferromagnetic \cite{heusler1903}. The ferromagnetic properties were found to be related to the chemical ordering \cite{persson1929}. One of the key features of several Heusler alloys is their unique electronic structure, where the majority spin band-structure has a metallic character while the minority spin band is semiconducting with a band gap.
Such materials are also referred to as half-metallic ferromagnets (HMFs) and were initially predicted by de Groot \textit{et al.} \cite{de1983new}, based on electronic structure theory. Half-metals ideally exhibit 100\% spin-polarization at the Fermi level. This exclusive property makes them candidates to be incorporated in spintronic devices, e.g.\ spin filters, tunnel junctions and giant magneto-resistance (GMR) devices \cite{spintronics2004,spinfilters2002,tsymbal2001GMR,palmstromheusler}. One of the advantages of Heusler alloys with respect to other half-metallic system, like $\mathrm{CrO_{2}}$ and $\mathrm{Fe_{3}O_{4}}$, are their relatively high Curie temperature ($T_{c}$) and low coercivity ($H_{c}$) \cite{alloys1991,heusler}. Heusler alloys are also appealing for spintronic applications due to the low Gilbert damping, which allows for a long magnon diffusion length \cite{brown2000,kobayashi2004, graf2011simple,shaw2018magnetic,liu2009origin,schoen2016ultra}. It has been shown that the low value of the Gilbert damping constant is related with the half-metallicity \cite{shaw2018magnetic,liu2009origin}. The origin of the band gap and the mechanism of half-metallicity in these materials have been studied by using first principle electronic structure calculations \cite{GalanakisPRB_01,galanakis2007spin,katsnelson2008,kandpal2007calculated}.
The half-metallic property is furthermore known to be very sensitive to structural disorder
\cite{balke2008rational,galanakis2007spin,katsnelson2008,picozzi2004role,kandpal2007calculated}.
From a fundamental point of view, it is intriguing to ask, how the band gap in the minority spin channel effects the ultrafast magnetization dynamics of Heusler alloys \cite{muller2009spin,mann2012insights}. It has already been reported that some of the half-metals like $\mathrm{CrO_{2}}$ and $\mathrm{Fe_{3}O_{4}}$ exhibit very slow dynamics, involving time-scales of hundreds of picoseconds, \cite{mann2012insights,muller2009spin} while several Co-based Heusler alloys show a much faster demagnetization, similar to the time-scales of the elemental 3d-ferromagnets \cite{steil2014ultrafast,steil2010band,wustenberg2011ultrafast}.
The faster dynamics of these Heuslers has been discussed in Ref.\cite{muller2009spin} to be due to the fact that the band gap in the minority spin channel is typically around
$\unit[0.3-0.5]{eV}$, which is smaller than the photon energy ($\unit[1.5]{eV}$) of the exciting laser. It is also smaller than the band gap of $\mathrm{CrO_{2}}$ and $\mathrm{Fe_{3}O_{4}}$. Importantly, the Heusler alloys offer the possibility to study magnetization dynamics, as a function of structural order, since they normally can be prepared to have a fully ordered $L2_{1}$ phase, a partially ordered $\textit{B}$2 phase, and a completely disordered $\textit{A}$2 phase. The structural relationships of these phases are described in the Supplemental Material (SM) \cite{SM}.
We have here studied the optically induced, ultrafast magnetization dynamics of $\mathrm{Co_{2}FeAl}$ (CFA) films, using time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect (TR-MOKE) as described in Ref.\ \cite{somnath_01}. By control of the growth temperature, CFA alloy forms with varying degree of structural order, in a continuous way between the $\textit{A}2$ and $\textit{B}2$ phases, as well as between the $\textit{B}2$ and $L2_{1}$ phases \cite{mizukami2009low,kumar2017temperature}.
We present data from four CFA samples, grown at $\unit[300]{K}$, $\unit[573]{K}$, $\unit[673]{K}$, and $\unit[773]{K}$ respectively. We henceforth denote each sample by its growth temperature as a subscript, e.g. $\mbox{CFA}_\mathrm{300 K}$. As evidenced by X-ray diffraction, the sample grown at $\unit[300]{K}$ is found to exhibit the A2 phase, while the samples grown at $\unit[573]{K}$ and $\unit[673]{K}$ predominantly exhibit the B2 phase. The sample grown at $\unit[773]{K}$ is found to exhibit a pure B2 phase \cite{kumar2017temperature}. The value of the Gilbert damping $\alpha$ is found to monotonously decrease with annealing temperature and is thus lowest for the sample grown at $\unit[773]{K}$
\cite{foot:commentonkumar}.
\begin{figure}[h!tbp]
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{demag_theory.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Simulations of ultrafast dynamics of Co$_2$FeAl in the different structural phases $A2$ (left panel), $B2$ (central panel), and $L2_1$ (right panel). The demagnetization is shown element resolved (blue line - Co, red line - Fe). The peak temperature is $\unit[1200]{K}$. The dotted line indicates the equilibrium magnetization at $T=\unit[300]{K}$.}
\label{fig:demagtheo}
\end{figure}
Calculations based on density functional theory (DFT) of the magnetic moment, Heisenberg exchange interaction and the Gilbert damping parameter are described in detail in (SM) \cite{SM}. These parameters were used in a multiscale approach to perform atomistic magnetization dynamics simulations, described in Sec.S1 of (SM) \cite{SM}. Here we employed the two temperature model (2TM) for the temperature profile of the spin-system.
In the 2TM, the spin temperature increases due to the coupling to the hot-electron bath, that is excited by the external laser pulse. In the simulations we used a peak temperature in the 2TM of $\unit[1200]{K}$. A full description of the 2TM and the details of all spin-dynamics simulations are described in Sec.S2 of SM \cite{SM}.
The results of the simulations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:demagtheo}, for the $\textit{A}2$, $\textit{B}$2 and $L2_{1}$ phases. It can be seen that the different phases react differently to the external stimulus.
In general, this model provides a dynamics that is controlled by \textit{i)} the temperature of the spin-subsystem, \textit{ii)} the strength of the magnetic exchange interaction and \textit{iii)} the dissipation of angular momentum and energy during the relaxation of the atomic magnetic moments (Gilbert damping) \cite{Eriksson:2016uw}.
Before continuing the discussion, we note that the average magnetization, $M$, of element $X$ is calculated as $M^X = \nicefrac{\sum_i c_i^X M^X_i}{4\sum_i c_i^X}$, where $c_i^X$ is the concentration of the particular element $X$ in the particular phase and $i$ runs over the four nonequivalent sites of the unit cell. After the material demagnetizes, the spin temperature eventually drops and the average magnetization returns to its initial value after $\unit[10-20]{ps}$ (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:demagtheo}).
To estimate the time constants of the demagnetization $\tau_{M}$ and remagnetization ($\tau_{R}$) processes, in an element-specific way, we fit both the theoretical and experimental transient magnetizations by a double exponential function \cite{atxitia2010evidence}.
We show results of $\tau_{M}$ and $\tau_{R}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:timestheo} for the $\textit{A}2$ and $\textit{B}$2 phase, as well as for alloys with intermediate degree of disorder (described in Sec.S2 of SM \cite{SM}).
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{CFA_theory_01.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Element resolved relaxation times of Co$_2$FeAl, from simulations of alloys with varying amounts of $A2 \to B2$ phase. 0 corresponds to pure $A2$ phase while 100 corresponds to pure $B2$ phase. Panel (a) shows the demagnetization time and panel (b) shows the remagnetization time. Both time constants are obtained from fitting the time trajectory of $M^X(t)$ by a double-exponential function (see text).}
\label{fig:timestheo}
\end{figure}
The theoretical demagnetization time is seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:timestheo} to typically be around $\unit[1]{ps}$, whereas the remagnetization time is $\unit[2-5]{ps}$. Going from the $\textit{A}$2 to the $\textit{B}$2 alloy, both times increase, albeit the simulations show a stronger increase of the remagnetization time as function of alloy composition. We also note that the relevant time scale is somewhat larger for Fe than for Co, and the ratio between them, $\nicefrac{\tau_{Fe}}{\tau_{Co}}$, grows when going from $\textit{A}$2 to $\textit{B}$2 phase.
Figures \ref{fig:CFA_dynamics} (a-d) shows the measured magnetization dynamics of CFA films that were grown at different temperatures (see SM, Sec.S3 for thin films synthesis, and Sec.S4 for details on the experimental measurements \cite{SM}). The inset shows the observed magnetization dynamics up to $\sim$1 ps. For all samples, the data for Fe (red) and Co (blue) show similar demagnetization dynamics in the first few hundred femtoseconds, whereupon differences in the magnetization dynamics become visible, especially on the picosecond timescale.
\begin{figure*}[tbph]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Measured element-specific Fe (red) and Co (blue) magnetization dynamics of Co$_2$FeAl. Samples are denoted by the growth temperature in each case. The red and blue lines correspond to fitted data (see text). (a) $\unit[300]{K}$ (100\% $\textit{A}_2$ phase),
(b) $\unit[573]{K}$ (90\% $B2$ phase),
(c) $\unit[673]{K}$ (90\% $B2$ phase), and
(d) $\unit[773]{K}$ (100\% $B2$ phase).
The insets show the demagnetization dynamics up to $\sim$ $\unit[1]{ps}$. All of the measurements were performed with similar pump-fluence (for details, see Sec.S4 of SM).}
\label{fig:CFA_dynamics}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:demag_remag} (a-b) shows the measured values of the demagnetization and remagnetization time constants, for the four different growth temperatures, representing different degree of disorder in Co$_2$FeAl, along the alloy path $\textit{A}2 \to \textit{B}$2. It may be seen that the $\tau_{M}$ for Fe and Co is the same within the error bars for all four samples, regardless of the degree of structural ordering (Fig.~\ref{fig:demag_remag}a). It may also be noted that the measured $\tau_{M}$ for CFA is similar to that of 3d transition metals \cite{steil2010band,steil2014ultrafast} and very much shorter than that of $\mathrm{CrO_{2}}$ or $\mathrm{Fe_{3}O_{4}}$.
Demagnetization times that are independent on degree of structural ordering is interesting, since it can be expected that the presence of structural disorder in Heusler alloys ought to result in a lower degree of spin polarization of the electronic states (i.e.\ an increased density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level in the minority band). This is expected to enhance spin-flip scattering,
with an accompanying speed-up of the demagnetization dynamics \cite{muller2009spin,mann2012insights}. The electronic structure calculation of CFA also shows that the DOS at the Fermi level varies with different structural phases (analyzed in the Sec.S1 of SM \cite{SM}). The \textit{A}2 phase has a large number of states at the Fermi level, while the $L2_{1}$ phase, and to some extent the \textit{B}2 phase, has a low amount \cite{kumar2017temperature}. Despite these differences in the electronic structure, the measured demagnetization dynamics shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:demag_remag}(a) is essentially independent on degree of structural ordering.
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Measured magnetization times for the investigated Co$_2$FeAl alloys. In (a) the demagnetization time, $\tau_{M}$, is shown and in (b) the remagnetization time, $\tau_{R}$, is plotted.}
\label{fig:demag_remag}
\end{figure}
On longer time-scales, there is a significant effect of structural ordering on the observed magnetization dynamics, which becomes particularly relevant for the remagnetization process. As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:demag_remag}b, there is a monotonous increase of remagnetization time, $\tau_{R}$, with increasing growth temperature and hence the degree of ordering along the $\textit{A}2 \to \textit{B}$2 path.
The sample grown at $\unit[300]{K}$ with $\textit{A}2$ phase, exhibits the fastest remagnetization dynamics ($\tau_{R}$). With increasing growth temperature and corresponding increase in the structural ordering along the $\textit{A}$2 $\rightarrow$ $\textit{B}$2 path, a distinct trend of increasingly slower remagnetization dynamics is observed.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{The relationship of inverse of the measured remagnetization time (right y-axis) and theoretically calculated and experimentally measured Gilbert damping (left y-axis) in Co$_2$FeAl for varying amount of B2 order along the $\textit{A}2 \to \textit{B}$2 path, i.e.\ 0 corresponds to pure A2 phase while 100 corresponds to pure B2 phase.
}
\label{fig:damping_remag}
\end{figure}
The most conspicuous behaviour of the measured magnetization dynamics, and its dependence on the degree of ordering, concerns the remagnetization time (Fig.~\ref{fig:demag_remag}b).
The time-scale of the remagnetization process is sufficiently long to allow for an interpretation based on atomistic spin-dynamics. Two materials specific parameters should be the most relevant to control this dynamics; the exchange interaction, as revealed by the local Weiss field, and the damping parameter. In the Sec.S2 of SM \cite{SM}, we report on the calculated Weiss fields and damping parameters. It is clear from these results that the trend in the experimental data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:demag_remag}b, can not be understood from the Weiss field alone, whereas an explanation based on the damping is more likely. In order to illustrate this, we show in
Fig.~\ref{fig:damping_remag} the inverse of the measured remagnetizatiom time compared to the theoretically calculated damping and experimental measured damping through ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) (described in Sec.S6 of SM)\cite{SM}.
The figure shows that the damping is large in the completely disordered $\textit{A}2$ phase and for a large range of structural orderings, which comes out from both theory and experiment.
The figure also demonstrates that the inverse of the measured remagnetization time scales very well with both the calculated damping and experimentally measured damping . According to the figure, a large damping parameter corresponds to faster remagnetization dynamics in the measurements.
$\mathrm{Co_{2}FeAl}$ is, to the best of our knowledge, the first system where experimental observations and theory point to the importance of damping in the process of ultrafast magnetization dynamics. We note that this primarily is relevant for the remagnetization process; the initial part of the magnetization dynamics (first few hundred fs) is distinctly different. In the demagnetization we observe a similar behaviour for Fe and Co in all samples, and an insensitivity of the demagnetization times in relation to structural ordering. Also, the measured and theoretical demagnetization times evaluated from atomistic spin-dynamics simulations, do not agree. Other mechanisms, of electronic origin, most likely play role in this temporal regime.
The remagnetization process of $\mathrm{Co_{2}FeAl}$ alloys with varying degree of structural order, highlights clearly the importance of the Gilbert damping and that magnon dynamics dominates the magnetization at ps time-scales. The relevance of the Gilbert damping parameter for ps dynamics is natural, since this controls angular momentum (and energy) transfer to the surrounding. What is surprising with $\mathrm{Co_{2}FeAl}$ is the fact that other interactions (e.g. the Weiss field) show such a weak dependence on the amount of structural diorder. This is fortuitous, since it allows to identify the importance of the Gilbert damping.
A picture emerges from the results presented here, that the magnetization dynamics in general have two regimes; one which is primarily governed by electronic processes, and is mainly active in the first few hundered fs ($\tau_{M}$), and a second regime where it is primarily magnons that govern the remagnetiztion dynamics ($\tau_{R}$).
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge support from the Swedish Research Council (VR, contracts 2019-03666,2017–03799, 2016-04524 and 2013-08316), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, project “SSF Magnetic materials for green energy technology” under Grant No. EM16-0039, the Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation, STandUP and eSSENCE, for financial support. The Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) is acknowledged for computational resources.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-2}
|
\section{Introduction}
Strongly correlated phases of matter are often described in terms of
relatively simple real space order parameters,
which are theoretically understood using
Landau symmetry-breaking theory~\cite{wen2004quantum}. For instance,
ferromagnetism on a square lattice involves a uniform arrangement where the
electrons' spins align and create a magnetic state with a wavevector
${\bf q=0}$. Antiferromagnetism, slightly more complex, is revealed by a
${\bf q} =$ {\boldmath $\pi$} alternation of the electrons' spin
state on two sublattices. These choices, and incommensurate
(spiral) order which bridges them at general ${\bf q}$, can be
characterized in a unified way through the magnetic structure factor,
$S({\bf q})$, and further generalized to include time-domain patterns
via the dynamic susceptibility, $\chi({\bf q},\omega)$.
Similar statements apply to charge density wave and other phases
involving diagonal long-range order.
While many of our theoretical and experimental probes of interacting
quantum systems have been constructed with coupling to these patterns
in mind, there is an increasing realization that the most interesting
strongly correlated phases might not be immediately accessible via such
observables. Cuprate and iron pnictide superconductors, which combine closely
entwined conventional phases with well-established order parameters, and much
less well-understood non-Fermi liquid (NFL) or pseudogap phases with so far
``hidden orders" are
examples~\cite{j_orenstein_00,c_varma_02,s_sachdev_16}, as is the zoo of orbital
ferromagnetism, superconductivity, and Mott insulating behavior in twisted
bilayer graphene~\cite{y_cao_18,y_cao_18b}.
The community of strongly correlated quantum systems is thus faced with
the challenge of developing new means of identifying complex phases.
Here, we introduce an unbiased approach in which artificial intelligence (AI) is used to extract hidden
features from raw images of quantum many-body systems.
We test our approach using projective measurements
on a two-dimensional (2D) Fermi-Hubbard model, obtained through quantum
gas microscopy of ultracold fermionic atoms in an optical lattice.
We find that filters of a convolutional neural network (CNN), trained to recognize
snapshots of fermions, capture features at different densities that have clear
interpretation in terms of short- and long-range magnetic correlations.
We further show that a more complex CNN can produce an
effective order parameter for the NFL phase, based on the interplay of multiple
types of density fluctuations, reflecting the more enigmatic
nature of the correlations in this phase.
In the experiment, the 2D Fermi-Hubbard model is realized using a spin-balanced
mixture of the first and third lowest energy states of $^6$Li loaded into a square
optical lattice. We work at a magnetic field of 615 G in the vicinity of the
Feshbach resonance near 690 G, which gives a scattering length of
1056(10)$\mathrm{a_0}$, where $\mathrm{a_0}$ is the Bohr radius
The lattice depth is $7.25(2) E_R$, where $E_R$ is the lattice
recoil energy and $E_R / h = 14.66$ kHz. For these parameters we obtain
$t/h=850(20)$~Hz and $U/t = 8.0(1)$. Here, $t$ and $U$ are the nearest-neighbor
hopping matrix element and the strength of onsite repulsive interaction, respectively,
in the Hubbard model (see Appendix A).
Using quantum gas microscopy techniques~\cite{p_brown_17}, we image the atoms
in the lattice with single site resolution with a fidelity of 98\%. When a
fluorescence image is taken, atoms on doubly occupied sites undergo light-assisted
collisions and appear empty. An image taken this way allows us to extract the
local moment on each site. Alternatively, we can apply a short pulse of resonant
light prior to taking an image to eject atoms of one of the two hyperfine states.
This allows us to measure the single component density of the remaining hyperfine state.
Our lattice beams produce a harmonic trapping potential, which if uncompensated
leads to significant variations of the local density. To study regions of uniform
density, we flatten the potential using light shaped using a spatial light
modulator~\cite{p_brown_18}. In the subsequent analysis, we work with a flattened
region of $20\times 20$ lattice sites.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics*[width=3.3in]{Phase_Samples_CNN4.png}
\caption{{\bf Phase diagram, sample snapshots, and CNN architecture.}
(a) Schematic phase diagram of cuprate high-temperature superconductors
in the space of temperature and hole doping. AF, PG and SC stand for
antiferromagnetic, pseudogap, and superconducting phases, respectively.
(b) Sample experimental (left) and determinant quantum Monte Carlo (right) snapshots
taken for $U=8t$ at the density $n \sim 0.82$ at different temperatures. The
bottom row shows the lower-temperature snapshots whose pixels have
been randomly shuffled, i.e., ``fake" snapshots.
(c) The main convolutional neural network architecture used in this study.
It contains a convolutional layer with one filter and one feature map
followed by a global pooling layer, a hidden layer with eight
fully connected neurons, and an output softmax layer with two neurons, each
associated with a temperature limit. We use the rectified linear unit (ReLU) as
the activation function in all but the output layer.
In our experiments we observe that the presence of the fully connected layer
accelerates the training of the neural network.\label{fig:sample}}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:sample} shows two randomly chosen samples of binarized
occupancy snapshots at an average density of $n=0.82(2)$
at two extreme temperatures of $T\sim U \sim 8\,t$ and $T\sim0.35\,t$.
These parameters place us within the NFL region of a typical cuprate
phase diagram [see Fig.~\ref{fig:sample}(a)]. Thermometry is performed using
averages of various correlation functions taken over such
snapshots~\cite{p_brown_18}.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
\hline
$n=\to$ & $0.97$ & $0.835$ & $0.82$ & $0.735$ & $0.70$ & $0.64$ & $0.58$ \\
\hline
Spin-up/spin-down & $402$ & & $216$ & & & & \\
Singles & $201$ & $281$ & $5023$ & $290$ & $342$ & $281$ & $330$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of available experimental snapshots at $T\sim 0.35$ for different densities.}
\end{table}
The increasingly large number of snapshots
taken in quantum gas microscope experiments in various regions of the parameter space
lends itself to data-driven approaches for science discovery, such
as the enlisting of AI (see Table I for the number of snapshots used in this study). In fact, early implementations of
machine learning techniques for the study of quantum many-body systems
demonstrated great potential~\cite{Carleo2016,j_carrasquilla_16,k_chng_17,d_deng_16,e_vanNieuwenburg_17,y_zhang_17a,p_zhang_18}.
Recent applications to experimental data have
directly led to the discovery of new physics~\cite{f_zhang_18,a_bohrdt_18,b_rem_19,g_torlai_19,a_samarakoon_20}, modeling of their distribution~\cite{c_casert_20},
or the optimization of experimental processes~\cite{p_wigley_16,r_lewis_19},
including those related to quantum gas microscopy.
CNNs offer an ideal platform for the detection of patterns in the experimental snapshots.
Not only can they efficiently compress the information in images and use them for
classification, but also their trained filters provide a window into the relevant
features observed~\cite{m_zeiler_14}. Figure~\ref{fig:sample}(c) shows the main CNN architecture
we have used. After labeling them according to their temperature, hundreds of
snapshots taken at the extreme temperatures along with their labels are provided to the CNN for training.
During the training, the network adjusts its free parameters to minimize the difference
between given labels and its prediction (see Appendix B).
The convolutional layer in our CNN interacts directly with the input snapshots and,
therefore, examining the filter after the completion of training can teach us
about the most important feature the network has picked up.
\section{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:5x5}(a) shows a sample $5\times 5$ filter for a CNN that
is trained to distinguish experimental
snapshots of a single species of fermions at the highest temperature ($T\sim2.5t$) from those
at the lowest temperature ($T\sim0.35t$) when $n\sim 1$. If we expect mostly random behavior at high
temperature, of the same order as the largest energy scale in the system,
the features that spontaneously develop in the filters during training will most
likely represent patterns found in the low-temperature snapshots. We find that the CNN
consistently makes the distinction with more than 91\% accuracy, and
it does so using filters showing a distinctive pattern indicative of long-range
antiferromagnetic (AF) correlations.
\begin{figure}
\centerline {\includegraphics*[width=3.3in]{filters_up_down6.png}}
\caption{{\bf Analysis of single-species snapshots using CNNs with one filter.}
Sample $5\times 5$ trained filters for (a) $n \sim 1$ and (b) $n = 0.82$.
The CNN architecture is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sample}(c).
The testing accuracies are between 91\% and 96\%. The visual pattern
in (a) is consistent with recognizing long-range antiferromagnetic (AF) order near half filling. The
filter in (b) indicates a pattern capturing short-range AF correlations.
(c, d) Similar sample filters evolved from training
runs using determinant quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) simulations at $T=0.1t$ and $0.44t$, with testing
accuracies of 91\% and 68\%, respectively.
(e, f) Theory data for the nearest-neighbor
spin-spin correlation for $U=8t$ vs~density at different temperatures (numerical linked
cluster expansion), and
vs~distance for $n = 0.81$ and $n = 1.00$ at $T=0.44t$ (DQMC). These results illustrate that
AI can capture the correct trends in magnetic behavior of the Hubbard model,
and that the trained filters carry a clear physical interpretation.
\label{fig:5x5}}
\end{figure}
Training the CNN using similar snapshots obtained for $n=0.82$ at $T\sim7.5t$ and $0.35t$
results in filters that reflect a shorter-range anticorrelation between
neighboring fermions of the same species [see Fig.~\ref{fig:5x5}(b)].
The nearest-neighbor checkerboard pattern
emerging in the filters is consistent with the fact that the correlation length
in the NFL region is about one lattice spacing~\cite{j_tranquada_07}.
We find that this feature appears at different locations in the filter for
different training runs, which points to a redundancy: on average the filter must
reflect the translational symmetry of the underlying system.
These findings suggest that the network effectively uses the strength
of AF correlations as a measure for classifying snapshots of a single species
of fermions. Figures~\ref{fig:5x5}(e) and ~\ref{fig:5x5}(f)
show that the density, distance, and
temperature dependence of the magnetic correlations of the model,
$C_s({\bf r})$ (see Appendix A), which are calculated here on a $10\times 10$ cluster
using the determinant quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) method~\cite{r_blankenbecler_81},
or in the thermodynamic limit using the numerical linked cluster expansion
(NLCE)~\cite{M_rigol_06,E_khatami_11b}, support this observation.
Quantum Monte Carlo simulations also provide a platform to corroborate
these findings. However, except in one spatial dimension, these
simulations cannot provide projective measurements in the density
basis. Instead, theory ``snapshots" can be constructed via expectation
values of local charge or spin density using instances of auxiliary
field variables during a simulation; for example, the $i$th
pixel of a spin-up DQMC snapshot is
$\left<\hat{n}_{i\uparrow}\right>_{h}=1-\mathcal{G}_{ii\uparrow}(h)$,
where $\mathcal{G}_{ii\uparrow}(h)$ is the $i$th diagonal element of the
spin-up equal time Green's function matrix for the auxiliary field instance $h$.
We perform the simulations for a $10\times 10$ site Hubbard system with
$U=8t$ at several average densities and temperatures (see Appendix D).
At high temperatures,
of the order of $3t$, we find that density snapshots are fuzzy with no clear
empty sites; mostly fluctuations about an average background density can be seen.
This fuzziness is less of a concern for single-species snapshots
[see Fig.~\ref{fig:sample}(b)], although they too lose their pixelated character at
higher temperatures. For this reason, to eliminate
fuzziness as an obvious feature for the CNN to learn, instead of high-temperature
snapshots, we use low-temperature
images whose pixels have been randomly shuffled, effectively destroying any physical
correlations. In the following, we refer to the
latter as {\it fake} (as opposed to {\it real}) snapshots.
Figures~\ref{fig:5x5}(c) and \ref{fig:5x5}(d) show sample filters from
training experiments using theory snapshots of single species at half filling and $n=0.82$.
Despite reduced accuracies of about 68\% for the latter, which we
believe is due to the exacerbation of the issue with the nonprojective nature of simulated images at this
density, we find that the trained features
are in excellent agreement with those obtained with quantum gas microscope
snapshots. Together, they demonstrate that relevant spin correlations can be
captured in an unbiased fashion through CNNs.
Studies of the origin of the NFL behavior,
a central question in any theory of high-temperature superconductivity~\cite{s_sachdev_10},
have for decades been focused on its possible connections to the order parameter fluctuations of
a magnetic quantum critical
point~\cite{j_hertz_76,s_sachdev_92a,a_millis_93,g_stewart_01,h_lohneysen_07,s_sachdev_10,a_fitzpatrick_13}.
Here, we are in a position to ask whether any such fluctuations manifest
themselves in charge correlations too, and to what extent they can be inferred
from the other type of snapshots available in the experiment, those of local moments.
A similar analysis using images at the two extreme temperatures, however,
is largely affected by the abundance of doubly occupied sites at $T\sim 7.5t$,
and their lack of representation in the snapshots of local moments.
Upon lowering the temperature to $T\sim 0.35t$, the fraction of doubly occupied
sites at 18\% doping reduces roughly by a factor of 4, from 12\% to about 3\%~\cite{E_khatami_11b},
providing the CNN again with an obvious feature with which to perform classification.
Removing this bias by randomly populating pixels to create ``fake"
replacements for high-temperature snapshots in the training, brings
the accuracy down dramatically when $n=0.82$.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics*[width=3.3in]{ExptTrainingLM3.png}}
\caption{{\bf Analysis of local moment snapshots using CNNs with one filter.}
Representative $5\times 5$ filters for runs at (a) $n = 0.58$,
(c) $n =0.82$, and (d) $n = 0.97$ using the same
CNN architecture as one used for snapshots of single species. (b)
The nearest-neighbor local moment correlation function from DQMC (solid
line) on an $8\times 8$ cluster at $T=0.3t$ and from the experiment (circles) at
similar low temperatures. The testing accuracy reaches (a) $89\%$, (c) $62\%$,
and (d) $60\%$.\label{fig:ExptLM}}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:ExptLM} shows that the accuracy of CNNs trained on snapshots of
local moments largely depends on the strength of short-range correlations between the moments.
The largest accuracies (almost $90\%$) are typically achieved near quarter
filling, where the correlations are the most negative. Patterns observed in
filters trained in this region are also consistent with the anticorrelation of neighboring moments
[Fig.~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(a)]. The accuracy drops to around $60\%$ at $n= 0.82$,
near the zero crossing of the correlator, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(b).
Typical trained filters do not display any immediately recognizable patterns
either [see Fig.~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(c)]. Near half filling, the correlations
between local moments are positive due to the bunching of holes and
doubly occupied sites~\cite{l_cheuk_16}. Here, we find that despite the relatively
low accuracies ($\lesssim 65\%$), trained filters often do reflect the
bunching of empty sites [Fig.~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(d)].
\begin{figure*}
\centering{\includegraphics*[width=\textwidth]{ExptTrain6filters4.png}}
\caption{{\bf Analysis of local moment snapshots using CNNs with multiple filters.}
(a) The six filters of a trained CNN. Training is performed with the 5023
experimental local moment snapshots taken at $n= 0.82$ and $T\sim 0.35$.
The testing accuracy remains at $62\%$ with less than $1\%$ variation over the last 20 epochs (see Appendix B).
(b) The difference in the average network output for $T\sim 0.35t$ real and fake snapshots
as a function of the density when all six filters are present:
$\Delta\left<\text{Network Output}^{(1)} \right>\equiv \left<\text{Network Output}^{(1)}
({\bf X}^{\text{real}}) \right>-\left< \text{Network Output}^{(1)} ({\bf X}^{\text{fake}}) \right>$.
Superscript $(1)$ indicates the value at the output neuron responsible
for real low-temperature snapshots (see Appendix B).
This quantity indicates roughly the percentage of the output attributable
to factors other than the density.
(c) Similar to (b) at $n= 0.82$ when the CNN has access to one filter at a time.
(d) Four representative filters of a CNN with sixteen $5\times 5$
filters trained using DQMC snapshots of local moments (see Appendix D).
(e, f) Same as (b) and (c), but obtained using the CNN in (d).\label{fig:Expt6filter}}
\end{figure*}
The comparison of Fig.~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(c) ($n=0.82$) with Figs.~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(a)
and ~\ref{fig:ExptLM}(d) ($n=0.58, 0.97$) makes it clear
that snapshots of local moments in the NFL region of the Hubbard
model do not contain a single dominant ordering pattern and that a more
advanced treatment may be necessary to capture the physics.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}, we show results of a training with a CNN,
modified to include six $7 \times 7$ filters in its convolutional layer (see Appendix B).
The bigger data set we have available for snapshots of local moments at this density
allows us to experiment with different filter sizes and numbers of filters.
We find that including more than one filter in the CNN improves the best accuracies
only marginally in this case, up to around 65\%, and having too
many and/or much larger filters can still result in overfitting.
We also find that using a deeper CNN with two convolutional layers does
not significantly improve the accuracy.
Figure~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(a) shows six filters of a sample CNN trained on the
local moment snapshots. Their fuzzy patterns offer some insight
into possible spatial arrangements of local moments at low temperatures. As we see below,
patterns in filters $m=1, 4, 5$, and $6$ are more frequently associated
by the network with real low-temperature snapshots at this filling, whereas patterns
in filter $m=2$ are more frequently associated with fake snapshots.
By transferring the knowledge of the CNN to other densities, we find that
the network is the most sensitive to correlations around the NFL region.
Figure~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(b) shows the difference in probabilities
that a snapshot and its fake counterpart are categorized as belonging to the NFL region,
effectively eliminating density itself as a factor in the signal. We find this
quantity to be maximal in the vicinity of $n= 0.8$, suggesting that
the CNN as a whole is in fact focusing on local moment correlations more unique
to the NFL region and slightly lower densities.
While the contribution of individual filters to the CNN's decision making cannot be completely
isolated, we can study what the network output would be if each filter were to act alone (see Appendix B).
Figure~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(c) shows this quantity averaged over samples at $n=0.82$,
after subtracting the value for the corresponding fake snapshot,
for each of the six filters shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(a). The results suggest that
filters 1 and 6, if acting alone, would have the largest effect on the decision
making at this average density, followed by filters 2, 4, and 5, while
filter 3 plays almost no role at all. The negative value for filter 2 indicates that
the network signal is larger on average for fake snapshots in that case.
Using DQMC, we verify that similar trends can be observed in simulated
snapshots of local moments. However, unlike with the experimental snapshots,
here, we find that the accuracy generally increases with increasing
the number of filters in the CNN, while increasing the filter size does not
necessarily improve the performance. We attribute these to the fundamental difference
between the two types of snapshots (projective vs nonprojective).
Figure~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(d) highlights a representative sample of $5\times 5$
filters of a CNN with 16 such filters, trained on simulated snapshots
reaching to an accuracy of 87\% (see Appendix C). They appear to measure a variety of
short-range correlations to assist the network in making decisions.
Figure~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(e) shows the overall signal of the CNN for
correlations unique to the NFL phase, plotted across densities. It has
a broad peak around the NFL region. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Expt6filter}(f),
patterns in the first three filters seem to be mostly associated with real snapshots in
the NFL region, while the pattern in the $m=4$ filter is mostly associated with the fake snapshots.
We find that including the information about doubly occupied sites, i.e., using full
density snapshots, generally improves the diversity of features seen in the trained
filters while yielding the same basic trends.
\section{Discussion}
Using specially designed artificial neural networks,
we have developed algorithms for extracting organizing patterns of
correlated particles from raw quantum many-body data
in an unbiased fashion and without any prior theoretical
knowledge. When applied to the snapshots of one of the two species of
fermionic atoms in a 2D optical lattice, our approach yields patterns indicative
of long- and short-range AF correlation near and away from the commensurate filling, consistent with theory.
We show that these features can be reproduced using nonprojective measurements from DQMC simulations.
Our analysis provides a window into the signatures of the NFL phase, one
of the most mysterious and theoretically challenging phases in correlated
electron systems, in snapshots of local moments from the quantum gas microscope. We show that in this case, a more
complex neural network can be constructed and trained to be sensitive to
correlations specific to the strange metallic phase. A similar
analysis of snapshots with information about both species of particles in future
experiments~\cite{j_koepsell_20} may further reveal the interplay between spin and
charge fluctuations in this region.
Nonlinearities in the neural network model
make the interpretation of features seen in the filters vis-\`{a}-vis correlations
in the physical snapshots challenging since the knowledge of the network can be
divided in nontrivial ways among its different components. An early example
of this was the surprisingly successful classification of
snapshots of the Ising lattice gauge theory at $T=0$ and $T=\infty$, despite the
lack of an order parameter, using CNNs with multiple filters~\cite{j_carrasquilla_16}.
The procedure we have introduced here overcomes aspects of this challenge.
We point out that the nonlinearities are key for the success of our CNNs;
for example, the principal component analysis~\cite{pca}, a linear unsupervised learning method,
largely fails to draw any meaningful distinction between sets of snapshots (see Appendix E).
The techniques developed in this work for the AI-assisted feature extraction
in projective measurements can be adapted to peek into other
mysterious phenomena for the Fermi-Hubbard model, such as
the pseudogap phase~\cite{c_chiu_19}, or the magnetic polaron which has been
observed closer to half filling~\cite{j_koepsell_19}. They can also
be employed to study other microscopic models of correlated
systems. Our work paves the way for AI-related studies that go beyond
mere categorization and the quest for gaining more predictive power
and focus instead on the inner workings of the machines to advance
our understanding of complicated natural phenomena.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Christie Chiu, Annabelle Bohrdt, and Neil Switz for useful discussions.
E.K. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant
No. DMR-1918572. Computations were performed in part on the Spartan high-performance
computing facility at San Jos\'{e} State University, which is supported by the
NSF under Grant No. OAC-1626645. The work of R.T.S. was supported by Grant No.
DE-SC0014671 funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science.
The work of E.G.-S., B.M.S., and W.S.B. was supported by the NSF under Grant No.
DMR-1607277, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation under Grant No. 2016-65128,
and the AFOSR Young Investigator Research Program under Grant No. FA9550-16-1-0269.
J.C. acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada (NSERC), the Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNET),
Compute Canada, Google Quantum Research Award, and the Canada CIFAR AI chair program.
|
\section*{INTRODUCTION}
\let\thefootnote\relax\footnotetext{This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in \textit{Nature Communications} 12, 885 (2021). The final authenticated version is available online
at: \url{https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20456-x}.}
There has been growing interest in higher-order quantum processes in which separate operations do not occur in a definite causal order (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Hardy_2005_ProbabilityTheoriesWithDynamicCausalStructure,
ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure,
OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder,
Chiribella_2012_PerfectDiscriminationOfChannelsViaSuperpositionCS,
AraujoEtAl_2014_ComputationalAdvantage,
AraujoEtAl_2015_WitnessingCausalNonSeparability,
OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses,
GuerinEtAl_2016_ExponentialCommunicationComplexityAdvantage,
BranciardEtAl_2015_SimplestCausalInequalitiesAndViolations,
OreshkovEtAl_2016_OperationalQuantumTheoryWithoutTime,
Baumeler_2017_ReversibleTimeTravelWithFreedomOfChoice,
Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses,
SilvaEtAl_2017_ConnectingIndefiniteWithMultiTime,
AbbottEtAl_2017_GenuinelyMultipartiteNoncausality,
Portmann_2017_CausalBoxes,
MiklinEtAl_2017_EntropicApproachToCausalCorrelations,
JiaEtAl_2018_TensorProductsOfProcessMatricesWithIndefiniteCS,
Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems,
EblerEtAl_2018_EnhancedCommunicationFromIndefiniteCausalOrder,
CastroEtAl_2018_DynamicsOfQuantumCausalStructures,
UijlenEtAl_2019_CategoricalSemanticsCausalStructure,
TobarEtAl_2020_ReversibleDynamicsWithCTCs} for a selection).
This property, called causal nonseparability
\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder,
AraujoEtAl_2015_WitnessingCausalNonSeparability,
OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses, WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability}
was formalized within the process matrix framework \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder},
which describes correlations between quantum nodes of intervention without assuming a predefined order between the nodes. Challenging conventional notions of causality, causally nonseparable processes have been shown to allow informational tasks that cannot be achieved with operations used in a definite order \cite{Chiribella_2012_PerfectDiscriminationOfChannelsViaSuperpositionCS,
AraujoEtAl_2014_ComputationalAdvantage,
FeixEtAl_2015_QuantumSuperpositionOfOrderAsResource,
GuerinEtAl_2016_ExponentialCommunicationComplexityAdvantage}.
Such processes have been conjectured to be relevant in the context of quantum gravity \cite{Hardy_2005_ProbabilityTheoriesWithDynamicCausalStructure, ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure, OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder, ZychEtAl_2019_BellsTheoremForTemporalOrder}
and closed time-like curves \cite{ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure, OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder, Brukner_QuantumCausality, AraujoEtAl_2017_QuantumComputationWithIndefiniteCausalStructure, Baumeler_2017_ReversibleTimeTravelWithFreedomOfChoice, TobarEtAl_2020_ReversibleDynamicsWithCTCs}, but some are also known to admit realizations in standard quantum mechanics on time-delocalized systems \cite{Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems}.
A prominent example is the quantum SWITCH, which has been demonstrated experimentally \cite{ProcopioEtAl_2015_ExperimentalSuperpositionOfOrders, RubinoEtAl_2017_ExperimentalVerificationIndefiniteCausalOrders, GoswamiEtAl_2018_IndefiniteCausalOrderInQuantumSWITCH, RubinoEtAl_2019_ExperimentalEntanglementOfTemporalOrders, WeiEtAl_2019_ExperimentalQuantumSWITCHCommunicationComplexity, GuoEtAl_2020_ExperimentalTransmitionOfQIThroughSuperpositionOfCausalOrder}.
On a separate front, there is the recent development of the framework of quantum causal models \cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Tucci_1995_QuantumBayesianNets,
Leifer_2006_QuantumDynamicsAndConditionalProbability,
LeiferEtAl_2008QuantumGraphicalModels,
Laskey_2007_QuantumCausalNetworks,
LeiferEtAl_2013_QTAsBayesianInference,
HensonEtAl_2014_TheoryIndependentLimitsGeneralisedBayesianNetworks,
PienaarEtAl_2015_GraphSeparationTheoremForQCMs,
RiedEtAl_2015_QuantumAdvantageForCausalInference,
Fritz_2016_BeyondBellsTheorem,
CostaEtAl_2016_QuantumCausalModeling,
Pienaar_2018_QuantumCausalModelsViaQuantumBayesianism} for related, previous work) as a fully quantum version of the classical framework of causal models \cite{Pearl_Causality, SpirtesEtAL_2000_BookCausationPredictionSearch}.
It is formulated within the formalism of process matrices, but contains the classical causal models as special cases and generalizes many of the fundamental concepts and core theorems of the latter.
Quantum causal models thus constitute a general framework for reasoning about quantum systems in causal terms, allowing the rigorous study of the empirical constraints imposed by quantum causal structures
-- however, only as far as causal structures are concerned that are expressible as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), i.e., where there is a well-defined causal order.
The central idea behind the approach in Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} is that causal relations between quantum systems, as encoded in a DAG, correspond to influence through underlying unitary transformations. This facilitated, in particular, a justification of the quantum Markov condition relative to a DAG that underpins the definition of a quantum causal model -- any such model can be thought of as arising from a unitary circuit fragment with a compatible causal structure by marginalizing over latent local disturbances \cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}.
It is a natural question whether these hitherto separate lines of research can be merged to arrive at a causal model perspective on processes that are not compatible with a fixed order of the quantum nodes.
While this direction of thought has been considered in earlier work (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{CostaEtAl_2016_QuantumCausalModeling, MacleanEtAl_2017_QuantumCoherentMixturesOfCausalRelations, GiarmatziEtAl_2018_CausalDiscoveryAlgorithm}), it was previously not clear how to take the idea forward due to various conceptual and technical obstacles -- including, for example, how quantum nodes and the quantum Markov condition should be defined, how the notion of autonomy of causal mechanisms should be understood \cite{MacleanEtAl_2017_QuantumCoherentMixturesOfCausalRelations}, and how to prevent paradoxes.
This work overcomes these obstacles by generalizing the approach to quantum causal models of Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}.
A large class of processes that are not compatible with a fixed order of the nodes can then be understood to have a causal structure, albeit one that includes directed cycles.
This may appear counterintuitive, but the process matrix framework guarantees that it is free of paradoxes.
The motivation for entertaining such a proposal is two-fold. First, in light of the puzzling nature of causally nonseparable processes and the open question of which ones are physically possible in nature, a conceptual clarification of causal structure is an important next step. Second, our approach yields mathematical tools facilitating new technical results, including a more fine-grained description of the compositional structure of a process that is implied by its causal properties.
One of the implications of the latter derived in this work is a proof that all bipartite processes that admit a unitary extension \cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder} are causally separable. We also prove that for unitary processes, causal nonseparability and cyclicity of their causal structure are equivalent.
\section*{RESULTS}
\subsection*{The process formalism, causal order and signalling}
Let us start by setting out some necessary background and essential concepts.
In quantum theory, a system $A$ is associated with a complex Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_A$, and its state is a density operator $\rho_A \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$, where $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A)$ is the space of linear operators over $\mathcal{H}_A$. The most general evolution of a system, assuming that it is initially uncorrelated with its environment, is given by a completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) map $\mathcal{E}: \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$, where this notation allows the output system to be different from the input system.
The most general operation that an agent can perform from an input system A to an output system B has a classical outcome $k$ and specifies the transformation from A to B conditioned on each value of $k$ being obtained. Mathematically, the operation corresponds to a quantum instrument, which is a collection of completely positive (CP) maps $\{\mathcal{E}^{k}:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A})\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B})\}$, such that $\mathcal{E} = \sum_{k} \mathcal{E}^{k}$ is a trace-preserving CP map.
It is convenient to represent CP maps with operators, via a variant of the Choi-Jamio\l kowski (CJ) isomorphism \cite{Jamolkowski_1972, Choi_1975}, which to a given CP map $\mathcal{E}: \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_A) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_B)$ associates the CJ operator $\rho^{\mathcal{E}}_{B|A} := \sum_{i,j} \ \mathcal{E}(\ket{i}_A\bra{j}) \otimes \ket{i}_{A^*}\bra{j}$, where $\left\{ \ket{i}_A \right\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}_A$, and $\left\{ \ket{i}_{A^*} \right\}$ the corresponding dual basis. The CJ operator for a CPTP map $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies $\textnormal{Tr}_{B}[\rho^{\mathcal{E}}_{B|A}] = \mathds{1}_{A^*}$. This variant of the CJ isomorphism is used in Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, and has the advantage that the CJ operator is both positive semi-definite and independent of the basis used in its definition.
The idea behind the process formalism \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder} is that there is a fixed set of locations $A_i$, $i=1,\cdots, n$, which in this work we call quantum nodes, at each of which an agent can perform an operation on a quantum system. A quantum node $A_i$ is associated with two Hilbert spaces, an input Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{A_i^{\textrm{in}}}$ and an output Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{A_i^{\textrm{out}}}$ (both here assumed finite-dimensional). The input Hilbert space carries the state of the input system just before the operation by the agent, and the output Hilbert space carries the state of the output system just after the operation. The operation itself corresponds to a quantum instrument $\{\mathcal{E}_A^{k_A}:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A^{\textrm{in}}})\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A_{\textrm{out}}})\}$. Conceptually, a quantum node is sometimes thought of as representing a small, localized laboratory in some region of spacetime, but may also be conceived more abstractly, for example as occupying a particular position in between the gates of a quantum circuit.
The aim of the process formalism is to describe the correlations between the outcomes of the operations that are performed at the separate quantum nodes. Given a set of instruments at the quantum nodes $A_1,...,A_n$, the joint probability for their outcomes is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_quantumprocesstracerule}
P(k_{A_1}, \ldots , k_{A_n}) = \textnormal{Tr} \Big[ \sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} \Big( \bigotimes_i \tau^{k_{A_i}}_{A_i} \Big) \Big] \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\tau^{k_A}_A := \left( \rho^{\mathcal{E}^{k_A}}_{{A^{\text{out}}}|A^{\text{in}}} \right)^T$, and
$\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} \in \mathcal{L}( \bigotimes_i \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{in}}_i} \otimes \mathcal{H}^*_{A^{\text{out}}_i})$ is called the process operator, and which we will also sometimes refer to more simply as the process.
A process operator $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$, which up to a different convention of the CJ isomorphism is the same as a process matrix \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}, obeys constraints, designed to ensure that valid joint probabilities are returned by Eq.~(\ref{Eq_quantumprocesstracerule}) for any possible choices of the operations performed by the agents, and that the same holds even when the agents have pre-shared entanglement. These constraints are \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}: $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} \geq 0$ and $\textnormal{Tr} [ \sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} \ (\tau_{A_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \tau_{A_n}) ] = 1$, for any set of CPTP maps $\{\tau_{A_i}\}$ at the $n$ nodes. Simple-to-check necessary and sufficient conditions for an operator in $\mathcal{L}( \bigotimes_i \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{in}}_i} \otimes \mathcal{H}^*_{A^{\text{out}}_i})$ to be a valid process operator can be found in Refs.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2015_WitnessingCausalNonSeparability, OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses}. To avoid clutter when tracing over a node $A$ we will write $\textnormal{Tr}_{A}[ \rule{0.25cm}{0.4pt}] := \textnormal{Tr}_{A^{\text{in}}(A^{\text{out}})^*}[ \rule{0.25cm}{0.4pt}]$.
A question of central interest in the study of the process formalism has been whether a given process operator is compatible with the existence of a definite causal order of its nodes. A closely related question concerns how this relates to the possibilities for signalling between different nodes. Let us first make these notions more precise.
Consider the sequence of quantum operations represented in the form of a circuit in Fig.~\ref{Fig_Definitecausalorder}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_1.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\caption{Simple circuit with two quantum nodes $A$ and $B$. \label{Fig_Definitecausalorder}}
\end{figure}
The gate in the circuit corresponds to an arbitrary CPTP map $\mathcal{E}$, and the initial preparation to an arbitrary bipartite state $\rho$. Quantum nodes $A$ and $B$ correspond to positions in the circuit in between gates, at which an agent can choose to perform a quantum instrument on the system at that position. The nodes are represented as broken wires, with it understood that the agent's instrument mediates the two pieces. The lower piece of the wire corresponds to the input Hilbert space of the quantum node and the upper piece of the wire to the output Hilbert space. Any circuit with some wires broken defines a partial order over the quantum nodes, with a node $N$ preceding node $N'$ in the partial order if and only if there is a path from $N$ to $N'$ along the (broken or unbroken) wires of the circuit. We call this partial order the causal order. In the example, node $A$ precedes node $B$ in the causal order. The circuit defines joint probabilities for the outcomes of any quantum instruments that are performed at nodes $A$ and $B$, hence defines a process operator over the nodes $A$ and $B$.
An important concept is now that of causal separability, first introduced in Ref.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder} for the bipartite case.
A bipartite process $\sigma_{AB}$ is called causally separable iff it can be seen to arise as a convex mixture of processes with a fixed causal order between $A$ and $B$, i.e., $\sigma_{AB} = p \ \sigma_{AB}^{A \npreceq B} + (1-p) \ \sigma_{AB}^{B \npreceq A}$,
with $0 \leq p \leq 1$, where $\sigma_{AB}^{B \npreceq A}$ is a process that can arise from a sequence of operations of the form of Fig.~\ref{Fig_Definitecausalorder}, and $\sigma_{AB}^{A \npreceq B}$ is a process that can arise from a different sequence of operations, of the same form except that $B$ precedes $A$. Otherwise $\sigma_{AB}$ is causally nonseparable. The idea is that a causally separable process can be thought to describe a situation in which a well defined, though possibly unknown, causal order of the nodes exists, whereas a causally nonseparable process is not compatible with such an interpretation.
The connection with signalling between the nodes is as follows. Given a bipartite process $\sigma_{AB}$, we say that there is no signalling from quantum node $B$ to quantum node $A$ if and only if for all quantum instruments $\tau_A^{k_A}$ at $A$ and all deterministic quantum instruments $\tau_B$ at $B$, the probability distribution $P(k_A)=\textnormal{Tr} [\sigma_{AB} (\tau_A^{k_A} \otimes \tau_B )]$ is independent of $\tau_B$. This condition is equivalent to $\sigma_{AB} = \sigma_{A B^{\text{in}} } \otimes \mathds{1}_{(B^{\text{out}})^*}$ \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}. The connection between signalling and causal order is that in any sequence of operations of the form of Fig.~\ref{Fig_Definitecausalorder}, there is no signalling from $B$ to $A$. Moreover, every bipartite process operator with no-signalling from $B$ to $A$ is known to have a realisation as the process operator arising from a circuit of the form of Fig.~\ref{Fig_Definitecausalorder} \cite{ChirbiellaEtAl_2009_QuantumNetworkFramework}.
The formal definition of the multipartite generalization of causal separability is more intricate than in the bipartite case: beyond just convex mixtures of fixed causal orders, the definition allows for a dynamical causal order in which the causal order at later quantum nodes can depend on the events taking place at earlier quantum nodes. This definition is postponed to a later section dedicated to causal separability. See also Refs.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses, WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability} for a detailed discussion. A discussion of signalling in a multipartite process is also more involved, since whether a subset of quantum nodes can signal to another subset of quantum nodes depends on the interventions performed at other quantum nodes not in the two subsets.
\subsection*{Causal influence vs signalling}
This work is concerned with a notion of causal structure, which is distinct from the causal order defined by a circuit, and which also needs to be carefully distinguished from the possibilities for signalling afforded by a general process operator. In order to motivate the idea,
consider a circuit of the form of Fig.~\ref{Fig_Definitecausalorder}, with each wire representing a qubit, with $\rho = \rho_{A^{\text{in}}} \otimes |0\rangle_{A'} \langle 0|$, and with the channel $\mathcal{E}$ being a quantum Controlled-NOT gate with the control on the output wire of the $A$ node. This circuit defines a process operator $\sigma^0_{AB}$ on the $A$ and $B$ nodes, which may easily be computed, and it can be verified that
$\sigma^0_{AB}$ allows signalling from $A$ to $B$. Similarly, in the same circuit except with $\rho = \rho_{A^{\text{in}}} \otimes |1\rangle_{A'} \langle 1|$, the process operator $\sigma^1_{AB}$ is easily computed, and it can be verified that signalling is possible from $A$ to $B$.
Now consider the same experiment, except with the preparation of the $A'$ system given by flipping a fair coin, and preparing $|0\rangle_{A'} \langle 0|$ on heads and $|1\rangle_{A'} \langle 1|$ on tails. If the outcome of the coin flip is unknown, then the state of the $A'$ system is the mixed state $\mathds{1}/2$, and the corresponding process operator over $A$ and $B$ is
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\mathrm{mix}}_{AB} = \mathds{1}_{(B^{\text{out}})^*} \otimes (1/2) \mathds{1}_{B^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathds{1}_{(A^{\text{out}})^*} \otimes \rho_{A^{\text{in}}}.
\end{equation}
In the process $\sigma^{\mathrm{mix}}_{AB}$, there is no signalling from $A$ to $B$. Indeed the very same process operator could arise from a situation in which $A$ and $B$ are independent and spacelike separated.
In the experiment with the coin flip, it is clear that $A$ has a causal influence on $B$, since agents who know the value of the coin flip would be able to send signals from $A$ to $B$. From the perspective of agents who do not know the value of the coin flip, however, signalling is washed out by the randomness of the unobserved system.
A similar phenomenon is well understood in the literature on classical causal modelling. In a canonical example, $A$, $B$, and $C$ are all classical bits, with $A$ and $C$ causes of $B$ such that $B$ is equal to the parity of $A$ and $C$. If $C$ is inaccessible, or hidden, and satisfies $P(C=0)=P(C=1)=1/2$, then $B$ is randomly distributed regardless of the value of $A$. Hence as long as $C$ remains hidden, signals cannot be sent from $A$ to $B$. (See Section~2.4 of Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}.)
The conclusion that should be drawn from the example with process $\sigma^{\mathrm{mix}}_{AB}$ is that causal influence between quantum nodes should not be defined in terms of the possibilities for signalling afforded by a process operator, at least not if there is a chance that unobserved systems ($A'$ in the example) are interacting with the systems under study ($A$ and $B$ in the example). Given only a process operator $\sigma_{AB}$ and no other data, although signalling is sufficient for causal influence, it can happen that $A$ has a causal influence upon $B$ even though there is no signalling from $A$ to $B$ in $\sigma_{AB}$.
\subsection*{Quantum causal models}
The framework of quantum causal models, introduced in Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, is based on the idea that in an example like that just above, statements about causal influence can be defined in terms of signalling, but only once all relevant systems are included in the description. At this point, the description is of a closed system, and at least in standard quantum theory, evolution of a closed system is unitary. Hence quantum causal models define causal influence in terms of unitary transformations. Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} shows that in the case of unitary circuits with broken wires representing quantum nodes, the causal relations between the quantum nodes can be summarized in the form of a DAG, where the DAG imposes constraints on the process operator over the quantum nodes.
This leaves open the question of what the pattern of causal influence might be in causally nonseparable processes described in the literature. Can it even be well defined or must one conclude that these processes are not amenable to causal explanation at all, or that all that can be discussed is signalling between the nodes? Our idea is that such processes can be understood in causal terms, if the framework of quantum causal modelling is extended to allow causal cycles. We will show that the resulting formalism can be used successfully to describe some of the much-studied instances of causally nonseparable processes from the literature. Later, we show the utility of this approach by using it to settle previously open questions concerning causally nonseparable processes.
The following definition generalizes that of Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, by allowing cyclic graphs (along with a more minor generalization, which is that the input and output Hilbert spaces of a quantum node can here have different dimensions).
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Quantum causal model (QCM) --- generalized)} \label{Def_QCM}
A \textnormal{QCM} is given by:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textnormal{(\arabic*)}, leftmargin=0.7cm]
\item a causal structure represented by a directed graph $G$ with vertices corresponding to quantum nodes $A_1, ... , A_n$,
\item for each $A_i$, a quantum channel $\rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)} \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A_i^{\textrm{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}^*_{Pa(A_i)^{\textrm{out}}})$, where
$Pa(A_i)$ denotes the set of parents of $A_i$ according to $G$, such that $[\rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)} \ , \ \rho_{A_j | Pa(A_j)} ] \allowbreak = 0$ for all $i,j$ and such that $
\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \prod_i \rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}$ is a process operator over the quantum nodes $A_1 , ... , A_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
When writing products of the form $\prod_i \rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}$, it is understood implicitly that each factor is padded with an identity operator in tensor product for all other spaces.
A QCM is called cyclic iff its causal structure contains directed cycles, and acyclic otherwise.
It is useful to define a term to express the fact that a given process operator $\sigma$ has the correct form with respect to a given causal structure to define a QCM.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Quantum Markov condition --- generalized)} \label{Def_MarkovCondition}
A process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is called \textnormal{Markov} for a directed graph $G$ with quantum nodes $A_1,\ldots, A_n$ as its vertices iff it admits a factorization into pairwise commuting channels of the form $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \prod_{i=1}^n \rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i) }$.
\end{definition}
Note that the Markov condition of classical causal models \cite{Pearl_Causality, SpirtesEtAL_2000_BookCausationPredictionSearch} is a special case of Def.~\ref{Def_MarkovCondition}, obtained when the graph is acyclic and $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is diagonal in a product basis, and encodes a classical probability distribution \cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}.
The following first sets out some further terminology and basic properties of Def.~\ref{Def_QCM} and then turns to motivating and explaining Def.~\ref{Def_QCM}, making the link with unitary transformations, and showing why it is that for a particular directed graph, condition (2) should hold.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_2.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\caption{Examples of cyclic directed graphs. \label{Fig_ExampleGraphs}}
\end{figure}
First, observe that not every cyclic graph supports a QCM in an interesting way. Consider, for example, the two-node cyclic graph of Fig.~2a. A QCM with such a causal structure would come with a process operator
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{AB} = \rho_{A|B} \ \rho_{B|A} \ . \label{Eq_BipartiteCyclic}
\end{equation}
Here and throughout, channels between the nodes on which a process is defined are written such that anything appearing to the right of the bar refers to the output Hilbert space of the node, and anything appearing to the left of the bar refers to the input Hilbert space of the node.
By our conventions $ \rho_{A|B} \ \rho_{B|A} = \rho_{A|B} \otimes \rho_{B|A}$. However, this is not a valid process operator unless either $\rho_{A|B} = \rho_{A^{\textrm{in}}} \otimes \mathds{1}_{(B^{\textrm{out}})^*}$, or $\rho_{B|A} = \rho_{B^{\textrm{in}}} \otimes \mathds{1}_{(A^{\textrm{out}})^*}$.
In other words, at least one of the channels $\rho_{A|B}$, $\rho_{B|A} $ carries no information, but simply ignores its input and prepares a fixed state on the output. Intuitively speaking, this is because there would otherwise be logical paradoxes for certain choices of interventions at $A$ and $B$.
More generally, we will say that a QCM is faithful iff each of the channels $\rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}$ is signalling from $A_j^{\textrm{out}}$ to $A_i^{\textrm{in}}$ for every $A_j\in Pa(A_i)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)} \ne \frac{1}{d_j} \mathrm{Tr}_{(A_j^{\textrm{out}})^*} (\rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}) \otimes \mathds{1}_{(A_j^{\textrm{out}})^*},
\end{equation}
where $d_j$ is the dimension of $A_j^{\textrm{out}}$.
Our claim concerning the causal structure of Fig.~2a can be summarized as:
\begin{proposition} \label{Prop_NoBipartite}
There is no faithful cyclic quantum causal model with two nodes.
\end{proposition}
\noindent \textit{Proof:} See Methods.
Now consider the cyclic graph $G'$ in Fig.~2b
A QCM with $G'$ as its causal structure comes with the data
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{ABC} = \rho_{A|BC} \ \rho_{B|AC} \ \rho_{C} \ . \label{Eq_TriartiteGenericQCM}
\end{equation}
Eq.~\ref{Eq_TriartiteGenericQCM}, compared to Eq.~\ref{Eq_BipartiteCyclic}, has the key difference that the commuting operators have non-trivial action on $(C^{\textrm{out}})^*$. As a result, it turns out that
faithful cyclic QCMs of this form do exist. An example is described below.
Note that, given a cyclic graph such as that in Fig.~2b, even when a faithful QCM exists it is not in general the case that any set of commuting channels $\rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}$ defines a process operator. (See Methods for an explicit demonstration of this fact.) The constraint in the definition of a QCM that $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \prod_i \rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}$ is a valid process operator is essential, and is what guarantees that grandfather-type paradoxes do not arise \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}. This is in contrast to the acyclic case, where, given an acyclic causal structure, it is not hard to argue that any product of commuting channels of the form $\prod_i \rho_{A_i | Pa(A_i)}$ is a valid process operator \cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, hence in particular a faithful QCM with that causal structure can always be found.
\subsection*{Unitarity and causal structure}
The definition of a QCM above is predicated on the idea that causal structure should be represented by a directed graph. This idea, however, along with the stipulation that the accompanying process is Markov for the graph, was presented without much justification or further comment. Why is causal structure represented by a directed graph, for example, as opposed to a different mathematical object, such as a partial order, or a preorder, or some kind of hypergraph? This section considers a subclass of processes -- unitary processes, defined momentarily -- and shows that a unitary process is associated with a causal structure, which can indeed be represented with a directed graph, and that the unitary process is Markov for that graph. In other words, a unitary process, along with its causal structure, defines a QCM.
In order to define a unitary process, observe that a process operator $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ has the mathematical form of the CJ operator for a channel $\mathcal{P}: \mathcal{L}( \bigotimes_i \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{out}}_i} ) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}( \bigotimes_i \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{in}}_i} )$ \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}.
Where it is convenient to emphasise this form, we will sometimes write $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \rho^{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1...A_n|A_1...A_n}$, where it is understood implicitly that an $A_i$ to the right of the bar stands for $A^{\text{out}}_i$, while an $A_i$ to the left of the bar stands for $A^{\text{in}}_i$.
A unitary process is a process (where some of the input or output spaces may be trivial, i.e., $1$-dimensional) such that the channel $\mathcal{P}$ is a unitary channel.
The first step is to define a notion of causal structure that pertains to the inputs and outputs of a unitary channel.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Causal structure of a unitary channel)} \label{Def_CausalStructureChannel}
Given a unitary channel $\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{CD|AB}$, write $A \nrightarrow D$ ($A$ \textnormal{does not influence} $D$), iff $\textnormal{Tr}_{C} [ \rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{CD|AB} ] = \rho^{\mathcal{M}}_{D|B} \otimes \mathds{1}_{A^*}$ for some marginal channel $\mathcal{M}$.
If $A$ can influence $D$, i.e. $\neg (A \nrightarrow D)$, $A$ is a \textnormal{direct cause} of $D$.
For any unitary channel $\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{C_1...C_l|B_1...B_k}$ with $k$ input and $l$ output subsystems its \textnormal{causal structure} is then the set of causal relations between input and output subsystems and can be represented by a DAG with vertices $B_1,...,B_k$ and $C_1,...,C_l$ and an arrow $B_j \rightarrow C_i$ whenever $B_j$ is a \textnormal{direct cause} of $C_i$.
\end{definition}
This definition (which, given the correspondence between unitary maps $U$ and unitary channels $\mathcal{U}(\_ ) = U(\_ )U^{\dagger}$, we let refer to either) lifts naturally to the case of a unitary process, in such a way that causal relationships are defined between the nodes of the process, rather than between inputs and outputs of a channel.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Causal structure of a unitary process)} \label{Def_UnitaryProcess}
Given a unitary process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}=\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{A_1...A_1|A_1...A_n}$, write $A_j \nrightarrow A_i$ (node $A_j$ \textnormal{does not influence} node $A_i$), iff $A_j^{\textrm{out}}$ does not influence $A_i^{\textrm{in}}$ in $\mathcal{U}$.
If node $A_j$ can influence node $A_i$, then $A_j$ is a \textnormal{direct cause} of $A_i$. The \textnormal{causal structure} of the unitary process is the set of all causal relations between its quantum nodes, and is representable as the directed graph with vertices $A_1, ..., A_n$ and an arrow $A_j \rightarrow A_i$, whenever $A_j$ is a direct cause of $A_i$.
\end{definition}
The fact that any unitary process is Markov for its causal structure, hence defines a QCM, is then immediate from the following theorem of Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM,BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}.
\begin{theorem} \textnormal{(\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM,BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs})} \label{Thm_FactorizationUnitary}
Given a unitary channel $\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{C_1...C_l|B_1...B_k}$, let $\{Pa(C_i)\}_{i=1}^l$ be the parental sets as defined by its causal structure. Then the CJ operator factorizes as $\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{C_1...C_l|B_1...B_k} = \prod_{i=1}^l \rho_{C_i | Pa(C_i)} $, where the marginal channels commute pairwise, $[\rho_{C_i | Pa(C_i)} \ , \ \rho_{C_j | Pa(C_j)} ]=0$ for all $i,j$.
\end{theorem}
The case of non-unitary processes, and their relationship to causal structure is presented below.
First, we describe a well-known example of a causally nonseparable process -- the quantum SWITCH \cite{ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure} -- and show explicitly that it defines a unitary process operator with cyclic causal structure, hence a cyclic QCM.
\subsection*{Example: The Quantum SWITCH}
The quantum SWITCH \cite{ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure} was the first example described of a causally non-separable process. The SWITCH is standardly defined as a higher-order map \cite{ChirbiellaEtAl_2009_QuantumNetworkFramework, ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure, BisioEtAl_2019_TheoreticalFrameworkForHigherOrderQuantumTheory} that takes as input two CP maps
$\mathcal{F}_A:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A^{\textrm{in}}})\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{A^{\textrm{out}}})$ and
$\mathcal{G}_B:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B^{\textrm{in}}})\rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{B^{\textrm{out}}})$, where $d_{A^{\textrm{in}}}= d_{A^{\textrm{out}}}=d_{B^{\textrm{in}}}=d_{B^{\textrm{out}}}=d$, and gives as an output a CP map
$\mathcal{E}:\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Q}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{S}) \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{Q'}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{S'})$,
where $d_Q=d_{Q'}=2$ and $d_S=d_{S'}=d$. Here, $\mathcal{H}_Q$ and $\mathcal{H}_{Q'}$ are interpreted as the Hilbert spaces of a control qubit at some initial and some final time, respectively, and $\mathcal{H}_S$ and $\mathcal{H}_{S'}$ as the Hilbert spaces of some target system at the same two times.
Intuitively, the effect of the quantum SWITCH is to transform the target system from the initial to the final time by the sequential application of the CP maps $\mathcal{F}_A$ and $\mathcal{G}_B$, where the order in which the two CP maps are applied is conditioned coherently on the logical value of the control qubit.
To formulate this precisely, we will describe the quantum SWITCH directly as a 4-node process (see Fig.~\ref{Fig_SWITCH}), which involves the nodes $A$ and $B$, where $\mathcal{F}_A$ and $\mathcal{G}_B$ are inserted, a node $P$ with $P^{\text{out}}=QS$, where the control qubit and target system at the initial time are prepared in some state, and node $F$ with $F^{\text{in}}=Q' S'$, where the control qubit and the system at the final time are subject to some measurement.
The SWITCH is then a unitary four-partite process with process operator
$\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{SWITCH}}}_{ABPF} = \rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{ABF|ABP} = \ket{W} \bra{W}$, where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{switchformofw}
\ket{W} &:=& \ket{0}_{Q^*} \ket{0}_{Q'} \ket{\phi^+}_{S^*A^{\text{in}}} \ket{\phi^+}_{(A^{\text{out})^*}B^{\text{in}}} \ket{\phi^+}_{(B^{\text{out}})^* S'} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-30pt} + \ket{1}_{Q^*} \ket{1}_{Q'} \ket{\phi^+}_{S^*B^{\text{in}}} \ket{\phi^+}_{(B^{\text{out}})^*A^{\text{in}}} \ket{\phi^+}_{(A^{\text{out}})^* S'},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\ket{\phi^+}_{XY}:=\sum_i \ket{i}_{X}\ket{i}_{Y}$ and the appearance of the dual spaces due to our convention for the CJ isomorphism.
It is straightforward to verify that the causal structure of $\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{SWITCH}}}_{ABPF}$ is the cyclic directed graph in Fig.~\ref{Fig_SWITCH_DG}.
From Thm.~\ref{Thm_FactorizationUnitary}, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{SWITCH}}}_{ABPF} = \rho_{F|ABP} \ \rho_{A|BP} \ \rho_{B|AP} \ \rho_P \ , \label{Eq_SWITCHAsQCM}
\end{equation}
where we have formally added $\rho_P$ to make the Markovianity of $\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{SWITCH}}}_{ABPF}$ for $G_{\tiny{\text{SWITCH}}}$ explicit, but here $\rho_P$ is just the number $1$, since $P^{\text{in}}$ is trivial.
Hence, the graph $G_{\tiny{\text{SWITCH}}}$ together with $\rho_{F|ABP}$, $\rho_{A|BP}$, $ \rho_{B|AP}$, $\rho_P$, form a faithful cyclic QCM.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_3.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\caption{A unitary process with nodes $A$ and $B$, root node $P$ (in the global past) and leaf node $F$ (in the global future). Here with $P^{\text{out}}=QS$ and $F^{\text{in}}=Q' S'$; the quantum SWITCH is an example of such a process.\label{Fig_SWITCH}}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_4.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\\[0.3cm]
\begin{minipage}{6cm}
\centering
\caption{The causal structure $G_{\tiny{\text{SWITCH}}}$ of the quantum SWITCH.\label{Fig_SWITCH_DG}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Compatibility vs Markovianity}
This section extends the discussion of causal structure to non-unitary processes.
Briefly, in a QCM involving a non-unitary process $\sigma$, the arrows of the graph are taken to represent facts about the causal structure of some underlying unitary process, with the property that $\sigma$ is recovered from the unitary process when marginalizing over auxiliary systems. The auxiliary systems take the form of a final system $F$, along with uncorrelated local disturbances, where the latter are inputs to the unitary process in a direct product state, with the property that each of them is a direct cause of at most one of the nodes of $\sigma$. As we shall show, it then follows that the process $\sigma$ is Markov for the graph.
The following was introduced in Ref.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder}
(there under the name purifiability),
and will help make these ideas precise.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Unitary extendibility)}
A process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is called \textnormal{unitarily extendible} iff there exists a unitary process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n PF} = \rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{A_1 ... A_n F | A_1 ... A_n P}$ on the quantum nodes $A_1 , \ldots , A_n$, plus additional root node $P$ and leaf node $F$, such that
$\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \textnormal{Tr}_{FP} [\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n PF} \ \tau_P]$
for some state $\tau_P \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^*_{P^{\text{out}}})$.
The process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n PF} $ is called a \textnormal{unitary extension} of $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$.
\end{definition}
It was found in Ref.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder} that not all process operators are unitarily extendible. The reason for this is that, although for any process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \rho^{\mathcal{P}}_{A_1 ... A_n | A_1 ... A_n }$, corresponding to a channel $\mathcal{P}$, the channel $\mathcal{P}$ admits a dilation to a unitary channel, this unitary channel does not necessarily correspond to a valid process itself. Process operators that are not unitarily extendible are those for which no dilation exists such that the unitary channel corresponds to a valid process.
Now suppose that a process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ does have a unitary extension $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n PF}$, involving the additional root node $P$. As per Def.~\ref{Def_UnitaryProcess}, the unitary extension $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n PF}$ has a causal structure given by some directed graph $G$ with nodes $A_1, ..., A_n , P, F$. Let $G'$ be the subgraph with nodes $A_1 , ... , A_n$, along with all arrows that connect only these nodes in $G$. In general, in the graph $G$, the node $P$ will have arrows to several of the $A_i$, meaning that $P$ is a common cause for these nodes.
There will then, in general, be correlations in $\sigma$ that are explained by the common cause $P$. This means that the graph $G'$, which omits $P$, is at best an incomplete causal explanation for the correlations in $\sigma$, since it does not explain those correlations due to $P$.
In this case, there is no reason why $\sigma$ should be Markov for the graph $G'$.
Consider now a unitary extension of $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ with the feature that the node $P$ can be factored into uncorrelated local disturbances $\lambda_i$, such that each $\lambda_i$ is a direct cause of at most one of the nodes $A_i$. In this case, the graph $G'$, obtained by omitting all of the $\lambda_i$ and leaf node $F$, can be seen as a causal explanation for correlations described by the process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$, which omits only local disturbances and the final effect $F$, and which does not omit common causes. In this case, we will say that $\sigma$ is compatible with the graph $G'$. In fact, it is more useful to define this term more broadly: we will say that $\sigma$ is compatible with any graph, with nodes $A_1 , ... , A_n$, that contains $G'$ as a subgraph. The following definition makes this precise, generalizing that of Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} to the cyclic case.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Compatibility with a directed graph)} \label{Def_Compatibility}
A process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is \textnormal{compatible} with a directed graph $G$ with nodes $A_1, ... ,A_n$, iff $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is extendible to a unitary process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n \lambda_1...\lambda_n F}$, with an extra root node $\lambda_i$ for $i=1,...,n$ and an extra leaf node $F$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textnormal{(\arabic*)}, leftmargin=0.7cm]
\item there exists a product state $\tau_{\lambda_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \tau_{\lambda_n}$ with
$\tau_{\lambda_i} \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^*_{\lambda_i^{\text{out}}})$ such that
$\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n} = \textnormal{Tr}_{\lambda_1...\lambda_n F} \left[ \ \sigma_{A_1 ... A_n \lambda_1...\lambda_n F} \ ( \tau_{\lambda_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \tau_{\lambda_n} ) \right] $,
\item $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n \lambda_1...\lambda_n F}$ satisfies the following no-influence conditions
(with $Pa(A_i)$ referring to $G$): $\left\{ A_j \nrightarrow A_i \right\}_{A_j \notin Pa(A_i)} \ , \ \left\{ \lambda_j \nrightarrow A_i \right\}_{j \neq i}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The following then justifies the stipulation, as a part of the definition of a QCM, that the process accompanying a graph is Markov for the graph.
\begin{theorem} \label{Thm_CompImpliesMarkov}
If a process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is compatible with the directed graph $G$, then it is also Markov for $G$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof:}
Similarly to the acyclic case in Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, the theorem follows essentially from Thm.~\ref{Thm_FactorizationUnitary}: the unitary extension, asserted to exist by virtue of the assumed compatibility with $G$, has to factorize into pairwise commuting operators of the form $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n \lambda_1...\lambda_n F}= \rho_{F|A_1...A_n\lambda_1...\lambda_n} \Big( \prod_i \rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i) \lambda_i} \Big) $.
This yields $\sigma_{A_1 \cdots A_n} = \prod_i \textnormal{Tr}_{\lambda_i} \left[ \ \rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)\lambda_i} \ \tau_{\lambda_i} \ \right] $, where the factors
$\rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)}:= \textnormal{Tr}_{\lambda_i} \left[ \ \rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)\lambda_i} \ \tau_{\lambda_i} \right]$ are pairwise commuting operators.
Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} also establishes a converse to this result, for the case that $G$ is acyclic. For a general directed graph $G$, however, the same proof does not suffice since, even though a dilation to a unitary channel with the required causal constraints can always be found \cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, it is not immediate whether this channel can be guaranteed to define a valid process. We pose this as a hypothesis:
\begin{hypothesis} \label{quantumconjecture}
If a process $\sigma_{A_1 ... A_n}$ is Markov for a directed graph $G$, then it is compatible with $G$.
\end{hypothesis}
The hypothesis is satisfied by all examples that we have investigated, but we do not have a proof that it is true in general. Some consequences of the validity or otherwise of this hypothesis are discussed in the Conclusions.
\subsection*{Example: a process that violates a causal inequality}
While the quantum SWITCH is causally nonseparable, the correlations that can be established between operations at the nodes of the quantum SWITCH can always be obtained by a causally separable process with sufficiently large input and output dimensions at each node \cite{AraujoEtAl_2015_WitnessingCausalNonSeparability, OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses}.
There are, however, causally nonseparable processes that can produce correlations violating causal inequalities \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder, BaumelerEtAl_2014_PerfectSignallingAmongThreeParties,
BaumelerEtAl_2014_MaximalIncompatibilityCausalStructure,
BranciardEtAl_2015_SimplestCausalInequalitiesAndViolations,
BhattacharyaEtAL_2015_BiasedNonCausalGame,
FeixEtAl_2016_CausallyNonSeparableProcessesAdmittingCausalModel,
AbbottEtAl_2016_MultipartiteCausalCorrelations,
Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses,
OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses}, which are incompatible with the existence of a definite order between the nodes irrespectively of the types of systems or operations performed at those nodes \cite{Chiribella_2012_PerfectDiscriminationOfChannelsViaSuperpositionCS, OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses, Branciard_2016_WitnessesesOfCausalNonseparability}.
In the literature such processes are called noncausal \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses}.
An example of a tripartite noncausal process is the one which was found by Ara{\'u}jo and Feix (AF) and then published and further studied by Baumeler and Wolf in Ref.~\cite{Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses, Baumeler_PhDThesis}.
It is remarkable in that the process is both classical and deterministic (see below for further discussion of classical processes). Any classical process can be viewed as a quantum process, diagonal with respect to a product basis. The AF process, viewed as a quantum process on nodes $A$, $B$ and $C$, each with two-dimensional input and output Hilbert spaces, is described by the process operator
\begin{gather}
\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{AF}}}_{ABC} = \rho_{A|BC} \ \rho_{B|CA} \ \rho_{C|AB},
\end{gather}
where
\begin{gather}
\rho_{A|BC} = \hspace*{-0.25cm} \sum_{b,c = 0,1} |\neg b \wedge c \rangle \langle \neg b \wedge c |_{A^{\textrm{in}}}\otimes |b,c\rangle\langle b,c|_{(B^{\textrm{out}} C^{\textrm{out}})^*}, \\
\rho_{B|CA} = \hspace*{-0.25cm} \sum_{c,a = 0,1} |\neg c \wedge a \rangle \langle \neg c \wedge a |_{B^{\textrm{in}}}\otimes |c,a\rangle\langle c,a|_{(C^{\textrm{out}} A^{\textrm{out}})^*}, \\
\rho_{C|AB} = \hspace*{-0.25cm} \sum_{a,b = 0,1} |\neg a \wedge b \rangle \langle \neg a \wedge b |_{C^{\textrm{in}}}\otimes |a,b\rangle\langle a,b|_{(A^{\textrm{out}} B^{\textrm{out}})^*}.
\end{gather}
As is explicit in this description, the AF process together with the causal structure in Fig.~\ref{Fig_BWProcess_DG} defines a faithful cyclic QCM.
It was shown by Baumeler and Wolf (BW) \cite{Baumeler_PhDThesis} that
this process is unitarily extendible (also see Refs.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_QuantumComputationWithIndefiniteCausalStructure, AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder}) with a unitary extension given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{BW}}}_{ABCFP} = \rho^U_{ABC F|ABC P} \ , \label{Eq_BWUnitaryExtension}
\end{eqnarray}
where the output space of the root node $P$ is a tensor product of three qubits $\mathcal{H}_{P^{\textrm{out}}} = \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_A} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_B} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_C}$ and the unitary $U$ is defined by the following bijection of orthonormal bases:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Eq_DefBWExtensionUNitaryBijection}
&&U : \ | a,b,c \rangle_{A^{\textrm{out}} B^{\textrm{out}} C^{\textrm{out}}}
\ \otimes \ | l,m,n\rangle_{\lambda_A\lambda_B \lambda_C} \nonumber \\
&& \ \mapsto \ | l \oplus (\neg b \wedge c) , \ m \oplus (\neg c \wedge a) , \ n \oplus (\neg a \wedge b) \rangle_{A^{\textrm{in}} B^{\textrm{in}} C^{\textrm{in}}} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace*{0.7cm} \otimes \ | a,b,c \rangle_{F^{\text{in}}} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The original AF process is recovered for marginalization over $F$ and feeding in the product state $| 0,0,0 \rangle$ for $\lambda_A$, $\lambda_B$ and $\lambda_C$. Formally letting the latter three define distinct root nodes $\lambda_A$, $\lambda_B$ and $\lambda_C$, it is not too hard to show that this BW unitary extension also satisfies the corresponding causal constraints of Def.~\ref{Def_Compatibility} to establish $\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{AF}}}_{ABC}$ to be compatible with the graph of Fig.~\ref{Fig_BWProcess_DG} -- in keeping with Hypothesis~\ref{quantumconjecture}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_5.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\\[0.3cm]
\begin{minipage}{7cm}
\centering
\caption{The causal structure of the AF process.\label{Fig_BWProcess_DG}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Cyclicity and extended circuit diagrams}
An essential feature of the Markov condition in Def.~\ref{Def_MarkovCondition} is the pairwise commutation relation of the operators of the form $\rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)}$, where the parental sets in general overlap.
That two commuting operators act non-trivially on the same Hilbert space has consequences for the algebraic structure of the operators and leads to an intimate link between causal and compositional structure.
In order to exemplify the fruitfulness of studying this link the following will revisit the two examples from earlier.
The quantum SWITCH can be considered as a unitary process over $4$ nodes, given by
$\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{SWITCH}}}_{ABPF} = \rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{ABF|ABP} = \ket{W} \bra{W}$, where $\ket{W}$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{switchformofw}). The unitary channel $\mathcal{U}$ corresponds to a unitary map $U: \mathcal{H}_{A^{\textrm{out}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{P^{\textrm{out}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B^{\textrm{out}}} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{A^{\textrm{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{F^{\textrm{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B^{\textrm{in}}}$,
which is depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fig_UEUnitaryWithCausalStructure} together with its causal structure shown in blue. Observe in particular that in $U$, $A^{\textrm{out}}$ does not influence $A^{\textrm{in}}$, and similarly $B^{\textrm{out}}$ does not influence $B^{\textrm{in}}$, as must be the case for a well-defined process \cite{Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\hspace*{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_6.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.6cm}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\caption{Unitary map $U$ that defines the quantum SWITCH. The causal structure of $U$ is indicated in blue. \label{Fig_UEUnitaryWithCausalStructure}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure} shows that any unitary map $U$ with three in- and output systems, and the causal constraints of Fig.~\ref{Fig_UEUnitaryWithCausalStructure}, has a decomposition of the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
U = \Big(\mathds{1}_{B^{\textrm{in} } } \otimes T \otimes \mathds{1}_{A^{\textrm{in} } } \Big) \Big( \bigoplus_{i \in I} V_i \otimes W_i \Big) \ \hspace*{2.2cm} \nonumber \\[-0.3cm]
\hspace*{1.3cm} \Big(\mathds{1}_{A^{\textrm{out} } } \otimes S \otimes \mathds{1}_{B^{\textrm{out}} } \Big), \hspace*{0.6cm} \label{subsystemdecomposition}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$S$ and $T$ are unitaries, and $\{V_i\}_{i\in I}$ and $\{W_i\}_{i\in I}$ families of unitaries of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
S &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{P^{\textrm{out}}} \ \rightarrow \ \bigoplus_{i\in I} \mathcal{H}_{P_i^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{P_i^R} \ , \\
V_i &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{A^{ \textrm{out}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{P_i^L} \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{B^{\textrm{in} } } \otimes \mathcal{H}_{F_i^L} \ , \\
W_i &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{P_i^R} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B^{\textrm{out} } } \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{F_i^R} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A^{\textrm{in} } } \ , \\
T &:& \ \bigoplus_{i\in I} \mathcal{H}_{F_i^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{F_i^R} \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{F^{\textrm{in}}} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Such a compositional structure with direct sums over tensor products goes beyond what is expressible with ordinary circuit diagrams. Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure} therefore introduced extended circuit diagrams to give a graphical representation of such decompositions.
Fig.~\ref{SWITCHExtendedCircuitDecomposition} arises from that extended circuit diagram representation of Eq.~\ref{subsystemdecomposition} by bending the wires corresponding to $A^{\textrm{in}}$ and $B^{\textrm{in}}$ down to re-identify the quantum nodes $A$ and $B$ -- thereby filling the black box of the quantum SWITCH from Fig.~\ref{Fig_SWITCH}.
For details on this diagrammatic language we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure}, but the essential idea is that individual wires with indices on them, such as those between the circles $S$ and $V_i$ and $W_i$, respectively, represent the families of Hilbert spaces $\{ \mathcal{H}_{P_i^L} \}_{i \in I}$ and $\{ \mathcal{H}_{P_i^R} \}_{i \in I}$, while the two parallel wires together represent $\bigoplus_{i\in I} \mathcal{H}_{P_i^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{P_i^R}$. An implicit summation over orthogonal subspaces indexed by $i$ allows the representation of the intermediate unitary map $\bigoplus_i V_i \otimes W_i$ from Eq.~\ref{subsystemdecomposition}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.7cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_7.pdf}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\caption{Extended circuit diagram decomposition of the quantum SWITCH. Additionally indicated in gray are the labels of the intermediate families of Hilbert spaces. \label{SWITCHExtendedCircuitDecomposition}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
It is easy to see what this decomposition is concretely in the case of the quantum SWITCH: the index $i$ takes two values, $0$ and $1$, corresponding to the logical values of the control qubit, i.e., $\mathcal{H}_P = \mathcal{H}_Q \otimes \mathcal{H}_S \cong (\mathds{C} \otimes \mathcal{H}_S ) \oplus (\mathcal{H}_S \otimes \mathds{C})$ and the unitaries $V_i$ and $W_i$ are either the SWAP transformation on the respective systems or the identity depending on $i$. We see that even though the causal structure of the full process is cyclic, the process splits into a direct sum of processes in each of which causal influence and the flow of information follow acyclic paths.
This decomposition of the quantum SWITCH applies more generally: seeing as any unitary process of the type depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fig_SWITCH}, with a root node $P$, a leaf node $F$, and two nodes $A$ and $B$ in between, satisfies $A^{\textrm{out}} \nrightarrow A^{\textrm{in}}$ and $B^{\textrm{out}} \nrightarrow B^{\textrm{in}}$, it follows that any such unitary process has a decomposition as in Fig.~\ref{SWITCHExtendedCircuitDecomposition}.
Note that the below will furthermore establish (as a direct consequence of the proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_ResultCausalSep}) that for each $i$ the summand $V_i \otimes W_i$ of that corresponding decomposition has to have an acyclic causal structure, that is, any unitary process with nodes $A,B,P,F$ where $P$ is a root node and $F$ a leaf node, is a direct sum of unitary processes in which causal influences flow along acyclic paths.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_8.pdf}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\caption{The unitary map $U$ from Eq.~\eqref{Eq_DefBWExtensionUNitaryBijection} that defines the BW unitary extension of the AF process. Also depicted is its causal structure, where for better visibility, rather than direct cause relations, the no-influence conditions are shown as red dashed arrows. \label{Fig_AFProcessUnitaryExtension}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The second example concerns the tripartite AF process and its BW unitary extension $\rho^U_{ABC F|ABC P}$ (see Eqs.~\eqref{Eq_BWUnitaryExtension}-\eqref{Eq_DefBWExtensionUNitaryBijection}).
The root node $P$ has as output space $\mathcal{H}_{P^{\textrm{out}}} = \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_A} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_B} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_C}$, where each $\lambda_X$ influences only $X$ and $F$ for $X=A,B,C$.
The associated unitary map $U$ and its causal structure are depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fig_AFProcessUnitaryExtension}.
The results from Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure} allow again the statement of an extended circuit decomposition of $U$, which is implied by its causal structure and which makes the pathways of causal influence through $U$ graphically evident (the proof is completely analogous to that of Thm.~7 in Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure}).
This decomposition of $U$ is depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fig_BWExtensionDotDiagramU} and reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
U &=& \Big( \mathds{1}_{C^{\text{in}}B^{\text{in}}A^{\text{in}}} \otimes W \Big) \
\Big(\bigoplus_{i,j,k} P_{ij} \otimes Q_{ik} \otimes R_{jk} \Big) \nonumber \\[-0.2cm]
&& \Big( \mathds{1}_{\lambda_C} \otimes S \otimes \mathds{1}_{\lambda_B} \otimes T \otimes V \otimes \mathds{1}_{\lambda_A} \Big) \ , \label{Eq_BWExtensionsDecompositionU}
\end{eqnarray}
for (families of) unitary maps
\begin{eqnarray}
S &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{out}}} \ \rightarrow \ \bigoplus_i \mathcal{H}_{X_i^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{X_i^R} \ , \\
T &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{B^{\text{out}}} \ \rightarrow \ \bigoplus_{j} \mathcal{H}_{Y_j^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Y_j^R} \ , \\
V &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{C^{\text{out}}} \ \rightarrow \ \bigoplus_{k} \mathcal{H}_{Z_k^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Z_k^R} \ , \\
W &:& \ \bigoplus_{i,j,k} \mathcal{H}_{G_{ij}^{(1)}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{G_{ik}^{(2)}} \otimes \mathcal{H} _{G_{jk}^{(3)}} \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{F^{\text{in}}} \ , \\
P_{ij} &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_C} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{X_i^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Y_j^L} \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{C^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{G_{ij}^{(1)}} \ , \\
Q_{ik} &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{X_i^R} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_B} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Z_k^L} \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{B^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{G_{ik}^{(2)}} \ , \\
R_{jk} &:& \ \mathcal{H}_{Y_j^R} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{Z_k^R} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_A} \ \rightarrow \ \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{G_{jk}^{(3)}} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_9.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\caption{Causally faithful extended circuit decomposition of the unitary $U$ from Fig.~\ref{Fig_AFProcessUnitaryExtension} (up to some swaps for better readability). \label{Fig_BWExtensionDotDiagramU}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
By appropriately bending the wires that correspond to $A^{\text{in}}$, $B^{\text{in}}$ and $C^{\text{in}}$ to re-identify the nodes $A$, $B$ and $C$ (and swapping some wires for better readability) one obtains Fig.~\ref{Fig_BWExtensionDotDiagramUProcess}, revealing a fine-grained compositional structure of the BW unitary extension.
Note that the stated decomposition is general in the sense that a decomposition of the form as in Fig.~\ref{Fig_BWExtensionDotDiagramU} exists for any unitary with a causal structure as in Fig.~\ref{Fig_AFProcessUnitaryExtension}.
However, in the concrete case of the BW unitary extension one can easily see what the components in Eq.~\eqref{Eq_BWExtensionsDecompositionU} correspond to through a comparison with Eq.~\eqref{Eq_DefBWExtensionUNitaryBijection}.
All three indices $i$, $j$ and $k$ are binary and, via the unitaries $S$, $T$ and $V$ can be seen to correspond to one-dimensional subspaces of $A^{\text{out}}$ , $B^{\text{out}}$ and $C^{\text{out}}$.
Hence, each indexed space, i.e. each element of a family of Hilbert spaces associated with an indexed wire, is a trivial Hilbert space.
For any fixed value $(i,j,k)$, the unitary
$P_{ij} \otimes Q_{ik} \otimes R_{jk}$ is of the type
$\mathcal{H}_{\lambda_C} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_B} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_A} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{C^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{in}}}$,
where all spaces are qubits (suppressing all trivial spaces).
The unitary
$P_{ij} : \mathcal{H}_{\lambda_C} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{C^{\text{in}}}$
maps $|\lambda_C \rangle \mapsto |\lambda_C \oplus (\neg i \wedge j) \rangle$, i.e. $P_{ij}$ is the identity or the NOT gate depending on the values of $i$ and $j$.
The unitaries $Q_{ik}$ and $R_{jk}$ can similarly be identified through comparison with Eq.~\eqref{Eq_DefBWExtensionUNitaryBijection}.
One thus finds that the BW unitary extension is a direct sum over unitary processes each of which has an acyclic causal structure.
Furthermore, it is natural to wonder whether knowing a decomposition of the form as in Fig.~\ref{Fig_AFProcessUnitaryExtension} might suggest a way in which the process could be implemented -- a process, which we recall is one that violates a causal inequality.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\hspace*{-0.25cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{Fig_10.pdf}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\caption{Extended circuit diagram decomposition of the BW unitary extension of the AF process. \label{Fig_BWExtensionDotDiagramUProcess}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
How about other unitary processes not of the two presented types?
Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure} provides extended circuit decompositions for many classes of unitary transformations, where the decompositions are causally faithful,
meaning that if $A$ is an input to the unitary $U$ and $B$ an output, then there is a path from $A$ to $B$ in the extended circuit iff $A$ can influence $B$ through $U$ (note this is distinct from the notion of faithfulness of a QCM).
Consider now a unitary map $U$ that corresponds to a unitary process, in the sense that the output Hilbert spaces of the nodes correspond to the inputs to $U$, and the input Hilbert spaces of the nodes correspond to the outputs of $U$. If $U$ has a causally faithful extended circuit decomposition, then by appropriately bending the wires, as in the above examples, one can always obtain a fine-grained compositional structure of the corresponding unitary process.
Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure} states the hypothesis that all finite-dimensional unitary transformations (over specified tensor products of input Hilbert spaces and output Hilbert spaces) have a causally faithful extended circuit decomposition. This would mean that all unitary processes, by bending the wires, would admit causally faithful decompositions in a similar manner. At the time of writing, however, the hypothesis remains unproven.
\subsection*{The bipartite unitarily extendible processes}
Understanding which processes have a physical realization is a central open question in the field of indefinite causal order \cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder, Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems}. While causally nonseparable processes may have a realization in exotic scenarios involving both quantum systems and gravity, it seems clear that any present-day laboratory experiment admits a description in terms of a straightforward, definite, causal ordering of suitably defined parts of the experiment. Nevertheless, various experiments have been performed that are claimed as realizations of nonseparable processes such as the quantum SWITCH \cite{ProcopioEtAl_2015_ExperimentalSuperpositionOfOrders, RubinoEtAl_2017_ExperimentalVerificationIndefiniteCausalOrders, GoswamiEtAl_2018_IndefiniteCausalOrderInQuantumSWITCH, RubinoEtAl_2019_ExperimentalEntanglementOfTemporalOrders, WeiEtAl_2019_ExperimentalQuantumSWITCHCommunicationComplexity, TaddeiEtAl_2020_ExperimentalComputationalAdvantageSuperpositionTemporalOrders}. This has caused some debate \cite{MacleanEtAl_2017_QuantumCoherentMixturesOfCausalRelations, Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems, PaunkovicEtAl_2020_CausalOrdersCircuitsAndSpacetime}.
Behind much of this debate, however, lies merely a question of how the abstract mathematical description is assumed to map to physical phenomena. Each of the implementations claimed so far is of a process that involves coherent control over the time-ordering of nodes in a similar manner to the SWITCH, and which cannot therefore violate causal inequalities. Ref.~\cite{Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems} shows that any such implementation can be seen as a valid implementation of a nonseparable process, if the process is understood as being defined over time-delocalized systems, where the input and output Hilbert spaces of the nodes of the process correspond to subsystems of tensor products of Hilbert spaces of systems associated with different times. This raises the question: which processes in general admit a laboratory implementation, at least in terms of time-delocalized systems? In particular, can a process violating causal inequalities be implemented?
There was some hope that a process violating causal inequalities could be implemented, because Ref.~\cite{Oreshkov_2019_TimeDelocalizedSubsystems} also shows that every unitary extension of a bipartite process has a realization in terms of time-delocalized systems. Hence if there were a unitarily extendible bipartite process violating causal inequalities, then it could be implemented, at least via time-delocalized systems.
The following theorem, however, shows that there is no such possibility. Any bipartite unitarily extendible process is causally separable, hence in particular cannot violate causal inequalities, as conjectured in Ref.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder}; furthermore, all unitary extensions of bipartite processes are variations of the quantum SWITCH, realizable by coherent control of the times of the operations of $A$ and $B$.
The argument uses the existence of a faithful extended circuit decomposition of the form as in Eq.~\eqref{subsystemdecomposition} that is implied by the causal constraints of Fig.~\ref{Fig_UEUnitaryWithCausalStructure}.
\begin{theorem} \label{Thm_ResultCausalSep}
All unitarily extendible bipartite processes are causally separable. Given a bipartite process, if it is unitarily extendible, then the unitary extension has a realization in terms of coherent control of the order of the node operations.
\end{theorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof:} See Methods.
As one can see, e.g., from the AF process, being unitarily extendible does not imply causal separability in the general multipartite case.
However, the decomposition from Fig.~\ref{Fig_AFProcessUnitaryExtension} of the BW unitary extension of the AF process proved insightful with regards to how the cyclicity of the causal structure comes from different contributions across the direct sum.
More generally, suppose a causally faithful extended circuit decomposition of the unitary extension of some multipartite process is known.
It is then natural to ask whether some kind of generalization of the constraints established as part of the proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_ResultCausalSep} could be derived, which in the bipartite case just happen to give causal separability, while in the general case constrain each summand of the decomposition.
As is the case with the bipartite processes, to which Thm.~\ref{Thm_ResultCausalSep} applies, one would expect that such constraints on summands of the unitary extension also manifest themselves in interesting ways for the non-unitary marginal process.
We leave this question for future investigation.
\subsection*{Causal nonseparability}
The definition of causal separability was given above only for bipartite processes and it was mentioned that the multipartite case, with more than two nodes, is more intricate.
This section will first give the general definition, following Refs.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses, WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability}, and then present another main result.
Seeing as the idea of causal separability is to capture whether a process is consistent with our intuitions on causal order, it is natural to let it incorporate the following two features.
First, in addition to probabilistic mixtures of fixed orders of nodes it allows for a dynamical causal order of them, that is, the overall causal order of some nodes need not be fixed, but may depend on what happens at some earlier nodes.
Second, it demands that causal separability is preserved under extending the process with an arbitrary ancillary input state shared between the nodes (a property called extensibility \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses}).
A process thus is causally separable essentially if, upon considering arbitrary shared entanglement between auxiliary input systems to all nodes, the such extended process can be seen to arise from a probabilistic mixture of particular processes: for each there is a node $P$ in the past such that for all possible interventions at $P$ the marginal process has a fixed causal order, or more generally, is itself again causally separable.
Hence, one ends up with an iterative definition of the concept.
This notion was originally called extensible causal separability in Ref.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses} to distinguish it from the analogous concept without extensibility, but as it is undoubtedly the more natural concept, we here refer to it simply as causal separability, as in Ref.~\cite{WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability}.
(Note, there have been two equivalent definitions of that notion \cite{WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability}, which differ by whether extensibility is imposed at the level of the full process \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses} or at each level of the iteration \cite{WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability}. For the present purposes, it is convenient to use the latter one.) Finally, making the concept precise relies on the following notion of no-signalling in a process, which, along with various equivalent statements, was given in Ref.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses}.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(No signalling in a process) \label{Def_NoSigInProcess}}
Given a process $\sigma_{A_1...A_n}$, we say that there is \textnormal{no signalling} from a subset $S \subset \{A_1, \ldots, A_n\}$ of its nodes to the complementary subset $\overline{S} := \{A_1, \ldots, A_n\} \setminus S $, iff the probabilities $P(k_{\overline{S}})=\textnormal{Tr} \left[\sigma_{A_1...A_n} \left( \tau_{\overline{S}}^{k_{\overline{S}}} \otimes \tau_{S} \right) \right]$ for the outcomes of any operation $ \tau_{\overline{S}}^{k_{\overline{S}}} = \bigotimes_{A\in \overline{S}} \tau_A^{k_{A}} $ performed at $\overline{S}$ are independent of the choice of trace-preserving operations $ \tau_{S} = \bigotimes_{A\in S} \tau_A $ performed at $S$.
\end{definition}
Now let $\tau_{A_j}$ represent a CP map at the node $A_j$, which is not necessarily trace-preserving. If there is no signalling to a node $A_j$ from $\{A_1, \ldots, A_n\} \setminus \{A_j\}$, then for any $\tau_{A_j}$, the object $\textnormal{Tr}_{A_j} [\sigma_{A_1...A_n} \tau_{A_j} ]$ is proportional to a process operator. In this case, let $\sigma|_{\tau_{A_j}}$ be the corresponding correctly normalized process operator. We refer to $\sigma|_{\tau_{A_j}}$ as a conditional process.
We can now state the formal definition of causal separability.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Causal separability \cite{WechsEtAl_2019_MultipartiteCausalNonSeparability})} \label{Def_CausalSep}
Every single-node process is \textnormal{causally separable}. For $n\geq 2$, a process $\sigma$ on $n$ quantum nodes $A_1$, $\ldots$, $A_n$ is said to be \textnormal{causally separable}, iff, for any extension of each node $A_j$ with an additional input system $\mathcal{H}_{(A'_j)^{\text{in}}}$ to a new node $\widetilde{A}_j$, defined by
$\mathcal{H}_{\widetilde{A}_j^{\text{in}}} := \mathcal{H}_{A_j^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{(A'_j)^{\text{in}}}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\widetilde{A}_j^{\text{out}}} := \mathcal{H}_{A_j^{\text{out}}}$,
and any auxiliary quantum state $\rho \in \mathcal{L}( \mathcal{H}_{(A'_1){\text{in}}} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal{H}_{(A'_n)^{\text{in}}})$,
the process $\sigma \otimes \rho$ on the quantum nodes $\widetilde{A}_1$, $\ldots$, $\widetilde{A}_n$ decomposes as
\begin{gather}
\sigma \otimes \rho \ = \ \sum_{k=1}^n q_k \ \sigma^{\rho}_{(k)}, \label{Eq_CSdecomposition}
\end{gather}
with $q_k\geq 0$, $\sum_k q_k=1$, where for each $k$, $\sigma^{\rho}_{(k)}$ is a process in which there can be no signalling to $\widetilde{A}_k$ from the rest of the nodes, and where for any CP map $\tau_{\widetilde{A}_k}$ that can take place at the node $\widetilde{A}_k$, the conditional process on the remaining $n-1$ nodes, $\sigma^{\rho}_{(k)}|_{\tau_{\widetilde{A}_k} }$, is itself causally separable.
\end{definition}
An important question then concerns the relation between causal nonseparability and cyclicity of causal structure. For a QCM that involves a generic (not necessarily unitary) process, the cyclicity of its directed graph does not in general imply causal nonseparability of the process, even if the QCM is faithful.
Consider, for example, the quantum SWITCH with process operator $\sigma^{\textrm{\tiny{SWITCH}}}_{ABFP}$.
Tracing out the system $F^{\textrm{in}}$, we obtain a reduced 3-node process that (relabeling $C$ as $P$) is both faithful and Markov for the graph of Fig.~2b, having the form $\sigma_{ABP} = \rho_{A|BP} \ \rho_{B|AP} \ \rho_P$.
This process is causally separable, since it can be understood as describing a situation in which the order between $A$ and $B$ depends in an incoherent manner on the logical value of the control qubit prepared at the initial time.
This process thus forms a faithful cyclic QCM and is a canonical example of a process with dynamical causal order (here between nodes $A$ and $B$).
In fact, one and the same cyclic graph may appear in two distinct faithful QCMs, one involving a causally separable, the other a nonseparable process. An example of this can again be given using the quantum SWITCH. The latter is causally nonseparable and has the graph in Fig.~\ref{Fig_SWITCH_DG} as causal structure, which however also is the causal structure of the classical SWITCH \cite{ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure}, which in contrast is causally separable (see subsequent discussion of classical processes).
What this points at is a well-known fact, namely that causal separability cannot separate the distinction between cyclicity and acyclicity on one hand, and classical and quantum causal order on the other hand.
For the case of unitary processes things are, however, much simpler.
\begin{theorem} \label{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep}
A unitary process is causally nonseparable iff it has a cyclic causal structure.
\end{theorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof:} See Methods.
If a unitary process has a causal structure given by an acyclic graph, then it is a unitary comb \cite{ChirbiellaEtAl_2009_QuantumNetworkFramework}. Hence a unitary process is either a comb or is causally nonseparable -- intermediate possibilities, such as dynamical causal order, cannot arise.
Note that there is no classical analogue of Thm.~\ref{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep}, i.e. a classical deterministic process is not necessarily causally nonseparable if it has a cyclic causal structure.
The classical SWITCH \cite{ChiribellaEtAl_2013_QuantumCompWithoutDefCausalStructure} is again an example that establishes this claim. (See below for an introduction of classical deterministic processes).
\subsection*{Cyclicity and classical processes}
If a process operator is diagonal in a basis that is a product of local bases for the input and output Hilbert spaces at each node, it is equivalent to a classical process \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder, BaumelerEtAl_2014_MaximalIncompatibilityCausalStructure, Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses}, where each node $X$ is associated with a pair of classical variables $X^{\textrm{in}}$ and $X^{\textrm{out}}$. Following Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} we call such classical nodes classical split nodes. Classical processes are studied in detail in Refs.~\cite{BaumelerEtAl_2014_MaximalIncompatibilityCausalStructure, Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}. (See also Refs.~\cite{Baumeler_2017_ReversibleTimeTravelWithFreedomOfChoice, TobarEtAl_2020_ReversibleDynamicsWithCTCs}.) This section presents the main ideas, and defines (possibly cyclic) classical split-node causal models. For the most part the definitions are the obvious classical analogues of those for the quantum case. While cyclic classical causal models have sometimes been studied (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Richardson_1997_CharacterizationMarkovEquivalenceForDirectedCyclicGraphs, ForreEtAl_2019_CausalCalculusWithCycles}), for example to encompass the possibility of classical feedback loops, they are not of the split-node variety described here, and are not equivalent.
A classical process, defined over classical split-nodes $X_1 , ... , X_n$, corresponds to a map $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n} : X_1^{\text{in}}\times X_1^{\text{out}} \times \cdots\times X_n^{\text{in}}\times X_n^{\text{out}} \rightarrow [0,1]$, such that $\sum_{X_1^{\text{in}}, X_1^{\text{out}},...,X_n^{\text{in}}, X_n^{\text{out}}} \left(\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n} \prod_i P(X_i^{\text{out}} | X_i^{\text{in}})\right) = 1$, for any set of classical channels $\{ P(X_i^{\text{out}} | X_i^{\text{in}})\}$. A local intervention at a node $X$, with outcome $k_X$, corresponds to a classical instrument $P(k_X,X^{\textrm{out}}| X^{\textrm{in}} )$. Given a local intervention at each node, the joint probability distribution over the outcomes is
\begin{eqnarray}
P(k_{X_1} , ... , k_{X_n}) &=& \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-3.5cm} \sum_{X_1^{\text{in}}, X_1^{\text{out}},...,X_n^{\text{in}}, X_n^{\text{out}}} \Big(\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n} \prod_i P(k_{X_i} X_i^{\text{out}} | X_i^{\text{in}})\Big).
\end{eqnarray}
A special case of a classical process is a deterministic process $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n}^f$, for which $P(X_1^{\text{in}},...,X_n^{\text{in}} | X_1^{\text{out}},...,X_n^{\text{out}}) = \delta( (X_1^{\text{in}} , ... , X_n^{\text{in}}) , \allowbreak f(X_1^{\text{out}} , ... , X_n^{\text{out}}))$, where $f : X_1^{\text{out}} \times .... \times X_n^{\text{out}} \allowbreak \rightarrow X_1^{\text{in}} \times .... \times X_n^{\text{in}}$ is a function. When $f$ is bijective, we call such a process reversible. It was shown in Ref.~\cite{Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses} that the set of classical processes over nodes $X_1 , ... , X_n$ forms a polytope, and that the deterministic polytope, defined as all convex mixtures of deterministic processes, is in general a strict subset of it. While all classical processes on two nodes are causally separable \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}, on three or more nodes there exist classical processes, including deterministic classical processes, that are causally nonseparable -- the AF process from Ref.~\cite{BaumelerEtAl_2014_MaximalIncompatibilityCausalStructure}, described above, is an example.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Classical split-node causal model (CSM) --- generalized)} \label{Def_CSM}
A \textnormal{CSM} is given by:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textnormal{(\arabic*)}, leftmargin=0.7cm]
\item a causal structure represented by a directed graph $G$ with vertices corresponding to classical split-nodes $X_1, ... , X_n$,
\item for each $X_i$, a classical channel $P(X_i^{\textrm{in}}|Pa(X_i)^{\textrm{out}})$ , where
$Pa(X_i)$ denotes the set of parents of $X_i$ according to $G$, such that $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n} = \prod_i P(X_i^{\textrm{in}}|Pa(X_i)^{\textrm{out}})$ is a process operator over $X_1 , ... , X_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
This definition generalizes that of Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} to include the case of cyclic graphs, and classical split nodes where the input and output variables have different cardinalities. Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} presents detailed discussion of the relationship between (acyclic) CSMs and standard classical causal models \cite{Pearl_Causality, SpirtesEtAL_2000_BookCausationPredictionSearch}.
In the classical case, causal structure (defined for unitary processes in the quantum case) can be defined for deterministic processes.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Causal structure of a deterministic classical process)} \label{Def_detprocess}
Given a deterministic process $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n}^f$, the \textnormal{causal structure} of the process is the directed graph with vertices $X_1, ..., X_n$ and an arrow $X_i \rightarrow X_j$, whenever $X_j^{\text{in}}$ depends on $X_i^{\text{out}}$ through the function $f$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Classical Markov condition --- generalized)} \label{Def_classicalmarkovcondition}
A process $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n}$ is called \textnormal{Markov} for a directed graph $G$ with classical split-nodes $X_1,\ldots, X_n$ as its vertices iff it admits a factorization of the form $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n} = \prod_{i=1}^n P(X_i^{\textrm{in}}|Pa(X_i)^{\textrm{out}})$, where $Pa(X_i)$ denotes the set of parents of $X_i$ according to $G$.
\end{definition}
The following is immediate.
\begin{proposition} \label{Prop_DeterministicProcessMarkov}
Every deterministic classical process is Markov for its causal structure.
\end{proposition}
In the case of general -- i.e., not necessarily deterministic -- classical processes, an account of their relationship to causal structure can be given that again mirrors the quantum case. Let us adopt the provisional approach that causal structure always inheres in deterministic reversible processes (where reversibility here may not be essential, but is assumed to provide a closer analogue to the quantum case in which unitarity is assumed). Then compatibility with a given directed graph can be defined in terms of extension to a reversible deterministic process with latent local noise variables.
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Reversible extendibility)}
A process $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n}$ is \textnormal{reversibly extendible} iff there exists a reversible deterministic process $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n F \lambda}^f$ with an additional leaf node $F$ and root node $\lambda$, such that $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n} = \sum_{F^{\text{in}},\lambda^{\text{out}}} [ \kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n F \lambda}^f P(\lambda^{\text{out}}) ]$ for some $P(\lambda^{\text{out}})$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} \textnormal{(Compatibility with a directed graph)} \label{Def_Compatibility}
A process $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n}$ is \textnormal{compatible} with a directed graph $G$ with nodes $X_1, ... ,X_n$, iff $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n}$ is reversibly extendible to a deterministic process $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n F \lambda_1...\lambda_n}^f$, with an additional leaf node $F$, root nodes $\lambda_i$, and a product distribution $\prod_i P(\lambda_i^{\text{out}})$, such that through $f$, $X_i^{\text{in}}$ depends neither on $\lambda_j^{\text{out}}$ for $j \neq i$ nor on $X_j^{\text{out}}$ for $X_j \notin Pa(X_i)$ (with $Pa(X_i)$ referring to $G$).
\end{definition}
With Prop.~\ref{Prop_DeterministicProcessMarkov}, the following analogue of Thm.~\ref{Thm_CompImpliesMarkov} is straightforward.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm_classicalcompImpliesmarkov}
If a classical process $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n}$ is compatible with a directed graph $G$, then it is also Markov for $G$.
\end{theorem}
As in the quantum case, we leave open whether the converse to Thm.~\ref{Thm_classicalcompImpliesmarkov} holds.
\begin{hypothesis} \label{classicalconjecture}
If a process $\kappa_{X_1 ... X_n}$ is Markov for a directed graph $G$, then it is compatible with $G$.
\end{hypothesis}
We remark only that Hypothesis~\ref{classicalconjecture} is not obviously implied by its quantum counterpart, Hypothesis~\ref{quantumconjecture}. First, it is not known whether reversible extendibility implies unitary extendibility for a classical process when seen as a special case of a quantum process. Second, even if this is the case, it is still conceivable that while a classical process that is Markov for a given graph may admit unitary extensions with the required no-influence properties when viewed as a quantum process, no such extension may be equivalent to a deterministic classical process for the given preferred basis.
We conclude with the following observation.
\begin{theorem} \label{Thm_ClassicalPolytopeResult}
Given a set of classical split nodes $X_1,...,X_n$, the set of reversibly extendible classical processes on $X_1,...,X_n$ coincides with the deterministic polytope.
\end{theorem}
\noindent \textit{Proof:} See Methods.
If Hypothesis~\ref{classicalconjecture} holds, then Thm.~\ref{Thm_ClassicalPolytopeResult} implies in particular that the process defined by a CSM must always belong to the deterministic polytope.
An example of a classical process $\kappa_{X_1\cdots X_n}$ outside of the deterministic polytope is described in Ref.~\cite{Baumeler_EtAl_2016_SpaceOfLOgicallyConsistentClassicalProcesses} (and denoted $\hat{E}_{ex1}$ therein). It is not too hard to show that this process is not Markov for any directed graph, hence cannot be the process defined by a CSM, in keeping with Hypothesis~\ref{classicalconjecture}.
\section*{DISCUSSION}
This work presented an extension of the framework of quantum causal models from Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} to include cyclic causal structures.
We showed that the quantum SWITCH, and a process that violates causal inequalities, found by Ara{\'u}jo and Feix and described by Baumeler and Wolf, can be seen as the processes defined by cyclic quantum causal models.
We also gave decompositions of any SWITCH-type process and of the unitary extension of the aforementioned process by Ara{\'u}jo and Feix, enabling diagrammatic representations that make the internal causal structures evident. Applications of these results included proofs that any unitarily extendible bipartite process is causally separable, and that any unitary process is cyclic if and only if it is causally nonseparable.
What technically comes as the natural generalization of the framework of acyclic quantum causal models is conceptually a substantial step -- allowing causal structure to be cyclic. Taking this extended causal model perspective seriously then offers an alternative view of certain processes: a process that is incompatible with definite causal order may now also be seen to have a well-defined cyclic causal structure. This is to say, to admit of a partial order is not an essential property of being causal anymore. While processes that violate a causal inequality were previously referred to as noncausal processes, suggesting they cannot be understood causally, at least some of them then do admit a causal understanding.
Note that as far as acyclic causal structures are concerned there also is the earlier framework of QCMs by Costa and Shrapnel from Ref.~\cite{CostaEtAl_2016_QuantumCausalModeling}, which is related to, in fact strictly contained in that of Refs.~\cite{AllenEtAl_2016_QCM, BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, which the current work extends. The Markov condition of Ref.~\cite{CostaEtAl_2016_QuantumCausalModeling} is a special case of Def.~\ref{Def_MarkovCondition}, restricted to DAGs for which each node's output space factorizes into as many subsystems as the node has children, with each subsystem only influencing the corresponding child. With this idea of a system per arrow, the process operator $\prod_i \rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)}$ becomes a tensor product. As a consequence -- for essentially the same reason as why Prop.~\ref{Prop_NoBipartite} holds -- the notion of a QCM from Ref.~\cite{CostaEtAl_2016_QuantumCausalModeling} does not admit a nontrivial extension to cyclic directed graphs. The extension of faithful QCMs to cyclic graphs relies on the particular nature of our Markov condition that allows the nontrivial action of pairwise commuting operators $\rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)}$ to overlap on non-factorizing output spaces.
Although we do not provide the details, we note a further application of the generalized framework: it allows an extended version of the causal discovery algorithm sketched in Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} (inspired in turn by the first of its kind in Ref.~\cite{GiarmatziEtAl_2018_CausalDiscoveryAlgorithm}).
While the version in Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, takes a process operator as input, and outputs DAGs as candidate causal explanations, where possible at all, the extended version can discover and output cyclic causal structures.
The basic steps of the algorithm in Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs} largely remain the same, but for instance the algorithm does not halt anymore when encountering a cyclic graph $G_{\sigma}$ that encodes the direct signalling relations between pairs of nodes of the given process $\sigma$. Instead Markovianity for such cyclic $G_{\sigma}$ can still be checked to establish whether $G_{\sigma}$ is a plausible causal explanation.
One of the main questions left open is the validity of our hypothesis that Markovianity implies compatibility for cyclic graphs, which would generalize one of the main results established for the acyclic case in Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}. The validity of this hypothesis has consequences, which we spell out as follows.
Ref.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder}, in motivating the study of unitary extendibility of processes, includes the suggestion that unitary extendibility should be regarded as a necessary condition for a process to be realizable in nature. Here, the meaning of ‘realizable’ is a little vague, but might be taken, for example, to include exotic scenarios involving gravity as well as the time-delocalized sense discussed above in which some processes have been realized in the laboratory. (It does not include realization via postselection, since it is known that all processes can be realized under a suitable postselection \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_OperationalQuantumTheoryWithoutTime, SilvaEtAl_2017_ConnectingIndefiniteWithMultiTime, AraujoEtAl_2017_QuantumComputationWithIndefiniteCausalStructure, MilzEtAl_2018_EntanglementNonMarkovianityAndCausalNonSeparability}.) The suggestion would hold if all processes, once sufficient systems are included, are unitary at the most fundamental level.
Alternatively, under the assumption that the process operator framework provides the most general description of the possible correlation between quantum systems, in non-postselected scenarios, one may speculate that a necessary condition for a process to be realizable in nature is that it can arise from a QCM. Here, ‘arise’ means that there is a QCM with process $\sigma’$ such that $\sigma$ can be obtained from $\sigma’$ by inserting channels at some of the nodes of $\sigma’$ and marginalizing over them. The idea is that any correlations described by such a process admit a causal explanation, albeit one that may involve cycles. On the other hand, any process that cannot arise from a QCM in this manner describes correlations that are not amenable to an understanding in causal terms.
The connection with unitary extendibility is that any process that is unitarily extendible has the property that it can arise from a QCM. Furthermore, if Hypothesis~\ref{quantumconjecture} holds, then any process that is not unitarily extendible cannot arise from a QCM. Hence if Hypothesis~\ref{quantumconjecture} holds, the speculation above coincides with the suggestion of Ref.~\cite{AraujoEtAl_2017_PurificationPostulateForQMWithIndefiniteCausalOrder}.
If Hypothesis~\ref{quantumconjecture} fails, there is a peculiar class of cyclic quantum causal models, in which the process is Markov for the graph but not compatible with the graph.
There then are two logically conceivable options: one may insist on the notion of compatibility as the essential concept for giving causal explanations, turning the Markov condition into a necessary but insufficient condition; alternatively, one could insist on the Markov condition as the essential concept for giving causal explanations, turning the current notion of compatibility into a sufficient but not necessary condition.
We leave open the question whether any meaning can be given to the arrows of the graph in this case, given that there is no suitable unitary extension to define causal relations, and whether such processes might be realizable or not.
Beyond establishing the hypothesis, future work might study the extent to which other core results of the framework of quantum causal models in the acyclic case, such as the d-separation theorem \cite{BarrettEtAl_2019_QCMs}, can be generalized in an appropriate way to the cyclic case, as has been done for the classical framework (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{ForreEtAl_2019_CausalCalculusWithCycles}).
Finally, one of the most promising avenues for future work is the general idea behind the above causal decompositions of our example processes together with Thm.~\ref{Thm_ResultCausalSep}\hspace*{0.07cm}:
to derive further causal decompositions of unitary transformations $U$, as started in Ref.~\cite{LorenzEtAl_2020_CausalAndCompStructure}, and then study the interplay between the discovered algebraic structure and the condition that $U$ defines a valid unitary process when identifying in- and output spaces of $U$ as the out- and input spaces of quantum nodes. We expect this mathematical tool to lead to insights into which unitarily extendible processes are causally nonseparable and how the cyclicity is distributed, mathematically speaking, across the process -- with possible hints for the process' physical realizability.
\section*{METHODS}
\subsection*{Characterisation of process operators}
In order state necessary and sufficient conditions for an operator to be a valid process operator, the following will be useful.
Let $\{\eta_X^l\}_{l=0}^{d_X^2-1}$ denote a Hilbert-Schmidt (HS) basis for $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}_{X})$, i.e., a set of operators such that they are orthonormal with respect to the HS inner product and, in addition, traceless for all $l=1,...,d_X^2-1$, while $\eta_X^0=(1/d_X) \mathds{1}_{X}$.
Any $\sigma \in \mathcal{L}( \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{A^{\text{out}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B^{\text{in}}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{B^{\text{out}}} )$ can be expanded in a HS basis as $\sigma = \sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4} \ \alpha_{l_1l_2l_3l_4} \
\eta^{l_1}_{A^{\text{in}}} \otimes \eta^{l_2}_{A^{\text{out}}} \otimes \eta^{l_3}_{B^{\text{in}}} \otimes \eta^{l_4}_{B^{\text{out}}}$.
A term of type $A^{\text{in}}$ in the expansion is a summand with non-trivial action only on $A^{\text{in}}$, i.e. $l_1\neq 0$ and $l_2=l_3=l_4=0$. Similarly for types $A^{\text{in}}B^{\text{out}}$ etc.
It was shown in Ref.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder} that $\sigma$ being a bipartite process operator is equivalent to $\sigma \geq 0$, $\textnormal{Tr} [\sigma] = d_{A^{\text{out}}} d_{B^{\text{out}}} $ and that in a HS basis expansion, in addition to a term, which is proportional to the identity operator on all four spaces, only the coefficients of terms of the types
$A^{\text{in}}$, $B^{\text{in}}$, $A^{\text{in}}B^{\text{in}}$,
$A^{\text{in}}B^{\text{out}}$, $A^{\text{out}}B^{\text{in}}$,
$A^{\text{in}}A^{\text{out}}B^{\text{in}}$ and $A^{\text{in}}B^{\text{in}}B^{\text{out}}$,
may be non-vanishing.
These conditions were generalized to $n$ numbers of nodes in Ref.~\cite{OreshkovEtAl_2016_CausallySeparableProcesses} and can easily be stated as (1) $\sigma \geq 0$, (2) $\textnormal{Tr} [\sigma] =\prod_{i=1}^n d_{A_i^{\text{out}}}$ and (3) that in a HS basis expansion the only non-vanishing terms, apart from an overall identity operator, are of a type such that there must be at least one node, say $A_i$, on whose out-space, $A_i^{\text{out}}$, the action is trivial, but on whose in-space, $A_i^{\text{in}}$, the action is non-trivial.
Equivalent conditions were presented in \cite{AraujoEtAl_2015_WitnessingCausalNonSeparability} where the projector onto the linear subspace of process operators was defined explicitly, giving a basis-independent characterization.
\subsection*{Proof of Prop.~\ref{Prop_NoBipartite}}
Suppose a bipartite cyclic QCM is given by the (unique) cyclic graph $G$ with two nodes $A$ and $B$ from Fig.~2a and a process $\sigma_{AB} = \rho_{A|B} \ \rho_{B|A}$, Markov for $G$. It follows that $\sigma_{AB} = \rho_{B|A} \otimes \rho_{A|B}$, as both factors act on distinct Hilbert spaces. Now suppose that this is a faithful QCM, i.e., both channels $\rho_{A|B}$ and $\rho_{B|A}$ are signalling channels. One way to see that this contradicts the assumption that $\sigma_{AB}$ is a valid process is by analyzing the non-vanishing types of terms in an expansion of $\sigma_{AB}$ relative to a Hilbert-Schmidt product basis \color{black} (see above). \color{black}
If signalling from $B^{\text{out}}$ to $A^{\text{in}}$ is possible in $\rho_{A|B}$, then an expansion of just $\rho_{A|B}$ has to contain a non-vanishing term of type $A^{\text{in}}B^{\text{out}}$. Similarly, if signalling from $A^{\text{out}}$ to $B^{\text{in}}$ is possible in $\rho_{B|A}$, then an expansion of $\rho_{B|A}$ has to contain a non-vanishing term of type $B^{\text{in}}A^{\text{out}}$. Consequently, $\sigma_{AB}$ has to contain a non-vanishing term of type $A^{\text{in}}B^{\text{out}}B^{\text{in}}A^{\text{out}}$, which is forbidden for a process operator \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}.
\subsection*{Product of commuting operators not necessarily a process operator}
As established by Prop.~\ref{Prop_NoBipartite}, not all cyclic graphs support a faithful cyclic QCM.
Here we show that, \color{black} given a cyclic graph $G$ that does support a faithful cyclic QCM, it is not true that any product of commuting operators $\prod_i \rho_{A_i|Pa(A_i)}$, with parental sets as in $G$, constitutes a process operator.
Consider for instance the graph $G$ in Fig.~2b
(and see \color{black} the discussion below Def.~\ref{Def_CausalSep} for an example of \color{black} a faithful cyclic QCM over $G$).
Letting the three nodes $A$, $B$ and $C$ be \color{black} classical split nodes, \color{black} with classical bits $A^{\text{in}}$, $A^{\text{out}}$, $B^{\text{in}}$, $B^{\text{out}}$, $C^{\text{in}}$ and $C^{\text{out}}$, define classical channels as in Eqs.~\eqref{Eq_CounterExampleDistr1}-\eqref{Eq_CounterExampleDistr2}.
It is easy to see that the signalling relations through the channels $P(A^{\text{in}}|B^{\text{out}},C^{\text{out}})$ and $P(B^{\text{in}}|A^{\text{out}},C^{\text{out}})$ are indeed as in Fig.~2b.
At the same time, for any choice of probability distribution $P(C^{\text{in}})$, the product
$P(A^{\text{in}}|B^{\text{out}}, C^{\text{out}}) P(B^{\text{in}}|A^{\text{out}}, C^{\text{out}}) P(C^{\text{in}})$ cannot be a classical process: consider an intervention at $C$ which fixes $C^{\text{out}}$ to be 0, then
$P(A^{\text{in}}|B^{\text{out}}, 0) P(B^{\text{in}}|A^{\text{out}}, 0)$ is still a product of two signalling classical channels, which (seeing them as special cases of quantum channels) was already established in the proof of Prop.~\ref{Prop_NoBipartite} to be in contradiction with being a process. This establishes the claim.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
P(A^{\text{in}}|B^{\text{out}},C^{\text{out}}) &:=&
\begin{cases}
P(0|0,0) \ = \ 0.4, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(0|0,1) \ = \ 0.3, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(0|1,0) \ = \ 0.8, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(0|1,1) \ = \ 0.3, \\
P(1|0,0) \ = \ 0.6, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(1|0,1) \ = \ 0.7, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(1|1,0) \ = \ 0.2, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(1|1,1) \ = \ 0.7.
\end{cases}
\label{Eq_CounterExampleDistr1} \\
P(B^{\text{in}}|A^{\text{out}},C^{\text{out}}) &:=&
\begin{cases}
P(0|0,0) \ = \ 0.5, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(0|0,1) \ = \ 0.3, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(0|1,0) \ = \ 0.25, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(0|1,1) \ = \ 0.1, \\
P(1|0,0) \ = \ 0.5, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(1|0,1) \ = \ 0.7, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(1|1,0) \ = \ 0.75, \hspace*{0.5cm}
P(1|1,1) \ = \ 0.9.
\end{cases}
\label{Eq_CounterExampleDistr2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\subsection*{Proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_ResultCausalSep}}
Suppose the bipartite quantum process operator $\sigma_{AB}$ is unitarily extendible. Consider an arbitrary unitary extension of it, $\sigma_{ABFP}=\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{ABF|ABP}$. From Eq.~\eqref{subsystemdecomposition} it follows that the reduced process obtained by tracing out $F^{\text{in}}$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{ABP} = \textnormal{Tr}_{F^{\text{in}}} [\rho^{\mathcal{U}}_{ABF|ABP}] = \sum_{i\in I} \rho_{A|BP_i^L} \otimes \rho_{B|P_i^RA} \ ,
\end{equation}
for the decomposition $\mathcal{H}_{P^{\text{out}}} = \bigoplus_{i\in I} \mathcal{H}_{P_i^L} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{P_i^R}$, identified by $S$, where
$\rho_{A|BP_i^L}= \textnormal{Tr}_{F^L_i} [ \rho^{V_i}_{AF^L_i|BP_i^L}]$ and $\rho_{B|P_i^RA}= \textnormal{Tr}_{F^R_i} [\rho^{W_i}_{F^R_iB|P_i^RA}]$ and, where $\rho_{A|BP_i^L} \otimes \rho_{B|P_i^RA}$ is taken as an operator on the whole space, acting as zero map on all but the $i$th subspace.
Note that from $\sigma_{ABP}$ being a process operator it follows that feeding in any $\tau_P \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^*_{P^{\text{out}}})$ gives a quantum process operator on the nodes $A$ and $B$.
Let $i\in I$ be some fixed index and suppose through the channel $\rho_{A|BP_i^L}$ system $B^{\text{out}}$ can signal to $A^{\text{in}}$ and similarly, through the channel $\rho_{B|AP_i^R}$ system $A^{\text{out}}$ can signal to $B^{\text{in}}$.
Then there exists an appropriate state $\tau_P$, which has only support on the $i$th subspace, and which is of a product form $\gamma_{P_i^L} \otimes \phi_{P_i^R}$, such that in
\begin{equation}
\textnormal{Tr}_{(P_i^L)^*}[ \rho_{A|BP_i^L} \ \gamma_{P_i^L} ] \ \ \otimes \ \ \textnormal{Tr}_{(P_i^R)^*}[ \rho_{B|AP_i^R} \ \phi_{P_i^R}] \ , \label{Eq_MarginalIniSubspace}
\end{equation}
both, the marginal channel on the left is signalling from $B^{\text{out}}$ to $A^{\text{in}}$ and the one on the right from $A^{\text{out}}$ to $B^{\text{in}}$.
Since the expression in Eq.~\eqref{Eq_MarginalIniSubspace} has to give a process operator over $A$ and $B$, this yields a contradiction due to Prop.~\ref{Prop_NoBipartite}. Hence, for each $i$ at most one of the channels $\rho_{A|BP_i^L}$ and $\rho_{B|AP_i^R}$ allow signalling from $B^{\text{out}}$ to $A^{\text{in}}$ or from $A^{\text{out}}$ to $B^{\text{in}}$, respectively.
By assumption there exists an appropriate $\tau_P \in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^*_{P^{\text{out}}})$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{AB} = \sum_i \textnormal{Tr}_{(P^{\text{out}})^*} \Big[ (\rho_{A|BP_i^L} \otimes \rho_{B|P_i^RA} ) \ \tau_P \Big] \ . \label{Eq_CS}
\end{equation}
By the above analysis, it also follows that each summand in Eq.~\eqref{Eq_CS} has to be a process operator up to normalization.
Since they sum up to a process operator, the inverses of the normalization constants have to form a probability distribution and one can therefore write $\sigma_{AB} = \sum_i p_i \ \sigma_{AB}^{(i)}$, where each $\sigma_{AB}^{(i)}$ is a process operator with at most $A$ signalling to $B$ or vice versa. This is the form of a bipartite causally separable process operator.
Note further that if $\rho_{A|BP_i^L}$ is non-signalling from $B^{\text{out}}$ to $A^{\text{in}}$, then in $V_i$ there is no influence from $B^{\text{out}}$ to $A^{\text{in}}$, and similarly, if $\rho_{B|P_i^RA}$ is non-signalling from $A^{\text{out}}$ to $B^{\text{in}}$, then in $W_i$ there is no influence from $A^{\text{out}}$ to $B^{\text{in}}$.
Therefore, the above constraints mean that each term $V_i\otimes W_i$ in Eq.~\eqref{subsystemdecomposition} corresponds to a process over nodes including $A$ and $B$ that allows signalling in at most one direction between $A$ and $B$.
The latter always admits an implementation as a unitary circuit fragment
with nodes $A$ and $B$ in a fixed order \cite{ChirbiellaEtAl_2009_QuantumNetworkFramework}. Since the full unitary $U$ of the unitary extension is a direct sum of such fixed-order unitary processes taking place in the different orthogonal subspaces, and every operation at the nodes $A$ and $B$ can be dilated to a unitary, the full unitary process $\sigma_{ABFP}=\rho^U_{ABF|ABP}$ can be realized by coherently conditioning which of the corresponding fixed-order unitary circuits takes place on the logical value of some control $n$-level quantum system, where $n$ is the number of different subspaces.
Note that since the systems involved in the fixed-order circuits may have different dimensions, this implementation in practice may require bringing in different systems depending on the control variable $i$, but this can always be seen as part of a process on a larger system of a fixed dimension.
Moreover, the fixed-order processes in the different orthogonal subspaces can be grouped into two sets: one in which $A$ is before $B$ and another one in which $B$ is before $A$.
This allows embedding the process into another one where one of two possible circuits (in which $A$ and $B$ occur in different orders) is applied in a coherently controlled fashion based on the logical value of a control qubit, similarly to the quantum SWITCH.
This yields another possible unitary extension $\sigma_{AB\widetilde{F}\widetilde{P}}$ of the original bipartite process, where $\widetilde{F}^{\text{in}}$ and $\widetilde{P}^{\text{out}}$ would contain $F^{\text{in}}$ and $P^{\text{out}}$, respectively, as subspaces.
The originally assumed unitary extension $\sigma_{ABFP}$ can then be seen to take place effectively as part of $\sigma_{AB\widetilde{F}\widetilde{P}}$.
\subsection*{Proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep}}
The below proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep} will use the following two concepts.
First, generalizing the notion of a process being unitary, a process is called isometric if its induced channel from the output systems of all nodes to the input systems of all nodes arises from an isometry.
Second, a quantum comb, as defined in Ref.~\cite{ChirbiellaEtAl_2009_QuantumNetworkFramework} (provided first input and last output system are trivial), is a special kind of quantum process: a process $ \sigma_{A_{1} \ldots A_{n}}$ over $n$ quantum nodes for the given total order of its nodes $A_{1}, \ldots, A_{n}$ is a quantum comb (an $(n+1)$-comb) iff
\begin{eqnarray}
\ \forall l = 1, \ldots, n-1 \hspace*{0.3cm}
\textrm{Tr}_{A_{l+1} \ldots A_{n}} [ \sigma_{A_{1} \ldots A_{n}} ] = \hspace*{1.7cm} \nonumber \\
\hspace*{0.45cm} \frac{1}{d_{A_{l}^{\textrm{out}}}} \textrm{Tr}_{(A_{l}^{\textrm{out}})^*} \Big[ \textrm{Tr}_{ A_{l+1} \ldots A_{n}} [ \sigma_{A_{1} \ldots A_{n}} ] \Big]
\otimes \mathds{1}_{(A_{l}^{\textrm{out}})^*} \hspace*{0.35cm} \label{Eq_DefQuantumComb} \\
\wedge \ \sigma_{A_{1} \ldots A_{n}} = \frac{1}{d_{A_{n}^{\textrm{out}}}} \textrm{Tr}_{(A_{n}^{\textrm{out}})^*} [ \sigma_{A_{1} \ldots A_{n}} ] \otimes \mathds{1}_{(A_{n}^{\textrm{out}})^*} . \hspace*{0.6cm} \label{Eq_DefQuantumComb_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent \textit{Proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep}:}
Let $\sigma_{A_1\ldots A_n}$ be a unitary process.
The following will establish, what is equivalent to Thm.~\ref{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep}, namely that acyclicity of its causal structure is equivalent to $\sigma_{A_1\ldots A_n}$ being causally separable.
First, suppose $\sigma_{A_1\ldots A_n}$ has an acyclic causal structure.
There then exists a total order of the quantum nodes $A_1, \ldots, A_n$ (appropriately relabeled) such that
$A_j \nrightarrow A_i$ $\forall j \geq i$ (see Def.~\ref{Def_UnitaryProcess}).
This implies that the conditions in Eqs.~\eqref{Eq_DefQuantumComb}-\eqref{Eq_DefQuantumComb_2} are satisfied (note that $d_{A_{n}^{\textrm{out}}} = 1 = d_{A_{1}^{\textrm{in}}}$).
Hence, $\sigma_{A_1 \ldots A_n}$ is a quantum comb \cite{ChirbiellaEtAl_2009_QuantumNetworkFramework}. Such a process is a special case of a causally separable process since in a quantum comb there can be no signalling from $\{A_{j+1}, \cdots, A_{n} \} $ to $ \{ A_{1}, \cdots, A_{j}\}$ for any $j = 1, \cdots, n-1$, and this remains true under extending the process with arbitrary shared input ancillary states.
For the converse direction, suppose the unitary process $\sigma_{A_1\ldots A_n}$ is causally separable.
In order to show that it then has an acyclic causal structure we will prove that it is a quantum comb. In fact we will prove the following more general statement concerning isometric processes, which gives the claim as a special case.
\begin{lemma} \label{Lem_CausSepIsometries}
Every causally separable isometric process is a quantum comb.
\end{lemma}
\noindent \textit{Proof of Lem.~\ref{Lem_CausSepIsometries}:}
The main idea of the following proof is the observation that the process operator of an isometric process is proportional to a rank-1 projector and hence cannot be written as a nontrivial convex mixture of different positive semi-definite operators.
The proof proceeds by induction.
An isometric process over one single node is a 2-comb.
Assume that all causally separable isometric processes on $n$ nodes are quantum combs.
Let $\sigma_{A_1\ldots A_{n+1}}$ be an isometric process over $n+1$ nodes, which is causally separable.
Let us extend it by adding auxiliary input systems for all $n+1$ nodes with the following pure state shared among them:
\begin{gather}
|\Psi\rangle \ = \ \bigotimes_{i=1,j=2, i<j}^{i=n, j=n+1} \ |\phi^+\rangle_{ij} \ , \label{Eq_ancillarystate}
\end{gather}
where each $|\phi^+\rangle_{ij} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}} \sum_{l=1}^{n!} |l\rangle |l\rangle$
is a maximally entangled state, shared between node $A_{i}$ and node $A_{j}$. Thus, $|\Psi\rangle$ is a tensor product of $\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$ maximally entangled bipartite states, such that every pair of nodes indexed by $(i,j)$ shares one such state of Schmidt rank $n!$.
Using the notation of Def.~\ref{Def_CausalSep}, $\widetilde{\sigma} := \sigma \otimes |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$ is an extended process over the extended nodes $\widetilde{A}_1, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n+1}$, with $|\Psi\rangle \in \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n+1} \mathcal{H}_{(A'_i)^{\text{in}}}$, where each $\mathcal{H}_{(A'_i)^{\text{in}}}$ is an $n$-fold tensor product of $(n!)$-dimensional systems.
By assumption, $\widetilde{\sigma}$ is causally separable, too, while it also is proportional to a rank-1 projector.
In the decomposition as in Eq.~\eqref{Eq_CSdecomposition}, implied by causal separability, there therefore is only one summand. Hence, there exists one node, let this be $\widetilde{A}_{1}$ (for an appropriate relabeling), such that $\widetilde{A}_2, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n+1}$ cannot signal to $\widetilde{A}_{1}$ and for all CP maps $\tau_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}$ at that node the conditional process
$\widetilde{\sigma}|_{\tau_{\widetilde{A}_1}}$ is causally separable.
Now consider a CP map such that $\tau_{\widetilde{A}_{1}} = |\tau\rangle \langle \tau|_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}$ itself is a rank-1 projector. The process operator $\widetilde{\sigma}|_{\tau_{\widetilde{A}_1}}$ then still is proportional to a rank-1 projector and, hence, representing an isometric process on the remaining $n$ nodes $\widetilde{A}_2, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n+1}$.
As argued above it also is causally separable.
By assumption then such an isometric, causally separable process $\widetilde{\sigma}|_{\tau_{\widetilde{A}_1}}$ on $n$ nodes is a quantum comb.
Notice first that if there is no signalling to $\widetilde{A}_{1}$ from all other nodes in the extended process $\widetilde{\sigma}$, then there is no signalling to $A_{1}$ from all other nodes in the original process $\sigma$.
Consider $\tau_{\widetilde{A}_{1}} = |\tau\rangle \langle \tau|_{{A}_{1}} \otimes |\phi\rangle\langle \phi|$,
where $ |\phi\rangle\langle \phi|$ is some fixed projector on the ancillary input system $(A'_1)^{\text{in}}$ and
$\tau_{A_{1}} = |\tau\rangle \langle \tau|_{{A}_{1}} $ has rank-1.
Since projecting the ancillary systems via $|\phi\rangle\langle \phi|$ leaves the ancillary systems on the remaining nodes in some pure state $|\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|$, the conditional process on the remaining nodes has the form
$\sigma|_{\tau_{A_{1}}} \otimes |\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|$. Since the latter is a quantum comb for every $|\tau\rangle \langle \tau|_{{A}_{1}}$, so must be $\sigma|_{\tau_{A_{1}}}$.
There are $n!$ different possible total orders of the nodes, given by $A_{\pi(2)}, \ldots, A_{\pi(n+1)}$ for $\pi$ being one of the $n!$ different permutations of $2,...,n+1$.
We will now show (by proof of contradiction) that there exists a reordering $A_{\pi(2)}, \ldots, A_{\pi(n+1)}$ with which the quantum comb
$\sigma|_{\tau_{A_1}}$ is compatible for any choice of $|\tau\rangle \langle \tau|_{{A}_{1}}$.
Suppose there does not exist one such appropriate total order.
Then for every permutation $\pi$, there exists $\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}} := |\tau^{\pi}\rangle \langle \tau^{\pi}|_{{A}_{1}}$, such that the corresponding quantum comb $\sigma|_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}}$ is incompatible with the total order of the remaining nodes defined by $\pi$.
Let $\mathcal{C}_{l}^{\pi} (\sigma) = 0$ for $l=1,...,n$ be the linear constraint corresponding to the $l$th condition in Eqs.~\eqref{Eq_DefQuantumComb}-\eqref{Eq_DefQuantumComb_2} for a process operator $\sigma$ over $n$ nodes to be a valid quantum comb for the total order $\pi$.
Consider a process operator
$\bar{\sigma} := \sum_{\pi=1}^{n!} q_{\pi} \ \sigma|_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}}$, where $q_{\pi} \geq 0$, $ \forall \pi$, and $\sum_{\pi} q_{\pi} =1$ (letting $\pi$, both, be a permutation as well as an index enumerating those permutations).
By construction, for every $\pi$ at least one of the conditions in $\{ \mathcal{C}_{l}^{\pi} ( \sigma|_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}} ) = 0 \}_{l=1}^n$ fails.
Therefore, one can then choose the weights $q_{\pi}$ such that for every $\pi$ the process operator $\bar{\sigma}$ violates at least one of these constraints $\{ \mathcal{C}_{l}^{\pi} ( \bar{\sigma} ) = 0 \}_{l=1}^n$, establishing that $\bar{\sigma}$ is not a quantum comb for any possible order of the $n$ nodes.
More precisely, the condition that $\bar{\sigma}$ respects the constraints
$\{ \mathcal{C}_{l}^{\pi} ( \bar{\sigma} ) = 0 \}_{l=1}^n$, for a given $\pi$ can be written as
$\sum_{\alpha=1}^{n!} q_{\alpha} \ \mathcal{C}_{l}^{\pi} ( \sigma|_{\tau^{\alpha}_{A_{1}}} )= 0$ for $l=1,\ldots, n$, which implies that
$(q_1, \ldots, q_{n!})$, viewed as a point in an $(n!)$-dimensional Euclidean space, must belong to a specific hyperplane in that space. Our assumption that at least one of $\mathcal{C}_{l}^{\pi} ( \sigma|_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}} )$ must be nonzero, makes it a proper hyperplane. Then, in order for $\bar{\sigma}$ to be compatible with the quantum-comb conditions for at least one $\pi$, the point $(q_1, \ldots, q_{n!})$ must belong to the union of the hyperplanes corresponding to the different values of $\pi$. Since this is a finite set of hyperplanes, it is possible to find (a continuum of) points in the positive orthant that are outside of this union. Since rescaling $(q_1, \ldots, q_{n!})$ by a constant factor, which amounts to rescaling $\bar{\sigma}$ by a constant factor, does not change the fact of whether any of the above constraints is violated or not, there exists a $(q_1, \ldots, q_{n!})$ with the required properties, such that $\bar{\sigma}$ is not a quantum comb for any total order $\pi$.
We will now use this fact to construct the contradiction with the assumption that there is no single order $\pi$ with which all isometric quantum combs $\sigma|_{\tau_{A_{1}}}$ are compatible.
To this end, we will first show that, starting from our extended process $\widetilde{\sigma} = \sigma \otimes |\Psi\rangle\langle\Psi|$, for any $j\in \{2,...,n+1\}$ it is possible to apply a suitable CP map $|\tau\rangle\langle \tau|_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}$ such that this yields a conditional process of the form
$\widetilde{\sigma}|_{ \tau_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}} = | \bar{\sigma}_j\rangle\langle \bar{\sigma}_j | \otimes |\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|_{rest^{'}_{\textrm{in}} }$, where
$|\bar{\sigma}_j \rangle= \sum_{\pi=1}^{n!} \sqrt{q_{\pi} } \ |\pi\rangle_{a_{j}} | \sigma_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}} \rangle$ with, recalling Eq.~\eqref{Eq_ancillarystate},
$\mathcal{H}_{a_{j}}$ the factor of $\mathcal{H}_{(A'_j)^{\text{in}}}$ sharing the state $|\phi^+\rangle_{1j}$ with $\mathcal{H}_{a_{1}}$ of the node $A_1$ and
$| \sigma_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}} \rangle \langle \sigma_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}} | := \sigma|_ {\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}}$, the conditional process on the remaining $n$ of the original $n+1$ nodes, and where $|\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|_{rest^{'}_{\textrm{in}}}$ is some pure state on the remaining auxiliary input systems (i.e. $|\Phi\rangle_{rest^{'}_{\textrm{in}}}$ is in $\bigotimes_{i\neq 1} \mathcal{H}_{(A'_i)^{\text{in}}}$ excluding the subfactor $\mathcal{H}_{a_{j}}$).
To see this, let $j \neq 1$.
If we apply a CP map of the form $|\tau\rangle\langle \tau|_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}$ = $ |\chi\rangle \langle\chi|_{a_{1}A_{1}} \otimes |\phi\rangle \langle \phi|_{rest_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}}$, where
$|\chi\rangle = \sum_{\pi=1}^{n!} \sqrt{\epsilon_{\pi}} \ | \pi \rangle_{a_{1} } | \tau^{\pi}\rangle_{A_{1}}$, and
$|\phi\rangle \langle \phi|_{rest_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}}$ is some projector on the remaining ancillary input systems in
$(A'_1)^{\text{in}}$, then we will obtain a conditional process of the form
$\widetilde{\sigma}|_{\tau_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}} = | {\sigma}_j\rangle\langle {\sigma}_j | \otimes |\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|_{rest^{'}_{\textrm{in}} }$, with
$ | {\sigma}_j \rangle= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{\sum_{\pi=1}^{n!} \epsilon_{\pi}\gamma_{\pi} } } \sum_{\pi=1}^{n!} \sqrt{\epsilon_{\pi} \gamma_{\pi }} |\pi\rangle_{a_{j}} | \sigma_{\tau^{\pi}_{A_{1}}} \rangle$, where
$\gamma_{\pi} := {\textrm{Tr} [(|\tau^{ \pi} \rangle\langle \tau^{\pi}|_{A_{1}}) \sigma ]}$.
Therefore, by choosing $\epsilon_{\pi} = q_{\pi}/ (c \gamma_{ \pi})$, for some large enough constant $c$ to ensure that $|\tau\rangle\langle \tau|_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}$ is appropriately normalised to represent a CP map, we can make $ | {\sigma}_j\rangle = | \bar{\sigma}_j\rangle$ as desired. (Note that $\forall \pi$, $\gamma_{ \pi} \neq 0$ since $\textrm{Tr}_{A_1} [(|\tau^{ \pi} \rangle\langle \tau^{\pi}|_{A_{1}}) \sigma ]$ is proportional to a process operator on the remaining $n$ nodes, the trace over which gives $\prod_{i=2}^{n+1} d_{A_i^{\text{out}}}$.)
By our main assumption, the $n$-node process $\widetilde{\sigma}|_{\tau_{\widetilde{A}_{1}}} = | \bar{\sigma}_j\rangle\langle \bar{\sigma}_j | \otimes |\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|_{rest^{'}_{\textrm{in}} }$ must be a quantum comb, and since $|\Phi\rangle\langle \Phi|_{rest^{'}_{\textrm{in}} }$ is just a state on some input systems, $| \bar{\sigma}_j\rangle\langle \bar{\sigma}_j | $ must also be a quantum comb (on the nodes $A_i\neq A_{1}$, $i\neq j$, and the node $A_j$ extended via the ancillary input system $a_j$).
But tracing out the system $a_j$ from the latter quantum comb must also yield a quantum comb on the nodes $A_i\neq A_{1}$, which can easily be seen from the quantum-comb conditions.
However, by construction, $\textrm{Tr}_{a_j} |\bar{\sigma}_j\rangle\langle \bar{\sigma}_j |= \bar{\sigma}$, where $\bar{\sigma}$ is not supposed to be a quantum comb, which is a contradiction.
Therefore, there must exist a total order $\bar{\pi}$, such that $\sigma|_{ \tau_{A_{1} }}$ is a quantum comb compatible with $\bar{\pi}$ for every rank-1 $\tau_{A_{1}}$. By the convexity of the set of $n$-node operators that are quantum combs compatible with $\bar{\pi}$, this automatically extends to all CP maps $\tau_{A_{1}}$.
So far we have shown that the process $\sigma$ is such that there is a node $A_{1}$ to which the rest of the nodes cannot signal, and the remaining nodes can be put in a total order $A_{2}, \ldots , A_{n+1}$, such that for every CP map $\tau_{A_{1}}$, the conditional process $\sigma|_{ \tau_{A_{1} }}$ is a quantum comb compatible with that order.
Now observe that this implies that the full process $\sigma$ is a quantum comb compatible with the total order $A_{1}, A_{2}, \ldots , A_{n+1}$.
Since for all possible CP maps $\tau_{A_{1}}$ it holds that $\mathcal{C}_{l}(\sigma|_{ \tau_{A_{1}}})= 0$ for $l=2,...,n+1$, it follows from the linearity of these constraints, that the corresponding quantum comb conditions hold for $\sigma$, i.e. $\mathcal{C}_{l}(\sigma)= 0$ for $l=2,...,n+1$.
Finally, that $\mathcal{C}_{1}(\sigma)= 0$ holds follows from just $\sigma$ being a process, since it is equivalent to that if in $\sigma$ we trace out all of the nodes $A_{2}, \ldots , A_{n+1}$, we should be left with, up to normalization, a valid single-node process on $A_{1}$ \cite{OreshkovEtAl_2012_QuantumCorrelationsWithoutCausalOrder}.
Therefore, the isometric process $\sigma$ on $n+1$ nodes is a quantum comb, too, which completes the proof of Lem.~\ref{Lem_CausSepIsometries} and thereby also that of Thm.~\ref{Thm_CyclicityAndNonSep}.
\subsection*{Proof of Thm.~\ref{Thm_ClassicalPolytopeResult}}
First, suppose $\kappa_{X_1...X_n}$ is a reversibly extendible process, that is, there exists a reversible deterministic process $\kappa^g_{X_1...X_n \lambda F}$ for some bijection
$g : X_1^{\text{out}} \times ... \times X_n^{\text{out}} \times \lambda^{\text{out}} \rightarrow X_1^{\text{in}} \times ... \times X_n^{\text{in}} \times F^{\text{in}}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\kappa_{X_1...X_n} = \sum_{\lambda^{\text{out}}, F^{\text{in}}} \kappa^g_{X_1...X_n \lambda F} \ P(\lambda^{\text{out}}) \label{Eq_RevExtProcess}
\end{equation}
for some probability distribution $P(\lambda^{\text{out}})$.
It follows from the fact that $\kappa^g_{X_1...X_n \lambda F}$ is a classical process that marginalization as in Eq.~\eqref{Eq_RevExtProcess} has to yield a classical process over nodes $X_1,...,X_n$ for arbitrary distributions $P(\lambda^{\text{out}})$, in particular for every point-distribution.
Hence, for every value $\lambda'$ of $\lambda^{\text{out}}$, the induced function $g_{\lambda'} ( \_\_) :=g( \_\_ ,\lambda')$ has to define a deterministic process for $n+1$ nodes and furthermore, also once marginalizing over $F$ it still has to be a deterministic process for the $n$ nodes $X_1,\ldots , X_n$. Hence, Eq.~\eqref{Eq_RevExtProcess} can be read as establishing that the given $\kappa_{X_1...X_n}$ is a convex mixture of deterministic processes over the nodes $X_1, ..., X_n$, i.e. $\kappa_{X_1...X_n}$ lies in the deterministic polytope.
Conversely, suppose $\kappa_{X_1...X_n}$ lies inside the deterministic polytope, that is, there exists a family of deterministic processes $\{\kappa^{f_i}_{X_1...X_n}\}_{i=1}^m$, defined by the functions $f_i : X_1^{\text{out}} \times ... \times X_n^{\text{out}} \rightarrow X_1^{\text{in}} \times ... \times X_n^{\text{in}}$ such that
$\kappa_{X_1...X_n} = \sum_{i=1}^m q_i \ \kappa^{f_i}_{X_1...X_n}$ for some probability distribution $\{q_i\}$.
The proof will proceed by first observing that such a process can be seen to arise from one single deterministic process on $n+2$ nodes. Together with the fact that every deterministic process is reversibly extendible, proven in Ref.~\cite{Baumeler_2017_ReversibleTimeTravelWithFreedomOfChoice}, this establishes the claim.
In order to see that indeed an appropriate deterministic process on $n+2$ nodes exists, let $\lambda^{\text{out}}$ and $F^{\text{in}}$ be variables with cardinality $m$ and define the function
\begin{eqnarray}
f & : & X^{\text{out}} \times \lambda^{\text{out}} \ \rightarrow \ X^{\text{in}} \times F^{\text{in}} \\
&& (x, \ i) \mapsto (f_i(x) , \ i) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $X^{\text{out}} = X_1^{\text{out}} \times ... \times X_n^{\text{out}}$ (similarly for $X^{\text{in}}$) and $x=(x_1,...,x_n)$.
Together with setting $P(\lambda^{\text{out}}=i) := q_i$, $f$ defines a deterministic classical process over the nodes $X_1,...,X_n$, $\lambda$ and $F$, which gives back $\kappa_{X_1...X_n}$ upon marginalization over $\lambda$ and $F$. That $f$ indeed defines a process follows from the fact that arbitrary variation of the distribution $P(\lambda^{\text{out}})$ corresponds to an arbitrary weighting $\{q_i\}$ in the originally given mixture, each case of which has to be a classical process.
This concludes the proof.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
After completion of this work we became aware of a related result by Wataru Yokojima, Marco T{\'u}lio Quintino, Akihito Soeda and Mio Murao, which was obtained independently and has appeared in Ref.~\cite{YokojimaEtAl_2020_ConsequencesOfPreservingReversibilityInSupermaps} since the first preprint of this paper in Ref.~\cite{BarrettEtAl_2020_CyclicQCMs_FirstArxivVersion}.
This work was supported by the EPSRC National Quantum Technology Hub in Networked Quantum Information Technologies, the Wiener-Anspach Foundation, and by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science.
This publication was made possible through the support of the ID\# 61466 grant from the John Templeton Foundation, as part of the “The Quantum Information Structure of Spacetime (QISS)” Project (qiss.fr). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
This work was supported by the Program of Concerted Research Actions (ARC) of the Universit\'{e} libre de Bruxelles. O. O. is a Research Associate of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.–FNRS).
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright |
\section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction:\protect\\ The line break was forced \lowercase{via} \textbackslash\textbackslash}
\section{Introduction}
Enstatite, MgSiO$_3$, is one of the most abundant minerals on Earth's
crust and one of the few silicate minerals that has been observed in
crystalline form outside the Solar System~\cite{Molster2001}.
Therefore, it has been identified as one the primary building blocks
of planetary formation~\cite{Valencia2010,Bolis2016} and it is commonly
used as a representative mantle material in exoplanet
modeling~\cite{Seager2007,Valencia2009,Valencia2010,Wagner2012}. The
equation of state (EOS) of silicate materials at high pressures and
temperatures is fundamental to develop models of planetary
formation~\cite{Gonzalez-Cataldo2016} and to interpret results from
shock compression experiments~\cite{Fratanduono2018}. In planetary
collision events, for example, the amount of heat generated during the
shock can be sufficient to melt and even vaporize these
minerals~\cite{Kraus2012}, and an accurate EOS is needed to describe
these processes quantitatively.
On the other hand, precise first-principles computer simulations of silicates can guide the
design of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) experiments~\cite{Lindl1995,Gaffney2018,ZhangBN2019}
under
conditions where the K and L shell electrons are gradually ionized,
which is challenging to predict accurately with analytical EOS models.
The properties of the liquid phase of MgSiO$_3$ at high pressure have
recently been explored in laser-driven shock compression
experiments~\cite{Spaulding2012,Bolis2016,Fratanduono2018}, and
suggest a metallic-like behavior over a wide range of
pressure-temperature conditions. Similar findings were reported with
first-principles calculations~\cite{Soubiran2018} that demonstrated
that super-Earth planets can generate magnetic fields within their
mantles.
In this work, we combine path integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) and density
functional theory molecular dynamics (DFT-MD) simulations to study the
ionization in warm, dense MgSiO$_3$. We distinguish the regimes of
thermal ionization and pressure ionization, and show that the shock
Hugoniot curve crosses from one regime into the other. The compression
maximum along the Hugoniot curve is found to fall within the regime of
thermal ionization. The K shell electrons of all three nuclei
contribute to the compression maximum.
\section{Methodology}
Rigorous discussions of the PIMC~\cite{Ce95,Ce96,MilitzerDriver2015,MilitzerPollockCeperley2019}
and DFT-MD~\cite{Car1985,Payne1992,Marx2009} methods have been
provided in previous works, and the details of our simulations have
been presented in some of our previous
publications~\cite{Mi99,DriverNitrogen2016,Soubiran2019}.
Here we summarize the methods and provide the simulation parameters
specific to simulations of MgSiO$_3$ plasma. The general idea of our
approach is to perform simulations along isochores at high
temperatures ($T \geqslant 10^6$ K) using PIMC and at low temperatures
($T \leqslant 10^6$ K) using DFT-MD simulations. We find the two
methods produce consistent results at overlapping temperatures~\cite{Zhang2018,ZhangBN2019}.
For PIMC simulations, we use the CUPID
code~\cite{MilitzerThesis,Mi01,Mi09} with Hartree-Fock
nodes~\cite{ZhangSodium2017, Driver2017, Driver2018}. For DFT-MD simulations, we
employ Kohn-Sham DFT simulation techniques as implemented in the
Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP)~\cite{VASP} using the
projector augmented-wave (PAW) method~\cite{PAW,Kresse1999}, and
molecular dynamics is performed in the NVT ensemble, regulated with a
Nos\'e thermostat. Exchange-correlation effects are described using
the Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof~\cite{PBE} (PBE) generalized gradient
approximation (GGA). The pseudopotentials used in our DFT-MD
calculations freeze the electrons of the 1s orbital, which leaves 10,
12, and 6 valence electrons for Mg, Si, and O atoms, respectively.
Electronic wave functions are expanded in a plane-wave basis with an
energy cut-off as high as 7000 eV in order to converge the total
energy. Size convergence tests with up to a 65-atom simulation cell at
temperatures of 10\,000 K and above, indicate that pressures are
converged to better than 0.6\%, while internal energies are converged
to better than 0.1\%. We find, at temperatures above 500\,000 K, that
15-atom supercells are sufficient to obtain converged results for both
energy and pressure, since the kinetic energy far outweighs the
interaction energy at such high
temperatures~\cite{Driver2012,Driver2015,Driver2018}. The number of
bands in each calculation was selected such that orbitals with
occupation as low as $10^{-4}$ were included, which requires up to
14\,000 bands in an 15-atom cell at $2\times10^6$ K and two-fold
compression. All simulations are performed at the $\Gamma$ point of
the Brillouin zone, which is sufficient for high temperature fluids,
converging total energy to better than 0.01\% compared to a grid of
$k$-points.
\section{Results}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Tvsrho}, we show our EOS data points from
Ref.~\cite{GonzalezMilitzer2019} in temperature-density and temperature-pressure
space. Computations were performed for a series of densities and
temperatures, ranging from 6.42--64.16 g$\,$cm$^{-3}$ and
$10^4$--$10^{7}$ K, respectively. To provide a guide for future ramp
compression experiments, we also plot different isentropes, derived
from the relationship
$\left.\frac{dT}{dV}\right|_S=-T\left.\frac{dP}{dT}\right|_V/\left.\frac{dE}{dT}\right|_V$~\cite{Mi09}.
We find that the slope of the isentropes does not strongly depend on
temperature, even though we compare conditions with differing degrees
of ionization. Our results imply that the temperature rise with
pressure along the isentropes approximately follows a power law,
$T\propto P^\alpha$, with an exponent $\alpha=0.309$ below $10^6$ K,
increasing only up to $\alpha=0.399$ for temperatures above $10^7$ K.
This provides a simple rule for obtaining isentropic profiles in
MgSiO$_3$ with wide-range validity, without the need of developing
models for other properties of the material, such as the
Mie--Gr\"uneisen model.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{rho_T1_v2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{P-T-points_v2.pdf}
\caption{Conditions of our PIMC and DFT-MD and simulations along with computed
isobars and isentropes. Densities from 0.1-fold (0.321 g cm$^{-3}$) to 20-fold
(64.16 g cm$^{-3}$) and temperatures from $10^4$--$10^7$ K were
considered. The thick blue line
shows the principal Hugoniot curve of MgSiO$_3$ derived from our
simulations~\cite{GonzalezMilitzer2019},
using an initial density of $\rho_0=3.207911$ g cm$^{-3}$
($V_0=51.965073$~\AA/f.u.).
}\label{fig:Tvsrho}
\end{figure}
The Hugoniot curve of MgSiO$_3$ obtained from shock experiments by
Fratanduono~\emph{et al}.~\cite{Fratanduono2018} is plotted along with
our predicted Hugoniot curve on the temperature-pressure plot of
Fig.~\ref{fig:Tvsrho}. In the experiment, laser-driven shocks were
used to compress enstatite up to 600 GPa, reaching temperatures as
high as $2\times10^4$ K. This allowed to explore the solid and liquid
regimes of MgSiO$_3$ and obtain a continuous measurement of the
principal Hugoniot curve. We observe that our Hugoniot curve agrees
very well with the experimental data.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Energies-vs-Density.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{T-rho-points_dlnPdlnT.pdf}
\caption{Left: Total energy of the MgSiO$_3$ system as a function
of density along different isotherms. All energies have been
shifted upwards by $800$ Ha/f.u. in order to plot only positive
energies on the logarithmic scale. The energy minimum on each
isotherm, which satisfies the condition in
Equation~\eqref{eq:CondEmin}, is shown by the solid red
circles. Right: MgSiO$_3$ isochores showing the same energy
minima in the temperature-density space.
}
\label{fig:Evsrho}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Evsrho}, we plot the internal energy of the system at
fixed temperature as a function of density. Most curves exhibit a
minimum that satisfies the condition,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ChainRule}
0 = \left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T \equiv
\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial P}\right|_T
\left.\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right|_T\;.
\end{equation}
Because thermodynamic stability requires $\left.\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right|_T < 0$, this conditions is only satsified if
$\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial P}\right|_T=0$. From the first law of thermodynamics, $dE=T\,dS-P\,dV$,
it follows that
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T =
T\left.\frac{\partial S}{\partial V}\right|_T -P= T\left.\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\right|_V -P,
\end{equation}
where we have used the Maxwell identity
$\left.\frac{\partial S}{\partial V}\right|_T= \left.\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\right|_V$.
Therefore, the condition in Equation~\eqref{eq:ChainRule} is satisfied if
\begin{equation}
0 = \left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T = T\left[\left.\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\right|_V -\frac PT\right]= T\left[\beta_V-\frac PT\right] =0,
\end{equation}
where $\beta_V\equiv\left.\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\right|_V$
is the thermal pressure coefficient. Thus, the energy
attains a mininum along an isotherm if the thermal pressure coefficient satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CondEmin}
\beta_V = \frac PT \;\; , \;\;{\rm ~or~equivalently~} \left.\frac{\partial \ln P}{\partial \ln T}\right|_V=1 \;\;.
\end{equation}
We visualize this condition in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsPressure}, where the dashed lines have a constant
slope of 1 in the $\log(T)$-$\log(P)$ space.
For example, along the $T=0.202\times10^6$ K isotherm shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Evsrho}, we find an energy minimum around
$\rho\approx 6.42$ g cm$^{-3}$ while the slope
$\left.\frac{\partial \ln P}{\partial \ln T}\right|_V$ becomes 1 at
precisely the same temperature on the corresponding isochore, as we
show in Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsPressure}. This slope descreases with
increasing temperature, but at some point along the isochore this trend
reverses and the slope starts to increase, converging asymptotically
to 1 in the ideal gas limit at very high temperature.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Energies-vs-Pressure.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{P-T-points_dlnPdlnT.pdf}
\caption{Left: Total energy of the MgSiO$_3$ system as a function
of pressure along different isotherms. The energies have been
shifted upwards by $800$ Ha/f.u. in order to plot only positive
energies in logarithmic scale. The energy minimum,
which satisfies the condition in
Equation~\eqref{eq:CondEmin}, is shown by the solid red circles.
Right: MgSiO$_3$ isochores showing the same energy minima in
the pressure-temperature space, where
condition~\eqref{eq:CondEmin} can be visualized. Two curves of
slope equal to one in this $\log T$-$\log P$ plot are shown in
dashed blue lines.}
\label{fig:EvsPressure}
\end{figure}
This condition is trivially fulfilled for an ideal gas, that satisfies
$\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T=0$ at any condition. At
very high temperature, where all atomic species are completely
ionized, we find that MgSiO$_3$ starts to behave like an ideal gas and
the isochores approach a slope of 1. We confirm that this condition
is satisfied in Fig.~\ref{fig:Tvsrho}, that illustrates how all the
isochores attain a slope of 1 at sufficiently high temperature.
From Equation~\eqref{eq:ChainRule} we infer that, if the energy
attains a minimum as function of density it will also exhibit a
corresponding minimum as a function of pressure, which we illustrate
in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:EvsPressure}.
The degree of ionization is controlled by the statistical weights of
free and bound states. In the limit of low density, where particles
interact weakly, the internal energy increases with decreasing density
because more and more free-particle states become accessible since
their energies scale like $\rho^{2/3}$. Let us assume the energies of bound states do not
change, which is reasonable in the weak-coupling limit. Under these assumptions, the degree of ionization and
the internal energy will always increase if density is decreased at
constant temperature. This regime
is typically described well by the Saha equation~\cite{Ebeling1976}
and we refer to conditions with
$\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T>0$ as the {\em thermal
ionization regime}. Conversely, in the limit of high density, the
internal energy increases with density and we refer to such conditions
as the {\em pressure ionization regime}. Such an internal energy
increase can only occur if the energy of the bound states
increases. There may be several contributing factors including
interaction and Pauli exclusion effects that modify the energy of
bound but also of free states. In some cases, bound states merge with
the continuum of free states. All these effects are expected to
contribute to a rise in internal energy with increasing density, as we
observed in our first-principles simulations at high density. We have
shaded the thermal and pressure ionization regimes in the figures
throughout this article. The condition in
Equation~\eqref{eq:ChainRule} marks the boundary between the two
regimes. From Fig.~\ref{fig:hug}, we learn that the ionization of K
shell electrons, that leads to a compression maximum along the shock
Hugoniot curve, is a thermally driven process.
In the limit of low temperature, we expect the
$\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T=0$ line to converge to
the density of ambient MgSiO$_3$ of $\rho_0=3.207911$ g cm$^{-3}$,
which marks a minimum in internal energy. As any standard equation of
state illustrates~\cite{BirchMurnaghan,Vinet1987}, the internal energy
of the solid will rise as the material is compressed or expanded
without changing ionization state of the material. This is an
example for an energy increase that is not associated with an
noticible increase in the ionization fraction. In general, a density
change will affect the energies of bound and free states if the system
is strongly-coupled. It is only if the bound state energies are
affected more severely that an increase in internal energy is
associated with an increase in the degree of ionization. It is also
possible that higher-lying bound states are affected by pressure
ionization while lower-lying, confined states are not yet. Our energy
criterion is not able to make such distinctions. Nevertheless, it
detects increases in the energy of bound states, which is a necessary
condition for pressure ionization to occur. So, in our view, this
renders our energy criterion a useful approach to distinguish the
regimes of thermal and pressure ionization.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{MgSiO3_rho_P_plot07.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the shock Hugoniot curve of MgSiO$_3$,
oxygen~\cite{Driver2015b}, and
silicon~\cite{MilitzerDriver2015}. The thermal ionization of K
shell electrons of Mg, Si, and O species leads to a broad
maximum in compression. The lower and upper regions of this
maximum can be associated with the corresponding compression maxima
of pure oxygen and silicon.}
\label{fig:hug}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have constructed a consistent EOS of MgSiO$_3$ over a wide range of
temperature and density conditions by combining results from DFT-MD and PIMC
simulations in order to bridge the warm dense matter and plasma
regimes~\cite{ZhangCH2018,ZhangBN2019}.
One goal of performing high-precision computer simulations based on first
principles is to guide the design of inertial confinement fusion (ICF)
experiments under conditions where the K and L shell electrons are gradually
ionized, which is challenging to predict accurately with analytical EOS models.
Here we have introduced a simple thermodynamic criterion based on volume dependence of the internal
energy that allows us to distinguish between the regimes of thermal ionization, $\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T>0$,
and pressure ionization $\left.\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}\right|_T<0$. We conclude that the ionization of the K shell
electrons is a thermally activated rather than pressure driven process under
the condition where the compression maximum occurs on the principal shock
Hugoniot curve.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was in part supported by the National Science
Foundation-Department of Energy (DOE) partnership for plasma science
and engineering (grant DE-SC0016248), by the DOE-National Nuclear
Security Administration (grant DE-NA0003842), and the University of
California Laboratory Fees Research Program (grant
LFR-17-449059).
We thank the authors of Ref.~\cite{Fratanduono2018} for providing the
full data set from their experiments.
F.G.-C. acknowledges support from the CONICYT
Postdoctoral fellowship (grant 74160058). Computational support was
provided by the Blue Waters sustained-petascale computing project
(NSF ACI 1640776) and the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section*{Introduction}
There are a number of examples where the use of Feynman's path integral
approach has provided simplifications, new results or a better understanding
of already known facts. Because it has a completely different starting point
compared to canonical quantum field theory, the functional integral may
identify unknown aspects of a problem and increase understanding
by adding complementary considerations. One item on this list is our earlier
work on a simple one-dimensional boundary value problem involving the
Helmholtz operator with Robin boundary conditions at the endpoints of
an interval \cite{AdP}. We solved the problem using Feynmans' path
integral and introduced auxiliary fields to take into account the
boundary conditions. We came to an expression for the Green function of
the problem that is very natural to generalize to a broader class of
differential operators, dimensions, and boundary conditions.
It is the purpose of this paper to present this generalization and a
few of its consequences. We construct a Green function for a differential
operator with homogeneous boundary conditions and use it to solve
in a simple, but general way a linear inhomogeneous equation involving that
differential operator and constrained by inhomogeneous linear
boundary conditions. The latter are taken in the form of an boundary
integral and thus may be called non-local.
Throughout the paper, we use the
traditional field theory language (the functional integral representation
is avoided). The issues of existence and uniqueness of the solutions
are left for future work, assuming for the moment that we deal with
well-posed problems in Hadamard's sense \cite{Hadam}. As potential applications
we have in mind the electrodynamic response of interfaces with spatially
dispersive materials that play a key role in dispersion forces
\cite{Casimir-physics}
and radiative heat transfer across sub-micron vacuum gaps
\cite{heat-transfer}. In that context, the Green function provides a
compact way to compute the elements of the energy-momentum tensor of the
field within a bounded region, for example between two plates. It contains
(multiply) reflected waves that arise from the boundary conditions
considered on the plates. We show here how to connect the reflection
amplitudes in a simple and general way to the imposed boundary conditions.
\section{Problem formulation}
We consider a differential operator $\mathfrak{L}$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$
and want to construct a Green function $G_{x'}: \Omega \to \mathbb{C}$
that solves
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L} \, G_{x'} = \delta_{x'}
\label{Prel.1}
\end{equation}%
for a source point $x'$ in the interior of $\Omega$. $\delta_{x'}$ is
the unit-mass Dirac distribution supported at $x'$ \cite{Kanwal}.
We shall often write $G_{x'}( x ) = G( x, x' )$.
The Green function is constrained by a finite set of
homogeneous, nonlocal boundary conditions ($j = 1, \ldots m$)
\begin{equation}
\forall {{\bar{x} \in \partial\Omega}}:
\quad
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) \,
b_j( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
G( \bar{x}_{1}, {x'} )
= 0
\label{Prel.2}
\end{equation}
In this expression, ${\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 )$ is the Lebesgue measure on the
boundary domain $\partial\Omega \ni \bar{x}_1$,
and the $b_j: \partial\Omega \times \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{C}$
are well-behaved integral kernels.
Generally speaking, each kernel $b_{j}$ is defined on its own sub-domain
$\partial \Omega_{j}$ of the boundary surface $\partial\Omega
= \partial \Omega_{1} \cup \partial \Omega_{2} \cup \ldots
\cup \partial \Omega_{m}$. The surface integral~(\ref{Prel.2}) can then
be restricted to the sub-domain $\partial \Omega_{j}$.
In other words, the set of kernels $\{ b_j | j = 1, \ldots m\}$
defines
a linear map (integral operator) $\hat{B}$ from the space of complex functions
defined
on the boundary domain $\partial\Omega$ to ``spinor-valued'' functions
$\hat{\varphi}: \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{C}^{m}$.
The restriction $\bar G_{x'}: \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{C},
\bar G_{x'}( \bar{x} ) = G_{x'}( \bar{x} )$
of the Green function $G_{x'}$
is in the kernel of this map, $\hat{B} \bar G_{x'} = \hat{0}$.
In the following, we use the word ``boundary function'' for a function
defined on $\partial\Omega$.
We also need the adjoint $\hat{B}^{\dagger}$ of the map $\hat{B}$: it
maps spinor-valued boundary functions $\hat{\varphi}$
to scalar functions and is defined by the boundary integral
\begin{equation}
(\hat{B}^{\dagger}\hat{\varphi})( \bar{x} ) =
\sum_j
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) \,
b_j^*( \bar{x}_1, \bar{x} )
\varphi_j( \bar{x}_1 )
\label{Prel.3}
\end{equation}
where $b_j^*( \bar{x}_1, \bar{x} ) =
[b_j( \bar{x}_1, \bar{x} )]^*$ is the complex conjugate.
We assume that the fundamental solution $E$ of the differential operator
$\mathfrak{L}$ \cite{Stak}, i.e., the solution to
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L} \, E_{x'} = \delta_{x'}
\label{Prel.4}
\end{equation}%
in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is known: $E_{x'}( x ) = E( x, x' )$.
Note that
$E_{x'}$ is actually a member of a class of solutions because it is not
constrained by boundary conditions.
Finally, we consider apart from the original boundary value
problem~(\ref{Prel.1}, \ref{Prel.2}) also its adjoint version: the
corresponding Green function is denoted $G^a_{x'}$
and solves
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}^a\, G^a_{x'} = \delta_{x'}
\label{Prel.6.a}
\end{equation}%
in the domain $\Omega$. In terms of the natural sesquilinear
form on $\Omega$, this means
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathfrak{L} u ,\, G^a_{x'} \rangle
= \int_{\Omega}\!{\rm d}V( x ) [(\mathfrak{L} u)(x)]^* G^a(x, x')
= u^*(x')
\label{Prel.6.a.x}
\end{equation}
for all $x' \in \Omega$ and functions $u: \Omega \to \mathbb{C}$ in the
domain of $\mathfrak{L}$.
Here, the volume integral involves
the familiar Lebesgue measure ${\rm d}V(x)$ in the domain $\Omega$.
The boundary condition for the adjoint problem is
\begin{equation}
\hat{B}^a \bar{G}^a_{x'} = 0
\label{Prel.6.b}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{B}^a$ has also $m$ components with kernels $
b^a_j(\bar{x}, \bar{x}_1)$, as in (\ref{Prel.2}).
We shall write $E^a_{x'}$ for the fundamental solution to
(\ref{Prel.6.a}) in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
It is a well-known result of the theory of linear differential equations
(see for example Refs.\,\cite{Stak}, \cite{Greenberg}) that the Green function
$G( x, x' )$
and its adjoint counterpart $G^{a}( x, x' )$ are linked by
\begin{equation}
G^{a}( x, x' ) = G^{*}( x', x )
\,.
\label{Prel.7}
\end{equation}
\section{Boundary integral representation of the Green function}
We claim that the Green function $G_{x'}$ to the
problem~(\ref{Prel.1}, \ref{Prel.2})
can be expressed via the fundamental solution $E$ in the following
way
\refstepcounter{equation}\label{GF.1}\addtocounter{equation}{-1}%
\numparts
\begin{equation}
\forall{x \in \Omega}: \quad
G( x, {x'} ) = E( x, x' )
-
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x} ) \,
E( x, \bar{x} )
J^{(1)}_{x'}( \bar{x} )
\label{GF.1.0}
\end{equation}
where the integral runs over the boundary $\partial\Omega$ and involves
the boundary function $J^{(1)}_{x'}: \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{C}$.
The latter is constructed by applying a sequence of linear maps
\begin{equation}
J^{(1)}_{x'} =
\hat{B}_1^{\dagger}
\hat{\bf g}^{-1}
\hat{B}
\bar{E}_{x'}
\label{GF.1.b}
\end{equation}
to the restriction $\bar{E}_{x'}$ of the fundamental solution
$E_{x'}$ to the boundary $\partial\Omega$.
The key element
in the construction~(\ref{GF.1}) is the inverse $\hat{\bf g}^{-1}$
of the $m\times m$ matrix operator $\hat{\bf g}$,
a linear map between spinor-valued functions on the boundary.
The matrix elements of $\hat{\bf g}$ are given by the double
boundary integrals ($1 \le i,j \le m$)
\begin{equation}
g_{ij}\left( \bar{x}, \bar{x}'\right)
=
\int_{\partial\Omega \times \partial\Omega}\kern-2ex
{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) {\rm d}S( \bar{x}_2 ) \,
b_i( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
E( \bar{x}_{1}, \bar{x}_2 )
b_{1j}^*( \bar{x}', \bar{x}_2 )
\label{GF.2}
\end{equation}
\endnumparts%
where the kernels $b_{1j}$ are the components of the boundary operator
$\hat{B}_1$.
\paragraph{Proof.}
We apply the differential operator $\mathfrak{L}$ to both sides of
(\ref{GF.1.0}).
The fundamental solution in the first term gives
the Dirac distribution $\delta_{x'}$. In the second term, we pull
$\mathfrak{L}$ under the boundary integral and get zero because $x'$ is
in the interior of $\Omega$, while $\bar{x}_1$ is not.
The boundary condition~(\ref{Prel.2}) follows from the
construction~(\ref{GF.2}) of the matrix operator $\hat{\bf g}$:
the application of $\hat{B}$ to the second term in (\ref{GF.1.0})
generates under the integral the operator product
$\hat{B} \bar{E} \hat{B}_1^\dagger = \hat{\bf g}$ applied to the spinor
function $\hat{\varphi} = \hat{\bf g}^{-1} \hat{B} \bar{E}_{x'}$.
The boundary integral thus reduces to $\hat{B} \bar{E}_{x'}$ which
cancels the first term.
Obviously the solution $G_{x'}$ exists if the kernel~(\ref{GF.2}) defines
an invertible map $\hat{\bf g}$ \cite{Stak}.
We assume that this holds if we deal with a
well-posed problem \cite{Hadam}.
\hspace*{\fill} $\square$
\bigskip\
The above demonstration is still lacking an explicit expression for the
operator $\hat{B}_1$. To find it, we first write down a similar solution
to the adjoint problem~(\ref{Prel.6.a}, \ref{Prel.6.b}):
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
G^a( x, {x'} ) &= E^a( x, x' )
-
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex
{\rm d}S( \bar{x} ) \,
E^a( x, \bar{x} )
J^{(2)}_{x'}( \bar{x} )
\\
J^{(2)}_{x'}( \bar{x} ) &=
\hat{B}_2^{\dagger}
(\hat{\bf h})^{-1}
\hat{B}^a
\bar{E}^a_{x'}
\label{AGF.1.a}
\\
h_{ij}( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' ) &=
\int_{\partial\Omega \times \partial\Omega}\kern-2ex
{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) {\rm d}S( \bar{x}_2 ) \,
b^a_i( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
E^a( \bar{x}_{1}, \bar{x}_2 )
b_{2j}^*( \bar{x}', \bar{x}_2 )
\label{AGF.1.b}
\end{eqnarray}
\endnumparts
where $\hat{B}_2$ is another boundary operator.
The proof that this solves the adjoint problem follows the same lines
as above. (It is useful to note the concise form
of (\ref{AGF.1.b}): $\hat{\bf h} = \hat{B}^a \bar{E} \hat{B}_2^\dagger$.)
Because of the ambiguity of the unbounded fundamental solutions,
we may always assume that they satisfy the identity~(\ref{Prel.7}), i.e.
\begin{equation}
E^a( x, x' ) = E^*( x', x )
\label{SCC}
\end{equation}
By requiring that the matrix elements
$h_{ij}$ [Eq.(\ref{AGF.1.b})]
and $g^*_{ji}$ [Eq.(\ref{GF.2})] coincide,
we find component-wise the identification
\begin{equation}
\hat{B}_1 = \hat{B}^{a},
\qquad
\hat{B}_{2} = \hat{B}
\label{SCC.2}
\end{equation}
We insert this \emph{Ansatz}
into $G^*( x', x)$
from the complex conjugate of (\ref{GF.1.0})
and switch the boundary integral over
$E^*( x', \bar{x} )
J^{(1)*}_{x}( \bar{x} )$
written there with the application of
$\hat{B} \bar{E}_{x}$ in (\ref{GF.1.b}).
It is then easy to check that one gets the identity
\begin{equation}
\hat{B}_2^\dagger (\hat{\bf h})^{-1} \hat{B}^a
= \hat{B}^\dagger \hat{\bf g}^{-1\dagger} \hat{B}_1
= \hat{B}_1^{\dagger*} \hat{\bf g}^{-1*} \hat{B}^*
\label{SCC.1}
\end{equation}
The last step in~(\ref{SCC.1}) is based on the observation that
in the position representation, the two-variable kernel of
this expression is a scalar function. Therefore, one may
take the formal transpose of the operator product.
This yields (\ref{Prel.7}) between $G$ and $G^a$.
When the solution~(\ref{SCC.2}) is inserted into~(\ref{GF.1}),
we find the explicit expressions
\refstepcounter{equation}\label{OGF.2}
\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
G( x, {x'} ) &= E( x, x' )
-
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x} ) \,
E( x, \bar{x} )
J^{(1)}_{x'}( \bar{x} )
\label{OGF.2.a}
\\
J^{(1)}_{x'} &=
\hat{B}^{a\dagger}
\hat{\bf g}^{-1}
\hat{B}
\bar{E}_{x'}
\\
g_{ij}\left( \bar{x}, \bar{x}'\right)
&=
\int_{\partial\Omega \times \partial\Omega}\kern-2ex
{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) {\rm d}S( \bar{x}_2 ) \,
b_i( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
E( \bar{x}_{1}, \bar{x}_2 )
b^{a*}_{j}\left( \bar{x}', \bar{x}_2\right)
\label{OGF.2.b}
\end{eqnarray}
\endnumparts
\paragraph{Remark.}
It follows from this that the Green function also obeys
\begin{equation}
G(x, x') \,
\overleftarrow{\mathfrak{L}}_{x'}
= \delta( x - x' )
\label{eq:L-from-right}
\end{equation}
with differential operator and boundary condition acting from the right:
\begin{equation}
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x}' ) \,
G( x, \bar{x}' )
\hat{B}^{a\dagger}_j( \bar{x}', \bar{x} )
= 0
\label{eq:BS-from-right}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Example.}
As a simple application of the solution~(\ref{OGF.2}) to the boundary
value problem~(\ref{Prel.1}),
let us construct the Green function of a self-adjoint Dirichlet problem, i.e.%
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}_{x}G_{D}( x, x') = \delta( x - x' )
\,,
\qquad x, x'\in \Omega
\label{Dir.a}
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
G_{D}( \bar{x}, x' ) = G_{D}^{a}( \bar{x}, x' ) = 0,
\qquad \bar{x} \in \partial\Omega
\label{Dir.b}
\end{equation}%
Let $E( x, x')$ be the fundamental solution to~(\ref{Dir.a}),
then we find from the definition (\ref{OGF.2.b}) that the matrix
operator $\hat{\bf g}$ reduces to a scalar kernel
\begin{equation}
g( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' ) = E( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' )
\label{Dir.c}
\end{equation}%
The solution~(\ref{OGF.2}) reads in this case%
\begin{eqnarray}
G( x, x' ) &= E( x, x' )
\nonumber\\
&\qquad {} -
\int_{\partial\Omega \times \partial\Omega}\kern-2ex
{\rm d}S( \bar{x} ) {\rm d}S( \bar{x}' ) \,
E( x, \bar{x} ) g^{-1}( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' )
E( \bar{x}', x' )
\label{Dir.d}
\end{eqnarray}%
where $g^{-1}$ is the inverse of the boundary integral operator with
kernel~(\ref{Dir.c}) defined on the manifold $\partial\Omega$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S(\bar{x}_{1}) \,
E( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
g^{-1}(\bar{x}_{1}, \bar{x}')
=
\nonumber\\
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S(\bar{x}_{1}) \,
g^{-1}( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
E( \bar{x}_{1}, \bar{x}' )
= \delta( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' )
\label{Dir.e}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Boundary value problem}
The above construction provides an integral representation that solves
a boundary value problem for the inhomogeneous equation
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L} \, u = f
\label{BVP.1}
\end{equation}%
with a smooth function $f: \Omega \to \mathbb{C}$. The boundary conditions
can be cast in a fairly general form as a set of $m$ inhomogeneous
integral equations for the restriction $\bar{u}$ of $u$ to the boundary:
\begin{equation}
\hat{B} \bar{u} = \hat{\Phi}
\label{BVP.2}
\end{equation}%
Here, the given ``spinor'' $\hat{\Phi}$ has the boundary
functions
$\Phi_{j}: \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{C}$ as its components.
Explicitly, Eq.(\ref{BVP.2}) reads
\begin{equation}
\forall {{\bar{x} \in \partial\Omega}}:
\quad
\int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) \,
b_j( \bar{x}, \bar{x}_{1} )
u( \bar{x}_{1} )
= \Phi_j( \bar{x} )
\qquad
\left(j = 1, \ldots m\right)
\label{BVP.2b}
\end{equation}
by direct analogy to~(\ref{Prel.2}).
We claim that when the boundary value
problem defined by~(\ref{BVP.1}--\ref{BVP.2b}) is well-posed \`a
la Hadamard, then its solution $u$ is given by the expression
\refstepcounter{equation}\label{BVP.4}\addtocounter{equation}{-1}%
\numparts
\begin{equation}
u(x) =
\int_{\Omega}{\rm d}V(x_1) \, G( x, x_1 ) f( x_1 )
+ \int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x} ) \,
E( x, \bar{x} ) J_{\hat{\Phi}}( \bar{x} )
\label{BVP.4.0}
\end{equation}
Under the boundary integral (second line),
the complex-valued boundary function $J_{\hat{\Phi}}$
depends linearly on the $\Phi_j$'s:
\begin{equation}
J_{\hat{\Phi}} = \hat{B}^{a\dagger} \hat{\bf g}^{-1} \hat{\Phi}
\label{eq:Jphi-boundary-source}
\end{equation}
\endnumparts%
in close analogy to~(\ref{OGF.2.a}).
\paragraph{Proof.}
When acting on both sides of~(\ref{BVP.4.0}) with
$\mathfrak{L}$,
we find $f$ because of~(\ref{Prel.1}).
Applying the operator $\hat{B}$ on the boundary restriction $\bar{u}$,
we find $\hat{\Phi}$ because of~(\ref{Prel.2})
and the definition~(\ref{OGF.2.b}) of the boundary operators
$\hat{\bf g}$ and $\hat{\bf g}^{-1}$.
\hspace*{\fill} $\square$
\section{Examples}
\subsection{Local boundary conditions}
For a Cauchy initial value problem or for boundary value problems
with Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin boundary conditions,
the operator $\hat{B}$ in~(\ref{Prel.3}) acts in a local way:
\begin{equation}
(\hat{B}\bar{G}_{x'})( \bar{x} )
= \hat{B}( \bar{x} ) \bar{G}_{x'}( \bar{x} )
= 0
\label{eq:local-BC}
\end{equation}
The expression~(\ref{OGF.2}) for the Green function then reads
\refstepcounter{equation}\label{Loc.2}\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
G( x, x' ) &= E( x, x' )
\nonumber\\
& \qquad {} -
\int_{\partial\Omega \times \partial\Omega}\kern-2ex
{\rm d}S( \bar{x}_1 ) {\rm d}S( \bar{x}_2 ) \,
E( x, \bar{x}_1 )
\hat{K}( \bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2 )
\bar{E}( \bar{x}_2, x' )
\\
\hat{K}( \bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2 ) &=
\hat{B}^{a\dagger}(\bar{x}_1)
\hat{\bf g}^{-1}(\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2)
\hat{B}(\bar{x}_2)
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the local operators appear to the left and right of
the $m\times m$ matrix kernel $\hat{\bf g}^{-1}(\bar{x}, \bar{x}')$.
The latter is the inverse of the matrix operator $\hat{\bf g}$ defined
on the boundary manifold $\partial\Omega$ in terms of the matrix elements
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}_{ij}( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' ) =
\hat{b}_i( \bar{x} )
E( \bar{x}, \bar{x}' )
\hat{b}^{a*}_j( \bar{x}' ) \label{Loc.3}
\end{equation}
\endnumparts%
The solution of the boundary value problem~(\ref{BVP.1})\ with local boundary
conditions%
\begin{equation}
\forall \bar{x} \in \partial\Omega:
\quad
\hat{B}( \bar{x} ) u(\bar{x}) = \hat{\Phi}( \bar{x} )
\label{Loc.4}
\end{equation}%
is%
\refstepcounter{equation}\label{Loc.5s}\addtocounter{equation}{-1}
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
u(x) &= \int_{\Omega}{\rm d}V(x_1) \, G( x, x_1 ) f( x_1 )
+ \int_{\partial\Omega}\kern-1.3ex{\rm d}S( \bar{x} ) \,
E( x, \bar{x} ) \hat{B}^{a\dagger}(\bar{x})
\hat{J}'_{\hat{\Phi}}( \bar{x} )
\label{Loc.5}
\\
\hat{J}'_{\hat{\Phi}} &= \hat{\bf g}^{-1}\hat{\Phi}
\end{eqnarray}
\endnumparts
\subsection{One-dimensional boundary value problem}
In the case of ordinary differential equations, we deal with a one-dimensional
problem defined on the interval $\Omega = \left( a,b \right)$.
In this case, the boundary manifold
is the set of two endpoints $\partial\Omega=\left\{ a, b\right\}$.
We then have local boundary conditions that may be expanded
in the form
\begin{equation}
a_{j0}G_{x'}( a ) + a_{j1} \partial_{x}G_{x'}(a)
+
b_{j0}G_{x'}( b ) + b_{j1} \partial_{x}G_{x'}(b)
= 0
\label{ODE.1}
\end{equation}%
where $a_{j0},a_{j1},b_{j0}$ and $b_{j1}$ ($j = 1, \ldots m$)
are constants whose values encode
whether this linear combination
corresponds to the Dirichlet, Neumann oder Robin type.
Obviously, the object $\hat{\bf g}$ in~(\ref{Loc.3}) reduces in this case
to a numerical matrix rather than a matrix-valued integral operator.
The action of the operator $\hat{b}_{j}$ from the left
on the fundamental solution $E$ in~(\ref{Loc.2})
is in this context to be understood as
\begin{eqnarray}
& \hat{b}_{j}(\bar{x})E( \bar{x}, x' ) \rightarrow
\nonumber\\
& \qquad
a_{j0}E( a, x' ) + a_{j1}\partial_{x}E( a, x' )
+
b_{j0}E( b, x' ) + b_{j1}\partial_{x}E( b, x' )
\label{ODE.2.L}
\end{eqnarray}
where in $\partial_{x}E$, the differentiation is with respect to the
first argument of $E$.
The action of the operator $\hat{b}_{j}^{a*}$ from the right
is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
& E( x, \bar{x}' ) \hat{b}_{j}^{a*}(\bar{x}') \rightarrow
\nonumber\\
& \qquad
a_{j0}^{a*}E( x, a ) + a_{j1}^{a*}\partial_{x'}E( x, a )
+
b_{j0}^{a*}E( x, b ) + b_{j1}^{a*}\partial_{x'}E( x, b )
\label{ODE.2.R}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_{j0}^{a},a_{j1}^{a},b_{j0}^{a}$ and $b_{j1}^{a}$ are constants
appearing in the adjoint boundary conditions, and the derivative
$\partial_{x'}E$ is with respect to the second argument of $E$.
\section{Concluding remarks}
In a previous paper~\cite{AdP}, we constructed the electromagnetic
Green function
in a bounded domain subject to (nonlocal) boundary conditions at the interface
between spatially dispersive media.
We have shown here that this result can be generalized to give a
boundary integral representation
for the Green function related to a broad class of linear partial differential
equations with linear homogeneous and nonlocal boundary conditions.
This Green function provides the solution to a boundary value problem
for linear, inhomogeneous partial differential equations subject to nonlocal,
inhomogeneous conditions on the boundary manifold.
|
\section{Introduction}
Accurate self-localization is a prerequisite for reliable mobile autonomy and is especially important in situations where global navigation satellite system signals are unavailable or unreliable. Vision-based self-localization, in particular, has become ubiquitous since high-quality cameras are now relatively inexpensive and compact. Despite having a rich history in computer vision and robotics \cite{Aqel:2016}, visual localization still remains an open research topic, particularly in dynamic environments where many common modelling assumptions are violated \cite{Cadena:2016}.
At the heart of visual self-localization is visual odometry (VO): the process of estimating a camera's own motion (or \textit{egomotion}) from sequential image captures. To remain computationally tractable, `classical' VO algorithms have typically assumed that the scene consists of static objects, has constant illumination, and lacks major occlusions. However, for long-term autonomy, it is critical for VO-based algorithms to maintain accuracy in spite of such adverse effects. Recently, in hopes of achieving robust pose estimates, end-to-end learning-based approaches have been proposed that completely replace classical techniques with learned models. By learning directly from data (using supervised \cite{Wang:2017} or self-supervised \cite{Li:2018} methods), these network-based techniques have the potential to relax many of the assumptions that classical VO pipelines make, and as a result, to be robust to moving objects, poor illumination, and significant occlusions. However, to date, end-to-end-approaches have not surpassed the accuracy of classical VO algorithms.
Alternatively, other methods have augmented (rather than replaced) classical estimators with learned components. For example, learned measurement models have been used within Kalman filters \cite{Haarnoja:2016} as a way to extract illumination direction from monocular images in an effort to reduce orientation drift \cite{2017_Peretroukhin_Reducing}, or as a way to more accurately initialize depth within a monocular VO pipeline \cite{Yang:2018DeepVS}. By combining learning with classical pipelines, these methods aim to retain the interpretability and transferability of model-based techniques while leveraging the capacity and flexibility of data-driven model-free learning to improve accuracy and robustness.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.97\columnwidth]{loss-formulation-v4.pdf}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Our self-supervised deep pose correction (DPC) network regresses a pose correction to a classical VO estimator.}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-0.65cm}
\end{figure}
Our approach, illustrated in \Cref{fig:overview}, follows in the spirit of these latter techniques. We fuse a classical VO pipeline with a data-driven model through the paradigm of learned pose \textit{corrections}. Rather than training a network to regress the full inter-frame pose change from data alone, we instead rely on a classical VO estimate to produce a `large' prior and use a deep neural network (DNN) to learn a smaller `correction' that models how this classical estimator degrades in adverse situations (e.g., when there are many dynamic objects within the scene). We extend \DPCNet{}, the system proposed by \cite{Peretroukhin:2018}, which introduced the paradigm of deep pose corrections (DPC) and used a DNN to predict corrections through a supervised training method driven by ground truth pose information. We improve upon this by replacing the supervised pose loss with a self-supervised photometric reconstruction loss that obviates the need for ground truth pose labels, which are often expensive or impractical to collect. Our loss formulation facilitates continual retraining of the network when traversing new environments, since no supervision is required for training. In short, our novel contributions are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a deep pose correction network that can be trained in a self-supervised manner, which obviates the need for ground truth pose labels,
\item substantial experimental validation of our method on the KITTI odometry dataset, showing that our method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, and
\item the release of an open source implementation of our method in \texttt{PyTorch} \cite{paszke:2017}.\footnote{See \url{https://github.com/utiasSTARS/ss-dpc-net}}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Background}
Visual odometry is a well studied navigation technique that is used to estimate the robot's six-degrees-of-freedom (DoF) pose change by solving for the camera's egomotion between image frames. Typically, the inter-frame pose change is determined by optimizing for the pose that minimizes the error when aligning two sets of 3D points (for indirect methods) or pixels intensities (for direct methods) in a sequence of monocular or stereo camera images. Outlier rejection methods such as RANSAC \cite{Fischler:1981} or robust losses are used to remove (or downweight) features (or pixels) that adversely affect the optimization process. By compounding relative pose changes, a global pose estimate is determined. However, VO is subject to superlinear error growth: in general, any small misestimate of the relative orientation change leads to larger and larger position errors. Typically, sources of error for VO include false correspondences (during feature matching), poor feature detection (due to camera motion blur or poor lighting), or the presence of dynamic objects within the scene. We refer the reader to \cite{Scaramuzza:2011} for a detailed and comprehensive review of visual odometry.
New data-driven paradigms for VO replace portions (or all) of the classical localization pipeline with a learned model. Some approaches \cite{Wang:2017} use supervised learning to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) to regress inter-frame pose changes in an end-to-end manner. Other techniques \cite{zhou:2017,Prasad:2018,Vijayanarasimhan:2017} rely on a self-supervised photometric reconstruction loss formulation for end-to-end VO. These methods train a network to regress the relative pose change between a current (source) view and a nearby (target) view by minimizing a photometric reconstruction loss. Such loss functions penalize the differences between the pixel intensities of the target image and the reconstructed image: under the assumptions that the scene is static, has constant illumination, and that there are no occlusions, the target image is reconstructed from the source image through an inverse compositional warping procedure that uses the predicted inter-frame pose change, a depth map (which is also learned) and the known camera intrinsic parameters. To train this type of network, a differentiable image warping tool called a spatial transformer \cite{Jaderberg:2015} is applied to efficiently synthesize the reconstructed image; this allows gradients to be backpropagated from the reconstruction loss. Our work extends the self-supervised pipeline to learn pose corrections, instead of full poses, based on a similar photometric loss.
Several others systems build on the baseline photometric reconstruction loss by imposing additional constraints. The authors of \cite{Iyer:2018} use ``composite transform constraints'' to ensure that the predicted pose change across multiple frames is similar to the pose change produced by compounding the predicted pose changes between each individual image pair. In \cite{Prasad:2018}, epipolar geometry constraints are enforced to ensure that pixels from the source image are reprojected near to the epipolar line in the target image. The system in \cite{Li:2018} uses a left-right stereo consistency loss that allows the depth network to output scaled depth maps from monocular camera images at test time. The approach described in \cite{Zhu:2018} operates by learning to predict optical flow and disparity and then uses a classical RANSAC outlier rejection scheme to select a set of inlying pixels that can be used for pose estimation. The authors in \cite{zhou:2017} train a network to additionally regress an ``explainability mask,'' which ignores unreliable pixels that hinder image reconstruction, either because they break the photometric consistency assumption or because they correspond to objects that are moving. Our network relies on the explainability mask defined in \cite{zhou:2017}.
\section{Approach}
Our approach (\Cref{fig:overview}) merges the self-supervised training procedure of end-to-end VO networks with the DPC framework of \cite{2017_Peretroukhin_Reducing}. We replace the supervised loss of \DPCNet{} with a photometric reconstruction loss that does not require any external ground truth pose information, yet can still produce accurate pose corrections. Similar to other self-supervised methods, our network outputs a predicted inter-frame pose change and a depth map---however, our predicted inter-frame pose change is `initialized' with an egomotion \textit{prior} from a classical VO estimator. We compound this prior with a \textit{correction} that is produced by our pose network. Using the depth map and the corrected inter-frame pose, we warp a source image into a target image and evaluate a photometric reconstruction loss. Unlike \cite{2017_Peretroukhin_Reducing}, which uses a supervised pose loss and thus requires $\LieGroupSE{3}$ labels for training, our self-supervised photometric loss obviates the need for this type of 6-DoF ground truth, which can often be arduous to obtain.
Concretely, instead of directly estimating the inter-frame pose change, $\mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}$, our pose network aims to regress an $\LieGroupSE{3}$ \textit{correction}, $\mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^\text{corr}$, that corrects a classical VO estimate, $\mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^\text{vo}$,
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^* = \mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^\text{corr}\mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^\text{vo}.
\end{align}
To parameterize this correction, we use an unconstrained vector from the $\LieAlgebraSE{3}$ Lie algebra, $\boldsymbol{\xi}^\text{corr}_{\mathrm{t+1,t}} \in \mathds{R}^{6\times1}$, and then apply the (capitalized) exponential map to produce an on-manifold $\LieGroupSE{3}$ correction:\footnote{Our notation is based on and consistent with \cite{Barfoot:2017,Sola:2018}, where a detailed review of matrix Lie groups is found.}
\begin{align}
\mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^\text{corr} = \MatExp{\boldsymbol{\xi}^\text{corr}_{t+1,t}}.
\end{align}
Our network can be paired with any classical VO estimator and then trained to produce pose corrections specific to that estimator; inter-frame pose changes from the VO estimator are acquired for each pair of frames in the training dataset, and are then used to train the network to regress pose corrections that will minimize the photometric reconstruction loss. Herein, we train our system with a monocular and a stereo VO estimator (\texttt{libviso2-m} and \texttt{libviso2-s} \cite{Geiger:2011}, respectively) and show that our approach improves the localization accuracy of both estimators. We apply \textit{monocular} corrections (our DPC network only takes as input images from a single camera) to \texttt{libviso2-m} and \texttt{libviso2-s}, as our loss formulation does not enforce any stereo image constraints; we leave this possibility as future work.
\subsection{Image Warping Function}
We apply an inverse compositional warping function that uses the source image's estimated depth map, $\hat{\mathbf{D}}_{t}$, the camera intrinsics, and the (estimated) corrected pose change between frames. Assuming a pinhole camera model, image coordinates $\mathbf{u}_t = \begin{bmatrix}u_t & v_t \end{bmatrix}^T$ correspond to a 3D point $\mathbf{p}_{t}(\mathbf{u}_t) = \begin{bmatrix} x_t&y_t&z_t\end{bmatrix}^T$ in the scene:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{p}_{t}(\mathbf{u}_t) &=\hat{\mathbf{D}}_{t}(\mathbf{u}_t)\begin{bmatrix} \frac{u_t - c_u}{f_u} & \frac{v_t - c_v}{f_v} & 1 \end{bmatrix}^T,
\end{align}
where ($c_u$, $c_v$) is the camera's principal point, and ($f_u$, $f_v$) are the camera focal lengths in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. The estimated pose change between images is used to transform $\mathbf{p}_{t}(\mathbf{u}_t)$ to its 3D position at the next time-step,
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{{t+1}}(\mathbf{u}_t) = \mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^*\,\mathbf{p}_{{t}}(\mathbf{u}_t).
\end{align}
The 3D coordinates $\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{{t+1}}(\mathbf{u}_t)$ are reprojected onto the image plane according to
\vspace{-0.05cm}
\begin{align}
\begin{bmatrix}\hat{\mathbf{u}}^{T}_{t+1} &\!\! 1 \end{bmatrix}^{T} &= \begin{bmatrix} f_u & 0 & c_u \\ 0 & f_v & c_u \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \frac{1}{\hat{z}_{t+1}}\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{{t+1}}(\mathbf{u}_t),
\end{align}
and the reconstructed target image is repopulated at the predicted pixel location with the original pixel intensity from the source image, $\hat{\mathbf{I}}_{t+1}(\hat{\mathbf{u}}_{t+1}) = \mathbf{I}_{t}(\mathbf{u}_t)$.
Instead of reconstructing every pixel individually, we use a spatial transformer ($ST$) \cite{Jaderberg:2015} to perform differentiable image warping, which efficiently reconstructs the entire target image from the source image:
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathbf{I}}_{{t+1}} = ST(\mathbf{I}_{t}, \hat{\mathbf{D}}_{t}, \mathbf{T}_{t+1,t}^*, f_u, f_v, c_u, c_v).
\end{align}
\subsection{Loss Function}
We use a weighted photometric reconstruction loss, which compares the reconstructed image with the target image. For a dataset with N training examples (each consisting of a source and target image of dimension $H\times W$ with $C$ colour channels), we define our loss function as:\footnote{Note that while many similar implementations use a multi-scale loss, we found that a multi-scale loss was detrimental to the quality of our pose corrections; we suspect this is the case because the regressed pose corrections are very small quantities, which require a high image resolution to learn.}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:loss}
\mathscr{L} &= \frac{1}{NCHW}\sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{u,v} \left( \mathscr{L}_\text{phot} + \lambda_\text{exp}\mathscr{L}_\text{exp}. + \lambda_\text{rot}\mathscr{L}_\text{rot} \right).
\end{align}
We now describe each of the three terms of this loss in detail. The first term, the pixel-wise weighted photometric reconstruction loss, compares a pixel $(u,v)$ from the target image with the corresponding pixel from the reconstructed image:
\begin{align}
\mathscr{L}_\text{phot} = \hat{\mathbf{W}}_{{t+1}}(u,v)\left| \hat{\mathbf{I}}_{{t+1}}(u,v) - \mathbf{I}_{{t+1}}(u,v) \right|.
\end{align}
Each pixel loss is weighted by the explainability mask, $\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{{t+1}}(u,v) \in (0,1)$, which accounts for situations in which the photometric consistency approximation is violated (e.g., due to lighting changes, dynamic objects, or occlusions). A high quality image reconstruction generally implies that the network's depth and pose correction estimates are also of high quality. To prevent the trivial solution of setting all explainability weights to zero, we use a regularization term, $\mathscr{L}_\text{exp}$, that is a cross-entropy loss with a constant label 1 for each pixel,
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{align}
\mathscr{L}_\text{exp} = -\log \hat{\mathbf{W}}_{{t+1}}(u,v).
\end{align}
\Cref{fig:expmask} illustrates an example scene where this mask is especially useful for mitigating the effects of moving objects.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{1.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{DPC-Network-with-iconv.pdf}
\caption{Our network jointly estimates a pose correction, a depth map, and an explainability mask.}
\label{fig:network}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.56\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{explainability_mask.pdf}
\caption{The explainability mask downweights unstable pixels.}
\label{fig:expmask}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A network diagram of our self-supervised DPC network and an example of where its explainability mask is useful.}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure*}
Lastly, $\mathscr{L}_\text{rot}$ is a loss term for training samples that incorporate large rotations; since these samples are less common than samples with smaller rotations, but are significantly more important for egomotion estimation, we use this loss to increase their relative weight compared to other samples. The loss term $\mathscr{L}_\text{rot}$ is the same as the photometric reconstruction term, but is set to zero for all samples except those with large rotations (according to the classical estimator's orientation estimate, $\Rotation_\text{vo}$):
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align} \mathscr{L}_\text{rot} &= \begin{cases}
0 & \norm{\Matlog{\Rotation_\text{vo}}} < \gamma \\
\mathscr{L}_\text{phot} & \norm{\Matlog{\Rotation_\text{vo}}} \geq \gamma \\
\end{cases}
\end{align} \vspace{-0.2cm}
\subsection{Model Architecture}
Our network jointly estimates the pose correction, depth prediction, and explainability mask. \Cref{fig:network} provides a graphical illustration of the network structure, which is a modified version of the network in \cite{zhou:2017} that used a U-Net encoder-decoder \cite{Ronneberger:2015}. The network inputs are two images (the source and the target image) concatenated with the optical flow vectors estimated between the two images. The optical flow vectors, generated using the Gunnar-Farneb\"{a}ck algorithm \cite{Farneback:2003}, are incorporated because it has been shown in \cite{Zhou:2019-cv} that using intermediate representations adds explicit knowledge to the network that can improve performance on vision-based tasks. Additionally, we provide the network with the classical VO estimate (parameterized as a $6\times1$ Lie algebra vector through the logarithmic map), which is concatenated with the fully-connected layers near the centre of the network. Notably, we depart from prior work by unifying the depth and pose networks into a single network, which significantly improves the ability to generalize beyond the training data; incorporating the optical flow and the \texttt{libviso2} pose estimates as inputs additionally improved the results.
The encoder network is composed of five blocks (in blue); each consists of a (stride 2) 2D convolution layer, a ReLU activation, and a batch normalization layer. We avoid the use of pooling layers, as they lead to spatial invariance, which would be detrimental for visual localization tasks. At the bottleneck, we branch the network into depth, explainability mask, and pose correction subnetworks. For the depth and explainability mask, we upsample from the bottleneck using decoder blocks which consist of a 2D transposed convolution layer \cite{dumoulin:2016} followed by a ReLU activation. Our depth prediction layer is a 2D (stride 1) convolution that reduces the channel layer to one, and a ReLU activation which ensures the output is positive.\footnote{In practice, we output the inverse depth estimate (to avoid regressing to infinite depths), and invert the network output to produce a depth estimate. Our network actually outputs a depth prediction at each of the final convolutional layers; each prediction is concatenated with the next layer (e.g., the prediction from the fourth-last layer is concatenated with its other output channels prior to being passed to the third-last layer). For interpretability, we omitted this from the network diagram.} The final explainability mask layer is a sigmoid activation, which compresses the pixel values to lie within $(0,1)$.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\section{Experiments}
To train, validate, and test our system, we used the KITTI odometry dataset \cite{Geiger:2012,Geiger:2013}. Our full dataset consisted of colour images from the odometry sequences \texttt{00}, \texttt{02}, \texttt{05}-\texttt{10}, and an additional 24 training sequences (approximately 10,000 images) from the ``city'', ``residential'', and ``road'' categories of the raw KITTI dataset. The images were preprocessed to be more amenable for training: they were resized to $240 \times 376$ pixels and whitened using the ImageNet \cite{Deng2009-bx} statistics. Furthermore, similar to keyframe-based approaches, we used the classical VO estimates to filter out frames from the sequence that had little motion by removing those frames whose inter-frame translation or rotation was less than $1.5$ m or $0.4^{\circ}$, respectively. For all of the sequences, we estimated the camera poses using the \texttt{libviso2} package \cite{Geiger:2011}, which is a popular classical VO estimator (and, for consistency, is the same estimator used in \DPCNet{} \cite{Peretroukhin:2018}). We generated monocular (\texttt{libviso2-m}) and stereo (\texttt{libviso2-s}) egomotion estimates; these estimates are included in our open source repository.
DPC models were trained for both the monocular and stereo \texttt{libviso2} estimators. We trained the DPC networks for up to 30 epochs with the Adam optimizer \cite{Kingma:2014} (with minibatch sizes of 32) using an initial learning rate of $1\times10^{-3}$ and $5\times10^{-5}$ for the stereo and monocular DPC models, respectively. We reduced the learning rate by a factor of 0.5 every ten and four epochs for the monocular and stereo DPC models, respectively. We used dropout ($p=0.5$) for all of the fully connected layers with a weight decay coefficient of $4\times10^{-6}$. All other hyperparameters were held constant during training. In our loss function (\Cref{eq:loss}), we selected the hyperparameter $\lambda_\text{exp}=0.23$ to cause the explainability mask to typically regress values close to one; progressively larger weights caused the explainability mask outputs to uniformly decrease, rather than decreasing only for unreliable pixels. We selected $\lambda_\text{rot}=4$ and $\gamma=0.005$ in order to emphasize larger rotations in the cost function. Using leave-one-out cross-validation, we trained a unique model for each test sequence, while using a single sequence for validation and all other sequences for training.
The primary challenge during training was selecting the training epoch whose model parameters produced high quality pose corrections; since no ground truth pose information was used in the training procedure, the network learned to minimize the photometric reconstruction error, not the localization error. Consequently, although the training procedure generally resulted in high-accuracy pose corrections, there were epochs that resulted in a low validation loss, but not in high-quality pose corrections. To address this, we developed two criteria to identify the training epoch with the most accurate pose corrections---both are evaluated in \Cref{sec:results}.
\textit{Gradient Criterion}: First, we recompute the photometric loss \textit{only} for pixels with large gradient values (since the photometric errors for these pixels are highly sensitive to an erroneous pose correction). To compute the gradient loss, we generate a gradient mask by filtering out all pixels whose gradient value is below a constant, $\gamma_\text{grad}$:
\begin{align}
\frac{\AbsoluteValue{\triangledown_x\mathbf{I}(x,y)} + \AbsoluteValue{\triangledown_y\mathbf{I}(x,y)}}{2} \leq \gamma_\text{grad}.
\end{align}
Empirically, we found that the gradient loss is more effective for identifying the epoch with the highest performing model than the loss from \Cref{eq:loss}.
\textit{Loop Closure Criterion}: Second, we note that we can relate the number of loop closures in the compounded validation trajectory with the accuracy of the pose corrections in the test set (see \Cref{fig:loopclosure}). To identify loop closures in the validation trajectory, we use predefined thresholds\footnote{For a given pose, $\Transform_{t,0}$, we defined a loop closure event at time $t+n$ if the pose $\mathbf{T}_{t+n,0}$ was within 7 m and $8.5^{\circ}$ of the pose at time $t$. We also ensured that the forward translation of $\Transform_{t+n,t}$ exceeded 10 m to ensure that the vehicle was performing a second traverse along the same path.} and save the model at the training epoch that produces the most loop closures for the validation set. We emphasize that although this method does require the \textit{validation sequence} to have loop closures (which we ensured herein by selecting the KITTI validation sequences \texttt{00} and \texttt{05} that consist of multiple traverses of the same road) it places no such restriction on the \textit{test sequence}. Therefore, as long as one can find a validation sequence that has multiple traverses of the same path, this epoch selection criterion can be applied.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{loop-closure2.pdf}
\caption{Epoch 5: 40 loop closures detected.}
\label{fig:mono_online_00}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.49\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{loop-closure1.pdf}
\caption{Epoch 28: 122 loop closures detected.}
\label{fig:mono_online_02}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Loop closure comparison for test sequence (\texttt{00}): compared to ground truth, the epoch with a higher number of detected loop closures resulted in a more accurate trajectory estimate.}
\label{fig:loopclosure}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Results of correcting \texttt{libviso2-m} with our DPC network. We benchmark against several state-of-the-art learning-based monocular VO estimators.}
\label{tab:mono_online_traj}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{0.2\tabcolsep}}c@{\hspace{0.2\tabcolsep}}c@{\hspace{0.6\tabcolsep}}c@{\hspace{0.9\tabcolsep}}c@{\hspace{0.9\tabcolsep}}c}
\toprule
\textbf{Estimator} & \textbf{Stopping Criterion} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Mean Segment Error}} \\ \midrule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Seq. 09}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Seq. 10}} \\ \cmidrule{3-6}
\textbf{} & & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Trans. \\ (\%)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Rot. \\ ($^o$/100m)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Trans. \\ (\%)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Rot. \\ ($^o$/100m)\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\texttt{libviso2-m} & & 8.66 & 2.76 & 8.00 & 3.32 \\
SfMLearner \cite{zhou:2017} & --- & 18.8 & 3.21 & 14.3 & 3.30 \\
UnDeepVO \cite{Li:2018} & --- & 7.01 & 3.61 & 10.6 & 4.65 \\
Zhan et al. \cite{Zhan:2018} & --- & 11.9 & 3.60 & 12.6 & 4.65 \\
Zhu et al. \cite{Zhu:2018} & --- & 4.66 & 1.69 & 6.30 & 1.59 \\
Luo et al. \cite{Luo:2018} & --- & 3.72 & 1.60 & 6.06 & 2.22 \\
Ours$^1$ & \textit{Gradient Loss} & 2.82 & \textbf{0.76} & 3.81 & \textbf{1.34} \\
& \textit{Loop Closure} & \textbf{2.13} & 0.80 & \textbf{3.48} & 1.38 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[1] Validation sequence \texttt{05} for sequence \texttt{09}, and \texttt{00} for sequence \texttt{10}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{mono-seq-09.pdf}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{fig:lc1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{mono-seq-10.pdf}
\label{fig:lc2}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Corrected \texttt{libviso2-m} estimates for sequences \texttt{09} (top) and \texttt{10} (bottom). We show the original \texttt{libviso2-m} estimate.}
\label{fig:mono-traj}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
Our evaluation metrics were the mean absolute trajectory error (m-ATE) and the mean segment error (m-SE). In accordance with the KITTI odometry benchmark, we computed the mean error for all segments that were $\{100,200,\cdots, 800\}$ metres in length; we report the overall average herein.
\begin{table*}[]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Results of correcting \texttt{libviso2-s} with our self-supervised DPC network.}
\label{tab:stereo_results}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{m-ATE}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{m-SE}} \\ \cmidrule{4-7}
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Test Sequence \\ (Length)\end{tabular}} & \textbf{Estimator} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Stopping} \\ \textbf{Criterion} \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Trans. \\ (m)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Rot.\\ ($^\circ$)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Trans.\\ (\%)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Rot. \\ ($^\circ$/100m)\end{tabular} \\ \midrule
\texttt{00} (3.7 km) & \texttt{libviso2-s} & --- & 53.77 & 13.30 & 2.79 & 1.292 \\
& \texttt{libviso2-s} + \DPCNet{} \cite{Peretroukhin:2018} & --- & 15.68 & 3.07 & 1.62 & 0.559 \\
& Direct Keyframe & --- & \textbf{12.41} & \textbf{2.45} & 1.28 & 0.542 \\
& Ours$^1$ & \textit{Gradient Loss} & 12.59 & 2.47 & \textbf{0.99} & 0.457 \\
& & \textit{Loop Closure} & 14.65 & 3.32 & 1.03 & \textbf{0.444} \\ \midrule
\texttt{02} (5.1 km) & \texttt{libviso2-s} & --- & 68.60 & 12.55 & 2.42 & 0.923 \\
& \texttt{libviso2-s} + \DPCNet{} & --- & 17.69 & 2.86 & 1.16 & 0.436 \\
& Direct Keyframe & --- & 16.33 & 3.19 & 1.21 & 0.467 \\
& Ours$^1$ & \textit{Gradient Loss} & \textbf{15.69} & 3.52 & 1.11 & 0.499 \\
& & \textit{Loop Closure} & 21.31 & \textbf{1.91} & \textbf{0.83} & \textbf{0.373}\\ \midrule
\texttt{05} (2.2 km) & \texttt{libviso2-s} & --- & 19.68 & 6.30 & 2.31 & 1.135 \\
& \texttt{libviso2-s} + \DPCNet{} & --- & 9.82 & 3.57 & 1.34 & 0.562 \\
& Direct Keyframe & --- & 5.83 & 2.05 & \textbf{0.69} & 0.320 \\
& Ours$^2$ & \textit{Gradient Loss} & 10.92 & 4.10 & 1.33 & 0.597 \\
& & \textit{Loop Closure} & \textbf{4.03} & \textbf{1.18} & 0.83 & \textbf{0.304}\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[1] Validation sequence \texttt{05}.$^2$ Validation sequence \texttt{00}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\vspace{2mm}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{stereo-seq-00.pdf}
\caption{Sequence \texttt{00}}
\label{fig:opt00}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{stereo-seq-02.pdf}
\caption{Sequence \texttt{02}}
\label{fig:opt02}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{stereo-seq-05.pdf}
\caption{Sequence \texttt{05}}
\label{fig:opt05}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Corrected \texttt{libviso2-s} trajectories. We show the original \texttt{libviso2-s} estimate for comparison.}
\label{fig:stereo_online_traj}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure*}
\textit{Monocular Results}: We applied corrections to the \texttt{libviso2-m} estimates and compared the corrected trajectories with state-of-the-art end-to-end monocular VO estimators. Prior to applying corrections, we rescaled the \texttt{libviso2-m} estimate to be consistent with ground truth by adjusting each relative pose change to match the ground truth inter-frame displacement (while this is not fully self-supervised, this is in line with how other monocular VO systems \cite{zhou:2017,Zhan:2018} are evaluated). \Cref{tab:mono_online_traj} shows the mean segment errors for test sequences \texttt{09} and \texttt{10} of the KITTI dataset, which are the most common test sequences for monocular methods; notably, we achieve state-of-the-art accuracies compared to modern learning-based techniques. \Cref{fig:mono-traj} illustrates the corrected trajectories, which appear to be significantly more accurate than the original \texttt{libviso2-m} estimate.
\textit{Stereo Results}: We applied corrections to \texttt{libviso2-s} and compared the corrected trajectories with the corrected trajectories from \DPCNet{} \cite{Peretroukhin:2018}. In practice, we found that only rotation ($\LieGroupSO{3}$) corrections were required to adjust the \texttt{libviso2-s} estimates, since the translation estimates were already highly accurate. Our DPC network uses monocular images only to regress pose corrections and so cannot provide any improvement by correcting the translation estimates. We evaluated our DPC network on test sequences \texttt{00}, \texttt{02}, \texttt{05}. \Cref{tab:stereo_results} lists the m-ATE and m-SE for our corrected trajectories, while \Cref{fig:stereo_online_traj} visually depicts these results and compares them to the \texttt{libviso2-s} estimates. We benchmark against \DPCNet{} \cite{Peretroukhin:2018} and also a direct, keyframe-based VO implementation based on DSO \cite{Engel-et-al-pami2018}. Both of our proposed modes of operation are consistently more accurate than these competing methods for the three test sequences.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
In this paper, we presented a deep network that is trained to correct classical VO estimators in a self-supervised manner, without the need for 6-DoF ground truth. By regressing pose corrections (instead of the full inter-frame pose change), our approach produces trajectory estimates that are significantly more accurate than existing state-of-the-art end-to-end VO networks. We attribute this increase in accuracy to the union of learning-based and classical (handcrafted) models. Our method preserves the core geometric framework that generally yield accurate egomotion estimates under nominal conditions, and pairs it with a learning approach that applies corrections when modelling assumptions are violated or other confounding factors are present. Our self-supervised loss formulation facilitates continual model retraining with new data. As future work, we plan to incorporate stereo constraints (e.g., the left-right consistency constraint of \cite{Li:2018}) or other sources of metric information (e.g., inertial measurement unit data) to better improve our translation corrections.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of NVIDIA Corporation, who provided the Titan X GPU used for this research through their Hardware Grant Program.
\newpage
\balance
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1989, Danielewski exhibited a family of pairwise non-isomorphic complex affine rational surfaces $Y_n$, $n\geq1$, such that the cylinders $Y_n\times \A^1$ are all isomorphic. The surface $Y_n$ is defined to be the hypersurface in $\A^3$ defined by $x^ny=z^2-1$ for every positive integer $n$. Since this result, several authors have generalized Danielewski's construction and have introduced the notion of Danielewski surfaces. These are certain affine surfaces which can be realized as the total space of an $\A^1$-fibration over the affine line. Special Danielewski surfaces have the stronger property of being the total space of a principal $(\C,+)$-bundle over an affine line with a multiple origin. They were introduced in \cite {DuPo} and are those Danielewski surfaces for which Danielewski's original argument can be used to find isomorphic cylinders. However, the proof of these isomorphisms is not constructive.
The main result of this article is to give a method to find explicit isomorphisms of these cylinders. More precisely, the theorem~\ref{main-thm} produces, for every special Danielewski surface, an isomorphism between the cylinder over this surface and the cylinder over a classical Danielewski surface defined by an equation of the form $xy=P(z)$ in $\A^3$. This involves the construction of an appropriate $(\C,+)$-action on the cylinder of one surface whose quotient gives the other Danielewski surface.
As a corollary, one gets explicit embeddings of all special Danielewski surfaces as complete intersections in $\A^4$.
\medskip
The paper is organized as follows.
In the section two, we recall the construction of Danielewski surfaces and some of their important properties, due to Fieseler and Dubouloz. Then in the following section we introduce three particular families of special Danielewski surfaces which are later used as examples for the main result in section 4. Two of these families are constructed as hypersurfaces, whereas for the last family, we do not know if they are realizable as hypersurfaces or not. In section four, we establish the theorem~\ref{main-thm}, which shows how to construct an isomorphism between the cylinders of any two special Danielewski surfaces. Finally, in section 5, we apply this result to the families of surfaces described in section 3. In particular, we obtain in the proposition~\ref{prop-classical-DS} a very simple explicit isomorphism between the cylinders of any two classical Danielewski surfaces whose respective equations are of the form $x^ny=P(z)$ and $x^my=Q(z)$.
\medskip
{\bf Acknowledgments.} Part of this work was done during the first joint meeting Brazil-France in Mathematics. The second-named author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the R\'eseau Franco-Br\'esilien de Math\'ematiques (RFBM).
\section{Danielewski surfaces after Danielewski, Fieseler and Dubouloz}
In this section, we introduce some notations and summarize basic facts about Danielewski surfaces due to Fieseler \cite{Fi} and Dubouloz \cite{Du} (see also \cite{DuPo}).
\subsection{Construction of Danielewski surfaces}
\begin{definition}
A Danielewski surface is a smooth complex affine surface $S$
equipped with an $\A^1$-fibration $\pi\colon S\to\A^1=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x])$ that restricts to a trivial $\A^1$-bundle over $\A^1_*=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x,x^{-1}])$ such that the exceptional fiber $\pi^{-1}(0)$ is reduced and consists of a disjoint union
\[\pi^{-1}(0)=\coprod_{i=1}^d \ell_i\]
of $d\geq2$ curves, $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_d$, all isomorphic to the affine line.
\end{definition}
For every $1\leq i\leq d$, we denote by $\Ucal_i\subset S$ the open subvariety of $S$ defined by
\[\Ucal_i=S\smallsetminus\coprod_{j\neq i}\ell_j\subset S.\]
Since every $\Ucal_i$ is isomorphic to the affine plane $\A^2$, every Danielewski surface can be constructed by gluing together $d\geq2$ copies of $\A^2$ along $\A^1_*\times\A^1$. More precisely, every Danielewski surface is isomorphic to a variety $S(d,\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
Let $d\geq2$ be an integer and let
\[\boldsymbol{\sigma}=\big((n_1,\sigma_1(x)),\ldots,(n_d,\sigma_d(x))\big)\in(\Z_{>0}\times\C[x])^d\] be a sequence such that the polynomials $\sigma_i$ are distinct and satisfy that $\deg(\sigma_i(x))<n_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$. We denote by $S(d,\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ the surface obtained by gluing together $d$ copies $\Ucal_i=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x,u_i])$ of $\A^2$ along the open subsets
\[\Ucal_i^*=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x,x^{-1},u_i])\simeq\C^*\times\C\] via the transition functions
\begin{align*}
\Ucal_i^* &\to\Ucal_j^* \\
(x,u_i)&\mapsto (x,x^{n_i-n_j}u_i+\frac{\sigma_i(x)-\sigma_j(x)}{x^{n_j}}).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
By \cite[Proposition 1.4]{Fi}, every such surface $S=S(d,\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ is affine. Moreover, the inclusion $\C[x]\hookrightarrow\C[S]$ defines an $\A^1$-fibration $\pi\colon S\to\A^1$ such that $\pi^{-1}(\A^1_*)\simeq\A^1_*\times\A^1$ and such that the unique special fiber $\pi^{-1}(0)$ consists of a disjoint union of $d$ reduced copies of $\A^1$. This shows that $S(d,\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ is indeed a Danielewski surface.
By construction, every Danielewski surface $S=S(d,\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ is canonically equipped with a regular function $u\in\C[S]$ whose restrictions to each of the open subsets $\Ucal_i$ are given by
\[u|_{\Ucal_i} = x^{n_i} u_i +\sigma_i(x) \in \C[x, u_i].\]
Note that $u$ restricts to a coordinate function on every general fiber of $\pi=\textrm{pr}_x\colon S\to\A^1$, but not on the exceptional fiber $\pi^{-1}(0)$.
\subsection{Additive group actions and isomorphic cylinders.}
Every Danielewski surface $S=S(d,\boldsymbol{\sigma})$ is canonically equipped with a regular $(\C,+)$-action $\delta:\C\times S\to S$ defined on each chart $\Ucal_i$ by
\[\delta(\lambda,(x,u_i))=(x,u_i+\lambda x^{n-n_i}),\]
where $n=\max\{n_i\mid 1\leq i\leq d\}$.
Algebraically, the action $\delta$ corresponds to the locally nilpotent derivation $D\in\textrm{LND}(\C[S])$ that is defined by $D(x)=0$ and $D(u_i)=x^{n-n_i}$. Note that $D(u)=x^n$.
An important property of Danielewski surfaces is the fact that the map $\pi=\textrm{pr}_x\colon S\to\A^1$ factors through a locally trivial fiber bundle $S\to Z(d)$ over the affine line $Z(d)$ with a $d$-fold origin, where the preimages of the $d$ origins are the $d$ affine lines $\ell_i$. In the case when the $(\C,+)$-action $\delta$ is free, we have moreover that $S$ is the total space of a $(\C,+)$-principal bundle over $Z(d)$. Recall (see \cite[Section 2.10]{DuPo}) that $\delta$ is free if and only if all $n_i$ are equal to each other, i.e.~ if and only if $n_i=n$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$. The latter condition is equivalent to the fact that the canonical class of $S$ is trivial. These Danielewski surfaces were called \emph{special} in \cite{DuPo}.
Danielewski's fiber product trick goes then as follows. Take two Danielewski surfaces, say $S$ and $S'$, that are $(\C,+)$-principal bundles over the same $Z(d)$ and consider their fiber product $S\times_{Z(d)}S'$. Since every $(\C,+)$-principal bundle over an affine base is trivial, we get at once that
\[S\times\A^1\simeq S\times_{Z(d)}S'\simeq S'\times\A^1,\]
hence that the cylinders over $S$ and $S'$ are isomorphic to each other.
\section{Examples of special Danielewski surfaces}
\subsection{Classical Danielewski surfaces.}
These surfaces are the ones originally considered by Danielewski. They are defined as the hypersurfaces $W_{n,P}$ in $\A^3$ of equation
\[W_{n,P}\colon x^ny=P(z),\]
where $n\geq1$ is a positive integer and where $P(z)=\prod_{i=1}^d(z-r_i)\in\C[z]$ is a polynomial with $d\geq2$ simple roots.
Together with the restriction of the first projection $\pi=\textrm{pr}_x\colon W_{n,P}\to \A^1$, every such surface defines a Danielewski surface. The special fiber $\pi^{-1}(0)$ is the union of the lines $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_d$ given by
\[\A^1\simeq\ell_i=\{(0,y,r_i)\mid y\in\C\}\subset W_{n,P}.\]
Every open set $\Ucal_i=W_{n,P}\smallsetminus\coprod_{j\neq i}\ell_j$ is isomorphic to $\A^2$ and we have the isomorphisms
\[\varphi_i\colon \Ucal_i\xrightarrow{\sim}\A^2, (x,y,z)\mapsto(x,u_i), \text{ where } u_i=\frac{z-r_i}{x^n}=\frac{y}{\prod_{j\neq i}(z-r_j)}\in\C[\Ucal_i].\]
\subsection{Danielewski hypersurfaces.} The hypersurfaces in $\A^3$ that are defined by an equation of the form
\[H_{n,Q}\colon x^ny=Q(x,z),\]
where $n\geq1$ and where $Q(x,z)\in\C[x,z]$ is such that $\deg(Q(0,z))\geq2$ are called \emph{Danielewski hypersurfaces}. If moreover the polynomial $Q(0,z)\in\C[z]$ has $d\geq2$ simple roots, say $r_1,\ldots,r_d$, then $\pi=\text{pr}_x\colon H_{n,Q}\to\A^1$ defines a Danielewski surface. Its special fiber is the union of the lines $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_d$ given by
\[\A^1\simeq\ell_i=\{(0,y,r_i)\mid y\in\C\}\subset H_{n,Q}.\]
Furthermore, there exist unique polynomials $\sigma_1(x),\ldots,\sigma_d(x)\in\C[x]$ of degree strictly smaller than $n$ such that $\sigma_i(0)=r_i$ and such that the congruences
\[Q(x,\sigma_i(x))\equiv 0 \mod(x^n)\]
hold for all $1\leq i\leq d$. Then, every open set $\Ucal_i=H_{n,Q}\smallsetminus\coprod_{j\neq i}\ell_j$ is isomorphic to $\A^2$ and we have the isomorphisms
\[\varphi_i\colon \Ucal_i\xrightarrow{\sim}\A^2, (x,y,z)\mapsto(x,u_i), \text{ where } u_i=\frac{z-\sigma_i(x)}{x^n}.\]
(See \cite{DuPo} for the details.)
\subsection{Iterated Danielewski hypersurfaces}\label{Section:construction-iterated-Danielewski}
Introduced by Alhajjar \cite{Al}, iterated Danielewski hypersurfaces are the hypersurfaces in $\A^3$ that are defined by an equation of the form
\[H_{n,Q,m,R}\colon x^mz=R(x,x^ny-Q(x,z)),\]
where $n,m\geq1$ and where $Q(x,t),R(x,t)\in\C[x,t]$. If the polynomial $R(0,-Q(0,t))$ in $\C[t]$ has only $d\geq2$ simple roots, then $H_{n,Q,m,R}$ is a Danielewski surface.
We discuss now a specific example in details. Consider the surface $H\subset\A^3$ defined by
\[H\colon \{xz=(xy+z^2)^2-1\}.\]
The special fiber of $\pi=\textrm{pr}_x\colon H\to\A^1$ consists of the four lines $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_4$ given by
\[\ell_i=\{(0,y,\varepsilon^i)\mid y\in\C\},\]
where $\varepsilon=\boldsymbol{i}$ denotes a primitive fourth root of the unity.
Letting $u=xy+z^2$ and $\sigma_i(x)=\varepsilon^{2i}+\frac{\varepsilon^{-i}}{2}x$ for all $1\leq i\leq 4$, it follows that the open set $\Ucal_i=H\smallsetminus\coprod_{j\neq i}\ell_j$ is isomorphic to $\A^2$ and one claims that the map
\[\varphi_i\colon \Ucal_i\xrightarrow{\sim}\A^2, (x,y,z)\mapsto(x,u_i), \text{ where } u_i=\frac{u-\sigma_i(x)}{x^2}\]
is an isomorphism.
\begin{proof}
First, we remark that the rational functions
\[\alpha_i=\frac{u-\varepsilon^{2i}}{x}=\frac{z}{u+\varepsilon^{2i}}\quad \text{ and }\quad \beta_i=\frac{z-\varepsilon^i}{x}=\frac{z-xy^2-2yz^2}{\prod_{j\in\{1,\ldots,4\}\smallsetminus\{i\}}(z-\varepsilon^j)}\]
are regular on $\Ucal_i$. It follows that $u_i$ is also an element of $\C[\Ucal_i]$, since one easily checks that
\[\beta_i-\left(\alpha_i\right)^2=2\varepsilon^{2i}u_i.\]
Finally, the fact that $\varphi_i$ is an isomorphism follows from the following identities in $\C[\Ucal_i]$.
\begin{align*}
\alpha_i &= xu_i+\frac{\varepsilon^{-i}}{2}\\
\beta_i &=2\varepsilon^{2i}u_i+\left(\alpha_i\right)^2\\
z&=\varepsilon^i+x\beta_i\\
y&= \frac{u-z^2}{x}=\frac{u-(\varepsilon^i+x\beta_i)^2}{x}=\alpha_i-2\varepsilon^i\beta_i-x(\beta_i)^2.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Double Danielewski surfaces}\label{Section:construction-double-Danielewski}
In \cite{GuSe}, Gupta and Sen studied some surfaces defined by two equations in $\A^4$ of the form
\[S\colon \{x^ny=Q(x,z) \text{ and } x^mt=R(x,z,y)\},\]
where $n,m\geq1$ and where $Q(x,z)\in\C[x,z]$ and $R(x,z,y)\in\C[x,z,y]$. They call them \emph{double Danielewski surfaces}. Indeed, if $Q(0,z)\in\C[z]$ has $d\geq2$ simple roots, say $r_1,\ldots,r_{d}$, and if every polynomial $R(0,r_i,y)\in\C[y]$ also has only simple roots, then $S$ is a Danielewski surface together with the first projection $\textrm{pr}_x\colon S\to\A^1$.
Let us study here a specific example in details, namely the surface $D\subset\A^4$ defined by
\[D\colon \{xy=z^2-1 \text{ and } xt=y^2-1\}.\]
It is a Danielewski surface, its special fiber $\textrm{pr}_x^{-1}(0)$ consisting of the four lines given by $\{(0,\pm1,\pm1,t)\mid t\in\C\}\subset D$. Let us introduce the following notation. For every pair $(i,j)\in\{-1,1\}\times\{-1,1\}$, we let
\[\ell_{i j}=\{(0,i,j,t)\mid t\in\C\}\]
and
\[\sigma_{i j}(x)=j+\frac{ij}{2}x.\]
Then, every open set $\Ucal_{i j}=D\smallsetminus\coprod_{(i',j')\neq (i,j)}\ell_{i' j'}$ is isomorphic to $\A^2$ and one claims that the map
\[\varphi_{i j}\colon \Ucal_{i j}\xrightarrow{\sim}\A^2, (x,y,z,t)\mapsto(x,u_{i j}) \text{ where } u_{i j}=\frac{z-\sigma_{i j}(x)}{x^2}\]
is an isomorphism.
\begin{proof}
First, remark that $\alpha_j=\frac{z-j}{x}=\frac{y}{z+j}$ and $\beta_i=\frac{y-i}{x}=\frac{t}{y+i}$ are regular functions on $\Ucal_{i j}$. Hence, it is straightforward to check that $u_{i j}$ is a regular function on $\Ucal_{i j}$, since
\[\beta_i-\left(\alpha_j\right)^2=2ju_{i j}.\]
The fact that $\varphi_{i j}$ is an isomorphism follows from the following identities in $\C[\Ucal_{i j}]$.
\begin{align*}
\alpha_j &= xu_{i j}+\frac{ij}{2}\\
\beta_i &=2ju_{i j}+\left(\alpha_j\right)^2\\
z&=j+x\alpha_j\\
y&=i+x\beta_i\\
t&= (y+i)\beta_i.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{Isomorphisms between cylinders}\label{Section:plan of the construction}
In this section, we fix an integer $d\geq 2$ and denote by $Z(d)$ the affine line with $d$ origins. Let
$P(z)=\prod_{i=1}^d(z-r_i)\in\C[z]$ be a polynomial with simple roots. We will explain how to construct, given a special Danielewski surface $S$ which is a principal bundle over $Z(d)$, an isomorphism between its cylinder $S\times\A^1$ and the cylinder $W\times\A^1$ over the classical Danielewski surface
\[W=W_{1,P}\colon \{xy=P(z)=\prod_{i=1}^d(z-r_i)\} \text { in } \A^3.\]
Recall that a special Danielewski surface $S$ is constructed from a data set consisting of a positive integer $n\geq1$ and of distinct polynomial $\sigma_1(x),\ldots,\sigma_d(x)\in\C[x]$ of degree strictly smaller than $n$. More precisely, $S$ is obtained by gluing $d$ copies, $\Ucal_1,\ldots,\Ucal_d$, of $\A^2=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x,u_i])$ along $\A^1_*\times\A^1$ by means of the transition functions
\[(x,u_i)\mapsto (x,u_i+\frac{\sigma_i(x)-\sigma_j(x)}{x^{n}}).\]
We also recall that the inclusion $\C[x]\hookrightarrow S$ defines an $\A^1$-fibration $\pi\colon S\to\A^1$ with a unique special fiber $\pi^{-1}(0)=\coprod_{i=1}^d \ell_i$ consisting of $d$ disjoint reduced copies of $\A^1$, and that we can define, by considering the regular function $u\in\C[S]$ whose restrictions on the open sets $\Ucal_i$ are given by \[u|_{\Ucal_i} = x^{n} u_i +\sigma_i(x) \in \C[x, u_i],\]
the canonical locally nilpotent derivation $D\in\mathrm{LND}(\C[S])$ by setting $D(x)=0$ and $D(u)=x^n$.
Following Danielewski's original argument, we consider the fiber product $S\times_{Z(d)}W$, which we denote by $V$. We will use the following notations. We identify the ring of regular functions on $W$ with its canonical image in the ring of regular functions on $V$ and write
\[\C[W]=\C[x,y,z]\subset\C[V], \quad\text{ where } xy=P(z).\]
Similarly, we identify $\C[S]$ as a subring of $\C[V]$.
Then, $V$ can be naturally seen as being obtained by gluing $d$ copies $\Vcal_i=\mathrm{Spec}[x,u_i,z_i]$ of $\A^3$ where $z_i=(z-r_i)/x$. The open subvarieties $\Vcal_i$ are glued together along $\A^1_*\times\A^2$ via the transition functions
\[(x,u_i,z_i)\mapsto(x,u_i+\frac{\sigma_i(x)-\sigma_j(x)}{x^{n}},z_i+\frac{r_i-r_j}{x}).\]
In particular, we have that the regular functions $u\in\C[S]\subset\C[V]$ and $z\in\C[W]\subset\C[V]$ satisfy that
\[u|_{\Vcal_i} = x^{n} u_i +\sigma_i(x) \in \C[\Vcal_i]=\C[x,u_i,z_i]\]
and
\[z|_{\Vcal_i} = x z_i +r_i \in \C[\Vcal_i]=\C[x,u_i,z_i]\]
for all $1\leq i\leq d$.
\medskip
{\bf Plan of the construction.}
Our construction of an isomorphism between $S\times\A^1$ and $W\times\A^1$ consists of three steps. We first find a regular function $\alpha\in \C[V]$ on the fiber product $V=S\times_{Z(d)}W$ such that
\[\C[V]=\C[S][\alpha]\simeq\C[S\times\A^1].\]
We then use this equality to extend the canonical derivation on $\C[S]$ to a locally nilpotent derivation $\tilde{D}$ on $\C[V]$ in such a way that \[\mathrm{Ker}(\tilde{D})=\C[x,y,z]=\C[W]\subset\C[V].\] Finally, in the last step, we construct an element $s\in\C[V]$ which is a slice for $\tilde{D}$. This gives
\[\C[S\times\A^1]\simeq\C[S][\alpha]=\C[V]=\mathrm{Ker}[\tilde{D}][s]=\C[W][s]\simeq\C[W\times\A^1]\]
hence the desired isomorphism between $S\times\A^1$ and $W\times\A^1$.
\medskip
{\bf Step 1.} Since $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_d$ are disjoint closed subvarieties of the affine variety $S$, there exists a regular function $f\in\C[S]$ such that
\begin{equation}\tag{$\star$}\label{equa*}
f|_{\ell_i} = r_i \quad\text{for all } 1\leq i\leq d.
\end{equation}
In other words, we can choose a function $f\in\C[V]$ such that
\[f|_{\Vcal_i}=r_i+x\tilde{f}_i \quad \text{for all } 1\leq i\leq d,\]
where $\tilde{f}_i$ is some element in $\C[x,u_i]\subset\C[\Vcal_i]$.
Therefore, the rational function \[\alpha=\frac{z-f}{x}\]
is in fact a regular function on $V$, since
\[(z-f)|_{\Vcal_i}=xz_i+r_i-r_i-x\tilde{f}_i=x(z_i-\tilde{f}_i)\]
is divisible by $x$ for all $i$.
It is then straightforward to check that $z=f+x\alpha$ and $y=x^{-1}P(f+x\alpha)$ are both elements of $\C[S][\alpha]$, hence
\[\C[V]=\C[S][\alpha].\]
\medskip
{\bf Step 2.} Note that the image $D(f)\in\C[S]$ of $f$ under the derivation $D$ is divisible by $x$. Therefore, we can extend $D$ to a locally nilpotent derivation $\tilde{D}$ on $\C[V]=\C[S][\alpha]$ by letting
\[\tilde{D}(\alpha)=-\frac{D(f)}{x}.\]
With this choice, we then have that $\tilde{D}(z)=\tilde{D}(f+x\alpha)=0$ and that $\tilde{D}(y)=\tilde{D}(\frac{P(z)}{x})=0$.
\medskip
{\bf Step 3.} To find a slice $s$ for $\tilde{D}$, it suffices to take a polynomial $g(x,t)\in\C[x,t]$ such that the congruences
\begin{equation}\tag{$\star\star$}\label{equa**}
g(x,r_i+xt)\equiv \sigma_i(x) \mod(x^n)
\end{equation}
hold in $\C[x,t]$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$, and to define \[s=\frac{u-g(x,z)}{x^n}.\]
Indeed, since every restriction
\[(u-g(x,z))|_{\Vcal_i}=x^nu_i+\sigma_i(x)-g(x,r_i+xz_i)\]
is divisible by $x^n$ in $\C[\Vcal_i]$, it follows that $s$ is a regular function on $V$. Moreover, it is clear that $\tilde{D}(s)=1$.
In order to construct a suitable polynomial $g(x,t)$, one can proceed as follows. If we denote
\[\sigma_i(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}a_{ij}x^j\quad \text{ with } a_{ij}\in\C,\]
then we can define
\[g(x,t)=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}g_j(t)x^j,\]
where the $g_j(t)\in\C[t]$ are Hermite interpolation polynomials such that
\[g_j(r_i)=a_{ij}\quad\text{ and }\quad g_j^{(k)}(r_i)=0\]
for all $1\leq i\leq d$ and all $0\leq j\leq n-1$, $1\leq k\leq n-1-j$.
\medskip
{\bf The isomorphism.} Finally, the above three steps have produced the desired isomorphism. We have therefore proven the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{main-thm} Let $S$ be a special Danielewski surface over $Z(d)$, and let $W$ be the hypersurface defined by the equation $XY=P(Z)$, where $P$ is a polynomial of degree $d$ whose roots are all simple. Suppose $f$ and $g$ are chosen to satisfy $($\ref{equa*}$)$ and $($\ref{equa**}$)$ above. Then the map
\[\Phi\colon\C[W\times\A^1]=\C[X,Y,Z,W]/(XY-P(Z))=\C[x,y,z,w]\xrightarrow{\sim}\C[S\times\A^1]=\C[S][\alpha]\]
defined by
\begin{align*}
\Phi(x)&=x\\
\Phi(z)&=f+x\alpha\\
\Phi(y)&=\frac{P(f+x\alpha)}{x}\\
\Phi(w)&=\frac{u-g(x,f+x\alpha)}{x^n}
\end{align*}
is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
Keeping the same notation as in the previous theorem, it follows that the special Danielewski surface $S$ is isomorphic to the surface defined by the equations
\[xy=P(z) \text{ and } \Phi^{-1}(\alpha)=\lambda\]
in $\A^4$, where $\lambda\in\C$ is any constant.
\end{corollary}
\section{Some explicit examples}
\subsection{Russell's isomorphism}\hfill
In \cite{SY}, the authors give an explicit isomorphism, which is due to Russell, between the cylinders over the Danielewski surfaces of respective equations $xy=z^2-1$ and $x^2y=z^2-1$. See also Theorem 10.1 in \cite{Fre}. With our method, we can recover this isomorphism easily.
In this section we will show how to apply the method of the previous section to treat a slightly more general case, and, in the end of the section, we will specialize to the case of the Russell isomorphism.
We shall use the following notations. We denote by $P(z)=\prod_{i=1}^d(z-r_i)\in\C[z]$ a polynomial with $d\geq2$ simple roots and by $W_{n,P}$ the hypersurface in $\A^3$ defined by the equation $x^ny=P(z)$, where $n\geq1$ is a positive integer. Moreover, we let
\[\C[W_{n,P}]=\C[X,Y,Z]/(X^nY-P(Z))=\C[x_n,y_n,z_n]\]
and
\[\C[W_{n,P}\times\A^1]=\C[X,Y,Z,W]/(X^nY-P(Z))=\C[x_n,y_n,z_n,w_n],\]
where $(x_n)^ny_n=P(z_n)$.
Accordingly with the previous section, we now proceed to construct an isomorphism between $\C[W_{1,P}\times\A^1]$ and $\C[W_{2,P}\times\A^1]$.
First, note that the regular function $f=z_2\in\C[W_{2,P}]$ is equal to $r_i$ on every point of the line $\{x=0, z=r_i\}\subset W_{2,P}$. Also, in this case, $u=z_2\in\C[W_{2,P}]$ restricts to a coordinate function on every general fiber of the projection $\textrm{pr}_{x}\colon W_{2,P}\to\C$.
Secondly, since $P$ has only simple roots, there exist two polynomials $U,V\in\C[z]$ such that $U(z)P'(z)+V(z)P(z)=1$ in $\C[z]$. Then, the polynomial
\[g(z)=z-P(z)U(z)\in\C[z]\]
satisfies that \[g(r_i)=r_i\]
and \[g'(r_i)=1-P'(r_i)U(r_i)-P(r_i)U'(r_i)=0\]
for all $1\leq i\leq d$.
With these choices for $f$, $u$ and $g$, we get the isomorphism
\[\Phi\colon\C[W_{1,P}\times\A^1]=\C[x_1,y_1,z_1,w_1]\xrightarrow{\sim}\C[W_{2,P}\times\A^1]=\C[x_2,y_2,z_2,w_2]\]
defined by
\begin{align*}
\Phi(x_1)&=x_2\\
\Phi(z_1)&=z_2+x_2w_2\\
\Phi(y_1)&=\frac{P(z_2+x_2w_2)}{x_2}\\
\Phi(w_1)&=\frac{z_2-g(z_2+x_2w_2)}{x_2^2},
\end{align*}
whose inverse isomorphism
\[\Psi\colon\C[W_{2,P}\times\A^1]=\C[x_2,y_2,z_2,w_2]\xrightarrow{\sim}\C[W_{1,P}\times\A^1]=\C[x_1,y_1,z_1,w_1]\]
is defined by
\begin{align*}
\Psi(x_2)&=x_1\\
\Psi(z_2)&=x_1^2w_1+g(z_1)\\
\Psi(y_2)&=\frac{P(x_1^2w_1+g(z_1))}{x_1^2}\\
\Psi(w_2)&=\frac{z_1-(x_1^2w_1+g(z_1))}{x_1}.
\end{align*}
In the special case where $P(z)=z^2-1$, we have $g(z)=z-(z^2-1)\dfrac{z}{2}$ and we thus obtain the inverse isomorphisms
\[\Phi_*\colon \{x^2y=z^2-1\}\times\A^1\to \{xy=z^2-1\}\times\A^1\]
and
\[\Psi_*\colon \{xy=z^2-1\}\times\A^1\to \{x^2y=z^2-1\}\times\A^1\]
defined by
\begin{align*}
\Phi_*(x,y,z,w)&=\Big(x,\frac{P(z+xw)}{x},z+xw,\frac{z-g(z+xw)}{x^2}\Big)\\
&=\Big(x,\frac{(z+xw)^2-1}{x},z+xw,\\
&\qquad\qquad\frac{z-(z+xw)+\frac{1}{2}(z+xw)((z+xw)^2-1)}{x^2}\Big)\\
&=\Big(x,\frac{z^2-1}{x}+2zw+xw^2,z+xw,\\
&\qquad\qquad\frac{\frac{1}{2}(z+xw)(z^2-1+x^2w^2)+xw(z^2-1)+x^2w^2z}{x^2}\Big)\\
&=\Big(x,xy+2zw+xw^2,z+xw,\frac{1}{2}(z+xw)(y+w^2)+xyw+w^2z\Big)\\
&=\Big(x,xy+2zw+xw^2,z+xw,\frac{1}{2}(yz+3zw^2+3xyw+xw^3)\Big)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\Psi_*(x,y,z,w)&=\Big(x,\frac{P(x^2w+g(z))}{x^2},x^2w+g(z),\frac{z-x^2w-g(z)}{x}\Big)\\
&=\Big(x,\frac{x^4w^2+2x^2wg(z)+(z^2-1)^2(\frac{1}{4}z^2-1)}{x^2},x^2w+g(z),\\
&\qquad\qquad-xw+\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{z(z^2-1)}{x}\Big)\\
&=\Big(x,x^2w^2+2wg(z)+y^2(\frac{1}{4}z^2-1),x^2w+g(z),-xw+\frac{1}{2}zy\Big).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Classical Danielewski surfaces}
In light of the previous example, we obtain simple explicit isomorphisms between the cylinders over two classical Danielewski surfaces.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-classical-DS}
Let $d,n,m\geq1$ be positive integers and let $P(z)=\prod_{i=1}^d(z-a_i)$ and $Q(z)=\prod_{i=1}^d(z-b_i)$ be polynomials in $\C[z]$ with simple roots. Recall that $W_{n,P}$ and $W_{m,Q}$ denote the hypersurfaces in $\A^3=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x,y,z])$ that are defined respectively by the equation
\[W_{n,P}\colon x^ny=P(z)\]
and
\[W_{m,Q}\colon x^my=Q(z).\]
Let $f,g\in\C[z]$ be two Hermite interpolating polynomials such that
\[f(b_i)=a_i\quad\text{ and }\quad f^{(k)}(b_i)=0\quad \text{ for all } 1\leq i\leq d, 1\leq k\leq n-1\]
and
\[g(a_i)=b_i\quad\text{ and }\quad g^{(k)}(a_i)=0\quad \text{ for all } 1\leq i\leq d, 1\leq k\leq m-1.\]
Then, the maps
\begin{align*}
\varphi\colon &W_{n,P}\times\A^1\to W_{m,Q}\times\A^1\\
&(x,y,z,w)\mapsto(x,\frac{Q(g(z)+x^mw)}{x^m},g(z)+x^mw,\frac{z-f(g(z)+x^mw)}{x^n})
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\psi\colon &W_{m,Q}\times\A^1\to W_{n,P}\times\A^1\\
&(x,y,z,w)\mapsto(x,\frac{P(f(z)+x^nw)}{x^n},f(z)+x^nw,\frac{z-g(f(z)+x^nw)}{x^m})
\end{align*}
are regular and define inverse isomorphisms between the cylinders $W_{n,P}\times\A^1$ and $W_{m,Q}\times\A^1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
On the one hand, we have that
\[(P\circ f)(b_i)=(P\circ f)'(b_i)=\cdots=(P\circ f)^{(n-1)}(b_i)=0\quad\text{ for all } i.\]
This shows that $P(f(z))$ is divisible by $(Q(z))^n$, hence that $P(f(z))/x^n$ is a regular function on $W_{m,Q}$. Similarly, $Q(g(z))/x^m$ is a regular function on $W_{n,P}$.
On the other hand, we have that
\[z-g(f(z)+x^nw)=z-g(f(z))-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(x^nw)^k}{k!}g^{(k)}(f(z))\]
is an element of the ideal $(Q(z),x^m)\C[x,z,w]$. Therefore, $x^{-m}(z-g(f(z)+x^nw))$ is a regular function on $W_{m,Q}\times\A^1=\mathrm{Spec}(\C[x,y,z,w]/(x^my-Q(z)))$. Similarly, $x^{-n}(z-f(g(z)+x^mw))$ is a regular function on $W_{n,P}\times\A^1$.
Thus, $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are regular maps. It is moreover straightforward to check that they are inverse of each other.
\end{proof}
\subsection{An iterated Danielewski hypersurface}
Let us look again at the iterated Danielewski hypersurface $H=\{xz=(xy+z^2)^2-1\}$ in $\A^3$ that we studied at Section \ref{Section:construction-iterated-Danielewski}. Recall that the special fiber consists of the four lines
\[\ell_i=\{(0,y,\varepsilon^i)\mid y\in\C\}, 1\leq i\leq 4,\]
where $\varepsilon=\boldsymbol{i}\in\C$ denotes a primitive fourth root of the unity, and that the surface $H$ corresponds to the data $n=2$ and $\sigma_i(x)=\varepsilon^{2i}+\frac{\varepsilon^{-i}}{2}x$ for all $1\leq i\leq 4$.
We give now an isomorphism from $H\times\A^1$ to $\{xy=z^4-1\}\times\A^1$. Keeping the notations of Section~\ref{Section:plan of the construction}, we obtain the isomorphism
\begin{align*}
\{xz=(xy+z^2)^2-1\}\times\A^1&\to \{xy=z^4-1\}\times\A^1\\
(x,y,z,w)&\mapsto(x,\frac{(f+xw)^4-1}{x},f+xw,\frac{u-g(x,f+xw)}{x^2}),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
r_i&=\varepsilon^i\\
f&=z\\
u&=xy+z^2\\
g(x,z)&=z^2-\frac{1}{2}z^2(z^4-1)+x\frac{1}{2}z^3.
\end{align*}
\subsection{A double Danielewski surface}
We consider again the double Danielewski surface
\[D= \{xy=z^2-1 \text{ and } xt=y^2-1\}\quad \text{ in } \A^4\] that we described at Section \ref{Section:construction-double-Danielewski}. Recall that the special fiber consists of the four lines
\[\ell_{i j}=\{(0,i,j,t)\mid t\in\C\}\}\]
and that the surface $D$ corresponds to the data $n=2$ and $\sigma_{i j}(x)=j+\frac{ij}{2}x$, where $(i,j)\in\{1,-1\}\times\{1,-1\}$.
Following the notations of Section~\ref{Section:plan of the construction}, we denote by $\varepsilon=\boldsymbol{i}\in\C$ a primitive fourth root of unity and define
\begin{align*}
f&=\frac{z+y}{2}+\varepsilon\frac{y-z}{2}\\
u&=z\\
g(x,z)&=\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}z^3+\frac{1+\varepsilon}{2}z-(z^4-1)\frac{z}{4}(3\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}z^2+\frac{1+\varepsilon}{2})+x\frac{1}{2}z^2.
\end{align*}
Then, we have that
\begin{align*}
&f|_{\ell_{11}}=1, && g(x,1)=\sigma_{1 1}(x)\\
&f|_{\ell_{1 -1}}=\varepsilon, && g(x,\varepsilon)=\sigma_{1 -1}(x)\\
&f|_{\ell_{-1 1}}=-\varepsilon, && g(x,-\varepsilon)=\sigma_{-1 1}(x)\\
&f|_{\ell_{-1 -1}}=-1, && g(x,-1)=\sigma_{-1 -1}(x)
\end{align*}
and
\[\frac{\partial g}{\partial z}(x,\varepsilon^i)\equiv0 \mod (x)\]
for all $1\leq i\leq 4$. This produces the isomorphism
\begin{align*}
D\times\A^1&\to \{xy=z^4-1\}\times\A^1\\
(x,y,z,t,w)&\mapsto(x,\frac{(f+xw)^4-1}{x},f+xw,\frac{u-g(x,f+xw)}{x^2}).
\end{align*}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{Al}{thesis}{
author={Alhajjar, Bachar},
title={Locally Nilpotent Derivations of Integral Domains},
type={Ph.D. Thesis},
organization={Universit\'e de Bourgogne},
date={2015},
}
\bib{Da}{article}{
author={Danielewski, W.},
title={On the cancellation problem and automorphism groups of affine algebraic varieties},
status={preprint},
date={1989},
}
\bib{Du}{article}{
author={Dubouloz, Adrien},
title={Danielewski-Fieseler surfaces},
journal={Transform. Groups},
volume={10},
date={2005},
number={2},
pages={139--162},
}
\bib{DuPo}{article}{
author={Dubouloz, Adrien},
author={Poloni, Pierre-Marie},
title={On a class of Danielewski surfaces in affine 3-space},
journal={J. Algebra},
volume={321},
date={2009},
number={7},
pages={1797--1812},
}
\bib{Fi}{article}{
author={Fieseler, Karl-Heinz},
title={On complex affine surfaces with ${\bf C}^+$-action},
journal={Comment. Math. Helv.},
volume={69},
date={1994},
number={1},
pages={5--27},
}
\bib{Fre}{book}{
author={Freudenburg, Gene},
title={Algebraic theory of locally nilpotent derivations},
series={Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences},
volume={136},
edition={2},
note={Invariant Theory and Algebraic Transformation Groups, VII},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, Berlin},
date={2017},
pages={xxii+319},
}
\bib{GuSe}{article}{
author={Gupta, Neena},
author={Sen, Sourav},
title={On double Danielewski surfaces and the cancellation problem},
journal={J. Algebra},
volume={533},
date={2019},
pages={25--43},
}
\bib{SY}{article}{
author={Shpilrain, Vladimir},
author={Yu, Jie-Tai},
title={Affine varieties with equivalent cylinders},
journal={J. Algebra},
volume={251},
date={2002},
number={1},
pages={295--307},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction \label{sec:intro}}
Organisations need to know whether they are using the best practices to produce their products and services, and to do so they benchmark their performance with that of others. There are many documented examples of the use of benchmarking in the literature from both the private and the public sector, such as, airlines, banks, hospitals, universities, manufacturers, schools, and municipalities, see \cite{bogetoft2013performance}, and references therein.
Within benchmarking, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) \citep{CHARNES1978429} is one of the most widely used tools, \cite{COOK201945,emrouznejad2018survey,jiang2015dearank,landete2017robust,li2017dynamic,petersen2018directional,RUIZ20161,RUIZ2018}. It aims at benchmarking the performance of decision marking units (DMUs), which use the same types of inputs and produce the same types of outputs, against each other. DEA calculates an efficiency score for each of the DMUs, so that DMUs with a score equal to one are in the so-called efficient frontier. DMUs outside the efficient frontier are deemed as underperforming, and a further analysis gives insights as to what they can do to improve their efficiency. The efficiency of DMUs in DEA is measured as the weighted summation of the outputs divided by the weighted summation of the inputs, and the weights are found solving a Linear Programming problem for each DMU. DEA model specification, in the form of feature (where the term feature is used to refer to either outputs, inputs or environmental variables) selection, has a significant impact on the shape of the efficient frontier in DEA as well as the insights given to the inefficient DMUs \cite{golany1989application}. Moreover, it is known to improve the discriminatory power of DEA models \cite{bogetoft2010benchmarking}. Our paper proposes and investigates a mathematical optimization approach for feature selection in DEA.
In benchmarking projects, as in most applied statistical analyses, one of the most challenging tasks is the choice of the DEA model specification. First, a good model should make conceptual sense not only from the theoretical but also from a practical point of view. The interpretation must be easy to understand and the properties of the model must be natural. This contributes to the acceptance of the model by stakeholders and provides a safeguard against spurious models developed without much understanding of the industry. More precisely, this has to do with the choice of outputs in DEA that are natural cost drivers and with functional forms that, for example, have reasonable returns to scale and curvature properties. Second, it is important to guide the search for a good model with classical statistical tests. We typically seek models that have significant features with the right signs and that do not leave a large unexplained variation. Third, intuition and experience is a less stringent but important safeguard against false model specifications and the over- or underuse of data to draw false conclusions. It is important that the models produce results that are not that different from the results one would have found in other data sets, e.g., from other countries or related industries. The intuition and experience must be used with caution. We may screen away extraordinary but true results (Type 1 error) and we may go for a more common set of results based on false models (Type 2 error). One aspect of this is that one will tend to be more confident in a specification of inputs and outputs that leads to comparable results in alternative estimation approaches, e.g., in the DEA and Stochastic Frontier Analysis models. Finally, the choice of model specification has to be pragmatic. We need to take into account the availability of data as well as what the model is going to be used for. In benchmarking, it matters if the model is used to learn best practices, to reallocate resources between entities or to directly incentivize firms or managers by performance based payment schemes. Our approach gives a tool that can support the selection of features in benchmarking, allowing the user to navigate through a large amount of DEA models and a large amount of constraints modeling knowledge in the form of intuition and experience, in an efficient manner.
The complexity of the model specification phase partially explains the lack of enough guidance in the literature at this respect, \cite{cook2014data,luo2012input,SOLEIMANIDAMANEH20095146}, and most of the effort goes into the analysis and interpretation of a given DEA model. With the strand of literature on feature selection, the most common approach is to use a priori rules based on Statistical Analysis (such as correlations, dimensionality reduction techniques, and regression), and Information Theory (such as AIC or Shannon entropy). Alternatively, an ex-post analysis of the sensitivity of the efficient frontier to additional features can be run to detect whether relevant features have been left out. See \cite{adler2010improving,fernandez2018stepwise,li2017variable,nataraja2011guidelines,pastor2002statistical,sirvent2005monte,SOLEIMANIDAMANEH20095146,wagner2007stepwise}, and references therein. Recently, there have been attempts to use LASSO techniques from Statistical Learning to build sparse benchmarking models, i.e., models using just a few features, \cite{caiLASSODEA,LEE2018,qin2014joint}.
In this paper, the DEA Linear Programming formulation is enriched with zero-one decision variables modelling the selection of features for different objective functions, such as the average efficiency or the squared distance to the ideal point where all DMUs are efficient, and for different set of constraints that incorporate knowledge from the industrial application, such as bounds on the weights as well as costs on the features. This yields either a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) problem, or a Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming (MIQP) one. Thus, in contrast to the existing literature, that tends to combine statistical analysis with the mathematical programming based DEA, we propose an approach that is entirely driven by mathematical optimization.
We illustrate our models in the benchmarking of electricity Distribution System Operators (DSOs), where there is a pool of 100 potential outputs.
The contributions of our approach are threefold. First, our single-model mathematical approach can guide better the selection of features: it controls directly the number of chosen features, as opposed to techniques based on seeking sparsity, being thus able to quantify the added value of additional features; works directly with the original features, as opposed to dimensionality reduction techniques, which create artificial features that are difficult to interpret; and can derive a collection of models by shaping in alternative ways the distribution of the efficiencies, using different objective functions that focus on different groups of DMUs, which can be combined through, for instance, Shannon entropy \cite{SOLEIMANIDAMANEH20095146}. Second, while the previous literature has focused on the choice of variables from a small set of candidates, e.g., \cite{LEE2018}, in the era of Big Data, the set of alternatives to choose from is expanding at a fast pace, and the challenge is often not the lack of data, but the abundance of data, \cite{ZHU2018291}. In the numerical section, we show how our MILP/MIQP approach is able to make the selection from a large pool of outputs. Third, we introduce an element of game theory when selecting features.
In applied projects, the evaluated DMUs will typically try to influence the feature selection since this will affect how one firm is evaluated relative to others. It is therefore important to think about the conflict the DMUs (the players of the game) when choosing the set of features (the strategies of the game) used in the calculation of the efficiencies (outcome). We illustrate the results for a simpler game setting where the strategies are derived from the individual and the joint models.
The reminder of the paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sec:OS}, we introduce the individual feature selection problem where the selection is tailored to a given DMU. In Section \ref{sec:singleOS}, we introduce the joint feature selection problem where the selection is imposed to be the same for all DMUs. Section \ref{sec:numerical} is devoted to the illustration of our models in the benchmarking of electricity Distribution System Operators (DSOs). We end the paper in Section \ref{sec:conclusions} with some conclusions and lines for future research.
\section{The individual selection model\label{sec:OS}}
In this section, and for an individual DMU, we propose a Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) formulation to select outputs in Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).
Consider $K$ DMUs (indexed by $k$), using $I$ inputs (indexed by $i$), and producing $O$ outputs (indexed by $o$). DMU $k$ uses vector of inputs $\mathbf{x}^{(k)}\in {\mathbb R}_+^I$ to produce vector of outputs $\mathbf{y}^{(k)}\in {\mathbb R}_+^O$. Let $E^{(k)}$ be the so-called Farrell input-oriented efficiency of DMU $k$, which is the optimal solution value to a DEA model. Our goal is to select the $p$ outputs from the $O$ potential ones that yield the maximal efficiency for DMU $k$. We first start with the classical formulation of the problem which solves a Linear Programming model, and subsequently include the output selection decision variables. The output selection model for DMU $k$ is enriched with input selection decision variables, as well as constraints modeling desirable properties about the selected features. Please note that our approach can easily be extended to the use of other efficiency measures, including the output-based Farrell efficiency.
\subsection{The selection model for a DMU}
We start with the formulation of the classical DEA model, in which we can make use of the $O$ outputs available. The input-oriented efficiency of DMU $k$, $E^{(k)}$, in a DEA model with constant returns to scale (CRS) is equal to the optimal solution value of the following Linear Programming formulation,
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{(k)} = \mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha}^{(k)},\bm{\beta}^{(k)})} \ \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)} \label{eq:of}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.} \hfill (DEA$^{(k)}$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(j)} - \sum_{i=1}^I \alpha_i^{(k)} x_i^{(j)} \le 0 && \forall j=1,\ldots,K\label{eq:DEA1}\\
\sum_{i=1}^I \alpha_i^{(k)} x_i^{(k)} =1 && \label{eq:DEA2}\\
\alpha^{(k)} \in {\mathbb R}^I_+ && \label{eq:DEA3}\\
\beta^{(k)} \in {\mathbb R}^O_+, && \label{eq:DEA4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_i^{(k)}$ is the weight for input $i$ and $\beta_o^{(k)}$ the weight for output $o$. (DEA$^{(k)}$) has $K+1$ linear constraints and $I+ O$ continuous variables, and thus can be solved efficiently even for large problem instances.
We continue with the model in which $p$ outputs are to be selected from the $O$ available ones such that the efficiency of DMU $k$ is maximized. Let $z^{(k)}_o$ be equal to 1 if output $o$ can be used in the calculation of the efficiency of DMU $k$, and 0 otherwise. Let $E^{(k)}(\mathbf{z}^{(k)})$ denote the corresponding efficiency. The decision variables $\beta_o^{(k)}$ and $\alpha_i^{(k)}$ are defined as above. The Output Selection for DMU $k$, where $p$ outputs must be selected such that $E^{(k)}(\mathbf{z}^{(k)})$ is maximized, can be written as the following MILP:
\begin{eqnarray}
v^{(k)}(p) := \mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha}^{(k)},\bm{\beta}^{(k)},\mathbf{z}^{(k)})} \ \displaystyle \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.} \hfill (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\eqref{eq:DEA1}-\eqref{eq:DEA4} && \nonumber\\
\beta^{(k)}_o \le M z^{(k)}_o && \forall o=1,\ldots,O\label{eq:DEA5OS}\\
\sum_{o=1}^O z^{(k)}_o = p && \label{eq:DEA6OS}\\
z^{(k)}_o \in \{0,1\} && \forall o=1,\ldots,O\label{eq:DEA7OS},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ is a big constant. Constraints \eqref{eq:DEA1}-\eqref{eq:DEA4} were already present in the classical DEA model. Constraints (\ref{eq:DEA5OS}) make sure that the selection variables $z^{(k)}_o$ are well defined: if $z^{(k)}_o$ equals $0$, then $\beta_o^{(k)}$ equals $0$ too. Constraint (\ref{eq:DEA6OS}) models the number of features to be selected. Finally, constraints (\ref{eq:DEA7OS}) relate to the range of decision variables $z^{(k)}_o$. (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) has $K+O+2$ linear constraints and $I+ 2 \, O$ variables, where $I+O$ are continuous and $O$ are binary ones. Our numerical experiments show that this problem can be solved efficiently, although the solution time is affected by the value of the $M$ constant. The value of $M$, and thus the computational burden of the problem, can be reduced using an upper bound on the weight associated with output $o$, for each $o=1,\ldots,O$. It is not difficult to see that, without loss of optimality,
$\beta^{(k)}_o=0$ if $y_o^{(k)}=0$, and thus $z^{(k)}_o=0$. Otherwise, $\beta^{(k)}_o \le \frac{1}{y_o^{(k)}}$, by combining \eqref{eq:DEA1} and \eqref{eq:DEA2}. Thus, constraints \eqref{eq:DEA5OS} can be tighten to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\displaystyle
\beta^{(k)}_o = 0 && \forall o=1,\ldots,O, \mbox{such that } y_o^{(k)}=0\\
\beta^{(k)}_o \le \frac{1}{y_o^{(k)}} \,\, z^{(k)}_o && \forall o=1,\ldots,O, \mbox{such that } y_o^{(k)}>0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $z^{(k)}(p)$ denote the optimal selection variables to (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$), i.e., the $p$ outputs that yield the maximum efficiency for DMU $k$. Thus, the optimal solution value to (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$), denoted above by $v^{(k)}(p)$, is equal to $E^{(k)}(z^{(k)}(p))$. A few things are known about the maximum efficiency $v^{(k)}(p)$ as function of $p$. The efficiency $v^{(k)}(p)$ is non decreasing in $p$, i.e., the more outputs we select the better the efficiency of DMU $k$ can be. Moreover, in the extreme case when all outputs are considered, we have that $v^{(k)}(O)=E^{(k)}$. Thus, a plausible strategy to choose the value of $p$ is to look at the marginal contribution of an additional feature, i.e., $v^{(k)}(p+1) - v^{(k)}(p)$, and stop when this is below a threshold.
\subsection{Extensions}
\label{sec:extensions}
In this section we discuss several interesting extensions that can be carried out using the previous model as a basis. First, we present the formulation when both inputs and outputs are to be selected, all at once. Second, we model constraints on the weights attached to the outputs. Finally, we discuss how other attributes attached to the outputs, such as costs and correlations, may constrain the feature selection.
\subsubsection{Selection of inputs and outputs}
Note that up to now, and for the sake of clarity, we have focused on the selection of outputs. The selection of $\tilde{p}$ inputs from the $I$ potential ones can be included in a similar fashion. Indeed, let us consider the new binary variables $\tilde{z}^{(k)}_i$, equal to 1 if input $i$ can be used in the calculation of the efficiency for DMU $k$, and 0 otherwise. Hence, the Feature Selection for DMU $k$, (FSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$), where $\tilde{p}$ inputs and $p$ outputs are selected, can be written also as an MILP
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z}^{(k)},\tilde{\mathbf{z}}^{(k)})} \ \displaystyle \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.} \hfill (FSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\eqref{eq:DEA1}-\eqref{eq:DEA7OS}&& \nonumber\\
\alpha^{(k)}_i \le \tilde{M} \tilde{z}^{(k)}_i && \forall i=1,\ldots,I\label{eq:DEA252OS}\\
\sum_{i=1}^I \tilde{z}^{(k)}_i = \tilde{p} && \label{eq:DEA262OS}\\
\tilde{z}^{(k)}_i \in \{0,1\} && \forall i=1,\ldots,I\label{eq:DEA272OS},
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \tilde{M}$ is another big constant. Constraints (\ref{eq:DEA252OS})--(\ref{eq:DEA272OS}) are the counterparts of (\ref{eq:DEA5OS})--(\ref{eq:DEA7OS}) but modelling the selection of inputs instead of outputs. (FSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) has $K+O+I+3$ linear constraints and $2 \, I+ 2 \, O$ variables, where half of them are continuous and the other half binary. Although running times are not an issue for this model, one can lower them even further by finding tighter values of $M$ and $ \tilde{M}$. As above, this can be done using bounds on the inputs and the outputs.
\subsubsection{Modeling constraints on weights}
Our (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) improves the discriminatory power of the DEA model by focusing on a few outputs, and eliminating the rest from the calculation of the efficiency of DMU $k$. There is a strand of literature that, using also as a basis the discriminatory power, argue the necessity of controlling the values of the weights \citep{allen1997weights,GREEN1996461,joro2015data,PODINOVSKI2016916,ramon2010choice,doi101002ev1441}. In these works, it is assumed that we have upper and lower bounds on the weight $\beta^{(k)}_o$, say, $L^{(k)}_{o}$ and $U^{(k)}_{o}$, for $o = 1,\ldots,O$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
L^{(k)}_{o} \leq \beta^{(k)}_o \leq U^{(k)}_{o} & \forall o = 1,\ldots,O. \label{eq:lowerupperbound}
\end{eqnarray}
Gathering non trivial values for these bounds is not a straightforward task for the user in the presence of many outputs, as in dataset on benchmarking of electricity DSOs in our numerical section. In any case, we can enrich our (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$), to not only control whether an output can be used, but also the range of values for the corresponding weight. These bounds can be incorporated in constraints (\ref{eq:DEA5OS}) in (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) yielding
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
L^{(k)}_{o}z^{(k)}_o \leq \beta^{(k)}_o \leq U^{(k)}_{o} z^{(k)}_o & \forall o = 1,\ldots,O.
\end{array}
\eqno{(7')}
$$
There are a few observations to be made. First, the knowledge of upper bounds on the weights naturally tightens the value of $M$. Second, if there are meaningful lower bounds on the weights, i.e., if $L^{(k)}_{o}> 0$, then $z^{(k)}_o$ must be equal to $1$. Third, these positive lower bounds make the
selection problem (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) infeasible for small values of $p$. Indeed, this is the case when there are more than $p$ outputs with a positive lower bound.
\subsubsection{Modeling attributes of the outputs}
Outputs may have attributes attached to them, which may affect the selection. We will model two of those.
First, we will consider that outputs are different in nature and therefore we will attach a different cost to them. Let $c_o$ denote the cost associated with output $y_o, o = 1, \ldots, O$, which can measure the collection and the verification of this output in a repeated setting. To select $p$ outputs so that their total cost does not exceed a given amount $C$, we need to add to (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) the following constraint
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\sum_{o=1}^O c_o z^{(k)}_o \leq C. && \label{eq:DEAOScost}
\end{eqnarray}
Second, we can consider the outputs being partitioned into $S$ clusters, with outputs within a cluster being similar in terms of what they measure. In the context of benchmarking electricity Distribution System Operators (network companies), clusters may related to the many different measurements of connections, transformers, lines, cables, etc. Let $\mathcal{H}= \{H_1, \ldots, H_S\}$ denote the partitioning of the outputs, namely $H_\ell \cap H_s = \emptyset$ and $\cup_{\ell=1}^S H_\ell=\{1,\ldots,O\}$. Given the similarity of outputs within a cluster, we will impose that at most (respectively, at least) $p^{\rm (max)}_\ell$ (respectively, $p^{\rm (min)}_\ell$) outputs can be selected from $H_\ell$. In order to do so, we need to add to (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) the following constraint
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\sum_{o \in H_\ell} z^{(k)}_o \leq p^{\rm (max)}_\ell && \forall \ell=1,\ldots,S. \label{eq:DEAOScluster1}\\
\sum_{o \in H_\ell} z^{(k)}_o \geq p^{\rm (min)}_\ell && \forall \ell=1,\ldots,S. \label{eq:DEAOScluster2}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we have correlation $\rho_{oo'}$ between outputs $o$ and $o'$ as another attribute. If two outputs are highly correlated, we may be interested in using only one of them, since the information they provide is almost the same and can derive in the problem of multicollinearity \cite{Bertsimas2016ORF}. Hence, we want to impose that if $\rho_{oo'}$ is greater than a preselected threshold, then outputs $o$ and $o'$ cannot be chosen simultaneously. We can model this by first defining a 0--1 matrix $R$, in which $R_{oo'}=0$ if $\rho_{oo'}$ is lower than the threshold, and $1$ otherwise. Then, we have simply to add to (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$) the constraints
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
z^{(k)}_o + z^{(k)}_{o'} \leq 2- R_{oo'}, & \forall o < o'.\label{eq:correlmodel}
\end{eqnarray}
The choice of the threshold have to be done with care, since some works like \cite{nunamaker1985using} suggest that the addition of a highly correlated variable may increase the efficiency.
Throughout this section, we have made the selection of outputs individually for DMU $k$ with the goal to maximize the efficiency of DMU $k$. Therefore, for two different DMUs, $k$ and $ k'$, the selected outputs, $z^{(k)}(p)$ and $z^{(k')}(p)$, may differ. In model specification one is interested in finding the most discriminatory features in order to build a valid model for all DMUs. With this in mind, we propose in the next section a mathematical optimization model that selects the outputs jointly for all DMUs, ensuring they will be the same ones for all DMUs.
\section{The joint selection model\label{sec:singleOS}}
In this section, we address the problem in which the selected outputs have to be the same for all DMUs. First, this joint selection is made maximizing the average efficiency of all DMUs, yielding an MILP formulation. The model can be enriched as in previous section with input selection decision variables, as well as constraints modeling desirable properties about the selected features. Second, we propose alternatives to the maximization of the average efficiency when making the joint selection of outputs, such as the maximization of the weighted average efficiency, the minimum efficiency, or a percentile of the efficiencies. The joint selection model can again be formulated as an MILP problem. We also consider the minimization of the square of the Euclidean distance from each DMU efficiency to the ideal value of 1, where the joint selection model can be rewritten as a Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming problem.
\subsection{The selection model for all DMUs}
To obtain all efficiencies $E^{(k)}$ simultaneously, one can solve the following single-objective Linear Programming formulation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K E^{(k)} = \mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta})} \ \displaystyle \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)}
y_o^{(k)} \label{eqn:ofsingle}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(j)} - \sum_{i=1}^I \alpha_i^{(k)} x_i^{(j)} \le 0 && \forall j=1,\ldots,K; \forall k=1,\ldots,K \label{eq:DEA1single}\\
\sum_{i=1}^I \alpha_i^{(k)} x_i^{(k)} =1 && \forall k=1,\ldots,K \label{eq:DEA2single}\\
\alpha \in {\mathbb R}^{I \cdot K}_+ && \label{eq:DEA3single}\\
\beta \in {\mathbb R}^{O \cdot K}_+. && \label{eq:DEA4single}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to see that this problem decomposes by DMU, and that each of the subproblems are equivalent to (DEA$^{(k)}$), which optimal solution value is $E^{(k)}$.
We continue with the model in which $p$ outputs are to be selected from the $O$ available ones, the same ones for all DMUs. The goal in this section is to maximize the average efficiency across all DMUs. Let $z_o$ be equal to 1 if output $o$ can be used in the calculation of the efficiencies, and 0 otherwise. The decision variables $\beta_o^{(k)}$ and $\alpha_i^{(k)}$ are defined as above. The Output Selection for DEA problem, (OSDEA$(p)$), where $p$ outputs must be selected such that the average efficiency across all DMUs is maximized, can be written as the following MILP:
\begin{eqnarray}
v(p) := \mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z})} \ \displaystyle \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.} \hfill (OSDEA$(p)$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\eqref{eq:DEA1single}-\eqref{eq:DEA4single} && \nonumber\\
\beta^{(k)}_o \le M z_o && \forall o=1,\ldots,O; \forall k=1,\ldots,K\label{eq:DEA5OSNEW}\\
\sum_{o=1}^O z_o = p && \label{eq:DEA6OSNEW}\\
z_o \in \{0,1\} && \forall o=1,\ldots,O\label{eq:DEA7OSNEW},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$ is a big constant. Constraints \eqref{eq:DEA1single}-\eqref{eq:DEA4single} are necessary to find the weights of the inputs and the outputs that the efficiency for each DMU. Constraints (\ref{eq:DEA5OSNEW}) make sure that the selection variables $z_o$ are well defined with respect to $\beta_o^{(k)}$. Constraint (\ref{eq:DEA6OSNEW}) models the number of features to be selected. Finally, constraints (\ref{eq:DEA7OSNEW}) relate to the range of decision variables $z_o$. (OSDEA$(p)$) has $K(K+O+1)+1$ linear constraints and $K(O+I)+O$ variables, where $K(O+I)$ are continuous and $O$ are binary ones. We have multiplied the size of the problem by $K$, except for the number of binary variables, which are still one per output. Our numerical experiments show that this problem can still be solved efficiently. Moreover, and as in previous section, the computational burden of the problem depends on the value $M$ and we can tighten it using similar bounds. As before, we might extend the model as in Section \ref{sec:extensions}, with input selection decision variables, as well as constraints to model desirable properties of the outputs.
Let $z(p)$ denote the optimal selection variables to (OSDEA$(p)$), i.e., the $p$ outputs that yield the maximum average efficiency. Thus, the optimal solution value to (OSDEA$(p)$), denoted above by $v(p)$, is equal to $\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K E^{(k)}(z(p))$. In general, we have that $E^{(k)}(z(p)) \le E^{(k)}(z^{(k)}(p))$, since $z^{(k)}(p)$ is the best strategy for DMU $k$. As in previous section, the maximum average efficiency $v(p)$ is non decreasing in $p$, i.e., the more outputs we select the better the average efficiency can be. In the limit case, we have that $v(O)=\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K E^{(k)}$. The number of selected outputs $p$ is a parameter of our model. The user should make the choice of $p$ after inspecting the curve $v(p)$. As before, a plausible strategy to choose the value of $p$ is to look at the marginal contribution of an additional feature, i.e., $v(p+1) - v(p)$, and stop when this is below a threshold. The question is whether this marginal contribution is nonincreasing, i.e., $v(p+2) - v(p+1) \le v(p+1) - v(p)$, for all $p=1,\ldots,O-2$. Below, we show a toy example where this inequality is not satisfied, and thus $v(p)$ is not a concave function of $p$. In the numerical section, devoted to the benchmarking of electricity DSOs, the function $v(\cdot)$ that we obtain empirically is concave, and thus, not convex.
\begin{counterex} \label{counterex:concave}
Consider $5$ DMUs, each one described by a single input and four different outputs, as can be seen in Table~\ref{tab:Counter2}. When performing the feature selection procedure, the results that we obtain are the following. In the case of selecting just one output, say $p=1$, the procedure chooses ``Output 1'' and the obtained efficiencies are then just the same as the values of ``Output 1" for each DMU. Hence, the average efficiency is 0.8. When two outputs are selected, the procedure chooses ``Output 1'' and ``Output 2''. These outputs make the average efficiency to be 0.867. Furthermore, if three outputs are selected, the procedure chooses ``Output 2'', ``Output 3'' and ``Output 4''. These outputs make all the DMUs efficient (i.e., efficiency equal to $1$) and thus the average efficiency is 1. Clearly,
\[v(3)-v(2) >v(2)-v(1),\]
and therefore $v(\cdot)$ is not concave.
\begin{table}
$$
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|cccc|}
\hline
DMU & Input 1 & Output 1 & Output 2 & Output 3 & Output 4 \\
\hline
1 & 1 & 0.6 & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\
2 & 1 & 0.7 & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ & $\frac{1}{3}$ \\
3 & 1 & 0.8 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
4 & 1 & 0.9 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
5 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$$
\caption{Toy example for which $v(\cdot)$ is not concave}
\end{table}\label{tab:Counter2}
\end{counterex}
A greedy approach is provided in \cite{pastor2002statistical} to address the feature selection problem in a nested fashion. In short, this greedy nested procedure works as follows.
For $p=1$, (OSDEA$(p)$) is solved to optimality. Let $o^{\rm}(1)$ be its best output. For $p=2$, (OSDEA$(p)$) is solved to optimality, with the additional constraint that $z_{o^{\rm}(1)}=1$. Let $o^{\rm}(2)$ be its best output. In general, for $p$, (OSDEA$(p)$) is solved to optimality, with the additional constraints that $z_{o^{\rm}(1)}=z_{o^{\rm}(2)}=\ldots=z_{o^{\rm}(p-1)}=1$. Let $o^{\rm}(p)$ be its best output. Clearly, this greedy approach returns a sequence of outputs that is nested, i.e., the outputs selected in iteration $p-1$ will also be selected in iteration $p$, for all $p$.
The following is a toy example that illustrates that the approach in \cite{pastor2002statistical} does not provide, in general, the optimal solution to (OSDEA$(p)$).
\begin{counterex} \label{counterex:nested}
Consider $4$ DMUs, each one described by a single input and three different outputs, as can be seen in Table~\ref{tab:Counter}. When performing the feature selection procedure, the results that we obtain are the following. In the case of selecting just one output, say $p=1$, the procedure chooses ``Output 1'' and the obtained efficiencies are then just the same as the values of ``Output 1" for each DMU. When two outputs are selected, the procedure chooses ``Output 2'' and ``Output 3''. These outputs make all the DMUs efficient. However, if either ``Output 1'' and ``Output 2'' or ``Output 1'' and ``Output 3'' were used instead, the efficiencies would be \{0.85,0.9,0.95,1\} and \{1,1,0.927,1\}, respectively.
\begin{table}
$$
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|ccc|}
\hline
DMU & Input 1 & Output 1 & Output 2 & Output 3 \\
\hline
1 & 1 & 0.85 & 0.2 & 0.8 \\
2 & 1 & 0.95 & 0.4 & 0.6 \\
3 & 1 & 0.9 & 0.6 & 0.4 \\
4 & 1 & 1 & 0.8 & 0.2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$$
\caption{Toy example for which the approach in \cite{pastor2002statistical} does not provide the optimal solution to (OSDEA$(p)$)}
\end{table}\label{tab:Counter}
\end{counterex}
\subsection{Alternative objective functions}
In (OSDEA$(p)$), we maximize the average efficiency across all DMUs. In this section, we propose other objective functions $\phi()$ to select the outputs.
A straightforward generalization would be to consider the weighted average efficiency.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:quadratic}
\phi^{\rm (w)}(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z}) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{o=1}^O \omega^{(k)} \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)}.
\end{equation}
This is relevant if the DMUs are not equally important. If there is only one input, say cost in $\$$, we could for example use $w^{(k)}=x^{(k)}$, and (\ref{eq:quadratic}) would correspond to minimizing the total sector loss from inefficiency.
Instead of the weighted average efficiency, one could be interested in measuring how far each DMU is from efficiency. This can be measured with the following quadratic function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:quadratic2}
\phi^{\rm (q)}(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z}) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K (1- \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)}y_o^{(k)})^2.
\end{equation}
Alternatively, our goal could have been maximizing the worst efficiency, i.e., the minimum one
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:quadratic3}
\phi^{\rm (m)}(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z})= \min_{k=1,\ldots,K} \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)}.
\end{equation}
This is relevant, for example, if outputs are selected with the aim of being Rawlsian fair towards all DMUs.
Instead of the minimum, we could have optimized another $\pi$-percentile, $\pi =1,\ldots,100$, of the efficiency distribution. Assuming that the efficiencies are given in non-decreasing order,
$ \sum_{o=1}^O\beta_o^{(k)}\mathbf{y}_o^{(k)} \le \sum_{o=1}^O\beta_o^{(k+1)}y_o^{(k+1)}$, for all $k$, we would have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:percentile}
\phi^{(\pi)}(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z}) = \sum_{o=1}^O\beta_o^{(k(\pi))}y_o^{(k(\pi))},
\end{equation}
with $k(\pi)=\lfloor K \, \dfrac{\pi}{100}\rfloor.$
The Output Selection for DEA problem where the goal is to maximize $\phi^{\rm (w)}$ in \eqref{eq:quadratic}, (OSDEA$(p)$)$^{\rm (w)}$, can be formulated in the same fashion as (OSDEA$(p)$).
The Output Selection for DEA problem where the goal is to maximize $\phi^{\rm (q)}$ in \eqref{eq:quadratic2}, (OSDEA$(p)$)$^{\rm (q)}$, can be formulated similarly to (OSDEA$(p)$). While the feasible region remains the same, the objective function becomes quadratic and the goal is to minimize it, yielding a Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming formulation.
The Output Selection for DEA problem where the goal is to maximize the minimum efficiency $\phi^{\rm (m)}$ in \eqref{eq:quadratic3}, (OSDEA$(p)$)$^{\rm (m)}$ can be written as an MILP. Here, we need to define a new variable $\lambda$ to rewrite the minimum in the objective function, and include the corresponding constraints to ensure that the new variable is well defined.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rewritemin}
\lambda \le \sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)} \quad k=1,\ldots,K,
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z},\lambda)} \ \displaystyle \lambda
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.} \hfill (OSDEA$(p)$)$^{\rm (m)}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\displaystyle
\eqref{eq:DEA1single}-\eqref{eq:DEA4single}; \eqref{eq:DEA5OS}-\eqref{eq:DEA7OS}; \eqref{eq:rewritemin}. && \nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
The Output Selection for DEA problem where the goal is to maximize the $\pi$-percentile $\phi^{(\pi)}$ in \eqref{eq:percentile}, (OSDEA$(p)$)$^{(\pi)}$, can also be written as an MILP, similarly as in \cite{benati2015using}. We need to define a new variable $\lambda$ that is equal to the percentile, as well as include the corresponding constraints to ensure that the new variable is well defined. We also need a new binary variable, $\delta^{(k)}$, that is equal to $1$ if the efficiency of DMU $k$,
$\sum_{o=1}^O\beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)}$, is at least $\lambda$ and $0$ otherwise.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{maximize}_{(\bm{\alpha},\bm{\beta},\mathbf{z},\lambda,\delta)} \ \displaystyle \lambda
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent {\em s.t.} \hfill (OSDEA$(p)$)$^{(\pi)}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle
\eqref{eq:DEA1single}-\eqref{eq:DEA4single}; \eqref{eq:DEA5OS}-\eqref{eq:DEA7OS} && \nonumber\\
\sum_{o=1}^O \beta_o^{(k)} y_o^{(k)} \geq \lambda - M' (1- \delta^{(k)}) && \forall k=1,\ldots,K \label{eq:DEA8singleOSpercentile}\\
\sum_{k=1}^{K} \delta^{(k)} = \lfloor K \, \dfrac{\pi}{100}\rfloor \label{eq:DEA9singleOSpercentile}\\
\delta^{(k)} \in \{0,1\} && \forall k=1,\ldots,K \label{eq:DEA10singleOSpercentile},
\end{eqnarray}
with $M'$ a big constant.
\section{Numerical section}\label{sec:numerical}
In this section, we illustrate the models in previous sections using a real-world dataset in benchmarking of electricity DSOs \cite{agrell2017regulatory,agrell2018theory}. Here, we have $K=182$ DMUs, $O=100$ outputs, and $I=1$ input. As customary, each output has been normalized dividing it by the difference between the maximum and the minimum values of the output.
Figure \ref{fig:Corrp10} displays the correlations between the outputs, with darker colours pointing at higher correlations. This matrix reveals subsets of outputs highly correlated with each other, such as outputs 23 to 31, where correlations are above 0.5, except for $\mbox{corr}(23,27)=0.37$ and $\mbox{corr}(27,29)=0.35$.
The experiments were run on a computer with an Intel$^\circledR$ Core{$^\textrm{TM}$} i7-6700 processor at $3.4$ GHz using $16$ GB of RAM, running Windows 10 Home. All the optimization problems have been solved using Python 3.5 interface \cite{pthn} with Gurobi 7.0.1 solver, \cite{gurobi}.
We have solved (OSDEA$(p)$) for $p=1,\ldots,10$, with $M$ equal to $1000$. We have run the approach in \cite{pastor2002statistical} to provide (OSDEA$(p)$) with an initial solution. A time limit of 300 seconds has been imposed, although this is not binding for small values of $p$. Once (OSDEA$(p)$) has selected the $p$ outputs, $p=1,\ldots,10$, we calculate the efficiencies of the DSOs obtained with the chosen outputs. The results are summarized in Table \ref{table:summary statistics}, and Figures \ref{fig:distFSallp} and \ref{fig:distFSBoxplot}, while the correlation matrix in Figure \ref{fig:Corrp10-selected} highlights the correlations between the selected outputs.
Table \ref{table:summary statistics} presents summary statistics of the distribution of the efficiencies, namely the minimum, the maximum, the average (i.e., $v(p)$), the standard deviation, the quartiles $q_i$, and the interquartile range (i.e., $q_3$-$q_1$). The last column of this table reports the selected outputs. Figure \ref{fig:distFSBoxplot} displays the box-and-whiskers plots as well as the average efficiency $v(p)$, and Figure \ref{fig:distFSallp} the histograms of the distribution of the efficiencies. The average efficiency improves with the number of selected outputs, $p$, increasing from $0.5555$ to $0.8732$. Figure \ref{fig:distFSBoxplot} shows that the marginal effect of increasing $p$ to $p+1$ is decreasing for this dataset. When looking at the quartiles, we can see that there is a substantial improvement too by increasing $p$. When the number of selected features, $p$, is small the chosen features give poor efficiencies to some of the DMUs. Indeed, for $p\le5$, the minimum efficiency is below $0.1200$. As $p$ increases, we can see that this minimum increases rapidly with $p$. The first quartile increases from $0.4743$ to $0.7902$. Similarly, for the median, we have $0.5637$ to $0.9090$, while for the third quartile $0.6300$ to $1.0000$. The maximum efficiency is already maximal, i.e., equal to $1.0000$, for the smallest value of $p$, and remains like that for all values of $p$ tested. In general, the standard deviation of the efficiencies decreases with $p$, while the interquartile range increases. In terms of the correlations, for small values of $p$, the selected outputs are highly correlated with each other. For instance, for $p=2$, we choose outputs 11 and 31, for which $\mbox{corr}(11,31)=0.91$; while for $p=3$, we choose outputs 21, 31, 54, with $\mbox{corr}(21,31)=0.89$, $\mbox{corr}(21,54)=0.88$ and $\mbox{corr}(31,54)=0.91.$ Actually, for $p=2,\ldots,5$, the smallest correlation between the selected outputs is equal to $0.61$. For $p=10$, there are only two outputs, for which we can find correlations below 0.5, namely outputs 19 and 74.
\begin{table}
\begin{scriptsize}
$$
\begin{tabular}{|c|cc|cc|cccc|l|}
\hline
$p$&$\min$&$\max$&\textrm{mean}&\textrm{st. dev.}&\textrm{$q_1$}&\textrm{$q_2$}&\textrm{$q_3$}&\textrm{$q_3$-$q_1$}&\textrm{selected features}\\
\hline
1&0.0000&1.0000&0.5555&0.1695&0.4743&0.5637&0.6300&0.1557&\textrm{59}\\
2&0.0006&1.0000&0.6553&0.1708&0.5772&0.6682&0.7482&0.1710&\textrm{11 31}\\
3&0.0009&1.0000&0.7118&0.1643&0.6391&0.7222&0.7839&0.1448&\textrm{21 31 54}\\
4&0.1161&1.0000&0.7487&0.1511&0.6645&0.7479&0.8404&0.1759&\textrm{16 21 31 59}\\
5&0.1161&1.0000&0.7812&0.1494&0.6962&0.7738&0.8911&0.1949&\textrm{16 21 31 59 94}\\
6&0.3105&1.0000&0.8082&0.1402&0.7222&0.8068&0.9305&0.2083&\textrm{16 19 21 31 59 94}\\
7&0.3105&1.0000&0.8290&0.1404&0.7474&0.8355&0.9545&0.2071&\textrm{16 19 21 31 59 91 94}\\
8&0.3105&1.0000&0.8462&0.1402&0.7658&0.8689&0.9802&0.2144&\textrm{16 19 21 31 59 91 94 97}\\
9&0.3105&1.0000&0.8610&0.1370&0.7789&0.8841&0.9972&0.2183&\textrm{16 19 21 31 59 74 91 94 97}\\
10&0.4576&1.0000&0.8732&0.1304&0.7902&0.9090&1.0000&0.2098&\textrm{16 19 21 29 31 59 74 91 94 97}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$$
\caption{Summary statistics for the distribution of efficiencies, for $p=1,\ldots,10$}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{table}\label{table:summary statistics}
In real-life applications, the DMUs may be consulted on the chosen outputs. This may be useful to ensure that the resulting choices make conceptual sense. However, such involvement is likely to lead strategic behavior. The evaluated DMUs may try to influence the choice of outputs in their own advantage.
This may lead to a game between the DMUs (the players), each of which has preferred selections of outputs (strategies), and the modeler, who is trying to make a reasonable selection based on the resulting efficiencies of all DMUs (the outcome).
To start investigating the challenges of such strategic behavior, we will consider a simple game or social choice problem. Without loss of generality, we assume that $p$ is fixed. We assume that there are $K$ players, the DMUs, and $K+1$ strategies or choices, namely the selection of outputs $z^{k}(p)$ according to the individual preferences as determined by (OSDEA$^{(k)}(p)$), $k=1,…,K$, and to the joint selection $z(p)$ as determined by (OSDEA$(p)$).
We will think of the joint selection $z(p)$ as the default or status quo selection and the question is now if one of the individual selections $z^{k}(p)$ would be preferred by a large group of DMUs. If so, the modeler is likely to face strong opposition to his proposed selection of outputs.
For DMU $k'$, the selection of outputs made with (OSDEA$^{(k')}(p)$), $z^{(k')}(p)$, is at least as attractive as the one made with (OSDEA$(p)$), $z(p)$, or in other words, the reported efficiency with $z^{(k')}(p)$ is at least as high as the one with $z(p)$. However, for any other DMU $k\not = k'$, it is not clear whether the selection $z^{(k')}(p)$ reports a higher efficiency for DMU $k$ or not. One would like to know how many DMUs prefer the joint strategy $z(p)$ over the $K$ individual strategies $z^{(k')}(p)$. The so-called cross-efficiency measures this preference. Let $\Delta^{(k)}(k')=E^{(k)}(\mathbf{z}^{(k')}(p))-E^{(k)}(\mathbf{z}(p))$, with $k,k'=1,\ldots,K$, be equal to the difference in reported efficiency for DMU $k$ by the joint selection model and the individual selection model for DMU $k'$. We can define
\[\Pi(k') = \frac{100}{K} \, \mbox{cardinality} (\{k \, : \, \Delta^{(k)}(k')>0\}),\]
i.e., the percentage of DMUs that prefer the individual strategy of DMU $k'$ over the joint one.
In Figure \ref{fig:distFSindvsjointallp}, we illustrate the share of DMUs that prefer individual selections to the joint selection. As for the joint strategy, a time limit of 300 seconds has been imposed to (OSDEA$^{(k')}(p)$), although this is not binding for any value of $p$. We have binned the support to the individual selections in intervals of width 5\%. The height of the first bar indicates how many individual strategies are preferred by [0\%,5\%) of the DMUs, the height of the second bar corresponds to [5\%,10\%) DMUs supporting it, etc. When $p$ increases, we see that less individual strategies are preferred by many DMUs over the joint strategy. Indeed, for values of $p$ above 5, the joint strategy is supported by at least 50\% of the DMUs over any of the individual strategies, while for values of $p$ above 7, this becomes at least 60\%. We can therefore conclude that, in this simple game, as the model gets larger, it becomes less likely that a large group of DMUs will agree on alternative to the modeler’s selection.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper, we have proposed a single-model approach for feature selection in DEA. When the objective is the average efficiency of the DMUs, the problem can be written as an MILP formulation. We have considered other objectives such as the squared distance to the ideal point, where all the DMUs are efficient, yielding a Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming formulation; and we have shown how to enrich the model to allow for situations where different features come with different costs, e.g., related to data collection or data quality, and where features can be grouped and restrictions can be placed on the use of different groups of features in the specific industrial application. Our numerical section illustrates that we can find good solutions in a reasonable amount of time for the case in which the average efficiency is the goal, which boils down to an MILP.
Our approach deviates from previous literature on feature selection in several ways. It is purely based on mathematical programming as opposed to a mixture of statistical and mathematical programming methods, where the desirable properties above can be modeled in a natural way. It works directly with the original features as opposed to dimensionality reduction techniques, which create artificial features. It focuses on the choice of features from a large set of potential candidate features. Finally, it can handle different objective functions to reflect the underlying objective of the modeler and the application context, e.g., the conflicts between different groups of DMUs in the evaluation.
In this paper, we have also introduced an element of game theory. This is relevant since the evaluated parties in applied projects typically will try to influence the feature selection. It is therefore important to think about the conflict between choosing features from a joint and an individual point of view. We have shown how conflicts can be partially analyzed via the cross-efficiency matrix and we have illustrated the conflict between individual and joint perspectives in the numerical application. In the future, it would however be relevant to further explore these issues. One limitation of our analysis above is that we only consider $K$ specific alternatives to the modeler’s joint selection. In theory, there are, of course, many more alternatives. Indeed, any subset of size $p$ from the set of potential outputs $O$ could potentially muster the support of many DMUs against the modeler’s proposal. The strategic analysis of all possible alternatives is likely to become overwhelming. It may therefore be relevant to introduce some restrictions. One idea is to detect relevant clusters of DMUs and make the selection of features tailored to them. By looking at likely interest groups, the game theoretical analysis may be less complex. Groupings could, for example, refer to small versus large, start-up versus well-established, urban versus rural, and investor-owned versus cooperatively owned DMUs. Also, it would be interesting to add constraints to the feature selection model in order to guarantee the support of a number of DMUs, e.g., a majority of DMUs, hereby modeling more general game theoretical aspects, such as the scope for forming coalitions.
\section*{Acknowledgements}{This research has been financed in part by the EC H2020 MSCA RISE NeEDS Project (Grant agreement ID: 822214); the EU COST Action MI-NET (TD 1409); and research projects MTM2015-65915R, Spain, FQM-329, Junta de Andaluc\'{\i}a, these two with EU ERF funds. This support is gratefully acknowledged.}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro} To unveil the mystery of dark matter, researchers make
great efforts in detecting the effects from the constituents of dark
matter. Many different techniques are used in these efforts. We have
developed a new method: a multi-cathode counter to measure the rate
of emission of single electrons from a cathode of a proportional
counter that can be attributed to the effect from hidden photons
(HPs) of cold dark matter (CDM)~\cite{Ref1}, ~\cite{Ref2}. A very
substantial feature of this method is that free electrons of a
degenerate electron gas of a metal are used as a target for HPs, and
the expected effect is proportional to the surface of a cathode of a
counter. This makes our technique different from the volume
detectors that use valence electrons~\cite{Ref3} as a target. This
could be very substantial, accounting for a fact that there is still
no strong theory on HPs. Our detector registers single electrons
emitted from a cathode of a counter, and it has been calibrated by
UV light to ensure that it is very sensitive to the energy of a HP
of about a few eV, provided this energy is above the work function
of a metal of a cathode of a counter. Our detector was tested in
exactly this energy range that is very important for the reliability
of the obtained data. In interpreting the results of any experiment
the important question should be addressed whether the detector has
been calibrated in the energy range for which the interpretation has
been made. Otherwise the interpretation may be not valid.
\section{Methods}
\label{methods} A schematic of the multi-cathode counter is shown in
figure 1.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig1.eps}
\vspace{0.6cm} \caption{\label{fig1} Schematic of the multi-cathode
counter. HV1, HV2, HV3 - potentials at cathodes 1, 2 and 3, PA -
preamplifier, NI-5152 - 8 bit digitizer}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The effect measured by this technique is determined by the
difference $R_{MCC}$ of two count rates~\cite{Ref1}: the one
measured in the Configuration 1 when electrons emitted from a
cathode of the counter reach a central wire (anode) of the counter
and the other in the Configuration 2 when the electrons emitted from
a cathode are scattered back by the locking negative potential of
the second cathode near the first one. If we assume that the
emission of the electron is the result of the conversion of a dark
photon with mass (energy) $m_{\gamma'}$, then the power that can be
prescribed to this rate $R_{MCC}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:1} P=2\alpha^{2}\chi^{2}\rho_{CDM}A_{cath}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\alpha=cos(\theta)$ and $\theta$ is the angle
between the direction of the HP field and surface of the cathode. If
the HP vector is distributed randomly, then $\alpha^2 = 2/3$;
$\rho_{CDM} \approx 0.3 GeV/cm^3$ is the energy density of CDM that
we assume to be equal to the energy density of the HPs; $A_{cath}$
is the area of the cathode of the counter, and $\chi$ is a
dimensionless parameter that quantifies the kinetic mixing, as
explained in~\cite{Ref4}. If dark matter is composed entirely of
HPs, then this power is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2} P=m_{\gamma'} \cdot R_{MCC} /\eta
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\eta$ is the quantum efficiency for a photon with
energy $m_{\gamma'}$ to yield a single electron from the surface of
the metal. By combining equations (1) and (2) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3}
\begin{split}
\chi_{sens}=2.9\cdot10^{-12}\left(\frac{R_{MCC}}{\eta\cdot 1
Hz}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{m_{\gamma'}}{1
eV}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{0.3\,{\rm
GeV/cm^3}}{\rho_{CDM}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{1
m^{2}}{A_{MCC}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2/3}}{\alpha}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is assumed herein that the quantum efficiency $\eta$ for the
conversion of the HPs at the surface of the metal cathode is equal
to that of a real photon of the same energy.
The apparatus and data analysis have been described in~\cite{Ref1},
~\cite{Ref2}. The results obtained with a counter with copper and
aluminum cathodes filled with an $Ar + CH_4$ (10\%) mixture at 1 bar
have been presented in~\cite{Ref2}. Herein, we present new results
of our measurements during the 111 days obtained with a counter with
an aluminum cathode filled with a mixture of $Ne + CH_4$ (10\%) at 1
bar. Using this mixture, it was possible to decrease the high
voltage applied to the Cathodes 1 and 2 by approximately 450 V,
which resulted in the decrease of leakage current. Thus, we produced
a substantial improvement in the work of the counter and obtained
the lowest result for $r_{MCC} = R_{MCC}/A_{cath} = (- 0.33 \pm
0.7)\cdot 10^{-6} Hz/cm^2$.
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{results} The results of measurements in the Configurations 1
and 2 are presented at figure 2.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig2.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig2} The count rates measured in the
Configurations 1 (circles) and 2 (squares). The temperature of the
counter varied in the region from $5^{o}$C to $15^{o}$C}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The limits obtained from the analysis of these data are presented in
the figure 3. As can be seen from this figure, we have achieved some
progress with a mixture of $Ne + CH_4$ (10\%). This result is still
within the limits determined by the luminosity of the Sun, but we
should note that the physics of the processes in the interior of the
stars with high temperature and density plasma, still unattainable
in terrestrial laboratories, may be very different from the physics
in our case.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig3.eps}
\figcaption{\label{fig3} Limits at a 95\% CL obtained from the
series of measurements Cu-1, Cu-2 and Al-1~\cite{Ref2} and also Al-2
with a mixture $Ne + CH_4$ (10\%). Here the Tokyo limits are
from~\cite{Ref5} and the FUNK-1 limits from~\cite{Ref6}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our limits are also higher than the ones obtained with the volume
detectors~\cite{Ref3}, but as emphasized earlier, we used the free
electrons of a degenerate electron gas as a target in our detector,
whereas, the target in volume detectors are valence electrons. The
physics of these two cases may be very different. Further
improvements can be achieved cooling the detector until lower
temperatures diminish the contribution of thermionic noise from the
impurities on the surface of the wires. We are also developing a new
detector with a nickel cathode, as it has a relatively high work
function.
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Acknowledgments} The work was supported by the basic research
program of INR RAS. The authors would like to thank Enago
(www.enago.com) for the English language review.
\vspace{3mm}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
A \emph{non-backtracking walk} in a graph is a sequence of pairwise adjacent edges such that no edge is traversed twice in succession, i.e., the walk does not contain \emph{backtracks}. Non-backtracking walks are known to mix faster than standard random walks \citep{alon07}, whereas \emph{non-backtracking cycles} (i.e. closed non-backtracking walks) contain important topological information from the so-called \emph{length spectrum} of the graph \citep{Torres2019}. The associated \emph{non-backtracking matrix} is the unnormalized transition matrix of a random walker that does not trace backtracks, and it has many applications such as community detection \citep{bordenave2015,krzakala2013spectral}, influencer identification \citep{morone2016collective,morone2015influence}, graph distance \citep{Torres2019,mellor2019}, etc. Additionally, the \emph{non-backtracking centrality} of nodes, defined in terms of the principal eigenvector of the non-backtracking matrix, has more desirable properties than the standard eigenvector centrality \citep{martin2014localization}.
The non-backtracking framework has also been adapted to directed networks \citep{arrigo2017directed}, weighted networks \citep{kempton2016non}, and multi-layer networks \citep{arrigo2018exponential}. In this paper, to avoid repetition we use the prefix ``NB'' to mean non-backtracking. For example, we refer to the non-backtracking matrix as the NB-matrix.
The eigenvalues of the NB-matrix (or NB-eigenvalues for short) are related to certain kinds of spreading dynamics. \citet{karrer2014percolation} and \citet{hamilton2014tight} showed that the percolation threshold is approximated by the inverse of the largest NB-eigenvalue $\lambda_1$. This implies that the epidemic threshold of susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR) dynamics can also be approximated by $\lambda_1$ \citep{pastor2015epidemic,newman2002spread}. Furthermore, \citet{shrestha2015message} argued the same for susceptible-infectious-susceptible (SIS) dynamics, though \citet{castellano2018relevance} highlight that this may only hold for networks with certain amounts of degree heterogeneity, and propose a fully non-backtracking version of SIS dynamics where the NB-walks also play a large role. Whether one is talking about the percolation threshold or the epidemic threshold on SIR or SIS dynamics, $\lambda_1$ of the NB-matrix provides a better approximation to the true epidemic threshold than the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix \citep{shrestha2015message,karrer2014percolation}.
Given the importance of the largest NB-eigenvalue in network dynamics, we ask: \textbf{which nodes have the largest influence on the largest NB-eigenvalue?} In the cases of SIR and SIS dynamics, answering this question will lead to targeted immunization strategies, as it is equivalent to asking which are the nodes whose removal from the network causes the epidemic threshold to increase the most. In the case of percolation, this is equivalent to determining which nodes' removal will put the network closer to splitting into many connected components. Operationally, we frame this question as follows.
\begin{problem}
Consider a graph $G$ with largest NB-eigenvalue $\lambda_1$. Given an arbitrary node $c$, define $\lambda_1(c)$ as the largest NB-eigenvalue of the network after removing $c$. Define $\lambda_1 - \lambda_1(c)$ as the \emph{eigen-drop induced by $c$}. \textbf{Which node $c$ induces the maximum eigen-drop?}
\end{problem}
The contributions of the present work are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We develop the spectral theory of the NB-matrix to study the behavior of its eigenvalues under the removal of a node.
\item For Problem 1, we propose two new centrality measures, \emph{\mbox{$X$-degree}{}} and \emph{\mbox{$X$-non-backtracking} (or \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}) centrality}. Further, \mbox{$X$-degree}{} can be computed in approximately log-linear time in the number of nodes.
\item Our experiments show that immunization strategies induced by \mbox{$X$-degree}{} and \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality are more effective than other methods.
\end{itemize}
In Section~\ref{sec:background} we present the necessary background theory. In Section~\ref{sec:theory} we develop a spectral perturbation theory of the NB-matrix. We use this theory in Section~\ref{sec:immunization} to introduce two new centrality measures and argue why they are effective at identifying nodes with largest eigen-drops. In Section~\ref{sec:related-work} we review previous studies related to the present work. In Section~\ref{sec:experiments} we provide experimental evidence for our claims. We conclude the paper in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Background}\label{sec:background}
Let $G$ be a simple undirected graph with node set $V$ and edge set $E$. We consider the set of directed edges $\overline{E}$ where each undirected edge $(i, j) \in E$ gives rise to two directed edges $i \to j \in \overline{E}$ and $j \to i \in \overline{E}$. A \emph{walk} in $G$ is a sequence of directed edges $i_1 \to j_1$, \ldots, $i_k \to j_k$, where $j_r = i_{r+1}$ for each $r=1,\ldots, k-1$. Here, $k$ is the \emph{length} of the walk. A walk is \emph{closed} if $j_k = i_1$. A \emph{backtrack} is a walk of length $2$ of the form $i \to j, j \to i$. A walk is a \emph{non-backtracking walk}, or \emph{NB-walk}, if no two consecutive edges in it form a backtrack. The \emph{non-backtracking matrix}, or \emph{NB-matrix}, $B$ is the unnormalized transition matrix of a walker that does not perform backtracks. Concretely, $B$ is indexed in the rows and columns by elements of $\overline{E}$. Let $m = |E|$, then $B$ is of size $2m \times 2m$, and it is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nbm-element}
B_{k \to l, i \to j} = \delta_{jk} \left( 1 - \delta_{il} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta. In words, $B_{k \to l, i \to j}$ is $1$ iff $j = k$ and $i \to j, j \to l$ is not a backtrack. Notably, the powers of $B$ count the number of NB-walks in $G$, i.e. $\left( B^r \right)_{k \to l, i \to j}$ is the number of NB-walks that start with $i \to j$ and end with $k \to l$ of length $r+1$.
Among other applications, the NB-matrix has been used to define a notion of node centrality that has more desirable properties than the usual eigenvector centrality \citep{martin2014localization,radicchi2016leveraging}. Concretely, let $\lambda$ be the largest eigenvalue of $B$ and let $\mathbf{v}$ be the corresponding unit right eigenvector. By Perron-Frobenius theory, $\lambda$ is positive, real, and has multiplicity one, while $\mathbf{v}$ can be chosen to be non-negative. The \emph{non-backtracking centrality} of a node $i$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nb-centrality}
\mathbf{v}^{i} = \sum_j a_{ij} \mathbf{v}_{j \to i},
\end{equation}
where $A = \left( a_{ij} \right)$ is the adjacency matrix of $G$. Now let $D$ be the diagonal matrix with the degree of each node, and let $\mathbf{v}_{aux}$ be the left principal eigenvector of
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:aux-nb-matrix}
B_{aux} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & D - I_n \\
- I_n & A
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
where $I_r$ is the identity matrix of size $r$. We have that $\mathbf{v}_{aux} = \left( \mathbf{f}, -\lambda \mathbf{f} \right)$, where $\mathbf{f}$ is of size $n$, and it is known that $\mathbf{f}$ is parallel to the vector of NB-centralities, $\mathbf{f}^i \propto \mathbf{v}^i$ \cite{martin2014localization}. It is more efficient to use $B_{aux}$ than $B$ when computing the NB-centrality, since the former matrix is of size $2n \times 2n$, where $n = |V|$.
The NB-matrix is not symmetric and therefore its eigenvalues, other than the largest one, can be complex numbers. Even so, it contains a subtle structure, sometimes called PT-symmetry \citep{bordenave2015}. Indeed, let $P$ be the matrix such that $P \mathbf{x}_{i \to j} = \mathbf{x}_{j \to i}$ for any vector $\mathbf{x}$ indexed by $\overline{E}$. It is readily checked that (i) the product $PB$ is symmetric, and (ii) there exists a basis where $P$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:p}
P =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & I_m \\
I_m & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
\section{Non-backtracking eigenvalues under node removal}\label{sec:theory}
We are interested in the behavior of the NB-eigenvalues when we remove a node from $G$. Suppose the target node we want to remove is $c \in V$, and partition the edges in $\overline{E}$ as those that are incident to $c$ and those that are not. Sort the rows and columns of $B$ accordingly, so that it takes the block form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:block-form}
B =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
B' & D \\
E & F
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:blue-yellow}. Here, $B'$ is the NB-matrix of the graph after node $c$ is removed, while $F$ is the NB-matrix of the star graph centered at $c$; if $d$ is the degree of $c$, then $F$ is of size $2d \times 2d$. Further, $D$ is indexed in the rows by directed edges not incident to $c$, and in the columns by directed edges incident to $c$, and vice versa for $E$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{blue_yellow}
\begin{flalign*}
\quad
B = \left( \begin{array}{c;{2pt/2pt}c} \begin{array}{ccc} & & \\ & B' & \\ & & \\ \end{array} & D \\ \hdashline[2pt/2pt] E & F \\ \end{array} \right) \hspace{-2.5em} \begin{tabular}{l} $\left.\phantom{\begin{array}{c} \\ D \\ \\ \end{array}}\right\} 2m - 2d $ \\ $\left.\phantom{\begin{array}{c} F \end{array}}\right\} 2d $ \end{tabular}
\quad\quad\quad\quad
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} & & \\ & B' & \\ & & \\ \end{array} \right)
\quad\quad\quad
\end{flalign*}
\caption{\emph{Top: } Graph $G$ with target node $c$ before and after removal. $G$ has $m$ edges and $c$ has degree $d$. Dashed yellow edges are incident to $c$, all other edges in solid blue. \emph{Bottom: } Corresponding NB-matrices before and after removal.}
\label{fig:blue-yellow}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The characteristic polynomial}\label{sec:characteristic-polynomial}
The NB-eigenvalues are the roots of the characteristic polynomial $\det \left( B - t I \right)$. The theory of Schur complements gives us an identity for the determinant of a block matrix,
\begin{align}
\det \left( B- tI \right) &=
\left|
\begin{array}{cc}
B' - tI & D \\
E & F - tI
\end{array}
\right| \\
&= \det \left( F - tI \right) \det \left( B' - tI - D \left( F- tI \right)^{-1} E \right),
\label{eqn:schur}
\end{align}
where the size of $I$ is given by context. This formula holds whenever $\left( F - tI \right)$ is invertible, i.e., whenever $t$ is not an eigenvalue of $F$. To simplify this expression, we make the following observations.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:de-ff}
Let $d$ be the degree of target node $c$. With $D, E, F$ as in Equation~(\ref{eqn:block-form}), we have $DE = 0$ and $F^2 = 0$. Therefore, $F$ is nilpotent, that is, all its eigenvalues are zero, and hence $\det \left( F - tI \right) = t^{2d}$. Finally, we have $\left( F - tI \right)^{-1} = - \left( F + tI \right) / t^2$ when $t \neq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $D, E, F$ are sub-matrices of $B$, their element is given by Equation~(\ref{eqn:nbm-element}). Hence, computing $DE$ and $F^2$ is straightforward, as long as care is placed in keeping track of the appropriate indices for the rows and columns of the involved matrices. Now, $F^2 = 0$ implies that all its eigenvalues are zero and that $\det \left( F - tI \right) = t^{2d}$. Finally, one can manually check that $\left( F - tI \right) \left( F + tI \right) = - t^2 I$.
\end{proof}
Now define $X = DFE$. One can manually check that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:x}
X_{k \to l, i \to j} = a_{ck}a_{cj} \left( 1 - \delta_{kj} \right).
\end{equation}
Per the Lemma, Equation~(\ref{eqn:schur}) holds for $t \neq 0$ and
\begin{align}
\det \left( B - tI \right) &= t^{2d} \det \left( B' - tI + \frac{DFE}{t^2} + \frac{DE}{t} \right) \\
&= t^{2d} \det \left( B' - tI + \frac{X}{t^2} \right).
\label{eqn:b-prime-x}
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:char-poly}
For a graph $G$ and target node $c$, suppose the NB-matrix of $G$ is $B$ and the NB-matrix after removing $c$ is $B'$, and let $X$ be as in Equation~(\ref{eqn:b-prime-x}). If $t$ is not an eigenvalue of $B'$ then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:char-poly}
\frac{\det \left( B - tI \right)}{\det \left( B' - tI \right)} = t^{2d} \det \left( I + \frac{1}{t^2} \left( B' - tI \right)^{-1} X\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Immediate from (\ref{eqn:b-prime-x}) by factoring out $B' - tI$.
\end{proof}
If $c$ has degree $1$, then $X$ equals the zero matrix, and Equation~(\ref{eqn:char-poly}) simplifies to show that removing $c$ has no influence on the non-zero NB-eigenvalues. There are other nodes whose removal do not influence the non-zero NB-eigenvalues, which are characterized as follows. Let the \emph{$2$-core} of $G$ be the graph that remains after iteratively removing nodes of degree $1$. Let the \emph{$1$-shell} of $G$ be the graph induced by the nodes outside of the $2$-core.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:degree-one}
If $c$ is in the $1$-shell of $G$, removing it does not change the non-zero NB-eigenvalues.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $c$ has degree $1$, Equation~(\ref{eqn:x}) gives $X=0$. In this case, (\ref{eqn:char-poly}) becomes $\det \left( B - tI \right) = t^{2d} \det \left( B' - tI \right)$, which implies the assertion. In general, if $c$ is in the $1$-shell, then it must have degree $1$ after iteratively removing some sequence of nodes each of which has degree $1$ at the time of removal. Each of these removals has no effect on the non-zero eigenvalues, and therefore neither does the removal of $c$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Intuitively, since $F$ is the NB-matrix of a star graph, which contains no NB-walks of length $3$ or more, then immediately we have $F^2 = 0$. Following Figure~\ref{fig:blue-yellow}, $F^2$ counts the number of NB-walks of length $3$ whose edges are yellow-yellow-yellow, of which there are none. Similarly, $DE$ counts the NB-walks whose edges are blue-yellow-blue, which also do not exist. Finally, $X=DFE$ counts the NB-walks of color blue-yellow-yellow-blue, which are precisely those that are destroyed when removing $c$. It is then no surprise that the rest of our analysis pivots fundamentally on the matrix $X$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The largest eigenvalue}\label{sec:largest-eigenvalue}
We now pivot to study the eigen-drop induced by removing $c$. The larger this eigen-drop, the more influential the target node is in determining the epidemic or percolation thresholds.
\begin{theorem}
With the same assumptions as in Theorem~\ref{thm:char-poly}, let $\lambda_1$ be the largest eigenvalue of $B$ and let $\mathbf{w}$ be a vector such that in Equation~(\ref{eqn:b-prime-x}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:eigenvector}
\left( B' - \lambda_1 I + \frac{X}{\lambda_1^2} \right) \mathbf{w} = 0.
\end{equation}
Suppose $\{\mathbf{v}_i\}$ is a basis of right eigenvectors of $B'$ and write $\mathbf{w}$ in this basis, $\mathbf{w} = \sum_i w_i \mathbf{v}_i$. Let $\mathbf{u}_1$ be the left eigenvector of $B'$ corresponding to $\mathbf{v}_1$, and set $\alpha_i = \mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_i$. Finally, let $\lambda_1'$ be the largest eigenvalue of $B'$, so that the eigen-drop induced by $c$ is $\lambda_1 - \lambda_1'$ . Then, we have
\begin{align}\label{eqn:main-result}
\lambda_1 - \lambda_1' = \frac{1}{\lambda_1^2} \sum_{i} \frac{w_i}{w_1} \alpha_i.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathbf{v}_i$ corresponds to the eigenvalue $\lambda_i'$, then (\ref{eqn:eigenvector}) gives
\begin{align}\label{eqn:bar-baz}
\sum_i w_i \left( B' - \lambda_1 I + \frac{X}{\lambda_1^2} \right) \mathbf{v}_i &=
\sum_i w_i \left( \lambda_i' \mathbf{v}_i - \lambda_1 \mathbf{v}_i + \frac{X \mathbf{v}_i}{\lambda_1^2} \right) = 0.
\end{align}
Let $\mathbf{u}_1$ be the left eigenvector corresponding to $\mathbf{v}_1$ normalized such that $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_1 = 1$. Recall that $\mathbf{u}_1$ is orthogonal to every right eigenvector corresponding to a different eigenvalue. Since $\lambda_1'$ has multiplicity one, we have $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_i = 0$ for each $i \neq 1$. Multiply by $\mathbf{u}_1$ on the left to get
\begin{align}\label{eqn:true-diff}
w_1 \left(\lambda_1' - \lambda_1 \right) + \sum_i w_i \frac{\mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_i}{\lambda_1^2} = 0.
\end{align}
Define $\alpha_i = \mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_i$ and rearrange to get Equation~(\ref{eqn:main-result}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We can reverse our argument and interpret (\ref{eqn:main-result}) in terms of node addition rather than removal. Suppose the original graph does not contain $c$, and therefore its NB-matrix is $B'$. Then, the NB-matrix \emph{after adding node $c$} is given by (\ref{eqn:block-form}). All our arguments are valid in this setting, and (\ref{eqn:main-result}) then says that the new largest NB-eigenvalue is the solution to a third-degree polynomial, the coefficients of which depend on the full eigendecomposition of $B'$.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{An approximation}\label{sec:first-approx}
Unfortunately, Equation~(\ref{eqn:main-result}) requires knowledge of all eigenvectors of $B'$. However, in our experience, the vector $\mathbf{w}$ is extremely closely aligned to $\mathbf{v}_1$ and therefore the coefficients $w_i / w_1 \ll 1$. In this case, all but one term in the right-hand side of Equation~(\ref{eqn:main-result}) can be neglected and we get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:first-approx}
\lambda_1^2 \left( \lambda_1 - \lambda_1' \right) - \alpha_1 \approx 0.
\end{equation}
Here, the larger $\alpha_1$, the larger the eigen-drop $\lambda_1 - \lambda_1'$. Therefore, we study the significance of $\alpha_1$ next.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem:x-nb-centrality}
Let $\mathbf{u}_1, \mathbf{v}_1$ be the left and right eigenvectors of $B'$ normalized such that $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_1 = 1$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:x-nb-centrality}
\alpha_1 = \mathbf{u}_1^T X \mathbf{v}_1 = \mathbf{v}_1^T P X \mathbf{v}_1 = \left( \sum_i a_{ci} \mathbf{v}_1^i \right)^2 - \sum_i a_{ci} \left( \mathbf{v}_1^i \right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{v}_1^i$ is the NB-centrality of node $i$ in the graph after removal (see Equation~(\ref{eqn:nb-centrality})). We call $\alpha_1$ the \emph{\mbox{$X$-non-backtracking centrality}}, or \emph{\mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality}, of $c$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first equality comes from the fact that $\mathbf{u}_1 = P \mathbf{v}_1$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:right-left}. We can find $PX_{k \to l, i \to j} = a_{cl}a_{cj} \left( 1 - \delta_{lj} \right)$ using Equations (\ref{eqn:x}) and (\ref{eqn:p}). The result then follows from manually computing $\mathbf{v}_1^T PX \mathbf{v}_1$ and applying Equation~(\ref{eqn:nb-centrality}).
\end{proof}
The Proposition establishes that the behavior of the eigen-drop in (\ref{eqn:first-approx}) is governed by the \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality of $c$ in (\ref{eqn:x-nb-centrality}), which is a function only of the NB-centralities of $c$'s neighbors. Importantly, these centralities are measured \emph{after} $c$ is removed. We come back to this point in Section~\ref{sec:immunization}. Notably, the principal eigenvector is normalized by $\mathbf{u}_1^T \mathbf{v}_1 = \mathbf{v}_1^T P \mathbf{v}_1 = 1$, i.e. it does not have unit length.
\subsubsection{An upper bound}\label{sec:upper-bound}
An alternative way of studying the eigen-drop is by choosing $\mathbf{w}$ such that $w_1 = 1$, and bounding
\begin{equation}
q = q(c) = \sum_i w_i \alpha_i,
\end{equation}
which drives the right-hand side of Equation~(\ref{eqn:main-result}).
Suppose that $R$ is the matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors $\{\mathbf{v}_i\}$, and let $L = R^{-1}$ such that $B' = R \Lambda L$, where $\Lambda$ is the diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i'\}$. The rows of $L$ are left eigenvectors of $B'$, in particular, $\mathbf{u}_1^T$ is the first row of $L$. Then we have $\alpha_i = \left( L X R \right)_{1i}$, and $q$ is the dot product between the first row of $LXR$ and $\mathbf{w}$,
\begin{equation}
q = \mathbf{e_1^T} L X R \mathbf{w} = \Tr \left( L X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{e_1} = \left( 1, 0, \ldots, 0 \right)$. Using the cyclic property of the trace, and the fact that $P^2 = I$, we now have
\begin{align}
q &= \Tr \left( L X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \right) = \Tr \left( X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \, L \right) = \Tr \left( P X R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \, L P \right).
\end{align}
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the trace gives us
\begin{align}
q &\leq \left| PX \right|_F \, \left| R \, \mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T} \, L P \right|_F,
\end{align}
where $\left| M \right|_F^2 = \Tr\left( M^T M \right)$ is the Frobenius norm. Finally, the fact that $\mathbf{w} \mathbf{e_1^T}$ is a matrix with rank one gives
\begin{align}
q &\leq \left| PX \right|_F \, \left( \mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w} \right).
\end{align}
As before, we have $w_i / w_1 \ll 1$ and since we chose $w_1 = 1$, the term $\left( \mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w} \right)$ is very close to $1$. Therefore, we obtain $|PX|_F$ as an (approximate) upper bound for $q$. Observe that since $PX$ is non-negative, we have $|PX|_F = \mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$, where $\mathbf{1} = \left( 1, 1, \ldots, 1\right)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem:x-degree-centrality}
In Equation~(\ref{eqn:main-result}), let $\mathbf{w}$ be such that $w_1 = 1$, and define $q = \sum_i w_i \alpha_i$. The quantity $\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$ is an approximate upper bound for $q$, that is, $q \leq \mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1} \left( \mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w} \right)$. Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:x-degree-centrality-minus-one}
\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1} = \left( \sum_i a_{ci} \left(d_i - 1 \right) \right)^2 - \sum_i a_{ci} \left(d_i - 1\right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $d_i$ is the degree of node $i$ in the original graph, before removal. We call $\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$ the \emph{\mbox{$X$-degree}{} centrality} of $c$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first claim was proved in the previous paragraphs. The second claim comes from direct evaluation of $\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$ using $PX_{k \to l, i \to j} = a_{cl}a_{cj} \left( 1 - \delta_{lj} \right)$, keeping in mind the degrees are measured after removal.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The fact that the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} of $c$, $\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$, bounds $q$ only approximately merits further theoretical consideration. However, it will be immaterial in our exposition going forward, as our experiments will show that, in practice, the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} of nodes is an excellent predictor of the node's eigen-gap, regardless of the value of $\mathbf{e_1^T} L P R \mathbf{w}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{X-centrality}\label{sec:x-centrality}
In Section~\ref{sec:first-approx} we use the \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality, $\mathbf{v}_1^T PX \mathbf{v}_1$, while in Section~\ref{sec:upper-bound} we use the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} centrality, $\mathbf{1}^T PX \mathbf{1}$, both for the purpose of studying the eigen-drop induced by $c$. The former is a function of the NB-centralities of the neighbors of $c$ (Proposition~\ref{lem:x-nb-centrality}), while the latter is a function of their degrees (Proposition~\ref{lem:x-degree-centrality}). Importantly, both centralities are measured \emph{after} $c$ has been removed.
Consider a fixed target node $c$, which in turn fixes $X$ and $P$. The matrix $PX$ is capable of defining new node-level statistics given a vector of values for each directed edge. It does so by aggregating the edge values along NB-walks that go through $c$; following Figure~\ref{fig:blue-yellow}, this aggregation is done along blue-yellow-yellow-blue walks. Recall that if $G$ has $m$ (undirected) edges and $c$ has degree $d$, then $X$ and $P$ are of size $2m - 2d$. Given an arbitrary vector $\mathbf{z}$ of size $2m - 2d$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:quadratic-form}
\mathbf{z}^T PX \mathbf{z} = \left( \sum_i a_{ci} \sum_j \mathbf{z}_{j \to i} \right)^2 - \sum_i a_{ci} \left( \sum_j \mathbf{z}_{j \to i}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
One can evaluate the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:quadratic-form}) for any vector $\mathbf{z}$ of size $2m$, and use only the $2m - 2d$ entries that correspond to edges not incident to $c$. In other words, we do not need to know $X$ or $P$, but only who the neighbors of $c$ are. Since $c$ determines both $X$ and $P$, the same vector $\mathbf{z}$ can be evaluated using different target nodes. Therefore the quantity in (\ref{eqn:quadratic-form}) naturally corresponds to whichever target node was used to evaluate it, and can be thought of as a node-level quantity derived from $\mathbf{z}$.
Now define $\mathbf{z}^i = \sum_j \mathbf{z}_{j \to i}$ and let $\Var_c \left( \mathbf{z}^i \right)$ be the variance of the $\mathbf{z}^i$ values corresponding to neighbors of $c$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\Var_c \left( \mathbf{z}^i \right) = \frac{\sum_i a_{ci} \left( \mathbf{z}^i \right)^2}{d} - \left( \frac{\sum_i a_{ci} \mathbf{z}^i}{d} \right)^2,
\end{equation}
which differs from (\ref{eqn:quadratic-form}) only in sign and a (non-linear) normalization. Accordingly, $\mathbf{z}^T PX \mathbf{z}$ will have large values when $\mathbf{z}^i$ has little variability among the neighbors of $c$.
Using this framework we could define, for example, \emph{\mbox{$X$-closeness} centrality}, \emph{\mbox{$X$-betweenness} centrality}, etc. Whether these concepts are as useful as the two studied here remains an open question.
\section{Node immunization}\label{sec:immunization}
Targeted immunization works as follows. Given a graph $G$ and an integer $p$, we want to remove from $G$ the $p$ nodes that increase the epidemic threshold the most (equivalently, decrease the largest NB-eigenvalue the most). Common strategies involve three steps: (i) the nodes are sorted by decreasing values of a certain statistic, for example degree; (ii) the node with the highest value of this statistic is removed from the graph; and (iii) the statistic has to be recomputed after each time a node is removed. These steps are repeated until the target number $p$ has been removed. In this context, our framework presents two major obstacles:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
\item Both the \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} and \mbox{$X$-degree}{} centralities of a node must be computed \emph{after} the node has been removed. So, to execute the step (i) above, we need to temporarily remove each node in turn before we decide which one to ultimately remove, which defeats the purpose of targeted immunization.
\item For step (iii), we must guarantee that recomputing the statistic of every node at each step is an efficient procedure.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Using X-NB centrality}\label{sec:using-x-nb}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:naive-xnb} naively follows the steps above to implement an immunization strategy based on \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality. We are tempted to think this strategy is the ``right'' one, as it approximates the true effect of a node's removal in the epidemic threshold. However, we must address the obstacles mentioned above.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Naive \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} immunization strategy.}
\label{alg:naive-xnb}
\SetKwFunction{RemoveNode}{RemoveNode}
\SetKwFunction{NBCentrality}{NBCentrality}
\SetKwFunction{XNBCentrality}{XNBCentrality}
\SetKwFunction{length}{length}
\SetKwFunction{AuxNBMatrix}{AuxNBMatrix}
\SetKwData{removed}{removed}
\SetKwData{node}{node}
\SetKwData{XNB}{XNB}
\SetKwData{XNBi}{XNB[i]}
\SetKwData{XNBc}{XNB[c]}
\SetKwData{i}{i}
\SetKwData{c}{c}
\SetAlgoNoEnd
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{graph $G$, integer $p$}
\KwOut{\removed, an ordered list of nodes to immunize}
\BlankLine
\removed $\leftarrow \emptyset$ \;
\XNBi $\leftarrow 0$ for each node \i \;
\While{\length{\removed} $< p$}{
\ForEach{node \c in $G$}{
$H \leftarrow$ \RemoveNode{$G$, \c} \;
$v_H \leftarrow$ principal eigenvector of \AuxNBMatrix{$H$} \;
\XNBc $\leftarrow$ \XNBCentrality{$v_H$, \c} \;
}
\node $\leftarrow \argmax_i$ \XNBi \;
$G \leftarrow$ \RemoveNode{$G$, \node} \;
\removed.append(\node) \;
}
\Return{\removed}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Approximate \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} immunization strategy.}
\label{alg:approx-xnb}
\SetKwFunction{RemoveNode}{RemoveNode}
\SetKwFunction{NBCentrality}{NBCentrality}
\SetKwFunction{XNBCentrality}{XNBCentrality}
\SetKwFunction{length}{length}
\SetKwData{removed}{removed}
\SetKwData{node}{node}
\SetKwData{XNB}{XNB}
\SetKwFunction{AuxNBMatrix}{AuxNBMatrix}
\SetKwData{XNBi}{XNB[i]}
\SetKwData{XNBc}{XNB[c]}
\SetKwData{i}{i}
\SetKwData{c}{c}
\SetAlgoNoEnd
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{graph $G$, integer $p$}
\KwOut{\removed, an ordered list of nodes to immunize}
\BlankLine
\removed $\leftarrow \emptyset$ \;
\XNBi $\leftarrow 0$ for each node \i \;
\While{\length{\removed} $< p$}{
$v_G \leftarrow$ principal eigenvector of \AuxNBMatrix{$G$} \;
\ForEach{node \c in $G$}{
\XNBc $\leftarrow$ \XNBCentrality{$v_G$, \c} \;
}
\node $\leftarrow \argmax_i$ \XNBi \;
$G \leftarrow$ \RemoveNode{$G$, \node} \;
\removed.append(\node) \;
}
\Return{\removed}
\end{algorithm}
To overcome obstacle (a), we propose to approximate Equation~(\ref{eqn:x-nb-centrality}) by using the NB-centralities in the original graph before removing any node even temporarily. Algorithm~\ref{alg:approx-xnb} takes this approximation into account. The error incurred by this approximation is dampened by the fact that what we are ultimately interested in is the ranking of the nodes rather than the actual values of their centralities. For obstacle (b), one could use a strategy similar to \cite{ChenTPTEFC16}, where they devise an algorithm to approximate the impact on a node's eigenvector centrality after the removal of a node without having to recompute the values again. However, doing so for $X$-NB centrality remains an open question.
\subsubsection*{Complexity Analysis}\label{sec:complexity-1}
We assume that $G$ is given in adjacency list format. In Algorithm~\ref{alg:naive-xnb}, lines $2$ and $8$ take $n$ operations each. Line $5$ creates a copy $H$ of the adjacency list and removes the target node $c$ from it (but leaves $G$ intact). Line $6$ uses Equation~(\ref{eqn:aux-nb-matrix}) to compute the auxiliary NB-matrix, which takes $O(m)$ time, and it takes $O\left( m \right)$ to compute the principal eigenvector (using, e.g. the Lanczos algorithm with a number of iterations that does not depend on the parameters). Line $7$ uses Lemma~\ref{lem:small-big} to compute the correctly normalized NB-centralities, and Equation~(\ref{eqn:x-nb-centrality}) to compute \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centralities, both of which take $n$ operations. The remaining lines take constant time. Accounting for loops, Algorithm~\ref{alg:naive-xnb} takes a total of $O\left(n + p \left( n \left( m + n \right) + n \right) \right) = O\left( pn \left( m + n \right) \right)$. In Algorithm~\ref{alg:approx-xnb}, the NB-centralities are computed outside of the inner loop, which gives a complexity of $O\left( p \left( m + n \right) \right)$, or $O\left( m + n \right)$ for constant $p$.
\subsection{Using X-degree}\label{sec:using-x-deg}
\mbox{$X$-degree}{} can be easily computed without temporarily removing any nodes, see Equation~(\ref{eqn:x-degree-centrality-minus-one}). Indeed, all we need to know about the graph after removal is the degree of each node. Hence, obstacle (a) is easily overcome in this case. Further, after each step we need not recompute the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} of all nodes, but only of those nodes two steps away from the target node. Indeed, removing $c$ changes the degree of its neighbors, which in turn changes the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} of its neighbors' neighbors. So obstacle (b) is also overcome. Algorithm~\ref{alg:xdeg} implements this strategy. Importantly, it does not involve the computation of any matrices or their eigenvectors.
\subsubsection*{Complexity Analysis}\label{sec:complexity-2}
Lines $1,6,10,11$ of Algorithm~\ref{alg:xdeg} take constant time, while line $2$ takes $O(m)$. When using a standard map (or dictionary) to store the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} values, line $4$ takes $O(n)$ operations, and line $9$ takes $O(1)$. Now suppose that the nodes removed by Algorithm~\ref{alg:xdeg} are, in order, $i_1,\ldots,i_p$. At iteration $j$, the loop in line $5$ takes $d_{i_j}$ operations, and the double loop in lines $7-8$ takes as many iterations as the number of nodes two steps away from $i_j$, say $D_{i_j}$. This yields a total of $O \left( m + p n + \sum_{j=1}^p d_{i_j} + \sum_{j=1}^p D_{i_j} \right)$. We can also implement Algorithm~\ref{alg:xdeg} using an indexed priority queue (IPQ) to store the \mbox{$X$-degree}{} values instead of a map; see Appendix~\ref{app:complexity}. In this case the worst case scenario complexity is $O \left( m + p \log n + \sum_{j=1}^p d_{i_j} + \log n \sum_{j=1}^p D_{i_j} \right)$. In Appendix~\ref{app:complexity} we refine this analysis for networks with homogeneous or heterogeneous degree distributions, and show that the map or IPQ versions have better worst case scenario scalability for different values of network parameters.
Importantly, the average runtime of both versions is in fact close to linear, with the IPQ version being the fastest. Figure~\ref{fig:scaling} shows the average runtime of both versions on random power-law configuration model graphs with varying degree exponent $\gamma$ and constant $p$ (see Appendix~\ref{app:complexity} for details). The reason the average runtime is considerably faster than the worst-case scenario is because graphs typically have very few large hubs. That is, roughly speaking, there are $O(1)$ many nodes that take $O(n)$ time to process, while there are $O(n)$ many nodes that take $O(1)$ time to process. This effect is intensified the closer $\gamma$ is to $2$, which counterbalances the exponent $\frac{2}{\gamma - 1}$ in the worst case scenario.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\mbox{$X$-degree}{} immunization strategy.}
\label{alg:xdeg}
\SetKwFunction{RemoveNode}{RemoveNode}
\SetKwFunction{XDegree}{XDegree}
\SetKwFunction{length}{length}
\SetKwData{removed}{removed}
\SetKwData{node}{node}
\SetKwData{neighbors}{neighbors}
\SetKwData{neighborsnode}{neighbors[node]}
\SetKwData{neighborsi}{neighbors[i]}
\SetKwFunction{AuxNBMatrix}{AuxNBMatrix}
\SetKwFunction{heapify}{heapify}
\SetKwData{Xdeg}{XDeg}
\SetKwData{Xdegi}{XDeg[i]}
\SetKwData{Xdegj}{XDeg[j]}
\SetKwData{Xdegc}{XDeg[c]}
\SetKwData{queue}{queue}
\SetKwData{i}{i}
\SetKwData{j}{j}
\SetKwData{c}{c}
\SetAlgoNoEnd
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{graph $G$, integer $p$}
\KwOut{\removed, an ordered list of nodes to immunize}
\BlankLine
\removed $\leftarrow \emptyset$ \;
\Xdegi $\leftarrow$ \XDegree{$G$, \i} for each node \i \;
\While{\length{\removed} $< p$}{
\node $\leftarrow \max_i $ \Xdegi \;
\ForEach{\i in $G$.\neighborsnode}{
$G$.\neighborsi.remove(\node) \;
}
\ForEach{\i in $G$.\neighborsnode}{
\ForEach{\j in $G$.\neighborsi}{
\Xdegj $\leftarrow$ \XDegree{$G$, \j}
}
}
$G$.\neighborsnode $\leftarrow \emptyset$ \;
\removed.append(\node) \;
}
\Return{\removed}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{plot_scaling}
\caption{Average runtime scaling of Algorithm~\ref{alg:xdeg} on random power-law graphs with varying degree exponent $\gamma$. The runtimes are linear, with IPQ being faster than Map.}
\label{fig:scaling}
\end{figure}
\section{Related work}\label{sec:related-work}
\paragraph{Perturbation of NB-matrix} \citet{zhang2014non} briefly treats the case of eigenvalue perturbation of a matrix derived from the NB-matrix in the case of edge removal, while \citet{abs-1907-05603} analyze the perturbation of quadratic eigenvalue problems, with applications to the NB-eigenvalues of the stochastic block model. Our theory is more general since it studies node removal (as opposed to single edge removal), and it applies to any arbitrary graph.
\paragraph{NB centrality} Many notions of centrality based on the NB-matrix exist, for example NB-PageRank \citep{ArrigoHN19}, NB-centrality \citep{martin2014localization,radicchi2016leveraging}, and Collective Influence \citep{morone2015influence,morone2016collective}. The latter two have been proposed as solutions to the problem of ``influencer identification''. This problem aims to find nodes that determine the course of spreading dynamics, and is thus more general than our objective of increasing the epidemic threshold. Collective Influence in particular is similar to \mbox{$X$-degree}{}; see Appendix~\ref{app:ci}. Also in this context, \citet{kitsak2010identification} propose to use the $k$-core index, and \citet{abs-1912-08459} highlight the importance of node degree. We compare our algorithms to all of these baselines in Section~\ref{sec:experiments}. Finally, \citet{EverettB10} study the influence of a node's removal in other nodes' centrality, which is reminiscent to our $X$-centrality framework.
\paragraph{Targeted immunization} \citet{pastor2015epidemic} review general immunization strategies and other generalities of spreading dynamics on networks. \citet{ChenTPTEFC16} propose \texttt{NetShield}, an efficient algorithm for immunization focusing on decreasing the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix. We prefer to focus on decreasing the largest NB-eigenvalue instead since it provides a tighter bound to the true epidemic threshold in certain cases \citep{karrer2014percolation,hamilton2014tight,shrestha2015message}. \citet{LinCZ17} study the percolation threshold in terms of so-called high-order non-backtracking matrices. Percolation thresholds are tightly related to epidemic thresholds of SIR dynamics \citep{pastor2015epidemic,newman2002spread}.
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Approximating the Eigenvalue}\label{sec:exp-theoretical-accuracy}
\textbf{How close is the approximation in Equation~(\ref{eqn:first-approx})?} We first compute the largest NB-eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of a graph $G$. Then we fix a target node $c$ and remove it from $G$ and compute the new eigenvalue $\lambda_c$. (For ease of notation, in this section we use $\lambda_c$ instead of $\lambda_1'$, and $\alpha$ instead of $\alpha_1$.) Finally, we use (\ref{eqn:first-approx}) to compute two approximations,
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\lambda}_c = \lambda_1 - \alpha / \lambda_1^2, \quad\quad
\widetilde{\lambda}_c = \lambda_1 - \widetilde{\alpha} / \lambda_1^2,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the true \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality of $c$, and $\widetilde{\alpha}$ is the approximate \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality used in Algorithm~\ref{alg:approx-xnb}, i.e., it is computed using the NB-centralities before removing $c$. We now compare the approximations $\widehat{\lambda}_c$ and $\widetilde{\lambda}_c$ to the true value of $\lambda_c$ for randomly selected nodes of synthetic graphs. We use different synthetic random graph models: Watts-Strogatz (WS) \citep{watts1998collective}, Stochastic Block Model (SBM) \citep{girvan2002community,karrer2011stochastic}, Barab\'asi-Albert (BA) \citep{albert2002statistical}, and
Block Two--Level Erd\H{o}s-R\'{e}nyi (BTER) \citep{seshadhri2012community}. See Section~\ref{app:data} for more details on the data sets, and Section~\ref{app:approximating-the-eigenvalue} for details on the experimental setup.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.2\textwidth]{plot_theoretical_accuracy}}
\caption{\emph{Left:} True eigen-drop (vertical axis) vs approx. eigen-drop (horizontal axis), using \emph{(a)} true, and \emph{(b)} approx. values of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}. Dashed line is $y = x$. Each marker represents one node. \emph{Right:} Relative error when predicting $\lambda_c$, as a function of degree, using \emph{(c)} true, and \emph{(d)} approx. values of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}. Degrees expressed as a fraction of the maximum degree among graphs in the same ensemble. Each marker is the average within log-binned values of degree; error bars too small to show at this scale. WS graphs (blue circles) have no nodes whose degree is less than 30\% of the maximum. Our approximation of the eigen-gap is accurate.}
\label{fig:th-acc}
\end{figure*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:th-acc}a shows that our approximation is extremely close for all graphs tested, though it tends to underestimate the eigen-drop in WS graphs. Fig.~\ref{fig:th-acc}c shows the average relative error versus degree. Our approximation worsens as degree increases, though it is quite small for most degrees. In the worst case, the relative error is less than $10^{-4}$, or $0.01\%$. Fig.~\ref{fig:th-acc}b shows the eigen-drop computed using the approximate version of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}. This approximation is systematically overestimating the true eigen-drop. Fig.~\ref{fig:th-acc}d shows that this systematic error is of the order of $10\%$ in the worst case, though it is negligible for small degrees.
In all, Figure~\ref{fig:th-acc} confirms the accuracy of our approximations, and it points to the fact that the terms neglected in (\ref{eqn:first-approx}) will become larger as degree increases.
\subsection{Predicting the Eigen-drop}\label{sec:exp-predicting-eigengap}
\textbf{How well can \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality and \mbox{$X$-degree}{} predict a node's eigen-drop?} Unlike in Experiment \ref{sec:exp-theoretical-accuracy}, here we do not approximate the eigen-drop, but only seek to predict its size. (In fact, we cannot use \mbox{$X$-degree}{} to approximate the eigen-drop at all.) See Section~\ref{app:predicting-the-eigengap} for experimental setup, and Section~\ref{app:data} for details on data sets.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.25\textwidth]{plot_predicting}}
\caption{Predicting the eigen-drop using \emph{(a)} true value of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}, \emph{(b)} approx. value of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}, and \emph{(c)} \mbox{$X$-degree}{}. Markers colored by degree, expressed as a fraction of the largest degree in the same ensemble. Each panel shows the correlation coefficient between the corresponding statistic and the eigen-drop ($r$), and the correlation between degree and the eigen-drop ($r_{deg}$). Dashed lines are linear regression lines. Our proposed node-level statistics accurately track eigen-drops in random graph models such as BA, SBM, and BTER. \mbox{$X$-degree}{}~underestimates the eigen-drop in WS graphs. }
\label{fig:predicting}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:predicting}a we measure how correlated the true value of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}, denoted by $\alpha$, is to the true eigen-drop. For SBM, BA, and BTER graphs, the magnitude of $\alpha$ lines up extremely closely with the value of the eigen-drop, showing a correlation coefficient of $r=1.00$. In all cases, $\alpha$ is better correlated to the eigen-drop than degree (as shown by the correlation coefficients $r_{\deg}$). In WS we see considerably more variance than in other ensembles though $\alpha$ is still an excellent predictor of the eigen-drop, at $r=0.98$. This picture repeats itself when using the approximate value of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{}, $\widetilde{\alpha}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:predicting}b), and \mbox{$X$-degree}{} (Fig.~\ref{fig:predicting}c). $\widetilde{\alpha}$ seems to slightly underestimate the eigen-drop, while \mbox{$X$-degree}{} has noticeably more variance than the other two statistics, especially in WS. All three statistics are better correlated to the eigen-drop than degree in all graph ensembles. We highlight that even when some of the panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:predicting} are not precisely linear, they all show that the eigen-drop is an increasing function of all of $\alpha$, $\widetilde{\alpha}$, and \mbox{$X$-degree}{}. These results encourage us to use \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} and \mbox{$X$-degree}{} as immunization strategies. Further, using $\alpha$ has very little advantage over $\widetilde{\alpha}$, and therefore we are justified in using Algorithm~\ref{alg:approx-xnb} instead Algorithm~\ref{alg:naive-xnb} for computational reasons.
\subsection{Immunization with \mbox{X-NB} and \mbox{X-degree}}\label{sec:yyyyyy}
\textbf{How effective are \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} and \mbox{$X$-degree}{} at immunization?} We remove $1,2$ and $3$ percent of nodes using different strategies and evaluate the resulting eigenvalue. We use the immunization strategies node degree (\texttt{degree}), $k$-core index (\texttt{core}), NetShield (\texttt{NS}), Collective Influence (\texttt{CI}), NB-centrality (\texttt{NB}), approximate \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} (\texttt{XNB}), and \mbox{$X$-degree}{} (\texttt{Xdeg}). For computational reasons, we do not use the true value of \mbox{$X$-{NB}}; for more details on baselines see Section~\ref{app:baselines}. In all data sets, \texttt{core} had the least performance and is therefore not shown in our results. We hypothesize this is because many nodes can have the same $k$-core index at the same time, so \texttt{core} cannot identify which is the best one among all of them.
\begin{table}
\centering
\resizebox{0.75\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{r|cc|cc|cc}
\toprule
{} & \texttt{degree} & \texttt{NS} & \texttt{CI} & \texttt{Xdeg} & \texttt{NB} & \texttt{XNB} \\
\midrule
1\% & 62.76 & 61.44 & 62.88 & 62.90 & 62.92 & 62.91 \\
BA 2\% & 68.84 & 66.94 & 68.97 & 68.99 & 69.01 & 69.01 \\
3\% & 72.42 & 70.09 & 72.56 & 72.57 & 72.59 & 72.59 \\
\midrule
1\% & ~6.28 & ~6.40 & ~6.41 & ~6.45 & ~6.46 & ~6.46 \\
BTER 2\% & 10.60 & 10.72 & 10.80 & 10.85 & 10.86 & 10.86 \\
3\% & 14.31 & 14.40 & 14.55 & 14.61 & 14.63 & 14.63 \\
\midrule
1\% & ~3.31 & ~3.41 & ~3.40 & ~3.43 & ~3.44 & ~3.44 \\
SBM 2\% & ~6.00 & ~6.16 & ~6.19 & ~6.23 & ~6.25 & ~6.25 \\
3\% & ~8.52 & ~8.66 & ~8.76 & ~8.80 & ~8.82 & ~8.82 \\
\midrule
1\% & ~1.41 & ~1.17 & ~1.50 & ~1.52 & ~1.63 & ~1.63 \\
WS 2\% & ~2.52 & ~2.09 & ~2.97 & ~2.98 & ~3.11 & ~3.11 \\
3\% & ~3.66 & ~2.94 & ~4.41 & ~4.41 & ~4.57 & ~4.58 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Average percentage eigen-drop (larger is better) on synthetic graphs after removing 1\%, 2\%, and 3\% of the nodes using different strategies. Strategies are (column) grouped in performance tiers. \texttt{NB} and \texttt{XNB} have the best performances.}
\label{tab:imm}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{r|ccc|ccc|ccc}
\toprule
{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$p=1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$p=10$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$p=100$} \\
{} & \texttt{degree} & \texttt{CI} & \texttt{Xdeg} & \texttt{degree} & \texttt{CI} & \texttt{Xdeg} & \texttt{degree} & \texttt{CI} & \texttt{Xdeg} \\
\midrule
\texttt{AS-1} & ~0.74 & ~0.74 & \textbf{~2.35} & ~6.70 & 13.51 & \textbf{15.43} & 71.65 & \textbf{78.26} & 75.92 \\
\texttt{AS-2} & ~2.02 & ~2.02 & \textbf{~4.00} & 17.09 & 22.36 & \textbf{28.17} & 87.60 & \textbf{89.61} & 87.02 \\
\texttt{Social-Slashdot} & ~0.95 & \textbf{~1.02} & \textbf{~1.02} & ~4.63 & ~6.06 & \textbf{~6.94} & 23.65 & 28.11 & \textbf{30.30} \\
\texttt{Social-Twitter} & \textbf{~2.18} & \textbf{~2.18} & ~1.98 & 13.21 & \textbf{13.97} & 13.68 & 41.10 & 42.88 & \textbf{43.39} \\
\texttt{Transport-California} & ~0.00 & ~0.00 & \textbf{~0.65} & \textbf{~2.65} & ~0.65 & \textbf{~2.65} & ~5.09 & ~5.09 & \textbf{~7.80} \\
\texttt{Transport-Sydney} & \textbf{~0.00} & \textbf{~0.00} & \textbf{~0.00} & ~0.00 & ~0.00 & \textbf{~6.50} & ~0.00 & ~7.37 & \textbf{~9.49} \\
\texttt{Web-NotreDame} & \textbf{~9.34} & \textbf{~9.34} & \textbf{~9.34} & 12.10 & \textbf{13.79} & \textbf{13.79} & 14.37 & 14.37 & \textbf{19.22} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Average percentage eigen-drop on real networks (larger is better) when removing $p=1,10,$ or $100$ nodes. \texttt{Xdeg} is effective and has log-linear time in the number of nodes. Details about the sizes of these datasets are in Table~\ref{tab:real-data} of the appendix.}
\label{tab:imm-real}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab:imm} shows the percentage reduction of the eigenvalue after immunization, averaged over repetitions on synthetic graphs. We can arrange immunization strategies in tiers according to increasing performance: strategies within a tier have comparable performance across data sets. The third tier is made up of \texttt{NS} and \texttt{degree}. They perform similarly because \texttt{NS} targets the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix, which is largely dominated by node degree. Strategies in this tier perform substantially better than \texttt{core} (not shown), and are very close to the strategies in the next two tiers, i.e. \texttt{degree} is a very strong baseline in this task. The second tier is comprised of \texttt{CI} and \texttt{Xdeg}, with \texttt{Xdeg} having a slight advantage over \texttt{CI}. Finally, the best performance was achieved by \texttt{NB} and \texttt{XNB}. Their performances were almost indistinguishable in most data sets, though they have a small margin over \texttt{CI} and \texttt{Xdeg}.
Strategies in the best two tiers, i.e. \texttt{CI}, \texttt{Xdeg}, \texttt{NB} and \texttt{XNB}, all showed standard deviations of similar magnitude across all data sets (not shown), and the ordering in increasing performance \texttt{CI} < \texttt{Xdeg} < \texttt{NB} $\approx$ \texttt{XNB} is statistically significant at $p \ll 10^{-10}$ (see Appendix~\ref{app:immunization}). Further, the best two (\texttt{NB} and \texttt{XNB)} use the principal NB-eigenvector, whereas \texttt{CI} and \texttt{Xdeg} depend only on node degree, and are therefore much more computationally efficient.
Table~\ref{tab:imm-real} shows the results on real data sets, where we have run only \texttt{degree}, \texttt{CI}, and \texttt{Xdeg} for computational reasons.
We use social networks \citep{de2013anatomy,LeskovecLDM09}, transportation networks, \citep{opsahlBlog,transportationRepo,LeskovecLDM09}, Autonomous Systems (AS) of the Internet networks \citep{ZhangLMZ04,karrer2014percolation}, and web crawl networks \citep{albert1999diameter}. See Section~\ref{app:data} for data set descriptions. We remove from each network $1$, $10$, and $100$ nodes at a time. Again, \texttt{degree} is a very strong baseline, but it is never better than both \texttt{CI} and \texttt{Xdeg} at the same time. All three strategies are able to drastically immunize the autonomous systems networks \texttt{AS-1} and \texttt{AS-2} at $100$ nodes removed, probably owing to the fact that their degree distribution is extremely heterogeneous and thus the nodes with largest degree have a large eigen-drop. In all other networks, \mbox{$X$-degree}{} achieves the best performance. An interesting case is that of \texttt{Transport-Sydney}. The node identified by all three strategies has an eigen-drop of exactly $0.0$. Following Corollary~\ref{cor:degree-one}, this means that the chosen node lies outside of the $2$-core of the graph and thus has no impact on non-zero NB-eigenvalues. After $10$ nodes are removed, both \texttt{degree} and \texttt{CI} continue to achieve zero eigen-drop, while \texttt{Xdeg} already identifies the correct nodes and ahieves $6.50\%$ decrease. Even at $100$ nodes removed, \texttt{degree} cannot identify nodes that generate an eigen-drop. A similar case occurs on \texttt{Transport-California}, where the first node identified by \texttt{degree} and \texttt{CI} generates no eigen-drop, while \texttt{Xdeg} is able to correctly identify influential nodes.
We conclude that in cases where efficiency is of the essence, \texttt{Xdeg} is the best overall immunization strategy, as it has a slight advantage over \texttt{CI} and its performance is close to optimal. If effectiveness is more important than efficiency, either \texttt{XNB} or \texttt{NB} should be used.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
We developed a theory of spectral analysis for the NB-matrix by studying what happens to its largest eigenvalue when one node is removed from the network. Our theory is independent of the structure of the graph, i.e. we make no assumptions of locally tree-like structure or density or length of cycles, as is usual in other studies. We find two new node-level statistics, or centrality measures, \mbox{$X$-{NB}}{} centrality and \mbox{$X$-degree}{}, which are excellent predictors of a node's influence on the largest NB-eigenvalue. Finally, we focus on the application of targeted immunization, where we propose two new algorithms that are shown to be more effective than other strategies for a variety of real and synthetic graph ensembles.
Our techniques open many possibilities for further research. For instance, the left-hand side of Equation~(\ref{eqn:char-poly}) is reminiscent to certain quantities used in the theory of eigenvalue interlacing \citep{godsil2013algebraic}, while the matrix $\left( B' - tI \right)^{-1}$ on the right-hand side is known as the \emph{resolvent} of $B'$, which has many applications in random matrix theory \citep{taoStieltjes}. On a different note, \citet{cvetkovic1980spectra} highlight that most matrices associated to graphs are \emph{linear} combinations of $I$, $A$, and $D$, whereas the NB-matrix is associated with a \emph{quadratic} combination of $I$, $A$, and $D$, via Equation~(\ref{eqn:aux-nb-matrix}). In the future, we will explore which other matrices associated with graphs can be studied via quadratic, or higher order, combinations of $I$, $A$, and $D$.
We focused on the application to targeted immunization. However, other applications of NB-eigenvalues exist -- e.g., community detection and graph distance. Further studying the behavior of NB-eigenvalues under small perturbations of the graph, using the framework presented here, has potential to affect those applications.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
L.T. thanks Gabor Lippner for many invaluable discussions.
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
\setcitestyle{numbers}
|
\section{The {\tt 4HEX} action and gauge ensembles}
\label{se:act_4hex}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/qhist/qhist}
\caption
{
\label{fi:qhist}History of topological charge, defined from the
Wilson-flow in a {\tt 4HEX} run at the physical point. The lattice
spacing is about $a=0.112$~fm and the strange-to-light-quark mass ratio
is $m_s/m_l=33.728$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/qsusc/qsusc}
\caption
{
\label{fi:qsusc}Topological susceptibility as a function of the quark
mass with the {\tt 4HEX} action at $a=0.112$~fm lattice spacing. Also
plotted are {\tt 4stout} results at the physical point and with two
different lattice spacings. The grey band is the prediction of leading
order chiral perturbation theory, with parameters taken from
\cite{Aoki:2016frl}. The {\tt 4HEX} simulation with the lightest quark
mass ($m_l= 0.6\cdot m_\mathrm{phys}$) has a topological
susceptibility, that is about the same as in the continuum at the
physical point.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C|C|R|C}
\beta & a[\text{fm}] & m_s & m_s/m_l & L\times T & \#\text{ conf} & M_{\pi}[\text{MeV}] \\
\hline
0.7300 & 0.112 & 0.060610 & 44.971 & 56\times84 & 7709 & 104 \\
& & & & 96\times96 & 962 & \\
& & & 33.728 & 56\times84 & 8173 & 121 \\
& & & & 96\times96 & 813 & \\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:4hex}List of {\tt 4HEX} ensembles with gauge coupling,
lattice spacing, quark masses, lattice size, number of configurations
and Goldstone pion mass. These masses are chosen so that they bracket
the point where a certain taste-average pion mass has the physical
value of the pion mass (see text). At that point the Goldstone-pion
mass is $M_\pi=110$~MeV.
}
\end{table}
A major systematic effect of the {\tt 4stout} ensembles is related to their box
size, which is about $L\approx6$~fm. To obtain the infinite-volume result it is
desirable to extend the data set with a significantly larger box. A large box
is computationally only affordable with a large lattice spacing. On coarse
lattices, however, taste violations make the pions too heavy, which completely
distorts the finite-volume behavior and makes a finite-size study pointless.
We introduce here a new staggered action, called {\tt 4HEX}, to drastically
reduce the taste violation. This requires a gauge action that heavily
suppresses ultraviolet fluctuations and a fermion action with a more aggressive
smearing than {\tt 4stout}. As a result, taste splitting is reduced by an order
of magnitude. Additionally, we lower the Goldstone-pion mass below the physical
value, ensuring that the heavier tastes are closer to the physical pion mass.
The topological susceptibility is particularly sensitive to taste violations.
We show here that the observed reduced taste violation is paired with having
the topological susceptibility much closer to the continuum than in {\tt
4stout} at the same lattice spacing. We use this {\tt 4HEX} action to generate
the lattices for our finite-size study.
The {\tt 4HEX} gauge ensembles use the same action both for the valence and the
sea quarks. They have the following characteristics:
\begin{itemize}
\item $n_f=2+1$ flavors of one-link staggered quarks with four steps of HEX
smeared \cite{Capitani:2006ni} gauge links,
\item DBW2 gauge action \cite{Takaishi:1996xj}, which differs from the
Symanzik gauge action used in {\tt 4stout} only in the coefficient of
the $1\times 2$ Wilson-loop.
\end{itemize}
The rationale for this choice is to drastically reduce the ultraviolet
fluctuations in the gauge configurations, since these directly impact the size
of the taste violation.
Four steps of HEX smearing suppresses the ultraviolet fluctuations much more
than four steps of stout smearing, and does so without increasing the locality
range of the smearing procedure. Though higher numbers of HEX smearing steps
would also have been possible, the increasing cost of the smearing and the
marginal improvement in the taste violations make an even higher number of
steps less practical.
The DBW2 gauge action suppresses taste violations even more than the Symanzik
gauge action, as shown eg.\ in \cite{DeGrand:2002vu}. However, it slows down
the decorrelation of the topological charge towards the continuum limit much
more dramatically than other gauge actions. We use the {\tt 4HEX} action only
at lattice spacings where sufficient tunnelings in the topological charge $Q$
are observed. This includes the lattice spacing where we carry out the
finite-volume study of the hadronic vacuum polarization. Figure \ref{fi:qhist}
shows the history of the charge $Q$ in one of these runs. Again, $Q$ is
computed using the standard discretization of the topological charge density at
a Wilson-flow time of $\tau$, which was set to have a smearing radius of about
$\sqrt{8\tau}\approx1.1$~fm. The integrated autocorrelation time of $Q$ is
found to be $6(1)$ trajectories.
In exploring the parameter space of the action we carried out $n_f=3$
simulations at five different $\beta$ values in the range $\beta= 0.70\dots
0.75$, corresponding to lattice spacings $a\approx 0.13\dots 0.10$~fm. Note
that such small $\beta$ values are typical with the DBW2 gauge action. The
quark mass was tuned to the vicinity of the three flavor symmetric point where
the quark mass equals the physical value of $\tfrac{1}{3}(2 m_l +m_s)$. The
lattice sizes were $32\times 64$. Members of the pion taste multiplet are shown
as a function of the lattice spacing in Figure \ref{fi:tavi}, together with
{\tt 4stout} data. The {\tt 4HEX} taste violations are an order of magnitude
smaller than that of the {\tt 4stout} action. At a lattice spacing of
$a=0.112$~fm, {\tt 4HEX} is as good as {\tt 4stout} at $a=0.064$~fm, which is
the finest lattice spacing available.
This reduced taste violation is also reflected in the topological
susceptibility. Non-chiral actions, including staggered fermions, typically
show large discretization errors in this quantity. Figure \ref{fi:qsusc} shows
$n_f=2+1$ {\tt 4HEX} simulations at $\beta=0.73$, $a= 0.112$~fm, with the
physical strange-quark mass. The light-quark mass was varied from $0.6$ to
$8.7$ times its physical value, set by the Goldstone-pion mass. The lattice
sizes are $32\times 64$ and $56\times84$. Results obtained with the {\tt
4stout} action at the physical point are also given in the plot. The {\tt
4stout} result at the same lattice spacing is off by an order of magnitude from
the continuum expectation. On the other hand the {\tt 4HEX} data closely
follows the continuum curve almost down to the chiral limit, and is as good as
the {\tt 4stout} result at the finest lattice spacing available.
For the finite-size study of the hadronic vacuum polarization we work at
$\beta=0.73$ and $m_s=0.06061$. This choice corresponds to $a=0.112$~fm and
about a physical strange-quark mass. The ensembles generated are listed in
Table \ref{ta:4hex}. We have two different volumes with the same parameters.
We will refer to the smaller volume as the ``reference volume''. It has a
spatial and time extent of
\begin{gather}
L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272\text{ fm}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
T_\mathrm{ref}=\frac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}\ .
\end{gather}
This geometry corresponds approximately to the geometry of the lattices in the
{\tt 4stout} data set. The larger lattice extents will be denoted by
$L_\mathrm{big}$ and $T_\mathrm{big}$ and are given as
\begin{gather}
L_\mathrm{big}=T_\mathrm{big}=10.752\text{ fm}\ .
\end{gather}
We also use two light-quark-mass values, so that we can bracket the physical
point. Here, differently from above and also from the {\tt 4stout} data set,
we set the physical point, not with the Goldstone-pion mass, rather with a
prescription that takes into account taste violations. Such a choice is
advantageous for studying finite-size effects, which depend strongly on the
masses of the pions. The precise definition of the taste-average pion mass
will be given in the section on finite-size effects, Section \ref{se:obs_fv}.
For the Goldstone pion this prescription gives $M_{\pi}=110$~MeV. Let us note
here also that the topological susceptibility, with such a choice, is about the
same as in the continuum limit at the physical point, as shown in Figure
\ref{fi:qsusc}. The number of configurations saved is also given in Table
\ref{ta:4hex}. They are separated by 10 unit-length RHMC trajectories.
\section{The {\tt 4stout} action and gauge ensembles}
\label{se:act_4stout}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figures/4stout/4stout}
\caption{
\label{fi:microlandscape} Position of the {\tt 4stout} ensembles in the
plane of the hadron mass combinations of Equation
\eqref{eq:mpimkratios}. These correspond
approximately to the light and strange quark masses. The lattice
spacings are $a=0.1315$, $0.1191$, $0.1116$, $0.0952$,
$0.0787$ and $0.0640$~fm, respectively. The corresponding $\beta$
gauge couplings are indicated at the top of each panel.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/tavi/tavi}
\caption
{
\label{fi:tavi}Taste multiplet of staggered pions as a function of
lattice spacing, both for the {\tt 4stout} and the {\tt 4HEX} action.
We label the meson operators by Roman numbers as in
\cite{Ishizuka:1993mt}. The pseudo-Goldstone-boson is labeled by $\alpha$=II
and the root-mean-square pion mass corresponds approximately to the
operator $\alpha$=VIII, drawn with a solid line.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/qhist2/qhist2}
\caption
{
\label{fi:qhist2}History of topological charge $Q$, defined from the
Wilson-flow in a {\tt 4stout} run at the physical point. The lattice
spacing is about $a=0.064$~fm.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C|C|R}
\beta & a[\text{fm}] & L\times T & m_s & m_s/m_l & \# \text{conf} \\
\hline
\hline
3.7000 & 0.1315 & 48\times 64 & 0.057291 & 27.899 & 904 \\
\hline
3.7500 & 0.1191 & 56\times 96 & 0.049593 & 28.038 & 315 \\
& & & 0.049593 & 26.939 & 516 \\
& & & 0.051617 & 29.183 & 504 \\
& & & 0.051617 & 28.038 & 522 \\
& & & 0.055666 & 28.038 & 215 \\
\hline
3.7753 & 0.1116 & 56\times 84 & 0.047615 & 27.843 & 510 \\
& & & 0.048567 & 28.400 & 505 \\
& & & 0.046186 & 26.479 & 507 \\
& & & 0.049520 & 27.852 & 385 \\
\hline
3.8400 & 0.0952 & 64\times 96 & 0.043194 & 28.500 & 510 \\
& & & 0.043194 & 30.205 & 190 \\
& & & 0.043194 & 30.205 & 436 \\
& & & 0.040750 & 28.007 & 1503 \\
& & & 0.039130 & 26.893 & 500 \\
\hline
3.9200 & 0.0787 & 80\times 128 & 0.032440 & 27.679 & 506 \\
& & & 0.034240 & 27.502 & 512 \\
& & & 0.032000 & 26.512 & 1001 \\
& & & 0.032440 & 27.679 & 327 \\
& & & 0.033286 & 27.738 & 1450 \\
& & & 0.034240 & 27.502 & 500 \\
\hline
4.0126 & 0.0640 & 96\times 144 & 0.026500 & 27.634 & 446 \\
& & & 0.026500 & 27.124 & 551 \\
& & & 0.026500 & 27.634 & 2248 \\
& & & 0.026500 & 27.124 & 1000 \\
& & & 0.027318 & 27.263 & 985 \\
& & & 0.027318 & 28.695 & 1750 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:4stout}List of {\tt 4stout} ensembles with gauge coupling,
lattice spacing at the physical point, lattice size, quark masses and
number of configurations. Two different lines with the same parameters
means that the ensembles were generated in two different streams.
}
\end{table}
The main part of the simulation effort was carried out using the
\texttt{4stout} lattice action. This discretization is defined through the use
of the tree-level Symanzik gauge action \cite{Luscher:1984xn} and a one-link
staggered fermion action with four steps of stout smearing
\cite{Morningstar:2003gk}. The smearing parameter was set to $\rho=0.125$.
We have chosen six gauge coupling parameters, $\beta=6/g^2$, as shown in Table
\ref{ta:4stout}. All of these ensembles were generated using 2+1+1 dynamical
flavors with no isospin breaking. The charm mass is set by its ratio to the
strange mass, $m_c/m_s=11.85$, which comes from the spectroscopy of the
pseudoscalar charmed mesons in the continuum limit worked out in
\cite{Davies:2009ih}. This value is within one per-cent of the latest FLAG
average \cite{Aoki:2019cca}. The light and strange quark masses are chosen to
scatter around a ``physical point'' defined by the pseudoscalar masses $M_\pi$
and $M_K$ and the mass of the Omega baryon, $M_\Omega$, as follows:
\begin{gather}
\frac{M_\pi^2}{M_\Omega^2} = \left[\frac{M_{\pi_0}^2}{M_{\Omega_-}^2}\right]_*,\qquad
\frac{M_K^2-\tfrac{1}{2}M_\pi^2}{M_\Omega^2} = \left[ \frac{M_{K_\chi}^2}{M_{\Omega_-}^2}\right]_*.
\label{eq:mpimkratios}
\end{gather}
where $*$ denotes the experimental value and
\begin{gather}
M_{K_\chi}^2\equiv \tfrac{1}{2}\left( M_{K^+}^2 + M_{K^0}^2- M_{\pi^+}^2\right)\,.
\label{eq:mkchi}
\end{gather}
The latter quantity is designed to be approximately proportional to the strange
quark mass with a vanishing leading order sensitivity to strong-isospin
breaking.
In Equation \eqref{eq:mpimkratios}, the mass of the Omega baryon plays the role
of the scale setting variable. It could, in principle, be replaced by any other
dimensionful quantity that satisfies the criteria: a) moderate quark mass
dependence, b) precisely determined in a lattice simulation, c) known
experimental value to an accuracy better than a permil level. The mass
$M_\Omega$ satisfies all three criteria, see Section \ref{se:obs_mass} for more
details. In this work we also use the $w_0$-scale \cite{Borsanyi:2012zs}, which
is derived from the Wilson-flow of the gauge fields \cite{Luscher:2010iy}. The
main motivation for this scale setting is to define an isospin decomposition,
see Section \ref{se:obs_split}. The $w_0$-scale readily satisfies both the a)
and b) criteria but, alas, it is defined in terms of observables in Euclidean
space, not by any experiment. In order to use $w_0$ for scale setting, we first
determine its physical value from our simulations, using the accurate
$M_\Omega$ scale as an input. This is described in Section \ref{se:res_w0etal}.
Evidently whenever we use the $w_0$ scale setting, both the statistical and the
systematic error of $w_0$, as well as the statistical correlation, will be
accounted for. As a by-product of this procedure, we give a physical value for
$w_0$, including dynamical QED effects, for the first time in the literature.
Our main analysis is based on the 27 ensembles shown in Table \ref{ta:4stout}.
In Figure \ref{fi:microlandscape} we show the ``landscape'' for each of our
lattice spacings: we plot the ensembles in a plane where the $x$ and $y$ axes
give the relative deviation of the light and strange quark masses from their
physical value. These are defined by the hadronic observables and their
experimental values in Equation \eqref{eq:mpimkratios}. The simulation
parameters are chosen in a way that makes interpolation to the physical point
possible. This ``bracketing'' feature is not available for each lattice
spacing, but only if all lattice spacings are considered together. This is not
a problem, since in our analyses we apply global fits with all ensembles
included. In Figure \ref{fi:microlandscape} each ensemble is represented by two
points, corresponding to the $M_\Omega$ and $w_0$ scale settings. Although we
determined the physical value of $w_0$ using $M_\Omega$ itself, the mass ratios
vary with the choice of scale setting. This is because there are discretization
effects in the $w_0 M_\Omega$ product on the lattice. Notice that the finer
the lattices, the smaller the difference in the respective mass ratios.
We also measured the taste violation for all six lattice spacings. The result
is shown in Figure \ref{fi:tavi}. The plot shows the mass-squared difference
between a non-Goldstone pion and the Goldstone pion as a function of the
lattice spacing. The difference shows a behavior that resembles $a^4$ in the
range of our smallest three lattice spacings. This is much faster than the
$\alpha_s a^2$ \cite{Lepage:1998vj}, where $\alpha_s$ is the strong coupling
constant at the lattice cutoff scale. The faster falloff is most probably due
to higher order terms of the type $\alpha_s^n a^2$ with $n>1$. At the smallest
lattice spacing the root-mean-square pion mass is about
$m_{\pi,\mathrm{RMS}}=155$~MeV.
In Figure \ref{fi:qhist2} we show the topological-charge history in a run on
our finest lattice. The charge $Q$ was computed using the standard
discretization of the topological charge density at a Wilson-flow time of
$\tau$, which was set to have a smearing radius of about
$\sqrt{8\tau}\approx0.6$~fm. The integrated autocorrelation time of $Q$ is
found to be $19(2)$ trajectories.
\section{Overlap action}
\label{se:act_overlap}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C|C|R}
\beta & a[\text{fm}] & L\times T & m_s & m_s/m_l & \# \text{conf} \\
\hline
\hline
3.7000 & 0.1315 & 24\times 48 & 0.057291 & 27.899 & 716 \\
\hline
3.7753 & 0.1116 & 28\times 56 & 0.047615 & 27.843 & 887 \\
\hline
3.8400 & 0.0952 & 32\times 64 & 0.043194 & 28.500 & 1110 \\
\hline
3.9200 & 0.0787 & 40\times 80 & 0.032000 & 26.512 & 559 \\
& & & 0.033286 & 27.738 & 364 \\
\hline
4.0126 & 0.0640 & 48\times 96 & 0.026500 & 27.634 & 339 \\
& & & 0.027318 & 27.263 & 264 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:win3fm}List of {\tt 4stout} ensembles used in a crosscheck
with valence overlap quarks. The columns are gauge coupling, lattice
spacing at the physical point, lattice size, quark masses and number of
configurations.
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C}
\beta & m_l & m_\mathrm{ov} & Z_V \\
\hline
3.7000 & 0.0021 & 0.0164(2) & 1.1474(3)\\
3.7753 & 0.0017 & 0.0076(1) & 1.1162(3)\\
3.8400 & 0.0015 & 0.0041(1) & 1.0981(2)\\
3.9200 & 0.0012 & 0.0021(1) & 1.0805(1)\\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:match}Staggered light-quark mass, matched overlap quark mass
and vector renormalization constant for different lattice spacings.
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/ovzv/ovzv}
\caption
{
\label{fi:ovzv}Ratio of three-point and two-point functions $\zeta(t)$
as function of the current insertion time $t$. This ratio is used to
define the local vector current renormalization factor as
$Z_V=[\zeta(T/4)-\zeta(3T/4)]^{-1}$. The plot shows data from a
$\beta=3.7753$ ensemble, $T=56$.
}
\end{figure}
In order to crosscheck our results for staggered valence quark artefacts,
including the normalization of the vector current, we compute
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}$ in a mixed action setup, with overlap
valence quarks on gauge backgrounds generated with the {\tt 4stout} staggered
action. We work at the isospin-symmetric point in this crosscheck.
For the sea quarks we use the {\tt 4stout} staggered action and generate
configurations with $L\approx 3$~fm box sizes and at five lattice
spacings, given in Table \ref{ta:win3fm}. The parameters are chosen to match
the parameters of a subset of the $L\approx6$~fm lattices of the {\tt 4stout}
data set given in Table \ref{ta:4stout}. Though there are significant
finite-size effects in a box of $L\approx3$~fm for an observable like
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$, these are much less severe for the window observable
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}$, which is our target here. Our setup is
appropriate for crosschecking the continuum extrapolation and also the
normalization of the vector current.
For the valence quarks we use the overlap fermion formulation
\cite{Neuberger:1997fp}. In particular, the overlap Dirac operator
$D_\mathrm{ov}$ is constructed from the sign function of the Wilson Dirac
operator $D_\mathrm{W}$ as
\begin{gather}
D_\mathrm{ov}= m_\mathrm{W}\left[ \mathrm{sgn}(\gamma_5 D_\mathrm{W}) + 1\right]\ ,
\end{gather}
where the Wilson operator has a mass of $-m_\mathrm{W}$. We choose
$m_\mathrm{W}=1.3$ and use the Zolotarev approximation of the sign function.
The gauge fields undergo two steps of HEX smearing \cite{Durr:2007cy}. The
overlap mass $m_\mathrm{ov}$ is introduced as
\begin{gather}
D_\mathrm{ov}(m_\mathrm{ov})= \left( 1- \tfrac{1}{2}m_\mathrm{ov}\right) D_\mathrm{ov} + m_\mathrm{ov}\ .
\end{gather}
This version of the operator has been extensively used in previous thermodynamical
studies \cite{Borsanyi:2016ksw,Borsanyi:2012xf}. We apply $O(a)$
improvement to the overlap propagator by transforming each instance of
$D_\mathrm{ov}^{-1}(m_\mathrm{ov})$ as
\begin{gather}
D_\mathrm{ov}^{-1}(m_\mathrm{ov}) \to \left( 1 - \tfrac{1}{2}D_\mathrm{ov}/m_\mathrm{W} \right) D_\mathrm{ov}^{-1}(m_\mathrm{ov})\ .
\end{gather}
At the same time we also compute the propagators with {\tt 4stout} staggered
quarks, using the noise reduction technique as on the large volume
ensembles.
We set the overlap quark mass by matching the staggered and overlap pion
masses. For this purpose, we compute overlap pion masses at four values of the
quark mass $m_\mathrm{ov}=0.002,0.005,0.010,0.020$ and interpolate the pion
mass squared using the form
\begin{gather}
M_{\pi,\mathrm{ov}}^2(m_\mathrm{ov})= A m_\mathrm{ov}^B + C m_\mathrm{ov}^2
\end{gather}
with $A$, $B$ and $C$ fit parameters. This form can capture a possible quenched
chiral logarithm \cite{Sharpe:1992ft} typical in mixed action setups. Our
matching condition is to set the root-mean-square staggered pion mass equal to
the overlap pion mass. Using the RMS pion is more advantageous than using the
Goldstone-pion mass, since in the latter case we face drastic increase in the
statistical error on our coarsest lattices. For the matched overlap quark
masses we get the values given in Table \ref{ta:match}.
Our determination of $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}$ proceeds in a
similar way as in the staggered-on-staggered case, described in Sections
\ref{se:obs_jj} and \ref{se:obs_hvp}. A major difference is that we use the
local vector current in the overlap case. We thus need to compute the current
renormalization constant $Z_V$, which we get by measuring the electric charge
of the pion. For this we compute the ratio of three-point and two-point functions:
\begin{gather}
\zeta(t)= \frac{\langle P(T/2) V_4(t) \bar{P}(0)\rangle}{\langle P(T/2) \bar{P}(0)\rangle}\ ,
\end{gather}
where the pseudoscalar density $P$ and the local vector current $V_\mu$ are given
in terms of valence overlap fermion fields $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ as:
\begin{gather}
P(t)= \sum_{\vec x} (\bar{\psi}_2 \gamma_5 \psi_1)(\vec x,t)\ ,\quad
\bar{P}(t)= \sum_{\vec x} (\bar{\psi}_1 \gamma_5 \psi_2)(\vec x,t)\ ,\quad
V_\mu(t)=\sum_{\vec x} (\bar{\psi}_1 \gamma_\mu \psi_1)(\vec x,t)\ .
\end{gather}
In Figure \ref{fi:ovzv} we show the ratio $\zeta(t)$ as a function of the
timeslice of the current insertion $t$. In the case of a conserved current,
$\zeta(t)=\tfrac{1}{2}$ for $t<T/2$ and $\zeta(t)=-\tfrac{1}{2}$ otherwise. The
renormalization factor should be defined, so that the $\zeta$-ratio
for the renormalized current $Z_V V_4$ equals to $1$ at some physical distance,
for which we take $T/4$. We define the renormalization factor as
$Z_V=[\zeta(T/4) - \zeta(3T/4)]^{-1}$, which includes a trivial symmetrization
in time. The values for the different ensembles are given in Table
\ref{ta:match}.
\section*{Finite-size effects}
Finite-size effects on $a_\mu$ were the largest source of uncertainty in our
previous work \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. We compute these effects in a systematic
way, which includes dedicated lattice simulations, chiral perturbation theory
and phenomenological models. The concrete goal is to provide a single number
that is to be added to the continuum-extrapolated lattice result obtained in a
reference box, which is defined by a spatial extent of
$L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm and a temporal extent of
$T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$. Here we summarize our findings on
the finite-size effect of the isospin-symmetric part. More details and a
discussion of the isospin-breaking part can be found in the Supplementary
Information.
We perform dedicated lattice simulations with two different lattice geometries:
one is a $56\times84$ lattice with the reference box size and the other is a
large $96\times96$ lattice with box size $L=L_\mathrm{big}=10.752$~fm and
$T=T_\mathrm{big}=L_\mathrm{big}$. Since taste violations distort the
finite-size effects, we designed a new action with highly-suppressed taste
breaking, which we call {\tt 4HEX}. Our
strategy is then to compute the finite-size correction as the following sum:
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
\label{exteq:telescope}
\begin{gathered}
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})=\\
=[a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})]_{\tt 4HEX} +
[a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})]_\mathrm{XPT}.
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
The first difference on the right hand side is taken from the dedicated {\tt
4HEX} simulations. The second difference is expected to be much smaller than
the first and is taken from a non-lattice approach: two-loop chiral
perturbation theory.
We consider four non-lattice approaches to compute both differences on the
right hand side of Equation \eqref{exteq:telescope}. In the case of the first
difference, the results obtained are compared to our {\tt 4HEX} simulations.
The first approach is chiral perturbation theory (XPT) to next-to-leading and
next-to-next-to-leading orders (NLO and NNLO), the second is the
Meyer-Lellouch-Luscher-Gounaris-Sakurai model (MLLGS), the third approach is
that of Hansen and Patella (HP) \cite{Hansen:2019rbh} and the fourth is the
rho-pion-gamma model of \cite{Chakraborty:2016mwy}, which we abbreviate as RHO
here.
We compute the first difference in Equation \eqref{exteq:telescope} using
dedicated simulations with the {\tt 4HEX} action. We
use the
harmonic-mean-square (HMS) to set the physical point:
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation*}
M^{-2}_{\pi,\mathrm{HMS}}\equiv \frac{1}{16} \sum_\alpha M^{-2}_{\pi,\alpha}\ ,
\end{equation*}
\end{linenomath*}
defined as an average over the masses of the 16 pion tastes, $M_{\pi,\alpha}$.
We set $M_{\pi,\mathrm{HMS}}$ to the physical value of the pion mass, which
requires lowering the Goldstone-pion mass to $110$~MeV. This way of fixing the
physical point results in much smaller lattice artefacts than the usual setting
with the Goldstone-pion, at least for an observable like the finite-size
effect.
To generate the {\tt 4HEX} data set, we performed simulations with two
different Goldstone pion masses: $M_\pi=104$~MeV and $121$~MeV. To set the
physical point as described above, we perform an interpolation from these two
pion masses to $M_\pi=110$~MeV.
To compute $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}$ from the current propagator in our {\tt
4HEX} simulations we use the upper and lower bound technique described in the
Supplementary Information. Results for the $M_\pi=121$~MeV simulation point
are plotted in Extended Data Figure \ref{extfi:fv4hex}. The bounds meet at
around $4.2$~fm and $4.7$~fm on the small and large volumes, respectively. At
these distances we take the average of the two bounds as an estimate for
$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}$. The results are given in the Extended Data Table
\ref{extta:4hex}.
We only have one lattice spacing with the {\tt 4HEX} action, so the finite-size
effects cannot be extrapolated to the continuum limit. We estimate the cutoff
effect of the result by comparing the total $a_\mu$ with the {\tt 4HEX} action
at this single lattice spacing to the continuum extrapolated {\tt 4stout}
lattice result, both in the $L_\mathrm{ref}$ volume. The {\tt 4HEX} result is
about 7\% larger than the continuum value. Therefore we reduce the measured
finite-size effect by 7\%, and assign a 7\% uncertainty to this correction
step. For the difference we get
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
\label{exteq:fvref}
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 18.1(2.0)_\mathrm{stat}(1.4)_\mathrm{cont}\ .
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
The result is obtained from the $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ numbers of Extended Data
Table \ref{extta:4hex}, including a $\left(\frac{9}{10}\right)$ charge
factor. The first error is statistical and the second is an estimate of the
cutoff effect.
Extended Data Table \ref{extta:xpt} collects the finite-size effect computed in
various non-lattice approaches. The different models give finite-size effects
of similar size, which agree well with the lattice determination of Equation
\eqref{exteq:fvref}. Only the NLO result differs by about $3\sigma$. The fact
that NLO chiral perturbation theory underestimates the finite-size effect was
already shown in \cite{Giusti:2018mdh}, at a non-physical pion mass. Using the
physical pion mass, a dedicated finite-volume study was carried out in
\cite{Shintani:2019wai}. It reaches the same conclusion as we do, albeit with
larger errors. We also see that, according to the models, the finite-$T$
effect is much smaller than the finite-$L$ effect.
The good agreement for the finite-size effect of the reference box, between the
models and the lattice, gives us confidence that the models can be used to
reliably compute the very small, residual, finite-size effect of the large box.
The corresponding model estimates can be found in Extended Data Table
\ref{extta:xpt}. For an infinite-time extent the NNLO XPT, the HP and RHO
approaches agree nicely. As a final value for the large-box, finite-size effect
we take the NNLO XPT result including finite-$T$ effects:
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation*}
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})= 0.6(0.3)_\mathrm{big}\ ,
\end{equation*}
\end{linenomath*}
where the uncertainty is an estimate of higher-order effects, given here by the
difference of the NNLO and NLO values.
For our final result for the finite-size effect of the reference box, we also
include the contribution of isoscalar channel and isospin-breaking effects
giving:
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation*}
a_\mu(\infty,\infty) - a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 18.7(2.0)_\mathrm{stat}(1.4)_\mathrm{cont}(0.3)_\mathrm{big}(0.6)_{I=0}(0.1)_\mathrm{qed}[2.5]\ .
\end{equation*}
\end{linenomath*}
The first error is the statistical uncertainty of our {\tt 4HEX} computation,
the second is an estimate of the {\tt 4HEX} cutoff effects, the third is the
uncertainty of the residual finite-size effect of the ``big'' lattice, the
fourth is a XPT estimate of the $I=0$ finite size effect and the fifth is an
estimate of the isospin-breaking effects. The last, total error in the
square-brackets is the sum of the first five, added in quadrature. The vast
majority of the finite-size effect is obtained using the {\tt 4HEX} lattice
computation; for the rest we apply analytic methods. These methods have been
validated by the lattice computation: for the main contribution they give
values that are consistent with the lattice result.
\section*{Taste improvement}
As is well known, some of the most important cutoff effects of staggered
fermions are taste violations. At long distances, these violations distort the
pion spectrum. Since $a_\mu$ is predominantly a long-distance observable,
dominated by a two-pion contribution, including the $\rho$ resonance, we expect
these effects to be largest in the light-quark terms.
We investigate various physically motivated models for reducing long-distance
taste violations in our lattice results. We consider three techniques:
next-to-next-to-leading order chiral perturbation theory (NNLO XPT), a
Meyer-Lellouch-L\"uscher-Gounaris-Sakurai model (MLLGS) and the rho-pion-gamma
model (RHO). For the definition of these models see the Supplementary
Information. We investigate and discuss the suitability of their staggered
versions for reducing the taste violations present in our lattice data. We call
the resulting corrections taste improvements, because they improve the
continuum extrapolation of our lattice data without, in principle, modifying
the continuum-limit value. Indeed, these corrections vanish in that limit, as
taste-breaking effects should. These improvements are applied on light-quark
observables at the isospin-symmetric point, whose taste violations have the
largest impact on our final uncertainties.
The models NNLO XPT, MLLGS and RHO describe the long-distance physics
associated with finite-volume effects, as measured in our simulations. One can
also define corresponding models describing the taste violations, they are
denoted NNLO SXPT, SMLLGS and SRHO. We find that they describe the physics
associated with taste violations, at least at larger distances. This is
illustrated in Extended Data Figure \ref{extfi:amuwsxx}, where cutoff effects in
the integrand of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ are plotted as a function of Euclidean
time. More specifically, we define the physical observable, obtained by
convoluting the integrand of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ with a smooth window
function $W(t;t_1)$ of a width of $0.5$~fm and starting at a time of $t_1$.
Then we consider the difference in the value of this observable, obtained on a
fine and a coarse lattice at a sequence of $t_1$ separated by
$0.1\,\mathrm{fm}$. These are compared to the NLO SXPT, NNLO SXPT, SRHO and
SMLLGS predictions for this quantity, evaluated at the exact parameters of the
ensembles.
The SMLLGS, the SRHO and the NNLO SXPT taste improvements describe the
numerical data very nicely for $t_1\gsim 2.0\,\mathrm{fm}$, fairly well for
$t_1\gsim 1.0\,\mathrm{fm}$ and all the way down to $t_1\simeq
0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ in the case of SRHO. All three slightly overestimate the
observed cutoff effects, the rho-meson based approach performing best, whereas
NNLO displays a large deviation from the lattice results in the $t_1\le
0.8\,\mathrm{fm}$ region. The lattice results have a maximum at
$t_1=1.4\,\mathrm{fm}$, as does the SRHO improvement, reinforcing our
confidence that this model captures the relevant physics.
These findings lead us to apply the following taste corrections to our
simulations results for $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}(L,T,a)$, obtained on an
$L^3\times T$ lattice with lattice spacing $a$, before performing continuum
extrapolations:
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}[]
a_\mu^\mathrm{light}(L,T,a) \to
a_\mu^\mathrm{light}(L,T,a)
&+\tfrac{10}{9}\left[a_{\mu,t \ge t_\mathrm{sep}}^\mathrm{RHO}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})-a_{\mu,t \ge t_\mathrm{sep}}^\mathrm{SRHO}(L,T,a) \right],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{linenomath*}
with $t_\mathrm{sep}=0.4,0.7,1.0,1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, and where the factor
$(10/9)$ is related to the quark charges. Note that by using $L_\mathrm{ref}$
and $T_\mathrm{ref}$ in the above Equation, we are applying a very small volume
correction to interpolate all of our simulation results to the same reference,
four-volume so that they can be extrapolated to the continuum limit together.
The taste-improved data is then extrapolated to the continuum using our
standard fit procedure, in the course of which isospin-breaking effects are
also included. For estimating the systematic error we use a histogram
technique. The central values and the detailed error budget of this analysis
can be found in the Supplementary Information.
The procedure described above does not yet take into account the systematic
uncertainty associated with our choice of SRHO for taste improvement for
$t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. Since applying no taste improvement in that region is not
an option, because of the nonlinearities introduced by two-pion, taste
violations, we turn to NNLO SXPT, only as a means to estimate the uncertainty
associated with this choice. Thus, we define this systematic uncertainty as ERR
= (SRHO $-$ NNLO SXPT) for $t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. Then, we perform the same
histogram analysis but with SRHO, SRHO-ERR and SRHO+ERR improvements. From this
histogram we extract the contribution which comes from the variation in the
improvement model from SRHO-ERR to SRHO+ERR. We assign this full spread to the
systematic uncertainty associated with the taste-improvement procedure. We add
this error in quadrature to the error given by the histogram technique
discussed in the previous paragraph.
The procedure is illustrated in Extended Data Figure~\ref{extfi:cont}, which shows the data
sets for $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ without and with taste improvements, as
functions of $a^2$. (See also Figure~\ref{fi:main_cont} of the main paper,
which zooms in on the taste-improved, continuum extrapolations.) The SRHO
improvement with $t_\mathrm{sep}=0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ are shown as red points,
while blue points correspond to $t_\mathrm{sep}=1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. These plots
already include isospin-breaking contributions. An example of our lattice
results with SRHO improvement between $t=0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ and
$t=1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$ and NNLO SXPT improvement above are shown as grey points
in Extended Data Figure~\ref{extfi:cont}.
An important check of our taste-improvement procedure is provided by the study
of the isoscalar or $I=0$ contribution to $a_\mu$, as suggested by arguments
made in \cite{Gerardin:2019rua}. Here we work with the isospin-symmetric data sets.
Then the $I=0$ contribution is defined as
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
\label{exteq:amuIeq0}
a_\mu^{I=0}\equiv
\frac1{10}a_\mu^\mathrm{light} +a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}+\cdots \ ,
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
where the ellipsis stands for the quark-connected contributions of the more
massive $s$, $c$, \ldots\ quarks. This quantity receives no two-pion
contributions: it starts with three pions, whose taste-breaking effects should
be very small. Thus, if our understanding of discretization errors in
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$ is correct, the taste-breaking
corrections observed in the light and disconnected quantities must be largely
absent from $a_\mu^{I=0}$. As a consequence, we expect the continuum
extrapolation of $a_\mu^{I=0}$ to be much milder. That is exactly what is shown
in Extended Data Figure \ref{extfi:ieq0} and explained in its caption.
\section*{Results for $w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2$}
Here we describe the details of the analyses that are used to obtain the
physical values of $w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2=M_{dd}^2-M_{uu}^2$ from the
experimental values of hadron masses, including the mass of the $\Omega$
baryon. The $M_{uu}$/$M_{dd}$/$M_{ss}$ denote the masses of mesons built from
an up/down/strange and an anti-up/down/strange quark without quark-disconnected
contributions. The results for these quantities are used to define the
isopin-symmetric point in this paper, as described in the Supplemental
Information.
In the case of $w_0$, the observable we fit is $w_0M_\Omega$. To account for
the systematic error due to the different continuum extrapolations we apply
both linear and quadratic functions in the isospin-symmetric component. We also
remove zero/one/two/three of the coarsest lattice spacings in the linear and
zero/one/two lattice spacings in the quadratic fits. For the tiny valence QED
component only linear fits are applied, with zero/one/two points removed; for
the even smaller sea QED contributions, we have either a constant or a linear
fit with all lattice spacings.
The systematic error of the hadron mass fits is taken into account by 24
different combinations of the fit ranges: three for the $M_\Omega$ mass, two
for the pseudoscalars, two for the isospin breaking of the $M_\Omega$ and two
for the isospin breaking of the pseudoscalars. To account for the experimental
error on $M_\Omega$ we carry out the analysis with two different experimental
values: one that corresponds to the central value plus the experimental error;
the other with this error subtracted.
Altogether, these yield a total of 129024 fits. When the different analyses
are combined into a histogram to determine the systematic error, the results from
different fit functions or lattice spacing cuts are weighted with the Akaike
Information Criterion, the rest with flat weighting. We obtain
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
\label{exteq:w0}
w_0 = 0.17236(29)(63)[70]\ \text{fm}\ ,
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
where the first error is statistical, and the second is systematic and the
third is the total error; we reach a relative precision of $0.4$\%. The split
up of the error into different sources can be found in the Supplementary
Information. In Extended Data Figure \ref{extfi:w0} we show the various
isospin components of $w_0M_\Omega$ versus the lattice spacing squared,
together with the different continuum extrapolations. Our result
\eqref{exteq:w0} is in good agreement with earlier four-flavor determinations:
$w_0=0.1715(9)$~fm of \cite{Dowdall:2013rya} and
$w_0=0.1714\left(\begin{smallmatrix}+15 \\-12\end{smallmatrix}\right)$~fm of
\cite{Bazavov:2015yea}. In those studies the isospin-breaking effects were
only estimated, whereas in our case they are fully accounted for.
The same procedure is used for $M_{ss}$. We actually work with
$(M_{ss}/M_{\Omega})^2$ instead of $M_{ss}/M_{\Omega}$, since the fit
qualities are much better in the first case. The 129024 different fits give
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
M_{ss}= 689.89(28)(40)[49]\ \text{MeV}\ ,
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
with statistical, systematic and total errors.
Finally we also carry out the analysis for $\Delta M^2/M_\Omega^2$ with $\Delta
M^2=M_{dd}^2-M_{uu}^2$, which is a measure of the strong-isospin breaking.
Altogether we have 3328 fits, which give the following central value with
statistical, systematic and total errors:
\begin{linenomath*}
\begin{equation}
\Delta M^2= 13170(320)(270)[420]\ \text{MeV}^2\ .
\end{equation}
\end{linenomath*}
\printbibliography[segment=2]
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C}
M_\pi \text{ in {\tt 4HEX}}\to & 104\text{ MeV} & 121\text{ MeV} & 110\text{ MeV} \\
\hline
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(56\times 84) &685.9(2.7)& 668.3(2.0)& 679.5(1.9)\\
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(96\times 96) &710.7(1.9)& 684.3(1.7)& 701.1(1.3)
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{extta:4hex} Isospin-symmetric component of
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$. The figures are obtained in simulations with
the {\tt 4HEX} action on two different volumes and two different
Goldston-pion masses. In the last column we also give the interpolated
value at the physical point, using the HMS averaged pion-mass
prescription.
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C|C|C|C}
& \text{NLO XPT} & \text{NNLO XPT} & \text{MLLGS} & \text{HP} & \text{RHO} \\
\hline
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref}) & 11.6 & 15.7 & 17.8 & - & - \\
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},\infty) & 11.2 & 15.3 & 17.4 & 16.3 & 14.8 \\
\hline
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big}) & 0.3 & 0.6 & - & - & - \\
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},\infty) & 1.2 & 1.4 & - &1.4 & 1.4 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{extta:xpt} Finite-size effect in the reference box of the
isospin-symmetric component of $a_\mu$. The figures are obtained in
various model approaches.
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/fv4hex/fv4hex}
\caption
{
\label{extfi:fv4hex}Upper and lower bounds on the light
isospin-symmetric component of $a_\mu$. The results shown here are
obtained with the {\tt 4HEX} action on two different volumes at
$a=0.112$~fm lattice spacing and $M_\pi=121$~MeV Goldstone-pion mass.
We also have another simulation with $M_\pi=104$~MeV mass. From these
two we interpolate to $M_\pi=110$~MeV. This value ensures that a
particular average of pion tastes is fixed to the physical value of the
pion mass (see text). Errorbars are statistical errors (s.e.m.).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/amuwsxx/amuwsxx}
\caption
{
\label{extfi:amuwsxx} Isospin-symmetric component of
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ computed with a sliding window. The window
starts at $t_1$ and ends $0.5\,\mathrm{fm}$ later. The plot shows the
difference between a fine and a coarse lattice, the volumes are
$L=6.14\,\mathrm{fm}$ and $L=6.67\,\mathrm{fm}$. The black squares with
errors are obtained from the simulation, errors are statistical
(s.e.m.). The colored curves are the predictions of NLO and NNLO SXPT,
the SRHO and the SMLLGS models. They are computed at the parameters
(pion mass, taste violation, volume) of the simulations.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/cont/cont}
\caption
{
\label{extfi:cont} Example continuum limits of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$.
The light green triangles labeled none correspond to our lattice
results with no taste improvement. The blue squares have undergone no
taste improvement for $t< 1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$ and SRHO improvement above.
The blue curves correspond to example continuum extrapolations of those
improved data to polynomials in $a^2$, up to and including $a^4$. Note
that extrapolations in $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^3$, with $\alpha_s(1/a)$ the
strong coupling at the lattice scale, are also considered in our final
result. The red circles and curves are the same as the blue points, but
correspond to SRHO taste improvement for $t\ge 0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ and
none for smaller $t$. The purple histogram results from the fits using
the SRHO improvement, the corresponding central value and error is the
purple band. The darker grey circles correspond to results corrected
with SRHO in the range $0.4{-}1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, NNLO SXPT for larger
$t$. These latter fits serve to estimate the systematic uncertainty of
the SRHO improvement. The grey band includes this uncertainty, the
corresponding histogram is shown with grey. Errors are s.e.m.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/ieq0/ieq0}
\caption
{
\label{extfi:ieq0} Comparison of the continuum extrapolation of
$a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$ to those of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and
$a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$. The upper set of grey points corresponds to our
uncorrected results for $\frac1{10}a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$. The upper red
ones are these same results with our standard SRHO taste improvement.
They have a much milder continuum limit that exhibits none of the
nonlinear behavior of the grey points. The red curves show typical
examples of illustrative continuum extrapolations of those
points. The lower set of grey and red points and curves are the
same quantities, but for $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$. Combining the results
from the two, individual, continuum extrapolations of
$\frac1{10}a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, according
to Equation~\eqref{exteq:amuIeq0}, gives the result with statistical
errors illustrated by the red band, and with combined statistical and
systematic errors, by the broader pink band. The blue points correspond
to our results for $a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$, for each of our
simulations, and are obtained by combining the two sets of grey points,
according to Equation~\eqref{exteq:amuIeq0}. As these blue points show,
the resulting continuum-limit behavior of $a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$
is much milder than that of either the uncorrected
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ or $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, and shows none of the
curvature exhibited by them. This behavior resembles much more that of
the taste-improved, red points. Moreover, all of the blue points,
including typical continuum extrapolations drawn as blue lines, lie
within the bands. This suggests that our taste improvements neither
bias the central values of our continuum extrapolated
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, nor do they lead to
an underestimate of uncertainties. Errors are s.e.m.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/w0/w0}
\caption
{
\label{extfi:w0} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to $w_0
M_\Omega$. From top to bottom: isospin-symmetric, electromagnetic
valence-valence, sea-valence and sea-sea component. The results are
multiplied by $10^4/[M_\Omega]_*$, the electric derivatives are
multiplied by $e_*^2$; here the star subscript denotes the physical
value. Errorbars show statistical errors (s.e.m.). Dashed lines are
continuum extrapolations, they are illustrative examples from our
several thousand fits. Only the lattice spacing dependence is shown:
the data points are moved to the physical light and strange quark mass
point. This adjustment varies from fit to fit, the red datapoints are
obtained in an $a^2$-linear fit to all ensembles. If in a fit the
adjusted points differed significantly from the red points, we show
them with grey color. The final result is obtained from a weighted
histogram of the several thousand fits.
}
\end{figure}
\section{Upper and lower bounds on $\langle JJ\rangle$}
\label{se:obs_bound}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/bound/bound}
\caption
{
\label{fi:bound}Upper and lower bounds on $[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_0$
as a function of $t_c$, ie.\ the upper limit of the time integration in
Equation \eqref{eq:kdef}. The lower bound value at $3.0$~fm is
subtracted and the plot shows the result of a combined fit of all
ensembles that is evaluated at $a=0.064$~fm (see text). Such plots are
used to set the value of $t_c$ on our ensembles. We use $t_c=4.0$~fm
everywhere.
}
\end{figure}
In the case of the light and disconnected contributions to the current
propagator, the signal deteriorates quickly as distance is increased. To
calculate the HVP, a sum over time of the propagator has to be performed, as
Equation \eqref{eq:kdef} shows. As was suggested in
\cite{Lehner:2016,Borsanyi:2016lpl}, we introduce a cut in time $t_c$, beyond
which the propagator is replaced by upper and lower bounds, thereby reducing
the statistical noise. Our estimate is given by the average of the bounds at a
$t_c$ where the two bounds meet. In this section only isospin-symmetric
quantities are considered.
Bounds are derived from the assumption that the current propagator is
a sum of exponentials with positive coefficients. In the case of staggered
fermions, where opposite parity states with oscillating coefficients give also
a contribution, the assumption is only satisfied after some distance and within
the statistical error. On our ensembles this is usually the case beyond about
$t\sim2.5$~fm.
For the {\bf light connected propagator} at the isospin-symmetric point the
bounds express the positivity (lower bound) and that the propagator should
decay faster than the exponential of two pions (upper bound).
They are given as
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:hibound}
0 \le G^\mathrm{light}(t)\le G^\mathrm{light}(t_c) \frac{\varphi(t)}{\varphi(t_c)},
\end{gather}
where $\varphi(t)= \exp(-E_{2\pi}t)$. For $E_{2\pi}$ we use the energy
of two non-interacting pions with the smallest non-zero lattice momentum
$2\pi/L$. The larger the $t_c$ the better the upper bound, but it comes with
more statistical noise.
The exponential decay above assumes an infinite time extent, $T=\infty$. We
incorporate the effects of a finite-$T$ using next-to-leading-order chiral
perturbation theory. There the exponential decay with the two-pion energy gets
replaced by the following $\cosh$-type form:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:coshT}
\exp(-E_{2\pi}t) \longrightarrow \frac{\cosh[E_{2\pi}(t-T/2)]+1}{\cosh(E_{2\pi}T/2)-1}\ .
\end{gather}
This is shown in detail in Section \ref{se:obs_xpt}, where the above
replacement corresponds to $\epsilon \to \epsilon_T$ in Equations
\eqref{eq:epsxpt} and \eqref{eq:epsxpt2}. In this case an appropriate upper
bound on the propagator is given by using the right hand side of Equation
\eqref{eq:coshT} as the bounding function $\varphi(t)$. We use this form of
$\varphi(t)$ to compute the upper bounds in this work.
To obtain a suitable $t_c$ on the {\tt 4stout} ensembles, we combine the
propagators of all ensembles in a single analysis. The reason for this is to
use all available statistics to analyze the behavior of the bounds on $t_c$.
The $a_\mu$ results of the ensembles depend on the pion and kaon masses and the
lattice spacing. The first two dependencies can be safely eliminated if we
consider only the tail of the propagator. (Remember, we are working close to
the physical point.) For this we subtracted the value of the lower bound at
$3.0$~fm from both bounds on each ensemble. The lattice-spacing dependence was
taken into account by making a continuum extrapolation for this ``subtracted''
$a_\mu$ at each value of $t_c$. The result of the continuum fit for the upper
and lower bounds on $[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_0$ is shown in Figure
\ref{fi:bound}, in which the $a^2$ function used in the continuum extrapolation
is evaluated at our finest lattice spacing, $a=0.064$~fm. The two bounds meet
around $4.0$~fm. Here the statistical error of the average covers the central
value of both bounds. We will use this average at $t_c=4.0$~fm as our estimate
for $[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_0$ on the {\tt 4stout} ensembles. Variation of
$t_c$ in the plateau region had negligible effect on the result. Note, that
this value of $t_c$ is much larger than the one that we used in our previous
work, $t_c=3.0$~fm. This improvement is made possible by the noise reduction
technique of Section \ref{se:obs_lma}.
In the case of the isospin-symmetric {\bf disconnected propagator} the bounds
are
\begin{gather}
0 \le -G^\mathrm{disc}(t) \le \tfrac{1}{10} G^\mathrm{light}(t_c)\frac{\varphi(t)}{\varphi(t_c)} + G^\mathrm{strange}(t) + G^\mathrm{charm}(t).
\end{gather}
Since the strange and charm terms fall off much faster than the light and
disconnected one, their contribution does not change the value of $t_c$
obtained. We use the same measurements for $G^\mathrm{disc}_0$ as in our
previous work \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, and take the average of the bounds at a
single cut value: $t_c=2.5$~fm. This choice is in accordance with our findings
in \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, that the variation in $t_c$ within the plateau of
the average bound has a negligible effect on the result.
\section{Isospin breaking: dynamical QED}
\label{se:obs_dynqed}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C|C|R}
\beta & a[\text{fm}] & L\times T & m_s & m_s/m_l & \# \text{conf} \\
\hline
\hline
3.7000 & 0.1315 & 24\times 48 & 0.057291 & 27.899 & 716 \\
& & 48\times 64 & 0.057291 & 27.899 & 300 \\
\hline
3.7753 & 0.1116 & 28\times 56 & 0.047615 & 27.843 & 887 \\
\hline
3.8400 & 0.0952 & 32\times 64 & 0.043194 & 28.500 & 1110 \\
& & & 0.043194 & 30.205 & 1072 \\
& & & 0.040750 & 28.007 & 1036 \\
& & & 0.039130 & 26.893 & 1035 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{ta:dynqed}List of {\tt 4stout} ensembles used for computing
dynamical QED effects with gauge coupling, lattice spacing at the physical
point, lattice size, quark masses and number of configurations.}
\end{table}
In the isospin expansion of an observable $\langle O \rangle$ (see Equation
\eqref{eq:exp}) we refer to the $e_s$ dependent terms as dynamical QED
contributions.
The sea-valence contribution is given by Equation \eqref{eq:ixx} as
\begin{gather}
\langle O \rangle''_{11}= \left\langle \left\langle O'_1 \frac{\mathrm{dets}'_1}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_A \right\rangle_{U}.
\end{gather}
Here we made explicit that the path integral is carried out over two gauge
fields: the index $A$ of the expectation value means averaging over free photon
fields with the action $S_\gamma$. The rest of the path integral weight is
contained in the gluon expectation value, labeled with index $U$. The trace
over coordinate and color space in the first derivative of the fermion
determinant (see Equation \eqref{eq:detsd}) is computed exactly in the low-lying
eigenmode space of the Dirac operator and with random vectors in the
complement. According to our findings, the noise in this term overwhelmingly
stems from the random sources, and not from the gauge fields. For each $U$
field we generate one $A$ field and on this $(U,A)$ gauge field pair we use
about $10^4$ random vectors to estimate the first derivative
$\mathrm{dets}'_1/\mathrm{dets}_0$. The first derivative of the observable is
estimated by a finite difference $O'_1\approx \tfrac{1}{2e_v} (O_+ - O_-)$, see
eg. Section \ref{se:obs_ibmass}.
The sea-sea contribution is given by
\begin{gather}
\langle O \rangle''_{02}=
\left\langle \left[O_0-\left \langle O_0 \right\rangle_U\right] \left\langle \frac{\mathrm{dets}''_2}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_A \right\rangle_U,
\end{gather}
where the $A$-average of the second derivative of the determinant can be done
independently from the observable. This is especially useful, since the noise
in this term is dominated by fluctuations in the photon field. On each $U$
configuration we use about $2000$ photon fields, and on each photon field, 12
random sources to estimate the second derivative
$\mathrm{dets}''_2/\mathrm{dets}_0$.
For both contributions we apply the Truncated Solver Method
\cite{Bali:2009hu,Blum:2012uh}: the matrix inverters are run with a reduced
precision most of the time, and the resulting small bias is corrected using
occasional, high-precision inversions.
In this work we compute dynamical QED effects on a dedicated set of ensembles
using the {\tt 4stout} action. We have three lattice spacings, with box sizes
around $L=3$~fm with $T=2L$. Additionally, on the coarsest lattice there is
also an ensemble with an $L=6$~fm box. Table \ref{ta:dynqed} gives the
parameters of these ensembles, together with the number of configurations. The
chosen parameters in these dedicated runs match the parameters of selected {\tt
4stout} ensembles. For the observables that we consider, we see no significant
difference in the size of dynamical QED contributions between the two different
volumes. For the volume dependence of the hadron masses, see Section
\ref{se:obs_ibmass} and Figure \ref{fi:qedv}. The $L=3$~fm volume simulations
need about an order of magnitude less computer time for the same precision.
Therefore, on the finer lattices we performed simulations in the smaller volume
only.
\section{Finite-size effects in $a_\mu$}
\label{se:obs_fv}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/fv4hex/fv4hex}
\caption
{
\label{fi:fv4hex}Upper and lower bounds on the light isospin-symmetric
component of $a_\mu$. The results shown here are obtained with the {\tt
4HEX} action on two different volumes at $a=0.112$~fm lattice spacing
and $M_\pi=121$~MeV Goldstone-pion mass. We also have another
simulation with $M_\pi=104$~MeV mass. From these two we interpolate to
$M_\pi=110$~MeV. This value ensures that a particular average of pion
tastes is fixed to the physical value of the pion mass (see text).
}
\end{figure}
Finite-size effects on $a_\mu$ were the largest source of uncertainty in our
previous work \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. In this section we present the
computation of these effects in a systematic way, which includes dedicated
lattice simulations, chiral perturbation theory and phenomenological models.
The concrete goal of this section is to provide a single number that is to be
added to the continuum-extrapolated lattice result obtained in a reference box,
which is defined by a spatial extent of $L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm and a
temporal extent of $T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$.
First we concentrate on the finite-size effect of the isospin-symmetric part.
Section \ref{se:obs_split} details our isospin decomposition. The
isospin-breaking part will be discussed later in the last subsection. The
isospin-symmetric part can be further decomposed into an $I=0$ and an $I=1$
channel. From these the $I=1$ is supposed to give the majority of the
finite-size effect. We focus on the $I=1$ first, and give an estimate of the
$I=0$ contribution later. According to Equation \eqref{eq:jji1i0} the $I=1$
result is given by the $\left(\frac{9}{10}\right)$'th of the connected light
contribution.
We perform dedicated lattice simulations with two different lattice geometries:
one on a $56\times84$ lattice with the reference box size and another on a
large $96\times96$ lattice with box size $L=L_\mathrm{big}=10.752$~fm and
$T=T_\mathrm{big}=L_\mathrm{big}$. Since taste violations severely distort the
finite-size behavior, we designed a new action with highly-suppressed taste
breaking for these computations. The details of the {\tt 4HEX} action and the
simulation parameters are given in Section \ref{se:act_4hex}. Our strategy is
then to compute the finite-size correction as the following sum:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:telescope}
\begin{gathered}
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})=\\
=[a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})]_{\tt 4HEX} +
[a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})]_\mathrm{XPT}.
\end{gathered}
\end{gather}
The first difference on the right hand side is taken from the dedicated {\tt
4HEX} simulations. The second difference is expected to be much smaller than
the first and is taken from a non-lattice approach: chiral perturbation theory.
We consider four non-lattice approaches for both differences on the right hand
side of Equation \eqref{eq:telescope}. In case of the first difference, they
will be compared to our {\tt 4HEX} simulations. The first is chiral
perturbation theory (XPT), discussed in detail in Section \ref{se:obs_xpt}.
The second is the Meyer-Lellouch-Luscher-Gounaris-Sakurai model (MLLGS), with details
in Section \ref{se:obs_llgs}. In this approach we compute values for the
reference box only, and not for the large box. This is because $L_\mathrm{big}$
is relatively large and one would have to deal with a large number of states,
which is not practical in that approach. The third approach is that of Hansen
and Patella (HP) \cite{Hansen:2019rbh}, who use a generic field theory
framework to relate the finite-size effect to the electromagnetic form factor
of the pion, the latter being determined on the lattice. Note that their first
published result does not include effects that are of order $e^{-\sqrt{2}M_\pi
L}$. These can be significant and have been added later \cite{Hansen:2020whp}.
Though the latter version also includes finite-$T$ effects, it does so with
assumptions that are not applicable to our lattices, where $T<2L$. Therefore we
use the HP approach here in the infinite-$T$ limit. The fourth non-lattice
approach is the rho-pion-gamma model of \cite{Chakraborty:2016mwy}, which we
abbreviate as RHO here, and is reviewed in Section \ref{se:obs_rho}. This model
is also considered in the infinite-$T$ limit only.
\subsection*{Results with the {\tt 4HEX} action}
We compute the first difference in Equation \eqref{eq:telescope} using
dedicated simulations with the {\tt 4HEX} action. First we describe the way in
which we fix the physical point in these simulations. For this purpose, it is
instructive to look at the influence of taste violations on the finite-size
effect in NNLO staggered chiral perturbation theory (SXPT). The necessary
formulas are given in Section \ref{se:obs_xpt}. We apply them to various cases
that are described below. The following numbers are obtained for the
finite-size effect:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C|C}
\text{NNLO SXPT results for} \to & \text{continuum} & \text{\tt 4stout} & \text{\tt 4HEX} & \text{\tt 4HEX@110MeV}\\
\hline
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref}) & 15.7 & 1.6 & 8.1 & 15.8 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The first number gives the continuum prediction, which is about 2\% of the
total $a_\mu$. The second number stands for the {\tt 4stout} action at a
lattice spacing of $a=0.112$~fm. Here, most of the pion tastes are too heavy to
play any role in the finite-size behavior. According to SXPT the finite-size
effect is practically non-existent there. The {\tt 4HEX} action has much
suppressed taste violations, and the corresponding number, the third in the
table, is already much closer to the continuum. Until now the Goldstone pion
mass is set to the physical value $M_\pi= M_{\pi_0,*}$. This pion is the
lightest of the sixteen pions in the taste multiplet. We can get much closer to
the size of the continuum finite-size effect if we use Goldstone-pion masses
below $M_{\pi_0,*}$. For example one can set a taste-averaged pion mass to the physical value.
In NLO SXPT the slope of the hadronic vacuum polarization is proportional to
$\sum_\alpha M^{-2}_{\pi,\alpha}$. This motivates to use the
harmonic-mean-square (HMS), defined by
\begin{gather*}
M^{-2}_{\pi,\mathrm{HMS}}\equiv \frac{1}{16} \sum_\alpha M^{-2}_{\pi,\alpha}\ ,
\end{gather*}
to average over the tastes. Setting $M_{\pi,\mathrm{HMS}}= M_{\pi_0,*}$
requires lowering the Goldstone-pion mass to $M_\pi=110$~MeV. With this choice,
the finite-size effect is of the same size on the lattice and in the continuum
in NNLO SXPT. This gives the fourth number in the table. This choice results in
much smaller lattice artefacts than the usual setting with the Goldstone-pion,
at least for an observable like the finite-size effect.
To generate the {\tt 4HEX} data set, we performed simulations with two
different Goldstone pion masses: $M_\pi=104$~MeV and $121$~MeV. To set the
physical point as described above, we perform an interpolation from these two
pion masses to $M_\pi=110$~MeV.
To compute $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}$ from the current propagator in our {\tt
4HEX} simulations we use the upper and lower bounds described in Section
\ref{se:obs_bound}. The results are plotted in Figure \ref{fi:fv4hex} for the
$M_\pi=121$~MeV simulation point. The bounds meet at around $4.2$~fm and
$4.7$~fm on the small and large volumes, respectively. At these distances we
take the average of the two bounds as an estimate for $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}$.
The results are given in the table below:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C|C}
M_\pi \text{ in {\tt 4HEX}}\to & 104\text{ MeV} & 121\text{ MeV} & 110\text{ MeV} \\
\hline
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(56\times 84) &685.9(2.7)& 668.3(2.0)& 679.5(1.9)\\
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(96\times 96) &710.7(1.9)& 684.3(1.7)& 701.1(1.3)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
In the last column we also give the interpolated value at the physical point,
using the HMS averaged pion-mass prescription defined above.
We only have one lattice spacing with the {\tt 4HEX} action, so no proper
continuum extrapolation of the finite-size effect can be done. We estimate the
cutoff effect of the result by comparing the total $a_\mu$ with the {\tt 4HEX}
action at this single lattice spacing to the continuum extrapolated {\tt
4stout} lattice result, both in the $L_\mathrm{ref}$ volume. The {\tt 4HEX}
result is about 7\% larger than the continuum value. Therefore we reduce the
measured finite-size effect by 7\%, and assign a 7\% uncertainty to this
correction step. For the difference we get
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fvref}
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 18.1(2.0)_\mathrm{stat}(1.4)_\mathrm{cont}\ .
\end{gather}
The result is obtained from the $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ numbers from above
including a multiplication by the $\left(\frac{9}{10}\right)$ charge factor.
The first error is statistical, the second is an estimate of the cutoff effect.
\subsection*{Results from non-lattice approaches}
The table below collects the finite-size effect computed in various non-lattice
approaches:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C|C|C|C}
& \text{NLO XPT} & \text{NNLO XPT} & \text{MLLGS} & \text{HP} & \text{RHO} \\
\hline
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref}) & 11.6 & 15.7 & 17.8 & - & - \\
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},\infty) & 11.2 & 15.3 & 17.4 & 16.3 & 14.8 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
As we mentioned before, the MLLGS approach was not used in the large box. The
MLLGS numbers in the table are actually a difference of the MLLGS prediction for
$a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$ and the residual
finite-size effects of the big lattice taken from NNLO XPT. We also give
results for the case of infinite time extent. We see that, according
to the models, the finite-$T$ effect is much smaller than the finite-$L$ effect.
The different models give a finite-size effect of similar size that agrees well
with the lattice determination of Equation \eqref{eq:fvref}. Only the NLO
result differs by about $3\sigma$'s. The fact that NLO chiral perturbation
theory underestimates the finite-size effect was already shown in
\cite{Giusti:2018mdh}, at a non-physical pion mass. Using physical pion mass, a
dedicated finite-volume study was carried out in \cite{Shintani:2019wai}. It
reaches the same conclusion as we do, albeit with larger errors.
The good agreement for the finite-size effect of the reference box,
between the models and the lattice, gives us confidence that the
models can be used to reliably compute the very small, residual,
finite-size effect of the large box. We get:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C|C|C}
& \text{NLO XPT} & \text{NNLO XPT} & \text{HP} & \text{RHO} \\
\hline
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big}) & 0.3 & 0.6 & - & - \\
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},\infty) & 1.2 & 1.4 & 1.4 & 1.4 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
For an infinite-time extent the NNLO XPT, the HP and RHO approaches agree nicely. As a
final value for the large box finite-size effect we take the NNLO XPT result including
the finite-$T$ effects:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fvbig}
a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})= 0.6(0.3)_\mathrm{big}\ ,
\end{gather}
where the uncertainty is an estimate of higher-order effects, given here by the
difference of the NNLO and NLO values.
Until now we have been discussing the $I=1$ finite-size effects. Here we make
an estimation of the $I=0$ channel using XPT. The long-distance behavior of the
$I=0$ channel is dominated by three pions. A necessary photon-pion-pion-pion
vertex arises from the Wess-Zumino-Witten term in the chiral Lagrangian, which
is NLO \cite{Scherer:2002tk}. The lowest order diagram involves two such
vertices and two loops, thus the contribution is N$^4$LO. From the NLO
and NNLO values for
$a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$ we
estimate the size of the N$^4$LO term, from which we take
$0.0(0.6)_\mathrm{I=0}$ as our estimate for the $I=0$ finite-size effect.
\subsection*{Finite-size effect in the isospin-breaking contributions}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/sqed/sqed}
\caption
{
\label{fi:sqed}Electromagnetic part of the finite-size effect for
scalar QED. Shown is the dimensionless double difference for the slope
of the vacuum polarization, ie. $m^2\left[ \Delta \Pi_1(L,e)-\Delta
\Pi_1(L,0) \right]$, normalized by the free field value
$m^2\Pi_1(\infty,0)=[480\pi^2]^{-1}$ (see text). Two different
definitions for the electromagnetic part are shown, defined by matching
with two different masses, $m_\text{pole}$ and
$m_{\overline{\text{MS}}}$. A blue curve shows an order of magnitude
estimate of the finite-size effect from \cite{Bijnens:2019ejw}.
}
\end{figure}
A comprehensive study of the electromagnetic finite-size effects on the current
propagator has appeared recently \cite{Bijnens:2019ejw}. The authors conclude
that if all particles, except the photon, are treated in infinite volume, then
the finite-size effects are of order $\alpha/(M_{\pi}L)^3$. In practice,
however, when all particles reside in the finite box, the usual exponential
finite-size effects become dominant over their electromagnetic counterpart
suppressed by $\alpha$. In this case it is useful to separate the
electromagnetic contributions from the isospin-symmetric part. The QED part
exhibits an $\alpha/(M_{\pi}L)^3$ behavior. The isospin-symmetric part will
have an exponential suppression governed by the neutral-pion mass,
$\exp(-M_{\pi_0}L)$. These isospin-symmetric effects are sizeable and discussed
earlier in this Section. A subtle point here is the definition of the
electromagnetic contribution or equivalently the matching of QCD+QED to QCD.
It is instructive to study, in a simple model, the role of matching in the size
of finite-volume effects. For this purpose we carry out lattice simulations in
scalar QED. Only quenched QED is implemented, since dynamical QED effects
enter at order $O(e^4)$. We perform two sets of simulations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item First we perform simulations in QED with a bare scalar mass
$m_0=0.1210$, a coupling $\alpha=1/137$ and in $L^4$ boxes in the range
$L=16\dots32$. The mass of the charged scalar boson extracted from the
propagator and extrapolated to infinite volume is
$m_\text{pole}(e)=0.2406$. One can also define a renormalized mass
using the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ prescription \cite{Bijnens:2019ejw},
and we find $m_{\overline{\text{MS}}}(e)=0.2401$.
\item We also perform simulations without QED, which is just the free
scalar field theory, in the same box sizes and at two bare values of
the mass, $m_0=0.2405$ and $0.2415$. We use these two values to perform
the interpolations that are necessary for the different matching
conditions. Note that even in the free case, the pole mass is slightly
different from the bare mass due to lattice artefacts
\cite{Montvay:1994cy}. We use
$m_{\overline{\text{MS}}}(0)=m_\text{pole}(0)$.
\end{enumerate}
We choose a simple observable, the slope of the vacuum polarization function
$\Pi_1(L,e)\equiv \left.\frac{d\Pi(Q^2)}{dQ^2}\right|_{Q^2=0}$. This is built
from the conserved current of the scalar field theory, which is given as
\begin{gather}
j_{\mu,x}/i= \phi^\dagger_{x+\mu} e^{ieA_{\mu,x}} \phi_x - \phi_{x}^\dagger e^{-ieA_{\mu,x}} \phi_{x+\mu}\ .
\end{gather}
From the measured $\Pi_1$, we build the difference $\Delta \Pi_1(L,e)\equiv
\Pi_1(32,e)-\Pi_1(L,e)$ and investigate its $L$ dependence.
To define the QED part, we compute the difference between $\Delta \Pi_1(L,e)$
and $\Delta \Pi_1(L,0)$. This can be done in different ways, depending on how
the two theories, with and without QED, are matched. One way is to use
$m_\text{pole}$ to match the theories, another is to do the same with the
$m_{\overline{\text{MS}}}$. The results are shown in Figure \ref{fi:sqed}.
As one can see, the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ matching leads to the
expected $\alpha/(m L)^3$ behavior, but pole-mass matching leaves the
electromagnetic part with a much larger finite-size effect.
In QCD+QED we can define matching schemes similar to the pole and
$\overline{\text{MS}}$ mass matchings of scalar QED. The pole mass is the
measured mass of the charged particle, whereas the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ mass
is the parameter that appears in the renormalized Lagrangian. In QCD+QED the
analogue of $m_\mathrm{pole}$ is the charged-pion mass, and that of
$m_{\overline{\text{MS}}}$ is the renormalized quark mass. If we were to base
our matching on $M_{\pi_+}$, the finite-size effects would be much larger than
the expected $\alpha/(M_\pi L)^3$. Whereas if we use the renormalized quark
masses in the matching, we expect to see the $\alpha/(M_\pi L)^3$ finite-volume
behavior in the electromagnetic part. In our scheme, as introduced in Section
\ref{se:obs_split}, we keep the neutral-pion mass, $M_{\pi_0}$, fixed instead
of the charged-pion mass $M_{\pi_+}$. This should be very close to a
scheme where the renormalized quark masses are kept fixed. As such, we expect
the QED corrections to $a_\mu$ to exhibit an $\alpha/(M_\pi L)^3$ behavior in
our scheme too.
The finite-size effect of $O[\alpha/(M_\pi L)^3]$ from the electromagnetic part
is very small compared to the precision of our study. The finite-size effect of
the strong-isospin-breaking part must also be small: it is actually exactly
zero in NLO chiral perturbation theory. In our reference box
$L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$ an $\alpha/(M_\pi L_\mathrm{ref})^3$ relative correction
corresponds to a finite-size effect of $0.1$ in $a_\mu$. We will use a value of
$0.0(0.1)_\mathrm{qed}$ as an estimate of the finite-size effect of the
isospin-breaking in our reference box.
\subsection*{Final result}
For our final result for the finite-size effect of the reference box, we add
the numbers in Equations \eqref{eq:fvref} and \eqref{eq:fvbig}, as well as the
estimates from the conclusions of the preceeding two subsections, giving:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fv}
a_\mu(\infty,\infty) - a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 18.7(2.0)_\mathrm{stat}(1.4)_\mathrm{cont}(0.3)_\mathrm{big}(0.6)_{I=0}(0.1)_\mathrm{qed}[2.5]\ .
\end{gather}
the first error is the statistical uncertainty of our {\tt 4HEX} computation,
the second is an estimate of the {\tt 4HEX} cutoff effects, the third is the
uncertainty of the residual finite-size effect of the ``big'' lattice, the
fourth is a XPT estimate of the $I=0$ finite size effect, the fifth is an
estimate of the isospin-breaking effects. The last, total error in the
square-brackets is the first five added in quadrature. The vast majority of the
finite-size effect is obtained using the {\tt 4HEX} lattice computation; for
the rest we apply analytic methods. These methods have been validated by the
lattice computation: for the majority contribution they give values that are
consistent with the lattice.
\section{Path integral and expectation values}
\label{se:obs_gen}
Our staggered path integral includes four flavors of quarks, $f= \{ u, d, s,
c\}$, gluon fields $U$ and photon fields $A$ and is given by:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:z}
Z= \int [dU] \exp(-S_g[U]) \int [dA] \exp(-S_\gamma[A])\ \prod_f \det M^{1/4}[ V_U\exp(ieq_fA), m_f ].
\end{gather}
The ensemble specific definition of the gauge action $S_g$ is given in Sections
\ref{se:act_4stout} and \ref{se:act_4hex}. The photon integral measure $[dA]$
and action $S_\gamma$ are defined in the $\mathrm{QED}_\mathrm{L}$ scheme
\cite{Hayakawa:2008an}.
The one-hop staggered matrix in a background field $W_\mu$ can
be written as
\begin{gather}
M[W,m]= D[W]+m= \sum_\mu D_\mu[W_\mu] + m,
\end{gather}
where $D_\mu$ is the covariant differentiation in the $\mu$ direction involving
$W$ and its adjoint $W^\dagger$ together with the obligatory staggered phases.
In the path integral the fermions are coupled to a gauge field that is a
product of the exponentiated photon field and of the smeared gluon gauge field
$V_U$. Our smearing recipes are given in Sections \ref{se:act_4stout} and
\ref{se:act_4hex}. The photon field is not smeared. $q_f\in \{ +\tfrac{2}{3},
-\tfrac{1}{3}, -\tfrac{1}{3}, +\tfrac{2}{3}\}$ stand for the quark
electric charges in units of the positron charge $e$,
$m_f$ for the quark masses and $\alpha=e^2/(4\pi)$.
We use the notation $\delta m\equiv m_d-m_u$ for the difference in the up and
down quark masses and $m_l\equiv \tfrac{1}{2}(m_u+m_d)$ for their average. To simplify
later formulas we also introduce the notations
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:dets}
M_f\equiv M[ V_U e^{ieq_fA}, m_f]
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\mathrm{dets}[U,A;\{m_f\},\{q_f\},e]\equiv \prod_f \det M_f^{1/4}\ ,
\end{gather}
where the latter is the product of all fermion determinants.
In this work, isospin-breaking is implemented by taking derivatives with
respect to the isospin-breaking parameters and by measuring the so obtained
derivative operators on isospin-symmetric configurations
\cite{deDivitiis:2013xla}. A different approach would be to generate
configurations at non-zero values of the isospin breaking parameters and use
the same operators as at zero isospin breaking, see eg.
\cite{Borsanyi:2014jba}. We choose the former approach in this work, so as to
optimally distribute the computing resources among the various isospin-breaking
contributions.
We introduce a set of notations for isospin-symmetric observables and their
isospin-breaking derivatives. Consider the observable $X(e,\delta m)$, which is
a function of $e$ and $\delta m$. Then we define
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:ibder1}
X_0\equiv X(0,0),\qquad
X'_m\equiv m_l\frac{\partial X}{\partial \delta m}(0,0),\qquad
X'_1\equiv \frac{\partial X}{\partial e}(0,0),\qquad
X''_2\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 X}{\partial e^2}(0,0).
\end{gather}
The isospin-breaking derivatives are denoted by prime(s) and an index. The
mass derivative has the index $m$, it requires no renormalization, since
$\delta m$ and $m_l$ have the same renormalization factor at zero
electromagnetic coupling. The electric charge derivatives have a single digit
index: $1$ or $2$. Below, we also define electric charge derivatives with
two-digit indices. We take into account only leading-order isospin-breaking in
this work, so no higher derivatives are needed.
In the case of the fermion determinant, the isospin-symmetric value is denoted
by $\mathrm{dets}_0$. The strong-isospin-breaking of $\mathrm{dets}$ is zero
at leading order:
\begin{align}
\mathrm{dets}'_m= 0,
\end{align}
since $\mathrm{dets}$ is symmetric under the exchange $u\leftrightarrow d$.
The electromagnetic derivatives are
\begin{align}
\label{eq:detsd}
\begin{split}
\frac{\mathrm{dets}'_1}{\mathrm{dets}_0}&= \sum_f \frac{q_f}{4} \mathrm{Tr} \left( M_f^{-1} D[iAV_U] \right), \\
\frac{\mathrm{dets}''_2}{\mathrm{dets}_0}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\left( \frac{\mathrm{dets}'_1}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right)^2
- \sum_f \frac{q_f^2}{4} \mathrm{Tr}\left( M_f^{-1} D[A^2V_U] \right)
- \sum_f \frac{q_f^2}{4} \mathrm{Tr}\left( M_f^{-1} D[iAV_U] M_f^{-1} D[iAV_U] \right)\right],
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{Tr}$ is trace over color and spacetime indices and the
argument of the $D$ operator is a $3\times3$ complex matrix valued field, eg.
$A^2V_U$ has components $A_{\mu,x}^2 [V_U]_{\mu,x}$. The implementation of these
derivatives is given in Section \ref{se:obs_dynqed}.
We also make a distinction between the electric charge in the fermion
determinant and in the operator that we measure. We call the former sea
electric charge and denote it by $e_s$, the latter is the valence electric charge
and is denoted by $e_v$. For an observable $X$ that depends on both the
valence and sea charges, $X(e_v,e_s)$, the second order electric charge
derivatives are defined as follows:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:ibder2}
X''_{20}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 X}{\partial e_v^2}(0,0), \qquad
X''_{11}\equiv \frac{\partial^2 X}{\partial e_v\partial e_s}(0,0), \qquad
X''_{02}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 X}{\partial e_s^2}(0,0).
\end{gather}
For functions that depend on either $e_v$ or $e_s$, but not on both, we use the
single digit notations of Equation \eqref{eq:ibder1}.
The expectation value of an operator $O$ is calculated by inserting $O[U,A]$
into the integrand of the path integral of Equation \eqref{eq:z} and
normalizing the integral by $Z$. Here we consider operators whose photon field
dependence arises entirely from the photon-quark interaction, ie. $O=O[U,e_v
A]$. The expectation value of this operator depends on $\delta m$, $e_v$
and $e_s$, and the isospin expansion can be written as:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:exp}
\langle O \rangle =
\left[ \langle O \rangle\right]_0 +
e_v^2 \langle O \rangle''_{20} +
e_ve_s \langle O \rangle''_{11} +
e_s^2 \langle O \rangle''_{02} +
\tfrac{\delta m}{m_l} \langle O \rangle'_m.
\end{gather}
Here, the individual terms can be expressed as expectation values obtained with
the isospin-symmetric path integral, which we denote by $\langle \dots
\rangle_0$. The concrete expressions are:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ixx}
\begin{split}
\text{isospin-symmetric:}\quad& \left[\langle O \rangle\right]_0= \langle O_0 \rangle_0\\
\text{qed valence-valence:}\quad& \langle O \rangle''_{20}=
\langle O''_{2}\rangle_0\\
\text{qed sea-valence:}\quad& \langle O \rangle''_{11}=
\left\langle O'_1 \frac{\mathrm{dets}'_1}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0\\
\text{qed sea-sea:}\quad& \langle O \rangle''_{02}=
\left\langle O_0 \frac{\mathrm{dets}''_2}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0 -
\left\langle O_0\right\rangle_0 \left\langle \frac{\mathrm{dets}''_2}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0\\
\text{strong-isospin-breaking:}\quad& \langle O \rangle'_m=
\langle O'_m \rangle_0
\end{split}
\end{align}
In the derivation of these expressions we use $\left\langle
\tfrac{\mathrm{dets}'_1}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0=0$. In Table
\ref{ta:obs_gen} we give an overview of the isospin-breaking derivatives for
the observables that are computed in this paper.
Note that Equation \eqref{eq:exp} is an expansion in bare parameters and not
what we consider a decomposition into isospin-symmetric and isospin breaking
parts. The latter involves derivatives with respect to renormalized
observables and our prescription for that is given in Section
\ref{se:obs_split}. There is no need to introduce a renormalized
electromagnetic coupling though: its running is an $O(e^4)$ effect, ie. beyond
the leading order isospin approximation that we consider here.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c}
$X$ & $X''_{20}$ & $X''_{11}$ & $X''_{02}$ & $X'_m$ & Section \\
\hline
$M_\Omega,M_{\pi_\chi},M_{K_\chi}$ & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & - & \ref{se:obs_ibmass} \\
$\Delta M_K^2,\Delta M^2$ & \checkmark & \checkmark & - & \checkmark & \ref{se:obs_ibmass} \\
\hline
$w_0$ & - & - & \checkmark & - & \ref{se:obs_ibw0} \\
\hline
$\langle JJ \rangle$-light & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ref{se:obs_ibjj} \\
$\langle JJ \rangle$-strange & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & - & \ref{se:obs_ibjj} \\
$\langle JJ \rangle$-disc. & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ref{se:obs_ibjj}
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:obs_gen}Overview of isospin-breaking derivatives computed in
this paper. For each observable, we specify the Section in which the
implementation details can be found. A dash indicates, that the
particular contribution vanishes.
}
\end{table}
\section{Anomalous magnetic moment $a_\mu$}
\label{se:obs_hvp}
In this section we provide the definition for the central observable of the
paper: the leading-order hadronic vacuum polarization (LO-HVP) contribution to
the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $a_\mu^\mathrm{LO-HVP}$.
Furthermore, we detail the decomposition of $a_\mu^\mathrm{LO-HVP}$. Since we
consider only the LO-HVP contribution, we drop the superscript and multiply the
result by $10^{10}$, ie. $a_\mu$ stands for $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{LO-HVP} \times
10^{10}$ throughout this work.
The renormalized scalar hadronic vacuum polarization function (HVP) can be
extracted from the zero momentum current propagator $G(t)$ as
\cite{Bernecker:2011gh}:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:hvp}
\hat\Pi(Q^2)\equiv \sum_{t=0}^{T/2} \left[ t^2 -
\frac4{(aQ)^2}\sin^2\left(\frac{aQt}{2}\right)\right] G(t)
\end{gather}
where $t$ and $G(t)$ are given in lattice units here and $a$ is the lattice
spacing. This formula corresponds to a Fourier transformation followed by a
division by $Q^2$, including an explicit removal of: 1.\ a pure finite-volume
effect and 2.\ the ultraviolet divergence. Renormalization is performed on
shell such that $\hat\Pi(0)=0$. While, in a finite volume, $\hat\Pi(Q^2)$ is
only formally defined at momenta with components that are integer multiples of
either $2\pi/L$ or $2\pi/T$, we use \eqref{eq:hvp} to analytically continue
$\hat\Pi(Q^2)$ to any real values of $Q^2$. It is worth noting that this
approach is related to the time-moment approach of \cite{Chakraborty:2014mwa}.
Time moments can also be used as input in various approximants that were put
forward in \cite{deRafael:2014gxa,Charles:2017snx}. These are based on the
application of Mellin–Barnes techniques. They converge rapidly with the number
of moments retained \cite{Charles:2017snx} and also allow for a systematic
matching to perturbation theory at short distances.
In this work we compute all hadronic $O(e^2)$ effects in the vacuum
polarization, including ones that are reducible under cutting a photon line.
Like $G(t)$, $\hat\Pi(Q^2)$ can also be decomposed into the connected contributions
of various quark flavors and a disconnected contribution (Section
\ref{se:obs_jj}).
The LO-HVP contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is
computed from the one-photon irreducible part of $\hat\Pi(Q^2)$, denoted by
$\hat\Pi_\mathrm{1\gamma I}(Q^2)$, using the following integral \cite{Blum:2002ii}:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amu}
a_\mu=
10^{10}\alpha^2 \int_{0}^\infty \frac{dQ^2}{m_\mu^2}\ \omega\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_\mu^2}\right) \hat\Pi_{1\gamma I}(Q^2)
\end{gather}
where $\omega(r)$ is given after Equation~\labelmainkdef{} of the main
paper, $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant renormalized in the
Thomson-limit, and $m_\mu$ is the mass of the muon. The difference between
having $\hat\Pi(Q^2)$ and $\hat\Pi_{1\gamma I}(Q^2)$ in the integral in
\eqref{eq:amu} is the one-photon-reducible ($1\gamma R$) contribution denoted
by $a_\mu^\mathrm{1\gamma R}$. This contribution is finite in
$\mathrm{QED}_\mathrm{L}$ with our setup. It is an $O(e^2)$ effect that is
included in the higher-order hadronic vacuum polarization (HO-HVP)
contribution. This effect is tiny compared to $a_\mu$ and has already been
computed on the lattice, as discussed in our final result section, Section
\ref{se:res_amu}.
We partition the momentum integral in Equation \eqref{eq:amu} by cutting it
into two contributions at a momentum $Q_\mathrm{max}$. Below $Q_\mathrm{max}$
we use the lattice and above that perturbation theory. In the two parts the
vacuum polarization is renormalized differently: it is renormalized to zero at
$Q=0$ on the lattice and at $Q=Q_\mathrm{max}$ in perturbation theory. This
requires the introduction of an extra term, that accounts for this difference.
The lattice part is then splitup into the contributions of different flavors.
In detail, our partitioning takes the following form:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuterms}
a_\mu=
a_\mu^\mathrm{light} + a_\mu^\mathrm{strange} + a_\mu^\mathrm{charm} + a_\mu^\mathrm{disc} +
a_\mu^\mathrm{pert} - a_{\mu}^\mathrm{1\gamma R}\ .
\end{gather}
Here, the connected light contribution is given as
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amusplit}
a_\mu^\mathrm{light}=
10^{10}\alpha^2\left[\int_0^{Q_\mathrm{max}^2} \frac{dQ^2}{m_\mu^2}\ \omega\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_\mu^2}\right) \hat\Pi^\mathrm{light}(Q^2) +
\hat\Pi^\mathrm{light}(Q^2_\mathrm{max})\int_{Q_\mathrm{max}^2}^\infty \frac{dQ^2}{m_\mu^2}\ \omega\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_\mu^2}\right)\right] ,
\end{gather}
and similarly for the other flavors\footnote{The contributions of the bottom
and the top are not shown explicitely here, they will be added in our final
result section, Section \ref{se:res_amu}.} and the disconnected contributions.
The second term accounts for the difference in the lattice and perturbative
renormalization points, as explained above. Using Equation \eqref{eq:hvp} we
can express all of these contributions as a weighted sum of the corresponding
current propagator. For the connected light term we have, for instance:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:kdef}
a_\mu^\mathrm{light}=
10^{10}\alpha^2
\sum_{t=0}^{T/2} K(t;aQ_\mathrm{max},am_\mu)\ G^\mathrm{light}(t)\ ,
\end{gather}
where the kernel $K(t;aQ_\mathrm{max},am_\mu)$ is given by Equations
\eqref{eq:hvp} and \eqref{eq:amusplit}. It depends on the gauge ensemble only
through the lattice spacing.
The perturbative contribution is given by
\begin{gather}
a_\mu^\mathrm{pert}=
10^{10}\alpha^2\int_{Q_\mathrm{max}^2}^{\infty} \frac{dQ^2}{m_\mu^2}\ \omega\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_\mu^2}\right)
\left[ \hat\Pi^\mathrm{pert}(Q^2)-\hat\Pi^\mathrm{pert}(Q_\mathrm{max}^2) \right]\ .
\end{gather}
In Reference \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw} we demonstrated on our {\tt 4stout} data set that
switching to the perturbative calculation can be safely done for
$Q_\mathrm{max}^2\gtrsim2$~GeV$^2$, ie. from this point on $a_\mu$ does not
depend on the choice of $Q_\mathrm{max}$. In this work we use
$Q_\mathrm{max}^2= 3$~GeV$^2$. The perturbative part for this choice was
computed in \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw} and is given in Section \ref{se:res_amu},
where the final result for $a_\mu$ is put together.
We also consider a modification of Equation \eqref{eq:hvp}, in which
the current propagator is restricted to a certain region in time, from $t_1$ to
$t_2$. To achieve this, we multiply the propagator by a smooth window function
\cite{Blum:2018mom}
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:win} W(t;t_1,t_2)\equiv
\Theta(t;t_1,\Delta) - \Theta(t;t_2,\Delta) \quad\text{with}\quad
\Theta(t;t',\Delta)\equiv \tfrac{1}{2} + \tfrac{1}{2}\tanh[ (t-t')/\Delta ]
\end{gather}
or equivalently we replace the weight factor as $K(t)\to K(t)W(t)$. We will
focus on a particular window defined in Reference \cite{Blum:2018mom}, with
parameters $t_1=0.4$~fm, $t_2=1.0$~fm and $\Delta=0.15$~fm. The corresponding
contribution to the magnetic moment of the muon is denoted by
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{LO-HVP}$ and for brevity we use
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}=a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{LO-HVP}\times 10^{10}$. We
can do the same partitioning as we did with $a_\mu$ in Equation
\eqref{eq:amuterms}. We will use those notations extended by a $\mathrm{win}$
subscript.
\section{Isospin-breaking effects in $\langle JJ\rangle$}
\label{se:obs_ibjj}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/ibjj/ibjj}
\caption
{
\label{fi:ibjj}Extrapolation procedure to obtain the electromagnetic
and strong-isospin-breaking corrections to the light connected
contribution. Measurements are performed with valence over sea quark
mass ratios of $\kappa=\{3,5,7,9,11\}$. We use the three lightest
$\kappa$ values to obtain the value at $\kappa=1$ with a linear
extrapolation shown in the Figure. The data on the plot is taken from
our coarsest lattice, corresponding to $\beta=3.7000$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C}
\text{isospin component}& t_c[\text{fm}]\ X=G^\mathrm{light} & t_c[\text{fm}]\ X=G^\mathrm{disc} \\
\hline
X'_m & 2.5 & 2.5 \\
X''_{20} & 2.5 & 2.0 \\
X''_{11}, X''_{02} & 1.0 & 1.5
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:tcfm}Cuts in time for different isospin breaking components
of the light and disconnected propagator. For each component we use two
different cuts: the one that is given in the Table, and another that is
$0.5$~fm larger.
}
\end{table}
In this section we describe the procedure that we use to compute the
isospin-breaking corrections to the current propagator. We consider the
contribution of the light and strange quarks only. The charm quark contribution
was computed on the lattice in \cite{Giusti:2019xct}.
We start with the {\bf connected contributions} (see Table \ref{ta:ibjjc}). The
electric derivatives in those formulas, $X_{1}'$ and $X_{2}''$, are measured by
finite differences, as in the case of the isospin-breaking in hadron masses.
Specifically, we compute the following contractions
\begin{gather}
C^\mathrm{conn}(m_s,0),\quad
C^\mathrm{conn}(m_s,+\tfrac{1}{3}e_*),\quad
C^\mathrm{conn}(m_s,-\tfrac{1}{3}e_*)
\end{gather}
for the strange quark and
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:connkappa}
C^\mathrm{conn}(\kappa m_l,0),\quad
C^\mathrm{conn}(\kappa m_l,+\tfrac{1}{3}e_*),\quad
C^\mathrm{conn}(\kappa m_l,-\tfrac{1}{3}e_*)
\end{gather}
for the light quark, where $e_*$ is the physical value of the electric
coupling. From these the finite-difference approximators of the first and
second derivatives can be built in the standard way. In the light quark case,
the $G^\mathrm{conn}(m_l)$ propagators are noisy. Instead of the low-mode
technique of Section \ref{se:obs_lma}, we use a simpler approach to reduce the
noise, which is sufficiently accurate. We perform computations with valence
quark masses that are some multiple $\kappa$ of the sea quark mass, $m_l$, and
then implement a chiral extrapolation to the target point at $\kappa=1$. We
measure the contractions in Equation \eqref{eq:connkappa} at five different
values of $\kappa$ and use the three lightest of these, $\kappa=3,5,7$, to
perform a linear extrapolation gauge-configuration by gauge-configuration.
Figure \ref{fi:ibjj} shows the result of this chiral extrapolation procedure on
our coarsest ensemble for the case of $[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_{20}''$.
A quadratic extrapolation including all five $\kappa$ values gives a result
that is consistent with the $\kappa=3,5,7$ linear extrapolation within
statistical uncertainty.
For the strong-isospin derivative of the connected contraction
$[C^\mathrm{light}]'_{m}$ (see last line of Table \ref{ta:ibjjc}) we implement
directly the operator corresponding to the mass derivative. Again we use a
chiral extrapolation from non-physical valence quark masses with
$\kappa=3,5,7$, similar to the case of the electromagnetic derivative. This
extrapolation procedure is also plotted in Figure \ref{fi:ibjj} for
$[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_m'$.
Finally the sea-valence and sea-sea electromagnetic derivatives of the
connected part, $[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_{11/02}''$ and
$[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}]_{11/02}''$, are measured on the set of ensembles
that are dedicated to dynamical QED effects (see Table \ref{ta:dynqed}). There
we combine the low-mode, noise-reduction technique with the mass extrapolation
procedure above to reach sufficient accuracy.
In order to further reduce the noise in the light quark isospin-breaking
corrections, when computing quantities like $a_\mu$, we set the propagator to
zero after some cut $t_c$. The value of $t_c$ is obtained by looking for a
plateau in the derivative of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ as a function of $t_c$.
For the different isospin-breaking derivatives these values are given in Table
\ref{ta:tcfm}. To assess the systematic error of the procedure, we also use a
second value of $t_c$ that is $0.5$~fm larger. Let us note here that, when
computing various derivatives of $a_\mu$, not only do we have to consider the
derivatives of the propagator, but also those of the lattice scale, which enters
in the weighting function $K(t;Q_\mathrm{max}a,m_\mu a)$ (see Equation
\eqref{eq:kdef}).
Now let us turn to the {\bf disconnected contribution}. The basic operator for
this measurement is the trace of the quark propagator, $I(m,e)$ of Equation
\eqref{eq:disc}. This is computed with the help of the low-lying eigenmodes of
the Dirac operator, in a similar way to the calculation of the connected
diagram $C^\mathrm{conn}(m,e)$, described in Section \ref{se:obs_lma}. In this
case, the computation is technically much simpler, since in $I(m,e)$ there is
only one quark propagator under the trace, whereas in $C^\mathrm{conn}(m,e)$
there are two. The eigenvectors depend on the electric coupling, and we compute
them for each value of $e$ that we need. For the electromagnetic derivative it
is useful to rewrite the current
\begin{gather}
\sum_{f=\{u,d,s\}} q_f I(m_f,q_fe)=
\tfrac{2}{3}I(m_l,\tfrac{2}{3}e) - \tfrac{1}{3}I(m_l,-\tfrac{1}{3}e) - \tfrac{1}{3}I(m_s,-\tfrac{1}{3}e)
\end{gather}
using a Taylor expansion around $e=0$ in the following way:
\begin{gather}
\sum_{f=\{u,d,s\}} q_f I(m_f,q_fe)=
-2I(m_l,0) + 2 I(m_l,\tfrac{1}{3}e) + \tfrac{1}{3}I(m_l,-\tfrac{1}{3}e) - \tfrac{1}{3}I(m_s,-\tfrac{1}{3}e) + O(e^3).
\end{gather}
The advantage of this form is that we can compute the first and second
derivatives without having to compute the traces with $\pm\tfrac{2}{3}e$
charge. For the strong isospin derivative, where only the first derivative is
needed, it suffices to compute only one additional trace at a slightly
different mass than $m_l$. We use $0.9\cdot m_l$. Altogether we measure
traces at the following masses and electric couplings:
\begin{gather}
\begin{gathered}
I(m_l,0),\qquad
I(m_s,0),\\
I(0.9\cdot m_l,0),\\
I(m_l,+\tfrac{1}{3}e_*),\qquad
I(m_l,-\tfrac{1}{3}e_*),\qquad
I(m_s,+\tfrac{1}{3}e_*),\qquad
I(m_s,-\tfrac{1}{3}e_*),
\end{gathered}
\end{gather}
from which all the isospin-breaking derivatives can be constructed using finite
differences. All these traces are measured using the same set of random
vectors, so that the random noise does not wash out the signal in the
differences.
\section{Isospin breaking: hadron masses}
\label{se:obs_ibmass}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/qedv/qedv}
\caption
{
\label{fi:qedv}Volume dependence of various electromagnetic
contributions to the $\pi_+$ mass. For the valence-valence contribution
$M''_{20}$ we apply an infinite-volume correction given by Equation
\eqref{eq:ivmass}. The valence-sea $M''_{11}$ and sea-sea $M''_{02}$
contributions are multiplied by $1000$ and $10$ on the plot,
respectively. The results are obtained with the {\tt 4stout} action at
$\beta=3.7000$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L||C|C||C|C}
\text{isospin component} & \text{meson \#1 [fm]} & \text{meson \#2 [fm]} & \text{omega \#1 [fm]} & \text{omega \#2 [fm]} \\
\hline
M_0 & 2.0\dots3.5 & 2.5\dots4.0 & 1.4\dots2.0 & 1.5\dots2.1\\
M''_{20} & 1.5\dots3.0 & 2.0\dots3.5 & 1.2\dots2.0 & 1.3\dots2.1\\
M'_m & 1.5\dots3.0 & 2.0\dots3.5 & - & - \\
M''_{11},M''_{02} & 1.0\dots2.5 & 1.5\dots3.0 & 0.3\dots1.5 & 0.6\dots1.5\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{
\label{ta:ibmass}Plateau fit ranges for different isospin-breaking
components, for mesons and for the $\Omega$ baryon.
}
\end{table}
In this section we describe the procedure to obtain the isospin-breaking
derivatives of a hadron mass $M$. On certain ensembles we measure the hadron
propagator $H$ at four different values of isospin breaking:
\begin{gather}
H_0,\quad
H_+,\quad
H_-,\quad
H_{\delta m}.
\end{gather}
The first is measured at the isospin-symmetric point, the second/third
with valence electric charge $e_v=\pm\sqrt{4\pi \alpha_*}$ and zero
quark mass difference $\delta m=0$, and the fourth with $e_v=0$ and $\delta m=
2m_l \left.\tfrac{1-r}{1+r}\right|_{r=0.485}$. These allow to calculate finite
differences with respect to $e_v$ and $\delta m$, whereas the $e_s$ derivatives
can be calculated exactly using the formulae in Equation \eqref{eq:ixx}. In
these measurements both gluon and photon fields are fixed to Coulomb gauge, for
the former the gauge fixing procedure is applied after smearing.
We use the notation $\mathcal{M}[\langle H \rangle]$ for the mass that is
extracted from the hadron-propagator expectation value $\langle H \rangle$. At
the isospin-symmetric point we have
\begin{gather}
M_0= \mathcal{M}[\langle H_0 \rangle_0].
\end{gather}
The QED, sea-sea, isospin-breaking component of the propagator, $\langle H
\rangle''_{02}$, is given by Equation \eqref{eq:ixx}. Then the derivative of
the mass can be obtained by application of the chain rule:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:m02}
M''_{02}=
\left.\frac{\delta \mathcal{M}[H]}{\delta H}\right|_{\langle H_0 \rangle_0} \langle H\rangle''_{02}=
\left.\frac{\delta \mathcal{M}[H]}{\delta H}\right|_{\langle H_0 \rangle_0}
\left\langle (H_0 - \langle H_0 \rangle_0) \frac{\mathrm{dets}''_2}{\mathrm{dets}_0}\right\rangle_0,
\end{gather}
where we use $\partial \langle H \rangle/\partial e_s=0$ at the
isospin-symmetric point. In the case of the valence-valence QED component we
can build the derivative as a finite difference:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:m20}
M''_{20}\approx \frac{1}{2e_v^2}
\left( \mathcal{M} [\langle H_+ \rangle_0]+
\mathcal{M} [\langle H_- \rangle_0]-
2 \mathcal{M} [\langle H_0 \rangle_0] \right)=
\frac{1}{e_v^2}\left( \mathcal{M} [\tfrac{1}{2}\langle H_+ + H_-\rangle_0] - \mathcal{M} [\langle H_0 \rangle_0]\right).
\end{gather}
Here we used $\langle H_+ \rangle_0= \langle H_- \rangle_0= \tfrac{1}{2}\langle
H_+ + H_- \rangle_0$. Working with the average propagator has the advantage
that the $O(e_v)$ noise is absent in its expectation value \cite{Blum:2007cy}.
Equation \eqref{eq:m20} gives an approximation that is valid up to, and
including, $O(e_v^2)$ terms. We have confirmed that these terms are on the
order of a few percent relative to $M''_{20}$ with our choice of $e_v$. There
is an analogous formula for the strong-isospin-breaking component:
\begin{gather}
M'_m\approx
\frac{m_l}{\delta m} \left( \mathcal{M} [\langle H_{\delta m} \rangle_0] - \mathcal{M} [\langle H_0 \rangle_0]\right).
\end{gather}
The QED valence-sea derivative is available in a mixed form: the derivation
with respect to $e_s$ is exact, but with respect to $e_v$, it is a finite
difference. Applying these to $\mathcal{M}[\langle H\rangle]$ we get:
\begin{gather}
M''_{11}\approx
\frac{1}{2e_v}\left[ \frac{\delta\mathcal{M}[H]}{\delta H} \left.\frac{\partial \langle H \rangle}{\partial e_s}\right|_{e_s=0}- (e_v \to -e_v)\right]=
\left.\frac{\delta\mathcal{M}[H]}{\delta H}\right|_{\langle H_+ + H_- \rangle_0}
\left\langle \frac{H_+-H_-}{2e_v}\frac{\mathrm{dets}'_1}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0.
\end{gather}
We now specify $\mathcal{M}[H]$, i.e. the way to extract the mass from the
hadron propagator. Since we are interested in the small isospin breaking
effects here, the choice of the mass extraction procedure is not crucial. We
utilize a procedure based on effective masses instead of fitting the propagator
to multiple exponentials. This has the advantage over the standard fitting
procedure that the derivatives $\tfrac{\delta \mathcal{M}}{\delta H}$ can be
computed easily, in particular they can be given in closed analytic form.
Using two/four propagator points, an effective-mass value and its differential
can be given in analytical form for mesons/baryons \cite{Fleming:2009wb}. Then
we fit a constant to the plateau of the effective mass. We choose two plateau
ranges, so that a systematic error can be associated with finding the plateau.
The ranges are given in Table \ref{ta:ibmass}.
In this work the strong-isospin-breaking $M'_m$ and valence-valence
contributions $M''_{20}$ are evaluated on {\tt 4stout} configurations with box
sizes around $L=6$~fm. For the sea contributions, $M''_{11}$ and $M''_{02}$, we
use also the {\tt 4stout} action, but on smaller volumes, $L=3$~fm (see Section
\ref{se:obs_dynqed} for details of these ensembles).
In the presence of the electromagnetic interaction, hadron masses have a
finite-size effect that is power-like in the size of the box. In some cases it
can be much larger than the exponentially-suppressed, finite-size effect
related to the strong interaction. For the $\mathrm{QED}_\mathrm{L}$ photon
action, the effect in the first two orders depends on the hadron only through
its electric charge $Q$ and mass $M$ and is known analytically
\cite{Davoudi:2014qua,Borsanyi:2014jba}:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:ivmass}
M(L)-M= -\frac{(Qe)^2 c}{8\pi} \left[ \frac{1}{L} + \frac{2}{ML^2} + O(L^{-3})\right]\quad
\text{with}\quad
c=2.837297\dots .
\end{gather}
The first two orders of this formula can be used to correct for electromagnetic
finite-size effects. Remaining $O(L^{-3})$ effects are beyond the precision of
this work and are neglected. Since, for charged hadrons, sea effects are
typically much smaller than the valence-valence contribution, we use the
universal finite-size formula \eqref{eq:ivmass} to correct the valence-valence
component and apply no correction to the rest. We can corroborate this choice
by looking at the different isospin breaking components of the charged pion
mass on two different volumes on our coarsest lattice, as shown in Figure
\ref{fi:qedv}. The corrected $M''_{20}$ values almost agree on the two volumes.
On finer lattices we use the results of the $L=6$~fm runs, correcting them with
Equation \eqref{eq:ivmass}. In the case of the sea contributions the
uncorrected $M''_{11}$ and $M''_{02}$ data are consistent on the two volumes.
On finer lattices we use the small-volume runs to estimate the electromagnetic
sea effects without correcting for finite-volume effects.
\section{Isospin-breaking: $w_0$-scale}
\label{se:obs_ibw0}
In this section we derive a formula that gives the electromagnetic correction
of the $w_0$-scale \cite{Borsanyi:2012zs}. The starting point is the operator
$W_\tau[U]$, which is the logarithmic derivative of the gauge-action
density along the gradient flow \cite{Luscher:2010iy}:
\begin{gather}
W_\tau[U]\equiv \frac{d (\tau^2 E[U,\tau])}{d\log \tau},
\end{gather}
where $\tau$ is the gradient flow time and $E$ is a suitable discretization of
the gluonic gauge action density. The expectation value of this operator defines the $w_0$-scale via
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:w0def}
\left\langle W_{\tau= w_0^2(e)} \right\rangle = 0.3\ .
\end{gather}
Since $W_\tau[U]$ is a pure-gauge observable, it neither depends on the
valence charge nor on fermion masses: the only isospin-breaking dependence in
Equation \eqref{eq:w0def} comes from the electric sea charge. The derivatives
with respect to $\delta m$ and the valence electric charge are zero.
The expansion of
the expectation value is given by Equations \eqref{eq:exp} and \eqref{eq:ixx}:
\begin{gather}
\langle W_\tau \rangle= \langle W_\tau \rangle_0 + e_s^2
\left\langle \left( W_\tau -\left\langle W_\tau \right\rangle_0 \right) \frac{\mathrm{dets}_2''}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0
\end{gather}
We also have to expand the $w_0$-scale:
\begin{gather}
w_0(e_s)= w_0 + e_s^2\delta w_0
\end{gather}
and the $W$ operator:
\begin{gather}
W_{\tau=w_0^2(e_s)}= W_{\tau=w_0^2} + e_s^2\cdot 2w_0\delta w_0\ \cdot \left.\frac{d W}{d\tau} \right|_{\tau=w_0^2}
\end{gather}
Here, $w_0$ denotes the value of the $w_0$-scale at the isospin-symmetric point, which of course
satisfies
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:w0iso}
\left\langle W_{\tau= w_0^2} \right\rangle_0 = 0.3
\end{gather}
From these we obtain the following formula for the electromagnetic correction:
\begin{gather}
\delta w_0= -\left[\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\tau}}
\left\langle\frac{d W_\tau}{d\tau}\right\rangle_0^{-1}
\left\langle \left( W_\tau -\left\langle W_\tau \right\rangle_0 \right) \frac{\mathrm{dets}_2''}{\mathrm{dets}_0} \right\rangle_0
\right]_{\tau=w_0^2}
\end{gather}
Section \ref{se:obs_dynqed} gives details on the fermion-determinant derivative
computations. On our coarsest lattice spacing we computed the electromagnetic
correction in two different volumes, $L=3$~fm and $L=6$~fm (see Table
\ref{ta:dynqed} for the ensemble parameters). We obtained for this correction
$\delta w_0=-0.018(2)$ on the small and $\delta w_0=-0.018(3)$ on the large
lattice, which are in perfect agreement. Even the isospin-symmetric values show
no significant finite-size effect: we have $w_0=1.2899(9)$ on the small and
$w_0=1.2908(2)$ on the large lattice. In our analyses, we use the isospin
symmetric $w_0$ measured on the large lattices listed in Table \ref{ta:4stout}; whereas
for $\delta w_0$ we use the small volume ensembles listed in Table
\ref{ta:dynqed}.
\section{Current propagator $\langle JJ\rangle$}
\label{se:obs_jj}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C|R|R|R}
X \longrightarrow & \multicolumn{1}{C|}{C^\mathrm{light}} & \multicolumn{1}{C|}{C^\mathrm{strange}} & \multicolumn{1}{C}{C^\mathrm{charm}}\\
\hline
X_0 & \tfrac{5}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_l,0) & \tfrac{1}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_s,0) & \tfrac{4}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_c,0) \\
X'_1
& \tfrac{7}{27} \left[\tfrac{\partial}{\partial e} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_l,0)
& -\tfrac{1}{27} \left[\tfrac{\partial}{\partial e} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_s,0)
& \tfrac{8}{27} \left[\tfrac{\partial}{\partial e} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_c,0)
\\
X'_2
& \tfrac{17}{81}\left[\tfrac{1}{2} \tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial e^2} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_l,0)
& \tfrac{ 1}{81}\left[\tfrac{1}{2} \tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial e^2} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_s,0)
& \tfrac{16}{81}\left[\tfrac{1}{2} \tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial e^2} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_c,0)
\\
X'_m
& -\tfrac{m_l}{6}\left[\tfrac{\partial}{\partial m_l} C^\mathrm{conn}\right](m_l,0)
& -
& -
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:ibjjc}Isospin symmetric value $X_0$ and isospin-breaking
derivatives $X'_1,X'_2,X'_m$ of various observables $X$, namely the
light, strange and charm connected contractions of the current
propagator, in terms of the connected vector meson contraction and its
derivatives. See Equation \eqref{eq:conn} and \eqref{eq:clsc} for the definitions.
}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
In this section we consider in detail the definition and decomposition of the
current propagator:
\begin{gather}
\langle J_{\mu,x} J_{\bar{\mu},\bar{x}} \rangle,
\end{gather}
where $J_\mu$ is the quark electromagnetic current. In the continuum limit this
propagator can be obtained by coupling the quarks to an external photon field
$A_\mu^\mathrm{ext}$ and building the second differential with respect to this
field. In our lattice regularization, we use this prescription to define the current propagator.
Specifically the partition function in the presence of an external photon field is given by:
\begin{gather}
Z[A^\mathrm{ext}]\equiv \int \dots\ \mathrm{dets}[U,A+A^\mathrm{ext}; \{q_f\}, \{m_f\}, e].
\end{gather}
The current propagator is then defined as the following second differential:
\begin{gather}
\langle J_{\mu,x} J_{\bar{\mu},\bar{x}} \rangle\equiv
\left.\frac{\delta^2 \log Z}{\delta A_{\mu,x}^\mathrm{ext}\delta A_{\bar{\mu},\bar{x}}^\mathrm{ext}}\right|_{A^\mathrm{ext}=0}.
\end{gather}
The so defined propagator satisfies current conservation on both the source and sink sides.
To compute it, we need the first and second derivatives of the fermion matrix at zero external field:
\begin{gather}
\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{\delta}{\delta A^\mathrm{ext}_{\mu,x}}\right|_0 M_f&= eq_f\cdot D_\mu[i P_x V_Ue^{ieq_fA}],\\
\left.\frac{\delta^2}{\delta A_{\mu,x}^\mathrm{ext}\delta A_{\bar{\mu},\bar{x}}^\mathrm{ext}}\right|_0 M_f&= -e^2q_f^2 \cdot \delta_{\mu\bar{\mu}}\cdot
D_\mu[P_x P_{\bar{x}} V_Ue^{ieq_fA}].
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
From these we get the current propagator as follows:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:jj}
\langle J_{\mu,x} J_{\bar{\mu},\bar{x}} \rangle/e^2=
\left\langle
\sum_f q_f^2 C^\mathrm{conn}_{\mu,x,\bar{\mu},\bar{x}}(m_f,eq_f) + C^\mathrm{disc}_{\mu,x,\bar{\mu},\bar{x}}
-\sum_f \frac{q_f^2}{4} \mathrm{Tr} \left(
M^{-1}_f\ D_\mu[P_x P_{\bar{x}}V_U e^{ieq_fA}] \delta_{\mu\bar{\mu}} \right)
\right\rangle
\end{gather}
where the connected vector meson contraction is defined as
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:conn}
C^\mathrm{conn}_{\mu,x,\bar{\mu},\bar{x}}(m,e)\equiv -\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr} \left( M^{-1}\ D_\mu[iP_xV_Ue^{ieA}]\ M^{-1}\ D_{\bar{\mu}}[iP_{\bar{x}}V_Ue^{ieA}]\right)
\end{gather}
and the disconnected contraction as
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:disc}
C^\mathrm{disc}_{\mu,x,\bar\mu,\bar x} \equiv \sum_{f,\bar f} q_f q_{\bar f} I_{\mu,x}(m_f,eq_f) I_{\bar \mu,\bar x}(m_{\bar f}, eq_{\bar f}) \quad \text{with} \quad
I_{\mu,x}(m,e)\equiv \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left( M^{-1} D_\mu[i P_xV_Ue^{ieA}] \right).
\end{gather}
In these formulas, $\mathrm{Tr}$ is the trace over color and spacetime indices
and the $P_x$ projection operator clears the components of a vector on all
sites except for $x$. Here, the fermion matrix $M$ is understood with mass $m$
and on a gauge background $V_Ue^{ieA}$. The $M_f$ notation, defined in Equation
\eqref{eq:dets}, stands for the fermion matrix with $m_f$ mass and $eq_f$
charge. Due to gauge invariance, $\langle I_{\mu,x} \rangle=0$. Equation
\eqref{eq:jj} is our master formula for the current propagator. In the
following we decompose it into several pieces. There are three terms. First is
the connected contribution, second is the disconnected contribution and the
third is a contact term. This last one gives no contribution to the observables
that we are interested in and it will be omitted from now on. To obtain the
expansion in Equation \eqref{eq:exp}, we have to calculate the
Wick-contractions $C^\mathrm{conn}$ and $C^\mathrm{disc}$ at the
isospin-symmetric point and also their isospin-breaking derivatives.
It is common to split the connected part, $\sum_f q_f^2
C^\mathrm{conn}(m_f,eq_f)$, into the contributions of individual flavors:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:clsc}
\begin{aligned}
C^\mathrm{light} &\equiv \tfrac{4}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_u,\tfrac{2}{3}e) + \tfrac{1}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_d,-\tfrac{1}{3}e),\\
C^\mathrm{strange}&\equiv \tfrac{1}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_s,-\tfrac{1}{3}e),\\
C^\mathrm{charm} &\equiv \tfrac{4}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_c,\tfrac{2}{3}e),
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
where we suppressed Lorentz indices and coordinates for simplicity. The
isospin-limit components of these, as defined in Section \ref{se:obs_gen}, in
terms of $C^\mathrm{conn}$ and their derivatives are given in Table
\ref{ta:ibjjc}. For the disconnected contribution we give here the formulas
for the isospin-symmetric point and for the strong-isospin-breaking term:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:ibjjd}
\begin{aligned}[]
C^\mathrm{disc}_0 &= \tfrac{1}{9} \left[ I_{\mu,x}(m_l,0) - I_{\mu,x}(m_s,0) + 2I_{\mu,x}(m_c,0) \right] \left[I_{\mu,x}...\to I_{\bar{\mu},\bar{x}}...\right],\\
[C^\mathrm{disc}]'_m &= -\tfrac{3m_l}{2} \tfrac{\partial}{\partial m_l} C^\mathrm{disc}_0
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
The detailed implementation of these quantities will be given in Sections
\ref{se:obs_lma} and \ref{se:obs_ibjj}. From these we then
construct the total expectation value as shown in Equations \eqref{eq:exp} and
\eqref{eq:ixx}.
It is also common to split the propagator at the isospin-symmetric point into
isospin singlet and triplet parts: $\left[\langle JJ\rangle\right]_0= \langle JJ
\rangle_{I=0} + \langle JJ \rangle_{I=1}$. These are given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jji1i0}
\begin{split}
\langle JJ \rangle_{I=1}/e^2&\equiv \left[\langle \tfrac{9}{10}C^\mathrm{light} \rangle\right]_0= \left\langle \tfrac{1}{2} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_l,0)\right\rangle_0\ ,\\
\langle JJ \rangle_{I=0}/e^2&\equiv \left[\langle \tfrac{1}{10}C^\mathrm{light} + C^\mathrm{strange} + C^\mathrm{charm} + C^\mathrm{disc}\rangle\right]_0=\\
&=\left\langle \tfrac{1}{18} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_l,0) + \tfrac{1}{9} C^\mathrm{conn}(m_s,0) + \tfrac{4}{9}C^\mathrm{conn}(m_c,0) + C^\mathrm{disc}_0 \right\rangle_0\ .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Finally, we introduce the notation $G(t)$ for the zero-momentum timelike current
propagator with averaged Lorentz indices:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:gdeflat}
G(t)\equiv
\frac{1}{3e^2}\sum_{\vec{x},\mu=1,2,3} \frac{1}{2} \left\langle J_{\mu,t,\vec{x}} J_{\mu,0} + J_{\mu,T-t,\vec{x}} J_{\mu,0} \right\rangle.
\end{gather}
This is the lattice version of the propagator given in Equation~\labelmaingdef{}
of the main text. $G(t)$ can also be decomposed into connected terms of
different flavors and a disconnected part. Note that the imaginary parts of
these quantities are zero due to the gauge averaging.
\section{Meyer-Lellouch-Lüscher-Gounaris-Sakurai model}
\label{se:obs_llgs}
In this section we describe a phenomenological model that we use to make
predictions for finite-volume corrections in Section \ref{se:obs_fv}. We also
use it to correct for taste-breaking effects in the $I=1$ contribution to the
Euclidean, current-current correlation function, in Section \ref{se:obs_taimp}.
We work in the isospin-symmetric limit throughout this section.
\subsection*{Model for the pion form factor}
As shown in \cite{Bernecker:2011gh}, in infinite volume the Euclidean,
current-current correlation function is a Laplace transform of the
corresponding spectral function, $\rho(E)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ctspecdec}
G(t)= \int_0^\infty dE E^2 \ e^{-E|t|}\rho(E)\ ,
\end{equation}
for $t\ne 0$. Here, $G(t)$ is defined in Equation~\labelmaingdef{} of the main
paper and $E$ is the center-of-mass energy.
For large $|t|$, $G(t)$ is dominated by the low end of the spectrum, which is
governed by two-pion, scattering states. In addition, phenomenology indicates
that two-pion states, up to
$E=1.8$~GeV~\cite{Davier:2019can,Keshavarzi:2018mgv}, are responsible for over
70\% of the total $a_\mu$ and over 85\% of the $I=1$ contribution computed in
this work. Thus, the contribution of two-pion states should not only provide a
good description of the long-distance behavior of the current-current
correlator, important for understanding finite-volume effects, but also a
reasonable model for this correlator at all distances relevant for the
determination of $a_\mu$. Now, the two-pion contribution to the spectral
function is given by (see eg. \cite{Jegerlehner:2009ry})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2pispec}
\rho(E)\vert_{\pi\pi}=
\frac{1}{6\pi^2}\left(\frac{k}{E}\right)^3|F_\pi(k)|^2
\ ,
\end{equation}
where $E=2\sqrt{M_\pi^2+k^2}$, with $k$ the magnitude of the pions'
back-to-back momenta in the center-of-mass frame, and $F_\pi(k)$ is
the timelike, pion, electromagnetic form factor.
A good phenomenological description of the pion form factor and the
corresponding $\pi$-$\pi$ scattering phase shift is given by the
Gounaris-Sakurai (GS) parametrization \cite{Gounaris:1968mw}. In the context of
estimating finite-volume effects in $g_\mu-2$, it was used first in
\cite{Francis:2013qna}. The GS parametrization describes well the experimental
spectral function in the $I=1$ channel from threshold to $E$ around $1$~GeV,
thus covering the very important $\rho$-resonance contribution. This
parametrization is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GSFpi}
F_\pi(k) = \frac{M^2(0)}{M^2(E)-E^2-iM_\rho\Gamma(E)}
\ ,
\end{equation}
with the energy-dependent width
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(E) = \Gamma_\rho\left(\frac{k}{k_\rho}\right)^3\left(\frac{M_\rho}{E}\right)
\ ,
\end{equation}
where $k_\rho=\sqrt{\frac{M_\rho^2}4-M_\pi^2}$, and the
energy-dependent mass squared:
\begin{equation}
M^2(E) = M_\rho^2 + \frac{\Gamma_\rho M^2_\rho}{k_\rho^3}\left[k^2\left[h(E)-h(M_\rho)\right]
-\left[E^2-M_\rho^2\right]\frac{k_\rho^2}{2M_\rho} h'(M_\rho)\right]
\ .
\end{equation}
Here, the pion-loop function is
\begin{equation}
h(E)=\frac{2k}{\pi E}\log\frac{E+2k}{2M_\pi}
\,
\end{equation}
and $h'(E)$ is its derivative with respect to $E$. To complete
the model, we determine the width of the $\rho$ in terms of the
$\rho$-$\pi\pi$ coupling, $g$, to leading order in an effective theory
where the $\rho$ and $\pi$ are pointlike particles. It is
straightforward to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gammarho}
\Gamma_\rho = \frac{g^2}{6\pi}\frac{k_\rho^3}{M_\rho^2}
\ .
\end{equation}
From these
expressions for $F_\pi(k)$, the phase-shift is simply obtained using
Watson's theorem:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta11GS}
\delta_{11}(k) = \arg F_\pi(k)
\ .
\end{equation}
$G^\mathrm{GS}(t)$ will denote the infinite-volume correlator given by Equations
\eqref{eq:Ctspecdec}, \eqref{eq:2pispec}, \eqref{eq:GSFpi} and
\eqref{eq:gammarho}.
The GS model has two free parameters: $g$ and $M_\rho$. Since our simulations
are performed very near the physical mass point, we fix these parameters to
their physical value, neglecting their sub-percent uncertainties:
$M_\rho=775$~MeV is the mass of the $\rho_0$ meson from
\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}, and $g=5.95$ is obtained from Equation
\eqref{eq:gammarho}, using the width of $\rho_0$ and the mass of $\pi_\pm$,
also from \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}.
\subsection*{Model for finite-volume effects}
In a finite spatial volume of size $L\times L\times L$, the two-pion
spectrum is discrete because of momentum quantization, and the
spectral representation of the current-current correlator becomes a
sum, instead of an integral, over two-pion states. Thus, the large-t
behavior of the corresponding, finite-volume correlation function,
$G(t;L)$, can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CtspecdecL}
G(t;L)\overset{|t|\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\frac{1}{3}\sum_{n>0} |\vec{A}_n|^2 e^{-E_n|t|}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $n$ labels the energy eigenstates, in order of
increasing energy. Below the four-pion, inelastic threshold, the
energy of state $n$ is given by $E_n=2\sqrt{M_\pi^2+k_n^2}$, with
$k_n$ determined by the infinite-volume, $I^G(J^{PC})=1^+(1^{--})$,
$\pi$-$\pi$ scattering phase shift, $\delta_{11}(k)$, through
Lüscher's formula \cite{Luscher:1991cf,Luscher:1990ux}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lusch}
\phi(q_n)+\delta_{11}(k_n) = n\pi, \qquad n=1,\,2,\,\ldots\ ,
\end{equation}
where $q=kL/2\pi$ and $\phi(q)$ is given in \cite{Luscher:1991cf} (see also
\cite{Lellouch:2011qw}). The amplitude of the $n$-th state $\vec{A}_n$ is
proportional to $\langle 0\vert \vec{J}_{I=1}(0) \vert n\rangle$, where
$\vec{J}_{I=1}$ collects the spatial components of the isospin $I=1$
contribution to the quark electromagnetic current defined after Equation~\labelmaingdef{}
of the main paper. This amplitude is determined by the
phase-shift and by the timelike, pion, electromagnetic form factor, through a
Lellouch-Lüscher (LL) equation \cite{Lellouch:2000pv,Lin:2001ek,Meyer:2011um}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lellusch}
|\vec{A}_{n}|^2 =
\left[q\phi'(q)+k\delta_{11}'(k)\right]^{-1}_{k=k_n}\frac{2k_n^5}{\pi
E_n^2}|F_\pi(k_n)|^2 \ ,
\end{equation}
where the primes indicate a derivative of the function with respect to its
argument. We assume that Equations \eqref{eq:lusch} and \eqref{eq:lellusch} are
also approximately true above the inelastic threshold, because the $\rho$
decays almost exclusively into two pions \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. Equations
\eqref{eq:delta11GS} and \eqref{eq:CtspecdecL} then define the
Meyer-Lellouch-Lüscher-Gounaris-Sakurai (MLLGS) model for the finite-volume current
correlator. It will be denoted $G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L)$.
It is important to note that the GS parametrization for $\rho(E)|_{\pi\pi}$,
obtained from Equations \eqref{eq:GSFpi} and \eqref{eq:gammarho}, decreases as
$(E\log{E})^{-2}$ for large $E$ and becomes smaller than that of free pions
after the $\rho$ peak, when $E\gtrsim 1.1$~GeV. Thus, in the sums over two-pion
states in finite-volume, one can reasonably neglect terms for which $E_n$ is
greater than $1.2$~GeV. In the reference volume with
$L=L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm, used in Section \ref{se:obs_fv}, this corresponds
to $n=8$ for the Goldstone.
In Section \ref{se:obs_fv}, we use this MLLGS model to compute the finite-volume
correction to the $I=1$ contribution to $a_\mu$. It is determined in the
continuum limit for the reference volume $L_\mathrm{ref}$ and is given by
integrating the difference of the infinite and finite-volume correlators:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LLGSFV}
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{GS}(L=\infty)-a_{\mu}^\mathrm{MLLGS}(L_\mathrm{ref})=
10^{10}\alpha^2
\int_0^\infty dt\, K(t)
\left[G^\mathrm{GS}(t)-G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L_\mathrm{ref})\right]
\ .
\end{equation}
In Section \ref{se:obs_fv}, this difference is compared to the results of a
dedicated lattice study of finite-volume effects in $a_\mu$. The good
agreement represents a strong validation of the model.
\subsection*{Model for taste violations}
Here we generalize the MLLGS model, for the finite-volume correlation function,
to include the lattice spacing effects arising from taste breaking. Indeed, the
dominant, taste-breaking effects in $a_\mu$ are expected to be those associated
with the two-pion spectrum: these states give the dominant contribution to
$a_\mu$ and the masses of pions are significantly affected by taste breaking on
coarser lattices. Our conserved, quark electromagnetic current couples, not
only to two-Goldstone-pion states, but also to fifteen additional pairs of more
massive taste partners of the pion. We label the masses of these states with
$M_{\tau}$, where the $\tau$ index runs over the 16 element set
$\tau\in\{5,\mu5,\mu\nu,\mu,I\}$ with $\mu<\nu$.
In a description where the pions are free, corresponding to NLO staggered XPT,
the two-pion states have energies, $E_{n,\tau}^{(0)}=2\sqrt{M_{\tau}^2+k_n^2}$,
with $k_n=|\vec{n}|(2\pi/L)$, $n=\vec{n}^2$ and $\vec{n}\in\mathbb{Z}^3$. In
the interacting case, we make the assumption that two-pion-state energies have
the same set of taste copies, but with the momentum, $k_{n,\tau}$, given by the
L\"uscher quantization condition of Equation \eqref{eq:lusch}. We further
assume that a similar conclusion holds for the amplitudes, i.e.\ that they
satisfy Equation \eqref{eq:lellusch} with $k_{n,\tau}$ given by Equation
\eqref{eq:lusch}. Thus we model the long-distance behavior of the correlator in
a finite spatial volume and at finite lattice spacing as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CtspecdecSL}
G(t;L,a)\overset{|t|\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}
\frac{1}{3}\sum_{n>0}
\frac{1}{16}\sum_{\tau}|\vec{A}_{n,\tau}|^2 e^{-E_{n,\tau}|t|}\ ,
\end{equation}
which we denote $G^\mathrm{SMLLGS}(t;L,a)$. In the formula, the lattice spacing
dependence arises from the splittings in the pion spectrum. In implementing
this model, we assume that all taste-partner pairs of pions couple to the
physical, lightest, $\rho$ taste, with the same coupling $g$. Thus, we
implicitly assume that the dependence of $\Gamma_\rho$ and of $\delta_{11}(k)$
on $M_\tau$ is mostly kinematic, an assumption which is borne out by
simulations \cite{Metivet:2014bga}. All of these choices guarantee that our
model has the correct continuum limit. Also, we keep states up to $n=8$, even
for the more massive taste partners. However, we only apply the model to
simulations in which the physical $\rho$ has sufficient phase space to decay
into all sixteen, taste-partner pion pairs. This excludes only our coarsest
simulation, with $\beta=3.7000$.
We use the SMLLGS model to correct taste-breaking effects in the $I=1$
contribution to $a_\mu$, simulation by simulation. This significantly reduces
the $a$-dependence of the dominant contribution to $a_\mu$, allowing for a more
precise determination of its continuum limit. As shown in Section
\ref{se:obs_taimp}, the optimal way in which to apply taste-breaking corrections
is to consider these corrections in different time-windows. Thus, for each
simulation we compute,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SLLGSFV}
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{MLLGS}(L_\mathrm{ref})-a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{SMLLGS}(L,a)
=10^{10}\alpha^2
\int_0^\infty dt\, K(t)\, W(t;t_1,t_2)
\left[G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L_\mathrm{ref})-G^\mathrm{SMLLGS}(t;L,a)\right]\ ,
\end{equation}
where the window function, $W(t;t_1,t_2)$, is defined in Equation
\eqref{eq:win} and $L$ is the size of the lattice for that simulation. The
lattice spacing dependence enters in SMLLGS from the taste breaking in the pion
masses $M_{\tau}$ and these are also taken from the simulation. This correction
is applied as an additive shift on the measured $a_\mu$.
\subsection*{Inclusion of finite-$T$ effects}
In this section, we generalize the MLLGS and SMLLGS models to include the effects
of the finite-time extent, $T$, of the lattice. In our simulations, gauge-boson
fields obey periodic boundary conditions in time and quark fields, antiperiodic
ones. Finite-$T$ effects are expected to be smaller than those due to finite
$L$, because $T\ge L$ in our simulations and because they occur only in a
single spacetime direction.
The MLLGS model describes the contributions to the current-current correlator of
two-pion states, in the presence of interactions. Thus, in studying finite-$T$
effects, we consider terms in which each current couples only to two
pions\footnote{There are also terms in which, four, six, eight, etc. pions
couple to the currents. Compared to the two pion terms, these are exponentially
suppressed in time but also suppressed by the small coupling of four or more
pions to the $\rho$, which dominates the energy range that we are modeling
here.}. The three largest contributions are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Euclidean propagation of interacting $\pi^+\pi^-$ states between
times $0$ and $t>0$, with energies $E_n$. These contributions fall-off
exponentially as $e^{-E_nt}$.
\item The Euclidean propagation of interacting $\pi^-\pi^+$ states from $t$
to $T$, which increases as $e^{-E_n(T-t)}$ as $t$ approaches $T/2$.
\item The contribution of a single pion that wraps around the time
direction. This is at the same order in decreasing exponentials of $T$
as the previous contribution. At any given time, there is only a single
pion on the lattice. Therefore, the energy of this state is that of a
free pion with at least one unit of momentum, i.e.
$E_n^{(0)}/2=\sqrt{n(2\pi/L)^2+M_\pi^2}$, with $n\ge 1$ the
norm-squared of a three vector in $\mathbb{Z}^3$. This contribution is
constant in $t$ and proportional to $e^{-E_n^{(0)}T/2}$. Moreover,
since the pion couples to the current without recoiling, the matrix
element describing this coupling is also that of the free pion theory.
This contribution appears with a factor of $2$, because it can be
caused by the propagation of either a $\pi^+$ or a $\pi^-$.
Altogether, this contribution has the same form as it does at NLO in
XPT.
\end{enumerate}
The next order in decreasing exponentials of $T$ is a term of three pions
propagating from $0$ to $t$ and a single pion from $t$ to $T$. We have
estimated this contribution and find that it contributes to $a_\mu$ at a level
that is orders of magnitude smaller than our statistical error. Thus, we
neglect it, as well as all higher-order winding terms and, to describe
finite-$T$ effects, we replace $G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L)$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CtspecdecLT}
G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L,T) \equiv G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L) + \frac13\sum_{n> 0}|\vec{A}_n|^2\ e^{-E_n(T-t)}
+ \frac23\sum_{n> 0}|\vec{A}_n^{(0)}|^2\ e^{-E_n^{(0)}T/2},
\end{equation}
with the free pion amplitude squared, $L^3|\vec{A}_n^{(0)}|^2=4\nu_n
n(2\pi/LE_n^{(0)})^2$, and keeping only states up to $n=8$, as above. Here,
$\nu_n$ counts the number of vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^3$ that have norm squared
$n$.
Using similar arguments, the inclusion of taste-violations is straightforward.
One merely performs the replacement $E_n \to E_{n,\tau}$ and averages over the
sixteen tastes. This yields $G^\mathrm{SMLLGS}(t;L,T,a)$.
Now, using the above correlators, it is straightforward to generalize Equation
\eqref{eq:LLGSFV} to also include finite-$T$ corrections. We obtain:
$$
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{GS}(L=\infty,T=\infty)-a_{\mu}^\mathrm{MLLGS}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})
$$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LLGSFVT}=
10^{10}\alpha^2
\left[ \int_0^\infty dt\, K(t)G^\mathrm{GS}(t)- \int_0^{T_\mathrm{ref}/2} dt\, K(t)G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})\right]
\ .
\end{equation}
Similarly, for each simulation, we can estimate taste-breaking effects on an
$T\times L^3$ lattice, through:
$$
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{MLLGS}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})-a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{SMLLGS}(L,T,a)=10^{10}\alpha^2\left[
\int_0^{T_\mathrm{ref}/2} dt\, K(t)\, W(t;t_1,t_2)G^\mathrm{MLLGS}(t;L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})\right.
$$
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SLLGSFVT}
\left.-\int_0^{T/2} dt\, K(t)\, W(t;t_1,t_2)G^\mathrm{SMLLGS}(t;L,T,a)\right]\ ,
\end{equation}
thus generalizing Equation \eqref{eq:SLLGSFV} to finite $T$.
\section{Noise reduction techniques}
\label{se:obs_lma}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/lma/lma}
\caption
{
\label{fi:lma}Comparison of a conventional random source based
technique, as we applied it in our earlier work
\cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, and a low mode utilizing technique of this
work on a $\beta=3.9200$ {\tt 4stout} ensemble for the case of
$[a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}]_0$ upper and lower bounds (see Section
\ref{se:obs_bound}).
}
\end{figure}
In this section we consider quantities at the isospin-symmetric point; noise
reduction techniques for the isospin-breaking part are discussed in Section
\ref{se:obs_ibjj}. For the strange and charm connected contributions,
$C^\mathrm{strange}_0$ and $C^\mathrm{charm}_0$, and for the disconnected
contribution $C^\mathrm{disc}_0$ we use the same measurements that are
presented in our previous work \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. A new measurement
procedure is implemented for the light connected component
$C^\mathrm{light}_0$. It is used to reanalyze the old configurations and make
measurements on new ensembles. This plays a key role in reducing the final
statistical error in $a_\mu$.
The technique utilizes the lowest eigenmodes of the fermion matrix; for an
early work with low eigenmodes, see \cite{Neff:2001zr}. The way in which we use
these modes here is essentially the same as in \cite{Li:2010pw}, where it is
called Low Mode Substitution. In the space orthogonal to these modes, the
computational effort is reduced considerably by applying imprecise (aka.
sloppy) matrix inversions. This is called the Truncated Solver Method
\cite{Bali:2009hu} or All Mode Averaging \cite{Blum:2012uh}. Here we describe
the technique for the connected part of the current propagator. The same
technique was applied recently for magnetic moment computations in
\cite{Aubin:2019usy} also.
We consider the connected propagator of Equation \eqref{eq:conn} for timelike
separation, and perform an averaging over the source positions, together with a
zero spatial-momentum projection at the sink:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:ctr}
C(t,\bar{t}) \equiv
\frac{1}{3L^3} \sum_{\vec{\bar{x}},\vec{x},\mu=1,2,3} C^\mathrm{conn}_{\mu,x,\mu,\bar{x}}(m_l,0)=
-\frac{1}{12L^3} \sum_{\mu=1,2,3}\mathrm{ReTr} \left[ \mathcal{D}_{\mu,t} M^{-1} \mathcal{D}_{\mu,\bar{t}} M^{-1}\right],
\end{gather}
where $\mathcal{D}_{\mu,t}=\sum_{\vec{x}} D_\mu[iP_xU]$ is an operator that performs a symmetric, gauge-covariant
shift on a vector $v_x$:
\begin{gather}
[\mathcal{D}_{\mu,t} v]_x =
\begin{cases}
x_4=t: & i\eta_{\mu,x} \left( U_{\mu,x}v_{x+\mu} + U^\dagger_{\mu,x-\mu}v_{x-\mu} \right)\\
x_4\neq t: & 0
\end{cases}
\end{gather}
where $\eta_{\mu,x}$ are the Dirac-gamma matrices in the staggered
representation. We use the simplifying notation
$\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_{\mu,t}$ and
$\overline{\mathcal{D}}=\mathcal{D}_{\mu,\bar{t}}$ in the following. In
Equation \eqref{eq:ctr}, we apply the real part because the imaginary part
vanishes anyway after averaging over gauge configurations.
Using the lowest eigenmodes of $M$ we split the quark propagator into an
eigenvector part and into its orthogonal complement, denoted by ``e'' and ''r'', respectively:
\begin{gather}
M^{-1}= M^{-1}_e + M^{-1}_r,\\
M^{-1}_e= \sum_i \frac{1}{\lambda_i} v_i v_i^\dagger
\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
M^{-1}_r= M^{-1} \left( 1 - \sum_i v_i v_i^\dagger \right),
\end{gather}
where $v_i/\lambda_i$ is the $i$-th eigenvector/eigenvalue of the operator $M$.
For the projection we used a modified version of the symmetric Krylov-Schur
algorithm described in \cite{Hernandez:2005:SSF}. Correspondingly, $C$ splits
into three terms:
\begin{gather}
C= C_{ee} + C_{re} + C_{rr},
\end{gather}
with eigen-eigen, rest-eigen and rest-rest contributions:
\begin{align}
C_{ee}&= -\frac{1}{4L^3} \mathrm{ReTr} \left[ \mathcal{D} M^{-1}_e \overline{\mathcal{D}} M^{-1}_e\right],\\
C_{re}&= -\frac{1}{4L^3} \mathrm{ReTr} \left[ \mathcal{D} M^{-1}_r \overline{\mathcal{D}} M^{-1}_e + \mathcal{D} M^{-1}_e \overline{\mathcal{D}} M^{-1}_r\right],\\
C_{rr}&= -\frac{1}{4L^3} \mathrm{ReTr} \left[ \mathcal{D} M^{-1}_r \overline{\mathcal{D}} M^{-1}_r\right],
\end{align}
where an average over $\mu$ is assumed but not shown explicitely. The benefit
of this decomposition is that the trace in the {\bf eigen-eigen part} can be
calculated exactly, and is thus equivalent to calculating the propagator with
all possible sources in position space. This is the main ingredient for the
noise reduction. Though no extra inversions are needed in this part, it has to
be optimized carefully, since there is a double sum over the eigenmodes, where
each term is a scalar product $v^\dagger_i \mathcal{D} v_j$. In the {\bf
rest-eigen part} we have terms $v^\dagger_i \mathcal{D} M^{-1}_r
\overline{\mathcal{D}} v_i$ and also terms where $\mathcal{D}$ and
$\overline{\mathcal{D}}$ are exchanged. Therefore, this part is only a single
sum over the eigenmodes, and each term involves one matrix inversion. Note
that these inversions are preconditioned by the eigenvectors, so they need much
less iterations than standard inversions. Additionally, we speed up the
inversions by running them with a reduced precision, and for some randomly
selected eigenvectors we correct for the small bias by adding the difference
between a high precision solver and the reduced precision one
\cite{Bali:2009hu,Blum:2012uh}. Finally, the {\bf rest-rest part} is evaluated
using random source vectors $\xi$: we calculate $\xi^\dagger \mathcal{D}
M^{-1}_r \overline{\mathcal{D}} M^{-1}_r \xi$, which requires two inversions
per random source. The reduced precision inverter technique is used here too.
As an example we give here the algorithm parameters for one of the {\tt 4stout}
ensembles at $\beta=3.9200$: $1032$ modes of the even-odd preconditioned Dirac
operator are projected; the high precision inversion has $10^{-8}$ accuracy;
the reduced precision inverter is capped at $400$ conjugate gradient
iterations; the bias correction is calculated with a frequency of $1/32$ and
$384$ random sources are chosen for the rest-rest term. With these choices, the
eigen-eigen part is the dominant source of the error, and since it is already
evaluated with all possible sources, we have reached the limit where the noise
comes from the fluctuations between gauge configurations. Using this technique
we achieve a factor of five improvement in the statistical error compared to
our previous work \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. There we applied a random source
technique similar to the one that we now use for the rest-rest term. The number
of random sources was $768$ per configuration. The comparison of the result
with the old and new techniques is shown in Figure \ref{fi:lma}.
The number of projected eigenmodes is around $1000$ for all lattice spacings
in the $L=6$~fm boxes. The number of projected modes has to be scaled with the
physical four-volume, to keep the magnitude of the eigen-eigen part constant.
On the large {\tt 4HEX} lattice with $L=11$~fm we project $6048$ eigenmodes.
\section{Hadron mass measurements}
\label{se:obs_mass}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C}
& \text{range \#1 [fm]} & \text{range \#2 [fm]}\\
\hline
\text{pion} & 1.8 \dots 3.0 & 2.0 \dots 3.8 \\
\text{kaon} & 2.1 \dots 3.3 & 2.4 \dots 3.6 \\
\bar ss & 2.1 \dots 3.3 & 2.4 \dots 3.6
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{ta:meson}Fit ranges for extracting pseudoscalar masses on isospin
symmetric ensembles.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C||C|C||C|C||C|C|C}
& & &
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{four-state fit} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{GEVP fit}\\
\beta &
N_\mathrm{Wptl} &
N_\mathrm{3d} &
\text{range \#1} & \text{range \#2} & t_a & t_b & \text{range} \\
\hline
3.7000& 24& 32& 7\dots 17 & 6\dots 14 & 4& 7& 6\dots14\\
3.7500& 30& 40& 7\dots 19 & 6\dots 16 & 4& 7& 6\dots14\\
3.7753& 34& 46& 8\dots 20 & 7\dots 17 & 4& 7& 7\dots17\\
3.8400& 46& 62& 9\dots 23 & 8\dots 20 & 4& 9& 8\dots16\\
3.9200& 67& 90& 11\dots 28 & 10\dots 24 & 6& 9& 9\dots17\\
4.0126&101&135& 14\dots 30 & 12\dots 30 & 6&11& 11\dots19\\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:omega} Parameters used for obtaining the $\Omega$ mass:
number of Wuppertal and gauge-link smearing steps in the $\Omega$
operator; fit ranges \#1 and \#2 for the four-state mass fit in
Equation \eqref{eq:4state}; parameters and fit ranges for the GEVP
based mass fit.
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/omefm/omefm}
\caption
{
\label{fi:omefm} Effective mass of the ground state of the $\Omega$
baryon in lattice units on our coarsest ensemble with $\beta=3.7000$.
Results with three different staggered operators, $\Omega_\mathrm{VI}$,
$\Omega_\mathrm{XI}$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{Ba}$ are shown. The horizontal
lines and the shaded regions represent the fit values and the errors
obtained with a four-state fit, Equation \eqref{eq:4state}, using
range \#1 from Table \ref{ta:omega}. The respective $\chi^2$-values
including the contribution of the priors are $2.1$, $1.6$ and $2.7$ for
$6$ degrees of freedom. The dashed lines are the effective masses
computed from the fitted functions.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/omega/omega}
\caption
{
\label{fi:omega} The mass of the $\Omega$ baryon in lattice units
extracted for four ensembles with $\beta=3.8400$, which bracket the
physical point. We compare four methods. The deviation between them is
used to estimate the systematic error (see text for details).
}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Pseudoscalar mass measurements}
The pseudoscalar propagators are computed with random wall sources and point
sinks, using an operator corresponding to the pseudo-Goldstone taste. To
extract the mass and the decay constant we performed a correlated
$\cosh[M(t-T/2)]$ fit, using sufficiently late time slices to allow for this
simple form. To estimate systematic errors, we selected two fit windows which
are given for the different pseudoscalars in Table \ref{ta:meson}. For the
kaons we selected the even/odd slices for the first/second fit window,
respectively. These fit ranges were chosen by performing a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test, which ascertains whether the fit qualities in all of the fits on the
ensembles of Table \ref{ta:4stout} follow a uniform distribution.
\subsection*{Omega propagators}
To extract the mass of the positive-parity, ground-state $\Omega$ baryon, a
number of different operators are available in the staggered formalism. First,
there are two operators from the pioneering work of Golterman and Smit
\cite{Golterman:1984dn}. To label these operators we use the convention of
\cite{Ishizuka:1993mt}:
\begin{align}
\Omega_\mathrm{VI}(t)&=
\sum_{x_k \mathrm{even}} \epsilon_{abc} \left[
S_1 \chi_a S_{12} \chi_b S_{13} \chi_c -
S_2 \chi_a S_{21} \chi_b S_{23} \chi_c +
S_3 \chi_a S_{31} \chi_b S_{32} \chi_c\right](x),\\
\Omega_\mathrm{XI}(t)&=
\sum_{x_k \mathrm{even}} \epsilon_{abc} [S_1 \chi_a S_2 \chi_b S_3 \chi_c](x).
\end{align}
Here, $\chi_a(x)$ is the strange-quark field with color index $a$. The operator
$S_\mu$ performs a symmetric, gauge-covariant shift in direction $\mu$, while
$S_{\mu\nu}\equiv S_\mu S_\nu$. Both $\Omega_\mathrm{VI}$ and
$\Omega_\mathrm{XI}$ couple to two different tastes of the $\Omega$ baryon,
which become degenerate in the continuum limit. At finite lattice spacing
however, there is a splitting between the two tastes. In principle they could
be disentangled by carrying out an analysis involving the correlators of both
$\Omega_\mathrm{VI}$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{XI}$ and also their cross terms.
Later, Bailey successfully constructed an operator which only couples to a
single taste \cite{Bailey:2006zn}. To achieve this, two additional (valence)
strange quarks are introduced. In other words, the strange-quark field gets an
additional ``flavor'' index: $\chi_{a\alpha}$ with $\alpha=1,2,3$. The operator
is then given as
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\Omega_\mathrm{Ba}(t)&=
\left[
2\delta_{\alpha1}\delta_{\beta2}\delta_{\gamma3} -
\delta_{\alpha3}\delta_{\beta1}\delta_{\gamma2} -
\delta_{\alpha2}\delta_{\beta3}\delta_{\gamma1} +
(\dots\beta \leftrightarrow\gamma\dots) \right]\cdot \\
&\cdot\sum_{x_k \mathrm{even}} \epsilon_{abc} \left[
S_1 \chi_{a\alpha} S_{12} \chi_{b\beta} S_{13} \chi_{c\gamma} -
S_2 \chi_{a\alpha} S_{21} \chi_{b\beta} S_{23} \chi_{c\gamma} +
S_3 \chi_{a\alpha} S_{31} \chi_{b\beta} S_{32} \chi_{c\gamma}\right](x).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
The mass of this state becomes degenerate with the above two taste partners in
the continuum limit. We investigated the difference between these three
operators on an ensemble with large statistics. At $\beta=3.7000$,
corresponding to our coarsest lattice spacing, we generated about 3000
configurations in addition to the statistics listed in Table \ref{ta:4stout}.
Note that only the $\Omega$ operators were measured on these extra
configurations. The effective masses for the above three operators are shown
in Figure \ref{fi:omefm}. In the asymptotic regime we see deviations below
0.1\%, which gives an estimate of the taste violation. We expect that these
will get smaller as we go to finer lattice spacings, as it does for pions. In
this work we chose the $\Omega_\mathrm{VI}$ operator for our scale setting
measurements. This is justified, since typical statistical and systematic
errors on our ensembles are around 0.1\%, and thus cover the taste-violation
effects estimated here.
As is usual with staggered fermions, these propagators have an oscillating
contribution, corresponding to negative parity states. There are also
excited states for both parities in the propagators. We suppress the excited
state by a number of Wuppertal smearing steps~\cite{Gusken:1989ad} applied
equally to the source and sink. To avoid mixing between time slices, we define
the smearing to act in the spatial directions only. Since staggered baryon
operators are defined on a coarse lattice with spacing $2a$, our implementation
of the Wuppertal smearing connects only sites that reside on the same
sublattice with $2a$ lattice spacing. In this way there is no interference with
the spin-taste structure of the operators. The action of the smearing operator
$\hat{W}$ on a vector $v_x$ with coefficient $\sigma$ is given as:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:wptl}
[\hat{W}v]_x= (1-\sigma) v_x + \frac{\sigma}{6} \sum_{\mu=1,2,3}
\left( U^\mathrm{3d}_{\mu,x} U^\mathrm{3d}_{\mu,x+\mu} v_{x+2\mu} + U^{\mathrm{3d},\dagger}_{\mu,x-\mu} U^{\mathrm{3d},\dagger}_{\mu,x-2\mu} v_{x-2\mu} \right),
\end{gather}
where the $U^\mathrm{3d}[U]$ parallel transporters are inserted to keep the
recipe gauge invariant: no gauge fixing is needed. These parallel
transporters are built from a smeared version of the underlying gauge field
configuration $U$, by applying a number of three dimensional stout smearing
steps $N_\mathrm{3d}$. For this we use the same $\rho=0.125$ parameter that we
also have in the link smearing of the Dirac operator. Note that the
$U^\mathrm{3d}$ links are also needed to build the baryon operator, as they
appear in the $S_\mu$ shifts. The smearing operation in Equation
\eqref{eq:wptl} is iterated $N_\mathrm{Wptl}$ times on both source and sink
sides on a point vector with a coefficient of $\sigma=0.5$. In Table
\ref{ta:omega} we list the number of smearing steps for each lattice spacing.
The smearing radii corresponding to the number of smearing steps approximately
follow the change in the lattice spacing. That way the smearing radius in
physical units is kept constant. Note that we are discussing a three dimensional
smearing here: this only effects the overlap of the mass eigenstates with the
operator and leaves the masses invariant.
To enhance the signal, we calculate the $\Omega$ propagator from 256 different
source fields on each gauge configuration listed in Table \ref{ta:4stout}. For
each source field we select a random time slice, which, in turn, is
populated with eight independent $Z_3$ random point sources at $(0,0,0)$,
$(L/2,0,0)$, \dots and $(L/2,L/2,L/2)$. This formation of sources is usually
called a grid source. We also randomize the center of the grid
source.
\subsection*{Omega mass determination: four-state fits}
Our model for the propagator is a four-state fit function $h$, with two
positive and two negative parity states:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:4state}
h(t,A,M)=
A_0 h_+(M_0,t) + A_1 h_-(M_1,t) + A_2 h_+(M_2,t) + A_3 h_-(M_3,t)
\end{gather}
where the
\begin{gather}
h_+(M,t)= e^{-Mt} + (-1)^{t-1} e^{-M(T-t)}\qquad
\text{and}\qquad
h_-(M,t)= -h_+(M,T-t)
\end{gather}
functions describe the time dependence of the positive and negative parity
states, see eg. Equation (123) of \cite{Bazavov:2009bb}. Here $M_0$ and $A_0$
are the mass and amplitude of the ground state. Our $\chi^2$ function is
defined as a sum of the correlated $\chi^2$ of the model $h$ and a prior term:
\begin{gather}
\chi^{2}(A,M)=
\sum_{i,k}
\left[ h(t_i,A,M)-H_i \right]
\mathrm{Cov}^{-1}_{ik}
\left[ h(t_k,A,M)-H_k \right] + \chi^2_\mathrm{prior}( M ),
\end{gather}
where $H_i$ is the value of the hadron propagator on the time slice $t_i$
and $\mathrm{Cov}_{ik}$ stands for the covariance between $H_i$
and $H_k$. A prior term was introduced to stabilize the fit, containing
priors on the masses except for the ground state. The concrete form is:
\begin{gather}
\chi^2_\mathrm{prior}(M)=
\sum_{s=1}^{3} \left(\frac{M_s/M_0-\mu_s}{\delta \mu_s}\right)^2,
\end{gather}
where the prior parameters are set as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{C|C|C}
s & \mu_s \cdot 1672 \text{ MeV} & \delta \mu_s\\
\hline
1 & 2012\text{ MeV}& 0.10 \\
2 & 2250\text{ MeV}& 0.10 \\
3 & 2400\text{ MeV}& 0.15
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The prior for the negative parity ground state, $s=1$, is motivated by the
recent observation from the Belle collaboration \cite{Yelton:2018mag}. The
excited states, $s=2,3$, have not been discovered in experiments so far, so their
priors follow from the quark model \cite{Capstick:1986bm}. The existence of
these undiscovered states is also motivated by lattice thermodynamics
below the chiral transition \cite{Bazavov:2014xya,Alba:2017mqu}.
Beside these resonant states there are also non-resonant, scattering states
corresponding to $(\Omega,\pi,\pi)$, $(\Xi,K)$, $(\Xi,K,\pi)$ and other such
multi-hadron combinations. These are expected to couple very weakly to our
single hadron operator and we have not taken them into account in this
four-state analysis. In our alternative approach (GEVP), that we discuss later,
no priors are introduced on the excited states. In that approach the energy of
the first excited state is consistent with the mass of the first resonance, but
not with the expected energy levels of the above scattering states. This
indicates that the couplings of these states to our interpolating operator are
indeed small.
The range of time slices, that are included in the $\chi^2$, were chosen by an
optimization on the coarsest lattice, $\beta=3.7000$. As already mentioned,
we have around 4000 configurations there, which is about four times larger than
on the ensembles at other lattice spacings. In the fit range $[7\dots 17]$ we
obtained the mass with a relative precision of $0.06\%$ and with fit quality of
$Q=0.55$: $M_{\Omega,\mathrm{VI}}=1.11424(63)$ in lattice units. The priors did not impose a
significant pull on the result, ie. the final values of the fit parameters
were well within the prior widths. A different fit range $[6\dots 14]$ resulted in a
change in $M_\Omega$ within a small fraction of the statistical error. These
results reassure us that the excited state effects are smaller than the
statistical error with these two fit ranges. On the other ensembles, with
lesser statistics, we used these two fit ranges, keeping their values in
physical units approximately constant upon changing the lattice spacing. The
exact fit ranges used are given in Table~\ref{ta:omega} in lattice units.
In Figure \ref{fi:omega} we show a comparison of the $\Omega$ masses obtained
with the various fits on four ensembles at $\beta=3.8400$. Besides the
four-state fit with two different fit ranges, see Table \ref{ta:omega}, we also
show a value from a ``combined'' fit. Here we combine the correlators from all
of the ensembles at a given $\beta$ and apply to them a common four-state fit.
Assuming that all excited state masses are a linear function of the bare
strange mass for a given $\beta$, one can fit this linear dependence across the
ensembles along with the still independent ground state masses. This reduces
the number of fit parameters and results in more stable fits. The bare
light-mass dependence of the excited states can be ignored, since their
statistical precision is not sufficient to resolve this dependence. (Note also,
that all our ensembles are in close vicinity of the physical point.) The result
of this combined fit agrees well with the ones obtained from the individual fit
ranges. We do not use this combined fit in our final analyses though, it would
introduce correlations between ensembles, making the analysis procedure more
complicated.
\subsection*{Omega mass determination: GEVP method}
In addition to the above four-state fit to the $\Omega$ propagator we also used
a mass extraction procedure proposed in \cite{Aubin:2010jc}, which is based on
the Generalized Eigenvalue Problem (GEVP). The method has the advantage of not
using priors. We first apply a folding transformation to the original hadron
propagator $H_t$:
\begin{gather}
H_{t}\to \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}\left[ H_t+ (-1)^{t+1} H_{T-t}\right]& 0<t<\frac{T}{2}\\
H_t & t = 0 ~\mathrm{or}~t=\frac{T}{2}
\end{array}\right.
\end{gather}
Then we construct a matrix for each time slice $t$:
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{H}(t) = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
H_{t+0}&H_{t+1}&H_{t+2}&H_{t+3}\\
H_{t+1}&H_{t+2}&H_{t+3}&H_{t+4}\\
H_{t+2}&H_{t+3}&H_{t+4}&H_{t+5}\\
H_{t+3}&H_{t+4}&H_{t+5}&H_{t+6}
\end{array}\right)
\end{gather}
For a given $t_a$ and $t_b$ let $\lambda(t_a,t_b)$ be an eigenvalue and $v(t_a,t_b)$
an eigenvector solution to this $4\times 4$ generalized eigenvalue problem:
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{H}(t_a) v(t_a,t_b) = \lambda(t_a,t_b) \mathcal{H}(t_b) v(t_a,t_b).
\end{gather}
Here we select the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda$ and use the corresponding
eigenvector $v$ to project out the ground state:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:vHv}
v^+(t_a,t_b)\mathcal{H}(t)v(t_a,t_b),
\end{gather}
which then can be fitted to a simple $\exp(-M t)$ type function. This assumes
that backward propagating states are negligible between $t_a$ and $t_b$ as well
as in the range used to fit Equation \eqref{eq:vHv}. The parity partner states
inherent in the staggered formulation appear as excited states, that give large
contributions to the correlation functions \eqref{eq:vHv} constructed with an
eigenvalue $\lambda$ with non-minimal absolute value. In that case, both the
correlation function \eqref{eq:vHv} and the eigenvalue $\lambda$ exhibit
oscillating signs. In the case of the correlation function, this oscillation
occurs as a function of $t$, and in the case of $\lambda$ as a function of
$t_b-t_a$. See \cite{DeTar:2014gla} for details of the variational method with
staggered fermions.
The tuneable parameters of the procedure are $t_a$ and $t_b$ for specifying the
GEVP, as well as the fit range for the $\exp$ fitting in the last step; they
are given in the last three columns of Table \ref{ta:omega}. Similar to the
pion mass analysis these parameters were chosen by performing a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test across all the ensembles. In Figure \ref{fi:omega} we
show the fit results obtained with this GEVP procedure for ensembles at
$\beta=3.8400$. They are in good agreement with the four-state fit values.
The mass extracted using the GEVP gives a third $M_\Omega$ value for each
ensemble, beside the results with the four-state fit procedure with the two fit
ranges. We will use the deviation between these three values as a systematic
error in the $\Omega$ mass determination.
\subsection*{Finite size corrections}
In order to determine the finite-volume corrections for the pseudoscalar
masses, $M_\pi(L)-M_\pi(\infty)$, and decay constants,
$f_\pi(L)-f_\pi(\infty)$, we use the chiral perturbation theory based formulae
of Reference \cite{Colangelo:2005gd}. Our pion masses are very close to the
physical point, where one obtains a relative correction of $0.022$\% for the
mass and a relative correction of $0.077$\% for the decay constant. The mass
of the kaon also receives a correction due to the finite volume. However, this
correction is so small, and any uncertainty related to it is so subdominant,
that we ignore it.
We also take into account the effect of the finite time extent $T$ in the decay
constants, both for pions and kaons, assuming that they are free particles. This is
obtained by noting that the $T$-dependence of the free particle propagator is
given by $\cosh[M(t-T/2)]/\sinh(MT/2)$. Therefore, we fit our propagators to the
form $A\cosh[M(t-T/2)]/\sinh(MT/2)$ and extract the decay constant from the
amplitude $A$.
The finite-size effects on the $\Omega$ mass is estimated from next-to-leading
order, three-flavor, heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory. See
\cite{Ishikawa:2009vc} for the corresponding formulas. To this order the pions
give no contribution to the finite-size effects, but only the kaons and the eta
do. As a result, the finite-size correction is so tiny that it can be safely
neglected.
\section{Rho-pion-gamma model}
\label{se:obs_rho}
In this section we briefly review a model that we use to predict finite-size
effects in Section \ref{se:obs_fv} and perform the taste improvement in Section
\ref{se:obs_taimp}. The model is an effective field theory of the rho, the pion
and the photon; we call it the rho-pion-gamma model and abbreviate it RHO. It
was proposed long ago by Sakurai \cite{Sakurai:1960ju}, has been used by
Jegerlehner and Szafron to describe $\rho-\gamma$ mixing
\cite{Jegerlehner:2011ti} and has been used recently by HPQCD to remove
taste-breaking effects in $a_\mu$ \cite{Chakraborty:2016mwy}.
The Lagrangian of the model is given by
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{L}=
-\frac{1}{4}F^2_{\mu\nu}(A)
-\frac{1}{4}F^2_{\mu\nu}(\rho)
+\frac{1}{2}m_\rho^2 \rho_\mu\rho^\mu
-\frac{e}{2g_\gamma} F_{\mu\nu}(\rho)F^{\mu\nu}(A)
+ (D_\mu \pi)^\dagger (D^\mu \pi) - m_\pi^2\pi^\dagger\pi\ ,
\end{gather}
where the $\rho_\mu$, $\pi$ and $A_\mu$ are the rho, pion and photon fields,
the covariant derivative is $D_\mu= \partial_\mu -ieA_\mu -ig\rho_\mu$ and the
field-strength tensor is $F_{\mu\nu}(V)= \partial_\mu V_\nu - \partial_\nu
V_\mu$. The parameters of the model are the coupling constants $e,g,g_\gamma$
and the masses $m_\pi$ and $m_\rho$. We work with a Minkowski metric in this
Section, unless stated otherwise.
In the following we compute the photon propagator including effects up to
$O(g^2,g_\gamma^2,gg_\gamma)$. The only momentum-dependent loop in diagrams is
the two-pion loop, whose renormalized contribution we denote $\Sigma(q^2)$ --
we use dimensional regularization here. The relevant diagrams can be re-summed
thanks to a Dyson equation, and the resulting photon propagator in momentum
space is given by:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:gprop}
iG_{\gamma\gamma}^\mathrm{RHO}(q)=
\frac{1}{q^2} \frac{1}{1-e^2\Sigma(q^2)} +
\frac{e^2}{g_\gamma^2} \frac{\left[1-gg_\gamma\Sigma(q^2)\right]^2}{q^2\left[1-g^2\Sigma(q^2)\right]-m_\rho^2}\ .
\end{gather}
At the rho pole, this expression can be matched to a Breit-Wigner propagator:
\begin{gather}
iG_{\gamma\gamma}^\mathrm{RHO}(q)\to \frac{F_\rho^2/(2M_\rho^2)}{q^2-M_\rho^2+iM_\rho\Gamma_\rho}\ ,
\end{gather}
determined by the physical mass, width and electromagnetic decay constant of
the rho meson: $M_\rho$, $\Gamma_\rho$ and $F_\rho$. In the matching one can
neglect the imaginary part of the complex residue at the pole because it
contributes at $O(g^4)$. The matching of the model parameters to the physical
ones is given by:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:match}
\begin{aligned}
m_\rho^2&= M_\rho^2 \left[ 1-g^2\mathrm{Re}\Sigma_\rho\right]\ ,\\
g^2&=-\frac{\Gamma_\rho}{M_\rho}\frac{1}{\mathrm{Im}\Sigma_\rho}\ ,\\
\frac{1}{g_\gamma^2}&= \frac{F_\rho^2}{2M_\rho^2}\mathrm{Re}
\left[ 1 + gg_\gamma\Sigma_\rho - \tfrac{1}{2}g^2\Sigma_\rho -\tfrac{1}{2}g^2M_\rho^2\Sigma'_\rho\right]^2\ ,
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
where $\Sigma_\rho=\Sigma(M_\rho^2)$ and $\Sigma'=d\Sigma/dq^2$. In this paper
we use $M_\rho=775$~MeV, $g_\rho=5.95$ and $F_\rho=210$~MeV. When correcting
the light contribution to $a_\mu$ in the isospin limit the pion-mass parameter
is set to the pion mass measured on the ensemble.
The vacuum-polarization $\Pi^\mathrm{RHO}(q^2)$ can then be obtained from the
photon propagator in Equation \eqref{eq:gprop}. After applying a
zero-momentum-squared subtraction, and dropping of $O(g^4)$ terms, we get:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:pihat}
\hat{\Pi}^\mathrm{RHO}(q^2)= \hat{\Sigma}(q^2)
+ \frac{1}{g_\gamma^2} \left[1-gg_\gamma \Sigma(0) + \tfrac{1}{2}g^2\Sigma(0)\right]^2
\cdot \frac{q^2[1-gg_\gamma \hat{\Sigma}(q^2)]^2}{q^2[1-g^2\hat\Sigma(q^2)] - m_\rho^2/[1-g^2\Sigma(0)]}\ ,
\end{gather}
where a hat on a symbol denotes on-shell subtraction, i.e. $\hat{\Pi}(q^2)=
\Pi(q^2) - \Pi(0)$.
Finite-size effects are obtained by replacing $\Sigma(q^2)$ with its
finite-volume counterpart. Moreover, on the lattice we perform the subtraction
of the HVP function directly at the values of the lattice parameters, in finite
volume. This means that $\Sigma(0)$ must also be replaced by its finite-volume
value. In addition, to isolate the finite-size effects proper to HVP, the
Lagrangian must be renormalized in a short-distance scheme, as above. Thus, the
parameters of the model in finite volume are those of the infinite-volume
model, i.e. $m_\rho$, $g$ and $g_\gamma$ obtained in Equations
\eqref{eq:match}, with the infinite-volume $\Sigma$.
In this model staggered, taste-violation effects enter through the mass
splitting of the pions, while all other parameters are kept fixed. As a result
$\Sigma(q^2;M_\pi^2)$ is replaced by the taste-averaged,
pion-vacuum-polarization function, $\frac{1}{16}\sum_\alpha
\Sigma(q^2;M_{\pi,\alpha}^2)$ in Equation \eqref{eq:pihat}, while we keep using
the continuum $\Sigma$ in the matching expressions given by Equations
\eqref{eq:match}.
This yields the following expression for HVP, which includes finite-size and taste-violation effects:
\begin{gather}
\begin{gathered}
\hat{\Pi}^\mathrm{SRHO}(q^2)= \hat{\Sigma}_\mathrm{latt}(q^2) +\\
+ \frac{F_\rho^2}{2M_\rho^2}\cdot
\left[1+gg_\gamma \hat\Sigma_\mathrm{rho} -\tfrac{1}{2}g^2\hat\Sigma_\mathrm{rho} -\tfrac{1}{2} g^2 M_\rho^2 \hat\Sigma'_\mathrm{rho}\right]^2
\cdot \frac{q^2[1-gg_\gamma \hat\Sigma_\mathrm{latt}(q^2)]^2}{q^2[1-g^2\hat\Sigma_\mathrm{latt}(q^2)] - M_\rho^2[1-g^2\hat\Sigma_\mathrm{rho}]}\ ,
\end{gathered}
\end{gather}
The label SRHO denotes the staggered version of the rho-pion-gamma model. Here,
$\hat\Sigma_\mathrm{latt}$ is the taste-averaged, pion-vacuum-polarization
function computed in finite volume and at finite lattice spacing, and
$\hat\Sigma_\mathrm{rho}= \mathrm{Re}\hat\Sigma_\rho +
\Sigma(0)-\Sigma_\mathrm{latt}(0)$. The difference of the $\Sigma$ at zero
momentum squared is scheme independent.
For correcting the lattice results, we need the above function for Euclidean
momenta, $Q^2=-q^2$, where the pion vacuum polarization is a real function.
Additionally, we need a vacuum polarization that corresponds to the coordinate
space current propagator $G(t)$, multiplied by a window-function $W(t)$, see
Section \ref{se:obs_hvp}. In particular we need a recipe to construct
\begin{gather}
\hat\Pi_\mathrm{win}(Q^2)= 2\int_0^\infty dt\ \frac{1}{Q^2}\left[ \cos(Qt)-1+\tfrac{1}{2}(Qt)^2 \right] W(t) G(t)
\end{gather}
from the available $\hat\Pi(Q^2)$ function, which is obtained by using $W(t)=1$
in the above equation. For a smooth and symmetric window function, $W(t)=W(-t)$,
the following formula holds:
\begin{gather}
\hat\Pi_\mathrm{win}(Q^2)=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dP}{2\pi}
\frac{1}{Q^2}\left[ \widetilde{W}(P-Q) - \widetilde{W}(P) - \frac{1}{2}Q^2\widetilde{W}''(P) \right]
P^2 \hat\Pi(P^2)\ ,
\end{gather}
where $\widetilde{W}$ is the Fourier-transform of $W$, i.e. $\widetilde{W}(Q)= \int_{-\infty}^\infty dt \cos(Qt) W(t)$.
\section{Isospin breaking: decomposition}
\label{se:obs_split}
For various purposes it is useful to decompose the observables into
isospin-symmetric and isospin-breaking parts. This requires a matching of the
isospin symmetric and full theories, in which we specify a set of observables
that must be equal in both theories. Of course, different sets will lead to
different decompositions, which is commonly referred to as scheme dependence.
Only the sum of the components, ie. the result in the full theory, is scheme
independent.
A possible choice for the observables are the Wilson-flow--based $w_0$ scale
and the masses of mesons built from an up/down/strange and an
anti-up/down/strange quark, $M_{uu}$/$M_{dd}$/$M_{ss}$. These mesons are
defined by taking into account only the quark-connected contributions in their
two-point functions \cite{Borsanyi:2013lga}. Their masses are practical
substitutes for the quark masses. Also, they are neutral and have no magnetic
moment, so they are a reasonable choice for an isospin decomposition. These
masses cannot be measured in experiments, but have a well defined continuum
limit and thus a physical value can be associated to them.
According to partially-quenched chiral perturbation theory coupled to photons
\cite{Bijnens:2006mk}, the combination
\begin{gather}
M_{\pi_\chi}^2\equiv \tfrac{1}{2}(M_{uu}^2+M_{dd}^2)
\end{gather}
equals the neutral pion mass, $M_{\pi_\chi}=M_{\pi_0}$, up to terms that are
beyond leading order in isospin breaking. Since such terms are beyond the accuracy needed
in this work, we use the experimental value of the
neutral pion mass as the physical value of $M_{\pi_\chi}$.
Furthermore the difference,
\begin{gather}
\Delta M^2\equiv M_{dd}^2- M_{uu}^2
\end{gather}
is a measure of strong-isospin-breaking
not affected by electromagnetism. According to
\cite{Bijnens:2006mk}, $\Delta M^2= 2B_2\delta m$ is valid up to effects that
are beyond leading order in isospin breaking, at least around the physical
point. Here, $B_2$ is the two-flavor chiral condensate parameter.
For the determination of the physical values of $w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2$,
see Section \ref{se:res_w0etal}.
For the decomposition we start with the QCD+QED theory and parameterize our
observable $\langle O \rangle$ with the quantities defined above:
\begin{gather}
\langle O \rangle( M_{\pi_\chi}w_0, M_{ss}w_0, \tfrac{L}{w_0}, \Delta M w_0, e )\ .
\end{gather}
Here, the continuum limit is assumed. We can isolate the
electromagnetic part by switching off the electromagnetic coupling, while
keeping the other parameters fixed:
\begin{gather}
\langle O \rangle_\mathrm{qed}\equiv
e^2 \cdot \left.\frac{\partial \langle O \rangle}{\partial e^2}\right|_{M_{\pi_\chi}w_0, M_{ss}w_0, \tfrac{L}{w_0}, \Delta M w_0,e=0}\ .
\end{gather}
The strong-isospin-breaking part is given by the response to the $\Delta M$ parameter:
\begin{gather}
\langle O \rangle_\mathrm{sib}\equiv
(\Delta M w_0)^2 \cdot \left.\frac{\partial \langle O \rangle}{\partial (\Delta M w_0)^2}\right|_{M_{\pi_\chi}w_0, M_{ss}w_0, \tfrac{L}{w_0}, \Delta M w_0=0,e=0}\ ,
\end{gather}
and the isospin-symmetric part is just the remainder:
\begin{gather}
\langle O \rangle_\mathrm{iso}\equiv
\langle O \rangle( M_{\pi_\chi}w_0, M_{ss}w_0, \tfrac{L}{w_0}, 0, 0 ).
\end{gather}
One can also define the decomposition at a finite lattice spacing, for which
$w_0$ in lattice units can be additionally fixed. In doing so the isospin
symmetric part $\langle O\rangle_\mathrm{iso}$ has to be distinguished from the
value of the observable at the bare isospin-symmetric point $\left[\langle O
\rangle\right]_0$.
In this work we use the above definitions for the isospin decomposition; a
similar scheme was put forward in \cite{Horsley:2015vla}. A different scheme
would be to keep the renormalized quark masses and the strong coupling constant
fixed as QED is turned on \cite{Gasser:2003hk}. In case of light quark
observables the two schemes supposed to agree well. This can be justified by
the smallness of the electromagnetic part of the neutral pion in the scheme of
\cite{Gasser:2003hk}. Reference \cite{Horsley:2015vla} found
$\epsilon_{\pi_0}=0.03(2)$, where $\epsilon_{\pi_0}$ is the parameter that
measures the size of the electromagnetic contribution in the neutral pion mass.
In comparison the same quantity for the charged pion was found
$\epsilon_{\pi_+}=1.03(2)$ in \cite{Horsley:2015vla}.
\section[Taste improvement]{Taste improvement\protect\footnote{ We thank the
referees for helping us to improve this important component of our analysis
through the constructive criticism of their reports. We are also grateful to
the participants of the online workshop, ``The hadronic vacuum polarization
from lattice QCD at high precision''~\cite{HM:202011}, in particular T.~Blum,
G.~Colangelo, M.~Hoferichter, N.~Husung, C.~Lehner, H.~Meyer, R.~Sommer, R.~Van
de Water and H. Wittig, for interesting comments and discussions on these and
related issues.} }
\label{se:obs_taimp}
As is well known, some of the most important cutoff effects of staggered
fermions are taste violations. At long distances, these violations distort the
pion spectrum. Since $a_\mu$ is predominantly a long-distance observable,
dominated by a two-pion contribution, including the $\rho$ resonance, we expect
these effects to be largest in the light-quark terms. This is visible in
Figure~S4 of \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, where the continuum extrapolations of the
light connected and disconnected contributions to $a_\mu$ are clearly steeper
than those of the more massive strange-quark contribution, which displays very
small discretization effects.
It is instructive to compare the lattice artefacts of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ in
different fermion formulations that are found in the literature. For this
purpose we interpolate available lattice data to a common lattice spacing of
$a=0.10$~fm and compute its deviation from the quoted continuum limit. If
necessary, we scale the lattice artefact by assuming an $a^2$ dependence. With
our action, at a lattice spacing of $a=0.10$~fm, the result for
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ is about 11\% smaller than its continuum value, as can
be seen in Figure~\ref{fi:cont} (unimproved data set). For twisted-mass
fermions, as used by the ETM collaboration, the deviation is 28\% downward,
which we read off from the left panel of Figure~14 in \cite{Giusti:2018mdh}.
The $O(a^2)$-improved Wilson fermion formulation of the Mainz group has an
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ that is 18\%/6\% larger than in the continuum, as can be
seen on the left/right panel of Figure~8 in \cite{Gerardin:2019rua}. The
former/latter number is obtained without/with an improvement related to the
scale setting. Aubin {\it et al.}\ \cite{Aubin:2019usy}, with so-called
highly-improved staggered fermions, obtain a 9\% smaller value at $a=0.10$~fm
than in the continuum, as can be determined from their Table III. The same
action with a different current is used by the the Fermilab--HPQCD--MILC
collaboration \cite{Davies:2019efs}. Here the coefficient of the lattice
spacing dependence is explicitely given and we get an $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ at
$a=0.10$~fm, that is 3\% below the continuum limit. Finally, in the case of
domain-wall fermions, as used by the RBC/UKQCD group, we have found no
published results on the lattice-spacing dependence of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$.
However, for the window observable $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}$ the
deviation from the continuum is about 3.5\%, which we read off from their
Figure~8 in \cite{Blum:2018mom}. Note that, in our case, the lattice artefacts
in the window are even smaller, about 2.5\%.
In this section we investigate various physically motivated models for reducing
long-distance taste violations in our lattice results. After comparing lattice
artefacts in our lattice data with predictions of these models, we propose a
procedure to improve the approach to the continuum limit. These improvements
will be applied on light-quark observables at the isospin-symmetric point,
whose taste violations have the largest impact on our final uncertainties.
There is a subtle problem in connection with taste violations and finite-size
effects. On coarse lattices, finite-size effects are largely suppressed, since
most of the pion taste partners are heavy. The finite-size effects increase
gradually for finer lattices, but even on our finest lattice, only about half
of the expected effect is present, as discussed in Section \ref{se:obs_fv}. A
good correction for cutoff effects should also restore the finite-volume
dependence that is expected in the continuum limit.
To address the issue of finite-volume effects, we have considered three
techniques: NNLO staggered chiral perturbation theory in Section
\ref{se:obs_xpt}, MLLGS in Section \ref{se:obs_llgs} and RHO in Section
\ref{se:obs_rho}. In this section we investigate and discuss the suitability
of their staggered versions for reducing the taste violations present in our
lattice data. We call the resulting corrections taste improvements, because
they improve the continuum extrapolation of our lattice data without, in
principle, modifying the continuum-limit value. Indeed, these corrections
vanish in that limit, as taste-breaking effects should.
\subsection*{Lattice artefacts: data vs models}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/amuwsxx/amuwsxx}
\caption
{
\label{fi:amuwsxx} $[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0$ computed with a sliding
window: the window starts at $t_1$ and ends $0.5\,\mathrm{fm}$ later. The plot
shows the difference between a fine and a coarse lattice, the volumes
are $L=6.14\,\mathrm{fm}$ and $L=6.67\,\mathrm{fm}$. The black squares with errors are
obtained from the simulation. The colored curves are the predictions of
NLO and NNLO staggered chiral perturbation theory, the SRHO and the
SMLLGS models. They are computed at the parameters (pion mass, taste
violation, volume) of the simulations.
}
\end{figure}
In Section~\ref{se:obs_fv}, we showed that the models NNLO, MLLGS and RHO
describe the long-distance physics associated with finite-volume effects, as
measured in our simulations. Here we find that they also describe the physics
associated with taste violations, at least at larger distances. This is
illustrated in Figure \ref{fi:amuwsxx}, where cutoff effects in the integrand
of $[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0$ are plotted as a function of Euclidean time. More
specifically, we define the physical observable, obtained by convoluting the
integrand of $[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0$ with the window function
$W(t;t_1,t_1+0.5\,\mathrm{fm})$ of Equation~\eqref{eq:win}, and consider the
difference in the value of this observable, obtained on a fine ($\beta=4.0126$)
and a coarse lattice ($\beta=3.7500$), at a sequence of $t_1$ separated by
$0.1\,\mathrm{fm}$. These are compared to the NLO SXPT, NNLO SXPT, SRHO and
SMLLGS predictions for this quantity, evaluated at the exact parameters of the
ensembles.
These hadronic models are not expected to describe short-distance, QCD
behavior: we exclude their application below $t=0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$. On the other
hand, all three models, as well as NLO SXPT, are expected to correctly describe
taste-breaking effects at large enough $t_1$, when $L$ is also large. As
Figure~\ref{fi:amuwsxx} shows, this is verified for $t_1\gsim 3.5\,\mathrm{fm}$
in our volumes. We now discuss in detail how well each model performs, in
comparison to our simulation results shown in Figure \ref{fi:amuwsxx}, as well
as the extent to which they can be trusted:
\begin{itemize}
\item The SMLLGS, the SRHO and the NNLO taste improvements describe the
numerical data very nicely for $t_1\gsim 2.0\,\mathrm{fm}$, fairly well
for $t_1\gsim 1.0\,\mathrm{fm}$ and all the way down to $t_1\simeq
0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ in the case of SRHO. All three slightly overestimate
the observed cutoff effects, the rho-meson based approach performing
best, whereas NNLO displays a large deviation from the lattice results
in the $t_1\le 0.8\,\mathrm{fm}$ region.
\item SMLLGS and SRHO are based on similar physical input and perform nearly
identically down to $t_1\simeq 1.8\,\mathrm{fm}$, confirming that SRHO
correctly captures the contribution of the rho meson. However, SMLLGS
only accounts for the contributions of two-pion states up to the
rho-meson mass, whereas SRHO includes the contributions of the
full tower of two-pion states: the latter is expected to work down to
shorter distances, which is what is observed in
Figure~\ref{fi:amuwsxx}. Thus, in what follows we only consider SRHO,
with the added confidence brought by its agreement with SMLLGS at
Euclidean times $\gsim 1.8\,\mathrm{fm}$.
\item NLO SXPT starts failing shortly below $t_1=3.5\,\mathrm{fm}$, as does
the convergence of SXPT for determining taste violations, as measured
by the distance between the NLO and NNLO curves. This failing of NLO
SXPT is not surprising because, at that order, the effective theory has
no information about the rho resonance that plays such an important
role in the $I{=}J{=}1$ channel. That information only enters at NNLO,
through the low energy constant LEC $l_6$ of Equation~\eqref{eq:l6}.
This LEC determines the short-distance contribution to the slope of the
electromagnetic form factor of the pion at vanishing virtuality.
Because NLO SXPT misses this important information about the rho, we
choose not to include this improvement in any of our analyses of
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$, even though this correction goes in the right
direction, as Figure~\ref{fi:amuwsxx} shows.
\item If SRHO is viewed as a resummation of SXPT, then the convergence of
SXPT beyond NNLO appears to be quite good for determining taste
violations above $t_1=1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, as the SRHO and NNLO
prediction agree fairly well in that region. Nevertheless, because NNLO
XPT severely underestimates the hadronic contribution to vacuum
polarization itself, we choose not to use it as a taste improvement in
determining the central value of our lattice result for
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$.
\item The lattice results have a maximum at $t_1=1.4\,\mathrm{fm}$, as does
the SRHO improvement, reinforcing our confidence that this model
captures the relevant physics.
\item Since our taste-improvement models are not expected to capture the
relevant physics below $t=0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$, which is
confirmed by Figure~\ref{fi:amuwsxx}, we use none in this region.
\end{itemize}
\subsection*{Taste-improvement procedure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/cont/cont}
\caption
{
\label{fi:cont} Example continuum limits of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$.
The light green triangles labeled none correspond to our lattice
results with no taste improvement. The blue squares have undergone no
taste improvement for $t< 1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$ and SRHO improvement above.
The blue curves correspond to example continuum extrapolations of those
improved data to polynomials in $a^2$, up to and including $a^4$. Note
that extrapolations in $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n$, with $n=3$, are also
considered in our final result. The red circles and curves are the same
as the blue points, but correspond to SRHO taste improvement for $t\ge
0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ and none for smaller $t$. The darker grey circles
correspond to results corrected with SRHO in the range
$0.4{-}1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, NNLO SXPT for larger $t$. The purple
histogram results from the fits described in items 1)-5) of the text.
The grey one from those of item 6). The purple band is the result
described in 5) and the grey band includes the systematic error
described in items 7) and 8).
}
\end{figure}
The physics-based considerations and approximate agreement with the simulation
results, discussed in the previous subsection, lead us to apply the following
taste corrections to our simulations results for
$[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0(L,T,a)$, before performing continuum extrapolations:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:cont_imp}
\begin{aligned}[]
[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0(L,T,a) \to
[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0(L,T,a)
&+\tfrac{10}{9}\left[a_{\mu,t \ge t_\mathrm{sep}}^\mathrm{RHO}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})-a_{\mu,t \ge t_\mathrm{sep}}^\mathrm{SRHO}(L,T,a) \right],
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
with $t_\mathrm{sep}=0.4,0.7,1.0,1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. The charge factor of
$(10/9)$ is required because the corrections computed in
Sections~\ref{se:obs_xpt}, \ref{se:obs_rho} and \ref{se:obs_llgs} correspond to
the $I{=}1$ contribution, not the light one. Note that by using
$L_\mathrm{ref}$ and $T_\mathrm{ref}$ in the above Equation, we are applying a
very small volume correction to interpolate all of our simulation results to
the same reference, four-volume so that they can be continuum extrapolated
together. For the disconnected contribution, we apply the same improvement as
in Equation~\eqref{eq:cont_imp}, but with a charge factor of $(-1/9)$ instead
of $(10/9)$, as appropriate for this case.
The taste-improved data is then continuum-extrapolated using our standard fit
procedure, in the course of which isospin-breaking effects are also included
(Section \ref{se:res_fit}). For the error estimation we use the histogram
technique (Section \ref{se:res_err}). To estimate the systematic uncertainty of
our SRHO-model-based taste-improvement procedure we use NNLO SXPT. The
resulting error is added in quadrature to the systematic error from the
histogram. The central values and the detailed error budget of this analysis
can be found in Section \ref{se:res_amu}.
The procedure is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fi:cont}, which shows the data sets
for $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ without and with taste improvements, as functions of
$a^2$. (See also Figure~\labelmaincont{} of the main paper, which zooms in on
the taste-improved, continuum extrapolations.) The SRHO improvement with
$t_\mathrm{sep}=0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ are shown as red points, while blue points
correspond to $t_\mathrm{sep}=1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. These plots already include
isospin-breaking contributions.
A more detailed account of the taste-improved, continuum extrapolation procedure
of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $0\le t\le 0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$, we consider only uncorrected
lattice results.
\item For $0.4\,\mathrm{fm}< t\le 1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, two-pion
taste-violating effects are clearly visible, but we do not know
precisely where they become important. Thus, we consider
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ that is obtained without taste improvement in
the window $[0.4\,\mathrm{fm},t_\mathrm{sep}]$ and with SRHO
improvement in the window $[t_\mathrm{sep},1.3\,\mathrm{fm}]$, with
$t_\mathrm{sep}=0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$.
\item For $t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, two-pion, taste violations must be present
and are seen. It is reasonable to perform continuum extrapolations
including these effects. Thus, in this range of Euclidean times, we
only consider $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ with SRHO taste improvement.
\item Even after taste improvement, there remain discretization effects
that must be extrapolated away by taking a continuum limit. However,
once nonlinear, taste-breaking effects have been corrected for, we expect
the remaining continuum extrapolations to be mild and similar to those
of quantities that do not suffer from these large, two-pion, taste
violations. This is what is observed in Figure~\ref{fi:cont}. Thus, for
these residual, continuum extrapolations, we consider lattice spacing
behaviors that are low-order power expansions in $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n$,
with $n=0,3$, as suggested in \cite{web:hvpsommer} based on the work
\cite{Husung:2019ytz}.
\item Items 1)-4) yield histograms, for $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and
$a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, from which we obtain our final central values,
the final statistical errors and the systematic errors associated,
amongst others, with the choice of the functional form for the residual
continuum extrapolation, as explained in 4). With the other systematic
errors that are detailed in Sections~\ref{se:res_fit} and
\ref{se:res_err}, this represents over half-a-million different
analysis procedures.
\item The procedure described in 1)-5) does not take into account the
systematic uncertainty associated with our choice of SRHO for taste
improvement for $t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. Since applying no taste
improvement in that region is not an option, because of the
nonlinearities introduced by two-pion, taste violations, we turn to
NNLO SXPT, only as a means to estimate the uncertainty associated with
this choice. It is known that NNLO XPT describes the current-current
correlator for $t\to\infty$ but that, as $t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$ is
reduced, it provides only an unsaturated, lower bound on the
correlator. Thus, we define this systematic uncertainty as ERR = (SRHO
$-$ NNLO SXPT) for $t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. An example of our lattice
results with SRHO improvement between $t=0.4\,\mathrm{fm}$ and
$t=1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$ and NNLO SXPT improvement above are shown as grey
points in Figure~\ref{fi:cont}. Then, we perform the same
over-half-a-million fits as in item 4), but with SRHO, SRHO-ERR and
SRHO+ERR improvements. This yields the grey histogram in
Figure~\ref{fi:cont}.
\item From this histogram we extract the contribution which comes from the
variation in the improvement model from SRHO-ERR to SRHO+ERR. Since the
histogram may have slightly longer tails than would a Gaussian, to be
conservative we take the 1-sigma error, associated with choosing the
SRHO model for taste improvement above $1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$, to be the
largest of the 68\% confidence interval or half the 95\% confidence
interval. For the $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ shown in Figure~\ref{fi:cont},
it is the latter which is largest. For $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, it is the
former.
\item To the systematic error determined in 5), we add the 1-sigma
systematic error computed in 7). Note that this second error
corresponds to the full difference of using SRHO versus SRHO $-$ ERR =
NNLO SXPT for $t>1.3\,\mathrm{fm}$. Thus, our procedure guarantees the
our central values for $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$
are not biased by NNLO SXPT and that the error is given by the full
difference between SRHO and NNLO SXPT.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/fitqsxx/fitqsxx}
\caption
{
\label{fi:fitqsxx} Fit qualities of continuum-extrapolation fits for
$[a_\mu^\mathrm{light}]_0$ as a function of $t_1$, where the propagator
is restricted to a window $[t_1,t_1+0.5\,\mathrm{fm}$$]$. Different
colors correspond to different taste-improvement procedures: none, NNLO
staggered chiral perturbation theory and the SMLLGS and SRHO models.
Different symbols with the same color correspond to different number of
the coarse lattice spacings ignored in the fit:
filled/half-filled/empty for zero/one/two.
}
\end{figure}
We can also verify, {\em a posteriori}, that the above physics-motivated
choices are reasonable. Because long-distance, taste violations introduce
nonlinearities in $a^2$ (see Section~\ref{se:act_4stout} and
Figure~\ref{fi:tavi}, in particular), we expect that taste improvement will
reduce these nonlinearities and increase the asymptotic scaling regime by
making the $a^2$ dependence more linear. This can be monitored by looking at
the goodnesses of fit of linear continuum extrapolations. Figure
\ref{fi:fitqsxx} illustrates the situation. In order to determine where the
asymptotic scaling regime starts, we also leave out different numbers of coarse
lattice spacings from the continuum extrapolation. As the figure indicates, our
physically motivated choices for the window boundaries lead to improved
linearity, suggesting that our corrected results are in the asymptotic scaling
regime. An almost equivalent way to see this is to attach Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC) weights to the continuum extrapolations, which automatically
selects the models that have good fit qualities. Here, however, instead of
using this somewhat black-box approach, we determine the boundaries of the
windows based on the physical arguments made above and ascribe equal weights to
the results obtained by varying these boundaries. Moreover, we allow for
nonlinear continuum extrapolations of the corrected results, when such
corrections are required by the data.
\subsection*{Isoscalar contribution}
An important check of our understanding, that the leading discretization
effects in $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$ are due to
taste-breaking effects in the two-pion spectrum, is provided by the study of
the $I=0$ contribution to $a_\mu$, as suggested by arguments made in
\cite{Gerardin:2019rua}. In this subsection, that serves illustrative purposes,
we work with the isospin-symmetric data sets for simplicity and the subscript
``0'' will be omitted from the observables. For continuum extrapolations we
use Type-II fit forms without isospin-breaking and with a fixed value of
$w_0=0.1724$~fm. As explained in Section~\ref{se:res_fit}, these fits differ
slightly from the Type-I fits used to obtain our final result for $a_\mu$.
The isoscalar contribution to $a_\mu$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:amuIeq0}
a_\mu^{I=0}\equiv
\frac1{10}a_\mu^\mathrm{light} +a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}+\cdots
\ ,
\end{equation}
where the ellipsis stands for the quark-connected contributions of the more
massive $s$, $c$, \ldots\ quarks, receives no two-pion contributions: it starts
with three pions. Moreover, as shown in Section~\ref{se:obs_xpt}, the
three-pion contributions only appear at $O(p^{10})$, suggesting that their
taste-breaking effects should be very small. Thus, if our understanding of
discretization errors in $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and
$a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$ is correct, the large taste-breaking corrections
observed in those quantities must be largely absent from $a_\mu^{I=0}$. As
a consequence, we expect the continuum extrapolation of $a_\mu^{I=0}$ to be
much milder.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/ieq0/ieq0}
\caption
{
\label{fi:ieq0} Comparison of the continuum extrapolation of
$a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$ to those of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and
$a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$. The upper set of grey points corresponds to our
uncorrected results for $\frac1{10}a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$. The upper red
ones are these same results with our standard SRHO taste improvement.
They have a much milder continuum limit that exhibits none of the
nonlinear behavior of the grey points. The red curves show typical
examples of our illustrative, Type II continuum extrapolations of those
points. The lower set of grey and red points and curves are the
same quantities, but for $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$. Combining the results
from the two, individual, continuum extrapolations of
$\frac1{10}a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, according
to Equation~\eqref{eq:amuIeq0}, gives the result with statistical
errors illustrated by the red band, and with combined statistical and
systematic errors, by the broader pink band. The blue points correspond
to our results for $a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$, for each of our
simulations, and are obtained by combining the two sets of grey points,
according to Equation~\eqref{eq:amuIeq0}. As these blue points show,
the resulting continuum-limit behavior of $a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$
is much milder than that of either the uncorrected
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ or $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, and shows none of the
curvature exhibited by them. This behavior resembles much more that of
the taste-improved, red points. Moreover, all of the blue points,
including typical continuum extrapolations drawn as blue lines, lie
within the bands. This suggests that our taste improvements neither
bias the central values of our continuum extrapolated
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, nor do they lead to
an underestimate of uncertainties.
}
\end{figure}
That is exactly what is shown in Figure \ref{fi:ieq0}, where we compare the
$a^2$ behavior of $a_\mu^{I=0}$ to those of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and
$a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$. We focus on the sub-contribution,
$a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$, that is obtained by keeping only the first two
terms in Equation~\eqref{eq:amuIeq0}. This restriction only makes the check
stronger, because taste-breaking effects are larger, in relative terms, in
$a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$ than in $a_\mu^{I=0}$. As the figure shows,
$a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$ has a much milder continuum extrapolation than
either $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ or $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$, displaying none of the
curvature present in the latter two. In fact, this continuum extrapolation is
very similar to that of the connected-strange contribution, whose leading
contributions come from two-kaon states, not two-pion ones. The
connected-strange contribution can be viewed as having discretization errors
which are typical of low-energy, light-quark quantities that are not (heavily)
affected by the distortion of the pion spectrum.
In Figure \ref{fi:ieq0} we show a band that corresponds to the value of
$a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$ obtained by combining the individual, continuum
limits of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$ and $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$. The latter are
extrapolated to the continuum limit after implementing our standard taste
improvements. The fact that all of the $a_\mu^{I=0,\mathrm{light}}$ data points
are contained within the band is yet another confirmation that our treatment of
taste-breaking effects is correct and that our taste-improved, continuum
extrapolations are unbiased.
\section{Staggered chiral perturbation theory}
\label{se:obs_xpt}
\defSXPT{SXPT}
\defLO{LO}
\defNLO{NLO}
\defNNLO{NNLO}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C|C|C|L}
D & N_L & N_4 & N_5 & N_6 & \\
\hline
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \multirow{ 1}{*}{LO}\\
\hline
2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \multirow{ 2}{*}{NLO} \\
& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \\
\hline
5/2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \multirow{ 1}{*}{N$\sqrt{\text{N}}$LO} \\
\hline
3 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & \multirow{ 4}{*}{NNLO}\\
& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \\
& 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \\
& 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:powcnt}Solutions to the power counting formula of
Reference~\cite{SWME:2011aa} for the current-current correlator. For
an NNLO{} calculation, diagrams of dimension \(D \le 3\) will
contribute. Each solution describes diagrams of dimension \(D\) having
\(N_L\) loops, along with some specified number of vertices from the
Lagrangians of each order denoted by $N_{4,5,6}$. The number of
vertices from the leading order Lagrangians $N_2$ is only limited by
the number of loops.
}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
In this section we consider the current propagator in staggered chiral
perturbation theory (SXPT{}) to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO{}). The
goal of this effort is to describe the taste violation and finite-size
effects in our lattice simulations. We work in the isospin-symmetric limit
throughout this section.
In continuum chiral perturbation theory and in momentum space, the NNLO{}
contribution was computed in \cite{Golowich:1995kd,Amoros:1999dp}, and the
finite-volume corrections are given in \cite{Bijnens:2017esv}. A coordinate
space computation including finite-volume effects was given recently in
\cite{Aubin:2019usy}. In staggered chiral perturbation theory, only the
next-to-leading order (NLO{}) has been computed \cite{Aubin:2006xv}. Here we
work out the following order and give the final result in the coordinate space
representation. This order requires the NLO{} contributions to the staggered
chiral Lagrangian, which is given in \cite{Sharpe:2004is}. This Lagrangian has
already been used to compute pseudoscalar meson masses to NLO{}
\cite{SWME:2011aa}. This result will be an important ingredient here: just as
in continuum chiral perturbation theory, the current propagator to NNLO{} can
be considerably simplified if one writes it in terms of masses including NLO{}
corrections.
The SXPT{} Lagrangian relevant to our computation
is given by
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{L}=
\mathcal{L}_2 + \mathcal{L}_{2,LS} +
\mathcal{L}_4 + \mathcal{L}_{4,SV} +
\mathcal{L}_5 +
\mathcal{L}_6\ ,
\end{gather}
with $\mathcal{L}_{2,4,6}$ the standard continuum LO{}, NLO{} and NNLO{}
Lagrangians of Gasser and Leutwyler \cite{Gasser:1984gg} and Bijnens, Colangelo
and Ecker \cite{Bijnens:1999sh}. We denote $\mathcal{S}_i=\int dx\
\mathcal{L}_i$ the corresponding actions, $i\in \{2;2,LS;4;4,SV;5;6\}$. We use
the standard SXPT{} power counting scheme of Reference~\cite{Lee:1999zxa},
whereby the LO{} contributions are $O(p^2) \approx O(m_q) \approx O(a^2)$,
where $p$ stands for a derivative operation, $m_q$ is the light quark mass and
$a$ is the lattice spacing. According to this counting there is a LO{}
staggered correction $\mathcal{L}_{2,LS}$ given by the Lagrangian of Lee and
Sharpe \cite{Lee:1999zxa} and a NLO{} staggered correction
$\mathcal{L}_{4,SV}$ given by Sharpe and van de Water \cite{Sharpe:2004is}.
There is also a staggered specific contribution between NLO{} and NNLO{},
$\mathcal{L}_5$. More details on these terms are given below. There are
further $O(a^2)$ terms in the Lagrangian, which --differently from the
staggered corrections-- are invariant under the continuum taste symmetry. We
are not giving them explicitly here; their effect is to change the low-energy
constants of the theory by $O(a^2)$ amounts -- at least to the order that we
consider here.
A general power counting formula is provided in the Appendix of
\cite{SWME:2011aa}. Under this scheme, we say that a diagram $\mathcal{M}(p,
m_q, a^2)$ has dimension $D$ if it scales as $\mathcal{M}(p, m_q, a^2) \to
\lambda^D \mathcal{M}(p, m_q, a^2)$ under a rescaling of the external momenta,
quark masses and lattice spacing by $p \to \sqrt{\lambda} p$, $m_q \to
\lambda m_q$, and $a^2 \to \lambda a^2$. In Table~\ref{ta:powcnt}, we
enumerate the contributions that are required for our NNLO{} computation under
this counting scheme. Note that the LO{} contribution is zero.
The field variables are denoted by $\phi$. They describe all the flavors and
tastes of staggered pions. They are expressed as linear combinations of the
product of the Hermitian generators of the \(U(4)\) taste group and of the
\(U(N)\) replicated flavor group, ie. $\phi \equiv \sum_{\alpha a}
\phi_{\alpha a} \xi_\alpha T_a$. Here the taste index $\alpha$ runs over the
16 element set $\{5,\mu5,\mu\nu,\mu,I\}$ with $\mu<\nu$. A possible
representation for the taste generators can be built from the $\xi_\mu$
Dirac-matrices and the $4\times4$ identity matrix as:
\begin{gather}
\xi_\alpha\in \{\quad
\xi_5,\quad
\xi_{\mu5}=i\xi_\mu\xi_5,\quad
\xi_{\mu\nu}= i\xi_\mu\xi_\nu,\quad
\xi_\mu,\quad
\xi_I= 1\quad
\}
\end{gather}
For the $U(N)$ generators $T_a$ we use the generalized Gell-Mann matrices and
the $a$ index runs from $0$ to $N^2-1$. We work with $N_f$ degenerate flavors
and rooting is implemented with the replica trick, ie. $N=N_fN_r$, with
$N_r\to\frac{1}{4}$ at the end of the computation. In most cases, $\phi$
appears in an exponential form in the Lagrangian, $U=\exp(i\phi/F)$, where $F$
is the pion decay constant in the chiral limit. Traces are taken
over both the taste and replica-flavor indices. Generators are normalized as
$\mathrm{tr}(\xi_\alpha T_a\cdot \xi_\beta T_b)= 2\delta_{ab}\delta_{\alpha\beta}$.
The current propagator is obtained by incorporating an external Hermitian
vector field \(v_\mu = v^\dagger_\mu\) in the Lagrangian, setting \(v_\mu = Q
A_\mu\) (where $Q$ is the charge matrix) and taking the second order functional
derivative of the partition function with respect to $A_\mu$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jjxpt_gen}
\Braket{J_{\mu}(x) J_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar x)}/e^2
&\equiv {\left. \frac{\delta^2 \log Z\!\left[v_\nu = Q A_\nu\right]}
{\delta A_\mu(x) \, \delta A_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar x)} \right|}_{A=0}\nonumber\\
&= \Braket{\frac{\delta\mathcal{S}\left[v_\nu = Q A_\nu\right]}{\delta A_\mu(x)}
\frac{\delta\mathcal{S}\left[v_\nu = Q A_\nu\right]}{\delta A_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar x)}
- \frac{\delta^2\mathcal{S}\left[v_\nu = Q A_\nu\right]}{\delta A_\mu(x) \, \delta A_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar x)}}\
\end{align}
up to vanishing disconnected terms. In the following we take the current to
operate as a taste singlet, so \(Q\) is proportional to the identity matrix in
taste space, that is $Q= Q_a \xi_{I} T_a$. This restriction is discussed in
more detail at the end of the computation. In flavor space, \(Q\) is diagonal
but non-singlet. The field-strength tensor of the electromagnetic vector
potential is denoted by $F_{\mu\nu}= \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$.
In the first term of Equation \eqref{eq:jjxpt_gen}, we will refer to the
derivative $\frac{\delta\mathcal{S}}{\delta A_\mu}$ as current term. The
second term in Equation \eqref{eq:jjxpt_gen} gives rise to contact terms
proportional to $\delta(x-\bar x)$ and derivatives thereof. The anomalous
magnetic moment considered in this work is obtained by integrating the
propagator with a kernel function, that behaves as $(x-\bar x)^4$ for small
differences. This eliminates all contact terms with less than four derivatives.
The smallest order they can enter is therefore $O(p^6)$, since the two photon
fields add an extra $p^2$ to the counting.
\subsection*{Leading-order contributions}
The \(O(p^2)\) and \(O(m_q)\) terms are given by the standard Euclidean
chiral Lagrangian, with an additional mass term for the taste-flavor singlet
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_2 =\frac{F^2}{4} \mathrm{tr}\left( D_\mu U D_\mu U^\dagger \right)
- \frac{F^2}{4} M^2 \mathrm{tr} \left( U + U^\dagger \right)
+ \frac{m_0^2}{12} (\mathrm{tr} \phi)^2 \,,
\end{align}
where $M^2$ is the tree-level Goldstone-boson mass and $D_\mu= \partial_\mu U - i
[v_\mu,U]$ is the covariant derivative including the vector field. Note that
the external vector field is $O(p)$ in the chiral power counting scheme. The
singlet meson mass has to be sent to infinity at the end of the computation
(\(m_0 \to \infty\)). The functional derivatives described above give the
current couplings
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta\mathcal{S}_2}{\delta A_\mu(x)}
&= \frac{i}{2} \mathrm{tr}\left(Q \left[\partial_\mu \phi, \phi\right]\right)
- \frac{i}{24 F^2} \mathrm{tr}\left( \left[Q, \partial_\mu \phi\right] \phi \phi \phi
- 3 Q \phi \left[\partial_\mu \phi, \phi\right] \phi \right)
+ O(\phi^6)\,.
\end{align}
The leading order staggered terms have been described by Lee and
Sharpe~\cite{Lee:1999zxa} and generalized to multiple flavors by Aubin and
Bernard~\cite{Aubin:2003mg}. We write these terms as \(\mathcal{L}_{2,LS}\).
Since these are \(O(a^2)\), they can contribute to our NNLO{}
calculation in diagrams with up to two loops, so when expanding in \(\phi\), we
consider terms up to and including \(O(\phi^4)\). The \(O(\phi^2)\) terms can
be absorbed into the \(O(\phi^2)\) mass term from \(\mathcal{L}_2\), providing
taste-dependent corrections to the tree-level mass. There are also extra terms
for the flavor singlets of each taste, shifting these masses separately from
the other flavor components.
Since \(\mathcal{L}_{2,LS}\) does not depend on the external field, there are
no contributions to the current terms.
\subsection*{Next-to-leading order contributions}
The \(O(p^4)\), \(O(p^2 m_q)\), and \(O(m_q^2)\) vertices have been described
by Gasser and Leutwyler~\cite{Gasser:1984gg}. We denote this Lagrangian by
\(\mathcal{L}_4\), and use the standard notation for the low-energy
constants. According to Table~\ref{ta:powcnt} they contribute to the
calculation in diagrams with up to one loop, so when expanding in \(\phi\), we
only consider terms of \(O(\phi^2)\). These terms can mostly be absorbed into
redefinitions of the coefficients for the mass term, and a
rescaling of the field variable $\phi$. Such a rescaling cannot affect the
final result, since we are computing the correlation function of an external field.
The rescaling of the field variable absorbs the contributions to the current
term from the terms in the Lagrangian that are proportional to the low-energy constants
\(L_4\) and \(L_5\) and only the following term remains:
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta\mathcal{S}_4}{\delta A_\mu(x)}
&= \frac{2i}{F^2}\ L_9\ \mathrm{tr}\left( Q \partial_\nu \left[\partial_\mu \phi, \partial_\nu \phi\right] \right)
+ O(\phi^4).
\end{align}
The staggered specific NLO{} contributions involve \(O(a^2 p^2)\), \(O(a^2
m_q)\), and \(O(a^4)\) terms, which have been described by Sharpe \& van de
Water~\cite{Sharpe:2004is}. As NLO{} terms, these can only contribute at one
loop, so we only consider their expansion up to \(O(\phi^2)\). Similar to
\(\mathcal{L}_{2,LS}\), most of the terms of $\mathcal{L}_{4,SV}$ can be
absorbed into the LO{} mass as taste-dependent corrections and by field
rescaling. There are three groups of terms that cannot be treated this way:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the first group we have $O(a^2p^2)$ terms that violate the
remnant $SO(4)$ taste symmetry of the LO{} action, for example
$\sum_\mu \langle \partial_\mu \phi \xi_\mu \partial_\mu \phi \xi_\mu
\rangle$. The net effect of these terms on the current
propagator is only to change the mass that appears in the pion propagators
by $SO(4)$ violating terms. In our lattice simulations these $SO(4)$
violations are tiny: on our coarsest lattice the pion mass splittings,
within the $SO(4)$ multiplets, are about $50$ times smaller than the
splittings between different multiplets. We will set them to zero in
our SXPT{} computation.
\item In the second group we have $O(a^2p^2)$ terms that depend
explicitly on the external field, and not through the covariant
derivatives. Reference~\cite{Sharpe:2004is} calls these ``extra source-terms''.
In principle, these can contribute to the current terms.
However, they are all proportional to the commutator of the
vector field with a taste matrix $\xi_\alpha$, and since we take our
vector current to be a taste singlet, such commutators vanish.
An example for such a term is $\sum_{\mu,\nu}\langle [A_\mu,\xi_\nu]
\phi \xi_\nu \partial_\mu \phi\rangle$.
\item Finally, there might be taste-symmetry-breaking terms containing the
field-strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$. A spurion analysis, similar to the
one in Section III of Reference \cite{Aubin:2006xv}, indicates that no
such terms are allowed in the $\mathcal{L}_{4,SV}$ Lagrangian.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Contributions from beyond next-to-leading order}
In SXPT{}, it is possible to construct a chiral Lagrangian between NLO{} and
NNLO{}, as discussed by Bailey, Kim and Lee~\cite{SWME:2011aa}. We denote this
Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_5$. In it, terms might arise from the dimension-8 or
dimension-9 Lagrangians in the Symanzik effective theory, that are either
$O(a^4p)$ or $O(a^5)$. In order to contribute to our calculation, vertices at
this order would need to appear in a tree-level diagram (see
Table~\ref{ta:powcnt}, where we denote it N$\sqrt{\text{N}}$LO). As a result,
the only terms that could contribute to the current propagator would be contact
terms. However, such terms require the square of the vector field $A_\mu\approx
O(p)$ in order to have a non-zero second functional derivative and therefore
they must be $O(p^2)$. We conclude that $\mathcal{L}_5$ gives no contribution
in this calculation.
Finally, we come to the NNLO{} Lagrangian. Similarly to the Bailey-Kim-Lee
Lagrangian discussed above, NNLO{} terms can only contribute to tree-level
diagrams through contact terms at \(O(\phi^0)\). The continuum terms are
described by Bijnens, Colangelo and Ecker~\cite{Bijnens:1999sh}, and we write
them as \(\mathcal{L}_6\). As we already mentioned, in our observables only
contact terms that are at least $O(p^6)$ can contribute, and the
only such term is:
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta^2 \mathcal{S}_6}{\delta A_\mu(x)\delta A_{\bar{\mu}}(\bar{x})}
&= C_{93}\ \mathrm{tr}({Q^2})\ (\delta_{\mu\bar{\mu}} \partial^2 - \partial_\mu \partial_{\bar{\mu}}) \partial^2 \delta(x-\bar{x}) + O(\phi^2)\,.
\end{align}
The $O(a^2)$ taste-violating contributions at NNLO{} must similarly be contact
terms at \(O(\phi^0)\). As mentioned above, such terms must be at least
$O(p^6)$ in order to contribute to the $a_\mu$. However, $O(a^2 p^6)$ terms can
enter only beyond NNLO, so they are not relevant in our calculation.
\subsection*{Infinite-$L$ and $T$ result}
Performing the computations with the Lagrangians from the previous subsections
we obtain the full current propagator. As we mentioned in the beginning, it is
also necessary to compute the NLO{} mass shift \(\delta M^2_\alpha\) for each
taste arising from the terms not absorbed into the tree-level mass
\(M^2_\alpha\).
To arrive to the propagator that is used in our computation, we take Equation
\eqref{eq:jjxpt_gen}, apply a spatial integral over \(x\) and assume that
\(\mu,\bar{\mu}\) are spatial. With all the terms enumerated above we end up with:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:jjxpt_raw}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{e^2}\int d^3x \Braket{J_{\mu}(\vec x,t) J_{\bar{\mu}}(0)}= \\
&\qquad= \sum_\alpha \int \frac{d^3p}{{(2\pi)}^3} 2 N Q_\mathrm{ns}^2
\left[1 + \frac{16}{F^2} L_9 E_{p,\alpha}^2 - \frac{N}{4F^2} \sum_\beta \mathcal{G}_{0,\beta}
+ \delta M^2_\alpha \frac{d}{dM_\alpha^2} \right]
\frac{e^{-2E_{p,\alpha}t}}{E_{p,\alpha}^2} p_\mu p_{\bar\mu} + \\
&\qquad+ \sum_{\alpha,\beta} \int \frac{d^3p}{{(2\pi)}^3} \frac{d^3r}{{(2\pi)}^3}
\frac{N^2Q_\mathrm{ns}^2}{8F^2}
\frac{e^{-2E_{r,\beta}t}E_{p,\alpha} - e^{-2E_{p,\alpha}t}E_{r,\beta}}{E_{p,\alpha}^2E_{r,\beta}^2 (E_{p,\alpha}^2-E_{r,\beta}^2)}
p_\mu r_{\bar{\mu}} (\vec{p}\cdot \vec{r})
+ \text{contact terms},
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where we define the relativistic energy of a free particle with $\alpha$ taste
as \(E_{p,\alpha} = \sqrt{M_\alpha^2 + \vec{p}^2}\). The summations mean a sum
over sixteen tastes of the flavor non-singlet pions, $\alpha\in
\{5,\mu5,\mu\nu,\mu,I\}$. The flavor-singlet pseudoscalars only contribute to
the \(\delta M^2_\alpha\) mass-shift terms. These can be transformed away by
switching to the NLO{} mass everywhere in the formula, ie. applying the shift
\(M_\alpha^2 \to M_\alpha^2 + \delta M_\alpha^2\). This changes the result by
effects that are higher order than the NNLO{} considered here. The non-singlet
charge squared is defined as \(Q^2_\mathrm{ns} = Q_a Q_a - Q_0 Q_0\). Since the
result is proportional to $Q^2_\mathrm{ns}$, the flavor-singlet part of the
current gives no contribution at this order.
We use dimensional regularization at scale $\mu$ and the
$\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme to work with the ultraviolet divergent loop
integrals. Specifically, the one-loop integral $\mathcal{G}_{0,\beta}$ is
given by:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{G}_{0,\beta} = \int \frac{d^3p}{{(2\pi)}^3}\ \frac{1}{2E_{p,\beta}}=
\frac{M_\beta^2}{16\pi^2}\left( \log\frac{M_\beta^2}{\mu^2} + R \right)
\end{align}
where $R$ contains the divergence isolated by the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$
prescription, see eg. \cite{Scherer:2002tk}. Seemingly, there is also a
singularity in the integrand of the double loop integral in the second line of
Equation \eqref{eq:jjxpt_raw}, when $\vec{p}=\vec{r}$. This singularity is
superficial, since there is a zero in the numerator which cancels it. It is
useful to work with the terms of the numerator separately, in which case the
separated terms are singular. These singularities have to be regulated. We do
this by adding an $+i\eta$ into the denominator. The full expression has to be
smooth as $\eta\to0$, and we take this limit at the end of the computation.
The only low-energy constant, that appears in the result, is $L_9$ from the
continuum Gasser-Leutwyler Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{4,GL}$. The ultraviolet
divergences coming from the single loop integral $\mathcal{G}_{0,\beta}$ and the double
loop integral on the second line of Equation~\eqref{eq:jjxpt_raw} can all be
absorbed into $L_9$. This procedure defines a renormalized $L_9^r$, and also a
scheme-independent $\overline{L}_9$ in the standard way \cite{Scherer:2002tk}.
The only contact term that affects our observables is the one proportional to
$C_{93}$; we will ignore this term here, since it has no effect on the finite
volume and taste-splitting corrections.
We now move to our specific case of two degenerate light quarks with rooting,
so we set \(N_f = 2\), \(N_r = \frac{1}{4}\), \(L_9 =-\frac{1}{2} l_6\) and
\(Q = (\frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{2} \sigma_3) \otimes 1\) in flavor-replica
space, which give \(Q^2_\mathrm{ns} = N_r/4\). One of the two momentum
integrals in Equation \eqref{eq:jjxpt_raw} can be performed analytically, and
we also average over the Lorentz indices to arrive to our final expression:
\begin{align}
G(t)\equiv \frac{1}{3e^2}\sum_{\mu=1,2,3} \int d^3x \Braket{J_{\mu}(\vec x, t) J_{\mu}(0)} = \frac{1}{3}\sum'_\alpha \int \frac{d^3p}{{(2\pi)}^3} \frac{e^{-2E_{p,\alpha}t}}{E_{p,\alpha}^2} p^2
\left[1 + \frac{1}{F^2}\sum'_\beta \Gamma(p^2;M_\alpha,M_\beta)
\right],
\label{eq:jjxpt_ren}
\end{align}
where $p^2=\vec{p}^{\ 2}$ and the summation symbol
$\sum'_{\alpha}=\tfrac{1}{16}\sum_\alpha$ stands for averaging over the taste
index $\alpha$. The first part in the square-bracket is the well-known NLO{}
expression of \cite{Aubin:2006xv}, ie.\ the taste average of the continuum
NLO{} result. The second part of the square-bracket contains the NNLO{}
correction and is given explicitly as
\begin{gather}
\nonumber
\Gamma(p^2;M_\alpha,M_\beta)=
\frac{p^2+M_\alpha^2}{12\pi^2}\left( \overline{l}_6 - \log\frac{M_\beta^2}{M_5^2} \right)
+\frac{5(p^2+M^2_\alpha)}{36\pi^2}
- \frac{M_\beta^2}{6\pi^2}+
\\
- \frac{p^2+M^2_\alpha-M^2_\beta}{6\pi^2}
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{1-x}{x}}\arcsin\sqrt{x} & \text{if}\quad x<1\\
\sqrt{\frac{x-1}{x}}\log ( \sqrt{x} + \sqrt{x-1} ) & \text{if}\quad x>1
\end{cases}
\quad\text{with}\quad
x=\frac{p^2+M_\alpha^2}{M_\beta^2}.
\label{eq:jjxpt_gam}
\end{gather}
The scheme independent $\overline{l}_6$ is introduced with the Goldstone pion
mass $M_5$ as
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:l6}
l_6= -\frac{1}{96\pi^2}\left( \overline{l}_6 + \log \frac{M_5^2}{\mu^2} + R \right).
\end{gather}
Equations \eqref{eq:jjxpt_ren} and \eqref{eq:jjxpt_gam} reproduce the continuum
NNLO{} result of \cite{Aubin:2019usy}, if we set the masses of all tastes to
$M_5$.
When we use the above result later in this paper, we take the flavor
non-singlet pion masses from the simulations and fix the remaining two
parameters as: $F=92.21$~MeV and $\overline{l}_6=16$ as in
\cite{Aubin:2019usy}.
\subsection*{Finite-$L$ effects}
The above computation can also be carried out in finite volume. In the
continuum case, this was already done in \cite{Aubin:2019usy}. Here we
generalize those formulas in the presence of taste violations. We use the same
techniques that were applied there, and we also correct that
computation. A detailed derivation will not be given here, we just briefly
describe the main strategy and give the results.
The current propagator $G(t)$ in finite volume can be obtained from the
one in infinite volume by replacing the momentum integrals with sums. In the
infinite-volume expression, Equation \eqref{eq:jjxpt_raw}, there are terms with
single and double integrals. The finite-size correction for those with a
single integral can be obtained from a Poisson summation formula, formally:
\begin{gather}
\frac{1}{L^3}\sum_p - \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}=
\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{n\neq 0} e^{i\vec n\vec pL}\equiv
\sumint_{p,n\neq0},
\end{gather}
whereas for double integrals the correction involves more terms:
\begin{gather}
\frac{1}{L^3}\sum_p \frac{1}{L^3}\sum_r- \int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\int\frac{d^3r}{(2\pi)^3}=
\sumint_{p,n\neq0} \sumint_{r,m\neq0}\ +\ \sumint_{p,n\neq0} \int\limits_r\ +\ \int\limits_p^{} \sumint_{r,m\neq0}\ ,
\end{gather}
where we also introduced the notation $\int_p \equiv \int \tfrac{d^3
p}{(2\pi)^3}$. In some cases the momentum integrals can be more easily
performed if the line of integration is deformed into the complex plane.
Specifically we need the following integrals:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fvint}
\begin{aligned}
I_1[f]&\equiv\sumint_{p,n\neq0} f(p^2)=
\frac{1}{2\pi^2} \sum_{n^2=1}^\infty \frac{\nu_n}{nL} \int_0^\infty dp\ p\sin(npL) f(p^2)\\
I_2(M_\alpha)&\equiv -\sumint_{p,n\neq0} \frac{1}{E_{p,\alpha}}=
-\frac{M_\alpha}{2\pi^2} \sum_{n^2=1}^\infty \frac{\nu_n}{nL} \int_1^\infty \frac{e^{-ynM_\alpha L} y dy}{\sqrt{y^2-1}}\\
I_3(p^2;M_\alpha,M_\beta)&\equiv\frac{1}{6}
\sum_{s=\pm}\sumint_{r,m\neq0} \frac{r^2}{E_{r,\beta}(E_{r,\beta}^2-E_{p,\alpha}^2 + is\eta)}=
\frac{M_\beta}{6\pi^2} \sum_{m^2=1}^\infty \frac{\nu_m}{mL}
\left[\int_1^\infty \frac{e^{-ymM_\beta L} y^3 dy}{\sqrt{y^2-1}(y^2+x-1)} + \right.\\
&+\left.\frac{\pi}{2}
\frac{x-1}{\sqrt{x}}
\begin{cases}
\exp(-m\sqrt{1-x}M_\beta L) & \text{if}\quad x<1\\
\cos{(m\sqrt{x-1}M_\beta L)} & \text{if}\quad x>1
\end{cases}
\right]
\quad\text{with}\quad
x=\frac{p^2+M_\alpha^2}{M_\beta^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $f(p^2)$ is an arbitrary integrable function, $\nu_\xi=\sum_{\vec n^2=\xi}
1$ and the $\eta>0$ regulator was introduced according to our earlier
discussion. In the $I_3$ integral, the second term in the square-bracket comes
from poles at $r^2=(p^2+M_\alpha^2-M_\beta^2)/M_\beta^2$. This pole term was
dropped in \cite{Aubin:2019usy} by saying that the pole can be shifted outside
a complex contour. We give the result as the finite- minus infinite-volume
difference and we split it into five terms, one NLO{} and four NNLO{}:
\begin{gather}
G(t;L)-G(t;\infty)= \Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NLO} + \sum_{i=1}^4 \Delta G(t)_{\mathrm{NNLO},i}.
\end{gather}
To keep the formulas simple we
introduce the notation
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:epsxpt}
\epsilon(p^2;M_\alpha,t) \equiv
\frac{e^{-2E_{p,\alpha}t}}{E_{p,\alpha}^2}\ p^2\ .
\end{gather}
Our result for the finite-volume correction is then:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fvxpt}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NLO}&= \frac{1}{3}\sum'_\alpha I_1[ \epsilon(M_\alpha,t) ]\\
F^2\Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,1}&= \frac{1}{3} \sum'_{\alpha,\beta}
I_1[\epsilon(M_\alpha,t) \Gamma(M_\alpha,M_\beta)]\\
F^2\Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,2}&= \frac{1}{3} \sum'_{\alpha,\beta}
I_1[\epsilon(M_\alpha,t)]\cdot I_2(M_\beta)\\
F^2\Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,3}&= \frac{1}{3} \sum'_{\alpha,\beta}
\int_p\epsilon(p^2;M_\alpha,t) \left[ I_2(M_\beta) + I_3(p^2; M_\alpha,M_\beta) \right]\\
F^2\Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,4}&= \frac{1}{3} \sum'_{\alpha,\beta}
I_1[\epsilon(M_\alpha,t) I_3(M_\alpha,M_\beta)].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
The $\tfrac{1}{3}$ prefactors arise from the Lorentz-index averaging and
$\sum'_{\alpha,\beta}=\tfrac{1}{256}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}$. In the continuum
these formulas agree with the ones in \cite{Aubin:2019usy}, up to the pole
contribution that affects the $\Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,3}$ and $\Delta
G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,4}$ terms. The largest NNLO{} term by far is $\Delta
G(t)_\mathrm{NNLO,1}$, and has the same order of magnitude as the NLO{} term
on our lattices.
\subsection*{Finite-$T$ effects}
Until now we assumed that the temporal extent of the lattice is infinite,
$T=\infty$. The corrections introduced by a finite $T$ can also be computed in
SXPT{}. The integrals over the time component of the momenta become
sums, which are then related to integrals via Poisson's summation
formula. Formally:
\begin{gather}
\int \frac{dp_4}{2\pi} \longrightarrow \frac{1}{T} \sum_{p_4} = \int \frac{dp_4}{2\pi} \sum_{n_4} e^{ip_4 n_4 T}\ .
\end{gather}
We give here the result of this procedure for three integrals that appear in
the current-current correlator, in a one-loop and in a two-loop diagram, respectively:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fintxpt}
\begin{aligned}
&\int \frac{dp_4}{2\pi} \frac{e^{ip_4t}}{p_4^2+E_p^2}
\longrightarrow \frac{\cosh\left[ E_p\left(t-T/2\right)\right]}{2E_p\sinh(E_pT/2)}\\
&\int
\frac{dp_4}{2\pi}
\frac{dq_4}{2\pi}
\frac{e^{ip_4t}}{p_4^2+E^2}
\frac{e^{iq_4t}}{q_4^2+E^2}
\longrightarrow \left( \frac{\cosh\left[ E_p\left(t-T/2\right)\right]}{2E_p\sinh(E_pT/2)} \right)^2=
\frac{\cosh\left[ 2E_p\left(t-T/2\right)\right] +1 }{4E_p^2\left[\cosh(E_pT)-1\right]}\\
&\int dt'
\int
\frac{dp_4}{2\pi}
\frac{dq_4}{2\pi}
\frac{dr_4}{2\pi}
\frac{ds_4}{2\pi}
\frac{e^{ip_4(t-t')}}{p_4^2+E_p^2}
\frac{e^{iq_4(t-t')}}{q_4^2+E_p^2}
\frac{e^{ir_4t' }}{r_4^2+E_r^2}
\frac{e^{is_4t' }}{s_4^2+E_r^2}
\longrightarrow
\end{aligned}\\
\nonumber
\frac{
E_rE_p^2\cosh\left[2E_r(t-T/2)\right]\sinh(E_pT) - \{ p \leftrightarrow r \} +
(E_p^2-E_r^2)\left[E_r\sinh(E_pT) + E_p\sinh(E_rT) + E_pE_rT\right]
}
{ 16E_p^3E_r^3(E_p^2-E_r^2) \left[ \cosh(E_pT)-1 \right] \left[ \cosh(E_rT)-1 \right]}
\end{gather}
The computation proceeds as in the case of finite-$L$. As in
Equation \eqref{eq:epsxpt}, we introduce new
notations to keep the formulas simple:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:epsxpt2}
\epsilon_{T}(p^2;M_\alpha,t)\equiv \frac{\cosh\left[2E_{p,\alpha}(t-T/2)\right]+1}{E_{p,\alpha}^2\left[ \cosh(E_{p,\alpha}T)-1\right]}\ p^2\ ,\qquad
\sigma_{T}(p^2;M_\alpha)\equiv \frac{p^2}{E_{p,\alpha}^2\left[ \cosh(E_{p,\alpha}T)-1\right]}\ .
\end{gather}
For the correction due to finite $L$ and $T$ we get:
\begin{gather}
G(t;L,T) - G(t;\infty,\infty)=\\
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
&\left[ \frac{1}{3}\sum'_\alpha \int_p \epsilon(p^2;M_\alpha,t) \right]_{\epsilon \to \epsilon_T-\epsilon} +
\left[ \frac{1}{3}\sum'_\alpha \int_p \epsilon(p^2;M_\alpha,t) \frac{1}{F^2} \sum'_{\beta} \Gamma(p^2;M_\alpha,M_\beta)\right]_{\epsilon \to \epsilon_T-\sigma_T-\epsilon}\\
&+\Bigg[ \Delta G(t)_\mathrm{NLO} \Bigg]_{\epsilon\to \epsilon_T}+ \left[\sum_{i=1}^4 \Delta G(t)_{\mathrm{NNLO},i}\right]_{\epsilon \to \epsilon_T-\sigma_T}\\
&+\frac{T}{18F^2} \left[ \sum'_\alpha \sumint_{p,n} \sigma_T(p^2;M_\alpha) \right]^2\\
&+\frac{1}{9F^2} \left[\sum'_\alpha \sumint_{p,n} \sigma_T(p^2;M_\alpha)\right]\left[ \sum'_\alpha \sumint_{p,n} \sigma_T(p^2;M_\alpha) \frac{1-e^{-E_{p,\alpha}T}}{E_{p,\alpha}}\right]\\
&-\frac{2}{3F^2} \left[ \sum'_\alpha \sumint_{p,n} \epsilon_T(p^2;M_\alpha,t) \right] \left[ \sum'_\alpha \sumint_{p,n} \frac{1}{E_{p,\alpha}\left( e^{E_{p,\alpha}T}-1\right)} \right]\\
&+\frac{1}{18F^2} \sum'_{\alpha} \sumint_{p,n} \left[ \epsilon_{T}(p^2;M_\alpha,t) - \sigma_T(p^2,M_\alpha)\right]
\sum'_{\beta}\sum_{s=\pm}\sumint_{r,m} \frac{r^2}{E_{r,\beta}(E^2_{r,\beta}-E^2_{p,\alpha}+is\eta)}\frac{1-e^{-E_{r,\beta}T}}{\cosh(E_{r,\beta}T)-1}
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
The first line is the correction due to finite $T$ at infinite $L$, ie.
$G(t;\infty,T)-G(t;\infty,\infty)$. The rest of the formula gives the
correction due to finite $L$ at finite $T$, ie. $G(t;L,T)-G(t;\infty,T)$. The
terms in the second line are obtained by replacing $\epsilon$ by $\epsilon_T$
or by $\epsilon_T-\sigma_T$ in Equations \eqref{eq:fvxpt} from the previous
subsection. The first and second lines give most of the contribution to the
finite-size effect for the cases of interest in this work. The rest, from the
third to the sixth line, are genuine finite-$T$ corrections in that they vanish
at infinite $T$. They are all NNLO and are negligible for the lattices
considered here.
\subsection*{Taste non-singlet contributions to the current}
Here we explore briefly to what extent our previous assumption, that the vector
current is a taste singlet, is justified. For this purpose it is useful to work
with the valence staggered fermion fields $\chi$. The lattice current propagator,
that we introduced in Section \ref{se:obs_jj}, can be derived from the
following zero-spatial-momentum operator:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:stjj}
\sum_{\vec x}\left( \overline{\chi}_{x} U_{\mu,x} \eta_{\mu,x}\chi_{x+\mu} +
\overline{\chi}_{x+\mu} U^\dagger_{\mu,x} \eta_{\mu,x}\chi_{x}\right)\ ,
\end{gather}
where the $\eta_{\mu,x}$ phase is the staggered representation of the
Dirac matrix and we drop the flavor index for simplicity. Equation
\eqref{eq:stjj} is just the conserved vector current of the staggered fermion
action.
Staggered bilinears can be assigned with a spin$\otimes$taste structure, see
\cite{Follana:2006rc} for a modern treatment. In the case of the operator in
\eqref{eq:stjj}, two such assignments can be given:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:spta}
\gamma_\mu \otimes 1
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\gamma_\mu \gamma_4 \gamma_5\otimes \xi_4 \xi_5\ .
\end{gather}
The conserved current couples to states of both types. The first corresponds to
the taste-singlet vector current, the case which we have fully covered
previously. The second is a taste non-singlet
pseudovector\footnote{Pseudovectors are to be distinguished from
axial-vectors, the latter have $\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5$ spin structure.}. Its
correlator gives the characteristic contribution to the staggered propagator
which oscillates in time with a factor $(-1)^{x_4}$. The observables that we
consider in this paper are obtained by integrating the propagator over the
whole time range, or at least over some physical distance. In the continuum
limit such an integration completely eliminates the oscillating contribution.
At finite lattice spacing it gives an $O(a^2)$ suppression compared to the
taste singlet vector contribution.
It is possible to compute the pseudovector propagator in chiral perturbation
theory. This requires the inclusion of an external antisymmetric tensor source
$t_{\mu\nu}$. This has been done to NNLO{} in \cite{Cata:2007ns}, which has
chosen $t_{\mu\nu}\approx O(p^2)$ for the chiral counting of the tensor field.
With this choice a vertex with the tensor field first appears in the NLO{}
Lagrangian. The one-loop contribution to the tensor-tensor propagator is zero,
due to charge conjugation and parity invariance. The two-loop contribution has
two NLO{} vertices and is thus $O(p^{10})$. This, combined with the
suppression explained in the previous paragraph, gives $O(a^2p^{10})$, which is
well beyond the order to which we work.
As explained in \cite{Cata:2007ns}, there is an ambiguity in the
chiral-counting assignment of $t_{\mu\nu}$. A closely related fact is that the
tensor-tensor propagator is renormalization scheme dependent, since there is no
conservation law for the tensor current. Even if we used a counting
$t_{\mu\nu}\approx O(1)$, the oscillating contribution would still be beyond
the NNLO{} to which we work.
Based on these arguments, we ignore the taste non-singlet contribution to the
current in our SXPT{} computation.
\section{Results for $a_{\mu}$ and its various contributions}
\label{se:res_amu}
\def53.379(89)(67){53.379(89)(67)}
\def639.3(2.0)(4.2){639.3(2.0)(4.2)}
\def-18.61(1.03)(1.17){-18.61(1.03)(1.17)}
\def[111]{[111]}
\def[4.6]{[4.6]}
\def[1.56]{[1.56]}
\def707.5(2.3)(5.0)[5.5]{707.5(2.3)(5.0)[5.5]}
In this section we present results for the strange, light and disconnected
components of $a_\mu$ in the continuum and infinite-volume limits. We perform
the two limits in two separate steps. We introduce a reference box with
spatial extent $L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm and time extent
$T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$. These correspond approximately to
the size of our boxes in the {\tt 4stout} ensemble set. In this reference box
we perform the continuum extrapolation for each flavor component. The
finite-size effect of the reference box is then added in the second step. For
this we prepared dedicated lattice simulations, including a large box of size
$L_\mathrm{big}=T_\mathrm{big}=10.752$~fm, as discussed in Section
\ref{se:obs_fv}. The simulations give the difference
$a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big}) - a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$,
which are in good agreement with non-lattice estimates. For the tiny residual
finite-size effect, $a_\mu(\infty,\infty) -
a_\mu(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})$, the predictions of the non-lattice
approaches are taken.
In this section we use both Type-I and Type-II parametrizations from Section
\ref{se:res_fit} to perform the global fits. They give compatible results for
the observables, however in most cases the Type-I results are more precise.
This can be partly explained by the relatively large error on the $w_0$ value,
Equation \eqref{eq:w0}, which is caused by the strong curvature of
$w_0M_\Omega$ at small lattice spacings. We will take the final result from the
Type-I fit, and use the Type-II fit to perform the isospin decomposition. To get
the isospin-symmetric value we take the total result from the Type-I fit and
subtract the isospin-breaking contributions obtained from the Type-II fit.
Type-II fits require the physical values of $w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta
M^2$ as input. These were determined in the previous Section. From those fits
we keep the 24 different possibilities related to the hadron mass
determinations. The remaining systematic variations of these are represented by
$N_I=8$ suitably chosen fit combinations, as discussed in Section
\ref{se:res_err}.
Some of the fit parameters are included in all fits, some never used, and there
are also ones that are included in half of the fits and excluded in the other
half. Which of these options is applied for a given parameter is decided by
looking at the influence of the parameter on the fit result. The options chosen
can be read off from Table \ref{ta:amuerr}.
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|rr|rr|rr}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$}\\
\hline\hline
median & 53.379 & & 639.3 & & -18.61 & \\
\hline
total error & 111 & (0.2\%) & 4.6 & (0.7\%) & 1.56 & (8.3\%)\\
statistical error & 89 & & 2.0 & & 1.03 &\\
systematic error & 67 & & 1.9 & & 1.11 &\\
difference to NNLO improvement & -- & & 3.7 & & 0.36 &\\
\hline
$M_\pi/M_K/M_{ss}$ fit & 5 & & $<$0.1 & & $<$0.01 &\\
$M_\pi/M_K/M_{ss}$ fit QED & 3 & & 0.1 & & $<$0.01 &\\
$M_\Omega$ fit & 56 & & 0.3 & & 0.04 &\\
$M_\Omega$ fit QED & 2 & & 0.1 & & $<$0.01 &\\
$M_\Omega$ experimental & 5 & & 0.1 & & 0.01 &\\
Continuum limit (beta cuts) & 47 & & 0.3 & & 0.68 &\\
$a^2\alpha_s^n$ with $n=0$ or $3$& -- & & 1.1 & & 0.57 &\\
taste improvement ranges & -- & & 0.7 & & 0.11 &\\
$t_c$ in Table \ref{ta:tcfm} & -- & & 0.2 & & 0.23 &\\
$A_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$A_2$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$A_4$ on/off & 26 & & $<$0.1 & & off &\\
$B_0$ on/off & 11 & & on & & 0.06 &\\
$B_2$ on/off & off & & off & & off &\\
$C_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$C_2$ on/off & off & & off & & off &\\
$D_0$ on/off & off & & on & & on &\\
$D_2$ on/off & off & & on & & on &\\
$D_4$ on/off & off & & off & & off &\\
$D_l$ on/off & off & & 0.2 & & 0.01 &\\
$D_s$ on/off & off & & on & & off &\\
$E_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$E_2$ on/off & on & & $<$0.1 & & 0.58 &\\
$E_4$ on/off & off & & off & & off &\\
$E_l$ on/off & 3 & & $<$0.1 & & off &\\
$E_s$ on/off & $<$1 & & off & & off &\\
$F_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$F_2$ on/off & 1 & & $<$0.1 & & off &\\
$G_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$G_2$ on/off & 3 & & 0.1 & & off &\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:amuerr}Continuum extrapolated results and error budget for
the strange, light and disconnected contributions to $a_\mu$. The
errors are to be understood on the last digits of the central value, as
usual. The results correspond to a box size $L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm
and $T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$.
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r|r|r}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$}\\
\hline\hline
total & 53.379(89)(67) & 639.3(2.0)(4.2) & -18.61(1.03)(1.17)\\
\hline
iso & 53.393(89)(68)& 633.7(2.1)(4.2)& -13.36(1.18)(1.36)\\
qed & -0.0136(86)(76)& -0.93(35)(47)& -0.58(14)(10)\\
qed-vv & -0.0086(42)(41)& -1.24(40)(31)& -0.55(15)(10)\\
qed-sv & -0.0014(11)(14)& -0.0079(86)(94)& 0.011(24)(14)\\
qed-ss & -0.0031(76)(69)& 0.37(21)(24)& -0.040(33)(21)\\
sib& --& 6.60(63)(53)& -4.67(54)(69)\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:amu}Continuum extrapolated results for the different
components of the strange, light and disconnected contributions to
$a_\mu$. The results correspond to a box size
$L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm and
$T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$.
}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Connected strange contribution}
The strange contribution to the connected component of $a_\mu$, denoted by
$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}$, is obtained from the strange flavor term of the
connected contractions $C^\mathrm{strange}$ given in Equations \eqref{eq:conn}
and \eqref{eq:clsc}. Its isospin-symmetric component, as well as its
electromagnetic isospin-breaking derivatives are given in Table \ref{ta:ibjjc}.
The propagator is then summed over space to project to zero momentum and in
time with a weight factor:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amus}
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}=
10^{10}\alpha^2
\sum_{t=0}^{T/2} K(t;aQ_\mathrm{max},am_\mu)\
\frac{1}{6}
\sum_{\vec{x},\mu=1,2,3}
\left\langle C^\mathrm{strange}_{\mu,t,\vec{x};\mu,0} + C^\mathrm{strange}_{\mu,T-t,\vec{x};\mu,0}\right\rangle\ ,
\end{gather}
see Equations \eqref{eq:gdeflat} and \eqref{eq:kdef}. Strong-isospin-breaking
does not enter in $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}$, so the $D$ coefficient can be set
to zero in the Type-I fit function. The systematic error estimation was carried
out as in the cases of $w_0$ and $M_{ss}$ in Section \ref{se:res_w0etal}. The
differences are, that $E_2$ is always kept and $C_2$ is not used. Altogether
we have 32256 fits: the continuum limit and fit-form-related variations are
weighted with AIC, the rest with a flat distribution. In the continuum limit
we get
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:res_s}
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 53.379(89)(67)[111]\ ,
\end{gather}
with statistical, systematic and total errors. The result is
obtained in a finite box and the finite-size correction term will be added in a
later step. The error budget for the total $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}$ is given
in Table \ref{ta:amuerr}. We also perform a Type-II fit, from which we obtain
the different isospin contributions in Table \ref{ta:amu}. The corresponding
continuum extrapolations are shown in Figure \ref{fi:amus}.
\subsection*{Connected light contribution}
The contribution of the light flavors to the connected part of $a_\mu$, denoted
by $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}$, is given by replacing the strange contraction
$C^\mathrm{strange}$ with the connected light quark contraction
$C^\mathrm{light}$ in Equation \eqref{eq:amus}. In the isospin-symmetric part
a bounding procedure is applied on the propagator to reduce the noise as
discussed in Section \ref{se:obs_bound}. In the isospin-breaking parts we
apply a cut in time, beyond which the propagator is set to zero, see Section
\ref{se:obs_ibjj}. Two different cuts, given in Table \ref{ta:tcfm}, are used
to estimate the corresponding systematic error.
As explained in detail in Section \ref{se:obs_taimp}, the continuum
extrapolation is carried out by first applying an improvement on the
$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}$ observable on each ensemble. This is necessary in
order to remove large cutoff effects related to taste violations. We use the
rho-pion-gamma model (SRHO) of Section \ref{se:obs_rho} for this purpose. The
improvement is applied from a distance of $t_\mathrm{sep}$, for which we use
four different choices: $0.4$, $0.7$, $1.0$ and $1.3$~fm. The variation
corresponding to the choice of $t_\mathrm{sep}$ is part of our error budget,
which is given in Table \ref{ta:amuerr}. The above improvement procedure is
only applied to the isospin-symmetric component.
In addition, we consider cases in which we replace SRHO improvement by NNLO
SXPT in the previous fits, for Euclidean times larger than $1.3$~fm. These
results are only used to compute an extra systematic error related to the
choice of the SRHO model for taste improvement. Thus, we build a histogram of
the fit results obtained using SRHO, SRHO + ERR and SRHO - ERR improvements,
where ERR means the difference between the NNLO SXPT and SRHO fits. Then we
compute the systematic error corresponding to the variation across the SRHO and
SRHO$\pm$ERR with our usual procedure, see Section \ref{se:res_err}. The NNLO
SXPT distribution has longer tails than a Gaussian, so we take the central 95\%
region and quote the half of it as a systematic error (the usual 68\% would
give a smaller value). The corresponding value can be found in Table
\ref{ta:amuerr} and the full histogram is shown in grey in Figure~\labelmaincont{}
of the main paper. Note, that this procedure does not change
the central value of our result, which is obtained without any reference to
SXPT.
There is a small variation in the size of the lattices between different
ensembles. Our taste improvements are set up in a way, that the improved
results correspond to the same box size $L=L_\mathrm{ref}$. Finite-$T$ effects
are corrected for using NNLO SXPT.
The above variations in the analysis procedure yield 516096 Type-I fits. We
apply the usual weighting, in particular the different choices of
$t_\mathrm{sep}$ and $n$ are given a flat-weight. For the total light connected
contribution we get
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:res_l}
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 639.3(2.0)(4.2)[4.6]\ ,
\end{gather}
with statistical, systematic and total errors. The used fit parameters and the
error budget is given in Table \ref{ta:amuerr}. Performing analogous Type-II
fits we get the breakup into individual isospin contributions, given in Table
\ref{ta:amu}. The corresponding continuum extrapolations are shown in Figure
\ref{fi:amul}.
\subsection*{Disconnected contribution}
The disconnected contribution, denoted by $a_{\mu}^\mathrm{disc}$, is obtained
using Equation \eqref{eq:amus} with $C^\mathrm{disc}$, given in Equation
\eqref{eq:disc}, instead of $C^\mathrm{strange}$. In our previous work, at the
isospin-symmetric point \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, we computed the effect of
charm quarks on $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$ at the coarsest lattice spacing, and
found that it changes the result by a value much smaller than the statistical
error. Thus, we perform the current disconnected analysis without taking into
account valence charm quarks.
The same analysis procedure is applied as in the case of
$a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$: we use upper and lower bounds for the isospin-symmetric
part, a cut in time for the isospin breaking components, two types of lattice
spacing dependence $n=0,3$ and we improve the continuum limit with the
same taste-improvement procedures (SRHO and NNLO SXPT). Several of these
improvements are completely flat as a function of $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n$, as
such the quadratic fits give a curvature that is consistent with zero. We
therefore use only linear continuum extrapolations. A further difference is
that we have one less lattice spacing as in the case of $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}$.
We end up with 55296 fits in total and a result of
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:res_di}
a_{\mu}^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})=-18.61(1.03)(1.17)[1.56]\ .
\end{gather}
The error budget is given in Table \ref{ta:amuerr}. The Type-II fit gives the
individual contributions in Table \ref{ta:amu}, and the continuum
extrapolations are shown in Figure \ref{fi:amudi}.
\subsection*{Finite-size effects and other contributions}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r|l}
\hline
strange, $a_\mu^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$ & 53.379(89)(67) & this work, Equation \eqref{eq:res_s}\\
light, $a_\mu^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$ & 639.3(2.0)(4.2) & this work, Equation \eqref{eq:res_l}\\
disconnected, $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$ & -18.61(1.03)(1.17) & this work, Equation \eqref{eq:res_di}\\
finite-size, $a_\mu(\infty,\infty)-a_\mu(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$ & 18.7(2.5) & this work, Equation \eqref{eq:fv}\\
charm iso, $[a_\mu^\mathrm{charm}]_\mathrm{iso}$ & 14.6(0.0)(0.1) & \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, Table S2\\
charm qed, $[a_\mu^\mathrm{charm}]_\mathrm{qed}$ & 0.0182(36) & \cite{Giusti:2019xct}\\
charm effect on $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$ & $<$0.1 & \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, Section 4 in Supp. Mat.\\
bottom, $a_\mu^\mathrm{bottom}$ & 0.271(37) & \cite{Colquhoun:2014ica}\\
perturbative, $a_\mu^\mathrm{pert}$ & 0.16 & \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}, Table S5\\
one-photon-reducible subtraction, $-a_\mu^\mathrm{1\gamma R}$ & -0.321(11) & \cite{Chakraborty:2018iyb}, Table II\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:amuall}List of contributions to $a_\mu$, ie. the leading
order hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous
magnetic moment multiplied by $10^{10}$.
}
\end{table}
Beside the three contributions that we have presented until now, there are a
number of smallers ones that have to be added to get the final value on
$a_\mu$. These are listed in Table \ref{ta:amuall} together with source
indications. Several of these have a size that is much smaller than our
accuracy. They are given here for completeness. We discuss them, now, one by
one.
The previously presented results correspond to the reference box. Its
finite-size effect is computed in Section \ref{se:obs_fv}. This is the fourth
entry in Table \ref{ta:amuall}, which already includes the tiny contribution of
the electromagnetic finite-size effects.
The contribution of the connected charm quark, $a_\mu^\mathrm{charm}$, was
computed in the isospin-symmetric limit by many groups. Here we use our own
result from \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. An upper bound on the small effect of the
charm on $a_\mu^\mathrm{disc}$ was given in \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. We use the
value as an error here. The result was obtained using a single lattice
spacing. The even smaller isospin-breaking corrections on $a_\mu^\mathrm{charm}$
was computed in \cite{Giusti:2019xct}.
Until now we have considered four quark flavors. Obviously, the contributions of
the remaining flavors have to be added. For the bottom quark contribution
there is a lattice determination available, \cite{Colquhoun:2014ica}, whose
value we use here. The top can be safely neglected at our level of precision.
The $a_\mu$ in this work involves an integration in momentum up to
$Q_\mathrm{max}^2=3 \text{ GeV}^2$, as discussed in Section \ref{se:obs_hvp}. The
integration from this value to infinity can be computed in perturbation theory.
We use the value given in \cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}.
As mentioned in Section \ref{se:obs_hvp}, we compute the current propagator
with all $O(e^2)$ effects included. In this result the one-photon-reducible
($1\gamma R$) contribution belongs to the higher order HVP. This term has to be
subtracted if we are interested in the leading order HVP. A recent lattice
determination of this term can be found in \cite{Chakraborty:2018iyb}. The
corresponding diagram was labeled by the letter 'c' in their Figure 2.
Summing all the contributions gives
\begin{gather}
a_\mu=707.5(2.3)(5.0)[5.5]\ ,
\end{gather}
which is our final result for the LO-HVP contribution. The first error is
statistical. It includes the statistical errors of the strange, light and
disconnected contributions. The latter two are the dominant ones. All other
uncertainties are added in quadrature, and this is given as the second,
systematic error. Its major sources are the finite-size effect estimation, the
taste improvement and the continuum extrapolation. The last error in brackets
is the combined error, which corresponds to a relative precision of $0.8\%$.
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/amus/amus}
\caption
{
\label{fi:amus} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to
$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$. The top
panel shows the total value obtained in a Type-I fit, the lower panels are
the isospin breaking contributions from Type-II fits. For more
explanations see the caption of Figure \ref{fi:w0}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/amul/amul}
\caption
{
\label{fi:amul} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to of
$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$. For more
explanations see the caption of Figure \ref{fi:amus}. To the total
observable (upper panel) we apply taste improvement: we plot the
SRHO-improved data sets with improvement applied for Euclidean times
larger than $0.4$/$1.3$~fm, as red/blue points.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/amudi/amudi}
\caption
{
\label{fi:amudi} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to of
$a_{\mu}^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$. For more
explanations see the caption of Figure \ref{fi:amul}.
}
\end{figure}
\section{Uncertainty estimation}
\label{se:res_err}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/error/error}
\caption{
\label{fi:error} Cumulative distribution functions (CDF) of $\Delta
M^2=M_{dd}^2-M_{uu}^2$ values. The red curve shows the CDF of about 3k
different analyses obtained from their corresponding AIC weights. At a
given point along the curve the horizontal band is the statistical
error of the analysis at that point. The blue curve shows a CDF
corresponding to a combined distribution of the AIC weights and the
Gaussian distributions of the statistical errors. This latter curve is obtained from Equation
\eqref{eq:cdf} with $\lambda=1$. We use the median and the width of this curve to
define the central value and the total error. For the separation of the total
error into a statistical and a systematic part we also use the CDF with $\lambda=2$.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Calculation of statistical errors}
We use the jackknife method to calculate the statistical errors. To suppress
the auto-correlation between data from subsequent configurations we introduce a
blocking procedure. It is very convenient to use an equal number of blocks for
all ensembles. In this work we use $N_J=48$ blocks. With this choice we have
typically 100 trajectories or more in a block, which is much larger than the
autocorrelation time of the topological charge (around $20$ on our finest
ensembles). For the blocks we apply the delete-one principle, resulting in
$N_J$ jackknife samples plus the full sample.
We keep the correlation between all quantities calculated from the same
ensemble. For simplicity, we match the jackknife samples between ensembles,
too. This means that each global fit using all ensembles at the same time is
performed $N_J+1$ times. The covariance matrix is calculated only for the main
sample, there is no need for the errors on the correlations here.
\subsection*{Estimation of systematic errors}
Systematic errors are notoriously challenging to estimate. Here we are
fortunate to have, at our disposal, thirty-one, large-scale simulations
performed with quark masses straddling their physical values, at six values of
the lattice spacing ranging from $0.064$ to $0.1315\,\mathrm{fm}$, in large
volumes ranging from $9\times 6^3\,\mathrm{fm}^4$ to $(11\,\mathrm{fm})^4$,
including strong-isospin-breaking and electromagnetic effects. This allows us
to eliminate the leading, sytematic uncertainties of previous calculations. It
also allows us to obtain a reasonable estimate of the remaining systematics,
associated mainly with the neglected higher-order terms in the expansions or
models used to perform the necessary continuum and infinite-volume
extrapolations. The goal here is not to have an error that covers even very
unlikely scenarios that only marginally agree with our lattice data. Rather, we
aim to investigate all reasonable descriptions of this data and, as long as the
ensuing results are close to being Gaussian distributed, to determine the
standard, 68\% confidence interval of these results. This guarantees that
meaningful comparisons, with experimental results for instance, can be made in
terms of differences measured in units of combined standard deviations.
Throughout the chain of analyses many choices are made, ranging from fit
windows and mass extractions, through the various Ans\"atze for the large-time
behavior of the $JJ$ correlator, to the various parametrizations of a global
fit. We call the global fit with a specific set of such choices an
analysis. Each choice of $k$ possible options introduces a factor $k$ in the
total number of analyses, which already includes a factor of $N_J+1$
corresponding to the statistical sampling. Here we describe the procedure to
derive a systematic error coming from the ambiguity of these choices. We follow
closely the strategy introduced by us in \cite{Borsanyi:2014jba} and also
extend it by a new method to separate statistical and systematic errors.
For a target observable $y$ we build a histogram from the different analyses.
Each analysis gets a weight assigned. This weight is given by the Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC). The AIC is derived from the Kullback-Leibler
divergence, which measures the distance of the fit function from the true
distribution of the points. A derivation of the formula can be found in Section
11 of \cite{Borsanyi:2014jba}. Here we use a slightly modified version of the
AIC:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:aic}
\mathrm{AIC} \sim \exp\left[-\tfrac{1}{2}\left(\chi^2 + 2 n_{\rm par} - n_{\rm data}\right)\right],
\end{gather}
where the $\chi^2$, the number of fit parameters $n_{\rm par}$ and the number
of data points $n_{\rm data}$ describe the global fit. The first two terms
in the exponent correspond to the standard AIC, the last term is introduced to
weight fits with different number of ensembles; this happens when we apply
cuts in the lattice spacing. It can be derived from the Kullback-Leibler
divergence and arises from the first term in Equation (S41) of
\cite{Borsanyi:2014jba}. In case of normally distributed errors this term can
be computed and one obtains $\frac{1}{2}n_{\rm data}$, which then leads to Equation
\eqref{eq:aic} that we use in this paper.
The analyses differing only in the parametrization of the fit function, or in
a cut in the lattice spacing, are weighted with their AIC weights; in the
directions corresponding to other systematic variations, a flat weighting is
applied. Finally, the weights are normalized in such a way, that their sum
over all analyses equals 1.
Let $w_i$ denote the weight of the $i$-th analysis for a quantity $y$, with
$\sum_i w_i=1$. We interpret this weight as a probability. The statistical
uncertainties can be included by noting that, due to the central limit theorem,
they follow a Gaussian distribution $N(y;m_i,\sigma_i)$ with a central value
$m_i$ and a standard deviation $\sigma_i$. These parameters are given by the
jackknife average and the jackknife error calculated from the jackknife samples
in the $i$-th analysis. We then define a joint probability distribution
function of $y$, including both statistical and systematic uncertainties, as:
\begin{gather}
\sum_i w_i N(y; m_i, \sigma_i).
\end{gather}
In the following we work with the cumulative distribution function (CDF):
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:cdf}
P(y;\lambda)= \int^y_{-\infty} dy'\ \sum_i w_i N(y'; m_i, \sigma_i \sqrt{\lambda}).
\end{gather}
Here, for later use, we introduce a parameter $\lambda$ that rescales the
statistical error.
The median of the CDF is our choice for the central value of $y$ and its
total error is given by the 16\% and 84\% percentiles of the CDF:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:err0}
\sigma_{\rm total}^2\equiv \left[\tfrac{1}{2}(y_{84}-y_{16})\right]^2\qquad
\text{with}\qquad
P(y_{16}; 1) = 0.16,\qquad
P(y_{84}; 1) = 0.84.
\end{gather}
One could define a systematic error by evaluating the 16\% and 84\% percentiles
of the $P(y;0)$ function, since here the choice $\lambda=0$ erases the
statistical contribution to the distribution. However, $P(y;0)$ is a sum of
step functions (shown in red in Figure \ref{fi:error}), making the percentiles
a function that has jumps,
which makes the definition of the systematic error highly sensitive to the
value of the percentile chosen. Here we make a more robust choice for the
systematic error. First we demand, that:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:err1}
\sigma_{\rm stat}^2 + \sigma_{\rm sys}^2 \equiv \sigma_{\rm total}^2.
\end{gather}
Now, let us note that the rescaling of each jackknife error $\sigma_i^2$ with
a factor $\lambda$ is expected to increase the total squared statistical error
with the same factor:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:err2}
\lambda\sigma_{\rm stat}^2 + \sigma_{\rm sys}^2\equiv \left[\tfrac{1}{2}(\tilde{y}_{84}-\tilde{y}_{16})\right]^2\qquad
\text{with}\qquad
P(\tilde{y}_{16}; \lambda) = 0.16\ ,\qquad
P(\tilde{y}_{84}; \lambda) = 0.84\ .
\end{gather}
Equations \eqref{eq:err0}, \eqref{eq:err1} and \eqref{eq:err2} then provide a
definition for separate statistical and systematic errors. If the $\lambda$ is
not too small, then the joint CDF is smooth and has no sudden jumps, see Figure
\ref{fi:error}, and the procedure is insensitive to the choice of $\lambda$. We
use $\lambda=2$ in our error estimations.
To understand the composition of the systematic error we calculate the {\bf
error budget} for all important quantities in the following way. Imagine that
the full analysis uses 9 values of lattice spacing cuts, and we are interested
in the corresponding systematic error. We first determine 9 total errors for
each possible cuts. From these we construct a second CDF, which is a sum of 9
Gaussians as in Equation \eqref{eq:cdf}, with $i=1\dots9$, the $\sigma_i$ being
the total error and $m_i$ the average of the 16 and 84 percentiles of the fits
with the $i$-th cut, and the $w_i$ the sum of the weights of those fits. From
this CDF we derive the systematic error as done above for the original CDF,
which is our result for the systematic error corresponding to the 9 cuts. We
remark that the systematic errors are correlated within one error budget,
distorting the quadratic sum of the components, that ought to sum up to the
full systematic error.
\subsection*{Error propagation}
Here we describe the way to propagate errors to consecutive analysis steps.
Such a case occurs when we perform a Type-II fit using the physical values of
$w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2$ that were determined in a Type-I fit.
The statistical errors are taken into account by keeping the jackknife samples
throughout the whole analysis and computing the statistical error only in the
end, ie. after the Type-II fit. For the systematic error there are certain
analysis choices, like hadron mass fit ranges, that are shared between the
Type-I and Type-II fits. We carry these over as we do with the jackknife
samples.
There are also systematics that are independent in the two types of fits. For
those, one would like to combine all of the corresponding analyses of the
Type-I fit with all of those of the Type-II fit. The number of individual
analyses can already be several thousand for each type of fit, and by mixing
each analysis in the first step with each analysis in the second step, the
total number of analyses would easily reach a million. These many combinations
are unnecessary, since they include many bad fits with tiny weights.
In our approach we select $N_I$ results from the Type-I fit by an ``importance
sampling'': we uniformly split the probability interval $[0,1]$ into $N_I$ bins
and, for each bin, take whichever individual fit corresponds to the midpoint of
that bin. This produces a list of $N_I$ Type-I analyses, sampled according to
their importance. This selection is then the input into the Type-II fit, and
the total number of analyses in the second step will only get multiplied by a
factor of $N_I$ instead of several thousands. We choose $N_I=8$ in our
analyses. We ascertained that when using these $N_I=8$ fits, both the
statistical and the systematic errors are approximately the same as when
considering all fits.
\section{Consequences for electroweak precision observables?}
\label{se:res_ewp}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/ewp/ewp}
\caption
{
\label{fi:ewp} Hadronic contribution to the running of the
electromagnetic coupling for Euclidean momenta. For each bin we show
$\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_\mathrm{had}(-q_\mathrm{max}^2)-\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_\mathrm{had}(-q_\mathrm{min}^2)$,
where $q_\mathrm{min/max}^2$ is the lower/upper end of the bin. The
conventional value of $\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_\mathrm{had}(M_Z^2)$ can be
obtained by summing the results of all bins and performing a rotation
to Minkowski space (see text). The upper panel shows results obtained
from the experimental R-ratio of KNT18 \cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv} and
perturbation theory \cite{Harlander:2002ur}, as well as our lattice
results. The bottom panel compares the results with the R-ratio as a
baseline. The ``reference point'' scenario of CHMM
\cite{Crivellin:2020zul} (``proj($\infty$)'') is shown with crosses.
Their ``proj($1.94$~GeV)'' scenario is shown with bursts.
}
\end{figure}
In this section we investigate the claim, put forward by Crivellin,
Hoferichter, Manzari and Montull (CHMM) \cite{Crivellin:2020zul}, that the
result of this paper may lead to a significant tension with electroweak
precision fits for the hadronic contribution to the running of the
electromagnetic coupling, $\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)$. Here
``$(5)$'' means that we consider five active flavors and $M_Z$ is the mass of
the $Z$-boson. CHMM's analysis is based on the earlier work of
\cite{Passera:2008jk} that studies the impact, on precision electroweak fits,
of increasing the HVP contribution to reproduce the measured value of
$(g_\mu-2)/2$. That work has been recently updated and expanded in
\cite{Keshavarzi:2020bfy}. In contrast, assuming that the difference
between the lattice and R-ratio predictions for $a_\mu$ is given solely by a
difference in the slopes of the corresponding HVP functions at $Q^2{=}0$
--which is a reasonable first approximation-- \cite{deRafael:2020uif} shows
that the resulting shift in $\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)$ is at
least nine times smaller than the error in the electroweak fit determination of
$\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)$, given in \cite{Crivellin:2020zul} and
in Equation~\eqref{eq:alfaew} below. The consequences of our result for
electroweak precision observables has also been investigated very recently in
\cite{Malaescu:2020zuc}, where the impact of correlations between $a_\mu$ and
$\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)$, in the context of R-ratio
calculations, has been analyzed in detail.
Indeed, the authors of
\cite{Crivellin:2020zul} perform a global fit to electroweak observables and
obtain
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:alfaew}
\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)= 270.2(3.0) \times 10^{-4}\ \text{(electroweak)}\ .
\end{gather}
Note that this value is somewhat smaller, both in value and in uncertainty, than
the latest result of the Gfitter group \cite{Haller:2018nnx}. The same
observable can also be obtained from the experimental
R-ratio~\cite{Davier:2019can,Keshavarzi:2019abf}, eg. using the KNT19
result~\cite{Keshavarzi:2019abf} as do CHMM:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:alfaRratio}
\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)=
276.1(1.1) \times 10^{-4}\ \text{(R-ratio)}\ ,
\end{gather}
which is $1.8\sigma$ higher than the electroweak-fit value.
CHMM then consider a variety of scenarios to estimate the possible value of
$\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)$ from the results given in the present
paper. In their ``reference point'' scenario (``proj$(\infty)$''), they assume
that the relative difference between the R-ratio and our result for $a_\mu$
corresponds to an energy-independent rescaling in the $e^+e^-\to\mbox{hadrons}$
spectral function for all center-of-mass energies, from threshold to infinity.
Thus, they obtain
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:chmm}
\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)= 276.1(1.1) \times 10^{-4}\times\frac{712}{693} = 283.8(1.3)\times 10^{-4}\ \text{(CHMM)}\ ,
\end{gather}
which deviates by $4.2\sigma$ from the electroweak-fit value \footnote{We use
here 712, which was the central value of the result, $a_\mu=712.4(4.5)$, in
the arxiv-v1 of this work. The difference to our current result,
$a_\mu=707.5(5.5)$, is caused by three effects of roughly the same size:
changing the scale setting from $w_0$ to $M_\Omega$, adding finite-$T$ effects
and adding new measurements on the strong-isospin breaking of the disconnected
contribution.}. This leads CHMM to conclude that the result of the present
paper, while removing the discrepancy with the experimental determination of
$a_\mu$, may create a new one, now with electroweak precision measurements.
We now take a closer look at the claim of CHMM and point out problems with
their assumption. We will not study the running of $\alpha$ all the way up to
$M_Z^2$ here, because that would take us significantly beyond the scope of
the present study of $a_\mu$. However, without too much effort we can
investigate the running of $\alpha$ in the Euclidean regime up to scales
accessible in our lattice computation.\footnote{If we were able to run in the
Euclidean up to $M_Z^2$, the conversion to timelike $M_Z^2$ can be computed
in perturbation theory and the resulting correction is significantly smaller
than the present error bars on $\Delta\alpha_\mathrm{had}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)$, as
shown eg. in \cite{Blondel:2019vdq}.} The Euclidean running of the coupling is
obtained from the Euclidean HVP as
\begin{gather}
\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_\mathrm{had}(-q^2)= e^2 \hat\Pi^{(5)}(q^2)\ ,
\end{gather}
where $\hat\Pi^{(5)}$ is the five-flavor HVP given, with the notations of Section \ref{se:obs_hvp}, by:
\begin{gather}
\hat\Pi^{(5)}=
\hat\Pi^\mathrm{light}+
\hat\Pi^\mathrm{strange}+
\hat\Pi^\mathrm{charm}+
\hat\Pi^\mathrm{disc}+
\hat\Pi^\mathrm{bottom}\ .
\end{gather}
Here we compute $\Pi^{(5)}$ both on the lattice and from the R-ratio.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L|C|C|C|C|C|C|C}
& \hat\Pi^\mathrm{light} & \hat\Pi^\mathrm{strange} & \hat\Pi^\mathrm{charm} & \hat\Pi^\mathrm{disc} & \infty-\mathrm{ref} & \hat\Pi^\mathrm{bottom} & \hat\Pi^{(5)}\\
\hline
\hat\Pi(1) & 355.7(2.3) & 41.8(0.1) & 17.0(0.1) & -5.1(0.6) & 2.8(0.2) & 0.3(0.1) & 412.6(2.4) \\
\hat\Pi(10)-\hat\Pi(1) & 363.4(2.2) & 67.7(0.3) & 96.6(2.6) & -0.2(0.2) & 0.2(0.0) & 2.9(0.5) & 530.7(3.5) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:ewp} Continuum extrapolated lattice results for the HVP. We
give separately the light, strange, charm and disconnected
contributions and also the finite-size effects as computed from the
{\tt 4HEX} simulations. The bottom quark contribution was obtained from
the work \cite{Colquhoun:2014ica}. The last column is the sum of all.
}
\end{table}
To compute the HVP on the lattice we apply the same Type-II fit procedure as we
use for the determination of $a_\mu$ and $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ in the previous
Sections. We correct for finite-size effects by computing them in our {\tt
4HEX} simulations. For the bottom quark we combine the first four moments of
$\hat\Pi^\mathrm{bottom}$, determined by the HPQCD collaboration
\cite{Colquhoun:2014ica}, into a Pad\'e approximation. For the purpose of the
present discussion it suffices to consider two observables: $\hat\Pi^{(5)}(1)$ the
value of $\hat\Pi^{(5)}$ at $q^2=1\text{ GeV}^2$ and the difference in $\hat\Pi^{(5)}$
at $q^2=10\text{ GeV}^2$ and $1\text{ GeV}^2$, denoted by
$\hat\Pi^{(5)}(10)-\hat\Pi^{(5)}(1)$. Our final continuum extrapolated results are
given in Table \ref{ta:ewp}.
In the case of $\hat\Pi^{(5)}(10)-\hat\Pi^{(5)}(1)$ we have departed from our standard
procedure in two details. First, one must note that the full dataset gives bad
fit qualities in the continuum extrapolation, especially for the charm
contribution. This is because the precision of our results is orders of
magnitude better than eg. for $a_\mu$. Thus, we fit only a subset of about 50
configurations, maximally spaced along the simulation chain. This increases the
statistical error and leads to acceptable fit qualities. Also, we observe
lattice artefacts that are much larger than for the other observables in the
paper. In the charm case they are on the level of $100$\%. To reflect this in
the uncertainty of the continuum extrapolation, we use fit functions that are
quadratic polynomials in $a^2$ and also apply a flat weighting of the results
of different procedures in our determination of the systematic error.
To compute the HVP from the R-ratio we apply a dispersion integral
(see eg. Section 3 of \cite{Jegerlehner:2017gek})
\begin{gather}
\hat\Pi^{(5)}(q^2)= \frac{q^2}{12\pi^2}\int_{s_\mathrm{th}}^{\infty} ds\ \frac{R(s)}{s(s+q^2)}
\end{gather}
to the R-ratio data set of \cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv}. Uncertainties are
computed from the covariance matrix of the data. For energies above the range
of this data set we use the perturbative result from the {\tt rhad} package
\cite{Harlander:2002ur}.
In Figure \ref{fi:ewp} we show HVP differences corresponding to five energy
bins, starting at zero and ending at the scale $M_Z^2$. The first bin gives the
difference of the HVP between 1 and 0 GeV$^2$, the second between 10 and 1
GeV$^2$ and so on. The running to the scale $M_Z^2$ can then be obtained by
summing the values in the five bins. In the top panel we show the result
obtained from the R-ratio. For the first two bins, we also have lattice
results. The bottom panel shows our lattice results with the R-ratio result as
a baseline.
In the first bin, corresponding to an energy range from $0$ to $1$ GeV$^2$, we
see a difference between the lattice and the R-ratio determinations, that is
about $1.0$ in $\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_\mathrm{had}$. This corresponds to a
relative deviation of approximately $2.8\%$, which is about the same as we have
in the total $a_\mu$. This fact is not surprising because over $99\%$ of
$a_\mu$ comes from this spacelike region of momenta. In the second bin,
corresponding to the energy range from $1$ to $10$~GeV$^2$, the lattice and
R-ratio results already agree. For the bins with larger energies we show no
lattice results: discretization errors are too large to allow a controlled
continuum extrapolation.
In Figure \ref{fi:ewp} we also show two scenarios from CHMM. The first
is their ``reference point'' projection (``proj($\infty$)'') described
above. There, the R-ratio and lattice results are assumed to have the
same $2.8\%$ relative discrepancy in all energy bins up to $M_Z$, as
observed in the first bin. The difficulty with this assumption is that
CHMM extrapolates over two orders of magnitude in energy, while using
data only from the first bin. In addition, our lattice result in the
second energy bin is already in clear disagreement with their
hypothesis, and invalidates their estimate of Equation
\eqref{eq:chmm}.
The second of their scenarios considered here is the one in which they
assume that the $2.8\%$ rescaling of the spectral function only
applies to center-of-mass energies below $1.94$~GeV (``proj($1.94$~GeV)'').
This second scenario agrees much better
with our lattice results, as can be seen in the first two bins. If
future lattice calculations confirm that the agreement holds in the
remaining bins, the tension implied by our lattice calculation of
$a_\mu$ on $\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_\mathrm{had}$ would be $2.4\sigma$,
significantly smaller than the $4.2\sigma$ of the ``reference point''
scenario of \cite{Crivellin:2020zul} and only slightly larger than the
$1.8\sigma$ already observed with the R-ratio result of
Equation~\eqref{eq:alfaRratio}.
\section{Global fit procedure}
\label{se:res_fit}
In this section we describe the procedure that is used to obtain the physical
values of $a_\mu$. Two types of fit functions are introduced, Type-I and
Type-II, which differ in their input parameters. In Type-I fits these are
experimentally measurable quantities. In Type-II fits the inputs are
observables that are not directly accessible in experiments. Type-II fits are
needed to implement the separation of observables into isospin-symmetric
contribution and isospin-breaking corrections that is described in Section
\ref{se:obs_split}. We close the section by presenting an alternative fit
procedure.
\subsection*{Type-I fits}
In the case of Type-I fits we parameterize the quark-mass and electric-charge
dependence of an observable $Y$ around the physical point and for small isospin
breaking with a linear function $f$:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fitI}
Y= f( \{X\}; A, B, \dots )\equiv A + B X_l + C X_s + D X_{\delta m} + E X_{vv} + F X_{vs} + G X_{ss}\ .
\end{gather}
The $X_l, X_s,\dots$ are called independent variables of the fit function,
though they can be (statistically) correlated. The $A,B,\dots$ are called the
fit coefficients. The Type-I fits have the feature that their independent
variables $\{X\}$ are quantities that are experimentally measurable. Here the
$X_l$ and $X_s$ variables describe the deviation from the physical light and
strange mass
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fitx1}
X_l= \frac{M_{\pi_0}^2}{M_{\Omega}^2} - \left[\frac{M_{\pi_0}^2}{M_{\Omega}^2}\right]_*\ ,\qquad
X_s= \frac{M_{K_\chi}^2 }{M_{\Omega}^2} - \left[\frac{M_{K_\chi}^2 }{M_{\Omega}^2}\right]_*
\end{gather}
with $*$ denoting the experimental value. No higher orders in $X_l$ or $X_s$
are needed, since we work close to the physical point. The remaining $X$
variables measure the distance from the isospin-symmetric limit
\begin{gather}
X_{\delta m}= \frac{\Delta M_K^2 }{M_{\Omega}^2}\ ,\qquad
X_{vv}= e_v^2\ , \qquad
X_{vs}= e_ve_s\ , \qquad
X_{ss}= e_s^2\ ,
\end{gather}
where $e_v$ and $e_s$ are the valence and sea electric charges, respectively.
Higher-order isospin-breaking terms are not considered in this work. The meson
masses are defined as
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
M_{K_\chi}^2 &\equiv \tfrac{1}{2} \left(M_{K_0}^2 + M_{K_+}^2 - M_{\pi_+}^2 \right)\ ,\\
\Delta M_K^2 &\equiv M_{K_0}^2 - M_{K_+}^2\ .
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
In case of the neutral pion we use the combination
\begin{align}
M_{\pi_\chi}^2 &\equiv \tfrac{1}{2} \left(M_{uu}^2 + M_{dd}^2\right)\ ,
\end{align}
where the masses of mesons $uu$ and $dd$ are obtained from contractions
involving connected diagrams only. It can be shown in partially-quenched
chiral perturbation theory coupled to photons \cite{Bijnens:2006mk}, that
$M_{\pi_0} = M_{\pi_\chi}$ up to terms that are second order in isospin
breaking.
The coefficients $A,B,\dots$ in Equation \eqref{eq:fitI} are specific to the
observable $Y$. They can depend on the lattice spacing, and also on the $X$
variables defined above, in particular we use:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:abcdefg}
\begin{aligned}
A&= A_0 + A_2 \left[a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n\right] + A_4 \left[ a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n\right]^2 + A_6 \left[ a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n\right]^3,\\
B&= B_0 + B_2 a^2,\\
C&= C_0 + C_2 a^2,\\
D&= D_0 + D_2 a^2 + D_4 a^4 + D_l X_l + D_s X_s,\\
E&= E_0 + E_2 a^2 + E_4 a^4 + E_l X_l + E_s X_s,\\
F&= F_0 + F_2 a^2,\\
G&= G_0 + G_2 a^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The lattice spacing $a$ is defined in a so-called mass-dependent, scale-setting
scheme: for any ensemble, $a$ is given as the ratio of the $\Omega$ mass
measured in lattice units divided by its experimental value. For the strong
coupling, we use its four-flavor, $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ value at scale
$1/a$, ie.\ $\alpha_s(1/a)$. We determine this value from the world average
value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ \cite{Zyla:2020zbs}, by running the latter down from
$M_Z$ to $1/a$ in five-loop perturbation theory~\cite{Herzog:2017ohr}, taking
into account four-loop threshold corrections \cite{Schroder:2005hy} at the
$b$-quark mass given in \cite{Zyla:2020zbs}.
For observables, which give a large contribution to the final result, we
change the power of the strong coupling constant in the lattice-spacing
dependence of the $A$ coefficient from the commonly used $n=0$ to $n=3$, a
value suggested in \cite{web:hvpsommer} based on the work
\cite{Husung:2019ytz}. The $n=0$ case corresponds to the usual polynomial
expansion in $a^2$. The $n=3$ case, with an $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^3$ behavior,
describes well the lattice-spacing dependence of the taste-violation in the
pion spectrum in our range of lattice spacings. The change related to the
choice of $n$ is part of our systematic error. In the $A$ coefficient, the
dependence on $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n$ is taken to be linear or quadratic and, in
some cases, even cubic, if required by the data. In all other coefficients the
lattice spacing dependence is assumed to be a function of $a^2$ only. In the
$D$ and $E$ coefficients, up to quadratic dependencies are used, in all other
cases only a linear one is needed. Depending on the fit qualities, some of
these parameters will be set to zero.
The parameters $A_0,A_2,A_4,B_0,\dots$ can be determined by performing a fit
for sufficiently many ensembles that scatter around the physical point. The
physical value of $Y$ can then be obtained from this fit as
\begin{gather}
Y_*= A_0 + D_0 \left[X_{\delta m}\right]_* + (E_0+F_0+G_0)\cdot e_*^2\ ,
\end{gather}
ie. by setting the independent variables $X$ to their physical values,
including setting the valence and sea electric charges to the physical value of the
coupling $e_*$. The value $e_*$ is related to the experimental value of the
fine structure constant as $e_*=\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_*}$. This choice is valid up
to second order in isospin-breaking.
As described in Section \ref{se:obs_gen}, isospin-breaking corrections are
obtained by measuring derivatives with respect to the $\delta m$, $e_s$ and
$e_v$ parameters. These can be incorporated into the above procedure by
deriving a system of coupled equations: one by taking Equation \eqref{eq:fitI}
at the isospin-symmetric point, and the other four by applying the isospin
breaking derivatives, see Equations \eqref{eq:ibder1} and \eqref{eq:ibder2}. We
then find the following five equations:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fiveeq}
\begin{aligned}[]
[Y]_0&= [A + BX_l +C X_s]_0\\
[Y]'_m&= [D X_{\delta m}]'_m\\
[Y]''_{20}&= \left[A + BX_l + CX_s + DX_{\delta m}\right]''_{20} + [E]_0\\
[Y]''_{11}&= \left[A + BX_l + CX_s + DX_{\delta m}\right]''_{11} + [F]_0\\
[Y]''_{02}&= \left[A + BX_l + CX_s + DX_{\delta m}\right]''_{02} + [G]_0
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where various isospin components of the coefficients $A,B,\dots$ have to be included, eg. the isospin symmetric value of $E$ is given by:
\begin{gather}
[E]_0= E_0 + E_2 [a^2]_0 + E_4 [a^4]_0 + E_l [X_l]_0 + E_s [X_s]_0\ .
\end{gather}
The first line in \eqref{eq:fiveeq} parameterizes the isospin-symmetric data,
and is the only equation that depends on the $A_0$ parameter. The next equation
describes strong-isospin-breaking, where the electromagnetic coefficients
$E,F,G$ trivially drop out. $B$ and $C$ are also absent here, since they depend
symmetrically on the $u$ and $d$ quarks. This equation is the main constraint
for $D$. The final three equations are the electric derivatives; they constrain
the $E,F$ and $G$ coefficients.
Note that the derivatives in Equation \eqref{eq:fiveeq} are with
respect to the bare parameters. The strong-isospin-breaking derivative
$[\dots]'_m$ defines a renormalized observable, but the electric charge
derivatives do not. This is due to the fact that the electric charge changes the
running of the quark masses and the lattice spacing. However, differences like
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:q20ren}
\left[ Y \right]''_{20}- \left[A + BX_l +CX_s +DX_{\delta m}\right]''_{20},
\end{gather}
which actually appear in \eqref{eq:fiveeq}, are free of divergences. When
preparing plots to illustrate the continuum extrapolation, the electric
derivatives will always refer to such renormalized combinations.
\subsection*{Type-II fits}
We introduce a second type of parametrization, called Type-II, in order to
obtain the isospin decomposition described in Section \ref{se:obs_split}.
Type-II fits use the $w_0$-scale for scale setting and are defined through:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:fitII}
Y= f(\{\tilde{X}\}; \tilde{A},\tilde{B},\dots)\equiv
\tilde{A} +
\tilde{B} \tilde{X}_l +
\tilde{C} \tilde{X}_s +
\tilde{D} \tilde{X}_{\delta m} +
\tilde{E} \tilde{X}_{vv} +
\tilde{F} \tilde{X}_{vs} +
\tilde{G} \tilde{X}_{ss}\ ,
\end{gather}
where the independent variables of the fit function are defined as
\begin{gather}
\begin{gathered}
\tilde{X}_l= M_{\pi_\chi}^2 w_0^2 - [M_{\pi_\chi}^2 w_0^2]_*\ ,\qquad
\tilde{X}_s= M_{ss}^2 w_0^2 - [M_{ss}^2 w_0^2]_*\ ,\\
\tilde{X}_{\delta m}= \Delta M^2 w_0^2\ ,\qquad
\tilde{X}_{vv}= X_{vv}\ ,\qquad
\tilde{X}_{vs}= X_{vs}\ ,\qquad
\tilde{X}_{ss}= X_{ss}\ ,
\end{gathered}
\end{gather}
with $\Delta M^2=M_{dd}^2-M_{uu}^2$. Some of the $\tilde{X}$ variables contain
$w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2$, that cannot be measured experimentally. The
physical values of these quantities have to be determined from a Type-I fit of
Equation \eqref{eq:fitI} first. $\tilde{A}$, $\tilde{B}$,
\dots in general depend on hadron masses and on the lattice spacing,
analogously to the dependencies in Equation \eqref{eq:abcdefg}. Here the
lattice spacing is defined through $w_0$: it is the physical value of $w_0$
divided by the one measured in lattice units. The fit procedure is also
completely analogous to the one described above, including the coupled
equations for the different isospin components. The isospin decomposition can
be obtained from the Type-II fit coefficients as
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:xiso}
[Y]_\mathrm{iso}= \tilde{A}_0,\quad
[Y]_\mathrm{sib}= \tilde{D}_0 [\Delta M^2 w_0^2]_*,\quad
[Y]_\mathrm{qed}= (\tilde{E}_0+\tilde{F}_0+\tilde{G}_0)\cdot e_*^2.
\end{gather}
One can also decompose the electromagnetic contribution further to valence-valence,
valence-sea and sea-sea parts:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:xiso2}
[Y]_\mathrm{qed-vv}= \tilde{E}_0e_*^2,\quad
[Y]_\mathrm{qed-sv}= \tilde{F}_0e_*^2,\quad
[Y]_\mathrm{qed-ss}= \tilde{G}_0e_*^2.
\end{gather}
The two fit types, Type-I in Equation \eqref{eq:fitI} and Type-II in Equation
\eqref{eq:fitII} have to yield the same physical value $Y_*$ within error bars.
This was always the case for the observables considered here. Later, when we
discuss the fits, it will be obvious from the text which parametrization we are
working with, so we drop the $\ \tilde{}\ $ from the coefficients of the
Type-II fits for simplicity.
\subsection*{Correlations}
In both parametrizations we have to work with a system of equations such as
\eqref{eq:fiveeq}, where the unknown parameters are contained in $A,B,\dots$.
To obtain these we perform a fit taking $[Y]_0$ and the isospin derivatives
from several ensembles. The $[Y]_0,[Y]'_m$ and $[Y]''_{20}$ components are
measured on the same $L\approx 6$~fm ensembles of Table \ref{ta:4stout}, and
they are therefore correlated. One also has to take into account the
correlation between the sea quark derivatives $[Y]''_{11}$ and $[Y]''_{02}$
that are measured on the $L\approx 3$~fm ensembles of Table \ref{ta:dynqed}.
These correlations have to be properly included in the fit. Also, we have to
take into account the correlation of $Y$ and the independent variables $\{X\}$,
including the lattice spacing. Specifically we compute and minimize the
following function to determine the fit parameters $A_0, \dots$:
\begin{gather}
\chi^2= \sum_{i,j} ( Y_i - f_i )\ {\mathrm{Cov}}^{-1}_{ij}\ ( Y_j - f_j ).
\end{gather}
Here the sums run over all ensembles and $Y_i$ ($f_i$) are the values of the
observable (function) on ensemble $i$. The matrix $\mathrm{Cov}_{ij}$ is the
statistical covariance of the residuals $Y_i-f_i$, computed as
\begin{gather}
\mathrm{Cov}_{ij}=
\overline
{
\left[ (Y_i - f_i) - \overline{(Y_i-f_i)} \right]
\left[ (Y_j - f_j) - \overline{(Y_j-f_j)} \right]
}\ ,
\end{gather}
where we denote the statistical average with an overline. Using
the jackknife samples this can be obtained as:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:covij}
\mathrm{Cov}_{ij}= \frac{N_J-1}{N_J}\sum_{J=1}^{N_J} \left[
\left( Y^{(J)}_i - f_i^{(J)}\right) -
\left( Y^{(0)}_i - f_i^{(0)}\right)
\right]
\Big[ \dots i\to j\dots \Big],
\end{gather}
where an upper index $(J)$ means that the quantity is computed on the $J$-th
jackknife sample and $J=0$ stands for the average over all jackknife samples.
The minimization of the $\chi^2$-function yields non-linear equations for the
parameters, since the $\mathrm{Cov}$ matrix depends on them too. To solve the
minimization problem numerically, we first guess the minimum by ignoring the
parameter dependence of the $\mathrm{Cov}$ matrix. In all cases this was
already a good starting point, which is related to the fact, that the errors on
$Y$ are typically much larger than on $X$. This guessing can be iterated and
after a few iterations we switch to Newton's method to accelerate the
convergence.
\subsection*{Alternative fit procedure}
In addition to the previously described fit procedure we also use an
alternative approach, in which isospin corrections are included in a
different way. The idea is to use the fit function, eg. the Type-I function in
Equation \eqref{eq:fitI}, directly without working with the isospin breaking
derivatives of that function. For this purpose we create new, ``virtual''
ensembles in addition to the already existing isospin-symmetric ones. These
virtual ensembles have an isospin breaking with one or more of the $e_s$,
$e_v$ and $(m_d-m_u)/m_l$ parameters set to non-vanishing values, close but
not necessarily exactly to their physical values. The observables on the
virtual ensembles are computed using the isospin-symmetric values and isospin
breaking derivatives measured on the original ensembles. For the global fit we
use the original ensembles together with these newly created ones. Since the
virtual ensembles were created from the original isospin-symmetric ensembles,
there are strong correlations between them. Computing the covariance matrix
is similar to Equation \eqref{eq:covij}, but now the indices $i,j$ run over
all ensembles, including the newly created ones.
We used this technique, with the Type-I fit function, to compute the quantities
$w_0$, $M_{ss}^2$ and $\Delta M^2$. In all three cases the results had similar
uncertainties as the original approach, presented earlier in this section, and
for which the results can be found in Section \ref{se:res_w0etal}. Also, the
central values agreed within their systematic uncertainty in the two
approaches.
\section{Phenomenological determination of $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$}
\label{se:res_pheno}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\hline\hline
$\quad$ Ref. & $a_\mu\qquad$ \\
\hline
KNT18 \cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv} & 693.26(2.46) \\
KNT19 \cite{Keshavarzi:2019abf} & 692.78(2.42) \\
DHMZ17 \cite{Davier:2017zfy} & 693.1(3.4) \\
DHMZ19 \cite{Davier:2019can} & 693.9(4.0) \\
CHHKS19 \cite{Colangelo:2018mtw,Hoferichter:2019mqg} & 692.3(3.3) \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:pheno} Recent phenomenological determinations of $a_\mu$.
KNT stands for Keshavarzi, Nomura and Teubner; DHMZ for Davier,
Hoecker, Malaescu and Zhang; CHHKS for Colangelo, Hoferichter, Hoid,
Kubis and Stoffer.
}
\end{table}
The purpose of this section is to describe the computation of the
phenomenological result for $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$, which we compare
with the corresponding lattice result in Section \ref{se:res_win}.
For this we use the R-ratio from $e^+e^-$ collision experiments and the
corresponding covariance matrix from the work of KNT18
\cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv}, courteously given to us by Keshavarzi, Nomura
and Teubner.
As Table~\ref{ta:pheno} shows, there is a sizeable difference in the
uncertainties on $a_\mu$ in the recent phenomenological
literature. While the KNT19 result has an error of 2.42, DHMZ19 gives
a 65\% larger error of 4.0. Since we do not want to risk overstating
possible differences between the phenomenological and lattice
approaches, we extend the error estimates of KNT18
\cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv} by two additional sources, bringing them
much closer to those of DHMZ.
{\bf a.} The first source of uncertainty is related to a tension
between the two $e^+e^-$ experiments, KLOE and BaBar, which have the
smallest uncertainties in the window from $0.6$ to $0.9$~GeV
center-of-mass energy. These two experiments exhibit, for the
pion-pion channel in that window, a close to $3\sigma$ discrepancy or
a $2.7$\% relative difference \cite{Anastasi:2017eio}. Note that the
overlapping energy region of the pion-pion channel for KLOE and BaBar
($0.324-0.972$~GeV) provides about 70\% of the total $a_\mu$. The
discrepancy, fully accounted for in DHMZ19~\cite{Davier:2019can}, has a
strong impact on the discrepancy between the measurement of
$g_\mu-2$ and theory predictions based on the R-ratio.
In order to address this discrepancy, we follow the prescription of
the Particle Data Group (PDG) for similar tensions between
experimental results \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. After calculating the
weighted average of all the experimental results in the $0.6-0.9$~GeV energy
range \cite{Anastasi:2017eio}, the PDG prescription tells us to
adjust the error by a factor of $S=[\chi^2/(N-1)]^{1/2}$, where $N$ is
the number of experiments (in our case $N=5$). This yields an
uncertainty of $1.97$ instead of the $1.32$ of
\cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv}. This uncertainty is far less than half the
difference between BaBar and KLOE, because the other, less precise
experiments dilute the discrepancy. We include this increased error
estimate as
$(1.97^2-1.32^2)^{1/2}=(1.46)_{\pi\pi}$, where ``${\pi\pi}$''
denotes the uncertainty coming from the tension between experiments in
the pion-pion channel. Note that the other experimental channels
may have similar uncertainties, which would increase the error
further.
It is worth pointing out that hadronic $\tau$ decays can be used, in
principle, to provide an independent measurement of the spectral
function in this important low-energy region, as first proposed in
\cite{Alemany:1997tn} and updated in
\cite{Davier:2009ag,Davier:2010nc,Davier:2013sfa}. However, this
requires controlling isospin-breaking corrections
\cite{Cirigliano:2001er,Cirigliano:2002pv,Jegerlehner:2011ti,Bruno:2018ono,Miranda:2020wdg},
which is a challenge and has led to putting this approach aside in the
last few years.
{\bf b.} Another possible source of uncertainty comes from the way in
which the dispersive integral of the experimental data for the
various, final-state channels is performed, including correlations. KNT
\cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv,Keshavarzi:2019abf} use a trapezoidal rule
and argue that the error resulting from this choice is
negligible. They also take into account correlations in systematic
uncertainties within the same experiment and between different
experiments, as well as within and between different channels, over
extended ranges of center-of-mass energy. On the other hand, DHMZ
\cite{Davier:2019can} limit the effects of these correlations to small
energy bins and use splines for integrating the data, correcting for
biases if necessary. The end result is that, despite using the same
experimental input, the two teams find results for the various
channels which differ, more often outside the error bars of
\cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv} than of \cite{Davier:2019can}. To account
for this when using the correlation matrices from
\cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv}, we follow a suggestion put forward at the
last ``Muon g-2 Theory Initiative'' meeting \cite{web:white}. We add,
to results obtained with these correlations, an uncertainty obtained
by summing, in quadrature, half the differences of the individual
channels. This gives an additional error of $(2.26)_\mathrm{int}$,
where ``$\mathrm{int}$'' stands for the uncertainty related to the
integration and correlation procedures.
Thus, using the well known dispersive integral (see eg. Section 5 of
\cite{Jegerlehner:2017gek})
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuR}
a_\mu= 10^{10}\left(\frac{\alpha m_\mu}{3\pi}\right)^2
\int_{s_\mathrm{th}}^{\infty}\frac{ds}{s^2}\ R(s)\hat{K}(s)\ ,
\end{gather}
the experimental R-ratio data set of \cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv} and the
perturbative R-ratio from the {\tt rhad} package \cite{Harlander:2002ur}, we
obtain,
$a_\mu=693.27(2.46)_\mathrm{stat}(1.46)_{\pi\pi}(2.26)_\mathrm{int}[3.65]$,
where the first error reproduces the one given in \cite{Keshavarzi:2018mgv},
while the second and third errors are computed above. The last error, in
brackets, is the quadratically combined error of the first three. It is larger
than the one of KNT and is closer to the error of DHMZ17, but still a bit
smaller than that of DHMZ19. This enlarged error, as well as the most recent
value of $4.0$ from DHMZ, reduce a bit the strong tension between the
measurement of $g_\mu-2$ and the theory predictions based on the R-ratio
method.
Having checked that we are able to reproduce well known R-ratio results, we
repeat the whole procedure for $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ of Equation
\eqref{eq:win}. For this observable, high statistical precision is easier to
reach on the lattice and the continuum and infinite-volume extrapolations are less difficult.
In addition, we expect that the R-ratio method yields a similar relative error
for $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ as for $a_\mu$. These facts make
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ a convenient observable to compare the two approaches
and, eventually, to combine them for improved overall precision
\cite{Blum:2018mom}.
To determine $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ from R-ratio data, we transform
the latter to Euclidean coordinate space by a Laplace transform
\cite{Bernecker:2011gh}, where a weighted integral with weight
function $K(t)W(t)$ has to be performed, as described in Section
\ref{se:obs_hvp}. One ends up with an integral as in Equation
\eqref{eq:amuR}, but the kernel $\hat{K}$ replaced by
$\hat{K}_\mathrm{win}$:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:khat_window}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{K}_\mathrm{win}(s)
=\frac{3s^{5/2}}{8m_\mu^2}
\int_0^\infty dt\
e^{-\sqrt{s}t} K(t)
W(t;t_1,t_2),
\end{aligned}
\end{gather}
where $K(t)$ is given by Equation~\labelmainkdef{} of the main paper. The
window parameters $t_1=0.4$~fm, $t_2=1.0$~fm and $\Delta=0.15$~fm are the same
as in Section \ref{se:res_win}. We proceed with the computation of the
$s$-integral as in the case of $a_\mu$. In particular, we include the
${\pi\pi}$ and $\mathrm{int}$ errors as follows:
{\bf a.} Repeating the R-ratio method, with the $\hat{K}_\mathrm{win}$
kernel, gives the same relative difference between the KLOE and BaBar
results, ie. $2.7\%$, as with the original kernel function
$\hat{K}$. Carrying out the PDG procedure for adjusting errors, we
obtain a value of $0.5$ for the additional ``${\pi\pi}$'' error.
{\bf b.} Since we do not have the contributions of the individual
experimental channels in our window for both the KNT and the DHMZ
frameworks, we simply scale down the ``$\mathrm{int}$'' error of the
full $a_\mu$. Thus, instead of $2.26$, we obtain $0.8$ as an
``$\mathrm{int}$'' uncertainty.
Putting the above components together and also including the tiny perturbative
contribution from \cite{Harlander:2002ur}, we obtain
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuwpheno}
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}= 229.7(0.9)_\mathrm{stat}(0.5)_{\pi\pi}(0.8)_\mathrm{int}[1.3]\ .
\end{gather}
The last error, in brackets, is all errors added in quadrature. This value is
compared with our lattice result in Section \ref{se:res_win}.
Finally, let us compare our result for $a_\mu$ with the one in the recently
published white paper \cite{Aoyama:2020ynm}. The KNT19, DHMZ19 and the white
paper predictions for $a_\mu$ (rounded to the nearest tenth for brevity) are
692.8(2.4), 693.9(4.0) and 693.1(4.0), respectively. Our procedure using the
KNT database and following the PDG prescription gives 693.3(3.7). The white
paper number and our result are almost the same, they differ by one-twentieth
of a sigma and the error estimates differ only by less than a tenth of a sigma.
Therefore, we believe that our estimate is a fair assessment of $a_\mu$. The
same can be also said about our result for $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ in Equation
\eqref{eq:amuwpheno}, which uses the same procedure as for $a_\mu$, namely the
KNT data set and the above treatment for the integration and correlation
uncertainties.
\section{Results for $w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2$}
\label{se:res_w0etal}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|rr|rr|rr}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$w_0$[fm]} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$M_{ss}$[MeV]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Delta M^2$[MeV$^2$]}\\
\hline\hline
median & 0.17236 & & 689.89 & & 13170 \\
\hline
total error & 70 & (0.4\%) & 49 & (0.07\%) & 420 & (3.2\%) \\
statistical error & 29 & & 28 & & 320 & \\
systematic error & 63 & & 40 & & 270 & \\
\hline
$M_\pi/M_K/M_{ss}$ fit & $<$1 & & 24 & & 0 \\
$M_\pi/M_K/M_{ss}$ fit QED & 4 & & 2 & & 140 \\
$M_\Omega$ fit & 16 & & 4 & & 0 \\
$M_\Omega$ fit QED & 9 & & $<$1 & & 10 \\
\hdashline
$M_\Omega$ experimental & 5 & & 1 & & $<$10 \\
Continuum limit (beta cuts) & 62 & & 24 & & 120 \\
$A_0$ on/off & on & & on & & off \\
$A_2$ on/off & on & & on & & off \\
$A_4$ on/off & 60 & & 38 & & off \\
$B_0$ on/off & 2 & & 3 & & off \\
$B_2$ on/off & off & & off & & off \\
$C_0$ on/off & on & & on & & off \\
$C_2$ on/off & 9 & & 5 & & off \\
$D_0$ on/off & off & & off & & on \\
$D_2$ on/off & off & & off & & on \\
$D_4$ on/off & off & & off & & 40 \\
$D_l$ on/off & off & & off & & 40 \\
$D_s$ on/off & off & & off & & 40 \\
$E_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on \\
$E_2$ on/off & 18 & & 2 & & on \\
$E_4$ on/off & off & & off & & 40 \\
$E_l$ on/off & 7 & & $<$1 & & 20 \\
$E_s$ on/off & 10 & & 2 & & 70 \\
$F_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on \\
$F_2$ on/off & $<$1 & & 1 & & $<$10 \\
$G_0$ on/off & on & & on & & off \\
$G_2$ on/off & 2 & & 3 & & off \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:w0etal}Physical values and error budgets for $w_0$, $M_{ss}$
and $\Delta M^2$. The errors are to be understood on the last digits of
the central value, as usual. Both statistical and systematic
uncertainties of these Type-I fits are propagated to the Type-II fits.
The systematic uncertainties below the dashed line are propagated by
choosing $N_I=8$ representative fits, as described in the text.
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/w0/w0}
\caption
{
\label{fi:w0} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to $w_0
M_\Omega$. From top to bottom: isospin-symmetric, electromagnetic
valence-valence, sea-valence and sea-sea component. The results are
multiplied by $10^4/[M_\Omega]_*$. For the definitions of the
components see Equations \eqref{eq:fiveeq} and \eqref{eq:q20ren}. The
electric derivatives are multiplied by $e_*^2$. Dashed lines are
continuum extrapolations corresponding to the lattice spacing dependent
part of the $A$,$E$,$F$ and $G$ coefficients. They are illustrative
examples from our several thousand fits. Only the lattice spacing
dependence is shown: the data points are moved to the physical light
and strange quark mass using the $X_l$ and $X_s$ dependent terms in the
fit. This adjustment varies from fit to fit, the red datapoints are
obtained in an $a^2$-linear fit to all ensembles. If in a fit the
adjusted points differed significantly from the red points, we show
them with grey color. The final result is obtained from a weighted
histogram of the several thousand fits.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/mss/mss}
\caption
{
\label{fi:mss} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to
$M_{ss}^2$. Plotted is the ratio $M_{ss}^2/M_\Omega^2$ multiplied by
$[M_\Omega]_*^2$. Other details as in Figure \ref{fi:w0}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/dmsq/dmsq}
\caption
{
\label{fi:dmsq} Continuum extrapolations of the contributions to
$\Delta M^2$. From top to bottom: $[\Delta M^2]'_m/[\Delta M_K^2]'_m$,
electromagnetic valence-valence and sea-valence components of $\Delta
M^2/M_\Omega^2$. The electric derivatives are multiplied by
$[e^2M_\Omega^2]_*$. Other details as in Figure \ref{fi:w0}.
}
\end{figure}
In this section we describe briefly the details of the global fits that are
used to obtain the physical values of $w_0$, $M_{ss}$ and $\Delta M^2$ from the
experimental values of hadron masses, including the mass of the $\Omega$
baryon. In all three cases we use the Type-I fit function of Equation
\eqref{eq:fitI}, which can be related to isospin-breaking derivatives as
described in Equation \eqref{eq:fiveeq}. The set of parameters, that are used
in these fits, can be read off from Table \ref{ta:w0etal}. For a given
observable some of the parameters are included in all fits, some never, and there are
also some that are either included or excluded. A systematic error is
associated with the latter and is given in the Table.
In the case of $w_0$, the observable we fit is $Y=w_0M_\Omega$. Since $w_0
M_\Omega$ is symmetric under $u\leftrightarrow d$ exchange, no leading order
strong-isospin-breaking terms can appear. Thus we can set the
strong-isospin-breaking coefficient ($D$) to zero.
To account for the systematic error due to the different continuum
extrapolations we apply both linear and quadratic functions in the
isospin-symmetric component, also we skip zero/one/two/three of the coarsest
lattice spacings in the linear and zero/one/two lattice spacings in the
quadratic fits. For the tiny valence QED component only linear fits are
applied, with zero/one/two skips; for the even smaller sea QED contributions we
have either constant or linear fit with all lattice spacings.
The systematic error of the hadron mass fits is taken into account by 24
different combinations of the fit ranges: three for the $M_\Omega$ mass, two for
the pseudoscalars, two for the isospin breaking of the $M_\Omega$ and two for
the isospin breaking of the pseudoscalars. The pseudoscalar fit ranges are
given in Table \ref{ta:meson}. For the $\Omega$ mass we use two fit ranges
from the four-state fit and one from the GEVP procedure that are given in Table
\ref{ta:omega}. The fit ranges for the isospin breaking components can be found
in Table \ref{ta:ibmass}. To account for the experimental error on $M_\Omega$
we carry out the analysis with two different experimental values: one that
corresponds to the central value plus the experimental error; the other with
this error subtracted.
Altogether, these yield a total of 129024 fits. When the different analyses
are combined into a histogram to determine the systematic error, the results from
different fit functions or lattice spacing cuts are weighted with the Akaike
Information Criterion, the rest with flat weighting. We obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:w0}
[w_0]_* = 0.17236(29)(63)[70]\ \text{fm},
\end{equation}
where the first error is statistical, and the second is systematic, the third
is the total error; we reach a relative precision of $0.4$\%. The split up of
the error into different sources can be found in Table \ref{ta:w0etal}. In
Figure \ref{fi:w0} we show the various isospin components of $w_0M_\Omega$
against the lattice spacing squared together with the different continuum
extrapolations. For the electric derivatives we took the definition in Equation
\eqref{eq:q20ren}. Our result \eqref{eq:w0} is in good agreement with earlier
four-flavor determinations: $w_0=0.1715(9)$~fm of \cite{Dowdall:2013rya} and
$w_0=0.1714\left(\begin{smallmatrix}+15 \\-12\end{smallmatrix}\right)$~fm of
\cite{Bazavov:2015yea}. In these works the isospin-breaking effects were
only estimated, whereas in our case they are fully accounted for.
The same procedure is used for $M_{ss}$ as for $w_0$. We actually work with
$Y=(M_{ss}/M_{\Omega})^2$ instead of $M_{ss}/M_{\Omega}$, since the fit
qualities are much better in the first case. The 129024 different fits give
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mss}
[M_{ss}]_*= 689.89(28)(40)[49]\ \text{MeV},
\end{equation}
with statistical, systematic and total errors as above. The error budget can be found
in the second column of Table \ref{ta:w0etal} and the continuum extrapolations
for $M_{ss}^2$ are shown in Figure \ref{fi:mss}.
Finally we also carry out the analysis for $Y=\Delta M^2/M_\Omega^2$ with $\Delta
M^2=M_{dd}^2-M_{uu}^2$. Since this observable has no isospin-symmetric part,
the $A$, $B$ and $C$ coefficients are set to zero. Also, since this is an
isospin splitting effect, no electromagnetic sea-sea effects can contribute, so
the fit function becomes:
\begin{gather}
\frac{\Delta M^2}{M_\Omega^2}= D \left(\frac{\Delta M_K^2}{M_\Omega^2}\right) + E e_v^2 + F e_ve_s
\end{gather}
Differently from the fits earlier we use $a^2$-quadratic fits also in the $D$
and $E$ coefficients. We apply four lattice spacing cuts by skipping
zero/one/two/three of the coarsest lattices for linear fits and three cuts for
quadratic fits with zero/one/two skips. Other systematics were treated as in
the above fits. Altogether we have 3328 fits, which give a central value with
statistical, systematic and total errors as:
\begin{equation}
[\Delta M^2]_*= 13170(320)(270)[420]\ \text{MeV}^2.
\end{equation}
The corresponding error budget can be found in Table \ref{ta:w0etal}. In
Figure \ref{fi:dmsq} we show continuum extrapolations for the $\Delta
M^2/\Delta M_K^2$ ratio and the valence-valence and sea-valence electric
derivatives; these correspond to the $D$, $E$ and $F$ coefficients in the fit
function.
\section{Alternatives to the $M_\Omega$ scale-setting}
\label{se:res_w0ext}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/w0other/w0other}
\caption
{
\label{fi:w0other} Continuum extrapolation of the isospin-symmetric
value of $w_0$ using three different inputs: $t_0$ from the lattice
work \cite{Bazavov:2015yea}, $M_\Omega$ from experiment
\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca} and $f_\pi$ from a combination of chiral perturbation theory and experiment
\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. The dashed lines are quadratic and cubic functions
of $a^2$ in case of $t_0$, and linear and quadratic otherwise. The colored shaded regions
around $a^2=0.010$~fm$^2$ correspond to the uncertainty in the input quantity. The horizontal
grey shaded region is our final $w_0$ determination from Equation \eqref{eq:w0}. Note,
there is a difference in the definition of the isospin-symmetric point in the different inputs.
}
\end{figure}
To check our determination of the physical value of $w_0$, we consider two
other scale-setting quantities: the pion decay constant $f_\pi$ and the
Wilson-flow scale $t_0$. Both approaches are independent from the systematics
of the $M_\Omega$ mass determination. We also investigate $a^4$ effects by
changing the definition of $w_0$ by lattice artefacts. We do not consider
$f_\pi$ and $t_0$ in our final analysis, because their relation to experiments
is indirect. We work in the isospin-symmetric limit throughout this section.
In current lattice simulations it is common to use the pion decay constant for
scale setting. This observable however is well defined only in the absence of
electromagnetism, and thus useful only in simulations in the isospin-symmetric
point. It is possible to connect the experimental decay rate of the pion to an
isospin-symmetric pion decay constant, $f_\pi$. Current state-of-the-art uses a
chiral perturbation theory based approach, which yields $f_\pi=130.50(14)$~MeV
\cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. There are also computations underway to determine
$f_\pi$ \cite{Carrasco:2015xwa,Giusti:2017dwk,DiCarlo:2019thl} on the lattice.
In these approaches the isospin-symmetric point is defined using renormalized
quark masses, which is different from our hadronic scheme in Section
\ref{se:obs_split}. When turning on the electromagnetic interaction, our scheme
keeps certain neutral hadron masses and $w_0$ constant, contrary to the one
used in the $f_\pi$-based scheme, where the renormalized quark masses and the
strong coupling are fixed.
Here we carry out an analysis to determine an isospin-symmetric value of
$[w_0]_\mathrm{isoq}$ using the above $f_\pi$ as input. We introduce the
notation $\mathrm{isoq}$ to emphasize the difference from our definition of the
isospin-symmetric value $[w_0]_\mathrm{iso}= [w_0]_*$. To obtain
$[w_0]_\mathrm{isoq}$ we also need a pion and kaon mass that is purified from
isospin-breaking effects. For these we take $M_\pi=134.8(3)$~MeV and
$M_K=494.2(3)$~MeV \cite{Aoki:2016frl}.
The fit procedure is similar to the Type-I fits that we performed before for
$w_0M_\Omega$. The physical point is given by the $f_\pi,M_\pi$ and $M_K$
values above. Since we work with the isospin-symmetric component, only the $A$,
$B$ and $C$ coefficients of Equation \eqref{eq:fitI} are kept. We apply both
linear and quadratic fits in $a^2$, with the usual cuts in the lattice
spacing. Figure \ref{fi:w0other} shows representative fits from this analysis,
with good fit qualities. The continuum extrapolated values are consistent with
our $[w_0]_*$ from Equation \eqref{eq:w0}. However the spread between
the different continuum extrapolations is smaller, since the curvature
of $w_0f_\pi$ in $a^2$ is smaller than in $w_0M_\Omega$.
Another way to determine $w_0$ is to take the $t_0$-scale, also
defined from the Wilson-flow, as input. This determination basically computes
the $w_0/t_0$ ratio. For the physical value of $t_0$ we use
$[t_0]_\mathrm{isoq}=0.1416\left(\begin{smallmatrix}+8
\\-5\end{smallmatrix}\right)$~fm from \cite{Bazavov:2015yea}, which has a
precision of about $0.5\%$. The same analysis is carried out as before, with
the difference that now we also include cubic fits in $a^2$, since the data
shows a very strong curvature and the linear fits have a bad quality. Figure
\ref{fi:w0other} shows representative fits, giving continuum values consistent
with using $M_\Omega$ as input, Equation \eqref{eq:w0}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/tratio/tratio}
\caption
{
\label{fi:tratio} Continuum extrapolation of the isospin symmetric
value of $w_0$ using $M_\Omega$. Two $w_0$ definitions, the standard
one (red circles), and another modified by the $t_0[s_1]/t_0[s_2]$ ratio
(green squares) are shown. The ratio approaches 1 in the continuum limit.
}
\end{figure}
Finally we show here a method to determine $[w_0]_\mathrm{iso}$, which is also
based on $M_\Omega$ as an input parameter, but uses the idea of a t-shift in
the Wilson flow \cite{Cheng:2014jba}. The main reason for this analysis is to
determine whether the strong quadratic upward trend in $w_0$ for small lattice
spacings, see top panel of Figure \ref{fi:w0}, is a genuine cutoff effect?
Indeed, the Wilson flow is known to have a transient for small flow times.
Although the affected region shrinks as one approaches the continuum limit, the
effect might be sizable particularly if we want to reach an accuracy on the few
per-mil level.
The t-shift in the Wilson-flow replaces $\langle t^2E(t) \rangle$ with $\langle
t^2E(t+s a^2) \rangle$, which is essentially applying the flow on a smeared
gauge field (pre-smearing). It can be interpreted as an improved operator for
the energy density. Obviously, in the continuum limit flows with or without
t-shifts are the same. We measured a combination, $w_0\cdot
t_0(s_1)/t_0(s_2)$, which obviously gives back $w_0$ in the continuum limit.
Clearly, this combination has a different lattice spacing dependence
than the original $w_0$, determined in the previous Section.
There are several $s_1,s_2$ choices, which eliminate the strong $a^4$
behavior, the upward turning of $w_0$ for small lattice spacings. They do so without changing the result
in the continuum limit within errors. This finding
indicates that the upward trend is indeed a cutoff effect related to the Wilson
flow and can be removed by modified operators of the Wilson flow. As an
illustration we show $s_1=0.35$ and $s_2=0.21$ in Figure~\ref{fi:tratio}.
The latter procedure reduces the coefficient of the $a^4$ term in the continuum
extrapolation and, as a consequence, could also reduce the error on $w_0$.
Since the t-shift method is a somewhat unconventional way to determine $w_0$,
we leave it as an illustration of how cutoff effects can play a role and we
quote our original $w_0$, Equation \eqref{eq:w0}, with the larger error as our
final result.
\section{Result for $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$}
\label{se:res_win}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|rr|rr|rr}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$}\\
\hline\hline
median & 27.170 & & 207.56 & & -1.207 &\\
\hline
total error & 30 & (0.1\%) & 1.39 & (0.7\%) & 0.060 & (5.0\%) \\
statistical error & 28 & & 0.39 & & 0.028 &\\
systematic error & 13 & & 1.33 & & 0.053 &\\
\hline
$M_\pi/M_K/M_{ss}$ fit & 1 & & 0.03 & & $<$0.001 &\\
$M_\pi/M_K/M_{ss}$ fit QED & 1 & & $<$0.01 & & $<$0.001 &\\
$M_\Omega$ fit & 8 & & 0.15 & & 0.005 &\\
$M_\Omega$ fit QED & $<$1 & & 0.01 & & $<$0.001 &\\
$M_\Omega$ experimental & 2 & & 0.01 & & $<$0.001 &\\
Continuum limit (beta cuts) & 5 & & 0.15 & & 0.007 &\\
$a^2\alpha_s^n$ with $n=0$ or $3$& -- & & 1.21 & & 0.005 &\\
taste improvement ranges & -- & & 0.07 & & 0.019 &\\
$A_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$A_2$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$A_4$ on/off & $<$1 & & 0.02 & (also $A_6$) & off &\\
$B_0$ on/off & 3 & & on & & on &\\
$B_2$ on/off & off & & off & & 0.003 &\\
$C_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$C_2$ on/off & 1 & & 0.01 & & 0.005 &\\
$D_0$ on/off & off & & on & & on &\\
$D_2$ on/off & off & & on & & on &\\
$D_4$ on/off & off & & off & & off &\\
$D_l$ on/off & off & & $<$0.01 & & off &\\
$D_s$ on/off & off & & on & & off &\\
$E_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$E_2$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$E_4$ on/off & off & & off & & off &\\
$E_l$ on/off & $<$1 & & 0.03 & & 0.002 &\\
$E_s$ on/off & on & & off & & off &\\
$F_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$F_2$ on/off & 1 & & 0.02 & & off &\\
$G_0$ on/off & on & & on & & on &\\
$G_2$ on/off & 2 & & 0.03 & & off &\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:amuwerr}Continuum extrapolated results and error budget for
the strange, light and disconnected contributions to
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$. The errors are to be understood on the last
digits of the central value, as usual. The results correspond to a box
size of $L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm and
$T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$.
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|r|r|r}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{strange}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{disc}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})$}\\
\hline
\hline
total & 27.170(28)(13)& 207.56(0.39)(1.33)& -1.207(28)(53)\\
\hline
iso & 27.175(28)(13)& 206.77(0.40)(1.34)& -0.853(35)(54)\\
qed & -0.0050(35)(37)& 0.035(40)(44)& -0.117(17)(6)\\
qed-vv & -0.0018(14)(10)& 0.044(26)(16)& -0.115(18)(5)\\
qed-sv & -0.00142(60)(30)& -0.0219(91)(50)& 0.0013(23)(0)\\
qed-ss & -0.0018(31)(38)& 0.007(26)(36)& -0.0026(25)(18)\\
sib & --& 0.753(40)(16)& -0.237(9)(6)\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption
{
\label{ta:amuw}Continuum extrapolated results for the different isospin
components of the strange, light and disconnected contributions to
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$. The results correspond to a box size of
$L_\mathrm{ref}=6.272$~fm and
$T_\mathrm{ref}=\tfrac{3}{2}L_\mathrm{ref}$.
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/amuw/amuw}
\caption
{
\label{fi:amuw} Continuum extrapolation of
$[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_\mathrm{iso}$. Two types of
improvements are shown: one where the SRHO model is used to
improve the lattice result and another where no improvement is
performed. For each, some continuum extrapolations are shown as
illustration with dashed lines. They include fits linear, quadratic and
cubic in $a^2$ and also where different numbers of coarse lattices are
skipped in the fit. The data points on the plot are corrected for
light and strange quark mass effects, this adjustment is different from
fit to fit. Our final value in the continuum limit comes from a
histogram of about 250,000 fits and is given by the filled red circle
in the left panel. This histogram also includes fits with a lattice
spacing dependence of $a^2\alpha_s^n$ with $n=3$. The results are
corrected for finite-size effects using Equation \eqref{eq:amuw_fv}.
Other lattice computations are shown with a green box
\cite{Aubin:2019usy} and a blue triangle \cite{Blum:2018mom}. A value
computed from the R-ratio method is also given (see text for details).
}
\end{figure}
The work \cite{Blum:2018mom} defined a particularly useful observable
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$, in which the current propagator is restricted to a time
window $[t_1,t_2]$, using a smooth weight function $W(t;t_1,t_2)$. See Section
\ref{se:obs_hvp} for the definition of $W$. The advantage of
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ over $a_{\mu}$ is that, by choosing an appropriate
window, the calculation can be made much less challenging on the lattice than
for the full $a_\mu$. Here we will be interested in the window between
$t_1=0.4$~fm and $t_2=1.0$~fm, ie. in an intermediate time range. By this
choice we eliminate both the short-distance region, where large cutoff effects
are present, and the long-distance region, where the statistical uncertainties,
taste violations and finite-size effects are large. Because the determination
of $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ does not require overcoming many of the challenges
described in the main paper, other lattice groups have obtained this quantity
with errors comparable to ours \cite{Blum:2018mom,Aubin:2019usy}. This allows
for a sharper benchmarking of our calculation. At the same time
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ can also be computed using the phenomenological
approach. This is done in Section \ref{se:res_pheno}. Therefore,
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ is also a powerful tool to compare the results of
lattice and phenomenological computations.
To compute $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ on the lattice we perform similar global fits
that were used to get $a_\mu$ in Section \ref{se:res_amu}. In case of the light
and disconnected contributions we use the SRHO taste improvement. The starting
point of the improvement can take three different values: $0.4$, $0.7$
and $1.0$~fm; the latter corresponds to applying no improvement at all. Beside
the usual $a^2$ dependence, we also perform continuum extrapolations with
$a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n$ with $n=3$, just as in the case of the total
$a_\mu$. For the light contribution the variation in the $n$ from $0$ to
$3$ gives the largest systematic uncertainty. In case of the light contribution
we can even resolve cubic terms in $a^2\alpha_s(1/a)^n$, these are also
included in our fits. A difference compared to the $a_\mu$ fit procedure is
that no cuts are applied on the propagator in time; the window function
suppresses the propagator for distances beyond $t_2=1.0$~fm.
The results for the strange, light and disconnected contributions and different
isospin breaking corrections are summarized in Table \ref{ta:amuw} and the
error budget for the total values and the fit parameters used, in Table
\ref{ta:amuwerr}. The largest source of error is the continuum extrapolation of
the light connected component. However, it is still much smaller than the
typical size of uncertainties in the full $a_\mu$ determination. In Figure
\ref{fi:amuw} we plot the continuum extrapolation of the isospin-symmetric
component of $a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$.
The comparison of lattice results for
$[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_\mathrm{iso}$ is particularly
interesting, because it allows to benchmark the leading, light-quark
contribution to $a_\mu$ through a quantity that can be computed precisely
without resorting to highly-advanced techniques. Using our result obtained in
the reference box from Table~\ref{ta:amuw} and correcting for finite-size
effects (see later) we get:
\begin{gather}
[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_\mathrm{iso}= 207.3(0.4)(1.3)[1.4]\ ,
\end{gather}
with statistical, systematic and total uncertainties. This result is
$0.2\sigma$ smaller than
$[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_\mathrm{iso}=207.7(1.8)$ of
Aubin'19~\cite{Aubin:2019usy}. Here we use the continuum-extrapolated value,
which Aubin'19 obtain from their two finest lattices in the upper panel of
their Figure~7, because its errors bars cover the results of the other
continuum extrapolations that they consider. Compared with
$[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_\mathrm{iso}=202.9(1.4)$ of
RBC'18~\cite{Blum:2018mom} our result is $2.2\sigma$ larger. These two
comparisons yield an average deviation of 1.2$\sigma$. These two lattice
results are also shown in Figure \ref{fi:amuw}.
Additionally, we also made an analysis of the charm quark contribution. The
total $a_\mu^\mathrm{charm}$ was obtained in our previous work
\cite{Borsanyi:2017zdw}. Here we perform a Type-II fit for
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{charm}$. Only the isospin-symmetric component is
used and we obtain the following result:
\begin{gather}
[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{charm}]_\mathrm{iso}= 2.7(1)\ .
\end{gather}
Here the error is the systematic uncertainty: the statistical is an order of
magnitude smaller. The isospin breaking of the charm should be well below the
uncertainties of the fit. See Table \ref{ta:amuall} for the case of
$a_\mu^\mathrm{charm}$. Furthermore, in our dedicated finite-size study with
the ${\tt 4HEX}$ action we compute the difference of the light contribution
between the ``big'' and reference boxes and obtain
\begin{gather}
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{big},T_\mathrm{big})- a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 0.57(2)\ ,
\end{gather}
where the error is statistical. Applying the same procedure for
$a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}$ as we did for $a_\mu$ in the finite-size study of
Section \ref{se:obs_fv}, we get for the finite-size effect:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuw_fv}
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}(\infty,\infty)- a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})= 0.49(2)(4)\ .
\end{gather}
The first error is statistical, the second is an estimate of the cutoff effect
of the ${\tt 4HEX}$ action. We find that the finite-$T$ effects are even less
important than in the case of the total $a_\mu$, where they were already much
smaller than the finite-$L$ effects.
Summing up these contributions we get
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuwL}
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}= 236.7(0.4)(1.3)[1.4]\ \text{(lattice)}\ ,
\end{gather}
where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic and the third in
the square brackets is the first two added in quadrature. Further
contributions, that are listed in Table \ref{ta:amuall}, should have an effect
much smaller than the uncertainties of this result.
The value can be directly compared to the one obtained from the R-ratio method
in Section \ref{se:res_pheno}:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuwR}
a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}= 229.7(1.3)\ \text{(R-ratio)}\ ,
\end{gather}
which is smaller than the lattice result by $3.7\sigma$ or $3.1$\%. We can also
derive an R-ratio result for the isospin-symmetric light contribution. From
the value in Equation \eqref{eq:amuwR} we subtract the lattice results for all
contributions, except for
$[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}(L_\mathrm{ref},T_\mathrm{ref})]_\mathrm{iso}$
and its finite-size correction. We get:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:amuwR-light}
[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_\mathrm{iso}= 200.3(1.3)\ \text{(R-ratio \& lattice)}\ .
\end{gather}
This value is compared in Figure \ref{fi:amuw} to continuum and infinite-volume
extrapolated lattice results from this work and from other lattice groups.
\subsection*{Crosscheck with overlap fermions}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/ov3fm/ov3fm}
\caption
{
\label{fi:ov3fm} Continuum extrapolation of
$[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_0$. The two datasets correspond
to the staggered-on-staggered and the overlap-on-staggered simulations.
}
\end{figure}
We perform a crosscheck of the above results with a mixed action formulation:
overlap valence and {\tt 4stout} staggered sea quarks. Our goal is to provide
more evidence that the continuum extrapolation and the current renormalization
are done correctly in the {\tt 4stout} case. The overlap fermion action, the
matching and the current renormalization are described at length in Section
\ref{se:act_overlap}. Our target is the isospin symmetric value of the light
connected window observable $[a_{\mu,\mathrm{win}}^\mathrm{light}]_0$. We use
lattices of size $L\approx3$~fm in this crosscheck, the related finite-volume
effects are about five percent.
For the measurement of the overlap current propagator we use 512 random wall
sources per configuration, the trace over color indices is performed randomly.
For the staggered current propagator we use the same noise reduction technique
as on the $L\approx6$~fm lattices. In the overlap case we find, that the
coarsest lattice, corresponding to $\beta=3.7000$, is outside the $a^2$-scaling
region. Figure \ref{fi:ov3fm} shows the results together with continuum
extrapolations, they are in good agreement for the two formulations. The
scenario, in which replacing staggered by overlap fermions removes the
discrepancy between the R-ratio and the lattice result, seems improbable. In
order for this to happen, the overlap result would have to get more than
$4\sigma$ smaller than we determine it here.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The rarity of organic training examples presents a dilemma for automatic speech translation (AST); present-day AST is a low-resource task. While \textbf{end-to-end} models seem preferable from the perspective of inference latency or error propagation, they are difficult to train to competitive levels of performance. By contrast, \textbf{cascade} models \cite{post2013improved,6854197} are not bound to audio samples and their translations. They can leverage large-scale automatic speech recognition (ASR) and machine translation (MT) training datasets. Is it possible to create an AST model with high performance while keeping the benefits of end-to-end systems?
Data augmentation is a common solution for low resource scenarios and has been explored for both ASR and AST.
One of the most recent and successful data augmentation methods, SpecAugment~\cite{Park2019}, modifies the spectrogram with time warping, frequency masking and time masking. AST methods to leverage ASR and MT data include pretraining~\cite{bansal-etal-2019-pre}, multitask learning~\cite{weiss2017sequence} and weakly supervised data augmentation~\cite{jia2019leveraging, pino2019harnessing}.
In this work, we generate additional audio samples without requiring transcripts, using a recent neural voice conversion technique, \say{text-to-speech skins}~\cite{polyak2019tts}. Operating on the raw wav audio, it isolates the essential from the contextual aspects of speech, transferring essential aspects into a new voice~\cite{moulines1995voice}. We apply this method to samples of AST and ASR training data to produce new variants, in a process we call \textsc{SkinAugment}.
We additionally investigate neural speaker normalization based on the same conversion model.
We assess our proposals on English--French and English--Romanian AST tasks as well as on a low-resource English ASR task.
We compare \textsc{SkinAugment} to
SpecAugment.
We find that \textsc{SkinAugment} effectively improves the performance of end-to-end AST models, without requiring additional annotated AST or MT data.
Particularly, we see BLEU gains of 2.2 on En--Fr and 3.3 on En--Ro.
\textsc{SkinAugment} outperforms both SpecAugment and a simple stochastic alteration we propose that improves SpecAugment on two AST tasks and one low-resource ASR task.
However, we find no significant benefit to using \textsc{SkinAugment} for test set normalization.
Further, we are able to produce a competitive end-to-end AST system by combining \textsc{SkinAugment} and weak supervision from machine-translated ASR samples.
This system outperforms a very competitive cascade~\cite{pino2019harnessing} by 1.1 BLEU.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{export}
\caption{Conditional autoencoding of two speakers' audio (top). The latent speaker representation \(\boldsymbol{z}_i\) can transform (``skin'') new audio from unseen speakers (bottom).}
\label{fig:autoencoding}
\end{figure}
\section{SKINAUGMENT: Augmentation with Voice Conversion by Conditioned Autoencoding
}
Our speaker conversion technique~\cite{polyak2019tts} employs a convolutional wav-to-wav network, summarized in \autoref{fig:autoencoding}. The end-to-end encoder--decoder architecture optimizes an autoencoding loss, reproducing (a shifted version of) the original input while conditioned on a latent speaker representation. This representation is learned by backpropagation while optimizing the cross-entropy \(\ell\) over \(N\) training samples \(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}\):
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{N}
\ell\!\left(
\mathrm{dec}\!\left(
\mathrm{enc}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}),
\boldsymbol{f}_0(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}),
\boldsymbol{z}_{s(i)}
\right)\!,
\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}
\right)\!
\text{.}
\end{equation}
Here, \(s\) is a function that maps training indices to speaker IDs. \(\boldsymbol{Z} \in \mathbb{R}^{|S| \times d}\) is a matrix with \(d\)-dimensional latent representation for each of the \(|S|\) speakers seen during training.
Extracting the fundamental frequency series with \(\boldsymbol{f}_0\) helps to preserve the original audio's prosody. We convert to new speakers by priming the decoder with the intended speaker's embedding. Training does not require parallel audio recordings between speakers, nor does it require transcripts of the audio. New speakers can easily be introduced by fine-tuning the model, conditioned on a new representation.
The method achieves competitive performance on the Voice Conversion Challenge 2018 benchmark \cite{Lorenzo-Trueba2018}, despite using fewer parameters than winning systems. While the method's value to the voice conversion task has been demonstrated \cite{polyak2019tts}, we show its utility for achieving superior
\emph{downstream} performance. (A related spectrogram-to-spectrogram voice converter has been applied to speech separation, trained on approximately 150 times as many hours of data \cite{biadsy2019parrotron}. In principle, this method or others could also be employed as the voice conversion subcomponent in \textsc{SkinAugment}.)
\paragraph{Augmentation Policy.} One may ask whether sheer quantity of data or its diversity contributes more to performance: Is it helpful to hear diverse variants of the same audio?
Our augmentation procedure, \textsc{SkinAugment}, lets us address this: We sample a fraction of the training data, then skin this subset into any of \(K\) arbitrarily chosen voices. In this work, we experiment with up to 16 skinned variants of the training data, sampling between 10\% and 100\% of the data to be skinned.
\section{Experimental Setup}
\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation}
An AST dataset pairs source-language audio with a target-language translation.
We experiment on two standard AST datasets: AST LibriSpeech~\cite{kocabiyikoglu-etal-2018-augmenting} (English--French; we use the same setup as \cite{berard2018end}) and MuST-C (English--Ro\-man\-ian; 432 hours) \cite{mustc19}.
We also use AST LibriSpeech for low resource ASR. (Note that the AST LibriSpeech test sets do not correspond to the original LibriSpeech test sets.)
In all cases, we use the 200+ voices in LibriSpeech to train the conversion model; the LibriSpeech tasks let us evaluate conversions on \emph{in-domain} audio, while the MuST-C task evaluates conversions on \emph{out-of-domain} audio. As the AST LibriSpeech corpus's test set is a subset of LibriSpeech's training set, we remove all the AST LibriSpeech test set voices from LibriSpeech's training set before training the converter.
In later experiments, we further augment the training data by translating LibriSpeech's transcripts (removing test set occurrences~\cite{pino2019harnessing}) with an MT system. The MT system is trained on two standard datasets: WMT16 for En--Ro (600k sentence pairs) and WMT14 for En--Fr (29 million sentence pairs).
Our En--Fr AST cascade baseline's MT subsystem is trained on the same WMT corpora. The ASR subsystem is trained on the full LibriSpeech corpus.
For AST, we report BLEU~\cite{papineni-etal-2002-bleu}
on tokenized output. (On the ASR task, the transcript is already tokenized; on the AST tasks, we tokenize translations with Moses~\cite{koehn-etal-2007-moses}.) For ASR, we use word error rate (WER), also on tokenized output.
\subsection{Model Architecture}
\label{sec:model_arch}
All of our experiments use the same mixed convolutional-recurrent end-to-end model architecture for conditional sequence generation, our focus being
data augmentation techniques. (Recent work suggests that AST performance with Transformer is similar to AST performance with this style of model \cite{karita2019comparative}.)
We use a speech encoder consisting of two non-linear layers followed by two convolutional layers and three bidirectional LSTM layers, along with a custom LSTM decoder~\cite{berard2018end, pino2019harnessing}.
The encoder uses 40 log-scaled mel spectrogram features.
We use 3 decoder layers as in \cite{pino2019harnessing}, who report the number of parameters in each model.
\textsc{SkinAugment} couples an off-the-shelf, fixed time-delay neural network (TDNN) encoder with a learned Wave\-Net decoder. Hyperparameters are as in \cite{polyak2019tts}.
\subsection{Baselines}
\paragraph{Cascade.}
We compare our data-augmented end-to-end model to a baseline cascade model. The ASR model is described in \autoref{sec:model_arch}, while the MT model uses a Transformer, trained on the WMT14 En--Fr parallel data.
It achieves top performance on the AST LibriSpeech dataset of 21.3 BLEU~\cite{pino2019harnessing}. We also compare to \cite{berard2018end}'s cascade which lacks additional data.
\paragraph{SpecAugment.}
We also compare our end-to-end model with another popular data augmentation strategy, spectral augmentation (SpecAugment). SpecAugment adds perturbations at the feature level, whereas \textsc{SkinAugment} operates at the raw wave level. We use the \emph{LibriSpeech double} setting \cite{Park2019}.
\paragraph{SpecAugment-\(\bm{p}\).}
Further, we introduce a simple but effective variant: SpecAugment-\(p\), which applies SpecAugment to each batch with probability \(p\). (The standard SpecAugment would thus use \(p=1\).)
We found that SpecAugment with \(p=0.5\)
was effective in our setup.
\subsection{Augmentation and Normalization Settings}
We perform conditional generation of new data with either 8 or 16 voice conversions, applying them to 10\%, 25\%, 50\%, and 100\% of the training corpus. This creates transformed variants of our dataset in distinct (arbitrarily selected) voices. Generation is performed offline---thus not a prerequisite for inference---and is agnostic toward the AST model. While future work can explore a greater number of voices, we found this prohibitive in terms of training time.
We compare these settings to standard SpecAugment, as well as to SpecAugment-\(p\) with \(p=0.5\), which we found to be effective.
Perhaps rather than making the AST model robust to the niceties of individual speakers' voices, we ought to eliminate those niceties.
To test the effectiveness of translation on a consistent voice, we convert the test set to entirely be of the voice of one speaker and evaluate the BLEU score separately on these single-speaker skinned test sets. We select 8 voices arbitrarily. We then produce 8 such skinned test sets with \textsc{SkinAugment}, reporting average performance and standard deviation across the variants.
\subsection{Machine-Translated Augmentation} Existing AST samples are rare, leading research to explore avenues for weak supervision. Among these, machine-translated transcripts of large ASR corpora dramatically increase the performance of AST models \cite{jia2019leveraging,pino2019harnessing}. We therefore translate LibriSpeech transcripts with our Transformer, then concatenate these synthetic training instances to the AST data. We apply 16 skins to 25\% of the AST training data, as we found this to perform best.
\subsection{Training Settings}
We use the Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2014adam} with a learning rate of 0.001 and gradient clipping of 5. The minibatch size is 96,000 frames.
All experiments are conducted on 8 \textsc{Nvidia} Tesla V100 GPUs.
In order to compensate for the imbalance between
synthetic skinned data and original data, all models are fine-tuned on the original data for 40 epochs after convergence on the augmented data. We found a consistent improvement from fine-tuning.
We decode with a beam size of 20. To balance between the data sparsity of a word-level model and the training time of a character-level model, we use a SentencePiece \cite{kudo2018sentencepiece} unigram model with vocabulary size 10,000.
\section{Experimental Results}
Results are presented in \autoref{fig:en-ro} (En--Ro AST), \autoref{fig:en-fr} (En--Fr AST), and \autoref{fig:asr} (ASR).
On all three tasks, we find that our augmentation strategy outperforms SpecAugment and SpecAugment-\(p\). We also found that SpecAugment-\(p\) outperforms SpecAugment on all tasks except ASR.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9465\linewidth]{en-ro.pdf}
\caption{English--Romanian AST with out-of-domain skins. \textsc{SkinAugment} outperforms both SpecAugment variants.}
\label{fig:en-ro}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9465\linewidth]{en-fr+finetune-4.pdf}
\caption{English--French AST with in-domain skins. Additional synthetic data is eventually harmful.}
\label{fig:en-fr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9465\linewidth]{asr.pdf}
\caption{\textsc{SkinAugment} outperforms both variants of SpecAugment on the simulated low-resource ASR scenario.}
\label{fig:asr}
\end{figure}
\textsc{SkinAugment} improves BLEU by 3.3 points for En--Ro and 2.2 for En--Fr over the end-to-end baseline. Our score of 14.58 matches the reported En--Fr score of \cite{berard2018end} with a cascade model (14.6), up to their reported significant figures.
\subsection{Quantity versus diversity of the augmented data}
How much augmented data is needed for strong performance?
Does the advantage in the previous subsection come from pure quantity of data, or is the diversity of speakers advantageous?
We find that the performance of the end-to-end model tracks remarkably well with the \emph{amount} of data added, regardless of whether it comes from eight skins or sixteen, up to about twice the original size of the training data.
Beyond this, having more skins seems to be beneficial. When the amount of skinned data is 4\(\times\) the size of the training set, the 16-skin model (skinning 25\% of the training data) has a relative gain from the end-to-end baseline of 58\%, compared to the 8-skin model (skinning 50\% of the training data). Above this training set size (up to 16\(\times\)), performance begins to degrade. Nevertheless, it continues to outperform the baseline end-to-end model in our setting. For ASR and En--Ro AST, performance plateaus.
\subsection{Test set normalization}
For all three tasks, we also skin the test set to a single training-set voice, then evaluate. The motivation is to reduce variation in test data. To avoid reporting fortuitous but unrepresentative performance from a particular voice, we consider mean BLEU and standard deviation across 8 voices. Here, we report a negative result. In every case, the score on the unmodified test set is within one standard deviation of the voice-normalized mean. In \autoref{sec:mt-aug}, we find that translating normalized variants underperforms translating on the original audio by 0.6 BLEU on average, suggesting that the massive amount of unskinned audio obviates the benefit of skinned test data.
Our findings mesh well with \cite{keskin2019measuring}, who found that their Cycle-GAN voice converter was harmful for test set normalization and had negligible value for data augmentation; nevertheless, in their case and ours, increased amounts of skinned data led to better performance on normalized test sets. Future work can explore whether fine-tuning to the normalization voice improves performance.
\subsection{Machine-Translated Data for Augmentation} \label{sec:mt-aug}
Thus far, our synthetic data on the AST task has been generated by transforming original AST samples with either \textsc{SkinAugment} or SpecAugment(-\(p\)). However, adding translated data as weak supervision in our low-resource scenario improves performance significantly. \autoref{tab:my_label} shows an ablation: incorporating \textsc{SkinAugment}, translated transcripts (\say{+ MT}), or both. Furthermore, we demonstrate performance when using the original AST corpus from the augmented LibriSpeech release ~\cite{kocabiyikoglu-etal-2018-augmenting}, i.e.\ removing the off-the-shelf automatic translations added in \cite{berard2018end}'s dataset (\say{\(-\) AT}). We speculate that the abysmal performance of the baseline AST LibriSpeech \(-\) AT is due to data scarcity, and that removing automatic translations for + MT helps because they are of lower quality.
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Value of machine-translated transcripts combined with \textsc{SkinAugment} on AST LibriSpeech. We use 16 skins applied to 25\% of the corpus.}
\vspace{0.125em}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l r}
\toprule
Data & BLEU \\
\midrule
AST LibriSpeech & 13.24 \\
+ \textsc{SkinAugment} & 15.22 \\
+ MT & 19.71 \\
+ MT + \textsc{SkinAugment} & 20.19 \\
\midrule
AST LibriSpeech \(-\) AT & 1.81 \\
+ MT & 21.78 \\
+ MT + \textsc{SkinAugment} & 22.44 \\
\midrule
Cascade (with ASR and MT data) & 21.31 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:my_label}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
We have evaluated speaker conversions using conditioned autoencoding for AST and ASR data augmentation.
A wav-to-wav CNN architecture learns latent speaker representations.
Swapping in a new speaker representation converts the voice in the audio.
This yields more source audio for a given example.
The method is applicable to both data augmentation during training and speaker normalization for generation.
While this method relies on additional audio data to train
the speaker conversion, it does not rely on transcribed text, which makes it appealing for scaling to different languages and in low-resource scenarios where annotation can be costly.
\textsc{SkinAugment} compares favorably to SpecAugment, a popular data augmentation method that operates at the feature level.
We were also able to effectively combine speaker conversion data with MT-augmented ASR data.
Still, when instead applied to the test set at inference time as voice normalization, we observe no significant change in BLEU.
Creating AST data by text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis of parallel text corpora has shown mixed results; while \cite{jia2019leveraging} found that adding a TTS system's outputs improved performance, \cite{pino2019harnessing} were unable to find additional gains. The promise of \textsc{SkinAugment} to produce variants of a given audio without transcripts suggests that it could apply to such TTS data. Future work will explore the application of this augmentation approach to improving the effectiness of TTS data for AST.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Hyunbin Park, Adam Polyak, Xiaohui Zhang, and Weiyi Zheng for assistance in generating voice-converted data.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The rarity of organic training examples presents a dilemma for automatic speech translation (AST); present-day AST is a low-resource task. While \textbf{end-to-end} models seem preferable from the perspective of inference latency or error propagation, they are difficult to train to competitive levels of performance. By contrast, \textbf{cascade} models \cite{post2013improved,6854197} are not bound to audio samples and their translations. They can leverage large-scale automatic speech recognition (ASR) and machine translation (MT) training datasets. Is it possible to create an AST model with high performance while keeping the benefits of end-to-end systems?
Data augmentation is a common solution for low resource scenarios and has been explored for both ASR and AST.
One of the most recent and successful data augmentation methods, SpecAugment~\cite{Park2019}, modifies the spectrogram with time warping, frequency masking and time masking. AST methods to leverage ASR and MT data include pretraining~\cite{bansal-etal-2019-pre}, multitask learning~\cite{weiss2017sequence} and weakly supervised data augmentation~\cite{jia2019leveraging, pino2019harnessing}.
In this work, we generate additional audio samples without requiring transcripts, using a recent neural voice conversion technique, \say{text-to-speech skins}~\cite{polyak2019tts}. Operating on the raw wav audio, it isolates the essential from the contextual aspects of speech, transferring essential aspects into a new voice~\cite{moulines1995voice}. We apply this method to samples of AST and ASR training data to produce new variants, in a process we call \textsc{SkinAugment}.
We additionally investigate neural speaker normalization based on the same conversion model.
We assess our proposals on English--French and English--Romanian AST tasks as well as on a low-resource English ASR task.
We compare \textsc{SkinAugment} to
SpecAugment.
We find that \textsc{SkinAugment} effectively improves the performance of end-to-end AST models, without requiring additional annotated AST or MT data.
Particularly, we see BLEU gains of 2.2 on En--Fr and 3.3 on En--Ro.
\textsc{SkinAugment} outperforms both SpecAugment and a simple stochastic alteration we propose that improves SpecAugment on two AST tasks and one low-resource ASR task.
However, we find no significant benefit to using \textsc{SkinAugment} for test set normalization.
Further, we are able to produce a competitive end-to-end AST system by combining \textsc{SkinAugment} and weak supervision from machine-translated ASR samples.
This system outperforms a very competitive cascade~\cite{pino2019harnessing} by 1.1 BLEU.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{export}
\caption{Conditional autoencoding of two speakers' audio (top). The latent speaker representation \(\boldsymbol{z}_i\) can transform (``skin'') new audio from unseen speakers (bottom).}
\label{fig:autoencoding}
\end{figure}
\section{SKINAUGMENT: Augmentation with Voice Conversion by Conditioned Autoencoding
}
Our speaker conversion technique~\cite{polyak2019tts} employs a convolutional wav-to-wav network, summarized in \autoref{fig:autoencoding}. The end-to-end encoder--decoder architecture optimizes an autoencoding loss, reproducing (a shifted version of) the original input while conditioned on a latent speaker representation. This representation is learned by backpropagation while optimizing the cross-entropy \(\ell\) over \(N\) training samples \(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}\):
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{N}
\ell\!\left(
\mathrm{dec}\!\left(
\mathrm{enc}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}),
\boldsymbol{f}_0(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}),
\boldsymbol{z}_{s(i)}
\right)\!,
\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}
\right)\!
\text{.}
\end{equation}
Here, \(s\) is a function that maps training indices to speaker IDs. \(\boldsymbol{Z} \in \mathbb{R}^{|S| \times d}\) is a matrix with \(d\)-dimensional latent representation for each of the \(|S|\) speakers seen during training.
Extracting the fundamental frequency series with \(\boldsymbol{f}_0\) helps to preserve the original audio's prosody. We convert to new speakers by priming the decoder with the intended speaker's embedding. Training does not require parallel audio recordings between speakers, nor does it require transcripts of the audio. New speakers can easily be introduced by fine-tuning the model, conditioned on a new representation.
The method achieves competitive performance on the Voice Conversion Challenge 2018 benchmark \cite{Lorenzo-Trueba2018}, despite using fewer parameters than winning systems. While the method's value to the voice conversion task has been demonstrated \cite{polyak2019tts}, we show its utility for achieving superior %
\emph{downstream} performance. (A related spectrogram-to-spectrogram voice converter has been applied to speech separation, trained on approximately 150 times as many hours of data \cite{biadsy2019parrotron}. In principle, this method or others could also be employed as the voice conversion subcomponent in \textsc{SkinAugment}.)
\paragraph{Augmentation Policy.} One may ask whether sheer quantity of data or its diversity contributes more to performance: Is it helpful to hear diverse variants of the same audio?
Our augmentation procedure, \textsc{SkinAugment}, lets us address this: We sample a fraction of the training data, then skin this subset into any of \(K\) arbitrarily chosen voices. In this work, we experiment with up to 16 skinned variants of the training data, sampling between 10\% and 100\% of the data to be skinned.
\section{Experimental Setup}
\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation}
An AST dataset pairs source-language audio with a target-language translation.
We experiment on two standard AST datasets: AST LibriSpeech~\cite{kocabiyikoglu-etal-2018-augmenting} (English--French; we use the same setup as \cite{berard2018end}) and MuST-C (English--Ro\-man\-ian; 432 hours) \cite{mustc19}.
We also use AST LibriSpeech for low resource ASR. (Note that the AST LibriSpeech test sets do not correspond to the original LibriSpeech test sets.)
In all cases, we use the 200+ voices in LibriSpeech to train the conversion model; the LibriSpeech tasks let us evaluate conversions on \emph{in-domain} audio, while the MuST-C task evaluates conversions on \emph{out-of-domain} audio. As the AST LibriSpeech corpus's test set is a subset of LibriSpeech's training set, we remove all the AST LibriSpeech test set voices from LibriSpeech's training set before training the converter.
In later experiments, we further augment the training data by translating LibriSpeech's transcripts (removing test set occurrences~\cite{pino2019harnessing}) with an MT system. The MT system is trained on two standard datasets: WMT16 for En--Ro (600k sentence pairs) and WMT14 for En--Fr (29 million sentence pairs).
Our En--Fr AST cascade baseline's MT subsystem is trained on the same WMT corpora. The ASR subsystem is trained on the full LibriSpeech corpus. %
For AST, we report BLEU~\cite{papineni-etal-2002-bleu}
on tokenized output. (On the ASR task, the transcript is already tokenized; on the AST tasks, we tokenize translations with Moses~\cite{koehn-etal-2007-moses}.) For ASR, we use word error rate (WER), also on tokenized output.
\subsection{Model Architecture}
\label{sec:model_arch}
All of our experiments use the same mixed convolutional-recurrent end-to-end model architecture for conditional sequence generation, our focus being
data augmentation techniques. (Recent work suggests that AST performance with Transformer is similar to AST performance with this style of model \cite{karita2019comparative}.)
We use a speech encoder consisting of two non-linear layers followed by two convolutional layers and three bidirectional LSTM layers, along with a custom LSTM decoder~\cite{berard2018end, pino2019harnessing}.
The encoder uses 40 log-scaled mel spectrogram features.
We use 3 decoder layers as in \cite{pino2019harnessing}, who report the number of parameters in each model.
\textsc{SkinAugment} couples an off-the-shelf, fixed time-delay neural network (TDNN) encoder with a learned Wave\-Net decoder. Hyperparameters are as in \cite{polyak2019tts}.
\subsection{Baselines}
\paragraph{Cascade.}
We compare our data-augmented end-to-end model to a baseline cascade model. The ASR model is described in \autoref{sec:model_arch}, while the MT model uses a Transformer, trained on the WMT14 En--Fr parallel data. %
It achieves top performance on the AST LibriSpeech dataset of 21.3 BLEU~\cite{pino2019harnessing}. We also compare to \cite{berard2018end}'s cascade which lacks additional data.
\paragraph{SpecAugment.}
We also compare our end-to-end model with another popular data augmentation strategy, spectral augmentation (SpecAugment). SpecAugment adds perturbations at the feature level, whereas \textsc{SkinAugment} operates at the raw wave level. We use the \emph{LibriSpeech double} setting \cite{Park2019}.
\paragraph{SpecAugment-\(\bm{p}\).}
Further, we introduce a simple but effective variant: SpecAugment-\(p\), which applies SpecAugment to each batch with probability \(p\). (The standard SpecAugment would thus use \(p=1\).)
We found that SpecAugment with \(p=0.5\)
was effective in our setup.
\subsection{Augmentation and Normalization Settings}
We perform conditional generation of new data with either 8 or 16 voice conversions, applying them to 10\%, 25\%, 50\%, and 100\% of the training corpus. This creates transformed variants of our dataset in distinct (arbitrarily selected) voices. Generation is performed offline---thus not a prerequisite for inference---and is agnostic toward the AST model. While future work can explore a greater number of voices, we found this prohibitive in terms of training time.
We compare these settings to standard SpecAugment, as well as to SpecAugment-\(p\) with \(p=0.5\), which we found to be effective.
Perhaps rather than making the AST model robust to the niceties of individual speakers' voices, we ought to eliminate those niceties.
To test the effectiveness of translation on a consistent voice, we convert the test set to entirely be of the voice of one speaker and evaluate the BLEU score separately on these single-speaker skinned test sets. We select 8 voices arbitrarily. We then produce 8 such skinned test sets with \textsc{SkinAugment}, reporting average performance and standard deviation across the variants.
\subsection{Machine-Translated Augmentation} Existing AST samples are rare, leading research to explore avenues for weak supervision. Among these, machine-translated transcripts of large ASR corpora dramatically increase the performance of AST models \cite{jia2019leveraging,pino2019harnessing}. We therefore translate LibriSpeech transcripts with our Transformer, then concatenate these synthetic training instances to the AST data. We apply 16 skins to 25\% of the AST training data, as we found this to perform best.
\subsection{Training Settings}
We use the Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2014adam} with a learning rate of 0.001 and gradient clipping of 5. The minibatch size is 96,000 frames.
All experiments are conducted on 8 \textsc{Nvidia} Tesla V100 GPUs.
In order to compensate for the imbalance between
synthetic skinned data and original data, all models are fine-tuned on the original data for 40 epochs after convergence on the augmented data. We found a consistent improvement from fine-tuning.
We decode with a beam size of 20. To balance between the data sparsity of a word-level model and the training time of a character-level model, we use a SentencePiece \cite{kudo2018sentencepiece} unigram model with vocabulary size 10,000.
\section{Experimental Results}
Results are presented in \autoref{fig:en-ro} (En--Ro AST), \autoref{fig:en-fr} (En--Fr AST), and \autoref{fig:asr} (ASR).
On all three tasks, we find that our augmentation strategy outperforms SpecAugment and SpecAugment-\(p\). We also found that SpecAugment-\(p\) outperforms SpecAugment on all tasks except ASR.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9465\linewidth]{en-ro.pdf}
\caption{English--Romanian AST with out-of-domain skins. \textsc{SkinAugment} outperforms both SpecAugment variants.}
\label{fig:en-ro}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9465\linewidth]{en-fr+finetune-4.pdf}
\caption{English--French AST with in-domain skins. Additional synthetic data is eventually harmful.}
\label{fig:en-fr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9465\linewidth]{asr.pdf}
\caption{\textsc{SkinAugment} outperforms both variants of SpecAugment on the simulated low-resource ASR scenario.}
\label{fig:asr}
\end{figure}
\textsc{SkinAugment} improves BLEU by 3.3 points for En--Ro and 2.2 for En--Fr over the end-to-end baseline. Our score of 14.58 matches the reported En--Fr score of \cite{berard2018end} with a cascade model (14.6), up to their reported significant figures.
\subsection{Quantity versus diversity of the augmented data}
How much augmented data is needed for strong performance?
Does the advantage in the previous subsection come from pure quantity of data, or is the diversity of speakers advantageous?
We find that the performance of the end-to-end model tracks remarkably well with the \emph{amount} of data added, regardless of whether it comes from eight skins or sixteen, up to about twice the original size of the training data.
Beyond this, having more skins seems to be beneficial. When the amount of skinned data is 4\(\times\) the size of the training set, the 16-skin model (skinning 25\% of the training data) has a relative gain from the end-to-end baseline of 58\%, compared to the 8-skin model (skinning 50\% of the training data). Above this training set size (up to 16\(\times\)), performance begins to degrade. Nevertheless, it continues to outperform the baseline end-to-end model in our setting. For ASR and En--Ro AST, performance plateaus.
\subsection{Test set normalization}
For all three tasks, we also skin the test set to a single training-set voice, then evaluate. The motivation is to reduce variation in test data. To avoid reporting fortuitous but unrepresentative performance from a particular voice, we consider mean BLEU and standard deviation across 8 voices. Here, we report a negative result. In every case, the score on the unmodified test set is within one standard deviation of the voice-normalized mean. In \autoref{sec:mt-aug}, we find that translating normalized variants underperforms translating on the original audio by 0.6 BLEU on average, suggesting that the massive amount of unskinned audio obviates the benefit of skinned test data.
Our findings mesh well with \cite{keskin2019measuring}, who found that their Cycle-GAN voice converter was harmful for test set normalization and had negligible value for data augmentation; nevertheless, in their case and ours, increased amounts of skinned data led to better performance on normalized test sets. Future work can explore whether fine-tuning to the normalization voice improves performance.
\subsection{Machine-Translated Data for Augmentation} \label{sec:mt-aug}
Thus far, our synthetic data on the AST task has been generated by transforming original AST samples with either \textsc{SkinAugment} or SpecAugment(-\(p\)). However, adding translated data as weak supervision in our low-resource scenario improves performance significantly. \autoref{tab:my_label} shows an ablation: incorporating \textsc{SkinAugment}, translated transcripts (\say{+ MT}), or both. Furthermore, we demonstrate performance when using the original AST corpus from the augmented LibriSpeech release ~\cite{kocabiyikoglu-etal-2018-augmenting}, i.e.\ removing the off-the-shelf automatic translations added in \cite{berard2018end}'s dataset (\say{\(-\) AT}). We speculate that the abysmal performance of the baseline AST LibriSpeech \(-\) AT is due to data scarcity, and that removing automatic translations for + MT helps because they are of lower quality.
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Value of machine-translated transcripts combined with \textsc{SkinAugment} on AST LibriSpeech. We use 16 skins applied to 25\% of the corpus.}
\vspace{0.125em}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l r}
\toprule
Data & BLEU \\
\midrule
AST LibriSpeech & 13.24 \\ %
+ \textsc{SkinAugment} & 15.22 \\ %
+ MT & 19.71 \\ %
+ MT + \textsc{SkinAugment} & 20.19 \\ %
%
\midrule
AST LibriSpeech \(-\) AT & 1.81 \\ %
+ MT & 21.78 \\ %
+ MT + \textsc{SkinAugment} & 22.44 \\ %
\midrule
Cascade (with ASR and MT data) & 21.31 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:my_label}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
We have evaluated speaker conversions using conditioned autoencoding for AST and ASR data augmentation.
A wav-to-wav CNN architecture learns latent speaker representations.
Swapping in a new speaker representation converts the voice in the audio.
This yields more source audio for a given example.
The method is applicable to both data augmentation during training and speaker normalization for generation.
While this method relies on additional audio data to train
the speaker conversion, it does not rely on transcribed text, which makes it appealing for scaling to different languages and in low-resource scenarios where annotation can be costly.
\textsc{SkinAugment} compares favorably to SpecAugment, a popular data augmentation method that operates at the feature level.
We were also able to effectively combine speaker conversion data with MT-augmented ASR data.
Still, when instead applied to the test set at inference time as voice normalization, we observe no significant change in BLEU.
Creating AST data by text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis of parallel text corpora has shown mixed results; while \cite{jia2019leveraging} found that adding a TTS system's outputs improved performance, \cite{pino2019harnessing} were unable to find additional gains. The promise of \textsc{SkinAugment} to produce variants of a given audio without transcripts suggests that it could apply to such TTS data. Future work will explore the application of this augmentation approach to improving the effectiness of TTS data for AST.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Hyunbin Park, Adam Polyak, Xiaohui Zhang, and Weiyi Zheng for assistance in generating voice-converted data.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
The recent increase in access to large amounts of labeled data, through the development of datasets such as MNIST~\cite{deng2012mnist}, SVHN~\cite{netzer2011reading}, CIFAR~\cite{krizhevsky2010convolutional}, and ImageNet~\cite{russakovsky2015imagenet}, has enabled significant progress in various fields of machine learning, and computer vision in particular.
However, collecting such large-scale labeled datasets remains expensive and time consuming.
Thus, it is of high interest to develop methods that can automatically annotate extensive amounts of data, when only provided with a small subset of labeled samples. %
To this end, semi-supervised learning~(SSL) has begun to attract significant attention in the machine learning ~\cite{chapelle2009semi,kamnitsas2018semi} and computer vision~\cite{jiang2019semi,luo2018smooth,Iscen_2019_CVPR,Lee_2019_CVPR,Honari_2018_CVPR} communities.
Current SSL methods can be classified into several categories, including expectation-maximization~(EM) with generative mixture models, self-training methods, co-training methods, transductive support vector machines, and graph-based methods~\cite{pise2008survey}.
Among these, graph-based methods represent one of the most important categories for following two main reasons. First, data that can be described by a graph structure is ubiquitous in the real world. For example, scene graphs representing relationships among interconnected objects in images, social networks indicating friendships between different users, road networks demonstrating traffic conditions, and so on.
Second, the embedding graph structure between labeled and unlabeled data provides additional context information to further enhance model performance. In this representation, labeled and unlabeled samples are denoted as nodes in a graph, and the edges between them usually represent their similarities.
The underlying assumption is that there is a label smoothness over the graph, i.e., the labels of neighbor nodes are similar.
Many successful graph-based SSL models have been proposed in recent years~\cite{zhu2003semi,belkin2006manifold,weston2012deep,yang2016revisiting,ng2018bayesian,kipf2016semi,gat}. These include graph regularization methods, deep learning based methods, and Gaussian process~(GP) based methods. Early regularization frameworks can be expressed as learning a function $f$ with two terms in the objective function: a loss function for the labeled data, and a graph regularization term.
As an extension to these early models, deep learning methods have significantly boosted the performance of SSL. In fact, the top-three state-of-the-art methods for SSL across several public graph datasets are deep learning based models, i.e., graph convolutional neural networks~(GCNs)~\cite{kipf2016semi}, mixture model network~(MoNet)~\cite{monti2017geometric}, and graph attention network~(GAT)~\cite{gat}.
However, deep learning models are lack of theoretical principle~\cite{novak2019bayesian, cnn_as_gp}, which is
extremely difficult due to their large number of parameters~\cite{cnn_as_gp,wilson2016stochastic}. To fix this problem, the Bayesian neural network was proposed as a single-layer fully connected~(FC) network with infinitely wide hidden units that can be converged to a GP~\cite{neal1996priors}. More efforts have been made to investigate the GP behavior of FC networks with more than one hidden layer~\cite{matthews2018gaussian,lee2018deep}. Further, these ideas have also been transfered to convolutional neural networks, providing their equivalence as GPs~\cite{novak2019bayesian, cnn_as_gp}. Most recently, the relationships between spatial graph convolutions and Gaussian processes were investigated~\cite{walker19a}.
To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has looked into the relationship between spectral-based GCNs and GPs yet.
In this paper, we show that GCNs with an infinite number of convolutional filters are equivalent to GPs. Then, we evaluate this equivalence on the task of graph-based semi-supervised classification.
Our main contributions can be summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We investigate the GP prior of graph convolutional networks with infinitely wide layers, deriving an equivalence of GCNs as GPs.
\item We formulate an iterative analytical form of kernel matrix computation for the GP prior by restricting the activation function to be ReLU.
\item We conduct extensive experiments for graph-based semi-supervised classification on several public datasets, where our proposed methods achieve the state-of-the-art results, outperforming the existing graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithms.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\label{related_work}
Graph-based semi-supervised learning has been actively studied in recent years. The most common approaches can be classified into four categories: graph Laplacian regularization based methods~\cite{zhu2003semi,belkin2006manifold,weston2012deep}, graph embedding based methods~\cite{perozzi2014deepwalk,yang2016revisiting,grover2016node2vec,tang2015line}, GP based methods~\cite{lee2018deep,silva2008hidden,chu2007relational}, and deep learning based methods~\cite{kipf2016semi,monti2017geometric,atwood2016diffusion}.
Graph Laplacian regularization based methods are built on the assumption that labels vary smoothly along the node connections in a graph. As such, a Laplacian regularization is added to the objective function, which needs to be minimized. The object functions of these methods are typically constructed from either a Gaussian field~\cite{zhu2003semi} or certain kernel functions~\cite{belkin2006manifold}.
Recently, Weston et al.~\cite{weston2012deep} proposed a deep learning model that includes the embedding instances of output labels, hidden layers, and an auxiliary layer as regularizers. However, none of these methods are competitive with currently state-of-the-art methods.
Graph embedding based methods are mostly derived from the Skipgram~\cite{frome2013devise} model, and are formulated to predict the context of a node by taking the embedding features as input.
Deepwalk~\cite{perozzi2014deepwalk} aims to learn node embeddings by exploiting the graph topology information with random walks. Since this process is a form of unsupervised learning, the embedding features can be further utilized by other classification algorithms. LINE~\cite{tang2015line} is an extension of Deepwalk that considers multiple context spaces.
However, none of these methods leverage label information, making them unsuitable for the task of graph-based semi-supervised classification. In contrast, Planetoid~\cite{yang2016revisiting} proposed a semi-supervised learning framework based on graph embedding, which obtained competitive results.
Recently, more and more deep learning models have been proposed to better address the task of graph semi-supervised classification. Atwood and Towsley~\cite{atwood2016diffusion} proposed a diffusion convolutional neural network that considers the diffusion process on a graph, and better captures the graph structured data than fully-connected neural networks. Graph convolutional neural networks~(GCNs)\cite{bruna2013spectral,defferrard2016convolutional,kipf2016semi}, which are derived from the graph spectral theory, have also received significant attention, reaching state-of-the-art performance in semi-supervised learning on graph structured data. More recently, Monti et al. proposed a generic spatial domain framework for deep learning on non-Euclidean domains such as graphs and manifolds\cite{monti2017geometric}, which has also achieved competitive results. However, a common problem within deep learning methods is that they require a relatively large labeled validation dataset in order to allow early stopping during training to prevent over-fitting~\cite{ng2018bayesian}.
Therefore, a graph Gaussian processes~(GGP) method was proposed, which is a data-efficient Gaussian process model and does not need large validation data~\cite{ng2018bayesian}. This GP-based method provided a Bayesian approach to address the semi-supervised learning problem and obtained competitive results compared to GCNs, giving it a big advantage over neural network based methods. However, it is limited in considering only 1-hop neighborhood nodes whose weights are equal, thus ignoring their differences.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{bg}
In this section, we briefly review the theoretical motivations behind fast approximate graph convolutions~(Section~\ref{sec:fagc}) and infinitely wide neural networks as GPs~(Section~\ref{sec:nngp}), of which we will take advantage to formalize our model in Section~\ref{gcn_gp}.
\subsection{Notation}
\label{sec:notation}
Let ${\bm{X}}^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times m^{(0)}}$ and ${\bm{A}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ denote the graph-structured input feature matrix and the adjacency matrix of underlying graph ${\mathcal{G}}$, respectively, where $N$ is the total number of nodes and $m^{(0)}$ is the input feature dimension.
Suppose we have a graph convolutional neural network with a total of $L$ layers. The layer-wise formulation can be represented as the following two steps: 1) ${\bm{Z}}^{(l)} = g_{\theta} \star {\bm{X}}^{(l-1)}$, where $g_{\theta}$ denotes the graph convolution filter parametrized by weight matrix ${\bm{W}}^{(l)}$, and $\star$ denotes the graph convolution operation; and 2) ${\bm{X}}^{(l)} = \Phi({\bm{Z}}^{(l)})$, where ${\bm{Z}}^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times m^{(l)}}$ and ${\bm{X}}^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times m^{(l)}}$ denote the pre- and post-activated output at the $l$-th layer, $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the activation function, and $m^{(l)}$ is the corresponding feature dimension of the $l$-th layer. %
\subsection{Fast Approximate Graph Convolution}
\label{sec:fagc}
The fast approximate graph convolution is derived from the spectral based graph convolution by applying several approximations~\cite{kipf2016semi}. The resulting graph convolution operation at the $l$-th layer can be formulated as follows,
\begin{equation}
{\bm{X}}^{(l)} = \Phi({\bm{Z}}^{(l)})
\label{eq:gcn_nl}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Z}}^{(l)} =\widetilde{{\bm{D}}}^{-1/2}\widetilde{{\bm{A}}}\widetilde{{\bm{D}}}^{-1/2} {\bm{X}}^{(l-1)} {\bm{W}}^{(l)},
\label{eq:fgcn}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\widetilde{{\bm{A}}} = {\bm{A}} + {\bm{I}}$ is the adjacency matrix with self-loops, $\widetilde{{\bm{D}}}$ is the degree matrix, where $\widetilde{{\bm{D}}}_{i,i} = \sum_j\widetilde{{\bm{A}}}_{i,j}$, and $\widetilde{{\bm{D}}}_{i,j} = 0$ for $i \neq j$. Let $\hat{{\bm{A}}} = \widetilde{{\bm{D}}}^{-1/2}\widetilde{{\bm{A}}}\widetilde{{\bm{D}}}^{-1/2}$. Equation~\ref{eq:fgcn} can be simplified as:
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Z}}^{(l)} =\hat{{\bm{A}}} {\bm{X}}^{(l-1)} {\bm{W}}^{(l)}.
\label{eq:fgcn_sim}
\end{equation}
Since ${\bm{A}}$ is fixed once the graph ${\mathcal{G}}$ is specified, $\hat{{\bm{A}}}$ is a constant matrix.
One simplified example of a two-layer GCN for semi-supervised classification was proposed in~\cite{kipf2016semi} as,
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Z}}^{(2)} =softmax(\hat{{\bm{A}}}\Phi(\hat{{\bm{A}}} {\bm{X}} {\bm{W}}^{(0)}){\bm{W}}^{(1)}),
\label{eq:eg_gcn}
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{Z}}^{(2)}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times C}$ is the output, with $C$ being the total number of classes, and $\Phi(\cdot)$ is selected as the ReLU function.
\subsection{Infinitely Wide Neural Networks as GPs}
\label{sec:nngp}
Given the input ${\bm{x}}^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}^{m^{(0)}}$ and output ${\bm{z}}^{(1)} \in \mathbb{R}^{m^{(1)}}$, a single layer fully-connected neural network can be formulated as,
\begin{equation}
{\bm{x}}_{j}^{(1)} = \Phi(\sum_{k=1}^{m^{(0)}}{\bm{W}}_{j,k}^{(0)}{\bm{x}}_{k}^{(0)}+{\bm{b}}_{j}^{(0)}), 1\leq j \leq L_1
\label{eq:nn_1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bm{z}}_{i}^{(1)} = \sum_{j=1}^{L_1}{\bm{W}}_{i,j}^{(1)}{\bm{x}}_{j}^{(1)} +{\bm{b}}_{i}^{(1)}, 1\leq i\leq m^{(1)},
\label{eq:nn_2}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where ${\bm{x}}_{j}^{(1)}$ is the $j$-th component of the hidden layer, ${\bm{z}}_{i}^{(1)}$ is the $i$-th component of the output, and ${\bm{W}}_{i,j}^{(1)} \sim {\mathcal{N}}(0, \sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(1)}}^{2})$ and ${\bm{b}}_{i}^{(1)} \sim {\mathcal{N}}(0, \sigma_{{\bm{b}}^{(1)}}^{2})$ are the weight and bias parameters, which are independent.
Moreover, since $\forall {\bm{x}}^{(1)}_{j} \in {\bm{x}}^{(1)}$ is bounded, the variance for ${\bm{x}}^{(1)}_{j}$ is finite.
According to the Central Limit Theory, when the width of the hidden layer goes to infinity, i.e. $L_1 \rightarrow +\infty $, ${\bm{z}}_{i}^{(1)}$ follows a Gaussian distribution~\cite{neal1996priors}.
When we have multiple inputs ${\bm{T}}_f = \{{\bm{t}}_1, \cdots, {\bm{t}}_f\}$, where ${\bm{t}}_j \in \mathbb{R}^{m^{(0)}}, 1\leq j \leq f$, the corresponding outputs of the $i$-th component ${\mathbb{Z}}_i^{(1)} = \{{\bm{z}}_i^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_1), \cdots, {\bm{z}}_i^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_f)\}$ follow a joint multivariate Gaussian distribution~\cite{lee2018deep}, which can be represented as:
\begin{equation}
P({\mathbb{Z}}_i^{(1)}|{\bm{T}}_f) \sim GP(\mu^{(1)}, \Theta^{(1)}), \notag
\end{equation}
where $\mu^{(1)}\in \mathbb{R}^{f}$ is the mean vector and $\Theta^{(1)} \in \mathbb{R}^{f\times f}$ is the covariance matrix~\cite{lee2018deep}. Recalling that ${\bm{b}}_{j}^{(1)}$ and ${\bm{W}}_{j,k}^{(1)}$ have zero means and are i.i.d, we draw the following conclusions:
1) $\mu^{(1)}=0$, and 2)
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:cov_1}
&\Theta^{(1)}_{m,n}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_n)\\
=&\mathbb{E}[ {\bm{z}}_i^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_m) {\bm{z}}_i^{1}({\bm{t}}_n) ] \\
=&\sigma_{{\bm{b}}^{1}}^{2} + \sum_{j}{\sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(1)}}^{2}\mathbb{E} [x_j^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_m)x_j^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_n)]} \\
=&\sigma_{{\bm{b}}^{(1)}}^{2} + L_1{\sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(1)}}^{2}\mathbb{E} [x_j^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_m)x_j^{(1)}({\bm{t}}_n)]},
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent
where $\mu^{(1)}$ and $\Theta^{(1)}$ are the same for all output dimensions, since the outputs at different dimensions, i.e. ${\mathbb{Z}}_{i}^{(1)}$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}_{j}^{(1)}$, $i \neq j$, are independent~\cite{lee2018deep,neal1996priors}.
Similar conclusions can be extended to deep neural networks with $L$ layers as GPs~\cite{lee2018deep}, whose $i$-th component of the output can be represented as:
\begin{equation}
P({\mathbb{Z}}_i^{(L)}|{\bm{T}}_f) \sim GP(0, \Theta^{(L)}).
\label{eq:gp_output}
\end{equation}
$\Theta^{(L)}$ can be computed iteratively by following the shorthand quantity relationship as indicated in~\cite{lee2018deep},
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:cov_induction}
&\Theta^{(l)}_{m,n}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_n) \\
=& \sigma_{{\bm{b}}^{(l)}}^{2} + \delta_{\bm{W}} T_{\Phi}[\Theta^{(l-1)}_{n,n}({\bm{t}}_n, {\bm{t}}_n), \Theta^{(l-1)}_{m,n}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_n),\\
&\Theta^{(l-1)}_{m,m}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_m)],
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent
where $T_{\Phi}(\cdot)$ is a deterministic function that is only related to the activation function $\Phi(\cdot)$.
It is worth noting that $L_1\sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(1)}}^{2}$ in Equation~\ref{eq:cov_1} approaches infinity when $L_1$ goes to infinity and $\sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(1)}}^{2}$ is a fixed value. To avoid this,
we assume that $\delta_{\bm{W}} = L_{l}\sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(l)}}^{2}$ is a \textbf{fixed constant value} across different layers $l$~\cite{neal1996priors,matthews2018gaussian}. The initial covariance matrix is given by $\Theta^{(0)}_{m,n}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_n) = \sigma_{{\bm{b}}^{(0)}}^{2} + \delta_{\bm{W}} K_{\theta}({\bm{t}}_m,{\bm{t}}_n)$, where $K_{\theta}({\bm{t}}_m,{\bm{t}}_n)$ is the initial kernel function, which can be selected from a set of existing, well-defined kernels~\cite{duvenaud2014automatic}.
When the activation is set to \emph{ReLU}, an analytical form of the covariance matrix can be derived via the arc-cosine kernel~\cite{cho2009kernel,lee2018deep}, which is described as follows,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:acos_kernel}
&\Theta^{(l)}_{m,n}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_n) \\
= & \sigma_{{\bm{b}}^{(l)}}^{2} + \frac{\delta_{\bm{W}}}{\pi}\sqrt{\Theta^{(l-1)}_{n,n}({\bm{t}}_n, {\bm{t}}_n) \Theta^{(l-1)}_{m,m}({\bm{t}}_m, {\bm{t}}_m) }(\text{sin}\alpha_{m, n}^{(l-1)} + \\
& (\pi - \alpha_{m, n}^{(l-1)})\text{cos}\alpha_{m,n}^{(l-1)})
\end{split}
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:acos_theta}
\alpha_{m, n}^{(l)} = {\text{cos}}^{-1}(\frac{\Theta^{(l)}_{m,n}}{\sqrt{\Theta^{(l)}_{m,m}\Theta^{(l)}_{n,n}}}).
\end{equation}
\section{Gaussian Processes and Graph Convolution Networks}
\label{gcn_gp}
In this section, we describe the Gaussian processes for infinitely wide layers in GCNs. To clarify this process, we first decompose the GCN operations~(Equation~\ref{eq:gcn_nl} and~\ref{eq:fgcn_sim}) on the $l$-th layer into the following three steps:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gcn_1}
{\bm{X}}_{i,j}^{(l-1)} = \Phi({\bm{Z}}_{i,j}^{(l-1)})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat{{\bm{X}}}_{i,j}^{(l-1)} = \sum_{k=1}^{N}\hat{{\bm{A}}}_{i,k} {\bm{X}}_{k,j}^{(l-1)}
\label{eq:adj_transform}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gcn_3}
{\bm{Z}}_{i,j}^{(l)} = \sum_{k=1}^{L_{l}}\hat{{\bm{X}}}_{i,k}^{(l-1)} {\bm{W}}_{k,j}^{(l)},
\end{equation}
where ${\bm{X}}_{i,j}^{(l-1)}$ and ${\bm{Z}}_{i,j}^{(l)}$ are the input and output of node $i$, $j$-th component on the $l$-th layer, respectively, and ${\bm{W}}^{(l)}_{k,j} \sim N(0, \sigma_{{\bm{W}}^{(l)}}^{2})$ are the weight parameters.
We note that Equations~\ref{eq:gcn_1}, \ref{eq:adj_transform} and \ref{eq:gcn_3} are very similar to Equations~\ref{eq:nn_1} and~\ref{eq:nn_2}, except for the additional operation in Equation~\ref{eq:adj_transform}. Moreover, we also observe that this operation still maintains the independent relationship between $\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(l-1)}_{n, i}$ and $\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(l-1)}_{n, j}$, $\forall i \neq j$. Therefore, the conclusion in Equation~\ref{eq:gp_output} can be derived as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ggp_prior}
P({\bm{Z}}_i^{(L)}|{\bm{X}}, {\bm{A}}) \sim GP(0, \Gamma^{(L)}),
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^{(L)}$ is the co-variance matrix of outputs. The co-variance matrix on the $l$-th layer can be reformulated from Equation~\ref{eq:cov_induction} as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gcn_f}
\Gamma^{(l)}_{m,n}({\bm{X}}_m, {\bm{X}}_n)=\delta_{\bm{W}}\sum_{i}^{N}\sum_{j}^{N}{[(\hat{{\bm{A}}}_{m\cdot}^{T} \times \hat{{\bm{A}}}_{n\cdot})\odot \Delta^{(l)}]_{i,j}},
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
$\Delta^{(l)}_{m,n}({\bm{X}}_m, {\bm{X}}_n)=T_{\Phi}[\Gamma^{(l-1)}_{n,n}({\bm{X}}_n, {\bm{X}}_n)$, $\Gamma^{(l-1)}_{m,n}({\bm{X}}_m, {\bm{X}}_n)$, $ \Gamma^{(l-1)}_{m,m}({\bm{X}}_m, {\bm{X}}_m)]$ denotes the covariance matrix over the non-linear activation function $\Phi(\cdot)$, $\hat{{\bm{A}}}_{m\cdot}, \hat{{\bm{A}}}_{n\cdot} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times N}$ denote the $m$-th and $n$-th row vectors of $\hat{{\bm{A}}}$, respectively, and $\odot$ denotes an element-wise multiplication.
\subsection{Semi-supervised Classification with Gaussian Process}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{./figures/test_graph.pdf}
\caption{The Framework of GPGCs. \emph{Left}: The grey nodes denote the unlabeled data with feature matrix ${\bm{X}}_U$, while the colored nodes indicate the labeled data, ${\bm{X}}_D$, and the corresponding colors denotes the labels, ${\bm{Y}}_D$, which constitute the observed data pairs $({\bm{X}}_D, {\bm{Y}}_D)$. The embedding graph structure is denoted by the adjacency matrix ${\bm{A}}$. \emph{Middle}: Description of the resulting GP distribution conditioned on the observations. \emph{Right: }The classification results $\hat{{\bm{Y}}}_U$ on unobserved nodes, and ${\bm{Y}}_D$ for labeled nodes. }
\label{fig:framework}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
We introduce the process of proceeding semi-supervised classification with Gaussian process regression. Given a graph ${\mathcal{G}}$ with an adjacency matrix ${\bm{A}}$ and feature matrix ${\bm{X}}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times m^{(0)}}$ for all nodes, a set of labeled nodes ${\mathbb{N}}_D=\{n_1, \cdots, n_D\}$ with feature matrix ${\bm{X}}_D$ and label matrix ${\bm{Y}}_D$, where $D\ll N$. Thus, we have a large set of unobserved nodes in ${\mathbb{N}}_U=\{n_{D+1}, \cdots, n_N\}$, whose feature matrix is ${\bm{X}}_U\in \mathbb{R}^{(N-D)\times m^{(0)}}$. Let ${\bm{Z}}_D$ and ${\bm{Z}}_U$ be the outputs of an $L$-layer GCNs for the inputs ${\bm{X}}_D$ and ${\bm{X}}_U$, respectively. We aim to derive the best node label estimation $\hat{{\bm{Y}}}_U$ for ${\mathbb{N}}_U$. Figure~\ref{fig:framework} depicts the framework of GPGC.
According to Equation~\ref{eq:ggp_prior}, the Gaussian process prior for ${\bm{Z}}_D$ and ${\bm{Z}}_U$ can be represented as a joint Gaussian distribution:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
P({\bm{Z}}_D, {\bm{Z}}_U|{\bm{X}}_D,{\bm{X}}_U, {\bm{A}})
\sim GP\left(0,
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Gamma_{D, D}^{L} & (\Gamma_{U, D}^{L})^{T} \\
\Gamma_{U, D}^{L} & \Gamma_{U, U}^{L}
\end{array}
\right]
\right), %
\label{eq:joint}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\Gamma_{D, D}^{L} \in \mathbb{R}^{D\times D}$ is the covariance matrix over labeled data, $\Gamma_{U, D}^{L} \in \mathbb{R}^{(N-D)\times D}$ is between unlabeled and labeled data, and $\Gamma_{U, U}^{L} \in \mathbb{R}^{(N-D)\times (N-D)}$ is over unlabeled data.
However, we only have access to the label matrix ${\bm{Y}}_D$, which can be represented as ${\bm{Y}}_D = {\bm{Z}}_D + \tau$, where $\tau$ is the observation noise. We further assume that the noise $\tau$ is i.i.d with zero mean and variance $\sigma_{\tau}^{2}$. Thus, the covariance relationship between ${\bm{Y}}_D$ and ${\bm{Z}}_D$ can be formulated as $K({\bm{Y}}_D, {\bm{Y}}_D) = \Gamma_{D, D}^{L} + \sigma_{\tau}^{2}{\bm{I}}_{D}$, where ${\bm{I}}_D\in \mathbb{R}^{D\times D}$ is an identity matrix. Therefore, the joint distribution of ${\bm{Y}}_D$ and ${\bm{Z}}_U$ can be derived from Equation~\ref{eq:joint} as,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
P({\bm{Y}}_D, {\bm{Z}}_U|{\bm{X}}_D,{\bm{X}}_U, {\bm{A}})
\sim GP\left(0,
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Gamma_{D, D}^{L} + \sigma_{\tau}^{2}{\bm{I}}_{D} & (\Gamma_{U, D}^{L})^{T} \\
\Gamma_{U, D}^{L} & \Gamma_{U, U}^{L}
\end{array}
\right]
\right). %
\label{eq:mean_gp}
\end{split}
\end{align}
As is standard in GPs, we have the conditional distribution~\cite{williams2006gaussian},
$P({\bm{Z}}_U|{\bm{A}}, {\bm{X}}_D, {\bm{X}}_U, {\bm{Y}}_D) \sim {\mathcal{N}}(\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U, \Lambda)$, where the mean matrix $\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U\in \mathbb{R}^{(N-D) \times m^{(L)}}$ and covariance matrix $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{(N-D) \times (N-D)}$ are formulated as follows,
\begin{equation}
\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U = \Gamma_{U, D}^{L} (\Gamma_{D, D}^{L} + \sigma_{\tau}^{2}{\bm{I}}_D)^{-1}{\bm{Y}}_D \notag
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = \Gamma_{U, U}^{L} - \Gamma_{U, D}^{L} (\Gamma_{D, D}^{L} + \sigma_{\tau}^{2}{\bm{I}}_D)^{-1}(\Gamma_{U, D}^{L})^{T}.\notag
\end{equation}
Finally, the labels $\hat{{\bm{Y}}}_U\in \mathbb{R}^{(N-D)}$ can be obtained via
\begin{equation}
[\hat{{\bm{Y}}}_U]_{i} = \text{argmax}([\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U]_{i\cdot}), 1\leq i \leq N-D,\notag
\end{equation}
where $[\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U]_{i\cdot}$ is the $i$-th row of $\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U$, i.e. the mean of the estimations for node $i$, and $\text{argmax}(\cdot)$ returns the index of the largest value in $[\bar{{\bm{Z}}}_U]_{i\cdot}$. Thus $[\hat{{\bm{Y}}}_U]_{i}$ denotes the estimation label for node $i$.
\subsection{GPs with Two-Layer GCNs}
\label{sec:eg_gcgp}
In this paper, we consider a GP with two-layer GCNs formulated in Equation~\ref{eq:eg_gcn}. To provide a more detailed description, we decompose it into the following five steps: $1) \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)} = \hat{{\bm{A}}} {\bm{X}}; 2) {\bm{Z}}^{(1)} = \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)} {\bm{W}}^{(1)}; 3) {\bm{X}}^{(1)} = \Phi({\bm{Z}}^{(1)}); 4) \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(1)} = \hat{{\bm{A}}} {\bm{X}}^{(1)}; 5) {\bm{Z}}^{(2)} = \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(1)} {\bm{W}}^{(2)}$.
We note that it is quite time consuming to compute the covariance matrix in Step 1, which will be discussed in Section~\ref{sect:runtime}. However, we also find that this operation does not change the column dependency of ${\bm{X}}$, so it can be treated as a pre-processing operation on the input to ease the computation.
Then, Steps 2 and~3 consist of a single-layer neural network with a ReLU activation function, whose resulting kernel can be derived from Equations~\ref{eq:acos_kernel} and~\ref{eq:acos_theta} as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:acos_theta1}
\alpha_{m, n}^{(0)} = {\text{cos}}^{-1}(\frac{{\bm{K}}_{m,n}(\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}, \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)})}{\sqrt{{\bm{K}}_{m,m}(\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}, \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}){\bm{K}}_{n,n}(\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}, \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)})}})
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:acos_kernel1}
&{\bm{K}}_{m,n}({\bm{X}}^{(1)}, {\bm{X}}^{(1)}) \\
= &\frac{\delta_{{\bm{W}}}}{\pi}\sqrt{{\bm{K}}_{m,m}(\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}, \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}) {\bm{K}}_{n,n}(\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}, \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}) }(\text{sin}\alpha_{m, n}^{(0)} + \\& (\pi - \alpha_{m, n}^{(0)})\text{cos}\alpha_{m,n}^{(0)}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Finally, the kernel matrix for ${\bm{Z}}^{(2)}$ can be obtained from Equation~\ref{eq:gcn_f} as,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:gcn_f1}
\Gamma^{(2)}_{m,n}({\bm{X}}_m, {\bm{X}}_n)
=\delta_{{\bm{W}}}\sum_{i}\sum_{j}{[(\hat{{\bm{A}}}_{m\cdot}^{T} \times \hat{{\bm{A}}}_{n\cdot})\odot {\bm{K}}({\bm{X}}^{(1)}, {\bm{X}}^{(1)}) ]_{i,j}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\section{Experimental Results}
In this section, we first introduce our experimental setup, including datasets and baseline methods.
Then, we evaluate our model for semi-supervised classification on citation and image datasets, and demonstrate that it outperforms the state-of-the-art methods under the same experimental settings. Finally, a detailed discussion of the results is presented.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\noindent
\textbf{Citation Datasets.}
For ease of comparison, we follow exactly the same experimental settings and data splits as indicated in~\cite{kipf2016semi} and~\cite{ng2018bayesian}. We conduct our experiments on three citation datasets~(Cora, Citeseer, and Pubmed~\cite{sen2008collective}), which are reported in Table~\ref{tb:ds}, where \emph{\#Nodes} denotes the total number of documents in the dataset, \emph{\#Edges} denotes the total number of connections between documents, \emph{\#Classes} denotes the number of classes that these documents can be classified into~(one document can only have one class), \emph{\#Features} indicates the length of the Bag-of-Words~(BOW) feature vector for each document, \emph{\#Train} denotes the number of labeled nodes per class that are selected as training data, and \emph{\#Validation} and \emph{\#Test} denote the total number of validation and testing nodes, respectively. From the column \emph{Label Rate}, we can observe that the training label rate can be as low as 0.3\% in Pubmed, which makes the task challenge.
\begin{table*}[tp]
\caption{Dataset Descriptions}
\label{tb:ds}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\clineB{1-9}{2.5}
Dataset & \#Nodes & \#Edges & \#Classes & \#Features & \#Train & \#Validation &\#Test & Label Rate \\ \hline
Citeseer & 3,327 & 4,732 & 6 & 3,703 & 20/class & 500 & 1000 & 0.036\\
Cora & 2,708 & 5,429 & 7 & 1,433 & 20/class & 500 & 1000 & 0.052 \\
Pubmed & 19,717 & 44,338 & 3 & 500 & 20/class & 500 & 1000 & 0.003 \\ \hline
MNIST & 10,000 & 65,403 & 10 & 128 & 100/class & 1000 & 8000 & 0.1 \\
SVHN & 10,000 & 68,844 & 10 & 128 & 100/class & 1000 & 8000 & 0.1 \\
CIFAR10 & 10,000 & 70,391 & 10 & 128 & 100/class & 1000 & 8000 & 0.1 \\ \clineB{1-9}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table*}%
\begin{figure*}[tp]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\linewidth}
%
\includegraphics[ width=\linewidth]{./figures/labeled_inputsmnist.png}
\caption{MNIST}
\label{fig:mnist_origin}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\linewidth}
\includegraphics[ width=\linewidth]{./figures/labeled_inputssvhn.png}
\caption{SVHN}
\label{fig:svhn_origin}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\linewidth}
\includegraphics[ width=\linewidth]{./figures/labeled_inputscifar10.png}
\caption{CIFAR10}
\label{fig:cifar10_origin}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\linewidth}
%
\includegraphics[trim={2cm 3cm 2cm 3cm},clip, width=\linewidth]{./figures/tsne_mnist.jpg}
\caption{MNIST}
\label{fig:mnist}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\linewidth}
\includegraphics[trim={2cm 3cm 2cm 3cm},clip, width=\linewidth]{./figures/tsne_svhn.jpg}
\caption{SVHN}
\label{fig:svhn}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.28\linewidth}
\includegraphics[trim={2cm 3cm 2cm 3cm},clip, width=\linewidth]{./figures/tsne_cifar10.jpg}
\caption{CIFAR10}
\label{fig:cifar10}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Data Representation and t-SNE of MNIST, SVHN, and CIFAR10}
\label{fig:tsne_image}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
\textbf{Image Datasets.} We further evaluate our proposed methods on three widely adopted image datasets: MNIST~\cite{deng2012mnist}, SVHN~\cite{netzer2011reading}, and CIFAR10~\cite{krizhevsky2010convolutional}.
We randomly sample 1000 images per class for each dataset. Since all three datasets contain 10 classes, we obtain a total of 10,000 images for each. Then, we randomly select 100 images per class for training, 100 for validation, and the remaining 800 for testing. Next, we adopt the model \emph{Conv-Large}, originally proposed in virtual adversarial training~(VAT)~\cite{vat}, to carry out feature extraction, where the final layer with 128 hidden units is output as the finalized feature in our paper. The original data representations and 2-D t-SNE visualizations~\cite{maaten2008visualizing} of features extracted for the three datasets are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tsne_image}. In Figures~\ref{fig:mnist_origin},~\ref{fig:svhn_origin}, and~\ref{fig:cifar10_origin}, each row contains 10 image samples that have the same label. As can be seen from these data representations, the classification task becomes more challenge from MNIST, to SVHN, to CIFAR10. This is consistent with what we find from the t-SNE representations, shown in Figures~\ref{fig:mnist},~\ref{fig:svhn}, and~\ref{fig:cifar10}.
To construct a graph of the selected images, we treat each image as a node, and compute the pair-wise Euclidean distances between two nodes based on the extracted features. We then select the top-$k$ nearest images as the neighbor nodes, i.e., $k$ edges are constructed between the selected image node and the top-$k$ images.
To ensure that the graph is undirected, we connect nearest neighbor nodes. In this paper, we select $k=10$. The statistics of the image datasets are reported in Table~\ref{tb:ds}.
\noindent
\textbf{Experimental Design.} In Section~\ref{sec:eg_gcgp}, we provide a detailed description for computing the kernel matrix in five steps, and also notice the most time consuming step~(Step 4). Therefore, we propose two models: 1) GPGC-\emph{small} which consists of steps 1, 2, 3, and 5; and 2) GPGC-\emph{big}, which includes all five steps.
Moreover, similar to GGP-X proposed in~\cite{ng2018bayesian}, our proposed method does not need validation data for early stopping, either. Thus, once the optimal hyper-parameters are determined from the validation dataset, we can include validation data into our model training, which can further improve our model's performance, which is denote as~\emph{GPGC-X}. %
Recall the initial kernel function $K_{\theta}({\bm{t}}_m,{\bm{t}}_n)$ mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:nngp}. In our experiments, we consider the following four kernel functions, Squared Exponential~($K_{SE}^{l} = \exp{\left(-\frac{({\bm{t}}_m - {\bm{t}}_n)^{2}}{2l^2}\right)}$), Inner Product~($K_{IP} = {\bm{t}}_m^{T} {\bm{t}}_n$), Arccosine~($K_{AC} = 1 - \frac{1}{\pi}\text{cos}^{-1}(\frac{{\bm{t}}_m^{T} {\bm{t}}_n}{||{\bm{t}}_m||\cdot||{\bm{t}}_n||})$), and Polynomial~($K_{PL} = (\frac{{\bm{t}}_m^{T} {\bm{t}}_n}{||{\bm{t}}_m||\cdot||{\bm{t}}_n||} + b)^a$), where $b$ and $l$ serve as hyper-parameters in the polynomial and squared exponential kernel, respectively.
Therefore, we have at most three hyper-parameters, $\delta_{{\bm{W}}}$, $l$ in $K_{SE}^{l}$, and $b$ in $K_{PL}^{b}$, which need to be tuned in all our experiments.
The best hyper-parameters are found by grid search, and are reported in Table~\ref{tb:hp}.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\caption{Best Hyper-parameters for GPGCs}
\label{tb:hp}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc}
\clineB{1-5}{2.5}
& Parameters & Cora & Citeseer & Pubmed \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{GPGC-\emph{small}} & $\delta_{{\bm{W}}} $ & 0.010 & 0.017 & 0.075 \\
& $K_\theta$ & $K_{AC}$ & $K_{IP}$ & $K_{PL}^{0.5}$ \\ \clineB{1-5}{2.5}
\multirow{2}{*}{GPGC-\emph{big}} & $\delta_{{\bm{W}}} $ & 0.137 & 0.082 & 0.35 \\
& $K_\theta$ & $K_{AC}$ & $K_{IP}$ & $K_{PL}^{0.5}$ \\ \clineB{1-5}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}
\noindent
\textbf{Baselines.} We compare our method against the same baseline methods as in~\cite{ng2018bayesian}; namely, graph Laplacian regularization based methods~(label propagation~(LP)~\cite{zhu2003semi}, semi-supervised embedding~(SemiEmb)~\cite{weston2012deep} and manifold regularization~(ManiReg)~\cite{belkin2006manifold}), embedding based models~(DeepWalk~\cite{perozzi2014deepwalk} and Planetoid~\cite{yang2016revisiting}), deep learning based methods~(DCNN~\cite{yang2016revisiting}, GCNs~\cite{kipf2016semi}, MoNet~\cite{monti2017geometric}, and \textbf{GAT}~\cite{gat}), and the Gaussian process based method~(GGP~\cite{ng2018bayesian}), where \textbf{GAT} is the current state-of-the-art method. Further, we also include the results of the iterative classification algorithms~(ICA~\cite{lu2003link}) from~\cite{kipf2016semi}.
\subsection{Results}
\subsubsection{Semi-Supervised Classification}
\label{sec:results}
\noindent
\textbf{Citation Networks. }The results for all the above-mentioned baseline methods and our two proposed models, GPGC-\emph{small} and GPGC-\emph{big}, are summarized in Table~\ref{tb:results}, where the best accuracy is highlighted in bold font. Since all the methods use the same data splits as indicated in~\cite{yang2016revisiting}, we cite the results of all the baseline methods from~\cite{ng2018bayesian}, which also reports results from~\cite{monti2017geometric} and~\cite{kipf2016semi}. We select the hyper-parameter with the best performance on the validation datasets, and then report the accuracy on the testing data in Table~\ref{tb:results}. From this table, we can observe that our GPGC-\emph{big} outperforms all other baseline methods on Cora and Pubmed, and is very competitive with GAT on Citeseer. %
We observe that GPGC-X and GGP-X significantly outperform other methods on all three datasets, which demonstrates the superiority of non-deep learning based methods on the task with few labeled samples.
We also observe that GPGC-X outperforms GGP-X on all three datasets. This indicates that deep learning does have a stronger inference ability than statistical methods.
\noindent
\textbf{Image Datasets. }From the results obtained for citation networks, we can observe that deep learning based methods perform better than non-deep learning ones. For ease of comparison on image datasets, we compare our methods with two deep learning models~(GCNs and GAT) and one GP-based model, GGP. Table~\ref{tb:image_results} summarizes the results of all these methods on MNIST, SVHN, and CIFAR10. We note that our proposed methods GPGC-\emph{small} and GPGC-\emph{big} obtain the best performance on all three datasets. We also observe that all methods achieve high accuracy on MNIST, with less variation between their results compared to those obtained on SVHN and CIFAR10. This is because, as can be seen from the t-SNE in Figure~\ref{fig:mnist}, all the classes in MNIST are distinctly clustered with little overlap. Thus, it is easy for algorithms to correctly classify them.
When the data becomes more difficult to distinguish, the overall performance of all the methods deteriorates.
Meanwhile, the improved classification accuracy of our methods over other models becomes more significant.
This, in turn, indicates that our methods can better capture spatial correlations.
\begin{table}[tb]
\caption{Results for Cora, Citeseer, and Pubmed}
\label{tb:results}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\clineB{1-4}{2.5}
Method & Cora & Citeseer & Pubmed \\ \hline
LP~\cite{zhu2003semi} & 68.0\% & 45.3\% & 63.0\% \\
SemiEmb~\cite{weston2012deep} & 59.0\% & 59.6\% & 71.1\% \\
ManiReg~\cite{belkin2006manifold} & 59.5\% & 60.1\% & 70.7\% \\
DeepWalk~\cite{perozzi2014deepwalk} & 67.2\% & 43.2\% & 65.3\% \\
Planetoid~\cite{yang2016revisiting} & 75.7\% & 64.7\% & 77.2\% \\
ICA~\cite{zhu2003semi} & 75.1\% & 69.1\% & 73.9\% \\
DCNN~\cite{yang2016revisiting} & 76.8\% & - & 73.0\% \\
GCNs~\cite{kipf2016semi} & 81.5\% & 70.3\% & 79.0\% \\
MoNet~\cite{monti2017geometric} & 81.7\% & - & 78.8\% \\
GGP~\cite{ng2018bayesian} & 80.9\% & 69.7\% & 77.1\% \\
\textbf{GAT}~\cite{gat} & 83.0\% & \textbf{72.5}\% & 79.0\% \\
GPGC-\emph{small}~(Ours) & 81.2\% & 72.0\% & 78.0\% \\
GPGC-\emph{big}~(Ours) & \textbf{83.6\%} & 72.1\% & \textbf{79.6\%} \\ \hline
GGP-X~\cite{ng2018bayesian} & 84.7\% & 75.6\% & 82.4\% \\
GPGC-X~(Ours) & \textbf{86.0\%} & \textbf{76.9}\% & \textbf{83.8\%} \\
\clineB{1-4}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}%
\begin{table}[tbp]
\caption{Results on MNIST, SVHN, and CIFAR10}
\label{tb:image_results}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\clineB{1-4}{2.5}
Method & MNIST & SVHN & CIFAR10 \\ \hline
GCNs~\cite{kipf2016semi} & 98.6\% & 88.6\% & 70.2\% \\
GAT~\cite{gat} & 98.7\% & 88.4\% & 64.9\% \\
GGP~\cite{ng2018bayesian} & 98.6\% & 83.9\% & 70.2\% \\
GLCN~\cite{jiang2019semi} & 94.3\% & 79.1\% & 66.7\% \\
GPGC-\emph{small}~(Ours) & 98.8\% & \textbf{89.1\%} & 70.9\% \\
GPGC-\emph{big}~(Ours) & \textbf{98.9\%} & 88.8\% & \textbf{72.1\%} \\ \hline
GGP-X~\cite{ng2018bayesian} & 98.6\% & 88.5\% & 70.1\% \\
GPGC-X~(Ours) & \textbf{98.9\%} & \textbf{89.1\%} & \textbf{72.6\%} \\ \clineB{1-4}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}%
\subsubsection{Running Time Efficiency}
\label{sect:runtime}
As described in Section~\ref{sec:eg_gcgp}, the computational complexity of our kernel matrix is the sum of its five steps. In Step 1, we first conduct a matrix multiplication between $\hat{{\bm{A}}}$ and ${\bm{X}}$, which incurs a computational cost of $\mathcal{O}(N|\epsilon|)$, where $|\epsilon|$ is the maximum degree of $\hat{{\bm{A}}}$. Then, computing the covariance matrix ${\bm{K}}(\hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)}, \hat{{\bm{X}}}^{(0)})$ costs $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$.
Next, the time complexity for Step 2 is $\mathcal{O}(1)$, which is the same for Step 5.
Following Equations~\ref{eq:acos_theta1} and~\ref{eq:acos_kernel1}, the total time complexity of Steps 2 and 3 is $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$. The most time consuming component comes from Step 4, which costs $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ per element, as indicated by Equation~\ref{eq:gcn_f1}. However, this computation can be significantly reduced to $\mathcal{O}({|\epsilon|}^2)$ due to the sparsity of $\hat{{\bm{A}}}$. Therefore, the total time complexity is $\mathcal{O}({N^2|\epsilon|}^2)$.
To demonstrate the time efficiency of our proposed method, we conduct experiments to compare the training and testing times of GCNs, GGP, GAT, and GPGC-\emph{big}. For fair comparison, all the methods are implemented in Python and run on a single CPU core without any GPUs. The results are reported in Table~\ref{Train_Test_time}. We can clearly observe that GPGC-\emph{big} has the lowest training time on graph datasets~(requiring around 1~s), e.g., Cora and Citeseer. Even on Pubmed, the training time of GPGC-\emph{big}~(46.2~s) is very close to that of GCNs~(43.8~s). Finally, it is also worth noting that GGP and GAT have much longer training and testing times compared to GCNs and GPGC-\emph{big}, which again further demonstrates the superiority of our proposed methods in terms of time efficiency.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Training/Testing Time Comparison~(in seconds)}
\label{Train_Test_time}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cccc}
\clineB{1-6}{2.5}
& Mode & GCNs & GGP & GAT & GPGC-\emph{big} \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Cora}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Train} & 4.1 & 99.1 & 862.4 & \textbf{1.0} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Test} & 0.01 & 3.51 & 0.35 & 0.04 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Citeseer} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Train} &5.9 & 1611.9 & 2073.0 & \textbf{1.4} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Test} &0.01 & 7.12 & 1.02 & 0.04 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Pubmed} &\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Train} & \textbf{43.8} & 2429.0 & 1721.1 & 46.2 \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Test} & 0.10 & 111.06 & 1.22 & 0.09 \\
\clineB{1-6}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Results for Different Units of GCNs}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}%
\clineB{1-5}{2.5}
$Num_{Hidden}$ & 16 & 64 & 256 & +$\infty$ \\ \hline
Cora & 81.5\% & 82.2\% & 83.0\% & \textbf{83.6\%} \\
Citeseer & 69.7\% & 70.9\% & 71.0\% & \textbf{72.1\%} \\
Pubmed & 79.0\% & 79.3\% & 79.3\% & \textbf{79.6\%} \\
\clineB{1-5}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\label{tabl:diff_num_layers}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Effect of GCN Units Number}
To demonstrate the superiority of infinitely wide GCNs, we conduct an experiment by increasing the number of hidden units. Table~\ref{tabl:diff_num_layers} reports the classification accuracy of GCNs with 16, 64, and 256 hidden units, on three citation datasets.
For better comparison, we show the results of GPGC-\emph{big} in column ``$+\infty$" in~Table~\ref{tabl:diff_num_layers}.
We consistently observe, across all three datasets, that the classification accuracy improves with an increasing number of hidden units.
We also observe that the best classifications results are always obtained at $+\infty$, which is consistent with the underlying trend discussed above.
\subsubsection{Effect of Different Amounts of Labeled Samples}
\begin{table}[h!t]
\caption{Results of Different Amounts of Labeled Samples}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc}%
\clineB{1-5}{2.5}
& Model & 200 & 600 & 1000 \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{MNIST} & GCNs
& 98.4\% & 98.6\% & 98.6\% \\
& GPGC-\emph{big}
& \textbf{98.5\%} & \textbf{98.8\%} & \textbf{98.9\%} \\ \clineB{2-5}{1.0}
& GPGC-X
& \textbf{98.6\%} & \textbf{98.8\%} & \textbf{99.0\%} \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{SVHN} & GCNs
& 87.7\% & 88.3\% & 88.6\% \\
& GPGC-\emph{big}
& \textbf{88.1\%} & \textbf{88.7\%} & \textbf{88.8\%} \\ \clineB{2-5}{1.0}
& GPGC-X
& \textbf{88.6\%} & \textbf{89.0\%} & \textbf{89.1\%} \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{CIFAR10} & GCNs
& 67.4\% & 69.4\% & 70.2\% \\
& GPGC-\emph{big}
& \textbf{67.3\%} & \textbf{70.4\%} & \textbf{72.1\%} \\ \clineB{2-5}{1.0}
& GPGC-X
& \textbf{72.1\%} & \textbf{72.1\%} & \textbf{72.6\%} \\
\clineB{1-5}{2.5}
\end{tabular}
\label{tabl:diff_num_labels}
\end{table}
In this experiment, we study the problem of semi-supervised classification with different amounts of labeled data. We consider identical experimental settings for GCNs, GPGC-\emph{big} and GPGP-X on the image datasets, MNIST, SVHN, and CIFAR10. We vary the number of labeled images as 200, 600, and 1000 for each dataset. As shown in Table~\ref{tabl:diff_num_labels}, the performance of GCNs, GPGC-\emph{big} and GPGP-X increases when more labeled data is available. This follows the intuition that, with more labeled data, the decision boundaries for different classes align better. Thus, the classification results are improved. When the number of labeled images goes from 600 to 1000, we note that the performance on MNIST and SVHN seems to stop increasing, while the improvements on CIFAR10 are still significant, i.e., GCNs boost the accuracy from 58.1\% to 58.6\%, and GPGC-\emph{big} improves it from 58.9\% to 60.0\%.
This suggests that the labeled data plays an important role when the data cannot be clustered distinctly, for example, the t-SNE for CIFAR10 in Figure~\ref{fig:cifar10}.
Further, we observe that GPGC-\emph{big} consistently achieves better performance than GCNs with the same number of labeled images, on all the datasets. This in turn indicates that GPGC-\emph{big}, which is two layers GCNs with an infinite number of hidden units, is always better than the one with a limited number.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have shown that a GCN with infinitely wide layers is equivalent to a GP. We also derived an analytical form of computing the covariance matrix when the activation function is restricted being~\emph{ReLU}. We then re-framed the graph-based semi-supervised classification into a multi-output GP regression problem, deriving the corresponding mean and covariance matrix for the GP posterior.
Extensive experiments demonstrated that the proposed GPGC-\emph{small} and GPGC-\emph{big} outperform all the other baselines by a clear margin.
By taking advantage of the sparsity of the adjacent matrix and the analytical form derivation, we noticed that our proposed method is easy to train, taking only a few seconds.
We also demonstrated that, with an increasing number of units in GCNs, the performance improves accordingly, which in turn shows the superiority of infinitely wide GCNs over finite ones.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
A Novikov algebra is a special case of an LSA - a left-symmetric algebra.
It was introduced in the study of Hamiltonian operators concerning integrability
of certain nonlinear partial differential equations \cite{GD}. It also appears in connection with Poisson
brackets of hydrodynamic type, operator Yang-Baxter equations \cite{BN} and vertex algebras \cite{FHL}.
In particular, Novikov algebras bijectively correspond to a special class of Lie conformal
algebras. This shows the importance of Novikov algebras in theoretical physics. On the other hand
these algebras arise also in differential geometry: since an LSA is a Lie-admissible algebra the commutator
defines a Lie algebra. The existence question asks which Lie algebras can arise that way.
This is a difficult question with a long history, see \cite{BU1}. It is related to affinely flat
manifolds and affine crystallographic groups. \\
We pose here the existence question for Novikov structures. This question is easier than the existence question
for LSA-structures. One reason is, that there are fewer Lie algebras admitting a Novikov
structure than Lie algebras admitting an LSA-structure. \\
In the first section we give some examples of Lie algebras admitting Novikov structures,
such as low-dimensional filiform Lie algebras. We show that a Lie algebra
admitting a Novikov structure has to be solvable. Then we give an example of a $2$-step
solvable Lie algebra not admitting any Novikov structure.
In the second section we construct Novikov structures via classical $r$-matrices.
The study of classical r-matrices was initiated in \cite{STS}. They arise also in the study
of differential Lie algebras and Poisson brackets.
In the third section we lift Novikov structures on an abelian Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ and on a
Lie algebra $\mathfrak{b}$ to certain extensions of $\mathfrak{b}$ by $\mathfrak{a}$. This will be applied to prove the existence
of affine and Novikov structures on several classes of solvable and nilpotent Lie algebras.
For the proofs of some of the results we refer to our paper \cite{DBU}.
\section{Affine and Novikov structures}
An algebra $(A,\cdot)$ over $k$ with product $(x,y) \mapsto x\cdot y$
is called {\it left-symmetric algebra (LSA)}, if the product is
left-symmetric, i.e., if the identity
\begin{equation*}
x\cdot (y\cdot z)-(x\cdot y)\cdot z= y\cdot (x\cdot z)-(y\cdot x)\cdot z
\end{equation*}
is satisfied for all $x,y,z \in A$. The algebra is called {\it Novikov}, if
in addition
\begin{equation*}
(x\cdot y)\cdot z=(x\cdot z)\cdot y
\end{equation*}
is satisfied. We will always assume here that $k$ is a field of characteristic zero.
Denote by $L(x), R(x)$ the right respectively left multiplication operator in
the algebra $(A,\cdot)$. Then an LSA is a Novikov algebra if the right
multiplications commute:
\begin{align*}
[R(x),R(y)] & = 0.
\end{align*}
It is well known that LSAs are Lie-admissible algebras: the commutator
defines a Lie bracket. The associated Lie algebra then is said to admit
a left-symmetric structure, or affine structure.
\begin{defi}\label{affine}
An {\it affine structure} on a Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{g}$ over $k$ is a left-symmetric product $\mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g} \rightarrow \mathfrak{g}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{lsa2}
[x,y]=x\cdot y -y\cdot x
\end{equation}
for all $x,y,z \in \mathfrak{g}$.
If the product is Novikov, we say that $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a {\it Novikov structure}.
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
An affine structure on a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ corresponds to a left-invariant
affine structure on a connected, simply connected Lie group $G$ with Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{g}$. Such structures play an important role for affine crystallographic groups
and affine manifolds. In general, a Lie algebra need not admit an affine structure.
One may even find nilpotent Lie algebras which do not admit an affine structure, see \cite{BEN}, \cite{BU1}.
On the other hand there are many classes of solvable and nilpotent Lie algebras which do
admit an affine structure: every positively graded Lie algebra and every $2$ and $3$-step
nilpotent Lie algebra admits an affine structure, see Proposition $\ref{scheuneman}$.
\end{rem}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra. Denote the terms of the commutator series by
$\mathfrak{g}^{(1)}=\mathfrak{g}$, $\mathfrak{g}^{(i+1)}=[\mathfrak{g}^{(i)},\mathfrak{g}^{(i)}]$, and the terms of the lower central series
by $\mathfrak{g}^1=\mathfrak{g}$, $\mathfrak{g}^{i+1}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}^{i}]$.
A Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is called $p$-step solvable if $\mathfrak{g}^{(p+1)}=0$. It is called $p$-step nilpotent, if $\mathfrak{g}^{p+1}=0$.
A filiform nilpotent Lie algebra is a $p$-step nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension $n$ with $p=n-1$. \\[0.5cm]
In a Novikov algebra hold Jacobi-like identities:
\begin{lem}
Let $(A,\cdot)$ be a Novikov algebra. Then the following two identities hold for
all $x,y,z \in A$:
\begin{align*}
[x,y]\cdot z + [y,z]\cdot x + [z,x]\cdot y & = 0, \\
x \cdot [y,z] + y\cdot [z,x] + z\cdot [x,y] & = 0. \\
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The first identity holds because we have
\begin{align*}
[x,y]\cdot z + [y,z]\cdot x + [z,x]\cdot y & = (x\cdot y-y\cdot x)\cdot z+(y\cdot z-z\cdot y)\cdot x
+(z\cdot x-x\cdot z)\cdot y\\
& = (x\cdot y)\cdot z + (y\cdot z)\cdot x + (z\cdot x)\cdot y \\
& - (x\cdot z)\cdot y + (y\cdot x)\cdot z + (z\cdot y)\cdot x \\
& = 0.
\end{align*}
The second identity follows similarly.
\end{proof}
The following result gives a necessary condition for the existence of Novikov structures.
\begin{prop}
Any finite-dimensional Lie algebra admitting a Novikov structure is solvable.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Novikov structure given by
$(x,y)\mapsto x\cdot y$. Without loss of generality $k$ is algebraically closed.
Denote by $R(x)$ the right multiplication in the Novikov algebra $A$, i.e., $R(x)(y)=y\cdot x$.
The algebra $A$ is called right-nilpotent if $R_A=\{R(x) \mid x\in A \}$ satisfies
$R_A^n=0$ for some $n\ge 1$. Let $I,J$ be two right-nilpotent ideals
in $A$. Since $[R(x),R(y)]=0$ the sum $I+J$ is also a right-nilpotent
ideal. Since $A$ is finite-dimensional there exists a largest right-nilpotent
ideal of $A$, denoted by $N(A)$. Now $N(A)$ is a complete left-symmetric
algebra since its right multiplications are nilpotent.
It is known that the Lie algebra of a complete LSA is solvable, see \cite{SEG}.
Hence the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}$ of $N(A)$ is solvable.
On the other hand $A/N(A)$ is a direct sum of fields.
This was proved in \cite{ZEL}. It follows that the Lie algebra of $A/N(A)$ is abelian.
Hence $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}$ is abelian, and $\mathfrak{h}$ is solvable. It follows that $\mathfrak{g}$ is solvable.
\end{proof}
Conversely, a solvable Lie algebra need not admit a Novikov structure in general, as we will
see in proposition $\ref{2.7}$.
\begin{prop}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a finite-dimensional two-step nilpotent Lie algebra.
Then $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Novikov structure.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is well known that for $x,y\in \mathfrak{g}$ the formula $x\cdot y=\frac{1}{2}[x,y]$
defines a left-symmetric structure on $\mathfrak{g}$. It satisfies $x\cdot(y\cdot z)=0$
for all $x,y,z\in \mathfrak{g}$. Hence the product is also Novikov.
\end{proof}
Here is an example of a $2$-step solvable Lie algebra without a Novikov structure.
\begin{prop}\label{2.7}
The following $2$-step solvable Lie algebra does not admit any Novikov structure:
let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the free $4$-step nilpotent Lie algebra on $2$ generators $x_1$
and $x_2$. Let $(x_1,\ldots,x_8)$ be a basis and the Lie brackets as follows:
\begin{align*}
x_3 & = [x_1,x_2] \\
x_4 & = [x_1,[x_1,x_2]] = [x_1, x_3]\\
x_5 & = [x_2,[x_1,x_2]] = [x_2,x_3] \\
x_6 & = [x_1,[x_1,[x_1,x_2]]] = [x_1, x_4] \\
x_7 & = [x_2,[x_1,[x_1,x_2]]] = [x_2,x_4] \\
& = [x_1,[x_2,[x_1,x_2]]] = [x_1, x_5] \\
x_8 & = [x_2,[x_2,[x_1,x_2]]] = [x_2,x_5]
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Novikov product with left multiplications $L(x)$. Then
the right multiplications satisfy $R(x)= L(x)-\mathop{\rm ad} (x)$.
Suppose the operators are given by $L(x_k)=(x_{ij}^k)_{i,j}$ for $k=1,\ldots , 8$, with unknowns
$x_{ij}^k$. The operators $L(x)$ must satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{align*}
[L(x),L(y)] & = L([x,y]), \\
L([x,y])+\mathop{\rm ad}([x,y])& -[\mathop{\rm ad}(x),L(y)]-[L(x),\mathop{\rm ad}(y)] \\
& = [L(x)-\mathop{\rm ad} x, L(y)-\mathop{\rm ad} y] \\
& = [R(x),R(y)] \\
& = 0
\end{align*}
for all $x,y\in \mathfrak{g}$. These conditions are equivalent to a system of polynomial equations in the
variables $x_{ij}^k$. In general, it is quite hard to solve such a system. But in our case, the condition
$L([x,y])+\mathop{\rm ad}([x,y]-[\mathop{\rm ad}(x),L(y)]-[L(x),\mathop{\rm ad}(y)]=0$ yields {\it linear} equations in the entries of
the operators $L(x_k)$. They reduce the system of all equations to very few equations -- which are
contradictory. This can be verified by a simple computer calculation.
Note that $\mathfrak{g}$ admits an affine structure since it is positively graded.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{2.11}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra which is the direct vector space sum
$\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{a}\oplus \mathfrak{b}$. Let $(e_1,\ldots ,e_n)$ be a basis of $\mathfrak{a}$ and
$(f_1,\ldots ,f_m)$ be a basis of $\mathfrak{b}$. Suppose that
$[\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{a}]\subseteq \mathfrak{a}$, $[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{b}]\subseteq \mathfrak{b}$, $[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{a}]] =0$ and
$[\mathfrak{g},[\mathfrak{b},\mathfrak{b}]] =0$. Then we obtain a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ by
\begin{align*}
e_i\cdot e_j & = \frac{1}{2}[e_i,e_j],\\
e_i\cdot f_j & = [e_i,f_j],\\
f_i\cdot e_j & = 0,\\
f_i\cdot f_j & = \frac{1}{2}[f_i,f_j].
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
The proof consists of a direct verification.
\begin{cor}\label{2.13}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra admitting a $1$-codimensional ideal
$\mathfrak{b}$ such that $[\mathfrak{b},\mathfrak{b}]\subseteq Z(\mathfrak{g})$. Then $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Novikov structure.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathfrak{a}=\langle e_1 \rangle$ and $\mathfrak{b}=\langle f_1,\ldots ,f_m \rangle$. Then Proposition $\ref{2.11}$ can
be applied.
\end{proof}
To give more examples of Novikov structures on Lie algebras we consider filiform Lie algebras of dimensions
$n\le 7$. We use the classification list of \cite{MAG}. Denote by $\mathfrak{g}_{I}(\alpha)$ with $\alpha\ne 0$ the
family of filiform Lie algebras defined by
\[
[x_1,x_i] = x_{i+1}; \; 2\le i\le 6;\quad
[x_2,x_3] =x_5; \; [x_2,x_4]=x_6; \; [x_2,x_5]=(1-\alpha)x_7;\; [x_3,x_4]=\alpha x_7.
\]
\begin{prop}
All complex filiform Lie algebras of dimension $n\le 7$ different from $\mathfrak{g}_{I}(\alpha)$ admit a Novikov structure.
An algebra $\mathfrak{g}_{I}(\alpha)$ admits a Novikov structure if and only if $\alpha=\frac{1}{10}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The filiform Lie algebras of dimension $n\le 5$ have an abelian commutator algebra.
Hence the claim follows by Corollary $\ref{2.13}$. All $6$-dimensional filiform algebras
can be written as\\
\begin{align*}
[x_1,x_i] & = x_{i+1}; \; 2\le i\le 5;\\
[x_2,x_3] & = \alpha_1 x_5+\alpha_2 x_6; \\
[x_2,x_4] & = \alpha_1 x_6; \\
[x_2,x_5] & = -\alpha_3 x_6; \\
[x_3,x_4] & = \alpha_3x_6;\\
\end{align*}
with parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3\in \mathbb{C}$. It is possible to construct a Novikov structure on these algebras
via $x_i.x_j =\lambda_{ij}[x_i,x_j]$ for $i\neq j$ with certain scalars $\lambda_{ij}$ relative to
our basis $(x_1,\ldots ,x_6)$. In general, of course, such a Novikov product need not exist, but
for the above filiform algebras we can find such a structure: \\
\begin{align*}
x_1\cdot x_i & = x_{i+1};\; 2\le i\le 5; & x_2\cdot x_5 & = -\frac{\alpha_3}{2}x_6; & x_4\cdot x_2 & = -\frac{\alpha_1}{3}x_6; \\
x_2\cdot x_2 & = -\frac{\alpha_1}{3}x_4; & x_3\cdot x_2 & = -\frac{2\alpha_1}{3}x_5- \frac{\alpha_2}{2}x_6; &
x_4\cdot x_3 & = -\frac{\alpha_3}{2}x_6;\\
x_2\cdot x_3 & = \frac{\alpha_1}{3}x_5+ \frac{\alpha_2}{2}x_6; & x_3\cdot x_3 & = -\frac{\alpha_1}{3}x_6; &
x_5\cdot x_2 & = \frac{\alpha_3}{2}x_6;\\
x_2\cdot x_4 & = \frac{2\alpha_1}{3}x_6; & x_3\cdot x_4 & = \frac{\alpha_3}{2}x_6.\\
\end{align*}
The other products are equal to zero. One may easily verify this by hand, or by computer.
Similarly one can write the $7$-dimensional filiform algebras as\\
\begin{align*}
[x_1,x_i] & = x_{i+1}; \; 2\le i\le 6;\\
[x_2,x_3] & = \alpha_1 x_5+\alpha_2 x_6+\alpha_3x_7; \\
[x_2,x_4] & = \alpha_1 x_6+\alpha_2x_7; \\
[x_2,x_5] & = (\alpha_1-\alpha_4) x_7; \\
[x_3,x_4] & = \alpha_4x_7;\\
\end{align*}
with parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4$. By computer calculations it is easy to
see that these algebras admit a Novikov structure if and only if
\[
\alpha_1\alpha_4(10\alpha_4-\alpha_1)=0.
\]
This condition can be always satisfied except for the algebra $\mathfrak{g}_{I}(\alpha)$, which is obtained by the
choice $\alpha_1=1,\alpha_2=0,\alpha_3=0$ and $\alpha_4=\alpha$.
We have a Novikov product on $\mathfrak{g}_{I}(\alpha)$, $\alpha\neq 0$, if and only if $\alpha=\frac{1}{10}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Classical r-matrices and Novikov structures}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra, $\mathfrak{u}$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-module and $T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ be a
linear map. Then we make $\mathfrak{u}$ into an algebra by defining a skew-symmetric product $[,]_T$ by
\begin{align*}
[u,v]_T & = T(u).v-T(v).u.
\end{align*}
\begin{defi}
The linear operator $T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ is called a {\it classical $r$-matrix}, or $T$-operator, if
$T$ is a homomorphism of algebras:
\begin{align}
T([u,v]_T) & = [T(u),T(v)].
\end{align}
This is equivalent to the fact, that $T$ satisfies the classical Yang-Baxter equation (CYBE)
\begin{align}\label{CYBE}
T(T(u).v-T(v).u)=[T(u),T(v)].
\end{align}
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
Let $\mathfrak{u}=\mathfrak{g}$ be the adjoint module. Then we obtain the original definition
of a classical $r$-matrix and the CYBE of \cite{STS}. The CYBE is given in that case by
\begin{align*}
T([T(x),y]+[x,T(y)]) & = [T(x),T(y)].
\end{align*}
\end{rem}
If $T$ is a solution of CYBE, we can use $T$ to construct affine structures on Lie algebras.
\begin{thm}\label{3.3}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra, $\mathfrak{u}$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-module and $T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ be a
linear map satisfying the CYBE. Then the product
\begin{align}\label{r7}
u\kringel v & = T(u).v
\end{align}
is left-symmetric. Hence $\mathfrak{u}_T=(\mathfrak{u},[\, , \, ]_T)$ is a Lie algebra.
Then $\mathfrak{u}_T$ admits an affine structure, and $T\colon \mathfrak{u}_T\ra \mathfrak{g}$
is a Lie algebra homomorphism.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We will show that the above product is left-symmetric. Then the commutator
\[
u\kringel v-v\kringel u = T(u).v-T(v).u =[u,v]_T
\]
automatically is a Lie bracket.
Let $u,v,w\in \mathfrak{u}$. We have
\begin{align*}
(u,v,w) & = (u\kringel v)\kringel w-u\kringel (v\kringel w) = T(T(u).v).w-T(u).(T(v).w) \\
(v,u,w) & = (v \kringel u)\kringel w-v\kringel (u\kringel w) = T(T(v).u).w-T(v).(T(u).w).
\end{align*}
Using the fact that $\mathfrak{u}$ is a $\mathfrak{g}$-module and \eqref{CYBE} we obtain
\begin{align*}
(u,v,w)-(v,u,w) & = T(T(u).v-T(v).u).w - (T(u).T(v)-T(v).T(u)).w\\
& = (T(T(u).v-T(v).u)-[T(u),T(v)]).w \\
& = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Suppose that $T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ satisfies the CYBE and the condition
\begin{align}\label{novbed}
T(T(u).v).w & = T(T(u).w).v
\end{align}
for all $u,v,w\in \mathfrak{u}$. Then the product \eqref{r7} defines a Novikov structure on
$\mathfrak{u}_T$.
\end{cor}
\begin{ex}
Let $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}_2(\mathbb{C})$ with $[x,y]=h$, $[x,h]=-2x$, $[y,h]=2y$
and $\mathfrak{u}=\mathfrak{g}$ be the adjoint module. Then
\[
T=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\]
defines a Novikov structure on the solvable
Lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}_{T} \cong \mathfrak{r}_{3,-1}(\mathbb{C})$.
\end{ex}
In fact, the Lie brackets of $\mathfrak{u}_{T}$ are given by
\begin{align*}
[x,h]_{T} & = -2x \\
[y,h]_{T} & = 2y.
\end{align*}
\begin{ex}\label{3.6}
Let $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}_2(\mathbb{C})$ and $\mathfrak{u}$ be the natural $\mathfrak{g}$-module
with basis $(v_0,v_1)$, i.e., with
\begin{align*}
x.v_0 & = 0,\quad y.v_0=v_1, \quad h.v_0=v_0 \\
x.v_1 & = v_0 \quad y.v_1 = 0,\quad h.v_1=-v_1
\end{align*}
Then, for all $c_1,c_2 \in \mathbb{C}$,
\[
T=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
c_2 & c_1 \\
c_1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\]
defines a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{u}_{T}$.
\end{ex}
We have $T(v_0)= c_2y + c_1h$ and $T(v_1) = c_1y$, so that
\begin{align*}
[v_0,v_1]_{T} & = T(v_0).v_1-T(v_1).v_0 = -2c_1v_1.
\end{align*}
Hence we have $\mathfrak{u}_{T}\cong \mathbb{C}^2$ for $c_1=0$ and
$\mathfrak{u}_{T}\cong \mathfrak{r}_2(\mathbb{C})$ otherwise.
\begin{prop}
Let $\phi\colon \mathfrak{u}'\ra \mathfrak{u}$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-module homomorphism. If
$T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ satisfies the CYBE then so does $T^{\prime}\colon \mathfrak{u}'\ra \mathfrak{g}$,
where $T'=T\phi$. Moreover $\phi$ induces a Lie algebra homomorphism $\overline{\phi}\colon \mathfrak{u}'_{T^{\prime}}\ra \mathfrak{u}_{T}$.
In particular, if $\phi$ is a module isomorphism, $\mathfrak{u}'_{T^{\prime}}\cong \mathfrak{u}_{T}$ as Lie algebras.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have $\phi(x.u)=x.\phi(u)$ for $x\in \mathfrak{g}$ and $u\in \mathfrak{u}'$.
Since $T$ satisfies CYBE it follows
\begin{align*}
T^{\prime} (T^{\prime} (u).v-T^{\prime}(v).u) & = T\phi (T(\phi(u)).v-T(\phi(v)).u) \\
& = T(T(\phi(u)).\phi(v)-T(\phi(v)).\phi(u)) \\
& = [T(\phi(u)),T(\phi(v))] \\
& = [T^{\prime} (u), T^{\prime} (v)].
\end{align*}
In other words, $T^{\prime}$ also satisfies CYBE. Hence $(\mathfrak{u},[\, , \, ]_T)$ and $(\mathfrak{u}',[\, , \, ]_{T^{\prime}})$
are Lie algebras, and
\begin{align*}
\phi([u,v]_{T^{\prime}}) & = \phi(T\phi(u).v-T\phi(v).u) \\
& = T\phi(u).\phi(v)-T\phi(v).\phi(u) \\
& = [\phi(u),\phi(v)]_T.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Let $\mathfrak{h}$ be a Lie algebra and $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{u},T)$ be a triple
consisting of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, a $\mathfrak{g}$-module $\mathfrak{u}$ and a linear map
$T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ satisfying the CYBE. We call $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{u},T)$ a {\it Yang-Baxter-triple} for $\mathfrak{h}$,
if $\mathfrak{h} \cong \mathfrak{u}_T$ by Theorem $\ref{3.3}$. The question is, for which Lie algebras
$\mathfrak{h}$ exists a Yang-Baxter-triple. Let $A$ be a given LSA with underlying Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.
The left-multiplication in $A$ defines a $\mathfrak{g}$-module $\mathfrak{g}_L$. Let $\id\colon \mathfrak{g}_L\ra \mathfrak{g}$ be the
the identity map. Then $T=\id$ satisfies the CYBE:
\begin{align*}
\id(\id (x).y-\id(y).x ) & = x.y-y.x =[x,y]=[\id(x),\id(y)].
\end{align*}
Hence $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}_L,\id)$ is a Yang-Baxter-triple for $\mathfrak{g}$, i.e., any affine structure on a Lie algebra
arises from a Yang-Baxter triple.
The following proposition shows how to construct Yang-Baxter-triples in certain cases.
\begin{prop}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie algebra with basis $(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)$, $\mathfrak{u}$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-module with basis
$(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$. Fix $\ell,k\in \{ 1,\ldots ,m \}$ to define a linear map
$T\colon \mathfrak{u}\ra \mathfrak{g}$ by
\begin{align*}
T(u_i)& =
\begin{cases}
x_k, & \text{if $i=\ell$},\\
0 , & \text{if $i\neq \ell$}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Assume that $T(x_k.u_j) = 0 \text{ for all } j=1,\ldots ,m$. Then $T$ satisfies \eqref{CYBE} and \eqref{novbed},
and hence defines a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{u}_T$ by $u_i\kringel u_j = T(u_i).u_j$. The Lie bracket on
$\mathfrak{u}_T$ is given by
\begin{align*}
[u_i, u_j]_T & =
\begin{cases}
x_k.u_j, & \text{if $i=\ell, j\neq \ell$},\\
-x_k.u_i, & \text{if $i\neq \ell, j=\ell$},\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have to verify the following two conditions:
\begin{align*}
T(T(u_i).u_j-T(u_j).u_i) & = [T(u_i),T(u_j)], \\
T(T(u_i).u_j).u_r & = T(T(u_i).u_r).u_j.
\end{align*}
For the first identity, suppose that $j\neq \ell$. Then $T(u_j)=0$. Since $T(u_i)=x_k$ for $i=\ell$,
$T(u_i)=0$ for $i\neq \ell$ and $T(x_k.u_j)=0$ by assumption, we have
$T(T(u_i).u_j)=0$, and the claim follows. Now suppose that
$j=\ell$. We have to show that $T(T(u_i).u_{\ell})=[T(u_i),x_k]$. For $i=\ell$ both sides are equal to zero.
If $i\neq \ell$, then $T(u_i)=0$ and the equation reduces to $T(-x_k.u_i)=0$, which is true by assumption.\\
To show the second identity, assume that $i=\ell$. Then both sides are equal to zero. The other case,
$i\neq \ell$ is also clear.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}
Let $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}_2(\mathbb{C})$ and $\mathfrak{u}=V(2)$ be the natural module, see example $\ref{3.6}$.
We change the notation according to the above proposition:
let $(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(x,y,h)$ be the basis of $\mathfrak{g}$ and $(u_1,u_2)$ be the basis of $\mathfrak{u}$.
Fix $\ell=2, k=1$, i.e., $T(u_1)=0$ and $T(u_2)=x_1$.
Then $T(x_k.u_j)=T(x_1.u_j)=0$ for $j=1,2$, and
\[
T=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\]
defines a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{u}_{T}\cong \mathbb{C}^2$.
\end{ex}
We want to mention also the following well known construction, see \cite{DOG}.
\begin{prop}\label{3.10}
Let $(A,.)$ be an associative, commutative algebra and $D$ a derivation of $A$, i.e.,
satisfying $D(x.y)=D(x).y + x.D(y)$. Then the product $x\kringel y=x.D(y)$ is Novikov.
In particular, it defines a Novikov structure on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ given by
\[
[x,y]:=x\kringel y-y\kringel x = x.D(y)-y.D(x).
\]
\end{prop}
Note that $D\in\mathop{\rm Der} (A)$ implies $D\in \mathop{\rm Der} (\mathfrak{g})$:
\begin{align*}
D([x,y]) & = D(x.D(y)-y.D(x)) \\
& = D(x).D(y)+x.D^2(y)-D(y).D(x)-y.D^2(y) \\
& = [D(x),y]+[x,D(y)].
\end{align*}
\begin{ex}
The free $3$-step nilpotent Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of dimension $5$ with brackets
$[x_1,x_2]=x_3$, $[x_1,x_3]=x_4$ and $[x_2,x_3]=x_5$ admits a Novikov structure by
proposition $\ref{3.10}$.
\end{ex}
Define the commutative and associative product for $A$ by
\begin{align*}
x_1.x_1 & = x_1+x_2, & x_2.x_1 & = x_2, & x_3.x_1 & = x_3,& x_4.x_1 & = x_4+ x_5/2, & x_5.x_1 & = x_5,\\
x_1.x_2 & = x_2, & x_2.x_2 & = 0,& x_3.x_2 & = 0, & x_4.x_2 & = x_5/2, & x_5.x_2 & = 0, \\
x_1.x_3 & = x_3, & x_2.x_3 & = 0,& x_3.x_3 & = -x_5/2, & x_4.x_3 & = 0,& x_5.x_3 & = 0, \\
x_1.x_4 & = x_4+x_5/2, & x_2.x_4 & = x_5/2, & x_3.x_4 & = 0,& x_4.x_4 & = 0,& x_5.x_4 & = 0, \\
x_1.x_5 & = x_5, & x_2.x_5 & = 0, & x_3.x_5 & = 0,& x_4.x_5 & = 0,& x_5.x_5 & = 0.
\end{align*}
Then choose $D\in \mathop{\rm Der} (A)$ as
\[
D=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Then $x_i.D(x_j)=x_i\kringel x_j$ is a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ with
$x_1\kringel x_1=x_3$, $x_1\kringel x_2=x_3$, $x_1\kringel x_3=x_4-x_5/2$, $x_2\kringel x_3=x_5/2$,
$x_3\kringel x_1=-x_5/2$, $x_3\kringel x_2=-x_5/2$.
\section{Construction of Novikov structures via extensions}
In the following we will consider Lie algebras $\mathfrak{g}$ which are an extension
of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{b}$ by an abelian Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}$. Hence we have a
short exact sequence of Lie algebras
\begin{equation*}
0 \rightarrow \mathfrak{a} \xrightarrow{\iota} \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\pi}
\mathfrak{b} \rightarrow 0
\end{equation*}
Since $\mathfrak{a}$ is abelian, there exists a natural $\mathfrak{b}$-module structure
on $\mathfrak{a}$. We denote the action of $\mathfrak{b}$ on $\mathfrak{a}$ by $(x,a)\mapsto \phi (x)a$,
where $\phi \colon \mathfrak{b} \ra \mathop{\rm End} (\mathfrak{a})$ is the corresponding Lie algebra
representation. We have
\begin{equation}
\phi([x,y])=\phi(x)\phi(y)-\phi(y)\phi(x)\label{5}
\end{equation}
for all $x,y \in \mathfrak{b}$.
Let $\Omega \in Z^2(\mathfrak{b},\mathfrak{a})$ be a $2$-cocycle. This means that
$\Omega : \mathfrak{b} \times \mathfrak{b} \ra \mathfrak{a}$ is a skew-symmetric bilinear map
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{6}
\phi(x)\Omega(y,z)-\phi(y)\Omega(x,z)+\phi(z)\Omega (x,y) =\Omega ([x,y],z)-\Omega ([x,z],y)+\Omega([y,z],x).
\end{equation}
We obtain a Lie bracket on $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{a} \times \mathfrak{b}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{lie-algebra}
[(a,x),(b,y)]:=(\phi (x)b-\phi(y)a+\Omega(x,y),[x,y])
\end{equation}
for $a,b\in \mathfrak{a}$ and $x,y\in \mathfrak{b}$.
As a special case we obtain the $2$-step solvable Lie algebras as extensions
of two abelian Lie algebras $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$.
Now we want to construct affine structures on Lie algebras $\mathfrak{g}$ which are
an extension of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{b}$ by an abelian Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}$.
Assume that $\mathfrak{g}=(\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{b},\phi,\Omega)$ is an extension with the above data.
Suppose that we have already an LSA-product $(a,b)\mapsto a\cdot b$ on
$\mathfrak{a}$ and an LSA-product $(x,y)\mapsto x\cdot y$ on $\mathfrak{b}$.
Since $\mathfrak{a}$ is abelian, the LSA-product on $\mathfrak{a}$ is commutative and
associative. Hence it defines also a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{a}$.
We want to lift these LSA-products to $\mathfrak{g}$. Consider
\begin{align*}
\omega & \colon \mathfrak{b} \times \mathfrak{b} \ra \mathfrak{a}\\
\phi_1,\, \phi_2 & \colon \mathfrak{b} \ra\mathop{\rm End} (\mathfrak{a})
\end{align*}
where $\omega$ is a bilinear map and
$\phi_1,\, \phi_2$ are Lie algebra representations.
We will define a bilinear product $\mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g} \ra \mathfrak{g}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{produkt}
(a,x)\kringel (b,y):=(a\cdot b+\phi_1(y)a+\phi_2 (x)b+\omega(x,y),x\cdot y)
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to check the conditions for this product to be left-symmetric
or Novikov, see \cite{DBU}. The result is:
\begin{prop}\label{phi12}
The above product defines a left-symmetric structure on $\mathfrak{g}$
if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{align}
\omega(x,y)-\omega(y,x) & = \Omega(x,y) \label{8}\\
\phi_2(x)-\phi_1(x) & = \phi(x)\label{9}\\
\phi_2(x)\omega(y,z)- \phi_2(y)\omega(x,z) - \phi_1(z)\Omega(x,y) & =
\omega(y,x\cdot z)-\omega (x,y\cdot z) +\omega ([x,y],z)\label{10}\\
a\cdot \omega(y,z)+\phi_1 (y\cdot z)a & = \phi_2(y)\phi_1(z)a-\phi_1(z)\phi(y)a \label{11} \\
a\cdot (\phi_1(z)b) & = b\cdot (\phi_1(z)a) \label{12}\\
\phi_2(y)(a\cdot c)- a\cdot (\phi_2(y)c) & = (\phi(y)a)\cdot c \label{13} \\
\Omega(x,y)\cdot c & =0\label{14}
\end{align}
for all $a,b,c \in \mathfrak{a}$ and $x,y,z \in \mathfrak{b}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{novikov}
The product \eqref{produkt} defines a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ if and
only if the conditions for a left-symmetric structure are satisfied, and
in addition the following conditions hold:
\begin{align}
\phi_1(z)\omega(x,y)-\phi_1(y)\omega(x,z) & = \omega(x\cdot z,y)-\omega(x\cdot y,z) \label{15}\\
\omega(x,y)\cdot c+\phi_2(x\cdot y)c & = \phi_1(y)\phi_2(x)c \label{16}\\
[\phi_1(x),\phi_1(y)] & = 0 \label{17}\\
(\phi_2(x)b)\cdot c & = (\phi_2(x)c)\cdot b \label{18}\\
\phi_1(z)(a\cdot b) & = (\phi_1(z)a)\cdot b \label{19}\\
(x\cdot y)\cdot z & = (x\cdot z)\cdot y \label{20}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
If $\mathfrak{b}$ is also abelian, then the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is two-step solvable.
We say that the LSA-products on $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ are trivial if
$a\cdot b=x\cdot y=0$ for all $a,b\in \mathfrak{a}$ and $x,y\in \mathfrak{b}$.
\begin{cor}\label{trivial}
Suppose that the LSA-products on $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ are trivial.
Hence $\mathfrak{b}$ is also abelian.
Then \eqref{produkt} defines a left-symmetric structure
on $\mathfrak{g}$ if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{align*}
\omega(x,y)-\omega(y,x) & = \Omega(x,y)\\
\phi_2(x)-\phi_1(x) & = \phi(x)\\
\phi_2(x)\omega(y,z)- \phi_2(y)\omega(x,z)& = \phi_1(z)\Omega(x,y)\\
[\phi_1(x),\phi_2(y)] & = \phi_1(x)\phi_1(y)
\end{align*}
It defines a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ if in addition
\begin{align*}
\phi_1(z)\omega(x,y) & = \phi_1(y)\omega(x,z)\\
\phi_1(x)\phi_2(y) & = 0\\
[\phi_1(x),\phi_1(y)] & = 0
\end{align*}
\end{cor}
In particular, if $\phi_1=0$, the product defines a Novikov
structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ if and only if it defines a left-symmetric structure
on $\mathfrak{g}$.
\begin{cor}
Assume that $\mathfrak{g}= \mathfrak{a} \rtimes_{\phi} \mathfrak{b}$ is a semidirect product of an abelian
Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ and a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{b}$ by a representation
$\phi\colon \mathfrak{b} \ra \mathop{\rm End}(\mathfrak{a})=\mathop{\rm Der}(\mathfrak{a})$. This yields a split exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \rightarrow \mathfrak{a} \xrightarrow{\iota} \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\pi}
\mathfrak{b} \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation*}
If $\mathfrak{b}$ admits an LSA-product then $\mathfrak{g}$ also admits an LSA-product.
If $\mathfrak{b}$ admits a Novikov product $(x,y)\mapsto x\cdot y$ such that
$\phi(x\cdot y)=0$ for all $x,y\in \mathfrak{b}$ then also $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Novikov product.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Because the short exact sequence is split, the $2$-cocycle $\Omega$ in the Lie bracket
of $\mathfrak{g}$ is trivial, i.e., $\Omega(x,y)=0$. Let $a\cdot b=0$ be the trivial product
on $\mathfrak{a}$ and take $\phi_1=0$, $\omega(x,y)=0$. Assume that $(x,y)\mapsto x\cdot y$ is
an LSA-product. Then all conditions of Proposition $\ref{phi12}$ are satisfied.
Hence \eqref{produkt} defines an LSA-product on $\mathfrak{g}$, given by
\[
(a,x)\kringel (b,y)=(\phi(x)b, x\cdot y)
\]
Assume that the product on $\mathfrak{b}$ is Novikov. Then the product on $\mathfrak{g}$ will be Novikov
if and only if the conditions of Proposition $\ref{novikov}$ are satisfied.
In this case, only condition \eqref{16} remains, which says $\phi(x\cdot y)=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}\label{ex-3.5}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be the $5$-dimensional Lie algebra with basis $(A,B,C,X,Y)$
and Lie brackets $[X,Y]=A,\; [X,A]=B,\; [Y,A]=C$. This is a free
$3$-step nilpotent Lie algebra. Hence it is $2$-step solvable.
The product \eqref{produkt} defines a Novikov structure on $\mathfrak{g}$ with
\begin{align*}
\phi_1(X) & = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0\\ -1/2 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\phi_1(Y)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\
\phi_2(X) & = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0\\ 1/2 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\phi_2(Y)= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\
\end{align*}
and $\omega (Y,X)=-A,\; \omega(X,X)= \omega(X,Y)= \omega(Y,Y)=0$, and trivial products on
$\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$.
\end{ex}
The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is given by
$\mathfrak{g}=(\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{b},\phi,\Omega)$ with $\mathfrak{a}=\s \{A,B,C\},\; \mathfrak{b}=\s \{X,Y\}$ abelian,
$\Omega(X,Y)=A$ and $\phi(X)A=B,\;\phi(Y)A=C $, i.e.,
$$
\phi(X) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad
\phi(Y) = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}
$$
It is easy to see that the conditions of corollary $\ref{trivial}$ are satisfied.
Note that any product $\phi_i(x)\phi_j(y)=0$ for $1\le i,j\le 2$ and
$x,y\in \mathfrak{b}$. We can write down the resulting Novikov structure on
$\mathfrak{g}$ explicitely. It is given by \eqref{produkt}; the non-zero
products are given by \\
\begin{align*}
A\kringel X & = -B/2, \quad X\kringel A = B/2, \quad Y\kringel A = C, \quad Y\kringel X = -A.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{prop}\label{iso}
Let $\mathfrak{g}=(\mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{b},\phi,\Omega)$ be a two-step solvable Lie algebra.
If there exists an $e\in \mathfrak{b}$ such that $\phi(e)\in\mathop{\rm End}(\mathfrak{a})$ is an
isomorphism, then $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a Novikov structure. In fact, in that
case \eqref{produkt} defines a Novikov product, where $\phi_1=0,
\, \phi_2=\phi$, the product on $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ is trivial, and
\begin{align*}
\omega(x,y) & = \phi(e)^{-1}\phi(x)\Omega(e,y)
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have to show that the conditions of corollary $\ref{trivial}$ are satisfied.
Applying $\phi(e)^{-1}$ to \eqref{6} with $z=e$ it follows
$\Omega(x,y)-\phi(e)^{-1}\phi(x)\Omega(e,y)+\phi(e)^{-1}\phi(y)\Omega(e,x)=0$. This
just means that $\Omega(x,y)=\omega(x,y)-\omega(y,x)$.
Furthermore we have
\begin{align*}
\phi(x)\omega(y,z)-\phi(y)\omega(x,z) & = \phi(x)\phi(e)^{-1}\phi(y)\Omega(e,z)-
\phi(y)\phi(e)^{-1}\phi(x)\Omega(e,z) \\
& = \phi(e)^{-1}(\phi(x)\phi(y)-\phi(y)\phi(x))\Omega(e,z)\\
& = 0
\end{align*}
Hence the product defines a left-symmetric structure.
Since $\phi_1=0$ the structure is also Novikov.
\end{proof}
We note that we can obtain by proposition $\ref{phi12}$
a new proof of Scheuneman's result (see \cite{SCH}):
\begin{prop}\label{scheuneman}
Any three-step nilpotent Lie algebra admits an LSA structure.
\end{prop}
More generally we have shown \cite{DBU}:
\begin{prop}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a 2-step solvable Lie algebra with
$\mathfrak{g}^r=\mathfrak{g}^4$ for all $r\ge 5$. Then $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a complete left symmetric structure.
\end{prop}
It is natural to ask whether any $3$-step nilpotent Lie algebra admits a
Novikov structure. We have shown in \cite{DBU} that all $3$-step nilpotent Lie algebras with
$2$ or $3$ generators admit a Novikov structure.
In general however, a Novikov structure may not exist on a $3$-step nilpotent Lie algebra.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Performing dexterous manipulation policies benefits from a robust estimate of the pose of the object held in-hand.
Despite recent advances in pose estimation and tracking using vision feedback~\cite{xiang2017posecnn, li2018deepim, deng2019poserbpf}, in-hand object pose tracking still presents a challenge due to significant occlusions.
As such, works that require in-hand object poses are currently limited to experiments where the object is mostly visible or rely on multiple cameras~\cite{andrychowicz2018learning}, or the hand-object transform is fixed or known~\cite{rajeswaran2017learning, zhu2018dexterous}.
To mitigate the issue of visual occlusions, previous works have studied object pose estimation via contacts or tactile feedback, often by using particle filters and knowledge of the object geometry and contact locations.
These techniques have been mostly applied to the static-grasp setting, where the object is stationary and in-grasp.
Extending these techniques to tracking object poses during in-hand manipulation is difficult, requiring modeling of complex object-hand contact dynamics.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{plots/teaser_hist.png}
\caption{The proposed in-hand object pose tracking framework. Robot controls are sent to an GPU-accelerated physics simulator that runs many robot simulations in parallel, each with different physics parameters and perturbed object poses. Costs based on observations, such as contact feedback from the real world and from the simulations, are passed to a sample-based derivative-free optimizer that periodically updates the states and parameters of all simulations to better match that of the real world. At any point in time, the pose of the simulation with the lowest cost is chosen as the current object pose estimate.}
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{figure}
To tackle the problem of in-hand object tracking during robot manipulation, we propose combining a GPU-accelerated, high-fidelity physics simulator~\cite{macklin2019non} as the forward dynamics model with a sample-based optimization framework to track object poses with contacts feedback (Figure~\ref{fig:teaser}).
First, we initialize a concurrent set of simulations with the initial states of the real robot and the initial pose of the real object, which may be obtained from a vision-based pose registration algorithm assuming the object is not in occlusion in the beginning.
The initial poses of the simulated objects are slightly perturbed and reflect the uncertainty of the vision-based pose registration algorithm.
The GPU-accelerated physics simulator runs many concurrent simulations in real-time on a single GPU.
As a given policy controls the real robot to approach, grasp, and manipulate the object in-hand, we run the same robot control commands on the simulated robots.
We collect observations of the real robot and the simulated robots, which include terms like the magnitude and direction of contacts on the robot hand's contact sensors.
Then, a sample-based optimization algorithm periodically updates the states and parameters of all simulations according to a cost function that captures how well the observations of each simulation matches with those of the real world.
In addition, the algorithm also updates simulation parameters, such as mass and friction, to further improve the simulations' dynamics models of the real world.
At any point in time, the object pose estimate is the pose of the robot-object system.
To evaluate the proposed algorithm, we collected a total of $24$ in-hand manipulation trajectories with $3$ different objects in simulation and in the real world.
For experiments, we use the Kuka IIWA7 arm with the 4-finger Wonik Robotics Allegro hand as the end-effector, with each finger outfitted with a SynTouch BioTac contact sensor.
Object manipulation trajectories are human demonstrations collected via a hand-tracking teleoperation system.
Because we have ground-truth object poses in simulation, we performed detailed ablation studies in simulation experiments to study the properties of the proposed algorithm.
For real-world experiments, we use a vision-based algorithm to obtain the object pose in the first and last frame of the collected trajectories, where the object is not in occlusion.
The pose in the first frame is used to initialize the simulations, and the pose in the last frame is used to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed contact-based algorithm.
\section{RELATED WORKS}
Prior works have studied identifying in-hand object-pose with vision only, usually by first segmenting out the robot or human hand in an image before performing pose estimation~\cite{choi2016using, kokic2019learning}.
However, vision-only approaches degrade in performance for larger occlusions.
Another approach is to use tactile feedback to aid object pose estimation.
Tactile perception can identify object properties such as materials and pose~\cite{luo2017robotic}, as well as provide feedback during object manipulation~\cite{chebotar2014learning, li2014localization, lee2019making}.
For the task of planar pushing where the object is visible, prior works have studied tracking object poses using particle filtering with contacts and vision feedback~\cite{koval2015pose}.
The authors of \cite{li2015comparative} compared a variety of dynamics models and particle filter techniques, and they found that adding noise to applied forces instead of the underlying dynamics yielded more accurate tracking results.
One work combined tactile feedback with a vision-based object tracker to track object trajectories during for planar pushing tasks~\cite{lambert2019joint}, and another applied incremental smoothing and mapping (iSAM) to combine global visual pose estimations with local contact pose readings~\cite{yu2018realtime}.
For in-hand object pose estimation with tactile feedback, many prior works have explored this problem in the ``static-grasp" context, where the robot hand grasps an object and localizes the object pose without moving.
These works can be separated into two groups: 1) using point contact locations and 2) using a full tactile map to extract local geometry information around the contacts.
To use contact location feedback for pose estimation, many methods use a variation of Bayesian or particle filtering~\cite{corcoran2010measurement, platt2011using, chalon2013online, zhang2013dynamic, javdani2013efficient, bimbo2015global, vezzani2017memory, alvarez2017tactile, ding2018hand}.
In~\cite{hebert2011fusion} the authors perform filtering jointly over visual features, hand joint positions, force-torque readings, and binary contact modes.
Similar techniques can be applied to pose estimation when the object is not held by the robot hand as well by using force probes~\cite{petrovskaya2011global, saund2017touch}.
To use tactile maps for pose estimation, earlier works used large, low-resolution tactile arrays to sense contacts in a grid~\cite{pezzementi2011object, chebotar2014learning}, while more recent works use high-resolution tactile sensors mounted on robot finger tips.
For example, the algorithm in~\cite{bimbo2016hand} searches for similar local patches on an object surface to localize the object with respect to the contact location, and the one in~\cite{izatt2017tracking} fuses GelSight data with a point cloud perceived by a depth sensor before performing pose estimation.
By contrast to the case of static-grasps, our work tackles the more challenging problem of tracking in-hand object pose during manipulation.
Prior works have also explored this context.
In~\cite{schmidt2015depth} the authors propose an algorithm that combines contact locations with Dense Articulated Real-time Tracking (DART)~\cite{schmidt2014dart}, a depth image-based object tracking system, while in~\cite{pfanne2018fusing} the algorithm fuses contact locations with color visual features, joint positions, and force-torque readings.
The former algorithm is sensitive to initialization of the object poses, especially when the object appears small in the depth image.
The latter work conducted experiments where the objects were mostly visible, so matching visual features alone would give reasonable pose estimates.
In addition, neither work explicitly models the dynamics of the robot-object interaction, which limits the type of manipulation tasks during which the object pose can be tracked.
To address these challenges, our approach does not assume access to robust visual features during manipulation.
Instead, it uses a physics simulator to model both the kinematics and the dynamics of the robot-object system.
\section{METHOD}
\subsection{Problem Statement}
We consider the problem of tracking the pose of an object held in-hand by a robot manipulator during object manipulation.
At some time $t$, let the object pose be $p_t \in SE(3)$.
We define a physics dynamics model $s_{t+1} = f(s_t, u_t, \theta)$, where $s_t$ is the state of the world (position and velocities of rigid bodies and of joint angles in articulated bodies), $u_t\in\mathbb{R}^M$ the robot controls (we use desired joint positions as the action space), and $\theta\in\mathbb{R}^N$ the fixed parameters of the simulation (\textit{e.g.}, mass and friction).
For a simulation model $f$ that exactly matches reality given the perfect initializations of $p_0$, $s_0$, and $\theta$, pose estimation requires only playing back the sequence of actions $u_t$ applied to the robot in the simulation.
However, given our imperfect forward model and noisy pose initializations, pose estimation using our method can be improved via observation feedback.
Let $D$ be the number of joints the robot has and $L$ the number of its contact sensors.
We define the observation vector $o_t$ as the concatenation of the joint position configuration of the robot $q_t \in \mathbb{R}^D$, the position and rotation of the robot's contact sensors $P_t^{(l)}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}, R_t^{(l)}\in SO(3)$ (located on the fingertips), the force vectors of the sensed contacts $c_t^{(l)} \in \mathbb{R}^3$, the unit vector in the direction of the translational slippage on the contact surface $d_t^{(l)} \in\mathbb{R}^2$, and the binary direction of the rotational slippage on the contact surface $r_t^{(l)}\in\{0,1\}$, where $l$ indexes into the $l$th contact sensor.
The general in-hand pose estimation problem is given the current and past observations $o_{1:t}$, robot controls $u_{1:t}$, and the initial pose $p_0$, find the most probable current object pose $p_t$.
\subsection{Proposed Approach}
In this work, we leverage a GPU-accelerated physics simulator as the forward dynamics model to concurrently simulate many robot-object environments to track the in-hand object pose, and we use derivative-free, sample-based optimizers to jointly tune the state and parameters of these simulations to improve tracking performance (Algorithm~\ref{alg:alg}).
First, we obtain an estimate of the initial object pose via a vision-based object pose estimator.
We assume this pose estimator can give reliable initial pose estimate $p_0$ when the robot is not in contact with the object and when the object is not occluded, \textit{i.e.}, before grasping.
Then, given the initial object pose estimate and robot configuration, we initialize $K$ concurrent simulations, and at every timestep we copy the real robot actions $u_t$ to all $K$ simulations.
Note that the object pose can change when the hand establishes contact, and this will be modeled by the simulator.
Let the object pose and the observation of the $i$th simulation be $p_t^{(i)}$ and $o_t^{(i)}$, the ground truth observations be $o_t^\text{(gt)}$.
Given a cost function $\mathcal{C}$, we say the current best pose estimate at time $t$ is the pose of the $i^*$th simulation, $p_t^{(i^*)}$, where the $i^*$th simulation is the one that incurs the lowest average cost across some past time window $T$:
\begin{align}
C_i &= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{\Delta t=0}^{T-1} \mathcal{C}(o_{(t-\Delta t)}^{(i)}, o_{(t-\Delta t)}^\text{(gt)})\\
i^* &= \argmin_{i} C_i
\end{align}
The costs are used to periodically update the simulations and their parameters.
This enables better alignment with the real robot-object system.
\subsection{Cost Function}
The desired cost function sufficiently correlates with object pose differences during in-hand object manipulation such that a lower cost corresponds to better pose estimations.
The cost function we use has the form of:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{C}(o_{(t-\Delta t)}^{(i)}, o_{(t-\Delta t)}^\text{(gt)})
= w_1 ||q_t^{(i)} - q_t^\text{(gt)}||_2 \\
&+ \sum_{l=1}^L (w_2 ||P_t^{(i, l)} - P_t^{(\text{gt}, l)}||_2 + w_3 |\Delta(R_t^{(i, l)}, R_t^{(\text{gt}, l)})|\\
&+ w_4 (1 - \alpha_{(i, l)})+ w_5 \alpha_{(i, l)}| \Delta M(c_t^{(i, l)}, c_t^{(\text{gt}, l)})| \\
&+ w_6 \alpha_{(i, l)}| \Delta\phi(c_t^{(i, l)}, c_t^{(\text{gt}, l)})|\\
&+ w_7 (1 - \beta_{(i, l)}) + w_8 \beta_{(i, l)}|\Delta\phi(d_t^{(i, l)}, d_t^{(\text{gt}, l)})|\\
&+ w_{9} (1 - \gamma_{(i, l)}) + w_{10} \gamma_{(i, l)}| r_t^{(i, l)} - r_t^{(\text{gt}, l)}|)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For the first term in the cost function, comparing $q_t$'s between the simulated and real-world robots is useful even if they share the same $u_t$, because $q_t$ can be different depending on the collision constraints imposed by the current pose of the object in contact with the robot hand, which might make it physically impossible for a joint to reach a commanded target angle.
A contact sensor is in contact if its force magnitude is greater than a threshold.
$\alpha_{(i, l)}$ is $1$ when the binary contact state of the $l$th contact sensor of the $i$th simulation agrees with that of the real contact sensor and $0$ otherwise.
Similarly, $\beta_{(i, l)}$ is $1$ when the $l$th contact sensor of the $i$th simulation agrees with the real contact sensor in whether or not the sensor is undergoing translational slippage, $0$ otherwise; $\gamma_{(i, l)}$ is the same but for rotational slippage.
For any two vectors, $\Delta M(\cdot,\cdot)$ gives the difference of their magnitudes, and $\Delta\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$ gives the angle between them.
For any two rotations $R_a$ and $R_b$, $\Delta(R_a, R_b)$ gives the angle of the axis-angle representation of $R_a^{-1} R_b$.
The weights of the cost terms, $w_i$s, are determined such that the corresponding mean magnitude of each term is roughly normalized to $1$.
\subsection{Addressing Uncertainty and the Sim-to-Real Gap}
There are two sources of uncertainty regarding object pose estimation via simulation: 1) the initial pose estimation $p_0$ from the vision-based pose estimator is noisy and 2) there is a mismatch between the simulated and real-world dynamics, partly caused by imperfect modeling and partly caused by the unknown real-world physics parameters $\theta$.
To address the first issue of initial pose uncertainty, 1) we perturb the initial pose estimations across the different simulations by sampling from a distribution centered around the vision-based estimated pose $p_0^{(i)} \sim \mathcal{N}(p_0, \Sigma_p)$, and 2) we increase the number of simulations $K$ ($K=40$ in our experiments).
If $K$ is arbitrarily large, then it is with high probability that the true initial pose will be sufficiently represented in the set of simulations, and a well-designed cost function will select the correct simulation with the correct pose.
To perform sampling over initial object poses, we sample the translation and rotation separately.
Translation is sampled from an isotropic normal distribution, while rotation is sampled by drawing zero-mean, isotropic tangent vectors in $so(3)$ and then applying it to the mean rotation~\cite{eade2013lie}.
To address the second issue of mismatch between simulated and real-world physics (the ``sim-to-real" gap), we propose using derivative-free, sample-based optimization algorithms to tune $\theta$ during pose tracking.
Specifically, after every $T$ time steps, we pass the average costs of all simulations during this window along with the simulation state and parameters to a given optimizer.
The optimizer determines the next set of simulations with their own updated parameters.
The simulations in the next set are sampled from simulations from the current set, with some added perturbations to the simulation parameters and object pose.
Such exploration maintains the diversity of the simulations, preventing them from getting stuck in sub-optimal simulation parameters or states due to noisy observations.
Although it is desirable to have $\theta^{(i^*)}$ converge to the true $\theta^{\text{(gt)}}$, this is not necessary to achieve good pose estimation.
In addition, due to differences in simulated and real-world dynamics, we do not expect the optimal $\theta$ for reducing $\mathcal{C}$ to be their corresponding real-world values.
To optimize the parameters of the $K$ simulations and make their simulated states more closely track that of the real world, we evaluate three derivative-free, sample-based optimizers:
\subsubsection{Weighted Resampling (WRS)}
WRS forms a probability mass function (PMF) over the existing simulation states $s^{(1:K)}$ and samples $K$ times with replacement from that distribution to form the next set of simulations.
To form the PMF, WRS applies softmax over the simulation costs:
\begin{equation}
P(i) = \frac{\exp{-\lambda(C_i - \min_j C_j)}}{\sum_{i=1}^K\exp{-\lambda(C_i - \min_j C_j)}}
\end{equation}
Here, $\lambda$ is a temperature hyperparameter that determines the sharpness of the distribution.
After resampling, we perform exploration on all simulations by perturbing 1) the simulation parameters $\theta$ and 2) the object pose.
Simulation parameters are perturbed by sampling from an isotropic normal distribution around the previous parameters: $\theta^{(i)}_{\tau + 1} \sim \mathcal{N}(\theta_\tau^{(i)}, \Sigma_\theta)$, where $\Sigma_\theta$ is predefined.
The subscript $\tau$ denotes the optimizer update step (after $\tau$ update steps the simulation has ran for a total of $\tau T$ time steps).
For object pose perturbation, adding noise to the pose directly while the object is held in-hand is impractical; most delta poses would result in mesh penetration and are hence invalid.
This issue was noted in \cite{duff2011physical, li2015comparative}, and like those works we perturb the objects by applying perturbation forces to the object in each simulation, with each force sampled from a zero-mean isotropic normal distribution $v^{(i)} \sim\mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma_v)$.
\subsubsection{Relative Entropy Policy Search (REPS)}
Unlike~\cite{chebotar2018closing}, which also uses REPS~\cite{peters2010relative} to tune simulation parameters to address the sim-to-real gap, we use a sample-based variant of REPS that computes weights for each simulation and samples from a distribution formed by the softmax of those weights.
Whereas WRS uses a fixed $\lambda$ parameter to shape the distribution, REPS solves for an adaptive temperature parameter $\eta$ that best improves the performance of the overall distribution subject to $\epsilon$, a constraint on the KL-divergence between the old and updated sample distributions.
To use REPS, we reformulate the costs as rewards by setting $R_i = \max_j C_j + \min_j C_j - C_i$.
We compute $\eta$ at every step by optimizing the dual function $g(\eta)$, and then we use $\eta$ to form the PMF:
\begin{align}
\eta^* &= \argmin_\eta \eta\epsilon + \eta\log\frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^K \exp{\frac{R_i}{\eta}} \\
P(i) &= \frac{\exp{\frac{R_i}{\eta^*}}}{\sum_{j=1}^K\exp{\frac{R_j}{\eta^*}}}
\end{align}
After resampling, every simulation is perturbed in the same manner as in WRS.
\subsubsection{Population-Based Optimization (PBO)}
Inspired by Population-Based Training (PBT)~\cite{jaderberg2017population}, this algorithm first ranks all simulations by their average costs and finds the top $K_\text{best}$ simulations with the lowest costs.
Then, it 1) exploits by replacing the remaining $K - K_\text{best}$ simulations with copies of the $K_\text{best}$ ones, sampled with replacement, and 2) explores by perturbing the $K_\text{best}$ simulations in the same way as WRS.
PBO effectively uses a shaped cost that depends only on the relative ordering of the simulation costs and not their magnitudes, potentially making the optimizer more robust to noisy costs.
\subsection{Hyperparameters}
Each of the proposed optimizers has a distribution-shaping hyperparameter used to balance exploration with exploitation.
There are 5 additional hyperparameters for our proposed framework:
\begin{itemize}
\item $T$ - the time steps the algorithm waits for every update.
\item $K$ - the number of concurrent simulations.
\item $\pmb{\theta_0}$ - the initial normal distribution over simulation parameters.
\item $\Sigma_p$ - the diagonal covariance matrix for the normal distribution over initial pose perturbation.
\item $\Sigma_\theta$ and $\Sigma_v$ - the diagonal covariances of normal distributions of perturbations used for exploration.
\end{itemize}
A larger $K$ is generally better than a smaller $K$, with the caveat that the resulting simulation is slower and may not be practical in application.
$\Sigma_p$ should be large enough such that the actual initial pose is well represented in the initial pose distribution. However, $K$ should be increased with a larger $\Sigma_p$ and the covariance of $\pmb{\theta_0}$ to ensure that the density of the samples is high enough to capture a wider distribution.
We note two additional trade-offs with these hyperparameters. One is the exploration-exploitation trade-off in the context of optimizing for $\theta$, and the other is the trade-off between optimizing for $\theta$ and for $p_t^{(i^*)}$.
Making $\Sigma_\theta$ or $\Sigma_v$ wider will increase the speed at which the set of simulation parameters ``move," and the optimizer will explore more than it exploits.
Increasing $T$ improves the optimization for $\theta$ as the optimizer has more samples to evaluate each simulation.
However, updating the simulation parameters too slowly might lead to drift in pose estimation if the least-cost simulation is sufficiently different from the real world, potentially leading to divergent behavior.
The worst-case divergent behavior occurs when force perturbation or some simulation parameters lead to an irrecoverable configuration, where the object falls out of the hand or brings the object into a pose such that small force perturbations cannot bring it back to the correct pose.
It is acceptable if a few samples become divergent.
Their costs will be high, so they will be discarded and replaced by ones that are not divergent during optimizer updates.
\floatstyle{spaceruled
\restylefloat{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\caption{Sample-Based Optimization for In-Hand Object Pose Tracking via Contact Feedback}
\label{alg:alg}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\REQUIRE $\mathcal{C}$, $T$, $K$, $s_0$, $p_0$, $\Sigma_p$, $\pmb{\theta_0}$, $\Sigma_\theta$, $\Sigma_v$, $opt
\STATE Initialize $K$ simulations with $s_0$, $p_0^{(i)}\sim \mathcal{N}(p_0, \Sigma_p)$, and $\theta_0\sim\pmb{\theta_0}$
\STATE Initialize index of current best pose estimate $i^* \leftarrow 0$
\WHILE {TRUE}
\FOR {$t \in\{1,\hdots,T\}$}
\STATE Obtain $u_t$ and $o_t^\text{(gt)}$ from real robot
\FOR {$i\in\{1,\hdots,K\}$}
\STATE Step simulation $s_{t+1}^{(i)} = f(s_t^{(i)}, u_t, \theta_\tau^{(i)})$
\STATE Obtain simulation observation $o_t^\text{(i)}$
\STATE Compute average cost across time window: \\
$C_i = \frac{1}{t}\sum_{\Delta t=0}^{t-1} \mathcal{C}(o_{t-\Delta t}^{(i)}, o_{t - \Delta t}^\text{(gt)})$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update index of best pose estimate:\\ $i^* \leftarrow \argmin_i C_i$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update simulations according to optimizer:\\
$s^{(1:K)}$, $\theta^{(1:K)}_{\tau+1} \leftarrow opt(s^{(1:K)}$, $\theta^{(1:K)}_\tau, C_{1:K}, \Sigma_\theta, \Sigma_v)$
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
There are connections between our approach and previous works that use particle filtering.
However, prior works were mostly applied in the static-grasp setting where the forward model of the particle filter is a constant model.
Instead, we track the object during manipulation and use a physics simulator as the forward model.
In addition to tracking the object pose, the proposed algorithm also identifies the context of the forward model by tuning the simulation parameters $\theta$, which are not affected by the forward or observation models.
We focus on optimizers based on discrete samples and not continuous distributions, such as the popular Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES)~\cite{hansen2003reducing}, because we cannot easily sample in-hand object poses from some distribution due to complicated mesh-penetration constraints imposed by contacts.
\section{EXPERIMENTS}
We evaluate the performance of our proposed approach with both simulation and the real-world experiments using an Allegro Hand mounted on a Kuka IIWA7 robot arm.
In-hand object manipulation trajectories are first collected with a hand-tracking teleoperation system, and we evaluate pose estimation errors by running our proposed algorithms offline against the collected trajectories.
These trajectories start and end with the object not in the hand and not in occlusion.
Because we have access to ground truth object poses in simulation experiments, we perform detailed ablation studies in simulation to study the effects of different hyperparameters on algorithm performance.
While we can compare pose estimation errors during the entire trajectory in simulation experiments, this is not possible in the real world.
For real-world experiments, we use PoseRBPF~\cite{deng2019poserbpf}, a recent RGB-D, particle-filter based pose estimation algorithm to obtain initial and final object poses.
We treat these initial and final object poses as ground truth and compare the final pose with the one predicted by our proposed algorithm.
We mount the 4-finger 16-DoF Allegro hand on the 7-Dof Kuka IIWA7 robot arm.
To obtain contact feedback in the real world, we attach SynTouch BioTac sensors to each of the finger tips.
While BioTac sensors does not explicitly give force or slippage information, past works have studied how to extract such information from the sensor's raw electrode readings to predict contact force~\cite{hang2016hierarchical, sundaralingam2018robust}, slip direction~\cite{abd2018direction}, and grasp stability~\cite{su2015force, chebotar2016bigs, veiga2018hand}.
For real-world experiments, we use the trained model from~\cite{sundaralingam2018robust} to estimate force vectors $c_t$, but currently we do not estimate slippage from the BioTac sensors, so the cost function in real-world experiments do not contain the slippage terms.
Simulations were conducted on a computer with an Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti GPU, Intel i7-8700K CPU, and 16GB of memory.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\vspace{5pt}
\includegraphics[width=.98\linewidth]{plots/s2s_opts.png}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Pose tracking error comparison across different optimizers for initial pose noise levels in all simulation experiments. The length of the black vertical lines denote $1$ standard deviation. Optimizer methods generally have lower mean and variance of ADD, but their relative ordering varies depends on the amount of initial pose noise. REPS and PBO achieve the best ADD performance in the medium noise case - $5.8$mm and $5.9$mm respectively.}
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{fig:s2s_opts}
\end{figure}
We use 3 objects from the Yale-Columbia-Berkeley (YCB) objects dataset (the spam can, foam brick, and toy banana), with models, textures, and point clouds obtained from the dataset published in~\cite{xiang2017posecnn}.
These objects were chosen because they fit the size of the Allegro hand and are light enough so that robust precision grasps can be formed (we emptied the spam can to reduce its weight).
For each object, in both simulation and real-world experiments, we give 2 demonstrations of 2 types of manipulation trajectories: 1) pick and place with finger-grasp and in-hand object rotation, and 2) the same but with finger tips breaking and re-establishing contact during the grasp (finger gaiting).
This gives a total of 24 trajectories for analysis for both simulation and real-world experiments.
In both trajectory types the object undergoes translational and rotational slippage from both inertial forces and push-contacts with the table.
Each trajectory lasts about a minute.
Given that we can run the pose estimation algorithm at about 30Hz, we obtain a total of about 2k frames per trajectory.
The teleoperation system is described in detail in a concurrent work under review.
The input to the system is a point cloud of the hand of the human demonstrator.
Then, a neural network based on PointNet++~\cite{qi2017pointnet++} maps the point cloud to an estimate of the hand's pose relative to the camera as well as the joint angles of the hand.
These estimates along with an articulated hand model~\cite{hasson19_obman} and the original point cloud are then given to DART, which performs tracking by refining upon the neural network estimates.
Finally, to perform kinematic retargetting, we solve an optimization problem that finds the Allegro hand joint angles that result in finger tip poses close to those of the human hand.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\vspace{2mm}
\centerline{
\hfill { \adjincludegraphics[width=0.235\linewidth,trim={0 0 {.5\width} 0},clip]{plots/s2s_explore_dist.png} }
\hfill { \adjincludegraphics[width=0.235\linewidth,trim={0 0 {.5\width} 0},clip]{plots/s2s_n_sims.png} }
\hfill { \adjincludegraphics[width=0.235\linewidth,trim={0 0 {.5\width} 0},clip]{plots/s2s_contacts.png} }
\hfill { \adjincludegraphics[width=0.235\linewidth,trim={0 0 {.5\width} 0},clip]{plots/s2s_slip.png} }
\hfill
}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Ablation studies in simulations across different initial pose noise levels. Exploring too little or too much (how wide the $\Sigma_\theta$ and $\Sigma_v$ are.) typically result in higher mean and variance of ADD. In all other experiments we use the ``med" level of exploration. Increasing the number of simulations tend to reduce mean and variance of ADD. Contacts feedback help reduce the mean and variance of ADD, especially as noise level increases. While using slip detection helps in the case of low and medium initial pose noise, the advantage disappears when the noise is high.}
\vspace{-15pt}
\label{fig:s2s_ablation}
\end{figure*}
In addition to our proposed optimizers (WRS, REPS, PBO), we also evaluate the following two baselines: Open Loop (OLP) and Identity (EYE).
OLP tracks the object pose with $1$ simulation.
EYE is initialized with a set of noisy initial poses and always picks the pose of the lowest-cost simulation, but it does not perform any resampling or optimizer updates.
Similar to previous works~\cite{xiang2017posecnn, li2018deepim, deng2019poserbpf}, we use Average Distance Deviation (ADD)~\cite{hinterstoisser2012model} as the evaluation metric.
ADD computes the average distance between corresponding points in the object point cloud situated at the ground truth pose and at the predicted pose.
Unlike~\cite{xiang2017posecnn, li2018deepim, deng2019poserbpf}, we do not use its symmetric variant, ADD-S, which does not penalize pose differences across object symmetries (\textit{e.g.} for poses of a sphere that share the same translation, any rotation difference gives $0$ error).
This is desirable for resolving visual ambiguities for pose registration but not for tracking.
\subsection{Simulation Experiments}
We use Isaac Gym~\footnote{\url{https://developer.nvidia.com/isaac-gym}}, a GPU-Accelerated robotics simulator~\cite{liang2018gpu}.
The robot is controlled via a joint-angle PD controller, and we tuned the controller's gains so that the joint angle step responses are similar to those of the real robot.
To speed up simulation, we simplify the collision meshes of the robot and objects.
This is done first by applying TetWild~\cite{Hu:2018:TMW:3197517.3201353} which gives a mesh with triangles that are more equilateral, then with Quadric Edge Collapse Decimation~\cite{LocalChapterEvents:ItalChap:ItalianChapConf2008:129-136}.
Each simulation generates at most $200$ contacts during manipulation, and we run $K=40$ simulations at $30$Hz.
We performed simulation experiments with varying amounts of initial pose noise.
Three levels were tested: ``Low" has a translation standard deviation of $1$mm and a rotation standard deviation of $0.01$ radians.
``Med" is $5$mm and $0.1$ radians, and ``High" is $10$mm $1$ radian.
See Figure~\ref{fig:s2s_opts} for a comparison of the optimizers on tracking in-hand object poses across all the simulation trajectories.
ADD increases as the initial pose error increases, and the mean ADD for the optimizer-based methods tends to be lower.
While EYE sometimes achieves comparable mean ADD with the optimizer methods, the latter ones generally have much smaller error variance and max error. This result is expected as the optimizers focus the distribution of simulations towards better performing ones over time.
In the medium noise case, REPS and PBO achieve the best ADD with a mean of $5.8$mm and $5.9$mm respectively.
See Figure~\ref{fig:s2s_ablation} for results of ablation studies in simulation performed over the hyperparameters governing exploration distance (how much simulations are perturbed), the number of parallel simulations, and whether or not contact and slip detection feedback is used in the cost function.
\subsection{Real-World Experiments}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{plots/r2s_optimizer.png}
\vspace{-20pt}
\caption{Real-world object pose tracking experiments across 3 objects. The adaptive optimizers generally perform better than the baselines, although all methods struggle on the banana. Due to the banana's long moment arm, precision grasps with the fingertips tend to be very unstable, and the banana undergoes significant rotational slippage or can slip out of hand in ways that are sensitive to initial conditions. The best ADD achieved with Foam is $14.1$mm by PBO, and with Spam is $12.2$mm by REPS.}
\vspace{-5pt}
\label{fig:r2s}
\end{figure}
We evaluate our algorithm on real-world trajectories similar to those collected in simulation.
We use PoseRBPF to register the object pose in the first and last frames of a trajectory.
The initial pose estimate is used to initialize the simulations, while the last one is used to evaluate the accuracy of our contacts-based pose tracking algorithm.
Unlike simulation experiments, the real-world experiments initialize the object pose by sampling from the distribution over object poses from PoseRBPF, so the initial pose samples correspond to the uncertainties of the vision-based pose estimation algorithm.
See Figure~\ref{fig:r2s} for real-world experiment results.
The ADDs are higher than those from simulation experiments.
This is due to both that the real-world dynamics is more dissimilar with simulations than are simulations with different parameters, and that real-world observations are noisier than those in simulations.
We observe that no optimizer is able to track the toy banana for the real-world data.
The object's long moment arm and low friction coefficient makes its slippage behavior difficult to model precisely.
This is a failure mode of our algorithm, where if all of the simulations become divergent (\textit{e.g.} the banana rotates in the wrong direction, or falls out of hand), then the algorithm cannot recover in subsequent optimizer updates.
The best ADD achieved with Foam is $14.1$mm by PBO, and with Spam is $12.2$mm by REPS.
\section{CONCLUSION}
We introduce a sample-based optimization algorithm for tracking in-hand object poses during manipulation via contact feedback and GPU-accelerated robotic simulation.
The parallel simulations concurrently maintains many beliefs about the real world and model object pose changes that are caused by complex contact dynamics.
The optimization algorithm tunes simulation parameters during object pose tracking to further improve tracking performance.
In future work, we plan to integrate contact sensing with vision-based pose tracking in-the-loop.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENT}
\scriptsize{
The authors thank Renato Gasoto, Miles Macaklin, Tony Scudiero, Jonathan Tremblay, Stan Birchfield, Qian Wan, and Mike Skolones for their help with GPU-accelerated robotic simulations, Xinke Deng and Arsalan Mousavian for PoseRBPF, and Balakumar Sundaralingam and Tucker Hermans for BioTac sensing.
This work is in part supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program Grant No. DGE 1745016 and the Office of Naval Research Grant No. N00014-18-1-2775.
}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEraisesectionheading{\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{C}{omplex} networks are a powerful tool for describing and studying the behavior of structural and dynamical aspects of complex systems~\cite{Ne03}. An important achievement in the study of complex networks is the discovery that various real-world systems from biology to social networks display some universal topological features, such as scale-free behavior~\cite{BaAl99} and small-world effect~\cite{WaSt98}. The former implies that the fraction of vertices with degree $d$ obeys a distribution of power-law form $P(d)\sim d^{-\gamma}$ with $2 < \gamma \leq 3$. The latter is characterized by small average distance (or diameter) and high clustering coefficient~\cite{WaSt98}. In addition to these two topological aspects, a lot of real networks are abundant in nontrivial patterns, such as $q$-cliques~\cite{Ts15} and many cycles at different scales~\cite{RoKiBoBe05,KlSt06}.
For example, spiking neuron populations form cliques in neural networks~\cite{GiPaCuIt15,ReNoScet17}, while coauthors of a paper constitute a clique in scientific collaboration networks~\cite{PaPeVa17}. These remarkable structural properties or patterns greatly affect combinatorial~\cite{ZhWu15,JiLiZh17}, structural~\cite{ChLu02} and dynamical~\cite{ChWaWaLeFa08,YiZhPa20} properties of networks, and lead to algorithmic efforts on finding nontrivial subgraphs, e.g., $q$-cliques~\cite{MiPaPeTsXu15,JaSe17}.
In order to capture or account for universal properties observed in practical networks, a lot of mechanisms, approaches, and models were developed in the community of network science~\cite{Ne03}. Currently, there are many important graph generation literature~\cite{ChZhFa04,ViLa05,VeVade16}, graph generators~\cite{BaMa06}, as well as packages~\cite{LoPoSuBaScPo13}, for example, NetwrokX\footnote{https://networkx.github.io/}. In recent years, cliques, also called simplicial complexes, have become very popular to model complex networks~\cite{MiPaPeTsXu15,PeBa18}. Since large real-world networks are usually made up of small pieces, for example, cliques~\cite{Ts15}, motifs~\cite{MiShItKaChAl02}, and communities~\cite{GiNe02}, graph products are an important and natural way for modelling real networks, which generate a large graph out of two or more smaller ones. An obvious advantage of graph operations is the allowance of tractable analysis on various properties of the resultant composite graphs. In the past years, various graph products have been exploited to mimic real complex networks, including Cartesian product~\cite{ImKl00}, corona product~\cite{LvYiZh15,QiLiZh18}, hierarchical product~\cite{BaCoDaFi09,BaDaFiMi09,BaCoDaFi16,QiYiZh18}, and Kronecker product~\cite{We62,LeFa07,MaXu07,LeChKlFaGh10,MaXu11}, and many more~\cite{PaNgBoKnFaRo11}.
Most current models based on graph operations either fail to reproduce serval properties of real networks or are hard to exactly analyze their spectral properties. For example, iterated corona product on complete graphs only yields small cycles~\cite{LvYiZh15,QiLiZh18}; while for most networks created by graph products, their spectra can be determined recursively at most. On the other hand, in many real networks~\cite{BeAbScJaKl18,SaCaDaLa18}, such as brain networks~\cite{GiPaCuIt15,ReNoScect17} and protein-protein interaction networks~\cite{WuOtBa03}, there exist higher-order nonpairwise relations between more than two nodes at a time. These higher-order interactions, also called simplicial interactions, play an important role in other structural and dynamical properties of networks, including percolation~\cite{BiZi18}, synchronization~\cite{SkAr19,MiToBi19}, disease spreading~\cite{LaPeBaLa19}, and voter~\cite{HoKu20}. Unfortunately, most models generated by graph products and generators cannot capture higher-order interactions, and how simplicial interactions affect random walk dynamics, i.e., mixing time~\cite{LePeWi08}, is still unknown.
From a network perspective, higher-order interactions can be described and modelled by hypergraphs~\cite{KlHaTh09,GhViCaNe09}. Here we model the higher-order interactions by simplicial complexes~\cite{Ha02} generated by a graph product. Although both simplicial complexes and hypergraphs can be applied for the modelling and analysis of realistic systems with higher-order interactions, they differ in some aspects. First, simplicial complexes have a geometric interpretation~\cite{DeVa19}. For example, they can be explained as the result of gluing nodes, edges, triangles, tetrahedra, etc. along their faces. This interpretation for simplicial complexes can be exploited to characterize the resulting network geometry, such as network curvatures~\cite{Ol09}. Moreover, a higher-order interaction described by hypergraphs do not require the presence of all low-order interactions.
In this paper, by literately applying edge corona product~\cite{HoYa10} first proposed by Haynes and Lawson~\cite{HaLa93,HaLa95} to complete graphs or $q$-cliques $\mathcal{K}_q$ with $q\geq 1$, we propose a mathematically tractable model for complex networks with various cycles at different scales. Since the resultant networks are composed of cliques of different sizes, we call these networks as \textit{simplical networks}. The networks can describe simplicial interactions, which have rich structural, spectral, and dynamical properties depending on the parameter $q$. Thus, they can be used to study the influence of simplicial interactions on various dynamics.
Specifically, we present an extensive and exact analysis of relevant topological properties for the simplical networks, including degree distribution, diameter, clustering coefficient, and distribution of clique sizes, which reproduce the common properties observed for real-life networks. We also determine exact expressions for all the eigenvalues and their multiplicities of the transition probability matrix and normalized Laplacian matrix. As applications, we further exploit the obtained eigenvalues to derive leading scaling for mixing time, as well as explicit expressions for average hitting time and the number of spanning trees. The proposed model allows for rigorous analysis of structural properties, as previous models generated by graph products. In contrast to previous models for which the eigenvalues for related matrices are given recursively at most, the eigenvalues of transition probability matrix for our model can be exactly determined. This advantage allows to study analytically even exactly related dynamical processes determined by one or several eigenvalues, for example, mixing time of random walks, which gives deep insight into behavior for mixing time in real-life networks.
\section{Network construction}
The network family proposed and studied here is constructed based on the edge corona product of graphs defined as follows~\cite{HoYa10,HaLa93,HaLa95}, which is a variant of the corona product first introduced by Frucht and Harary~\cite{FrHa70} of two graphs. Let $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ be two graphs with disjoint vertex sets, with the former $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ having $n_1$ vertices and $m_1$ edges. The edge corona $\mathcal{G}_{1} \circledcirc \mathcal{G}_{2}$ of $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ is a graph obtained by taking one copy of $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ and $m_1$ copies of $\mathcal{G}_{2}$, and
then connecting both end vertices of the $i$th edge of $\mathcal{G}_{1}$ to each vertex in the $i$th copy
of $\mathcal{G}_{2}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots, m_1$.
Let $\mathcal{K}_q$, $q\geq 1$, be the complete graph with $q$ vertices. When $q= 1$, we define $\mathcal{K}_q$ as a graph with an isolate vertex. Based on the edge corona product and the complete graphs, we can iteratively build a set of graphs, which display the striking properties of real-world networks. Let $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$, $q \geq 1$ and $g\geq 0$, be the network after $g$ iterations. Then, $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$ is constructed in the following way.
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\begin{definition}\label{defa}
For $g=0$, $\mathcal{G}_{q}(0)$ is the complete graph $\mathcal{K}_{q+2}$. For $g\geq1$, $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g+1)$ is obtained from $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$ and $\mathcal{K}_{q}$ by performing edge corona product on them: for every existing edge of $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$, we introduce a copy of the complete graph $\mathcal{K}_q$ and connect all its vertices to both end vertices of the edge. That is, $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g+1)= \mathcal{G}_{q}(g) \circledcirc \mathcal{K}_{q}$.
\end{definition}
Figure~\ref{net-ex} illustrates the construction process of $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$ for two particular cases of $q=1$ and $q=2$. Note that for $q=1$, $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$ is reduced to the pseudofractal scale-free web~\cite{DoGoMe02}, which only contains triangles but excludes other complete graphs with more than 3 vertices.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{net_example.eps}
\caption{The first several iterations of $\mathcal{G}_{q}(g)$ for $q=1$ and $q=2$.}
\label{net-ex}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let $N_q(g)$ and $M_q(g)$ be the number of vertices and number of edges in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, respectively. Suppose $L_v(g)$ and $L_e(g)$ be the number of vertices and the number of edges generated at iteration $g$. Then for $g=0$, $L_v(0)=N_q(0)=q+2$ and $L_e(0)=M_q(0)=\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}$. For all $g \geq 1$, by Definition~\ref{defa}, we obtain the following two relations:
\begin{equation}\label{eqem}
L_v(g+1)=q M_q(g)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqmm}
L_e(g+1)=\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}-1\right] M_q(g),
\end{equation}
which lead to recursive relationships for $N_q(g)$ and $M_q(g)$ as
\begin{equation}
M_q(g+1)=\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}M_q(g)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
N_q(g+1)=q M_q(g)+N_q(g).
\end{equation}
Considering the initial conditions $N_q(0)=q+2$ and $M_q(0)=\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}$, the above two equations are solved to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Mqg}
M_q(g)={\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Nqg}
N_q(g)=\frac{2}{q+3}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+\frac{2(q+2)}{q+3}.
\end{equation}
Then, the average degree of vertices in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is $2M_q(g)/N_q(g)$, which tends to $q+3$ when $g$ is large. Therefore, the graph family $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is sparse.
In addition, inserting Eqs.~\eqref{Mqg} and~\eqref{Nqg} into Eqs.~\eqref{eqem} and~\eqref{eqmm} gives $L_v(g)=q \left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]^{g}$ and $L_e(g)=\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}-1\right] \left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]^{g}$ for $g\geq1$, which are helpful for the computation in the sequel.
\section{Structural properties}
In this section, we study some relevant structural characteristics of $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, focusing on degree distribution, diameter, clustering coefficient, and distribution of clique sizes.
\subsection{Degree distribution}
The degree distribution $P(d)$ for a network is the probability of a randomly selected vertex $v$ has exactly $d$ neighbors. When a network has a discrete sequence of vertex degrees, one can also use cumulative degree distribution $P_{\rm cum}(d)$ instead of ordinary degree distribution~\cite{Ne03}, which is the probability that a vertex has degree greater than or equal to $d$:
\begin{equation}\label{dd0}
P_{\rm cum}(d)= \sum_{d'=d}^{\infty}P(d').
\end{equation}
For a graph with degree distribution of power-law form $P(d)\sim d^{-\gamma}$, its cumulative degree distribution is also power-law satisfying $P_{\rm cum}(d)\sim d^{-(\gamma-1)}$.
For every vertex in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, its degree can be explicitly determined. Let $d_v(g)$ be the degree of a vertex $v$ in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. When $v$ was generated at iteration $g_v$, it has a degree of $q+1$. By construction, for any edge incident with $v$ at current iteration, it will lead to $q$ additional new edges adjacent to $v$ at the following iteration. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{degreeG}
d_v(g)=(q+1)^{g-g_v+1}\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ the degree of all simultaneously emerging vertices is the
same. Then, the number of vertices with the degree $(q+1)^{g-g_v+1}$ is $q+2$ and $q \left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]^{g_v}$ for $g_v= 0$ and $g_v> 0$, respectively.
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\begin{proposition}
The degree distribution of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ follows a power-law form $P(d)\sim d^{-\gamma}$ with the power exponent $\gamma=2+\frac{\ln(q+2)}{\ln(q+1)}-\frac{\ln 2}{\ln(q+1)}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
As shown above, the degree sequence of vertices in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is discrete. Thus we can get the degree distribution $P(d)$ for $d=(q+1)^{g-g_v+1}$ via the cumulative degree distribution given by
\begin{align}
P_{\rm cum}(d)&=\frac{1}{N_q(g)}\sum_{\tau\leqslant g_v}L_v(\tau) \notag \\
&=\frac{\left[\frac{1}{2}(q+1)(q+2)\right]^{g_v+1}+q+2}{\left[\frac{1}{2}(q+1)(q+2)\right]^{g+1}+q+2}\,.
\end{align}
From Eq.~\eqref{degreeG}, we derive $g_v=g+1-\frac{\ln d}{\ln(q+1)}$. Plugging this expression for $g_v$ into the above equation leads to
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&P_{\rm cum}(d)=\frac{2^{\frac{\ln d}{\ln(q+1)}-g-2} \left[(q+1) (q+2)\right]^{-\frac{\ln d}{\ln (q+1)}+g+2}+q+2}{2^{-g-1}
\left[(q+1) (q+2)\right]^{g+1}+q+2}\\
&=\frac{d^{-\left(\frac{\ln(q+2)}{\ln(q+1)}+1-\frac{\ln 2}{\ln(q+1)}\right)} 2^{-g-2}\left[(q+1) (q+2)\right]^{g+2}+q+2}{2^{-g-1}\left[(q+1) (q+2)\right]^{g+1}+q+2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
When $g\rightarrow \infty$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm cum}(d)=\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2} d^{-\left(\frac{\ln(q+2)}{\ln(q+1)}+1-\frac{\ln 2}{\ln(q+1)}\right)}.
\end{equation}
So the degree distribution follows a power-law form $P(d)\sim d^{-\gamma}$ with the exponent $\gamma=2+\frac{\ln(q+2)}{\ln(q+1)}-\frac{\ln 2}{\ln(q+1)}$.
\end{IEEEproof}
It is not difficult to see that the power exponent $\gamma$ lies in the interval $[\frac{\ln2}{\ln3}+2,3]$. Moreover, it is a monotonically increasing function of $q$: When $q$ increases from $2$ to infinite, $\gamma$ increases from $\frac{\ln 2}{\ln 3}+2$ to $3$. Note that for most real scale-free networks~\cite{Ne03}, their power exponent $\gamma$ is in the range between $2$ and $3$.
\subsection{Diameter}
In a graph $\mathcal{G}$, where every edge having unit length, a shortest path between a pair of vertices $u$ and $v$ is a path connecting $u$ and $v$ with least edges. The distance $d(u,v)$ between $u$ and $v$ is defined as the number of edges in such a shortest path. The diameter of graph $\mathcal{G}$, denoted by $D(\mathcal{G})$, is the maximum of the distances among all pairs of vertices.
\begin{proposition}
The diameter $D(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, is $D(\mathcal{G}_1(g))=g+1$ for $q=1$ and $D(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=2g+1$ for $q\geq 2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
For the case of $q=1$, $D(\mathcal{G}_1(g))=g+1$ was proved in~\cite{ZhRoZh07}. Below we only prove the case of $q\geq 2$.
For $g=0$, $D(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=1$, the statement holds. By Definition~\ref{defa}, it is obvious that the diameter of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ increases at most 2 after each iteration, which means $D(\mathcal{G}_q(g))\leq 2g+1$. In order to prove $D(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=2g+1$, we only need to show that for $q\geq 2$ there exist two vertices in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, whose distance $2g+1$. To this end, we alternatively prove an extended proposition that in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ there exist two pairs of adjacent vertices: $u_1$ and $u_3$, $u_2$ and $u_4$, such that $d(u_1, u_2)=d(u_1, u_4)=d(u_3, u_2)=d(u_3, u_4)=2g+1$. We next prove this extended proposition by induction on $g$.
For $g=0$, $\mathcal{G}_q(0)$, $q\geq2$, is the complete graph $\mathcal{K}_{q+2}$. We can arbitrarily choose four vertices as $u_1$, $u_2$, $u_3$, $u_4$ to meet the condition. For $g \geq 1$, suppose that the statement holds for $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, see Fig.~\ref{diam2}. In other words, there exist two pairs of adjacent vertices: $v_1$ and $v_3$, $v_2$ and $v_4$ in $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, with their distances in $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$ satisfying $d(v_1, v_2)=d(v_1, v_4)=d(v_3, v_2)=d(v_3, v_4)=2g-1$. For $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, let $u_1$ and $u_3$ be two adjacent vertices generated by the edge connecting $v_1$ and $v_3$ at iteration $g$, and let $u_2$ and $u_4$ be two adjacent vertices generated by the edge connecting $v_2$ and $v_4$ at iteration $g$. Then, by assumption, for the vertex pair $u_1$ and $u_2$ in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, their distance obeys $d(u_1,u_2)=\min\{d(v_1, v_2), d(v_1, v_4), d(v_3, v_2), d(v_3, v_4)\}+2=2g+1$. Similarly, we can prove that in $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, the distances of related vertex pairs satisfy $d(u_1, u_4)=d(u_3, u_2)=d(u_3, u_4)=2g+1$.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.6\linewidth]{diam2.eps}
\caption{Illustrative proof of the extended proposition.}
\label{diam2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From Eq.~\eqref{Nqg}, the number of vertices $N_q(g)\sim \left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]^{g+1}$. Thus, the diameter $D(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ of $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ scales logarithmically with $N_q(g)$, which means that the graph family $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is small-world.
\subsection{Clustering coefficient}
Clustering coefficient~\cite{WaSt98} is another crucial quantity characterizing network structure.
In a graph $\mathcal{G}=\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V }, \mathcal{E})$ with vertex set $\mathcal{V }$ and edge set $\mathcal{E}$, the clustering coefficient $C_v(\mathcal{G})$ of a vertex $v$ with degree $d_v$ is defined~\cite{WaSt98} as the ratio of the number $\epsilon_v$ of edges between the neighbours of $v$ to the possible maximum value $d_v(d_v-1)/2$, that is $C_v(\mathcal{G})=\frac{2\epsilon_v}{d_v(d_v-1)}$. The clustering coefficient $C(\mathcal{G})$ of the whole network $\mathcal{G}$ is defined as the average of $C_v(\mathcal{G})$ over all vertices: $C(\mathcal{G})=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{V}|}\sum_{v\in \mathcal{V}}C_v(\mathcal{G})$.
For graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, the clustering coefficient for all vertices and their average value can be determined explicitly.
\begin{proposition}
\label{vClustering}
In graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, the clustering coefficient $C_v(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ of any vertex with degree $d_v(g)$ is
\begin{equation}
C_v(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\frac{q+1}{d_v(g)}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
By Definition~\ref{defa}, when a vertex $v$ was created at iteration $g_{v}$, its degree and clustering coefficient are $q+1$ and 1, respectively. In any two successive iterations $t$ and $t-1$ ($t \leq g$), its degrees increases by a factor of $q$ as $d_v(t)=(q+1)d_v(t-1)$. Moreover, once its degree increases by $q$, then the number of edges between its neighbors increases by $q(q+1)/2$. Then, in network $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, the clustering coefficient $C_v(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ of vertex $v$ with degree
degree $d_v(g)$ is
\begin{equation}
C_v(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\frac{\frac{q(q+1)}{2}+\frac{d_v(g)-q-1}{q}\frac{q(q+1)}{2}}{\frac{d_v(g)(d_v(g)-1)}{2}}=\frac{q+1}{d_v(g)},
\end{equation}
as claimed by the Proposition.
\end{IEEEproof}
Thus, in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, the clustering coefficient of any vertex is inversely proportional to its degree, a scaling observed in various real-world networked systems~\cite{RaBa03}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{gClustering}
For all $g\geq0$, the clustering coefficient of $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is
\begin{align}
&C(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\nonumber\\
&\frac{{\left[\frac{(q+1)^2(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+q^2+4q+4}{\frac{q^2+4q+5}{(q+1)(q+3)}{\left[\frac{(q+1)^2(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+\frac{(q+2)(q^2+4q+5)}{q+3}{(q+1)}^{g}}\,.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
By using Proposition~\ref{vClustering}, the quantity $C(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ can be calculated by
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
&C(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\frac{1}{N_q(g)}\Bigg(\sum_{g_v=0}^{g}L_v(g_v)\cdot\frac{q+1}{d_v(g)}\Bigg)\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{N_q(g)}\Bigg\{\frac{(q+2)}{(q+1)^{g}}+\sum_{g_v=1}^{g}q{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g_v} \frac{q+1}{(q+1)^{g-g_v+1}}\Bigg\}\notag\\
&=\frac{{\left[\frac{(q+1)^2(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+q^2+4q+4}{\frac{q^2+4q+5}{(q+1)(q+3)}{\left[\frac{(q+1)^2(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+\frac{(q+2)(q^2+4q+5)}{q+3}{(q+1)}^{g}}.
\end{align}
\end{small}
This finishes the proof.
\end{IEEEproof}
From Proposition~\ref{gClustering}, we can see that the clustering coefficient of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is very high. For large $g$, the clustering coefficient $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ converges to a large constant as
\begin{equation}
\lim_{g\rightarrow \infty}C(\mathcal{G}_q(g))= \frac{q^2+4q+3}{q^2+4q+5}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, similarly to the degree exponent $\gamma$, clustering coefficient $C(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ is also dependent on $q$, with large $q$ corresponding to large $C(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$. When $q \rightarrow \infty$, the clustering coefficient of the graph tends to $1$.
\subsection{Distribution of clique sizes}
It is apparent that graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ contains many cliques as subgraphs. Let $N_k(G_q(g))$ denote the number of $k$-cliques in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. Since graph $\mathcal{G}_q(0)$ is a $q+2$ complete graph, the maximum clique size in it is $q+2$. Then in $\mathcal{G}_q(0)$ the number $N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(0))$ of $k$-cliques is the combinatorial number $C_{q+2}^{k}=\frac{(q+2)!}{k!(q+2-k)!}$ for $k=2,3,\ldots,q+2$, and is $0$ for $k>q+2$. For graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ with $g\geq1$, the number of 2-cliques equals the number of edges, while for cliques with size more than 2, we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{clique}
For $g\geq0$, we have
\begin{equation}
N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\frac{{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}-1}{\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}-1}\frac{(q+2)!}{k!(q+2-k)!},
\end{equation}
for $k=3,4,\ldots,q+2$. And $N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=0$, for $k>q+2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proposition is naturally satisfied in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(0)$. Thus, we only need to prove the proposition for $g\geq1$. By definition, when $g\geq1$, $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is obtained from $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$ by introducing a new $q$-complete graph for every edge. Then, all the $k$-cliques in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ can be partitioned into two parts: (i) the $k$-cliques in $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, and (ii) the $k$-cliques that contain at least one newly introduced vertex.
For part (i), the number of $k$-cliques is $N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g-1))$. For part (ii), since every newly introduced vertex is only connected to other vertices in the $q+2$ compete graph generated by an edge of $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, any $k$-clique contain this new vertex must be a subgraph of this $q+2$ compete graph. The number of new $q+2$ compete graphs equals the number $M_q(g-1)$ of edges in $\mathcal{G}_q(g-1)$, and in every new $q+2$ complete graph, the number of $k$-cliques is the combinatorial number $C_{q+2}^{k}$ for $k\leq q+2$. Since in every new $q+2$ complete graph, there are only two old vertices, each of its $k$-clique subgraph with $k\geq3$ includes at least one new vertex. Thus, for part (ii) the number of $k$-cliques can be calculated by $M_q(g-1)C_{q+2}^{k}$ for $3\leq k\leq q+2$, and is obviously 0 for $k>q+2$.
Combining the above results, we have that for $g\geq1$,
\begin{equation}
N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g-1))+M_q(g-1)C_{q+2}^{k},
\end{equation}
for $3\leq k\leq q+2$, and $N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=N_k(\mathcal{G}_q(g-1))$ for $k>q+2$.
Together with $M_q(g-1)={\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^g$, $C_{q+2}^{k}=\frac{(q+2)!}{k!(q+2-k)!}$, and the initial values for $\mathcal{G}_q(0)$, the above recursive relation is solved to obtain the proposition.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Spectra of probability transition matrix and normalized Laplacian matrix}
Let $\textbf{A}_g=\textbf{A}(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ denote the adjacency matrix of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, the entries $A_g(i,j)$ of which are defined as follows: $A_g(i,j) =1$ if the vertex pair of $i$ and $j$ is adjacent in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ by an edge denoted by $i \sim j$, or $A_g(i,j) =0$ otherwise. The vertex-edge incident matrix $\textbf{R}_g=\textbf{R}(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is an $N_q(g)\times M_q(g)$ matrix, the entries $R_g(v,e)$ of which are defined in the following way:
$R_g(v,e)=1$ if vertex $v$ is incident to edge $e$, and $R_g(v,e)=0$ otherwise. The diagonal degree matrix of $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is $\textbf{D}_g=\textbf{D}(\mathcal{G}_q(g))={\rm diag} \{d_1(g),d_2(g),\ldots,d_{N_q(g)}(g)\}$, where the $i$th nonzero entry is the degree $d_i(g)$ of vertex $i$ in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. The Laplacian matrix $\textbf{L}_g=\textbf{L}(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is $\textbf{L}_g=\textbf{D}_g-\textbf{A}_g$. The transition probability matrix of $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, denoted by $\textbf{P}_g=\textbf{P}(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$, is defined by $\textbf{P}_g=\textbf{D}_g^{-1}\textbf{A}_g$, with the $(i,j)$th element $P_g(i,j)=1/d_i(g)$ representing the transition probability for a walker going from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$ in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. Matrix $\textbf{P}_g$ is asymmetric, but is similar to the normalized adjacency matrix $\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g$ of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ defined by $\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g=\textbf{D}_g^{-\frac{1}{2}}\textbf{A}_g\textbf{D}_g^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, since $\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g=\textbf{D}_g^{-\frac{1}{2}}\textbf{P}_g\textbf{D}_g^{\frac{1}{2}}$. By definition, the $(i,j)$th entry of matrix $\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g$ is $\tilde{A}_g(i,j) =\frac{A_g(i,j)}{\sqrt{d_i(g)}\sqrt{d_j(g)}}$. Thus, matrix $\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g$ is real and symmetric, and has the same set of eigenvalues as the transition probability matrix $\textbf{P}_g$. For graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, its normalized Laplacian matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g(\mathcal{G}_q(g))=\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ is defined by
$\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g=\textbf{I}_g-\tilde{\textbf{A}}_g$, where $\textbf{I}_g$ is the $N_q(g)\times N_q(g)$ identity matrix.
In the remainder of this section, we will study the full spectrum of transition probability matrix $\textbf{P}_g$ and normalized Laplacian matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ for graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. For $i=1,2,\cdots, N_q(g)$, let $\lambda_i(g)=\lambda_i({G}_q(g))$ and $\sigma_i(g)=\sigma_i({G}_q(g))$ denote the $N_q(g)$ eigenvalues of matrices $\textbf{P}_g$ and $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$, respectively. Let $\Lambda_g$ and $\Sigma_g$ denote the set of eigenvalues of matrices $\textbf{P}_g$ and $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$, respectively, that is $\Lambda_g=\{\lambda_1(g),\lambda_2(g),\ldots,\lambda_{N_q(g)}(g) \}$ and $\Sigma_g=\{\sigma_1(g),\sigma_2(g),\ldots,\sigma_{N_q(g)}(g) \}$. It is obvious that for all $i=1,2,\cdots,N_q(g)$, the relation $\lambda_i(g)=1-\sigma_i(g)$ holds. Moreover, the eigenvalues of matrices $\textbf{P}_g$ and $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ can be listed in a nonincreasing (or nondecreasing) order as: $1=\lambda_1(g) \ge \lambda_2(g) \ge \ldots \ge \lambda_{N_q(g)}(g)\geq -1$ and $0=\sigma_1(g) \le \sigma_2(g) \le \cdots \le \sigma_{N_q(g)}(g)\leq 2$.
The one-to-to correspondence $\lambda_i(g)=1-\sigma_i(g)$ between $\lambda_i(g)$ and $\sigma_i(g)$, for all $i=1,2,\cdots,N_q(g)$, indicates that if one determines the eigenvalues of matrix $\textbf{P}_g$, then the eigenvalues of matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ are easily found.
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemeig}
For $\lambda\neq-\frac{1}{q+1}$ and $\lambda\neq\frac{q-1}{q+1}$, $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ if and only if $(q+1)\lambda-q$ is an eigenvalue of $\textbf{P}_g$, and the multiplicity of $\lambda$ of $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$, denoted by $m_{g+1}(\lambda)$, is the same as the multiplicity of eigenvalue $(q+1)\lambda-q$ of $\textbf{P}_g$, denoted by $m_{g}((q+1)\lambda-q)$, i.e. $m_{g+1}(\lambda)=m_{g}((q+1)\lambda-q)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Let $\mathcal{V}_{g+1}$ be the set of vertices in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g+1)$. It can be looked upon the union of two disjoint sets $\mathcal{V}_g$ and $\mathcal{V'}_{g+1}=\mathcal{V}_{g+1}\backslash \mathcal{V}_{g}$, where $\mathcal{V'}_{g+1}$ includes all the newly introduced vertices by the edges in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. For all vertices in $\mathcal{V}_{g+1}$, we label those in $\mathcal{V}_{g}$ from 1 to $N_q(g)$, while label the vertices $\mathcal{V'}_{g+1}$ from $N_q(g)+1$ to $N_q(g+1)$. In the following statement, we represent all the vertices by their labels.
Let $\textbf{y}=(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{N_q(g+1)})^{\top}$ denote the eigenvector of eigenvalue $\lambda$ of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$, where the component $y_i$ corresponds to vertex $i$ in $\mathcal{G}_q(g+1)$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eqeig}
\lambda\,\textbf{y}=\textbf{P}_{g+1}\,\textbf{y}.
\end{equation}
By construction, for any two adjacent old vertices $u$ and $v$ in $\mathcal{V}_g$, there are $q$ vertices newly introduced by the edge connecting $u$ and $v$, which are denoted by $h_1$, $h_2$, $\ldots$, $h_q$. These $q$ vertices, together with $u$ and $v$ form a complete graph of $q+2$ vertices. Moreover, each vertex $h_i$ in set $\{ h_1, h_2, \ldots, h_q\}$ is exactly connected to $u$, $v$, and other vertices in $\{ h_1, h_2, \ldots, h_q\}$ excluding $h_i$ itself. Then the row in Eq.~\eqref{eqeig} corresponding to vertex $h_i$, $i=1,2,\ldots,q$, can be written as
\begin{align}
\lambda\, y_{h_i}=&\sum_{j=1}^{N_q(g+1)}P_{g+1}(h_i,j)y_j\nonumber\\
=&\frac{1}{d_{h_i}(g+1)}\sum_{j\sim h_i}y_j\nonumber\\
=&\frac{1}{q+1}(y_u+y_v+y_{h_1}+\ldots +y_{h_{i-1}}\nonumber\\
&+y_{h_{i+1}}+\ldots+ y_{h_{q}})\,,
\end{align}
Adding $\frac{1}{q+1}y_{h_{i}}$ to both sides of the above equation yields
\begin{equation}\label{eqh1}
\left(\lambda+\frac{1}{q+1}\right)y_{h_i}=\frac{1}{q+1}\left(y_u+y_v+\sum_{j=1}^{q}y_{h_j}\right),
\end{equation}
for all $i=1,2,\ldots,q$. Therefore, for $\lambda\neq-\frac{1}{q+1}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqh2}
y_{h_1}=y_{h_2}=\ldots=y_{h_q}.
\end{equation}
Combining Eqs.~\eqref{eqh1} and~\eqref{eqh2}, we can derive that, for $\lambda\neq\frac{q-1}{q+1}$
\begin{equation}\label{eqh3}
y_{h_i}=\frac{1}{(q+1)\lambda-q-1}(y_u+y_v)
\end{equation}
holds for $i=1,2,\ldots,q$. According to Eq.~\eqref{eqeig}, we can also express the rows corresponding to components $y_u$ and $y_v$. For the row associated with component $y_u$, we have
\begin{align}
\lambda\, y_{u}&=\sum_{j=1}^{N_q(g+1)} P _{g+1}(u,j)y_j\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{d_u(g+1)}\left( \sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} } y_j+\sum_{\substack{ j > N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j\right).\label{eqh4}
\end{align}
By Definition~\ref{defa}, for an old vertex $u$, all its adjacent vertices in $\mathcal{V'}_{g+1}$ are introduced by the edges between $u$ and its neighboring vertices in $\mathcal{V}_g$. Thus, combining Eqs.~\eqref{eqh3} and~\eqref{eqh4}, we derive
\begin{equation}\label{eqh5}
\lambda \, y_{u}=\frac{1}{d_u(g+1)}\left(\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j+\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }\frac{q(y_u+y_j)}{(q+1)\lambda-q-1}\right).
\end{equation}
Considering $d_u(g+1)=(q+1)d_u(g)$, Eq.~\eqref{eqh5} can be recast as
\begin{align}
&\quad \left((q+1)\lambda-\frac{q}{{(q+1)}\lambda-q-1}\right) y_{u}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{d_u(g)}\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }\left(1+\frac{q}{{(q+1)}\lambda-q-1}\right) y_j.
\end{align}
When $\lambda\neq-\frac{1}{q+1}$ and $\lambda\neq\frac{q-1}{q+1}$, the above equation is simplified as
\begin{align}
\left[(q+1)\lambda-q\right]y_{u}&=\frac{1}{d_u(g)}\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j.\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{N_q(g)}P_g(u,j)y_j,\label{eqh6}
\end{align}
which implies if $\textbf{y}=(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{ N_q(g)},\ldots,y_{ N_q(g+1)})^{\top}$ is an eigenvector of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ associated with eigenvalue $\lambda$, then $\tilde{\textbf{y}}=(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{ N_q(g)})^{\top}$ is an eigenvector of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g}$ associated with eigenvalue $(q+1)\lambda-q$.
On the other hand, suppose that $\tilde{\textbf{y}}=(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{ N_q(g)})^{\top}$ is an eigenvector of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g}$ associated with eigenvalue $(q+1)\lambda-q$, then $\textbf{y}=(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{},\ldots,y_{N_q(g+1)})^{\top}$ is an eigenvector of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ associated with eigenvalue $\lambda$ if and only if its components $y_i$, $i=N_q(g)+1$, $N_q(g)+2$, $\ldots$, $N_q(g+1)$, can be expressed by Eq.~\eqref{eqh3}. Thus, the number of linearly independent eigenvectors of $\lambda$ is the same as that of $(q+1)\lambda-q$. Since both $\textbf{P}_{g}$ and $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ are normal matrices, which are diagonalizable, the multiplicity of $\lambda$ (or $(q+1)\lambda-q$) is equal to the number of its linearly independent eigenvectors. Hence, $m_{g+1}(\lambda)=m_{g}((q+1)\lambda-q)$.
\end{IEEEproof}
Lemma~\ref{lemeig} indicates that except $\lambda \ne -\frac{1}{q+1}$ and $\frac{q-1}{q+1}$, all eigenvalues $\lambda$ of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ can be derived from those of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g}$. However, it is easy to check that both $-\frac{1}{q+1}$ and $\frac{q-1}{q+1}$ are eigenvalues of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$. Moreover, their multiplicities can be determined explicitly. The following lemma gives the multiplicity of $-\frac{1}{q+1}$, while the multiplicity of $\frac{q-1}{q+1}$ will be provided later.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemeig2}
The multiplicity of $-\frac{1}{q+1}$ as an eigenvalue of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ is $(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)$, i.e. $m_{g+1}(-\frac{1}{q+1})=(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Let $\textbf{y}=(y_1,y_2,\ldots\ldots,y_{N_q(g+1)})^{\top}$ be an eigenvector associated with eigenvalue $-\frac{1}{q+1}$ of matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eqh7}
-\frac{1}{q+1}\,\textbf{y}=\textbf{P}_{g+1}\,\textbf{y}.
\end{equation}
For an edge $e_x$, $x=1,2\ldots, M_q(g)$, in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ with end vertices $u$ and $v$, at iteration $g+1$, it will generate $q$ vertices $h_1$, $h_2$, $\ldots$, $h_q$ in $\mathcal{V}' _{g+1}$. Then, the row in Eq.~\eqref{eqh7} corresponding to vertex $h_i$, $i=1,2,\ldots,q$, can be expressed by
\begin{align}
-\frac{1}{q+1}\,y_{h_i}=&\sum_{j=1}^{N_q(g+1)} P_{g+1}(h_i,j)\, y_j\nonumber\\
=&\frac{1}{q+1}(y_u+y_v+y_{h_1}+\ldots +y_{h_{i-1}}\nonumber\\
&+y_{h_{i+1}}+\ldots +y_{h_{q}}),
\end{align}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eqh8}
\sum_{i=1}^{q}y_{h_i}=-(y_u+y_v).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the row in Eq.~\eqref{eqh7} corresponding to vertex ${u}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{q+1}y_{u}=\frac{1}{d_u(g+1)}\left(\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j+\sum_{\substack{ j > N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j\right).\label{eqh9}
\end{equation}
Note that Eq.~\eqref{eqh8} holds for every pair of adjacent vertices in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ and the $q$ new vertices it generates at iteration $g+1$. Plugging Eq.~\eqref{eqh8} into the right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eqh9} leads to
\begin{align}
&\quad \frac{1}{d_u(g+1)}\left(\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j+\sum_{\substack{ j > N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j\right) \notag \\
&=\frac{1}{d_u(g+1)}\left(\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }y_j+\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }-(y_u+y_j)\right)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{d_u(g+1)}\left(\sum_{\substack{ j\leq N_q(g) \\ j\sim u} }-y_u\right)\nonumber\\
&=-\frac{1}{(q+1)}y_u.
\end{align}
Therefore, the constraint on $\textbf{y}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eqh7} is equivalent to the constraint provided by $M_q(g)$ equations in Eq.~\eqref{eqh8}. The matrix form of these $M_q(g)$ equations can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eqh10}
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{1.0pt}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc|cccccccccccccc}
& & & & 1&1&\cdots & 1& & & & & & &&&& \\
& & & & && & &1 &1 &\cdots &1 & & &&&& \\
& &-\textbf{R}_g^{\top} & & & & & & &&&&\ddots& & & & & \\
& & & & & & & & & &&&&\cdots & & & & \\
& & & & & & & & &&&&& &1 &1 & \cdots & 1\\
\end{array}
\right]\textbf{y}=\textbf{0},
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{R}_g^{\top}$ is the transpose of $\textbf{R}_g$, and the unmarked entries are vanishing. It is straightforward that the right partition of the matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eqh10} is an $M_q(g)\times qM_q(g)$ matrix, with each row corresponding to an edge $e_x$, $x=1,2,\ldots, M_q(g)$, in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. Moreover, in each row associated with $e_x$, $1$ repeats $q$ times, corresponding to the $q$ vertices newly created by edge $e_x$.
Since the row vectors of the matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eqh10} are linearly independent, the dimension of the solution space of Eq.~\eqref{eqh10} is $N_q(g+1)- M_q(g)=(q-1) M_q(g)+ N_q(g)$. Therefore, the multiplicity of eigenvalue $-\frac{1}{q+1}$ for matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ is $(q-1) M_q(g)+ N_q(g)$.
\end{IEEEproof}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thP}
Let $\Lambda_g$, $g \geq 0$, be the set of the $N_q(g)$ eigenvalues $\lambda_1(g)$, $\lambda_2(g)$, $\ldots$, $\lambda_{N_q(g)}(g)$ for matrix $\textbf{P}_g$, satisfying $1=\lambda_1(g) \ge \lambda_2(g) \ge \ldots \ge \lambda_{N_q(g)}(g)\geq -1$. Then the $N_q(g+1)$ eigenvalues for $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ forming the set $\Lambda_{g+1}$ can be listed in a descending order as
\begin{align}
\Lambda_{g+1}=&\bigg\{\frac{\lambda_1(g)+q}{q+1},\frac{\lambda_2(g)+q}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{\lambda_{N_q(g)}(g)+q}{q+1},\nonumber\\
&\underbrace{\frac{q-1}{q+1},\frac{q-1}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{q-1}{q+1}}_{M_q(g)-N_q(g)},\nonumber\\
&\underbrace{-\frac{1}{q+1},-\frac{1}{q+1},\ldots,-\frac{1}{q+1}}_{(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)}\bigg\}. \label{XYZ}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
We prove this theorem by induction on $g$. First, for $g=0$, it is easy to verify that the statement holds. For graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, $g\geq1$, assume that the relation between $\Lambda_{g-1}$ and $\Lambda_{g}$ is valid. We now prove that the result is true for graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g+1)$.
For each eigenvalue $\lambda_{i}(g) \in \Lambda_{g}$, $i=1,2,\ldots, N_q(g)$, we have $\lambda_{i}(g)>-1$ by the assumption. Therefore, for $i=1,2,\ldots, N_q(g)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqrc}
\frac{\lambda_{i}(g)+q}{q+1}>\frac{q-1}{q+1},
\end{equation}
which implies $\frac{\lambda_{i}(g)+q}{q+1}\neq \frac{q-1}{q+1}$ and $\frac{\lambda_{i}(g)+q}{q+1}\neq -\frac{1}{q+1}$. By Lemma~\ref{lemeig}, $\frac{\lambda_{i}(g)+q}{q+1}$ is an eigenvalue of $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ with the same multiplicity of $\lambda_{i}(g)$ as an eigenvalue of $\textbf{P}_{g}$, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{eqrc2}
m_{g+1}\left(\frac{\lambda_{i}(g)+q}{q+1}\right)=m_{g}\left(\lambda_{i}(g)\right).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by Lemma~\ref{lemeig}, for each eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ satisfying $\lambda\neq-\frac{1}{q+1}$ and $\lambda\neq\frac{q-1}{q+1}$, $(q+1)\lambda-q$ must be an eigenvalue of $\textbf{P}_{g}$, which means $\lambda$ can be expressed by as $\lambda=\frac{\lambda_{i}(g)+q}{q+1}$ with $i \in \{1,2,\ldots,N_q(g) \}$. Therefore, the sum of multiplicity of all eigenvalues of $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$ excluding $-\frac{1}{q+1}$ and $\frac{q-1}{q+1}$ is $N_q(g)$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eqlm}
m_{g+1}\left(\lambda\notin\left\{-\frac{1}{q+1},\frac{q-1}{q+1}\right\}\right)=N_q(g).
\end{equation}
We proceed to compute the multiplicity $m_{g+1}\left(\frac{q-1}{q+1}\right)$ of eigenvalue $\frac{q-1}{q+1}$ for matrix $\textbf{P}_{g+1}$, which obeys
\begin{align}
&m_{g+1}\left(-\frac{1}{q+1}\right)+m_{g+1}\left(\frac{q-1}{q+1}\right)\nonumber\\
&+m_{g+1}\left(\lambda\notin\left\{-\frac{1}{q+1},\frac{q-1}{q+1}\right\}\right)=N_q(g+1).\label{eqeig2}
\end{align}
Using Eq.~\eqref{eqlm} and Lemma~\ref{lemeig2}, one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{eqeig3}
m_{g+1}\left(\frac{q-1}{q+1}\right)=M_q(g)-N_q(g).
\end{equation}
Combining Eqs.~\eqref{eqrc}~\eqref{eqrc2}~\eqref{eqeig3} and Lemma~\ref{lemeig2} yields~\eqref{XYZ}.
\end{IEEEproof}
For $g=0$, $\mathcal{G}_q(0)$ is a complete graph with $q+2$ vertices. The set of the eigenvalues of matrix $\textbf{P}_{0}$ is $\Lambda_{0}=\left\{1,-\frac{1}{q+1},-\frac{1}{q+1},\ldots,-\frac{1}{q+1}\right\}$.
By recursively applying Theorem~\ref{thP}, we can obtain all the eigenvalues matrix $\textbf{P}_g$ for $g\geq 1$.
Using Theorem~\ref{thP} and the one-to-one correspondence between matrices $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ and $\tilde{\textbf{P}}_g$, we can also obtain relation for the set of eigenvalues for $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ and $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_{g+1}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thS}
Let $\Sigma_g$, $g \geq 0$, be the set of the $N_q(g)$ eigenvalues $\sigma_1(g)$, $\sigma_2(g)$, $\ldots$, $\sigma_{N_q(g)}(g)$ for matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$, satisfying $0=\sigma_1(g) \leq \sigma_2(g) \leq \ldots \leq \sigma_{N_q(g)}(g)\leq 2$. Then the $N_q(g+1)$ eigenvalues for $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_{g+1}$ forming the set $\Sigma_{g+1}$ can be listed in an increasing order as
\begin{align}
\Sigma_{g+1}&=\bigg\{\frac{\sigma_1(g)}{q+1},\frac{\sigma_2(g)}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{\sigma_{N_q(g)}(g)}{q+1},\nonumber\\
&\underbrace{\frac{2}{q+1},\frac{2}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{2}{q+1}}_{M_q(g)-N_q(g)},\underbrace{\frac{q+2}{q+1},\frac{q+2}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{q+2}{q+1}}_{(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)}\bigg\}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is easily obtained by combining the relation $\lambda_i(g)=1-\sigma_i(g)$ and Theorem~\ref{thP}.
\end{IEEEproof}
The set $\Sigma_{0}$ of eigenvalues for matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_0$ is $\Sigma_{0}=\left\{0,\frac{q+2}{q+1},\frac{q+2}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{q+2}{q+1}\right\}$.
For $g\geq1$, by recursively applying Theorem~\ref{thS}, we can obtain the exact expressions for all eigenvalues for matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}_g$ for any $q$ and $g$, given by
\begin{align}\label{eqS2}
\Sigma_{g}=&\bigg\{0,\underbrace{\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^{g+1}},\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^{g+1}},\ldots,\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^{g+1}}}_{q+1},\notag\\
&\underbrace{\frac{2}{{(q+1)}^g},\frac{2}{{(q+1)}^g},\ldots,\frac{2}{{(q+1)}^g}}_{M_q(0)-N_q(0)},\notag\\
&\underbrace{\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^g},\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^g},\ldots,\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^g}}_{(q-1)M_q(0)+N_q(0)},\notag\\
&\underbrace{\frac{2}{{(q+1)}^{g-1}},\frac{2}{{(q+1)}^{g-1}},\ldots,\frac{2}{{(q+1)}^{g-1}}}_{M_q(1)-N_q(1)},\notag\\ &\underbrace{\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^{g-1}},\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^{g-1}},\ldots,\frac{q+2}{{(q+1)}^{g-1}}}_{(q-1)M_q(1)+N_q(1)},\notag\\ &\cdots \cdots,\notag\\
&\underbrace{\frac{2}{q+1},\frac{2}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{2}{q+1}}_{M_q(g-1)-N_q(g-1)},\underbrace{\frac{q+2}{q+1},\frac{q+2}{q+1},\ldots,\frac{q+2}{q+1}}_{(q-1)M_q(g-1)+N_q(g-1)}\bigg\}.
\end{align}
\section{Applications of the spectra}
In this section, we apply the above-obtained eigenvalues and their multiplicities of related matrices to evaluate some relevant quantities for graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, including mixing time, mean hitting time also called Kemeny constant, and the number of spanning trees.
\subsection{Mixing time}
As is well-known, the probability transition matrix $\textbf{P}(\mathcal{G})$ of a graph $\mathcal{G}$ characterizes the process of random walks on the graph. As a classical Markov chain, random walks describe various phenomena or other dynamical processes in graphs. Many interesting quantities about random walks can be extracted from the eigenvalues of the probability transition matrix. In this paper, we only consider mixing time and mean hitting time.
For an ergodic random walk on an un-bipartite graph $\mathcal{G}$ with $N$ vertices, it has a unique stationary distribution $\pi=(\pi_1, \pi_2,\ldots, \pi_N)^\top$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_i=1$, where $\pi_i$ represents the probability that the walker is at vertex $i$ when the random walk converges to equilibrium state~\cite{KeSn76}. The mixing time is defined as the expected time that the walker needs to approach the stationary distribution. Let $1=\lambda_1> \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_N >-1$ be the $N$ eigenvalues for matrix $\textbf{P}(\mathcal{G})$. Then the speed of convergence to the stationary distribution~\cite{Si92} approximately equals the reciprocal of $1-\lambda_{\max}$, where $\lambda_{\max}$ is the second largest eigenvalue modulus defined by $\lambda_{\max}=\max (\lambda_2, |\lambda_N|)$. Mixing time has found numerous applications in man different aspects~\cite{LePeWi08}.
As our first application of eigenvalues for matrix $\textbf{P}_g$, we use them to evaluate the mixing time for random walks on $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$, for which the component of stationary distribution $\pi$ corresponding to vertex $i$ is $\pi_i=d_i(g)/(2M_q(g))$. According to the above arguments, the second largest eigenvalue modulus $\lambda_{\max}(g)$ of $\textbf{P}_g$ is $\lambda_{\max}(g)=1-\frac{q+2}{(q+1)^{g+1}}$. Since the mixing time is characterized by a parameter, it cannot be exactly determined~\cite{Si92}, but one can evaluate it by using the reciprocal of $\lambda_{\max}(g)$. Then, the dominating term of the mixing time for random walks on $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is $(q+1)^{g+1}/(q+2)$, which scales sublinearly with the vertex number $N_q(g)$ as $(N_q(g))^{2/\theta(q)}$, where $\theta(q)=2/ \log_{(q+1)(q+2)/2} (q+1)$ is the spectral dimension~\cite{MiToBi19} of graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ that is a function of $q$. Note that for $q=1$, the spectral dimension $\theta(2)=2 \ln 3 / \ln 2$ reduces to the result obtained in~\cite{BoDo20}.
Note that it is believed that real-world networks are often fast mixing with their mixing time at most $O(\log N)$, where $N$ is the number of vertices. However, it was experimentally reported that the mixing time of some real-world social networks is much higher than anticipated~\cite{MoYuKi10}. Our obtained sublinear scaling of mixing time on graph $\mathcal{G}$ supports this recent study, and sheds lights on understanding the scalings of mixing time.
\subsection{Mean hitting time}
Our second application for our obtained eigenvalues is the mean hitting time. For a random walk on graph $\mathcal{G}$, the hitting time $H_{ij}$, also called first-passage time~\cite{Re01,NoRi04,CoBeTeVoKl07}, from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$, is defined as the expected time taken by a walker starting from vertex $i$ to reach vertex $j$ for the first time. The mean hitting time $H$, also known as the Kemeny constant, is defined as the expected time for a random walker going from a vertex $i$ to another vertex $j$ that is chosen randomly from all vertices in $\mathcal{G}$ according to the stationary distribution~\cite{LaLoPa96,AlFi02}:
\begin{equation}\label{eqhit}
H=\sum_{j=2}^{n}\pi_j H_{ij}.
\end{equation}
Interestingly, the quantity $H$ is independent of the starting vertex $i$, and can be expressed in terms of the $N-1$ nonzero eigenvalues $\sigma_i$, $i=2,3,\cdots,N$, of the normalized Laplacian matrix $\tilde{\textbf{L}}(\mathcal{G})$ for graph $\mathcal{G}$, given by~\cite{LaLoPa96,AlFi02}
\begin{equation}\label{eqH}
H=\sum_{i=2}^{N} \frac{1}{\sigma_i}.
\end{equation}
Mean hitting time can be applied to measure the efficiency of user navigation through the World Wide Web~\cite{LeLo02} and the efficiency of robotic surveillance in network environments~\cite{PaAgBu15}. We refer to the reader to~\cite{Hu14} for many other applications of mean hitting time.
In this subsection, we use the eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix for graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ to compute the mean hitting time of $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thMTT}
Let $H_{q}(g)$ be the mean hitting time for random walk in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. Then, for all $g\geq0$,
\begin{align}
H_{q}(g)=&\left[\frac{{(q+1)}^2}{q+2}-\frac{3(q+1)}{2}\right]{(q+1)}^{g}\notag\\
&+\frac{(q+1)(3q+7)}{2(q+3)}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g}+\frac{q+1}{q+3}. \label{Strees}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
By Theorem~\ref{thS} and Eq.~\eqref{eqH}, we have
\begin{align}
&H_{q}(g+1)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{q+1}{2}\left(M_q(g)-N_q(g)\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad+\frac{q+1}{q+2}\left((q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)\right)+\sum_{i=2}^{N_q(g)}\frac{q+1}{\sigma_i(g)}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{3q(q+1)}{2(q+2)}M_q(g)-\frac{q(q+1)}{2(q+2)}N_q(g)+(q+1)H_{q}(g),\label{hitrelate}
\end{align}
which can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
&H_{q}(g+1)-\frac{(q+1)(3q+7)}{2(q+3)}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}-\frac{q+1}{q+3}\notag\\
&=(q+1)\bigg\{H_{q}(g)-\frac{(q+1)(3q+7)}{2(q+3)}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g}\notag\\
&\quad-\frac{q+1}{q+3}\bigg\}.\label{hittime}
\end{align}
With the initial condition $ H_{q}(0)=\frac{{(q+1)^2}}{(q+2)}$, Eq.~\eqref{hittime} is solved to obtain~\eqref{Strees}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Theorem~\ref{thMTT} shows that for $g \to \infty $, the dependence of mean hitting time $H_{q}(g)$ on the number $N_q(g)$ of vertices in graph $\mathcal{G}_g(g)$ is $H_{q}(g) \sim N_q(g)$, which implies that the $H_{q}(g)$ behaves linearly with $N_q(g)$.
\subsection{The number of spanning trees}
A spanning tree of an undirected graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ with $N$ vertices is a subgraph of $\mathcal{G}$, which is a tree including all the $N$ vertices. Let $\tau(\mathcal{G})$ denote the number of spanning trees in graph $\mathcal{G}$. It has been shown~\cite{ChFa97,ChZh07} that $\tau(\mathcal{G})$ can be expressed in terms of the $N-1$ non-zero eigenvalues for normalized Laplacian matrix of $\mathcal{G}$ and the degrees of all vertices in $\mathcal{G}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqt}
\tau(\mathcal{G})=\frac{\prod_{i\in \mathcal{V}}d_i \prod_{i=2}^{N} \sigma_i(\mathcal{G})}{\sum_{i \in \mathcal{V}}d_i}.
\end{equation}
The number of spanning trees is an important graph invariant. In the sequel,
we will use the above-obtained eigenvalues to determine this invariant for graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\tau_q(g)=\tau(\mathcal{G}_q(g))$ be the number of spanning trees in graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. Then, for all $g\geq0$,
\begin{align}
\tau_q(g)&=2^{\frac{2(q+1)}{q{(q+3)}^2}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}-\left(\frac{q+1}{q+3}\right)g-\frac{{(q+1)}^2(q+2)}{{q(q+3)}^2}}\notag\\
&\cdot{(q+2)}^{\frac{2(q^2+2q-1)}{q{(q+3)}^2}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+\left(\frac{q+1}{q+3}\right)g+\frac{q^3+2q^2-q+2}{{q(q+3)}^2}}. \label{SPtrees}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
First, by Theorem~\ref{thS}, we derive the relation for the product of all the non-zero eigenvalues for normalized Laplacian matrix for graph $\mathcal{G}_q(g+1)$ and $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$:
\begin{align}
&\prod_{i=2}^{N_q(g+1)} \sigma_i(g+1) \notag\\
&={\left(\frac{2}{q+1}\right)}^{M_q(g)-N_q(g)}
{\left(\frac{q+2}{q+1}\right)}^{(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)}\prod_{i=2}^{N_q(g)}\frac{\sigma_i(g)}{q+1}\notag\\
&=\frac{{2^{M_q(g)-N_q(g)}(q+2)}^{(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)}}{{(q+1)}^{qM_q(g)+N_q(g)-1}}\prod_{i=2}^{N_q(g)} \sigma_i(g). \label{eqb}
\end{align}
Second, we derive the relation be between the product of degrees of all vertices in $\mathcal{G}_q(g+1)$ and the product of degrees of all vertices in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$. For $\mathcal{G}_q(g+1)$, the degree of all the new vertices in $\mathcal{V}'_{g+1}$ that were generated at iteration $g+1$ is $q+1$; while for each $i$ of those old vertices in $\mathcal{V}_{g}$, we have $d_i(g+1)=(q+1)d_i(g)$. Then,
\begin{align}
\prod_{i\in \mathcal{V}_{g+1}}d_i(g+1)&=\prod_{i\in \mathcal{V}'_{g+1}}d_i(g+1)\prod_{i\in \mathcal{V}_{g}}d_i(g+1)\notag\\
&={(q+1)}^{qM_q(g)}\prod_{i\in \mathcal{V}_{g}}(q+1)d_i(g)\notag\\
&={(q+1)}^{qM_q(g)+N_q(g)}\prod_{i\in \mathcal{V}_{g}}d_i(g).\label{eqc}
\end{align}
Finally, the sum of degrees of all vertices in $\mathcal{G}_q(g)$ is equal to $2M_q(g)$. Then, Combining Eqs.~\eqref{Mqg},~\eqref{eqt},~\eqref {eqb}, and~\eqref{eqc}, we obtain the following recursive relation for $\tau_q(g+1)$ and $\tau_q(g)$:
\begin{equation}
\tau_q(g+1)=2^{M_q(g)-N_q(g)+1}{(q+2)}^{(q-1)M_q(g)+N_q(g)-1}\tau_q(g).
\end{equation}
Considering the expressions for $M_q(g)$ and $N_q(g)$ in Eqs.~\eqref{Mqg} and~\eqref{Nqg}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{spanT}
\tau_q(g+1)&=2^{\frac{q+1}{q+3}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}-\frac{q+1}{q+3}}\nonumber\\
&\quad \times{(q+2)}^{\frac{q^2+2q-1}{q+3}{\left[\frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2}\right]}^{g+1}+\frac{q+1}{q+3}}\tau_q(g).
\end{align}
With the initial condition $\tau_q(0)=\tau(\mathcal{K}_{q+2})={(q+2)}^q$, Eq.~\eqref{spanT} is solved to yield~\eqref{SPtrees}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Conclusion}
For many graph products of two graphs, one can analyze the structural and spectral properties of the resulting graph, expressing them in terms those corresponding the two graphs. Because of this strong advantage, many authors have used graph products to generate realistic networks with cycles at different scales. In this paper, by iteratively using the edge corona product, we proposed a minimal model for complex networks called simplicial networks, which can capture group interactions in real networks, characterized by a parameter $q$. We then provided an extensive analysis for relevant topological properties of the model, most of which are dependent on $q$. We show that the resulting networks display some remarkable characteristics of real networks, such as non-trivial higher-order interaction, power-law distribution of vertex degree, small diameter, and high clustering coefficient.
Furthermore, we found exact expressions for all the eigenvalues and their multiplicities of the transition probability matrix and normalized Laplacian matrix of our proposed networks. Using these obtained eigenvalues, we further evaluated mixing time, as well as mean hitting time for random walks on the networks. The former scales sublinearly with the vertex number, while the latter behaves linearly with the vertex number. The sublinear scaling of mixing time is contrary to previous knowledge that mixing time scales at most logarithmically with the vertex number. We also using the obtained eigenvalues to determine the number of spanning tree in the networks. Thus, in addition to the advantage of networks generated by other graph products, the proposed networks have another obvious advantage that both the eigenvalues and their multiplicities of relevant matrix can be analytically and exactly determined, since for previous networks created by graph products, the eigenvalues are only obtained recursively at most. The explicit expression for each eigenvalue facilitates to study those dynamical processes determined by one or several particular eigenvalues, such as mixing time considered here.
It should be mentioned that many real networks are weighted with variable edge length~\cite{HeMaKoSw15}. For example, in scientific collaboration networks, the collaboration strength between collaborators can be weighted by the number of papers they coauthored. It is thus necessary to model these realistic networks by weighted simplicial complexes~\cite{CoBi17}. In future, as the case of corona product~\cite{QiLiZh18}, one can also define extended edge corona product of graphs and use it to build weighted scale-free networks with rich properties matching those of real-world networks~\cite{BaBaPaVe04}.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61872093 and 61803248), the National Key R \& D Program of China
(No. 2018YFB1305104), Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2018SHZDZX01) and ZJLab.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Intro}
Compact objects, such as white dwarfs, neutron stars (NSs), hybrid or strange quark stars \citep{textbook,strangestars1,strangestars2}, are the final fate of stars, and they are characterized by ultra-high matter densities. NSs, in particular, are exciting objects as understanding their properties and their observed complex phenomena requires bringing together several different scientific disciplines and lines of research, such as nuclear physics, astrophysics and gravitational physics. These ultra-dense objects, thanks to their extreme conditions, which cannot be reached on earth-based experiments, constitute an excellent cosmic laboratory to study and constrain strongly interacting matter properties at high densities, phase transitions in it, non-conventional physics and alternative theories of gravity.
It is well-known that the properties of compact objects, i.e. mass and radius, depend crucially on the equation of state (EoS), which unfortunately is poorly known. Presently, the main source of information about the properties of dense strongly interacting matter comes from the nucleus-nucleus (A+A) collisional programs which provide us with sufficiently accurate and detailed experimental data on the properties of nuclear and hadron matter at finite temperature. Using these data, however, it is highly non-trivial to formulate an EoS at vanishing temperature that corresponds to conditions inside the NSs.
Another source of information comes from the merger of binary NSs. Thus, the LIGO/Virgo interferometers detection of gravitational waves emitted during the GW170817 NSs merger put constraints on the EoS at the super-high baryonic densities \citep{LIGO2017}. The precise timing of radio pulsars and X-ray observations of NSs in binaries led to progress in determination of masses and radii of compact stars \citep{Steiner2010, Steiner2013, Ozel2006}.
Combining all these pieces of information, an EoS with induced surface tension (IST) was recently proposed and tested \citep{LS2}. The IST EoS simultaneously reproduces existing heavy ion collision experimental data \citep{violetta2}, i.e AGS (Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, Brookhaven National Laboratory), SPS (Super Proton Synchrotron, CERN), RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory) and LHC (Large Hadron Collider, CERN) experiments, the nuclear matter properties \citep{violetta1}, the astrophysical and gravitational-wave observations, providing its applicability in the widest range of thermodynamic parameters \citep{LS2}. Moreover, it was successfully applied to the description of nuclear liquid-gas phase transition with the critical endpoint \citep{Ivanytskyi2017}. As was shown in \cite{LS2} the IST EoS reproduces NS properties and is fully consistent with all astrophysical data.
On the other hand, asteroseismology is a widely used technique to probe the internal structure of stars which can be applied to NSs in order to study the thermodynamic properties inside the star. Studying the oscillations of stars and computing the frequency modes we can learn more about their composition and the EoS of the strongly interacting matter, since the precise values of the frequency modes are very sensitive to the underlying physics and internal structure of the star, see e.g. \cite{pulsating1, pulsating2, pulsating3, pulsating4, pulsating5, pulsating6, pulsating7, pulsating8, pulsating10, pulsating9} and references therein.
The oscillations in NSs can be excited by accretion, tidal forces in close eccentric binary system, starquakes caused by cracks in the crust, magnetic reconfiguration, during the supernova explosion or any other dynamical instabilities \citep{Franco2000,Tsang2012,Chirenti2017,Hinderer}.
In the present work, we are interested in studying the radial oscillations of non-rotating NSs. For this purpose we selected six objects with different masses $M$ and radii $R$ (i.e., six fiducial stars of different radii and masses equal to 1.2, 1.5 and 1.9 $M_{\odot}$, which represent softer and stiffer EoSs). Performing a thorough analysis of the frequency of radial oscillation modes, that for a NS corresponds to radial acoustic modes, we were able to find a connection between the oscillation frequencies, and the thermodynamic properties (i.e., the EoS) of matter inside the NS.
Thus, searches for correlations between the oscillation modes and a strongly interacting matter EoS can help to probe an internal structure of the NSs and, especially, phase transitions in their interior, which is one of the primary targets of compact star physics.
In addition, this work is also very interesting due to its relevance for gravitational physics studies. Thus, despite the fact that radial oscillations of a spherical star do not emit gravitational waves, they can couple to the non-radial oscillations, amplifying them and producing gravitational radiation to a significant level \citep{pulsating5}. Moreover, it is well-known that radial and non-radial oscillations share identical global properties. Therefore, by studying the global properties of the radial oscillations, we are also characterizing similar properties of the non-radial oscillations. This is, for instance, the case of a quantity known as the large separation -- {\it frequency difference} of oscillating modes with the same degree and consecutive radial order~\citep[e.g.,][]{LopesTC}.
The next generation of the gravitational wave detectors such as the Einstein Telescope or the Cosmic Explorer could detect such emission and provide information on the compact stars oscillations \citep{Chirenti2018}. Moreover, the launch of the eXTP \citep{Zand2019} and other following X-ray missions will also increase the expectations for the detection of the NSs oscillations. When the detection of the radial oscillations of NSs will become possible, such connection can be used to constrain the EoS of compact stars with high precision.
\smallskip
Our work is organized as follows: in the next section we present a brief review of the hydrostatic equilibrium and structure equations, while the description of the EoS used in this study, i.e. the IST EoS, is discussed in section 3. In section 4 we present the equations of radial oscillations in General Relatively, and section 5 is devoted to the discussion of the numerical results obtained in this study. Section 6 is dedicated to the discussion of the excitation mechanisms of the oscillation modes and their detectability with the future gravitational wave detectors.
Finally, in section 7, we present the main conclusions of our work. In this study, for convenience we use geometrical units ($\hbar=c=G=1$) and also adopt the mostly positive metric signature $(-+++)$.
\section{Hydrostatic equilibrium}
\label{HydEq}
We briefly review the structure equations for relativistic stars in
General Relativity \citep[GR,][]{GR}. The starting point is
Einstein's field equations without a cosmological constant, which reads
\begin{equation}
G_{\mu \nu} = R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu} = 8 \pi T_{\mu \nu},
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu \nu}$ is the metric tensor, $R_{\mu \nu}$ is the Ricci tensor, $G_{\mu \nu}$ is the Einstein tensor, and $R=g^{\mu \nu} R_{\mu \nu}$ is the Ricci scalar. The matter is assumed to be a perfect fluid with a stress-energy tensor given by
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu \nu} = P g_{\mu \nu} + (\rho + P) u_\mu u_\nu\equiv P g_{\mu \nu} + \zeta u_\mu u_\nu,
\end{equation}
$\rho$ is the energy density, $P$ is the pressure and $u_\mu$ is the four-velocity of the fluid.
For convenience of notation, we have also introduced the function $\zeta (r)$ that is given by the expression:
$\zeta=\rho+P$.
\smallskip
As usual for non-rotating objects we seek static spherically symmetric solutions assuming for the metric the ansatz
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -f(r) dt^2 + g(r) dr^2 + r^2 (d \theta^2 + sin^2 \theta d \phi^2),
\end{equation}
where $f(r)$ and $g(r)$ are two unknown metric functions, that can also be written as
$f(r)=e^{\lambda_1(r)}$ and $g(r)=e^{\lambda_2(r)}=(1-2 m(r)/r)^{-1}$.
Accordingly, the solutions inside and outside a compact star are obtained from the match of the following equations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$-$] For the interior of the star ($r < R$), it is convenient to work with the functions $\lambda_1(r)$ and $m(r)$,
instead of the functions $f(r)$ and $g(r)$. Thereby, the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations \citep[TOV,][]{TOV1,TOV2}
for the interior solution of a relativistic star read
\begin{eqnarray}
m'(r) & = & 4 \pi r^2 \rho(r),
\label{eq:mprime}
\\
P'(r) & = & - \zeta(r) \frac{m(r)+4 \pi P(r) r^3}{r (r-2 r m(r) )},
\label{eq:Pprime}
\\
\lambda_1'(r) & = & -2 \frac{P'(r)}{\zeta(r)},
\label{eq:nprime}
\end{eqnarray}
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to r. Moreover, we assume a certain EoS relating $P$ with $\rho$,
to obtain a closed system of differential equations. In the present work we consider the IST EoS \citep{LS2}
as will be described in the next section.
\item[$-$]
For the exterior of the star ($r > R$), the matter energy momentum tensor vanishes,
and one obtains the well-known Schwarzschild solution~\citep{SBH} that reads
\begin{equation}
f(r) = g(r)^{-1} = 1-\frac{2 M}{r}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The first two equations (\ref{eq:mprime} and \ref{eq:Pprime}) are to be integrated with the initial conditions $m(r=0)=0$ and $P(r=0)=P_c$, where $P_c$ is the central pressure. The radius of the star is determined requiring that the pressure vanishes at the surface, $P(R) = 0$, and the mass of the star is then given by $M=m(R)$.
Moreover, it is required that the two solutions match at the surface of the star.
Finally, the other metric function can be computed using the third equation (i.e., equation~\ref{eq:nprime}) together with the boundary condition $\lambda_1(R)=ln(1-2M/R)$.
\section{Induced surface tension equation of state (IST EoS)}
\label{EOS}
The computation of the TOV equations in a closed form, as well as the calculation of the NS radial oscillation modes require a relation between pressure and energy density, which is given by the EoS. For this purpose we use the IST EoS first formulated for symmetric nuclear matter by \cite{violetta1}. Furthermore, this EoS was formulated for $\beta$-equilibrated electrically neutral nucleon-electron mixture and applied to the NS modelling \citep{LS1, LS2}. Here, we use the most recent and advanced version of the IST EoS, which also accounts for the nuclear asymmetry energy \citep{LS2}.
In the Grand Canonical Ensemble the IST EoS has the form of the system of two coupled equations for the pressure $p$ and the IST coefficient $\sigma$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq1}
p&=&
\hspace*{-.3cm}\sum_{A=n,p,e}p^{id}(m_A, \nu^1_A)
-p_{int}(n^{id}_B)+p_{sym}(n^{id}_B,I^{id}) \,,\quad\\
\label{Eq2}
\sigma&=&\hspace*{-.2cm}\sum_{A=n,p}p^{id}(m_A, \nu_A^2) R_{nucl} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Neutrons, protons and electrons (subscript indexes $``n"$, $``p"$, and $``e"$, respectively) with corresponding masses $m_A$ and chemical potentials $\mu_A$ ($A=n,~p,~e$) are physical degrees of freedom explicitly included in the IST EoS.
As was shown by the fit of A+A collision experimental data with the multicomponent IST EoS ~\citep{2018NuPhA.970..133B}, neutrons and protons are supposed to have the same hard core radii $R_{n}=R_{p}=R_{nucl}$, which lies in the range from 0.3 to 0.5 fm. For simplicity, interactions of electrons are neglected, and they are treated as free particles with a zero hard core radius $R_e=0$.
The system of Eqs. (\ref{Eq1}-\ref{Eq2}) is written in terms of the zero temperature pressure $p^{id}$ of non-interacting Fermi particles with spin $\frac{1}{2}$ and quantum degeneracy $2$, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq3}
p^{id}(m,\mu) \hspace*{-0.05cm} = \hspace*{-0.05cm}
\frac{\mu k(2\mu^2-5m^2)+3m^4\ln\frac{\mu+k}{m}}{24\pi^2}\theta(\mu-m),\quad
\end{eqnarray}
where $k=\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}$ is the Fermi momentum of a particle with mass $m$ and chemical potential $\mu$, and $\theta$ is the Heaviside function.
Interaction between nucleons accounts via a short range repulsion of the hard core type controlled by their hard core radius $R_{nucl}$ and the mean-field type attraction. Such an attraction leads to a negative shift of the one particle energy levels or, equivalently, to a positive contribution $U$ to the effective chemical potential of each nucleon $\nu_A^1$ and $\nu_A^2$ ($A=p,n$). These effective chemical potentials include the effects of the hard core repulsion through the nucleon eigenvolume ${\rm V}=\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{nucl}^3$ and surface $S=4\pi R_{nucl}^2$, whereas the mean field attraction and symmetry energy are accounted for through the density and nucleon asymmetry dependent potentials $U$ and $U_{sym}$, respectively~\citep{Rischke1988}. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq5}
\nu^1_A&=&\mu_A-p{\rm V}-\sigma S+U(n^{id}_B) \mp U_{sym}(n^{id}_B,I^{id}),\\
\label{Eq6}
\nu_A^2&=&\mu_A-p{\rm V}-\alpha\sigma S+U_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Requirement of thermodynamic consistency leads to appearance of the mean-field contribution $p_{int}$ to the total pressure. Note, that $p_{int}$ enters the expression for the pressure with sign ``-'', since it is caused by the nucleon attraction. These two quantities $U$ and $p_{int}$ (which are controlled by constant parameters $C_d^2$ and $\kappa$)
are written explicitly in the following form
\begin{equation}
U(n^{id}_B)=C_d^2 ~(n^{id}_B)^\kappa,\quad p_{int}(n^{id}_B)=\int\limits_0^{n^{id}_B} l~
\frac{\partial U(l)}{\partial l}~dl,
\end{equation}
where $n^{id}_B$ is the density of the baryonic charge. More precise account for the nucleon attraction leads to an additional positive shift of the particle chemical potential for $U_0=const$, which, however, does not contribute to the pressure due to its constant value.
The nuclear symmetry energy contribution in the IST EoS is also taken into account within the mean-field theory framework.
However, it corresponds to the nucleon repulsion, the contribution to the total pressure $p_{sym}$ enters it with sign ``+''.
Note, that the shifts of the nucleon and proton chemical potentials by modulus are equal to $U_{sym}$, but have the opposite signs,
``-'' and ``+'' for neutrons and protons, respectively. In comparison to the parameterization of $p_{sym}$ in Ref. \citep{LS2}, that gives
nuclear asymmetry energy slope at nuclear saturation density $L\sim 113-115$ MeV being on the limit of its value constrained by experiments \citep{Symslope}, here we considered another parameterization, which, on the one hand, gives lower value of $L$, and, on the other hand, do not violates the thermodynamic consistency \citep{Rischke1988, Bugaev1989}. In terms of the nuclear asymmetry parameter $I=(n^{id}_{n}-n^{id}_{p})/n^{id}_B$ ($n^{id}_{n}$ and $n^{id}_{p}$ are the densities of the ideal gas of neutrons and protons, respectively) it is parametrized as
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{sym}(n^{id}_B,I^{id}) &=&\int\limits_0^{n^{id}_B,I^{id}} \frac{\partial p_{sym}(l)}{\partial l} \frac{dl}{l}
, \\
p_{sym}(n^{id}_B,I^{id}) &=& \frac{A_{sym}(n^{id}_B I^{id})^2}{\left(1+(B_{sym}n^{id}_B I^{id})^2 \right)^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_{sym}$ and $B_{sym}$ are constants.
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
& $R_{nucl}$ & $\kappa$ & $B_{sym}$& $A_{sym}$ &$C_{d}^{2} $ & $U_0$ & $K_0$ & $L$ \\
Set & $(fm)$ & $-$ & $(fm^{3})$ & $ (MeV \cdot fm^{3})$& $(MeV \cdot fm^{3\kappa})$& (MeV) & (MeV) & (MeV) \\
\hline
\hline
A & 0.477 & 0.254 & 14.0 & 111.87 & 145.90 & 157.35 & 202.36 & 96.05 \\
B & 0.463 & 0.25 & 16.0 & 138.30 & 146.30 & 162.87 & 201.02 & 93.19 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab1}Two sets of parameters of the IST EoS which reproduce the nuclear matter properties, the flow constraint and satisfy all astrophysical constraints. Moreover, the two IST EoS sets have the following common parameters: $\alpha=1.245$ and $J= 30.0\;{\rm MeV}$. }
\label{tab:ISTEoS}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{M-R2}
\caption{The relation between gravitational mass M of NS and its radius R.
The points correspond to the three fixed masses of the NS, i.e. $1.9 M_{\odot}$, $1.5 M_{\odot}$ and $1.2 M_{\odot}$.
}
\label{fig:massrad}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.26]{pe-r}
\includegraphics[scale=0.26]{metricB2}
\caption{
{\bf Left panel:} Energy density $\rho$ (red curve) and pressure $P$ (black curve) as a function of the normalized radius $r/R$. {\bf Right panel:} Metric functions $e^{\lambda_1}$ (red curve) and $e^{\lambda_2}$ (black curve) as a function of $r/R$. Both panels correspond to $B_2$ star.}
\label{fig:interior}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l | l l l l l}
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{{\sc Properties of six fiducial stars}} \\
Stars& $M (M_{\odot})$ & $R$ (km) & $\beta=M/R$ & $\omega_0$ (kHz) & $n_{B}^{c}$ ($fm^{-3}$)\\
\hline
\hline
$A_1$ & 1.9 & 11.08 & 0.255 & 13.669 & 0.820 \\
$A_2$ & 1.5 & 11.60 & 0.192 & 11.330 & 0.598\\
$A_3$ & 1.2 & 11.73 & 0.152 & 9.965 & 0.480 \\
$B_1$ & 1.9 & 10.67 & 0.265 & 14.453 & 0.866\\
$B_2$ & 1.5 & 11.31 & 0.197 & 11.778 & 0.613\\
$B_3$ & 1.2 & 11.45 & 0.156 & 10.333 & 0.491\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Six fiducial stars are considered in this work from the two sets ($A$ and $B$) of the IST EoS.
The fundamental frequency $\omega_0$ is given by the expression $\omega_0=\sqrt{M/R^3}$. The last column represents central baryon densities for the selected stars.}
\label{tab:1set}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Cs-r} \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{CB-CA} \\
\caption{{\bf Top panel:} Square of the speed of sound $c_{S}^{2}$ (for all six fiducial stars) as a function of $r/R$ (see Table \ref{tab:1set}). {\bf Lower panel:} Difference between the $c_{S}^{2}$ for the stars with equal masses and distinctive radii that correspond to the different parameter sets (A or B) of the IST EoS as a function of $r/R$:
$1.9 M_{\odot}$ (dashed curve), $1.5 M_{\odot}$ (solid curve) and $1.2 M_{\odot}$ (dotted curve).}
\label{fig:sound}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{gamma_r_B} \\
\hspace{-2.0cm}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{gamma_r_B2A2} \\
\caption{ {\bf Top panel:} Adiabatic index $\gamma(r)$ as a function of $r/R$ for the stars (see Table~\ref{tab:1set}): $B_{1}$ with $M=1.9~M_{\odot}$, $B_{2}$ with $M=1.5~M_{\odot}$ and $B_{3}$ with $M=1.2~M_{\odot}$. {\bf Lower panel:} Comparison between the $\gamma$ indexes for $A_{2}$ and $B_{2}$ stars (both with a mass $M=1.5~M_{\odot}$).}
\label{fig:gamma}
\end{figure}
The IST contribution is a crucial term of this new EoS that accounts for the hard core repulsion effects with a very high accuracy.
This is done by finding the correct value of parameter $\alpha$ in order to reproduce values of the second, third and fourth virial coefficients
of hard spheres.
Since the two higher virial coefficients are reproduced with only one parameter, while the second virial coefficient has the correct value for any $\alpha$ value, then we conclude that such parametrization of the hard core repulsion in the IST EoS is, indeed, physically well motivated.
From the analysis of the virial coefficients of hard spheres it was found that $\alpha $ is approximately equal to 1.245 \citep{Sagun2017a}.
In Ref. \citep{LS2} was confirmed that such $\alpha$ is consistent with the currently known NS properties.
The parameters of the IST EoS are determined from the fit of the different experimental observables. Parameters $C_d^2$ and $U_0$ are used in order to reproduce properties of normal nuclear matter, i.e. zero pressure and binding energy per nucleon equal to $16~MeV$ at $n=0.16~fm^{-3}$. The constants $A_{sym}$ and $B_{sym}$ are determined in order to be in agreement with an experimental values of the nuclear asymmetry energy $J$ and its slope $L$ at nuclear saturation density. The hard core radius of nucleons $R_{nucl}$ can lie between $0.3$ and $0.5~fm$, which makes the present EoS consistent with experimental data on yields of particles produced in heavy-ion collisions (for details see \cite{violetta2}). Finally, the IST EoS has a realistic value of the nuclear incompressibility factor $K_0$, and simultaneously is consistent with the proton flow constraint \citep{Danielewicz2002} only if $\kappa=0.15 - 0.3$ \citep{Ivanytskyi2017}. The $R_{nucl}$ and $\kappa$ values were fixed by fitting this EoS to the astrophysical data. The corresponding sets of parameters are shown in Table~\ref{tab1}. Both sets of parameters provide equally realistic descriptions of the NS properties. The set B represents more softer model parameterization in comparison to the set A, that reflects in the lower values of NSs radii (see Fig. \ref{fig:massrad}), compressibilities and Love numbers. Thus, for a referent 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ NS the considered sets A and B give the Love numbers equal to 797 and 765, respectively. This result is in full agreement with the LIGO/Virgo 90\% confidence interval computed for GW170817 merger event \citep{LIGO2017}.
Having all parameters of the IST EoS fixed by requiring equal densities of electrons and protons, due to electric neutrality, as well as to the equality of the neutron chemical potential to the sum of the ones of protons and electrons (in order to ensure $\beta$-equilibrium), one can obtain a unique relation between the pressure and energy density for the NS matter.
For simplicity, the crust was described via the polytropic EoS with $\gamma=\frac{4}{3}$. As we are not focus on the physics inside the crust of the NSs, we omitted part of the start with $r/R\gtrsim0.9$, where the transition to the crust occurs.
\section{Radial oscillations of Neutron Stars}
\label{OSC}
In the study of radial oscillations of a NS, the set of equations that describe the radial perturbations of the star matter is defined as fractional variations of the local radius $\xi=\Delta r/r$ (with $\Delta r$ being the radial displacement)
and pressure $\eta=\Delta P/P$ (with $\Delta P$ being the perturbation of the pressure)~\citep{chanmugan, pulsating1}. Hence,
the radial oscillations of a compact star are computed from the following system of two first-order differential equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi'(r) & = & -\left(\frac{3}{r} + \frac{P'}{\zeta}\right) \xi - \frac{1}{r \gamma} \eta,\\
\eta'(r) & = & \omega^2 \left[r (1+\frac{\rho}{P}) e^{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}\right]\xi
\nonumber
\\
& - & \left[ \frac{4 P'}{P} + 8 \pi \zeta r e^{\lambda_2} - \frac{r P^{'2}}{P \zeta}\right]\xi
\nonumber
\\
& - &
\left[ \frac{\rho P'}{P\zeta}+4 \pi \zeta r e^{\lambda_2} \right]\eta ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $e^{\lambda_1}$ and $e^{\lambda_2} = (1-2m/r)^{-1}$ are the two metric functions, $\omega$ is the frequency of the oscillation mode, $\gamma$ is the relativistic adiabatic index, that is defined by
\begin{equation}
\gamma =c_s^2 \: \left (1 + \frac{\rho}{P} \right),
\label{eq:gamma_cs}
\end{equation}
where $c_s^2\equiv d P/d \rho$ is the adiabatic sound speed.
\smallskip
The previous system of two coupled first order differential equations is supplemented with two boundary conditions, one at the center of the star as $r \rightarrow 0$, and another at the surface $r=R$. The boundary conditions are obtained as follows: in the first equation, $\xi'(r)$ must be finite as $r \rightarrow 0$, and therefore we require that $ \eta = -3 \gamma \xi, $
must be satisfied at the center. Similarly, in the second equation, $\eta'(r)$ must be finite at the surface as $\rho,P \rightarrow 0$, and therefore we require that
\begin{equation}
\eta = \xi \left[ -4 + (1-2M/R)^{-1} \left( -\frac{M}{R}-\frac{\omega^2 R^3}{M} \right ) \right]
\end{equation}
must be satisfied at the surface, where we recall that $M$ and $R$ are the mass and the radius of the star, respectively.
\smallskip
As the remainder, in this article we will use the dimensionless frequency $ \sigma = {\omega}/{\omega_0} $
or $ \nu= {\sigma \: \omega_0}/{(2 \pi)} $, where $\omega_0$ is defined by $ \omega_0 = \sqrt{{M}/{R^3}} $.
Actually, this expression for $ \omega_0$ gives a good estimation of frequency of the fundamental mode.
It is worth noticing that contrary to the previous hydrostatic equilibrium problem (i.e. TOV equations), which is an initial value problem,
the problem related to the radial perturbations of a compact star, is known as a Sturm-Liouville boundary value problem.
In this class of problems, the frequency $\nu$ is only allowed to take particular values, the so-called eigenfrequencies $\nu_n$. Therefore, to each specific radial oscillation mode of the star corresponds a unique $\nu_n$ (or $\sigma_n$). Accordingly, each radial mode of oscillation
is identified by its $\nu_n$ and by an associated pair of eigenfunctions $\xi_n(r)$ and $\eta_n(r)$,
where $\xi_n(r)$ is the displacement perturbation $\xi_n(r)$ and $\eta_n(r)$ is the pressure perturbation.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{RES}
We have considered six fiducial NSs with masses equal to $1.2 M_{\odot}$, $1.5 M_{\odot}$ and $1.9 M_{\odot}$, and radii $R \simeq (10.6-11.7)~km$ from the sets A and B (see Table~\ref{tab:1set}).
The Fig.~\ref{fig:interior} shows typical pressure, energy density and metric functions profiles as a function of the normalised radius for the $B_{2}$ star. As presented on the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sound} the square of the speed of sound $c_{s}^{2}(r)$ decreases towards the surface of the star. For the more massive stars (sets $A_{1}$ and $B_{1}$), $c_{s}^{2}$ varies from $\sim 0.8$
at the center of the star to a vanishing value near the surface. To highlight the local variations of the $c_{s}^{2}$ with the star's radius for the different parameter sets of the IST EoS, the low panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sound} shows $c_{s,B_i}^{2}(r)-c_{s,A_i}^{2}(r)$ (for $i=1,2,3$), i.e., the difference between the square of the speed of sound for two stars with the same mass but different radius (see lower panel on Fig.~\ref{fig:sound}). It is worth noticing that all curves have a similar variation with the star's radius. The differences between the square of the speed of sound for two stars are almost flat in the core of the star, undergo a rapid increase in the layer that separates the two regions, i.e. the inner and the outer core of the NS. The separation between these two stellar regions occur in a relatively thin transition layer located around $0.35$, $0.55$ or $0.75$ of the star radius that can be identified as the protuberance in the lower panel on Fig.~\ref{fig:sound}.
To identify the physical processes responsible for such behaviour inside the star, we computed the adiabatic index $\gamma$ as a function of the corresponding radius, that shows how the pressure varies with the baryon density.
As first mentioned in Ref. \citep{Haensel2002}, the analysis of $\gamma$ allows us to identify the transition layer that separates the inner and the outer core,
which, as mentioned previously, in our models occurs at $0.75$, $0.55$ and $0.35$ of the star radius for the $B_{1}$, $B_{2}$ and $B_{3}$ stars, respectively (see top panel of Fig. \ref{fig:gamma}). As shown in the lower panel of Fig. \ref{fig:gamma}, a stiffer EoS, that in our case corresponds
to a IST EoS with the parameter set A, leads to a small shift of the transition layer to an higher radius.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l | l l l l l l}
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{{\sc Radial oscillation modes for different stars}} \\
$n$ & $A_{1}$ & $A_{2}$ & $A_{3}$ & $B_{1}$ & $B_{2}$ & $B_{3}$ \\
\hline
\hline
1 & 3.2384 & 3.2121 & 3.1758 & 3.2603 & 3.2415 & 3.2098 \\
2 & 7.2259 & 7.0942 & 6.9197 & 7.3242 & 7.1782 & 7.0102 \\
3 & 10.7881 & 10.6444 & 10.4529 & 10.9183 & 10.7763 & 10.5818 \\
4 & 14.2948 & 14.2158 & 14.0005 & 14.4571 & 14.3684 & 14.1552\\
5 & 17.8389 & 17.8093 & 17.5834 & 18.0182 & 17.9826 & 17.7572\\
6 & 21.3834 & 21.4334 & 21.2028 & 21.5757 & 21.6127 & 21.3868 \\
7 & 24.9591 & 25.0885 & 24.8530 & 25.1605 & 25.2729 & 25.0395 \\
8 & 28.5482 & 28.7557 & 28.5190 & 28.7505 & 28.9472 & 28.7121 \\
9 & 32.1512 & 32.4481 & 32.1977 & 32.3584 & 32.6368 & 32.4023\\
10 & 35.7746 & 36.1437 & 35.8918 & 35.9787 & 36.3430 & 36.1043 \\
11 & 39.3999 & 39.8581 & 39.5969 & 39.6058 & 40.0546 & 39.8154 \\
12 & 43.0433 & 43.5736 & 43.3066 & 43.2503 & 43.7822 & 43.5349 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Frequencies $\nu_n$ in $kHz$ for the radial modes of
six fiducial stars considered here (see Table~\ref{tab:1set}). $n$ is the order of the radial mode.}
\label{tab:2set}
\centering
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{LFS_A1B1} \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{LFS_A2B2} \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{LFS_A3B3}
\caption{
Large frequency difference vs frequency (both in kHz) for two stars of the same mass from sets $A$ (in magenta) and $B$ (in blue). {\bf Top panel:} Comparison between stars $A_{1}, B_{1}$ with mass $M=1.9~M_{\odot}$. {\bf Middle panel:} Comparison between stars $A_{2}, B_{2}$ with mass $M=1.5~M_{\odot}$. {\bf Lower panel:} Comparison between stars $A_{3}, B_{3}$ with mass $M=1.2~M_{\odot}$.}
\label{fig:spectra}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
Table~\ref{tab:2set} shows the frequencies of the first 12 radial modes for the fiducial stars of Table~\ref{tab:1set}.
One of the quantities widely used in asteroseismology to learn about star properties is a difference between consecutive modes, i.e. $\Delta\nu_{n}=\nu_{n+1}-\nu_n$, the so-called large separation~\citep{book,lopes}. In Fig. \ref{fig:spectra} we show the comparison of
the $\Delta\nu_{n}$ functions for every pair of stars with the same mass.
In general,
we found that the decrease of the central baryon density, and, therefore, of the star's mass leads to a decrease of the large separation $\Delta\nu_{n}$. Interestingly, it was also found that $\Delta\nu_{n}$ varies with $\nu_{n}$
which is a first evidence that the microphysics (or the EoS) of the interior of the NS is imprinted in the large separation, a characteristic well-known and also found in main sequence stars,
for instance the Sun.
For both types of stars, $\Delta\nu_{n}$ starts to be a constant
proportional to $\sqrt{M/R^3}$ that is independent of $\nu_n$,
on top of which a discontinuity or glitch on the star's structure
will imprint a small $\nu_n-$ oscillation on
$\Delta\nu_{n}$, like the one observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra}.
In the case of the NS, this $\nu_n-$ oscillation has an amplitude proportional to the magnitude of the discontinuity, which results from the rapid variation
of the sound speed $c_s$ or the relativistic adiabatic index $\gamma$
(see equation \ref{eq:gamma_cs}) on the transition layer that separates the inner and the outer core of the NS,
as clearly shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig:gamma}.
The period of the $\nu_n-$ oscillation relates to the location of the discontinuity beneath the star's surface~\cite{LopesTC}.
A detailed account for the impact of discontinuities or glitches on radial and non-radial acoustic oscillations is described on
\cite[e.g.,][]{lopesgough,BritoLopes2014}.
On Fig.~\ref{fig:oscillations} it is shown the $\xi_n$ and $\eta_n$ eigenfunctions calculated for the $B_{2}$ star (with $M=1.5 M_{\odot}$ and $R=11.31~km$). These eigenfunctions are computed for the low order radial modes, $n=1,2,3$, shown in black, blue and red, respectively, intermediate modes, $n=6,7$, shown in dark red and cyan, and finally highly excited modes, $n=11,12$, shown in magenta and green.
According to a Sturm-Liouville boundary value problem the number of zeros of the eigenfunctions corresponds to the overtone number $n$, namely the first excited mode, corresponding to $n=2$, has only one zero, the second excited mode, corresponding to $n=3$, has two zeros, while the fundamental mode, corresponding to $n=1$, does not have any zeros at all. The fundamental mode is also known as the f-mode, while the rest of the modes with $n=2,3,...$ are the so-called p-modes (pressure modes or acoustic modes)~\citep{book}.
The amplitude of $\xi_n(r)$ for each mode $n$ is larger closer to the center (but not at the center) and much smaller near the surface. Alternatively, the amplitude of $\eta_n(r)$ is larger closer to the center and near the surface of the star. Hence, it results that $\xi_{n+1}(r)-\xi_n(r)$ and $\eta_{n+1}(r)-\eta_n(r)$ are more sensitive to the core of the star. Notice, that although $\eta_n(r)$ of consecutive $n$ have large amplitudes near the surface with opposite signal (opposition of phase) its contribution for $\eta_{n+1}(r)-\eta_n(r)$ cancels out.
As one can see on Fig. \ref{fig:ksi}, the comparison of the fundamental modes for all six considered stars reveals an imprint of the stars structure on the behaviour of the first eigenfunction with star radius. Humps on the eigenfunction profiles are shifted to higher radius with an increase of the star mass. As a result, for $B_{1}$, $B_{2}$, $B_{3}$ stars it happens at about $0.75$, $0.55$ and $0.35$ of star radius, respectively. The onset of anomaly
is become shifted to higher $r/R$ values for a stiffer IST EoS (set A, see details on Fig. \ref{fig:ksi}). Smooth behaviour of the first eigenfunction for all higher oscillation modes can be explained by its negligible effect for modes with a bigger n.
It is possible to conclude that changes of the thermodynamic properties of the matter inside the NSs, i.e., variations in the IST EoS leaves an imprint on the $\xi_n(r)$ eigenfunction for the f-mode. Such changes of star properties correspond to the different layers of the star. Thus, we conclude that the found irregularities are associated with the transition between the inner and the outer core of star. Moreover, we found that for a more massive star (e.g., $B_{1}$ on Fig. \ref{fig:ksi} and top panel of Fig. \ref{fig:gamma}), the transition layer occurs closer to the star's surface, where for a low mass NS
it occurs more closer to the center, i.e. around $0.35$ of the radius of the star. This result fundaments our point that if radial oscillations of the NSs are discovered,
it will be possible to use frequencies of radial modes to learn about the thermodynamic properties of the matter inside NS.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ksi-r} \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{eta-r}
\caption{
{\bf Top panel:} First eigenfunction $\xi_n$ vs dimensionless radius coordinate $r/R$ for low ($n=1,2,3$), intermediate ($n=6,7$) and highly-excited modes ($n=11,12$). {\bf Lower panel:} Same as before, but for the second eigenfunction $\eta_n$. Both plots correspond to $B_{2}$ star.}
\label{fig:oscillations}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{ksi1_allSets} \\
\caption{
Comparison between the first eigenfunctions $\xi_n$ for the fundamental mode (n=1) for all six considered stars.}
\label{fig:ksi}
\end{figure}
As you can see in the Table \ref{tab:2set}, the oscillation frequencies grow with an increase of the central baryon density (see Table \ref{tab:1set}). As was discussed in Refs. \cite{pulsating8, Zdunik1999} the oscillation frequency of the first mode start to decrease while approaching the maximal mass (or central density) for a given EoS and cross a zero value exactly at the highest point of a M-R curve.
\section{Detectability and excitation mechanisms of the NS oscillations}
\label{Detect}
Study of the physical mechanisms leading to excitation of the NS oscillations is a very challenging problem due to the interplay between thermodynamical properties of the NS matter, mass of the star, magnetic field, spin, etc. Recent studies suggest that the oscillations of a hypermassive NS (HMNS), formed as a result of a NSs merger, will create a modulation of a short gamma ray burst (SGRB) signal, which is possible to detect \cite{Chirenti2019}.
The fundamental f-modes can also be excited by tidal effects in close eccentric systems \cite{Chirenti2017}, as well as due to a resonant excitation in binaries \cite{Hinderer}. Between the other probable mechanisms to excite such oscillations there are accretion in Low-Mass X-ray Binaries (LMXBs) \cite{LMXRB}, magnetic reconfiguration, during the supernova explosion, etc. \cite{Franco2000,Tsang2012}.
Unfortunately, low sensitivity of the ongoing gravitational wave detectors at kHz frequency range does not allow the detection of the NS oscillations. However, the third-generation of ground-based gravitational wave detectors, e.g. the Einstein Telescope and the Cosmic Explorer \cite{GWdetectors, Chirenti2017}, are expected to have a sensitivity much higher than an order of magnitude in comparison to the Advanced LIGO. Such detections could provide with simultaneous measurements of NS masses, tidal Love numbers, frequency, damping time, amplitude of the modes, and, therefore, moments of inertia, which will give an observational opportunity to test the I-Love-Q relation \cite{Chirenti2017,ILoveQ}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Concl}
We have studied radial oscillations of NSs within an elaborate IST EoS, which is in a good agreement with the normal nuclear matter properties, provides a high quality description of the proton flow constraint, hadron multiplicities created during the nuclear-nuclear collision experiments and equally is consistent with astrophysical data coming from NS observations and the GW170817 NS-NS merger. We have considered six fiducial stars with masses $M=1.9~ M_{\odot}$, $M=1.5~M_{\odot}$ and $M=1.2~M_{\odot}$, and radii $R\simeq(10.6-11.7)~km$, from two different sets (A and B) of model parameters. For all six considered stars we have computed 12 lowest radial oscillation modes, the large frequency separations and the corresponding eigenfunctions. It was shown that softer IST EoS (with parameter set B) in comparison to the stiffer IST EoS (with parameter set A)
gives larger frequencies of oscillations for all considered stars. Accordingly, the large frequency separation
$\Delta\nu_{n}$ for both sets has the same behaviour. Similarly, for the same model set the calculated frequencies also grow with an increase of the central baryon density.
Moreover, we found an evidence of how the changes in thermodynamic properties of the NS matter leave an imprint on the $\xi_n(r)$ eigenfunctions calculated for a fundamental mode (n=1). Analysis of the adiabatic index $\gamma (r)$ and speed of sound $c_s(r)$ shows that clear and well defined changes occur inside the NS that we found to be associated with a transition layer between the inner and outer core of the star. For example, for $B_{1}$, $B_{2}$, $B_{3}$ stars, such transition occurs at the locations of $0.75$, $0.55$ and $0.35$ of the star radius, respectively. The $\xi_n(r)$ eigenfunction calculated for the fundamental mode presents changes of behaviour exactly at the same values of star's radius where the adiabatic index $\gamma (r)$ and the
difference between the speed of sound squared $c_{S}^{2}$ for the stars with equal masses and distinctive radii show such peculiar behaviour.
The results found in this work exhibit an imprint of the thermodynamic properties of matter and internal structure of NS on the radial oscillation modes, and, possibly, even non-radial modes, as a similar global behaviour is expected.
Furthermore, coupling between the radial and non-radial oscillations that leads to the enhanced gravitational emission makes it possible to detect such oscillations during the NS-NS merger.
We predict a similar analysis for a model with a more realistic description of the NS crust and inclusion of the quark-gluon core, could reveal other more prominent irregularities in the oscillation frequencies and the eigenfunctions calculated for the different oscillation modes.
Finally, we discuss the main known mechanisms to excite oscillation modes and the probability of their detection with a third-generation of ground-based gravitational wave detectors, such as the Einstein Telescope and the Cosmic Explorer.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thankful for the fruitful discussions and suggestions by A. Brito, C. Chirenti, O. Ivanytskyi and J. L. Zdunik. V.S. acknowledges for the partial financial support from the Funda\c c\~ao para a Ci\^encia e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, for the support through the grant No. UID/FIS/04564/2019 and the Program of Fundamental Research in High Energy and Nuclear Physics launched by the Section of Nuclear Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. G.P and I.L. thank the Funda\c c\~ao para a Ci\^encia e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, for the financial support to the Center for Astrophysics and Gravitation-CENTRA, Instituto Superior T\'ecnico, Universidade de Lisboa, through the grant No. UID/FIS/00099/2013. This research was supported by the Munich Institute for Astro- and Particle Physics (MIAPP) which is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany`s Excellence Strategy \--- EXC-2094 \--- 390783311.
|
\section{Testing approach}\label{sec:approach}
We conduct black-box testing to check monotonicity of the predictive model under test.
Hence, in the following we assume the type of the MUT (i.e., which ML algorithm has been used for training) to be unknown.
\input{art}
\subsection{Verification-based testing}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.85\textwidth]{FlowDiagram.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Basic workflow of verification-based testing}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure*}
Next, we present our novel approach for the generation of test sets for
monotonicity testing of a black-box model.
The key idea therein is to approximate the MUT by a white-box model on which verification techniques can {\em compute} counter examples to
monotonicity (in case these exist). These counter examples then serve as test inputs for the MUT,
thereby achieving a target-oriented generation of test suites.
We call this technique {\em verification-based testing} (VBT).
The idea of approximating an unknown predictive model by a white-box model is already employed in the areas of
interpretability of AI as well as testing of (non-ML) software.
In AI (Guidotti et al.~\cite{GuidottiMRTGP19}) an unknown black-box predictor is converted to an explainable model out of which explanations for humans can be constructed.
In the field of testing, Papadopoulos and Walkinshaw~\cite{DBLP:conf/icse/PapadopoulosW15} use
the inference of a predictive model from test sets to further extend this set. None use it to compute
counter examples to properties.
In our work, we approximate the black-box MUT by a decision tree. The choice of it is driven by the desire to employ verification-based testing: counter examples to monotonicity are {\em automatically computable} for decision trees via SMT solvers.
Figure~\ref{fig:workflow} depicts the basic workflow; the exact interplay of components is detailed
in Algorithm~\ref{alg:veriTest}. Our approach is composed of four parts.
\textbf{White-box model inference.} The inputs to our approach are the predictive model $M$ (MUT) and a set of features $F$.
In the first step, we train the decision tree.
To this end, we generate so called {\em oracle data}, containing the predictions of the MUT for some randomly chosen input instances. This set of data instances are currently not used for testing monotonicity (but could be), rather they are employed for the purpose of generating the white-box model. A decision tree learner is then trained on the oracle data giving a decision tree model.
\lstdefinelanguage{smt}{
morekeywords={assert},
morecomment=[l]{;}
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{lstlisting}[frame=single, language=smt,
tabsize=2,
columns=flexible,
mathescape=true, commentstyle=\color{green!40!black}, keywordstyle=\color{blue},
linewidth =.97\linewidth,
basicstyle=\footnotesize]
; Declaring components of x and x' and their classes
(declare-fun contract1 () Int) (declare-fun income1 () Real)
(declare-fun contract2 () Int) (declare-fun income2 () Real)
(declare-fun class1 () Int) (declare-fun class2 () Int)
; Specifying prediction of decision tree (no=0, medium=1, high=2)
(assert(=> (and (< contract1 10) (< income1 30)) (= class1 0)))
(assert(=> (and (< contract1 10) (>= income1 30)) (= class1 2)))
(assert(=> (and (>= contract1 10) (< income1 50)) (= class1 1)))
(assert(=> (and (>= contract1 10) (>= income1 50)) (= class1 2)))
(assert(=> (and (< contract2 10) (< income2 30)) (= class2 0)))
(assert(=> (and (< contract2 10) (>= income2 30)) (= class2 2)))
(assert(=> (and (>= contract2 10) (< income2 50)) (= class2 1)))
(assert(=> (and (>= contract2 10) (>= income2 50)) (= class2 2)))
; Non-monotonicity constraint
(assert (and (<= contract1 contract2) (= income1 income2)))
(assert (not (<= class1 class2)))
; Satisfiable?
(check-sat)
; Logical model extraction
(get-model)
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Z3 code of the decision tree with strong monotonicity constraint}
\label{fig:z3code}
\vspace*{-.3cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Monotonicity computation.} Once we have generated the decision tree, the next step is to compute (non-)monotonicity.
To this end, we use state of the art verification technology, namely the SMT solver Z3~\cite{MouraB08}.
First, we translate the decision tree into a logical formula describing how the classes are predicted for inputs $x$ and $x'$.
Figure~\ref{fig:z3code} shows the Z3 code for the decision tree in Figure~\ref{fig:tree}.
Therein, variables \verb+contract1+ and \verb+income1+\footnote{There is no variable for ``children''
since the decision tree is not using this feature.} describe test input $x$ and \verb+contract2+ and \verb+income2+ describe $x'$.
The code also contains the non-monotonicity query for weak monotonicity wrt.~''income''.
The last four lines of the code ask Z3 to check for satisfiability of all assertions and -- if yes (Sat) -- to return a logical model.
The logical model gives an evaluation for the variables such that all assertions are fulfilled.
For our example, it can be found in Figure~\ref{fig:z3model}.
It matches the counter example of Section~\ref{sec:monotone}.
The counter example consists of a pair of data instances and their respective classes ($(x, y), (x', y')$)
{\em as predicted by the decision tree}.
As the approximation of the MUT by the decision tree will typically be imprecise, this counter example might not be valid for the MUT:
it is a {\em candidate} counter example (candidate CEX).
Hence, we next check the validity of $M(x) \npreceq_Y M(x')$. If it holds, a true counter example to monotonicity of the MUT (valid CEX) has been found.
If not, $(x,M(x))$ and $(x',M(x'))$ are added to the oracle data in order to increase precision of the approximation in later steps.
When the output of Z3 is 'Unsat', we conclude that the generated decision tree is monotone wrt.~$F$ (but not necessarily the MUT $M$) and thus verification-based
testing has been unable to compute a test case for non-monotonicity.
\textbf{Variation.} The basic workflow of Figure~\ref{fig:workflow} is complemented by {\em variation} techniques.
Whenever we obtain a counter example which is not confirmed in the MUT, we need to make the approximating
decision tree more precise. This is achieved by re-training. As this is a rather costly operation, we would like to avoid re-training for a single
unconfirmed counter example and only re-train once we have collected a number of test pairs.
This calls for a systematic generation of counter examples for which we need Z3 to produce several different logical models
for the same logical query. To this end, we employ two pruning techniques cutting off certain parts of the search space of Z3
when computing logical models.
\subsubsection{Pruning data instances}
Our first strategy is to call Z3 several times and simply disallow it to return the same counter example again.
For our running example, we could simply add \verb+(assert (not (= contract1 9)))+ to our query and re-run the SMT solver.
We can similarly do so for the values of the other features.
This way we can often generate a large number of {\em similar} counter examples.
E.g., for our example Z3 then returns an instance with \verb+contract1+ being 8, then 7, and so on.
Algorithm \ref{alg:prunInst} describes how we generate new candidate pairs this way.
Therein, name$_i$1 (name$_i$2) stands for the name of feature $i$ in instance $x$ ($x'$, respectively),
e.g.\ \verb+income1+.
The disadvantage of this approach is that Z3 will give counter examples considering only a few number of branches in the decision tree. Hence, a major part of the decision tree paths will remain unexplored. Next we define a second strategy which achieves better coverage of the tree and thereby an improved {\em test adequacy}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{lstlisting}[frame=single, tabsize=2, language=smt,
columns=flexible, keywordstyle=\color{blue},
mathescape=true,
linewidth =.97\linewidth,
basicstyle=\footnotesize]
sat (model
(define-fun contract1 () Int 9)
(define-fun income1 () Real 30.0)
(define-fun class1 () Int 2)
(define-fun contract2 () Int 10)
(define-fun income2 () Real 30.0)
(define-fun class2 () Int 1))
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Logical model for the query of Fig.~\ref{fig:z3code}}
\label{fig:z3model}
\vspace*{-.3cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$\mathit{prunInst}$ (Pruning data instances)}\label{alg:prunInst}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $(x, x')$ \Comment{A candidate pair}
\Statex \hspace*{.4cm} $\varphi$ \Comment{Logical formula}
\Ensure set of candidate pairs
\State cand-set:= $\emptyset$;
\For{$i := 1$ to $n$} \Comment{$n$: number of features}
\State $\psi$ := $\varphi \wedge \neg ($name$_i1 = x_i)$;
\If {SAT($\psi$)}
\State cand-set := cand-set $\cup$ get-model($\psi$);
\EndIf
\EndFor
\For{$i := 1$ to $n$}
\State $\psi$ := $\varphi \wedge \neg ($name$_i2 = x'_i)$;
\If {SAT($\psi$)}
\State cand-set := cand-set $\cup$ get-model($\psi$);
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State \Return cand-set;
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$\mathit{prunBranch}$ (Pruning branches)}\label{alg:prunBranch}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $(x, x')$ \Comment{A candidate pair}
\Statex \hspace*{.4cm} tree \Comment{Decision tree}
\Statex \hspace*{.4cm} $\varphi$ \Comment{Logical formula}
\Ensure set of candidate pairs
\State cand-set:= $\emptyset$;
\State $(c_1, \ldots, c_m)$ := getPath(tree,$x$); \Comment{Path of $x$ in tree}
\For{$i := 1$ to $m$} \Comment{toggle path conditions}
\State $\psi$ := $\varphi \wedge \neg c_i$;
\If {SAT($\psi$)}
\State cand-set := cand-set $\cup$ get-model($\psi$);
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State $(c_1, \ldots, c_k)$ := getPath(tree,$x'$); \Comment{Path of $x'$ in tree}
\For{$i := 1$ to $k$} \Comment{toggle path conditions}
\State $\psi$ := $\varphi \wedge \neg c_i$;
\If {SAT($\psi$)}
\State cand-set := cand-set $\cup$ get-model($\psi$);
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State \Return cand-set;
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Pruning branches}
In this case we use a global approach to traverse as many paths as possible. Once a test pair $(x,x')$ is found,
we identify the paths in the tree which this pair takes. Then we
toggle the conditions on $x$'s path and on $x'$'s path, one after the other.
Other toggling strategies are possible.
This ``condition toggling'' follows the established strategy of determining path conditions in
symbolic execution and systematically negating conditions for concolic testing~\cite{GodefroidKS05, SenMA05}.
Figure~\ref{fig:prune} illustrates it on one path (the conditions in bold
are added to the Z3 code) and Algorithm~\ref{alg:prunBranch} gives the algorithm.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{.2\linewidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[level/.style={sibling distance=10mm, level distance=10mm},
inner/.style = {shape=rectangle, rounded corners,
draw, align=center, baseline,
top color=blue!30, bottom color=blue!30},
leaf/.style = {shape=rectangle}]
\node[inner] {\ }
child { node[inner] {\ }
child { node[inner] {\ }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent node[above left] {$c_3$} }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] {} }
edge from parent node[above left] {$c_2$}}
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] }
edge from parent node[above left] { $c_1$} }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] };
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.2\linewidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[level/.style={sibling distance=10mm, level distance=10mm},
inner/.style = {shape=rectangle, rounded corners,
draw, align=center, baseline,
top color=blue!30, bottom color=blue!30},
leaf/.style = {shape=rectangle}]
\node[inner] {\ }
child { node[inner] {\ }
child { node[inner] {\ }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] {} }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent node[above right] {$ \mathbf{\neg c_3}$} }
edge from parent node[above left] {$c_2$}}
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] }
edge from parent node[above left] { $c_1$} }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] };
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.2\linewidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[level/.style={sibling distance=10mm, level distance=10mm},
inner/.style = {shape=rectangle, rounded corners,
draw, align=center, baseline,
top color=blue!30, bottom color=blue!30},
leaf/.style = {shape=rectangle}]
\node[inner] {\ }
child { node[inner] {\ }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] }
child { node[leaf ] {\ }
edge from parent node[above right] {$\mathbf{\neg c_2}$}}
edge from parent node[above left] { $c_1$} }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] };
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.2\linewidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[level/.style={sibling distance=10mm, level distance=10mm},
inner/.style = {shape=rectangle, rounded corners,
draw, align=center, baseline,
top color=blue!30, bottom color=blue!30},
leaf/.style = {shape=rectangle}]
\node[inner] {\ }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parent[dotted] }
child { node[leaf] {} edge from parentnode[above right] {$\mathbf{\neg c_1}$} };
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of condition toggling}
\label{fig:prune}
\vspace*{-.5cm}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent
While the first pruning strategy tries to find new pairs in the local neighbourhood of a counter example, the second strategy globally
searches for counter examples and thus achieves a better coverage.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:veriGen} summarizes one such pass of counter example candidate generation from the decision tree.
\textbf{White-box model improvement.} Once we have collected a larger set of test pairs (all candidate counter examples),
we test whether they are also counter examples to monotonicity for the MUT $M$.
We furthermore check whether $M$'s prediction differs from the decision tree's prediction on the candidates.
If yes, they will be added to the oracle data to re-train the decision tree.
\textbf{Overall algorithm.}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:veriTest} summarizes all these steps in one algorithm.
It interleaves generation of test cases with monotonicity checking, i.e., after one call to $\mathit{veriGen}$ it first checks
all candidates and only if none of these are counter examples to monotonicity, it starts retraining.
Two constants play a r\^{o}le in this algorithm:
the constant \texttt{MAX\_ORCL} fixes the number of data instances to be generated for
initially training the decision tree.
and (again) constant \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES}
limits the number of samples we
generate\footnote{Note that due to variation, ${\mathit{ts}}$ might become slightly larger than \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES}.}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$\mathit{veriGen}$ (Test Generation for VBT)}\label{alg:veriGen}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $F$ \Comment{Set of features}
\Statex \hspace*{.4cm} tree \Comment{trained decision tree}
\Ensure set of test cases
\State $cs$ := $\emptyset$;
\State $\varphi$ := tree2Logic(tree);
\State $\varphi$ := $\varphi \wedge {} $nonMonConstr($F$);
\If {UNSAT($\varphi$)} \Comment{No CEX cand.\ found}
\State \Return $\emptyset$;
\EndIf
\State $((x,y),(x',y'))$ := getModel($\varphi$); \Comment{Gen.\ candidates}
\State $cs:=\{((x,y),(x',y'))\}$;
\State $cs:=cs \cup {} $prunInst$(x,x',\varphi)
\cup {} $prunBranch$(x,x'$,tree,$\varphi)$;
\State \Return $cs$;
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$\mathit{veriTest}$ (Verification-based testing)}\label{alg:veriTest}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $M$ \Comment{Model under test}
\Statex \hspace*{.4cm} $F$ \Comment{Set of features}
\Ensure counter example to monotonicity or empty
\State $orcl\_data$ := $\emptyset$; ${\mathit{ts}}$ := $\emptyset$; $cs$ := $\emptyset$;
\While{$\lvert orcl\_data \rvert <$ MAX\_ORCL}
\State $x$:= random($\vec{X}$);
\If {$(x,M(x)) \notin orcl\_data$}
\State $orcl\_data := orcl\_data \cup \{(x,M(x))\}$;
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\While {$\lvert {\mathit{ts}} \rvert <$ MAX\_SAMPLES}
\State tree := trainDecTree($orcl\_data$);
\State $cs$ := veriGen($F$,tree);
\For {$((x,y),(x',y')) \in cs$} \Comment{Duplicates?}
\If {$(x,x') \notin {\mathit{ts}}$}
\State ${\mathit{ts}} := {\mathit{ts}} \cup \{(x,x')\}$;
\Else
\State $cs := cs \setminus \{((x,y),(x',y'))\}$;
\EndIf
\EndFor
\If {$cs = \emptyset$} \Comment{No new candidates?}
\State \Return Empty;
\EndIf
\For {$((x,y),(x',y')) \in cs$}
\If {$M(x) \npreceq_Y M(x')$} \Comment{Valid CEX?}
\State \Return $((x,y),(x',y'))$
\EndIf
\If {$y \neq M(x)$} \Comment{Different prediction?}
\State $orcl\_data:=orcl\_data \cup \{(x,M(x))\}$;
\EndIf
\If {$y' \neq M(x')$}
\State $orcl\_data:=orcl\_data \cup \{(x',M(x'))\}$;
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndWhile
\State \Return Empty; \Comment{No counter example found}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Adaptive random testing}
For the purpose of comparison, we have designed and implemented an {\em adaptive
random testing} (ART)~\cite{DBLP:conf/asian/ChenLM04} approach for monotonicity testing
which we describe first.
Adaptive random testing aims at (randomly) computing test cases which are more evenly distributed
among the test input space. To this end, it compares new candidates with the already
computed test cases, and adds the one ``furthest'' away.
The implementation of ``furthest'' requires the definition of a {\em distance metric}.
For numerical inputs, this is often the Euclidean distance.
For monotonicity, our test cases are however {\em pairs} $(x,x')$.
Assume we are given two such pairs $(x,x')$ and $(z,z')$ and want to define how ``different''
they are.
Assume furthermore that all the elements only contain {\em numerical} values\footnote{This can easily be
achieved by some preprocessing step converting categorical to numerical values.}.
Every element $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ can then be considered to be a point in an $n$-dimensional
space. We let ${\mathit{Euc}}(x,x')$ be the Euclidean distance between $x$ and $x'$,
and $m_{x,x'}$ be the point laying at the middle of $x$ and $x'$.
The metric which we employ captures two aspects:
we see two pairs $(x,x')$ and $(z,z')$ as being very different if
(a) their Euclidean distances are far apart (e.g., $x$ is very close to $x'$, but $z$ far away from $z'$)
and
(b) the middle of $(x,x')$ is far away from the middle of $(z,z')$.
Formally, we define
\[ {\mathit{dist}}\big((x,x'),(z,z')\big) = \frac{\lvert {\mathit{Euc}}(x,x') - {\mathit{Euc}}(z,z') \rvert}{2} +
\frac{{\mathit{Euc}}(m_{x,x'},m_{z,z'})}{2}
\]
\noindent Note that ${\mathit{dist}}$ is positive-definite, symmetric and subadditive, i.e., indeed a metric.
We use this distance function in the test case generation for ART within Algorithm \ref{alg:art}
(inspired by a definition of ART algorithms in \cite{DBLP:conf/dagstuhl/Walkinshaw16}).
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{$\mathit{artGen}$ (Test Generation for ART)}\label{alg:art}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require $F$ \Comment{set of monotone features}
\Ensure set of test cases
\State ${\mathit{ts}}$ := $\emptyset$; $count$ := 0;
\While{$count$ $<$ INI\_SAMPLES} \Comment{randomly generate start set}
\State $x$ := random($\vec{X}$);
\State $x'$ := random($\{x' \mid \forall i\in F: x_i\preceq x'_i ,
\forall j \notin F: x_j = x_j'\}$);
\If{$(x, x')\notin {\mathit{ts}}$}
\State ${\mathit{ts}}$ := ${\mathit{ts}} \cup \{(x, x')\}$; $count$++;
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\While{$\lvert {\mathit{ts}} \rvert <$ MAX\_SAMPLES} \Comment{extend start set}
\State $cand:=\emptyset$; $count$ :=0;
\While{$count$ $<$ POOL\_SIZE} \Comment{generate candidates}
\State $x$ := random($\vec{X}$);
\State $x'$ := random($\{x' \mid \forall i\in F: x_i\preceq x'_i,
\forall j \notin F: x_j = x_j'\}$);
\If{$(x, x')\notin cand$}
\State $cand$ := $cand \cup \{(x, x')\}$; $count$++;
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\State $c_{{\mathit{fur}}}$ := oneOf($cand$); \Comment{initialize with arbitrary cand.}
\State $maxDist$ := 0;
\For{$c \in cand$} \Comment{determine ``furthest away'' cand.}
\State $dist$ := minDistance($c,{\mathit{ts}}$);
\If{$dist > maxDist$}
\State $c_{{\mathit{fur}}}$ := $c$; $maxDist$ := $dist$;
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State ${\mathit{ts}}$ := ${\mathit{ts}} \cup \{c_{{\mathit{fur}}} \}$;
\EndWhile
\State \Return ${\mathit{ts}}$;
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The first loop in Algorithm~\ref{alg:art} randomly computes a set of pairs $(x,x')$ to start with.
Note that all these pairs already satisfy the precondition of --- in this case -- weak monotonicity
by construction (line 4).
The second (outermost) loop extends this test set until it contains \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES} pairs.
It starts in line 9 by generating a set of candidates. The loop starting in line 16 then determines
the candidate ``furthest away'' from the current test set ${\mathit{ts}}$. It uses the function
\texttt{minDistance} which computes the minimal distance between $c$ and elements of ${\mathit{ts}}$
using the metric ${\mathit{dist}}$. The furthest away candidate is put into the test set ${\mathit{ts}}$ in line 20 and
the algorithm returns with the entire test set in line 21.
This test set is then subject to checking all pairs $(x,x')$ for monotonicity (not given as algorithm here).
For checking strong monotonicity we follow a similar approach with the only exception being the
generation of test input pairs $(x,x')$. In that case, the changes are in lines 4 and 11
which become
$x' := \text{random}(\{x' \mid $ $x \neq x', (\forall i \in F: x_i \preceq x_i') \}$.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we have defined the property of monotonicity of ML models and have proposed a novel approach to testing monotonicity. Our technique approximates the black-box model by a white-box model and applies SMT solving techniques to compute monotonicity on the white-box model.
We have evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of our approach by applying it to several ML models and found our approach to outperform
both adaptive random and property-based testing.
As future work, we plan to apply this scheme to validate other important properties of ML models.
Our white-box model easily allows for checking other properties, like for instance fairness, just by
applying a different check on the generated SMT code.
Also, we would like to improve our framework by using incremental learning to avoid re-training
of the entire decision tree.
\section{Evaluation} \label{sec:experiments}
We have implemented adaptive random as well as verification-based testing for monotonicity in Python and
have comprehensively evaluated VBT.
The following research questions guided our evaluation.
We broadly divide these questions into two categories. The first category concerns the comparison of VBT with existing
techniques with respect to effectiveness and efficiency.
The second category evaluates the performance of VBT itself.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textbf{RQ1.}] {\bf Effectiveness} \\
How does VBT compare to existing testing approaches with respect to the error detection capabilities?
\item[\textbf{RQ2.}] {\bf Efficiency} \\
How does VBT compare to existing testing approaches with respect to the effort for error detection?
\end{enumerate}
To analyse VBT itself we have focused on the following research questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textbf{RQ3.}] {\bf Approximation quality} \\
Can the decision trees adequately represent black-box models?
\item[\textbf{RQ4.}] {\bf Strategy selection} \\
Which pruning strategy performs better in computing non-monotonicity?
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip
\noindent
We have carried out the following experiments to evaluate these research questions.
\textbf{RQ1.} As there are no specific approaches for computing monotonicity of a given black-box model, we use property-based testing (i.e., a variant of QuickCheck~\cite{DBLP:conf/icfp/ClaessenH00} for Python) and (our own implementation of) adaptive random testing as baseline approaches to compare against. Our intention is to measure how well a technique is able to generate test cases revealing non-monotonicity of a given model.
To this end, we have taken 8 ML algorithms from the state of the art ML library \verb+scikit-learn+ plus one monotonicity aware classifier~\cite{light}, and trained them on ten data sets
(see below) to generate 90 different predictive models.
For these models it is first of all unknown whether they are monotone or not, so we lack a ground truth.
The comparison is thus performed on the basis of just counting the number of models in which non-monotonicity is detected\footnote{Note that none of the techniques produce false positives since they all perform a dynamic analysis.}.
We perform the evaluation for weak (group) monotonicity as it is the standardly employed concept.
\begin{table}\centering
\small
\caption{Data sets and their characteristics}
\label{tab:datasets}
\begin{tabular}{r r r r r}
\toprule
\textbf{Name} & \textbf{\#Features} & \textbf{\#Group} & \textbf{\#Instances} & \textbf{\#TreeNodes}\\
\midrule
\rowcolor{black!5} \textit{Adult} & 13 & 4 & 32561 & 4673 \\
\textit{Diabetes} & 8 & 5 & 768 & 267 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textit{Mammographic} & 6 & 3 & 961 & 481 \\
\textit{Car-evaluation} & 6 & 4 & 1728 & 167 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textit{ESL} & 4 & 2 & 488 & 295 \\
\textit{Housing} & 13 & 3 & 506 & 107 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textit{Automobile} & 24 & 10 & 205 & 53 \\
\textit{Auto-MPG} & 7 & 5 & 392 & 117 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textit{ERA} & 4 & 2 & 1000 & 87 \\
\textit{CPU} & 6 & 5 & 209 & 11 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\textbf{RQ2.} To answer RQ2, we have carried out experiments in the same setting as considered for RQ1. We wanted to evaluate how efficient our verification-based testing approach is compared to adaptive random and property-based testing.
To this end, we (a) determine the run time needed for test generation and checking, and
(b) the number of generated test cases necessary for finding the first error or, in case of a failure in error detection, just the number
of generated tests. In the latter case, this is the maximal number of samples to be considered by the approach,
which is configurable for property-based testing and which is \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES} for ART and VBT (see below for values used).
\textbf{RQ3.} As we employ decision trees for computing candidate counter examples, the performance of VBT crucially depends on
decision trees to adequately approximate the black-box model. ``Adequately'' here means adequate for the task of computing counter
examples. In general, the decision tree model and the black-box will differ on some predictions.
The inadequacy of the decision tree shows up whenever we need to re-train it several times in order to find a proper counter example. Hence, for RQ3 we
determine the number of re-trainings for all 90 models and weak monotonicity.
\textbf{RQ4.} For test generation (Algorithm \textit{veriGen}) we have implemented two different pruning strategies to achieve better coverage of the decision tree. So we wanted to find out which strategy is better in terms of finding counter examples.
For the evaluation, we slightly change the setting. First, instead of only using weak monotonicity, we also check for strong monotonicity
since we had the impression in initial experiments that the pruning strategies might behave differently for the weak and strong version.
Second, we modify VBT such that it generates several counter examples (simply by not stopping it on the first one) and
compute the achieved {\em detection rate}, i.e.~number of detected errors divided by number of overall test cases
$\frac{\# \text{errors}}{\# \text{test cases}}$.
\subsection{Setup}
We have collected our 10 data sets from the UCI machine learning repository\footnote{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml} and the OpenML data repository\footnote{https://www.openml.org}.
These training data sets have also been used in existing works~\cite{KotlowskiS09, TehraniCDH11} on monotonicity. Table \ref{tab:datasets} shows the data sets and their characteristics, i.e., the number of features, the size of the group (number of features in the group) and the number of data instances in the set.
We have also computed the number of nodes of the decision tree model (column \textit{\#TreeNodes})
when being trained on the corresponding dataset
to give a rough idea about the size of decision trees generated in VBT.
The {\em monotone features}
are chosen based on our own assumptions about the domain and previous works. For instance, in case of the Adult data set, where a model predicts whether a person's income is at least
\$50,000, we check monotonicity with respect to the group consisting of age, weekly working hours, capital-gain and education level~\cite{YouDCPG17}.
The eight classification algorithms which have been taken from \verb+scikit-learn+ are
kNN, Neural Networks (NN), Random Forests (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes (NB), AdaBoost, GradientBoost and Logistic Regression. We have used a linear kernel for SVM and a Gaussian version of NB for
our experiments. There are several other ML algorithms which can be found in the library but the eight algorithms chosen here belong to the most basic family of ML classifiers.
The 9th ML classifier is the monotonicity aware algorithm LightGBM~\cite{light} which has been specifically designed to construct models being monotone with respect to a given set of features. The monotonicity constraints can be enforced during the training phase of this algorithm. This should guarantee monotonicity but -- as initial experiments have revealed -- LightGBM does not entirely manage to rule out non-monotonicity. This classifier is an excellent benchmark for the three approaches since there are only a very few erroneous input pairs and the challenge is to generate exactly these as test cases.
We have evaluated the accuracy score while generating predictive models and used the score to adjust the hyperparameters of the learning algorithms. The input parameters of \emph{artGen} and \emph{veriTest} algorithms have been chosen based on execution time of some initial experiments. The parameter \texttt{POOL\_SIZE} of the
$artGen$ algorithm is set to half of \texttt{INI\_SAMPLES} which is 100; for \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES} we use 1000.
We have created oracle data in the verification-based testing approach by generating random data instances (90\%) and also taking training data instances randomly (10\%)\footnote{Note that for simplicity the stated algorithm does not include the training part.}. This choice is influenced by the work of Johansson et al.~\cite{JohanssonN09} who found that using random data instances to approximate a model gives the best result.
We have used \textsc{Hypothesis} \cite{hypothesis}, a Python version of QuickCheck \cite{DBLP:conf/icfp/ClaessenH00} as our property-based testing tool.
Property-based testing allows users to specify the property to be tested.
The parameters of this tool have been set in accordance with the \emph{artGen} and \emph{veriTest} algorithms (parameter for upper
bound of test cases is 1000 like \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES}).
Finally, because all three approaches involve some sort of randomness, every experiment was carried out ten times. The results give the
arithmetic mean over these ten runs.
The experiments were run on a machine with 2 cores Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7300U CPU with 2.60GHz and 16GB memory using Python version 3.6.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Today, machine learning (ML) is increasingly employed to take decisions previously made by humans.
This includes areas as diverse as insurance, banking, law, medicine or autonomous driving.
Hence, quality assurance of ML applications becomes of prime importance.
Consequently, researchers have started to develop methods checking various sorts of requirements.
Depending on the domain of application, such methods target safety, security, fairness, robustness or balancedness of
ML algorithms and models (e.g., \cite{HuangKWW17, Carlini017, galhotra2017fairness, SharmaW19}).
A requirement frequently expected in application domains is {\em monotonicity} with respect to dedicated attributes.
Monotonicity requires an increase in the value of some attribute(s) to lead to an increase in the value of the prediction (class attribute).
For instance, a loan-granting ML-based software might be required to give larger loans whenever the value of attribute ``income''
gets higher, potentially even when other attribute values are changed.
Monotonicity requirements occur in numerous domains like economic theory (house pricing, credit scoring, insurance premium determination),
medicine (medical diagnosis, patient medication) or jurisdiction (criminal sentencing).
In particular, monotonicity is often a requirement for ML software making acceptance/rejection decisions as it supports justification of a
decision (``she gets a larger loan because she has got a higher income'').
However, even if the training data used to generate the predictive model is monotone, the ML software itself might not be~\cite{Potharst:2002:CTP:568574.568577}.
Hence, there are today a number of specialized ML algorithms which provide learning techniques guaranteeing monotonicity constraints
on models (e.g.~\cite{TehraniCDH11,Potharst:2002:CTP:568574.568577,YouDCPG17}).
Less studied is, however, the {\em validation} of monotonicity constraints, i.e.,~methods for answering the following question:
\begin{quote}
Given some black-box predictive model, does it satisfy a given monotonicity constraint?
\end{quote}
The term ``black-box model'' states the independence on the ML-technology employed in the model
(i.e., the technique should be equally applicable to e.g.~neural networks, random forests or support vector machines).
We aim at a {\em model-agnostic} solution.
\smallskip
\noindent
In this paper, we present the first approach for automatic monotonicity testing of black-box machine learning models.
Our approach systematically explores the space of test inputs by
(1) the inference of a white-box model {\em approximating} the black-box model under test (MUT), and
(2) the computation of counter examples to monotonicity on the white-box model via established verification technology.
We call this approach {\em verification-based testing}.
The computed counter examples serve as starting points for the generation of further test inputs by variation.
If confirmed in the black-box model, they get stored as counter examples to monotonicity.
If unconfirmed, they serve as input to an improvement of the approximation quality of the white-box model.
More detailedly, our approach comprises the following key steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf White-box model inference.} A white-box model is generated by training a decision tree with data instances of the black-box model under test.
\item {\bf Monotonicity computation.} The decision tree is translated to a logical formula on which we use an SMT-solver for monotonicity
verification.
\item {\bf Variation.} The computed counter examples are systematically varied (similar to strategies used in symbolic execution~\cite{King76})
in order to increase the size of the test suite and
its coverage of the test space.
\item {\bf White-box model improvement.} In case none of the counter examples are valid for the black-box model under test,
we employ the data instances together with the MUT's prediction to re-train the decision tree and thereby restart with an improved white-box model.
\end{itemize}
We have implemented our approach and have experimentally evaluated it using standard benchmark data sets and
both monotonicity aware and ordinary ML algorithms.
Our experimental results suggest that our directed generation of test cases outperforms (non-directed) techniques like
property-based testing wrt.~the effectiveness of finding monotonicity failures.
Summarizing, this paper makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We formally define monotonicity of ML models.
\item We present a novel approach to monotonicity testing via the usage of verification technology on an approximating white-box model.
\item We systematically evaluate our approach on 90 black-box models and compare it to state-of-the-art property-based
and adaptive random testing.
\item For the implementation of adaptive random testing as a baseline (to compare against), we design a distance metric specific
to monotonicity testing on ML models.
\end{itemize}
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we define monotonicity of machine learning models.
In Section \ref{sec:approach} we describe verification-based testing and the way we have implemented adaptive random testing.
Section \ref{sec:experiments} presents the results of our experimental evaluation.
We discuss related work in Section \ref{sec:related} and conclude in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Monotonicity}\label{sec:monotone}
\begin{table}[t] \centering
\caption{Example banking data set}
\label{tab:bank-dataset}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc|l}
No. & income & children & contract & loan \\
\hline
1 & 100.0 & 1 & 20 & high \\
2 & 25.0 & 0 & 2 & no \\
3 & 17.8 & 3 & 5 & no \\
4 & 25.5 & 2 & 15 & medium \\
5 & 39.0 & 0 & 11 & medium \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We start by introducing the basic terminology in machine learning and defining two notions of monotonicity.
A typical {\em supervised} machine learning (ML) algorithm works in two steps.
Initially, it is presented with a set of data instances called {\em training data}.
In the first (learning) phase, the ML algorithm generates a function (the {\em predictive model}), generalising from the training data by using some statistical techniques. The generated {\em predictive model} (short, model) is then used in the second (prediction) phase to predict classes for unknown data instances.
Formally, the generated model is a function
\[ M: X_1 \times \ldots \times X_n \rightarrow Y \ ,\]
\noindent where $X_i$ is the value set of {\em feature} $i$ (or attribute or characteristics $i$), $1 \leq i \leq n$, and $Y$ is the set of {\em classes}. We define $\vec{X}$ = $X_1 \times \ldots \times X_n$.
The training data consists of elements from $\vec{X} \times Y$, i.e., data instances with known associated classes.
During the prediction, the generated predictive model assigns a class $y\in Y$ to a data instance $(x_1, \ldots, x_n)\in \vec{X}$
(which is potentially not in the training data). We assume all $X_i$ and the set of classes $Y$ to be equipped with a total order $\preceq_i$ and $\preceq_Y$, respectively.
In this work, we check whether a given model is {\em monotone} with respect to a specific feature $i$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:strong-mon}
A model $M$ is {\em strongly monotone}\footnote{Note that ``strong'' here does not refer to a strong increase in values, i.e., a definition with $\mathord{\prec}$ instead of $\mathord{\preceq}$.} with respect to a feature $i$ if for any two data instances $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$, $x' = (x'_1, \ldots, x'_n)$ $\in \vec{X}$ we have
$x_i \preceq_i x'_i$ implies $M(x) \preceq_Y M(x')$.
\end{definition}
Note that the feature values apart from the one with respect to which we are checking monotonicity can differ in an arbitrary way.
Definition \ref{def:strong-mon} can be weakened as to only require an increasing prediction when all features values apart from the chosen one
are kept
\begin{definition}\label{def:weak-mon} A model $M$ is {\em weakly monotone} with respect to a feature $i$ if for any two data instances $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_n), x'=(x'_1, \ldots, x'_n) \in \vec{X}$, we have
$(x_i \preceq_i x'_i) \land (\forall {j,j \neq i}. x_j = x'_j)$ implies $ M(x) \preceq_Y M(x')$.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{.9}{\begin{tikzpicture}[level/.style={sibling distance=40mm/#1},
inner/.style = {shape=rectangle, rounded corners,
draw, align=center,
top color=blue!30, bottom color=blue!30},
leaf/.style = {shape=rectangle,draw}]
\node[inner] {contract}
child { node[inner] {income}
child { node[leaf] {no} edge from parent node[above left,pos=.6] {$< 30$}}
child { node[leaf] {high} edge from parent node[above right,pos=.6] {$\geq 30$} }
edge from parent node[above left] {$< 10$} }
child { node[inner] {income}
child { node[leaf] {medium} edge from parent node[above left,pos=.6] {$< 50$}}
child { node[leaf] {high} edge from parent node[above right,pos=.6] {$\geq 50$} }
edge from parent node[above right] { $\geq 10$} };
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{A decision tree for the banking data set}
\label{fig:tree}
\vspace*{-.2cm}
\end{figure}
In the literature, the term monotonicity most often refers to our weak version.
We also say that a training data set is strongly/weakly monotone if the above requirements hold for all elements in the set.
As an example take the training data in Table~\ref{tab:bank-dataset} for a software making decisions about the granting of loans
(inspired by~\cite{Potharst:2002:CTP:568574.568577}): The features of a person are the income (in thousand dollars),
the (number of) children and the (duration of) current contract.
The class ``loan'' can take four values: `no', `low', `medium' and `high', with total order `no' $<_Y$ `low' $<_Y$ `medium' $<_Y$ `high'.
This data set is monotone\footnote{Note that we cannot apply our formal definitions here since the data set does not give us classes for all
data instances.} for features ``contract'' and ``income'', but not for feature ``children''.
Figure \ref{fig:tree} gives a potential model (in the form of a decision tree) which the training on this data set could yield.
It can correctly predict all instances in the training data.
However, this model is not weakly monotone in feature ``contract'' anymore: Take e.g.~the following two data instances
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
income=30.0, & children=0, & contract=9 \\
income=30.0, & children=0, & contract=10
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\noindent While the prediction for the first instance is `high', it is `medium' for the latter.
We next define {\em group monotonicity} which extends Definitions~\ref{def:strong-mon} and \ref{def:weak-mon} to a set of features (called {\em monotone features}).
\begin{definition}\label{def:strong-group-mon}
A predictive model $M$ is said to be {\em strongly group monotone} with respect to a set of features $F=\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_m\}
\subseteq \{1, \ldots, n\}$ if for any two data instances $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_n), x'=(x'_1, \ldots, x'_n) \in \vec{X}$ we have
$\forall j \in F: x_j \preceq_j x_j' $ implies $M(x) \preceq_Y M(x')$.
Similarly, it is {\em weakly group monotone} with respect to $F$ if for all $x,x'$ we have
$(\forall j \in F: x_j \preceq_j x_j' \wedge \forall j\notin F: x_j = x_j')$ implies $M(x) \preceq_Y M(x')$.
\end{definition}
Strong group monotonicity sits in between weak and strong (single feature) monotonicity in that it allows some feature's values
to change in an arbitrary way while other values may only increase or stay as they are\footnote{Note that all $\mathord{\preceq}$
orders are reflexive.}. We see this as being a practically relevant case and have thus included it in our definitions.
Finally, note that test cases for (both strong and weak) monotonicity are by these definitions
{\em pairs} of data instances $(x,x')$, and during test execution these need to be checked
for the property $M(x) \preceq_Y M(x')$. If the precondition of the respective monotonicity version holds for $x$ and $x'$ but
$M(x) \not \preceq_Y M(x')$, we call the pair $(x,x')$ a
{\em counter example} to monotonicity.
\section{Related work}\label{sec:related}
We divide our discussion of related works in three parts. First, we discuss some works incorporating monotonicity in the predictive model, then mention some recent techniques for machine learning testing
and third discuss approaches using model inference in testing.
\paragraph{Generating monotone models} The existing works in monotonicity focus on specific ML algorithms. In~\cite{archer1993application}, Archer et al.~first propose building a monotone neural network model by adjusting the contribution of training samples in the training process.
There exists some follow up works which constrain the parameters of the neural network algorithm to enforce monotonicity~\cite{DugasBBNG09, Sill97}. In a more recent work You et al.~\cite{YouDCPG17} propose an approach to generate a guaranteedly monotone deep lattice network with respect to a given set of features.
Lauer et al.~\cite{LauerB08} enforce monotonicity in support vector machines (with linear kernels) by constraining the derivative to be positive within a specified range. Riihimäki et al.~\cite{RiihimakiV10}
build a Gaussian monotone model by using virtual derivative observations.
In a follow up work, Siivola et al.~\cite{siivola2016automatic} give an approach based on the same idea to detect monotonicity only for Gaussian distributions.
Although using derivatives of the function can work for some ML algorithms, it cannot be generalized and is not possible to use in algorithms where the learned functions (i.e., models) are non-linear.
\pgfplotsset{
compat=1.5,
width=\columnwidth,
height=5cm
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[bar width=5,
ybar,ylabel=detection rate,
legend style={at={(0.5,-0.2)},
anchor=north,legend columns=-1},
xtick = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8},
xmin=0, xmax=9,
ytick = {0.0,0.25,0.50,0.75,1.0},
yticklabels = {0.0,0.25,0.50,0.75,1.0},
xticklabels = {kNN, NN, RF, SVM, NB, AB, GB, LR}]
\addplot
[draw=gray,pattern=horizontal lines light gray]
coordinates
{(1,0.35) (2,0.3) (3,0.31) (4,0.3) (5,0.34) (6,0.5) (7,0.34) (8,0.30)};
\addplot
[draw=gray,pattern=horizontal lines dark gray]
coordinates
{(1,0.37) (2,0.33) (3,0.32) (4,0.3) (5,0.33) (6,0.5) (7,0.4) (8,0.3)};
\legend{Feature-prune \qquad, Branch-prune}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Performance of branch and feature pruning in computing strong monotonicity}
\label{fig:pruneResultsStr}
\vspace*{-.3cm}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Validating models} There are a number of recent works which aim at validating properties of predictive models, none of which however have looked at monotonicity.
In~\cite{HuangKWW17}, Huang et al.~propose {\em robustness} as a safety property and give a verification technique showing that a Deep Neural Network (DNN) guarantees postconditions to hold on its outputs when the inputs satisfy a given precondition.
Gehr et al.~\cite{GehrMDTCV18} use abstract interpretation to verify robustness of DNN models. Pei et al.~\cite{PeiCYJ17} propose the first white-box testing technique to test DNNs. They use neuron coverage as a criterion to generate the test cases for the predictive model.
Sun et al.~\cite{SunWRHKK18} propose concolic testing to test the robustness property of DNNs. The authors use a set of coverage requirements (such as neuron, MC/DC and neuron boundary coverage, Lipschitz continuity) to generate test inputs.
Recently, Sharma et al.~\cite{SharmaW19} have proposed a property called {\em balancedness} on the learning algorithm. They perform specific transformations on the training data and check whether the learning algorithm generates a different predictive model after applying such transformations. This work thus focusses on testing the ML algorithm itself, not the model.
In~\cite{galhotra2017fairness}, Galhotra et al.~perform black-box testing to check {\em fairness} of the predictive model. Basically, they use random testing with confidence driven sampling.
It has the drawback of generating completely random sets of test data without considering the structure of the model.
The work closest to us is that of Agarwal et al.~\cite{AggarwalLNDS19}. They also study fairness testing, but compared to Galhotra et al.~\cite{galhotra2017fairness} they aim at a more systematic generation
of test inputs. To this end, they employ LIME~\cite{Ribeiro0G16} (a tool for generating {\em local} explanations for predictions) to generate a {\em partial} decision tree (often just a path in the tree) from the black-box model. On this path, they use dynamic symbolic execution to generate multiple test cases, much alike we do. The difference to our work is that we generate a
decision tree approximating the {\em entire} black-box model under test, and -- more importantly --
we use the generated white-box model for the {\em computation} of test inputs (potential
counter examples to monotonicity). We thus achieve a targeted test case generation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[bar width=5,
ybar,ylabel=detection rate,
legend style={at={(0.5,-0.2)},
anchor=north,legend columns=-1},
xtick = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8},
xmin=0, xmax=9,
ytick = {0.0,0.25,0.50},
xticklabels = {kNN, NN, RF, SVM, NB, AB, GB, LR}]
\addplot
[draw=gray,pattern=horizontal lines light gray]
coordinates
{(1,0.25) (2,0.21) (3,0.17) (4,0.15) (5,0.09) (6,0.23) (7,0.2) (8,0.07)};
\addplot
[draw=gray,pattern=horizontal lines dark gray]
coordinates
{(1,0.2) (2,0.16) (3,0.17) (4,0.15) (5,0.1) (6,0.25) (7,0.18) (8,0.05)};
\legend{Feature-prune \qquad, Branch-prune}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Performance of branch and feature pruning in computing weak monotonicity}
\label{fig:pruneResultsWeak}
\vspace*{-.3cm}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Testing via model inference}
The use of learning in testing has long been considered in the field of model-based testing.
Therein, learning is used to extract a model of the system under test.
Such models most often are some sort of automaton (finite state machine) and learning is based on Angluin's L$^*$ algorithm~\cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Angluin87}.
For a survey of techniques see~\cite{DBLP:conf/dagstuhl/AichernigMMTT16,DBLP:conf/dagstuhl/Meinke16}.
In contrast to this, we employ machine learning techniques to infer a model.
The inference of a decision tree describing the behaviour of software has already been pursued
by Papadopoulus and Walkinshaw~\cite{DBLP:conf/icse/PapadopoulosW15} as well as Briand et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/infsof/BriandLBS09}.
The former -- similar to us -- translate the decision tree to logic in order to have Z3 generate
test inputs covering different branches of the tree. However, they do not employ the tree to
generate counter examples to the property to be tested.
Thus, the advantage of having a verifiable white-box model for targeted test input generation
is not utilized. Briand et al.~on the other hand use the decision tree in a semi-automated
approach to the re-engineering of test suites. This approach requires the manual inspection of
the decision tree by testers.
A survey on inference-driven techniques is given in~\cite{DBLP:conf/dagstuhl/Walkinshaw16}.
\subsection{Results}
Next, we report on the findings of our experiments while evaluating the research questions.
\textbf{RQ1 - Effectiveness.} Table~\ref{tab:failuresCount} shows the results of the experiments for RQ1.
It gives the number of models (out of 90 in total) for which our approach verification-based testing (VBT) and the two baselines
adaptive random testing (ART) and property-based testing (PT) were able to detect non-monotonicity.
Note again that the ground truth, i.e., which models are in fact non-monotone, is unknown, but all reported non-monotonicity cases
are true positives. Per classifier 10 models were tested.
\begin{table}[t]\centering
\small
\caption{Number of non-monotonicity detections}
\label{tab:failuresCount}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\toprule
\textbf{Classifiers} & \textit{VBT} & \textit{ART} & \textit{PT}\\
\midrule
\rowcolor{black!5} k-NN & 9 & 9 & 7 \\
Logistic Regression & 8 & 8 & 6\\
\rowcolor{black!5} Naive Bayes & 7 & 4 & 5 \\
SVM & 9 & 8 & 5 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} Neural Network & 8 & 6 & 4 \\
Random Forest & 9 & 9 & 5 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} AdaBoost & 8 & 7 & 5 \\
GradientBoost & 8 & 7 & 5 \\
\rowcolor{black!5} LightGbm & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
\bottomrule
Overall & 68 & 58 & 42 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{table}
The results show that verification-based testing is more effective in detecting non-monotonicity than both adaptive random and property-based testing. It also shows that adaptive random testing can outperform (pure) property-based testing because
-- with the help of the distance metric -- it more systematically
generates test cases covering the test input space.
Another interesting result is the detection of non-monotonicity in two (out of 10) models generated by LightGBM (and the fact that ART and PT fail to detect it).
LightGBM is a monotonicity-aware classifier which is supposed to just generate monotone models.
For two of the training sets it has however failed to do so, resulting in a model which still has a small number of non-monotone pairs
which VBT can find, but ART and PT cannot.
Given these differences in numbers, we also wanted to know whether the non-monotonicity detections of ART and PT are simply a subset
of those of VBT. This is actually not the case. The Venn diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:venn} shows the distribution of counter examples
onto the three approaches. 26 models are in the intersection of all three techniques.
For the rest, only one or two of the approaches could detect non-monotonicity.
The diagram also shows that there are 9 models for which both PT or ART can detect non-monotonicity,
but VBT cannot.
These models are all models trained on the ERA (6 models) and ESL (3 models) data sets. Looking at the models themselves,
it turns out that their accuracy (wrt.~the training data) is always very low (below 0.62 and for ERA even below 0.3).
Hence, it seems that generalization from this training data is difficult for ML algorithms, and the decision trees in VBT seem to generalize
in a different way than the black-box models and hence approximate them less well. This also shows in the results of RQ3 below
concerning the ERA and ESL data sets.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{venn circle/.style={draw=gray,text opacity=2,fill opacity=0.2,circle,minimum width=3cm,fill=#1,line width=1.5pt}}
\begin{scope}[blend mode=screen]
\node [venn circle = yellow] (A) at (0,0) {};
\node [label] (A) at (-1.5,-1.5) {\textbf{ART}};
\node [venn circle = green] (B) at (2,0) {};
\node [label] (B) at (3.5,-1.5) {\textbf{PT}};
\node [venn circle = orange] (C) at (1,1.5) {};
\node [label] (C) at (1,3.3) {\textbf{VBT}};
\node at (1,0.55) {\textbf{26}};
\node at (0.2, 0.85) {\textbf{24}};
\node at (1.8, 0.85) {\textbf{8}};
\node at (1, 1.85) {\textbf{10}};
\node at (-0.4, -0.1) {\textbf{1}};
\node at (1, -0.55) {\textbf{7}};
\node at (2.2, -0.1) {\textbf{1}};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Venn diagram showing distribution of detected non-monotone models on approaches}
\label{fig:venn}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent
Summarizing the findings of RQ1 in our experiments, we get
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{blue}{blue!10}{\parbox{0.85\columnwidth}{On average, VBT is more effective
than ART and PT in detecting non-monotonicity of black-box ML models.}}
\end{center}
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{RQ2 - Efficiency.} For RQ2, we designed experiments to evaluate how efficient VBT is in comparison to ART and PT. Figure~\ref{fig:execution-time} shows the runtime of
the three approaches for testing monotonicity. The x-axis enumerates the 90 tasks (i.e., models to be tested) where
the tasks are sorted in ascending order of runtime per approach, and the y-axis gives the runtime for testing the task (in seconds, on a logarithmic scale).
It shows that for all tasks VBT takes less time than both ART and PT even though our approach consists of several steps (including the training of a decision tree) to compute monotonicity.
Adaptive random testing takes (on average) the same amount of time for all tasks. During ART, most of the time is needed for creating the input test cases which are ``furthest'' away from each other. As the size of test inputs is always the same for all the test cases, the time does not vary that much. On the other hand, property-based testing performs better than ART in most of the cases apart from some exceptions.
\pgfplotsset{
compat=1.14,
width=\columnwidth,
height=6cm
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\definecolor{clr1}{rgb}{0.64,0.64,0.82}
\definecolor{clr2}{rgb}{0.0,0.0,0.0}
\definecolor{clr3}{rgb}{0.21,0.27,0.31}
\begin{axis}[
legend pos=north west,
ytick = {1,10,100,1000,10000},
ylabel={runtime (in seconds)},
ymode = log,
xtick = {10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90},
xmin=10, xmax=90,
ymin = 1, ymax=10000,
xticklabels = {1, 20, 30, 40, 50,60,70,80, 90},
xlabel = {Tasks}
]
\addplot
[clr2, line width=0.3mm, dotted] coordinates{
(1,94.1) (2,94.5) (3,95.9) (4,95.98) (5,97.1) (6,97.6) (7,99.4) (8,99.47) (9,103.6) (10,104.2) (11,107.5) (12,108.5) (13,109.5) (14,109.7) (15,109.9) (16,114.3) (17,115.4) (18,121.4) (19,128.2) (20,147.8) (21,150.6) (22,152.99) (23,153.12) (24,153.2) (25,158.78) (26,173.4) (27,173.8) (28,179.1) (29,216.3) (30,222.8) (31,223.6) (32,225.9) (33,226.2) (34,227.2) (35,227.5) (36,229.6) (37,229.9) (38,230.6) (39,231.1) (40,232.4) (41,232.5) (42,237.3) (43,240.1) (44,242.8) (45,248.7) (46,259.1) (47,260.8) (48,261.5) (49,261.9) (50,273.9) (51,278.9) (52,329.9) (53,335.6) (54,338.9) (55,340.8) (56,373.2) (57,385.1) (58,387.8) (59,410.5) (60,412.1) (61,412.4) (62,413.2) (63,414.3) (64,415.7) (65,416.2) (66,416.9) (67,419.6) (68,421.1) (69,421.6) (70,421.9) (71,423.4) (72,424.02) (73,434.44) (74,435.6) (75,436.8) (76,461.55) (77, 463.5) (78, 464.6) (79, 468.7) (80, 469.9) (81, 475) (82, 476.2) (83, 477.3) (84, 478.1) (85, 479.5) (86, 480.2) (87, 481.5) (88, 481.7) (89, 481.9) (90, 490)
};
\addplot
[clr1, line width=0.3mm, dashed] coordinates{
(1,8.4) (2,8.5) (3,8.56) (4,8.6) (5,8.95) (6,9.07) (7,9.1) (8,9.26) (9,9.56) (10,9.68) (11,9.96) (12,10.27) (13,10.9) (14,10.98) (15,11.19) (16,11.6) (17,11.8) (18,12.15) (19,13.95) (20,14.02) (21,14.37) (22,15.64) (23,16.6) (24,16.69) (25,17.14) (26,17.19) (27, 17.28) (28,17.75) (29,19.48) (30,19.75) (31,20.53) (32,24.64) (33,26.19) (34,26.31) (35,30.8) (36,32.26) (37,35.88) (38,39.21) (39,41.94) (40,45.1) (41,45.86) (42,46.78) (43,47.1) (44,50.22) (45,50.52) (46,55.91) (47,60.93) (48,62.31) (49,62.79) (50,65.03) (51,71.34) (52, 72.3) (53,73.5) (54,73.8) (55,74.1) (56,74.5) (57,74.9) (58,76.1) (59,77.2) (60,78.4) (61,78.8) (62,79.14) (63,80.38) (64,93.7) (65,96.74) (66,96.77) (67,112.14) (68,113.47) (69,115.61) (70,121.6) (71,123.75) (72,123.92) (73,126.88) (74,137.69) (75,138.4) (76,139.58) (77,144.59) (78,156.54) (79,173.69) (80,184.47) (81,263.42) (82,413.64) (83,451.52) (84,541.32) (85,580.17) (86,673.3) (87,988.44) (88, 3980.2) (89,5433.12) (90,8567)
};
\addplot
[clr3, line width=0.3mm] coordinates {
(1,1.08) (2,1.45) (3,1.47) (4,1.54) (5,1.56) (6,1.68) (7,1.77) (8,2.26) (9,2.5) (10,2.53) (11,3.09) (12,3.17) (13,3.21) (14,3.34) (15,3.39) (16,3.41) (17,3.54) (18,3.61) (19,3.63) (20,3.66) (21,3.69) (22,3.72) (23,4) (24,4.1) (25,4.17) (26,4.2) (27,4.24) (28,4.25) (29,4.26) (30,4.34) (31,4.51) (32,4.52) (33,4.6) (34,4.75) (35,4.78) (36,4.83) (37,4.84) (38,4.85) (39,4.86) (40,5.58) (41,5.61) (42,5.86) (43,5.99) (44,6.16) (45,6.42) (46,6.43) (47,6.89) (48,6.99) (49,7.1) (50,7.38) (51,7.9) (52,8.3) (53,8.59) (54,8.67) (55,8.74) (56,8.96) (57, 8.99) (58, 9.01) (59, 9.12) (60, 9.39) (61, 9.48) (62, 10.42) (63, 10.67) (64, 10.8) (65, 10.87) (66, 12.4) (67,14.8) (68,14.9) (69,15.5) (70,18.1) (71,18.5) (72,26.6) (73, 28.6) (74,31.3) (75,39.1) (76,42.2) (77,49.3) (78,50.9) (79,52.07) (80,56.5) (81,86.4) (82,94.2) (83,100.3) (84,102.2) (85,131) (86,150.6) (87,151.4) (88, 177.9) (89, 178.8) (90, 180.5)
};
\legend{ART, PT, VBT}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Run time in checking monotonicity}
\label{fig:execution-time}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\end{figure}
Second, for RQ2 we have determined the number of test cases generated during testing.
All three approaches stop once they have detected the first counter example to monotonicity.
Figure~\ref{fig:failAtt} shows the number of failed attempts (i.e., generated test cases before finding the first counter example) for each of the classifiers averaging over all the datasets. Our experimental results suggest that VBT always needs the least amount of test cases to testify non-monotonicity.
Note that our approach has two possible execution instances when not finding counter examples:
(1) the SMT solver might continously generate counter example candidates which all fail to be real counter examples in the model and
thus VBT successively retrains the tree until \texttt{MAX\_SAMPLES} candidates have been generated, or
(2) it immediately stops because the first decision tree is already monotone and the SMT solver finds no counter example at all.
In the latter case, the number of failed attempts is 0 (which is favourable for a low number of attempts).
However, this only occurred in 7 out of the 90 models.
\pgfplotsset{
compat=1.5,
width=\columnwidth,
height=6cm
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[bar width=4,
ybar,ylabel=no. of failed attempts,
legend style={at={(0.5,-0.2)},
anchor=north,legend columns=-1},
xtick = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9},
xmin=0, xmax=10,
ytick = {0,250,500,750,1000},
xticklabels = {kNN, NN, RF, SVM, NB, AB, GB, LR, LBM}]
\addplot
[draw=black,pattern=horizontal lines light gray]
coordinates
{(1,42) (2,48) (3,91) (4,43) (5,129) (6,37) (7,115) (8,128) (9, 258)};
\addplot
[draw=black,pattern=horizontal lines dark gray]
coordinates
{(1,282) (2,311) (3,382) (4,477) (5,773) (6,480) (7,844) (8,650) (9, 1000)};
\addplot
[draw=green!40!black, pattern color=gray, pattern=north east lines]
coordinates
{(1,457) (2,710) (3,880) (4,611) (5,416) (6,683) (7,843) (8,650) (9, 1000)};
\legend{VBT \qquad, ART , PT}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Number of failed attempts}
\label{fig:failAtt}
\vspace*{-.3cm}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent
Summarizing the findings of RQ2 in our experiments, we get
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{blue}{blue!10}{\parbox{0.85\columnwidth}{On average, VBT is more efficient
than ART and PT in detecting non-monotonicity of black-box ML models.}}
\end{center}
\bigskip
\noindent For the next two research questions we look at verification-based testing only.
\smallskip
\textbf{RQ3 - Approximation quality.} Table~\ref{tab:retraining} shows the mean number of re-trainings of the decision tree per
classifier and data set (mean over 10 runs). For those cases where VBT could not find any non-monotonicity, we have written '-'.
As the results show, the number of re-trainings is high for the monotonicity aware algorithm LightGBM (LBM), which is consistent with the results shown in Figure~\ref{fig:failAtt}.
Apart from the classifier, the data set seems to influence the number of retrainings (e.g., Adult needs a large number of re-trainings).
In general, the numbers are -- however -- relatively low ($\leq$ 10).
Note that there are also 27 models for which {\em no} retraining at all is needed.
\smallskip
\noindent
Hence, we conclude the following.
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{blue}{blue!10}{\parbox{0.85\columnwidth}{On average, the approximation quality of decision trees in VBT is good enough
to only require a small number of retrainings for non-monotonicity detection. }}
\end{center}
\bigskip
\textbf{RQ4 - Strategy Selection.} For RQ4, we modified VBT as to not stop upon the first valid counter example.
Figures~\ref{fig:pruneResultsStr} and \ref{fig:pruneResultsWeak} show the {\em detection rates} (number of detected counter examples
divided by number of test cases) of the two pruning strategies alone in computing strong (Fig.~\ref{fig:pruneResultsStr}) and weak monotonicity (Fig.~\ref{fig:pruneResultsWeak}), respectively.
Note the difference in the maximal detection rate which is 0.5 for strong and only 0.25 for weak monotonicity.
On a large number of classifiers branch pruning is better or equal to feature pruning for strong monotonicity
whereas for weak monotonicity it is the other way round. This can partly be explained on the decision tree itself: since
weak monotonicity requires all but the values of monotone features to be the same in a pair, branch pruning cannot
exhibit its full power.
\smallskip
\noindent
The results suggest the following.
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{blue}{blue!10}{\parbox{0.85\columnwidth}{On average, branch pruning achieves a higher detection rate than feature pruning for strong monotonicity and vice versa for weak monotonicity. }}
\end{center}
\subsection{Limitations and Threats to Validity}
Since we employ an SMT solver for monotonicity computation,
verification-based testing is restricted to feature values allowed by the solver.
Currently, we have data sets with integer and real values.
For other domains of feature values, an encoding would be necessary. This is however often done by
ML algorithms within preprocessing steps anyway, so we could easily make use of existing techniques there.
Threats to the validity of results are the choice of data sets and ML algorithms and the choice of feature groups for monotonicity checking.
For the ML algorithms, we are confident that we have covered all sorts of basic classifiers in usage today (of course,
there are in addition numerous specialised classifiers which however often make use of the base techniques).
As we have taken a number of different, publicly available data sets for machine learning, we are furthermore confident that our
data sets are diverse enough to exhibit different properties of the approaches and reflect real data sets.
In particular, the ERA data set exposes interesting properties of verification-based testing.
A threat to the internal validity is the high degree of randomness involved in the techniques. First, a number of classifiers use
randomized algorithms for generating models.
Thus, in principle we might get one monotone and one non-monotone model when training {\em with the same classifier on exactly the
same data set}.
To ensure fairness during comparison, all three approaches were always started with the same model as input (training of MUTs is
external to testing).
Second, all three approaches themselves randomly generate (at least some) data instances (ART and PT as potential test cases,
VBT for oracle data). VBT in addition uses a decision tree training algorithm which itself involves randomness.
Hence, our decision trees can vary from one run to the next, and this stays so even if we would fix the oracle data.
To mitigate these threats, all experiments were performed 10 times and the results give the mean over these 10 runs.
\begin{table}[t]\centering
\small
\caption{Mean number of re-trainings}
\label{tab:retraining}
\begin{tabular}{r r r r r r r r r r}
\toprule
\diagbox[width=\dimexpr \textwidth/18+4\tabcolsep\relax, height=1.1cm]{ \textit{Data} }{\textit{Classifier}} & \textbf{kNN} & \textbf{NN} & \textbf{RF} & \textbf{SVM} & \textbf{NB} & \textbf{AB} & \textbf{GB} & \textbf{LR} & \textbf{LBM} \\
\midrule
\textbf{Adult} & 4 & 6 & 19 & 7 & 26 & 1 & 25 & 37 & -\\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textbf{Auto} & 0 & 1 & 3 & 0 & - & 3 & 2 & 0 & 35\\
\textbf{Car} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & - & 1 & 5 & -\\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textbf{CPU} & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 26 & 0 & 9 & 1 & -\\
\textbf{Diabetes} & 3 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 8 & 2 & 7 & -\\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textbf{ERA} & 1 & - & - & - & - & 0 & - & - & -\\
\textbf{ESL} & - & - & 1 & 0 & - & - & - & - & -\\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textbf{Housing} & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -\\
\textbf{Mammo} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 5 & -\\
\rowcolor{black!5} \textbf{Mpg} & 0 & 10 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 5 & 18\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
Many modern particle accelerators utilize superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavities cooled by liquid helium (LHe) to accelerate particles~\cite{Lebrun-2014-CERN_cooling}. These SRF cavities are housed inside interconnected cryomodules and form a long LHe-cooled vacuum tube, i.e., the beamline tube~\cite{Pagani-2005-PIWS}. An accelerator can experience a catastrophic breakdown if the cavities accidently lose their vacuum to the surrounding atmosphere. For example, an accidental rupture at a cryomodule interconnect will provide the room-temperature air an open path to enter the cavity space. The air can then condense on the cavity inner surface and rapidly deposit heat to the LHe, causing violent boiling in LHe and dangerous pressure build-up in the cryomodule. Safety concerns and possible damage as a result of sudden vacuum loss have led to multiple failure studies at accelerator labs~\cite{Wiseman-1994-ACE,Seidel-2002-DESYTechRep,Ady-2014-IPACP,Ady-2014-CERNTechRep,Boeckmann-2008-PICEF22,Dalesandro-2012-AIP}. These preliminary studies revealed that the gas propagation in a freezing vacuum tube can slow down substantially as compared to that in a room-temperature tube.
In order to better understand the complex coupled heat and mass transfer processes involved in a beamline vacuum break event, pioneering work has been carried out in our cryogenics lab by Dhuley and Van Sciver via venting room-temperature nitrogen (N$_2$) gas from a buffer tank to a LHe cooled vacuum tube~\cite{Dhuley-2016-IHMT-1,Dhuley-2016-IHMT-2}. Their experiments with normal liquid helium (He I) showed that the gas-front propagation slowed down nearly exponentially. This deceleration was attributed to gas condensation to the tube wall~\cite{Dhuley-2016-IHMT-2}, but a quantitative analysis on how the condensation leads to the observed exponential slowing down was not provided. Another limitation in these early experiments is that the tube system was not suitable for measurements with the superfluid phase of liquid helium (He II). This is because after the helium bath is pumped to the He II phase, only a small section of the tube can remain immersed in He II. Furthermore, the tube section above the liquid level can be effectively cooled by the flowing helium vapor to sufficiently low temperatures such that the nitrogen gas may condense at an unknown location in this tube section. This uncertainty makes subsequent data analysis and result interpretation difficult.
In our later systematic work, a longer helical tube system was fabricated~\cite{Garceau-2017-IOP}. The tube section above the liquid surface is protected by a vacuum jacket and its temperature is always maintained to above 77 K using a feedback-controlled heater system~\cite{Garceau-2019-Cryo}. This design allows us to accurately control the starting location of the gas condensation, which is crucial for reliable measurements and for convenient comparison with model simulations. Our systematic measurements with He I confirmed the observed slowing down of the gas-front propagation~\cite{Garceau-2019-IHMT-pt1}. A theoretical model that accounts for the gas dynamics, surface condensation, and heat transfer to He I was also developed, which successfully reproduced various key observations~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}. On the other hand, since many accelerator beamlines are actually cooled by He II whose heat transfer characteristics are controlled by a non-classical thermal-counterflow mechanism~\cite{Van_Sciver-2012-HeCryo}, the insights gained in our He I studies are not all directly applicable. For this reason, we now extend our work to the He II cooled tube.
This paper reports our systematic experimental measurements with He II as well as our numerical simulations of the relevant heat and mass transfer processes. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Exp}, we discuss our experimental setup, the measurement procedures, and the main observations. In Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we present our theoretical model which consists of the conservation equations of the propagating gas, a refined model of the gas condensation, and a correlation model that reasonably describes the heat transfer in He II. The validation of the model is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:valid}. We show that by tuning the He II peak heat-flux parameter in our model, the observed gas motion under various inlet gas pressures and mass flow rates can be well reproduced. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Heat}, we present the calculated heat-deposition rate in He II using the fine-tuned model. This information is critical in the design codes for beamline safety. Finally, a brief summary is included in Sec.~\ref{sec:Sum}. Our systematic work provides an unprecedented characterization of the heat load accompanying the vacuum break in a He II cooled tube, which could have important implications to the design and safe operation of beamline cryogenic systems.
\section{\label{sec:Exp} Experimental Measurements}
The apparatus used in our He II experiment is the same as that in our prior He I experiment. The details of the setup can be found in~\cite{Garceau-2019-IHMT-pt1,Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2,Garceau-2020-IOP}. In summary, the system includes a copper tube with a total length of 5.75 m. The tube has an outer diameter of $2.8$ cm and a wall thickness of 1.25~mm. It is bent into a helical coil shape with a coil diameter of 22.9 cm, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:1}. The copper tube is soldered to a stainless steel extension tube which connects to the outside plumbing. The extension tube is vacuum insulated to prevent variations in temperature that could be resulted from convective cooling due to the flowing vapor during the bath pumping~\cite{Garceau-2019-Cryo}. The liquid level in the bath is controlled such that upon the completion of the pumping to a desired He II temperature, the helical copper tube is completely immersed in He II.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{Schematic diagram of the experimental setup used in our study on vacuum break in He~II cooled tube.\label{Fig:1}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experimental procedures}
In our experiments, pure nitrogen gas contained in a 230-$L$ reservoir tank was used to maintain consistent flow conditions. Vacuum break was simulated by opening a fast-action solenoid valve (25 ms opening time). Following the solenoid valve, a venturi tube choked the gas flow into the evacuated tube system such that the gas velocity at the venturi exit reached the local sound speed. The gas pressures in the nitrogen tank and after the venturi were monitored using Kulite\TxU{\textregistered} XCQ-092 high speed pressure sensors. Data acquisition was conducted at a rate of 4800~Hz using LabVIEW\TxU{\textregistered} and four data acquisition modules (i.e., DT9824 from Data Translation Inc.). Measurements at four different tank pressures, i.e., 50 kPa, 100 kPa, 150 kPa and 200 kPa, were conducted.
The gas propagation was measured by monitoring the surface temperature of the copper tube using seven Lake Shore Cernox\TxU{\textregistered} temperature sensors encapsulated in 2850 FT Stycast\TxU{\textregistered} epoxy~\cite{Dhuley-2016-Cryo-cernox}. These sensors were mounted on the outer surface of copper tube using hose clamps and were placed at 72~cm apart along the tube. To reduce the thermal contact resistance between the sensors and the copper tube, indium foil and Apliezon\TxU{\textregistered}~N thermal grease were applied at the interface. To monitor the bath temperature, one Cernox sensor was allowed to float in the center of the helium bath, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:1}.
\subsection{Main observations}
After the solenoid valve was opened, the nitrogen gas flushed into the evacuated copper tube and condensed on the tube inner surface, causing variations of the tube-wall temperature. Fig.~\ref{Fig:2} shows the temperature curves recorded by the Cernox sensors in a representative experimental run with a tank pressure of 150~kPa. These temperature curves initially remain at the bath temperature (i.e., 1.95 K). Upon the arrival of the gas propagating font, the temperature curves rise abruptly to a saturation temperature of about 50~K to 60~K (not shown in the figure). Due to the heat deposited in the bath, the bath temperature $T_{bath}$ also rises steadily. Nevertheless, according to the $T_{bath}$ curve, the LHe remained in the He II phase since its temperature was below the lambda-point temperature (i.e., $T_{\lambda}=2.17$ K) over the course of the experiment. Therefore, the He II heat transfer characteristics are needed in our result analysis.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{Measured and simulated temperature curves at different sensor locations for the experimental run at 150~kPa tank pressure.\label{Fig:2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{Measured and simulated rise times of the temperature curves at different sensor locations for experimental runs with different tank pressures. \label{Fig:3}}
\end{figure}
In order to extract quantitative information about the gas propagation, we introduce the rise time $t_r(x)$ defined as the moment when the temperature at a location $x$ from the tube entrance rises to above a threshold level of 4.2~K, as indicated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}. The rise time recorded at different sensor locations for all the four runs with tank pressures of 50~kPa, 100~kPa, 150~kPa, and 200~kPa are collected in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3}. At 50~kPa tank pressure and hence the lowest tube inlet mass flow rate, the slowest propagation and the strongest deceleration of the gas flow were observed. On the other hand, at 200~kPa tank pressure, the mean velocity of the gas is the highest (i.e., about 10~m/s) and the slowing-down effect is relatively mild.
\section{\label{sec:model} Theoretical model}
We describe the N$_2$ gas dynamics and the heat transfer in our He II cooled tube using an one-dimensional (1D) model similar to that discussed in our previous work~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}. This 1D modeling is reasonable considering the small diameter-to-length ratio of the tube. A refined gas condensation model and a heat-transfer correlation model applicable to He II are incorporated in the current work. In what follows, we outline the relevant details.
\subsection{Gas dynamics}
The propagation of the N$_2$ gas in the tube and the evolution of its properties can be described by the conservation equations of the N$_2$ mass, momentum, and energy, as listed below:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial\rho_g}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}(\rho_g v) = -\frac{4}{D_1} \dot{m}_{c},
\label{eq:modConsMass}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\rho_g v) + \frac{\partial}{\partial x}(\rho_g v^2) = -\frac{\partial P}{\partial x} - \frac{4}{D_1}\dot{m}_{c} v,
\label{eq:modConsMome}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\rho_g\left(\varepsilon_g+ \frac{1}{2} v^2\right)\right]+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[\rho_g v \left(\varepsilon_g+\frac{1}{2} v^2 + \frac{P}{\rho_g}\right)\right]=\\
-\frac{4}{D_1} \dot{m}_{c} \left(\varepsilon_g+\frac{1}{2}v^2 + \frac{P}{\rho_g} \right) - \frac{4}{D^2_1} Nu\cdot k_g (T_g-T_s).
\label{eq:modConsEner}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The definitions of the parameters involved in the above equations are provided in the Nomenclature table. These equations, including the Nusselt number $Nu$ correlation for gas convective heat transfer, are the same as in our prior modeling work~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}. The model also assumes that the N$_2$ gas obeys the ideal-gas equation of state:
\begin{equation}
P M_g =\rho_g R T_g,
\label{eq:IG}
\end{equation}
which is justified since the compressibility of the N$_2$ gas is close to unity in the entire experiment~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}. The terms containing $\dot{m}_c$ on the right hand side of the Eq.~(\ref{eq:modConsMass})-(\ref{eq:modConsEner}) account for the effects due to the condensation of the $N_2$ gas on the tube inner surface. The parameter $\dot{m}_c$ denotes the mass deposition rate per unit tube inner surface area, which requires an additional equation to describe its time variation.
\subsection{Mass deposition}
In our previous work~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}, $\dot{m}_c$ is evaluated using a sticking coefficient model derived assuming ideal Maxwellian velocity distribution of the gas molecules. Although this model is designed for use in the free molecular flow regime, it turns out to describe well the mass deposition in our He I experiments where the N$_2$ gas was essentially in the continuum flow regime~\cite{Garceau-2019-IHMT-pt1}. Nevertheless, potential inaccuracy may still occur when $\dot{m}_c$ is so large that the distribution of the molecule velocity starts to deviate from the Maxwellian distribution due to the mean flow towards the wall as caused by condensation.
To account for this effect, in the current work we adopt a refined model using the Hertz-Knudsen relation with the Schrage modification~\cite{Collier-1994-ConvBoilCond}. This kinetic theory model evaluates $\dot{m}_c$ based on the difference between the flux of the molecules condensing on the cold surface and the flux of the molecules getting evaporated from the frost layer:
\begin{equation}
\dot{m}_{c} = \sqrt{ \frac{M_g}{2\pi R}}\left({\Gamma\sigma_c}\frac{P}{\sqrt{T_g}}-\sigma_e\frac{P_w}{\sqrt{T_w}} \right),
\label{eq:mc}
\end{equation}
where \(P_w\) is the saturated vapor pressure at the wall temperature $T_w$. $\sigma_c$ and $\sigma_e$ are empirical condensation and evaporation coefficients which are typically about the same and close to unity for a very cold surface~\cite{persad-2016_Chem.Rev.}. We take 0.95 for both coefficients in our later numerical simulations. The coefficient $\Gamma$ is responsible for any deviation from the Maxwellian velocity distribution of the molecules as caused by the condensation on the wall. In terms of the mean-flow velocity towards to the cold wall $u=\dot{m}_{c}/\rho_g$, $\Gamma$ can be calculated as~\cite{Collier-1994-ConvBoilCond}:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\beta) = exp\left({-\beta^2}\right) +\beta\sqrt{\pi} \left[1+erf\left( {\beta}\right)\right],
\end{equation}
where $\beta=u/u_T$ with $u_T=\sqrt{2RT_g/M_g}$ being the thermal velocity of the gas molecules. Note that since $\Gamma$ depends on $\dot{m}_c$ through $u$, the Eq.~\ref{eq:mc} needs to be solved self-consistently at every time step to obtain the evolution of $\dot{m}_c$.
\subsection{Radial heat transfer}
In the governing equations for the gas dynamics and $\dot{m}_c$, the wall temperature $T_w$ and the surface temperature $T_s$ of the frost layer are needed. This information be can obtained through the analysis of the heat transfer in the radial direction.
First, assuming that the frost-layer thickness $\delta$ is small such that a linear temperature profile exists in the layer, we can evaluated the frost-layer center temperature $T_\text{c}=(T_\text{w}+T_\text{s})/2$ as~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{SN} C_{SN} \delta \frac{\partial T_c}{\partial t} = q_\text{dep} - q_i
\label{eq:frost}
\end{equation}
where $q_\text{dep}=\dot{m}_c[v^2/2 + {\hat{h}}_\text{g} - {\hat{h}}_\text{s}] + Nu\cdot k_g(T_\text{g}-T_\text{s})/D_1$ is the total incoming heat flux to the frost layer, and $q_i=k_\text{SN}(T_\text{s}-T_\text{w})/\delta$ denotes the outgoing heat flux to the copper tube wall. The growth rate of the frost layer thickness $\delta$ is given by ${\dot{\delta}=\dot{m}_c/\rho_\text{SN}}$.
Then, the variation of the copper tube wall temperature $T_w$ can be described by:
\begin{equation}
\rho_w C_{w} \frac{D^2_2 - D^2_1}{4D_1} \frac{\partial T_w}{\partial t} = q_i - q_\text{He} \frac{D_2}{D_1}+\frac{D^2_2 - D^2_1}{4D_1} k_w \frac{\partial^2 T_w}{\partial x^2}.
\label{eq:wall}
\end{equation}
In this equation, we neglected the temperature gradient across the thickness of the copper tube, which is justified considering the high thermal conductivity of copper and the small wall thickness. The parameter $q_\text{He}$ denotes the heat flux from the copper tube to the He II bath, which is modeled separately.
\subsection{He II heat transfer modeling}
It has been known that He II can be treated as a mixture of two miscible fluid components: an inviscid and zero-entropy superfluid and a viscous normal fluid~\cite{Tilley-book}. Heat transfer in bulk He II is via an extremely effective counterflow mode instead of classical convection~\cite{Van_Sciver-2012-HeCryo}: the normal fluid carries the heat away from the heat source at a velocity proportional to the heat flux, whereas the superfluid moves in the opposite direction to ensure mass conservation. When the heat flux exceeds a small critical value, quantized vortices are nucleated spontaneously in the superfluid, which can impede the counterflow and increase the temperature gradient~\cite{Vinen-1957-PRS-III}. Our lab has done extensive characterization work on both steady-state~\cite{Marakov-2015-PRB,Gao-2016-JETP,Gao-2017-PRB,Gao-2017-JLTP,Bao-2018-PRB,Mastracci-2018-PRF,Mastracci-2019-PRF,Mastracci-2019-PRF-II} and transient counterflow~\cite{Bao-2019_PRApplied,Bao-2020-IJHMT,Bao-2021-PRB} in bulk He II.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig4.eps}\\
\caption{(a) The heat flux $q_\text{He}$ from the copper tube to the He II bath as a function of $T_{bath}$ and the temperature difference $\Delta T=T_w-T_{bath}$, calculated using the model outlined in the text with $m=3.2$. (b) A sliced view of (a) at $T_{bath}=2$~K.\label{Fig:4}}
\end{figure}
Nonetheless, when the heat transfer from a solid surface to the He II bath is concerned, the situation becomes complicated. There are three distinct regimes of heat transfer, i.e., the Kaptiza regime, the transition regime, and the film boiling regime~\cite{Van_Sciver-2012-HeCryo}. The Kaptiza regime occurs at low heat fluxes where the copper tube wall is in full contact with the He II. In this regime, the heat flux $q_\text{He}$ depends on the temperatures $T_w$ and $T_{bath}$ through the following empirical correlation~\cite{Kashani-1985-Cryo}:
\begin{equation}
q_\text{He}=\alpha\left(T^{n}_{w}-T^{n}_{bath}\right),
\end{equation}
where the parameters $\alpha$ and $n$ are normally determined experimentally. For copper oxidized in air, measurements gave $\alpha~=~2.68$~kW/m$^2$K$^n$ and $n=2.46$~\cite{Kashani-1985-Cryo}.
As $q_\text{He}$ increases to the so-called peak heat flux $q^{*}_{0}$, the temperature gradient associated with the counterflow in He II builds up such that the He II temperature adjacent to the tube surface can reach the lambda point $T_{\lambda}$. Consequently, vapor bubbles start to nucleate on the tube surface, and the transition regime starts. In this regime, $q_\text{He}$ is essentially limited to $q^{*}_{0}$ while the temperature difference $\Delta T=T_w-T_{bath}$ increases. For a steady counterflow from a cylindrical surface with a diameter $D_2$, $q^{*}_{0}$ depends on $T_{bath}$ as~\cite{Van_Sciver-2012-HeCryo}:
\begin{equation}
q^{*}_{0}(T_{bath})=\left( \frac{m-1}{D_2/2}\int_{T_{bath}}^{T_{\lambda}}\frac{dT}{f(T)} \right)^{1/m}
\label{Eq:peakHeat}
\end{equation}
where the He II heat conduction function $f(T)^{-1}$ has been tabulated~\cite{Van_Sciver-2012-HeCryo}. The Gorter-Mellink exponent $m$ has a theoretical value of 3 but has been shown to vary experimentally in the range of 3 to 4~\cite{Arp-1970-cryo,Sato-2006-ACE,Ahlers-1969-PRL,Chase-1962-PR}. We note that the above correlation is derived for steady counterflow. In a highly transient process, the instantaneous heat flux can be affected by processes such as the buildup of the vortices and the emission of thermal waves~\cite{Bao-2021-PRB}. For simplicity, we shall still adopt Eq.~\ref{Eq:peakHeat} but will treat $m$ as a tuning parameter so the model can be fine-tuned to better describe the observations.
At sufficiently large $\Delta T$, the vapor bubbles merge together and form a thin film that covers the tube surface. In this film boiling regime, $q_\text{He}$ can be estimated as~\cite{Van_Sciver-2012-HeCryo}:
\begin{equation}
q_\text{He}=h_{film}(T_w-T_{bath}),
\end{equation}
where the film boiling coefficient $h_{film}$ is expected to depend on the radius of the tube and the hydrostatic head pressure, but relevant experimental information is scarce. For cylindrical heaters with diameters over 10 mm placed at a depth of 10~cm in He~II, limited measurements suggest $h_{film}\simeq200$~W/m$^2$~\cite{Bretts-1975-ACE}. We shall adopt this $h_{film}$ value in all later simulations. Indeed, the exact value of $h_{film}$ only has a minor effect on the analysis results, since the relevant heat transfer should be mainly in the Kaptiza and the transition regimes, as judged from the observed $\Delta T$ (also see discussions in Sec.~\ref{sec:Heat}).
Based on the model that we have outlined, we can calculate $q_\text{He}$ and plot it as a function of $T_{bath}$ and $\Delta T$. A representative graph obtained with $m=3.2$ is shown in Fig~\ref{Fig:4}~(a). A sliced view of $q_\text{He}$ at $T_{bath}=2$ K is included in Fig~\ref{Fig:4}~(b), where the different heat transfer regimes are labeled for clarity.
\section{\label{sec:valid} Model validation and fine-tuning}
We have conducted numerical simulations using the governing equations as outlined in the previous section. These equations are solved using a two-step first-order Godunov-type finite-difference method~\cite{Danaila-2007-IntroSciComp,Sod-1978-JCP} in the same computational domain as in our previous work~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}. Note that due to the finite volume of the He II in our experiment, the bath temperature $T_{bath}$ was observed to rise by about 0.1-0.15~K in each run due to the heat deposition. Since the parameter $q^{*}_{0}$ in our model depends strongly on $T_{bath}$, we have implemented a time varying $T_{bath}$ in our simulation using the experimental $T_{bath}$ data.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig:5}, we show the calculated tube-wall temperature curves at the sensor locations for a representative run with a tank pressure of 150 kPa. The Gorter-Mellink exponent $m=3.08$ was used in this calculation. These temperature curves rise sharply to about 50-60 K upon the arrival of the gas front. The separation between adjacent temperature curves gradually increases, suggesting a slowing down of the propagation. These features all agree well with the experimental observations. The calculated temperature curves are also included in Fig.~\ref{Fig:2}, where a quantitative agreement with the measured data can be clearly seen.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{Simulated tube-wall temperature curves at the sensor locations at a tank pressure of 150~kPa. The optimal $m=3.08$ is used in the model.}
\label{Fig:5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{Comparison of rise-time data in our He~I and He~II experiments with the same tube system at a tank pressure of 150~kPa. \label{Fig:6}}
\end{figure}
{\centering
\begin{table}[!tb]
\caption{Optimized Gorter-Mellink exponent $m$ for He II runs at different tank pressures.\label{Tab:ms}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\hline
Tank Pressure (kPa) & Optimal $m$ \\
\hline
50 & 3.26 \\
100 & 3.21 \\
150 & 3.08 \\
200 & 3.05 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
In Fig.~\ref{Fig:3}, we include the calculated rise-time curves to compare with the experimental data obtained at various tank pressures. The profiles of these calculated curves depend on the choice of the $m$ value. For each pressure, we tune the Gorter-Mellink exponent $m$ in the range of 3 to 4 to find the optimal value that minimizes the total variance between the experimental rise times and the simulated rise times summed over all sensor locations. The $m$ values obtained through this optimization procedure at different tank pressures are listed in Table~\ref{Tab:ms}. As one can see in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3}, the optimized rise-time curves agree nicely with the experimental data in all the runs, which thereby confirms the fidelity of the model. This fine-tubed model with the optimal $m$ exponent will be use in our later calculation of the heat deposition in He II.
We would also like to briefly comment on the difference of the gas dynamics between our He I and He II experiments. Fig.~\ref{Fig:6} shows a comparison of He~I and He~II rise-time data obtained using the same upgraded tube system at an tank pressure of 150~kPa. The simulated curves are also included. It is clear that the He~II curve shows a stronger slowing effect compared to the He~I curve. This difference was suggested in early preliminary studies~\cite{Dhuley-2016-Dis} but the result was compromised by various issues as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Garceau-2019-IHMT-pt1}. Now we can draw a reliable conclusion that the He II cooled tube indeed has a stronger slowing effect to the propagating gas due to the more effective heat transfer in the bath.
\section{\label{sec:Heat} Heat Deposition in He II}
Let us first discuss the total heat flux $q_\text{dep}$ to the tube wall at the sensor locations. Fig.~\ref{Fig:7} shows the $q_\text{dep}(t)$ curves calculated using the refined model for a representative run with 100 kPa tank pressure. We see that all the $q_\text{dep}$ curves first spike to above 10$^2$ kW/m$^2$ and then collapse to a nearly universal curve that slowly drops with time to about 20 kW/m$^2$. This spiking is associated with the arrival of the gas front, since the mass deposition rate (and hence $q_\text{dep}$) is the highest when a clean and cold wall area is first exposed to the gas. As the frost layer grows, the tube wall temperature $T_w$ rises sharply to a saturation level (see Fig.~\ref{Fig:5}). Consequently, the mass deposition rate drops to a roughly constant level at all the sensor locations, which leads to the convergence of the $q_\text{dep}$ curves.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig7.eps}
\caption{Simulated total heat flux $q_\text{dep}$ deposited to the tube wall at the sensor locations for a representative run with a tank pressure of 100~kPa.\label{Fig:7}}
\end{figure}
Next, we evaluate the heat flux $q_\text{He}$ into the He II bath. Fig.~\ref{Fig:8}~(a) and (b) show $q_\text{He}$ over time at the sensor locations for the runs with the lowest tank pressure (i.e., 50~kPa) and with the highest tank pressure (i.e., 200~kPa), respectively. In both runs, $q_\text{He}$ spikes up again upon the arrival of the gas front, and the heat transfer evolves quickly from the Kapitza regime to the transition regime. In the transition regime, $q_\text{He}$ is limited to the peak heat flux $q^{*}_{0}(T_{bath})$, and therefore all the $q_\text{He}$ curves at different sensor locations merge into a universal curve following the spiking. The gradual decrease of the merged $q_\text{He}$ curves is due to the decrease in $q^{*}_{0}(T_{bath})$ as the bath temperature $T_{bath}$ slowly increases. A unique feature observed in the 50~kPa run is that after about 2.5 s, the heat flux $q_\text{He}$ saturates to a nearly constant level controlled by the film boiling. This film boiling regime is not observed in the other runs by the time the gas front reaches the last sensor.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig8.eps}
\caption{Simulated heat flux into He II at the sensor locations for the runs with (a) 50~kPa tank pressure; and (b) 200~kPa tank pressure. \label{Fig:8}}
\end{figure}
To understand this difference, we refer to the He II heat transfer model as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:4}. When the bath temperature $T_{bath}$ is low, the transition regime and the film boiling regime intersect at a $\Delta T$ value that is typically above the maximum $\Delta T$ observed over the course of the gas prorogation. But as the heat keeps being deposited in the bath, $T_{bath}$ increases and hence $q^{*}_{0}$ decreases, which lowers the intersection $\Delta T$ between the two regimes. This effect is especially pronounced for the case with the smallest $m$ exponent, i.e., the 50~kPa run. Therefore, it is most likely to observe the film boiling regime in the 50~kPa run if the heat transfer to the bath in this run is relatively large. To check this point, we have calculated the total heat deposited in the bath from the entire tube as a function of time:
\begin{equation}
Q(t)=\int^t_0dt'\int^L_0dx'\pi D_2\cdot q_\text{He}(x',t').
\end{equation}
The results for all the four runs are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:9}. It is clear that despite the the smallest heat deposition rate in the 50~kPa run, the highest amount of heat (i.e., over 12 kJ) is transferred to the bath, which is simply the consequence of the longest heat-deposition time before the gas front reaches the last sensor.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Fig9.eps}
\caption{Calculated total heat $Q(t)$ deposited in the He II bath under different tank pressures. The vertical dashed line marks the time when the gas front reaches the last sensor. \label{Fig:9}}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{sec:Sum} Summary}
We have conducted systematic experimental and numerical studies of N$_2$ gas propagation and condensation inside an evacuated copper tube cooled by He II. By adjusting the Gorter-Mellink exponent $m$ in our theoretical model, we have nicely reproduced the observed tube-wall temperature variations in all the runs at different tank pressures. The fine-tuned model is then used to calculate the heat flux to the He II bath. Our results reveal that upon the arrival of the gas front, the heat flux spikes up to the peak heat flux at which nucleate boiling occurs on the tube outer surface. This heat flux appears to be higher at larger tank pressure (and hence larger inlet mass flow rate and mass deposition rate). Nevertheless, before the gas front reaches the tube end, the highest amount total heat is deposited in the He II bath in the run with the lowest tank pressure. The knowledge we have produced in this study may benefit the design of future beamline systems cooled by He II.
We would also like to point out that in our study we have observed a more or less constant mass deposition rate in the tube section where the gas front has passed. Similar phenomenon was observed in our previous He I work as well~\cite{Bao-2020-IJHMT-pt2}. These observations suggest that in a sufficiently long tube such as an accelerator beamline tube, the gas flushing into the tube would eventually be almost consumed by the mass deposition on the tube inner wall after a certain propagation range. This maximum range of frost contamination is a useful parameter in beamline research and design. We plan to explain the physical mechanism underlying this nearly constant mass deposition rate and present a simple correlation that allows reliable estimation of the maximum contamination range in a future publication.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Prof. S. W. Van Sciver for valuable discussions. This research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-SC0020113 and was conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University, which is supported through the National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-1644779 and the state of Florida.
\section*{Nomenclature}
\begin{xtabular}{cp{5cm}p{1.5 cm}}
\hline
\hline
Variable & Description & Units \\
$C$ & Specific heat & J/(kg$\cdot $K) \\
$D_1$ & Inner diameter of the tube & m \\
$D_2$ & Outer diameter of the tube & m \\
$k$ & Thermal conductivity & W/(m$\cdot $K) \\
$\hat{h}$ & Specific enthalpy & J/kg \\
$h_{film}$ & Film boiling coefficient & W/(m$^2\cdot $K) \\
$m$ & Gorter-Mellink exponent & \\
$\dot m$ & Mass flow rate & kg/s \\
$\dot m_c$ & Mass deposition rate & kg/(m$^2\cdot $s) \\
$M_g$ & Gas molar mass & kg/mol \\
$Nu$ & Nusselt number & \\
$P$ & Pressure & Pa \\
$q_{dep}$ & Deposition heat flux & W/m$^2$ \\
$q_{He}$ & Heat flux to the liquid helium bath & W/m$^2$ \\
$q_{i}$ & Heat flux to the inner tube surface & W/m$^2$ \\
$q^*_0$ & Peak heat flux & W/m$^2$ \\
$R$ & Ideal gas constant & J/(mol$\cdot $K) \\
$t$ & Time & s \\
$t_r$ & Rise time & s \\
$T$ & Temperature & K \\
$v$ & Gas velocity along pipe & m/s \\
$u$ & Radial mean velocity toward wall & m/s \\
$u_T$ & Gas molecule thermal velocity & m/s \\
$x$ & Coordinate along the tube & m \\
& & \\
$Greeks$ & & \\
$\delta$ & Thickness of the SN$_2$ layer & m \\
$\varepsilon$ & Specific internal energy & J/kg \\
$\rho$ & Density & kg/m$^3$ \\
$\mu$ & Viscosity & Pa$\cdot $s \\
$\sigma_c$ & Condensation coefficient & \\
$\sigma_e$ & Evaporation coefficient & \\
$\Gamma$ & Velocity distribution correction factor & \\
& & \\
$Subscripts$ & & \\
$g$ & Bulk gas & \\
$s$ & Surface of the frost layer & \\
$w$ & Copper tube wall & \\
$SN$ & Solid nitrogen & \\
\hline
\hline
\end{xtabular}
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num-names}
\biboptions{sort&compress}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Sec:intro}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.65\textwidth]{survey_model.pdf}
\caption{Components of Cloud computing Paradigm using Machine Learning}
\label{fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Cloud computing has created an environment in which consumers use software and IT infrastructure, paving the way toward the emergence of computing as a fifth utility \cite{10.1145/3241737}. Resource management in data centres remains a nontrivial issue in cloud computing, and it is directly dependent on the application workload. Applications were connected to specific physical servers in conventional cloud computing environments such as data centres, so these servers were often overprovisioned to handle issues related to maximum workload \cite{xu2017survey}. As a result of the wasted resources and floor space, the data centre was expensive to operate in terms of resource management. Virtualization technology, on the other hand, has proven that it can make data centres easier to handle. This technology offers a variety of benefits, including server consolidation and higher server utilisation. Large IT giants like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have massive data centres with complicated resource management. Servers, virtual machines (VMs), and various management roles are all part of the resource management of these massive data centres, according to \cite{bianchini2020toward}. A server host is allocated multiple VMs with varying workload types and amounts in these data centres. This variable and unpredictable workload may result in a server being over-utilized and underutilised, resulting in an imbalance in resource utilisation assigned to VMs on a specific hosting server. This could lead to issues including inconsistent quality of service (QoS), unbalanced energy use, and service level agreements (SLA) violations, according to \cite{singh2019secure}. According to a survey on unbalanced workload, the average CPU and memory utilisation was 17.76\% and 77.93\%, respectively, and a similar study in the Google data centre found that the CPU and memory utilisation of a Google cluster could not exceed 60\% and 50\%, respectively \cite{kumar2020self}. As a consequence of the imbalanced workload, a data center's productivity suffers, resulting in increased energy consumption. It is proportional to the data center's operational costs and financial loss. This excessive energy consumption has a direct impact on carbon footprints, which should be reduced because an ideal machine absorbs more than half of the maximum energy consumption \cite{barroso2013datacenter}. According to an EIA (Energy Information Administration) survey, data centres consumed around 35 Twh (Tera Watt hour) of energy in 2015, and this figure is expected to rise to 95 Twh by 2040.
The resource use can be balanced by reducing the number of active servers; thus, the optimal mapping between VMs and servers must be discovered \cite{li2013energy}. This is a challenging and NP-complete problem class. As a result, an intelligent resource management strategy is needed to meet QoS requirements while also increasing data centre benefit \cite{kumar2020cloud}. The intelligent mechanisms will generate future insights, which can aid applications in mapping to machines with better resource utilisation \cite{kumar2020ensemble}. However, the nonlinear and variable behaviour of workloads for VMs creates a significant challenge when estimating future insights. However, this future insight can be obtained using two different approaches: historical workload based prediction methods, which generate insight by learning trends from historical workload data, and homeostatic based prediction methods, which provide an upcoming future workload insight by subtracting the previous workload from the current workload \cite{kumar2018workload}. Furthermore, the previous workload's mean may be static or dynamic. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but historical-based forecasts are considered simpler and are well-known in this field.
Thus, by conducting effective and intelligent resource provisioning, intelligent resource management will play a critical role in optimising the data center's SLA, energy usage, and operating costs. Resource management in data centres encompasses a variety of activities, including resource provisioning, reporting, workload scheduling, and a variety of other functions \cite{ilager2020artificial}. Many of these activities revolve around resource provisioning. The aim of resource provisioning is to assign cloud resources to VMs based on end-user requests while maintaining a minimum of SLA violations, such as availability, reliability, response time limit, and cost limit \cite{shahidinejad2020resource}. It should assign resources in accordance with end-user demands and prevent over or under provisioning, such as allocating more or less resources to VMs. This resource allocation technique can be carried out in two ways: proactive and reactive. In proactive approaches, resource provisioning is focused on workload prior prediction, which is estimated by learning trends from historical workload, while reactive approaches are carried out after resource demand arrives. As a result, it's inferred that historical-based prediction methods' expertise can be effectively incorporated in proactive approaches to provide intelligent dynamic resource scaling, which contributes to intelligent dynamic resource management. In addition, other functions, such as VM consolidation, task scheduling, and thermal management, can be performed based on forecasts to optimise resource utilisation, energy consumption, and increase QoS. Machine learning (ML) techniques are widely used in a variety of fields, including computer vision, pattern recognition, and bioinformatics. Large-scale computing systems have benefited from the advancement of machine learning algorithms \cite{mao2019learning}. Google recently released a report detailing their efforts to optimise electricity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency \cite{jeff2018ml}. ML has drawn attention to dynamic resource scaling by providing data-driven methods for future insights, which is regarded as a promising approach for predicting workload quickly and accurately.
As a result, this article focuses on the review based on challenges discovered in state-of-the-art research in resource management by using ML algorithms including various resource management tasks such as provisioning, VM consolidation, thermal prediction, and other management approaches. Then we'll talk about identified the advantages and limitations of various state-of-the-art research studies in resource management that use machine learning algorithms. We will also discuss about the experimental settings along with used data sets and performance improvements. Finally, we propose future research directions based on identified challenges and limitations in current research. Fig \ref{fig:1} depicts the cloud computing components while using machine learning.
\subsection{Motivation of Research}
In cloud operations, resource management is a difficult task because multi-tenant end-users demand nonlinear workloads, which can lead to many over- and underutilised servers. It has a direct effect on whether electricity is over- or under-utilized, resulting in a high operating cost. As a result, intelligent resource management can benefit from a prior estimate of workload based on historical data. Static policies are often used in cloud computing systems to manage resources, and they have two flows: they are based on a static threshold value that is adjusted in offline mode, and they appear to require reactive behaviour, which may result in excessive overheads and delay customer responses.These strategies fail in a dynamic context, for example, when load reaches the static threshold and rapidly drops, indicating that VM migration is unnecessary in the case of VM consolidation. Furthermore, they are unable to capture the dynamics of technology and workload in complex dynamic environments (such as Cloud and Edge) and therefore fail to move through \cite{ilager2020artificial}.
To address these disadvantages, machine learning has supplanted static heuristics with dynamic heuristics that adapt to the real production workload. \cite{yadwadkar2018machine,mao2016resource}. Predictive management is made possible by machine learning techniques, which provide future insight based on historical data. As a result, A data-driven Machine Learning (ML) model in an ML-centric RMS can forecast future workload demand and control auto-scaling of resources accordingly.
Such strategies are extremely beneficial for both consumers and service providers who want to improve their QoS and keep their competitive edge in the market. For cloud resource management, ML has been shown to make more reliable predictions than more conventional approaches, such as time-series analysis \cite{cao2018load,chen2018modeling}
Several ML algorithms have been developed to predict prior workload for intelligent resource management. Furthermore, a number of IT behemoths have begun to investigate machine learning-based resource management in production \cite{cortez2017resource, gao2014machine}. Google optimises fan speeds and other energy kobs using a neural network \cite{gao2014machine}. Microsoft Azure makes use of a framework resource central to provide online forecasts of different workloads using various ML Gradient Boosting Trees \cite{bianchini2020toward}. Despite these previous attempts and opportunities, the best way to incorporate machine learning into cloud resource management is currently uncertain. As a result, it has become critical to present research that addresses current challenges and suggests potential future research directions while also highlighting the benefits and limitations of current research.
\subsection{Our Contributions}
The following are the main contributions of our work:
\begin{itemize}
\item We present a review of ML-based resource management approaches in cloud computing based on identified challenges in the state-of-art research.
\item We identify the advantages and drawbacks of these methods, as well as their experimental configuration, data sets used, and performance improvements.
\item We propose potential future research directions based on identified challenges and limitations in the state-of-art research to strengthen the resource management
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Related Surveys}
A few studies have been published on machine learning-based resource management in cloud computing. \cite{sun2016optimizing} provided a detailed survey of the most important research activities on data centre resource management with the aim of improving resource usage. After that, the article summarises two major components of the resource management platform and addresses the benefits of predicting workload accurately in resource management. \cite{manvi2014resource} focused on resource provisioning, resource allocation, resource mapping, and resource adaptation, among other essential resource management techniques. \cite{zhang2016resource} surveyed the state of the algorithms, organised them into categories, and addressed closely related topics such as virtual machine migration, forecast methods, stability, and availability.
These articles do not go into great detail about machine learning-based resource management, nor do they go into great detail about the challenges and issues that exist in the existing state-of-the-art and future research directions. As a result, it is now important to present a thorough survey that addresses various machine learning algorithms used in the resource management scenario for a data centre, as well as their shortcomings, challenges, and potential directions, as per our vision. Hence, this article can help researchers evaluate the current machine learning scenarios in cloud resource management and their shortcomings before moving forward with their new ideas in this direction.
\subsection{Article Structure}
The remaining sections of the paper are organised as follows: The background details and definitions for cloud computing components and machine learning are given in Section 2. Section 3 discusses the challenges of machine learning-based resource management in cloud computing systems, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of current research. Section 4 proposes future research directions based on the challenges and limitations pointed out in state-of-the-art research, and Section 5 concludes the paper.
\section{BACKGROUND AND TERMINOLOGIES}
\subsection{Cloud Computing}
Cloud computing refers to the provisioning of resources over the Internet, such as memory, CPU, bandwidth, disc, and applications/services. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) \cite{nistcloud} states that \enquote{Cloud computing is a model for providing on-demand network access to a common pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, software, and services) that can be quickly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider involvement. There are five core features, three service models, and four deployment options in this cloud model}. Based on the literature, two more characteristics have been included.
This computing model uses a client-server architecture to allow for centralised application deployment and computation offloading. Cloud computing is cost-effective in application delivery and maintenance on both the client and server sides, as well as flexible in resource provisioning and detaching services from related technologies. Cloud computing and its supporting technology have been investigated for years, and many advanced computing systems have been released to the market, including Alibaba Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Adobe Creative Cloud, ServerSpace, Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Oracle Cloud.
\subsection{Core features of cloud computing
}
\begin{itemize}
\item On-demand self-service: A client can query one or more services as needed and pay using a "pay-and-go" system without interacting with living beings via an online control center.
\item Broad network access: Resources and services in different cloud provider areas can be accessed from a number of locations and provisioned by incompatible thin and thick clients using standard mechanisms. This trait is often referred to as \enquote{easy-to-access standardised mechanisms} and \enquote{global reach capability} \cite{hamdaqa2012cloud,yakimenko2009mobile}.
\item Resource pooling: It offers a set of resources that act as if they were one blended resource \cite{wischik2008resource}. In other words, the client is not aware of the location of the provided services and is not expected to be. This strategy enables vendors to dynamically include a variety of real or virtual services in the cloud.
\item Rapid elasticity: Elasticity is just another word for scalability; it refers to the ability to scale resources up or down as required. Clients can demand as many services and resources as they want at any time. Amazon, a well-known cloud service provider, named one of its most popular and commonly used services the Elastic Compute Cloud because of this consistency \cite{amazon2010amazon}.
\item Measured service: Various facets of the cloud should be automatically controlled, monitored, optimised, and documented at several abstract levels for both vendors and customers.
\item Multi-Tenacity: The Cloud Security Alliance proposes this idea as the fifth cloud characteristic. Multi-tenacity implies that models for policy-driven compliance, segmentation, separation, governance, service levels, and chargeback/billing for various customer categories are needed \cite{espadas2013tenant}.
\item Auditability and certifiability: It is important that services plan logs and trails in order to assess the degree to which laws and policies are followed \cite{hamdaqa2012cloud}.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Cloud computing service models}
\begin{itemize}
\item Software as a Service (SaaS) \cite{piraghaj2017survey}:Using this service model, a client can access the service provider Cloud-hosted applications. Web portals are used to access applications. Since providers have access to the applications, this model has made production and testing easier for them.
\item Platform as a Service (PaaS) \cite{jula2014cloud}: In this service model, the service provider provides basic requirements including network, servers, and operating system to enable the client to build acquired applications and manage their configuration settings.
\item Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) \cite{whaiduzzaman2014survey}: The user has created all of the necessary applications and only requires a simple infrastructure. Vendors may include processors, networks, and storage as facilities with customer provisions in such cases.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Deployment models for cloud computing}
\begin{itemize}
\item Public cloud \cite{toosi2014interconnected}: This is the most popular cloud computing model, in which the cloud owner, in the majority of cases, provides public services over the Internet based on predetermined rules, regulations, and a business model. With a significant number of commonly used resource base, providers can provide consumers with a range of choices for choosing appropriate resources while maintaining QoS.
\item Private cloud \cite{jadeja2012cloud}: A private cloud is created and configured to provide a company or institute with the majority of the advantages of a public cloud. Setting up such a system would result in less security problems due to the use of corporate firewalls.The high costs of establishing a private cloud are a fatal flaw because the business that manages it is accountable for all facets of the scheme.
\item Community cloud \cite{dillon2010cloud}: A variety of organisations form a group and share cloud computing with their community members' customers based on common criteria, concerns, and policies. The required cloud computing infrastructure can be provided by a third-party service provider or a group of community members. The most important benefits of a community cloud are cost savings and cost sharing among community members, as well as high protection.
\item Hybrid cloud \cite{tuli2020shared}: Combining two or more independent public, private, or community clouds resulted in the creation of a new cloud model known as hybrid cloud, in which constituent services and infrastructure maintain their special features while also requiring standardised or agreed-upon functionalities to enable them to communicate in terms of application and data interoperability and portability.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Machine Learning}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ml_classification.pdf}
\caption{Taxonomy of machine learning}
\label{fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The study of training machines to make predictions or recognise items without being explicitly programmed to do so is known as machine learning \cite{jordan2015machine}. One of its basic assumptions is that using training data and statistical techniques, it is possible to construct algorithms that can predict potential, previously unseen values. Machine learning has come a long way in the last two decades, from a research project to a widely used commercial technology. Machine learning has emerged as the preferred tool for designing functional apps for computer vision \cite{janai2020computer}, speech recognition \cite{deng2013machine}, natural language processing \cite{olsson2009literature}, robot control \cite{chin2020machine}, self-driving cars \cite{stilgoe2018machine}, effective web search \cite{bhatia2008information}, purchase recommendations \cite{hastie2009elements} and other applications in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Many AI system developers now understand that, for many applications, training a system by showing it examples of desired input-output actions is much simpler than programming it manually by predicting the desired answer for all possible inputs. This success is primarily owing to the accessibility of massive data and increased efficiency in the processing power of servers and GPUs \cite{goodfellow2016deep}. Based on the modelling objective and the problem at hand, machine-learning algorithms are categorised as supervised learning, semisupervised learning (SSL), unsupervised learning, and Reinforcement Learning (RL). Unsupervised learning is categorised as clustering and dimension reduction \cite{hartigan1979ak,guha2000rock,ding2002adaptive}, among other things, while supervised learning is categorised as the classification problem (e.g., sentence classification \cite{kim-2014-convolutional,yin-schutze-2015-multichannel}, image classification \cite{yang2009linear,bazi2009gaussian,ciregan2012multi}, etc.) and regression problem.
\begin{itemize}
\item Supervised Learning \cite{sen2020supervised}: Every data sample in supervised learning is made up of several input features and a name. The learning process is designed to get as close as possible to a mapping function that links the features to the label. Following that, the mapping function can be used to make predictions of the label for the data given new input features. This is the most widely used machine learning scheme, and it's been used for a lot of things. The classification task, which involves classifying an object based on its characteristics, such as classifying mobile by its brand name and specifications, is an example of supervised learning. This is a regression task if the supervised learning task is to forecast a continuous variable like stock pricing. As shown in Fig. 1b, we can further categorise supervised learning based on the model form.
\item Unsupervised Learning \cite{celebi2016unsupervised}: Unsupervised learning, in comparison to supervised learning, is when we only have input features but no names to go with them. As a result, the purpose of unsupervised learning is to learn the data distribution and demonstrate how the data points vary from one another. The clustering problem, which is to discover data groupings, such as grouping VMs based on their resource use patterns, is a good example of unsupervised learning.
\item Semi-supervised learning \cite{van2020survey}: It is a branch of machine learning that attempts to integrate these two activities. SSL algorithms usually try to increase efficiency in one of these two tasks by incorporating knowledge from the other. When dealing with a classification problem, for example, additional data points with unknown labels may be used to help in the classification process. On the other hand, knowing that some data points belong to the same class will help with the learning process for clustering methods.
\item Reinforcement Learning \cite{kober2013reinforcement}: In several ways, RL varies from supervised and unsupervised learning. It is not necessary to use labelled input/output pairs or explicit correction on sub-optimal options when using reinforcement learning to train an agent. Instead, the agent attempts to find an equilibrium between exploration and exploitation by interacting with the environment. The translator rewards the agent for successful decisions or behaviour. Otherwise, it would be sanctioned. Reinforcement learning is commonly used in robot and computer game agent science.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Optimization objective in machine learning}
All machine-learning algorithms are optimization problems with the goal of evaluating the extremum of an objective function. The development of models and logical objective functions is the first step in machine-learning methods. The determined objective function is normally used with appropriate numerical optimization methods to solve the optimization problem.
\subsubsection{Optimization in Supervised Learning}
The aim of supervised learning is to find an optimal mapping function $F(X)$ that minimises the training samples' loss function.
\begin{equation}\label{equ1}
\begin{aligned}
F(X) &= \min_{\beta} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} l(Y^i,F(X^i,\beta))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $N$ are training samples, $\beta$ is the mapping function parameter, $X^i$ is $i^th$ samples' feature vector, $Y^i$ is the related label to the data sample, and $l$ is the loss function.
In supervised learning, there are a variety of loss functions, including the square of Euclidean distance, cross-entropy, contrast loss, hinge loss, information gain, and so on. The best way to solve regression problems is to use the square of Euclidean distance as the loss function, reducing square errors on training samples. However, this type of empirical failure does not always work well in terms of generalisation. Structured risk minimization is another popular form, with the support vector machine as the representative system. Regularization items are typically applied to the objective function to prevent overfitting, such as in the $l_2$-norm case.
\begin{equation}\label{equ2}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\beta} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} l(Y^i,F(X^i,\beta))+\gamma {\vert\vert \beta \vert \vert^2_2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The compromise parameter, $\gamma$, can be calculated using cross-validation.
\subsubsection{Optimization in Unsupervised Learning}
Clustering algorithms \cite{hartigan1979ak,murtagh1983survey,estivill2000fast,ball1967clustering}, divide data into several classes that are either identical or dissimilar. The k-means clustering algorithm's optimization problem is formulated as minimising the following loss function:
\begin{equation}\label{equ3}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{D} \sum_{i=1}^{K} \sum_{X\in D_i} \vert\vert X-C_i \vert\vert^2_2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $K$ denotes the number of clusters, $X$ the sample feature vector, $C_i$ the cluster $i$ center, and $D_i$ the cluster $i$ sample set. The aim of this objective function is to minimise the sum of all cluster variances.
The dimensionality reduction algorithm ensures that the original information from data is retained as much as possible after projecting it into low-dimensional space. A common dimensionality reduction method is principal component analysis (PCA) \cite{wold1987principal,lovric2011international,tipping1999probabilistic}. The goal of PCA is to minimise the reconstruction error as much as possible.
\begin{equation}\label{equ3}
\begin{aligned}
\min \sum_{i=1}^{N} \vert\vert \Tilde{X}_i-X_i \vert\vert^2_2,\:\:\text{where}\:\Tilde{X}_i &= \sum_{j=1}^{M'} y^i_j.f_j,\:M>>M'
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $N$ are total samples, $X_i$ is a
M-dimensional vector, and $X_i$ is the reconstruction of $X_i$. $y^i$ is the projection of $x_i$ in $M'$-dimensional coordinates. $f_j$ is the standard orthogonal basis under $M'$
-dimensional coordinates.
\subsubsection{Optimization in Reinforcement Learning}
In contrast to supervised and unsupervised learning, RL \cite{mnih2015human,sutton2018reinforcement,kaelbling1996reinforcement} aims to find an optimal strategy function whose performance differs with the environment. The learning goal for a deterministic strategy is the mapping function from state $S$ to action $A$. The learning goal for an unknown strategy is the likelihood of performing each action. $A = \pi(S)$, where $\pi(S)$ is the policy function, determines the behaviour in each state. In RL, the optimization problem can be stated as maximising the cumulative return after performing a series of actions determined by the policy function.
\begin{equation}\label{equ3}
\begin{aligned}
\max_\pi P_\pi (S),\:\:\text{where}\:P_\pi (S)&=Q \left[\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \delta^i u_{t+i}|S'_t=S\right]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where, $u$ is the reward, and $\delta \in [0,1]$ is the discount factor and $\pi(S)$ is the value feature of state $S$ under policy $\pi$.
\subsubsection{Optimization in Semisupervised Learning}
SSL is a supervised-unsupervised learning approach that includes both labelled and unlabeled data during the training phase. It can handle a variety of tasks, such as classification \cite{guillaumin2010multimodal,chapelle2005semi}, regression \cite{zhou2005semi}, clustering \cite{demiriz1999semi,kulis2009semi}, and dimensionality reduction \cite{zhang2007semi,chen2017semi}. Self-training, generative models, semisupervised support vector machines (S3VM) \cite{bennett1999semi,sun2019survey}, graph-based methods, multilearning methods, and others are examples of SSL methods. To demonstrate SSL optimization, we use S3VM as an example.
\begin{equation}\label{equ3}
\begin{aligned}
\min \vert \vert \Gamma \vert \vert R \left [\sum_{i=1}^{l} \eta^i + \sum_{j=l+1}{N} \min(\Delta^i,z^i) \right]\\
\text{subject to}\:\: Y^i(W.X^i+b)+ \eta^i \geq 1,\eta \geq 0, i=1,...l\\
W·X_j + b + \Delta^j \geq 1, \Delta \geq 0, j = l + 1,...,N\\
{-} (W.X^j + b)+ z^j \geq 1, z^j \geq 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the penalty coefficient, $X$ and $Y$ are the data sample and its label, and $\eta^i$ is the slack variables. If the true label of the unlabeled instance is positive, $\Delta^i$ represents the misclassification error, and $z^j$ represents the misclassification error if the true label is negative.
\newcolumntype{b}{>{\hsize=1.85\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{a}{>{\hsize=.15\hsize}X}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\caption{A summary of machine learning types, along with their optimization objectives, advantages, and disadvantages}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}a|>{\centering\arraybackslash}b|>{\centering\arraybackslash}X|>{\centering\arraybackslash}X|}
\hline
Type of ML&Optimisation Function&Advantage&Disadvantage\\\hline
SL&$\min_{\beta} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} l(Y^i,F(X^i,\beta))$&It assists in using experience to refine performance criteria, It aids in the solution of a variety of real-world computation problems&Good and numerous examples are needed during training, It takes a lot of computing time to train for supervised learning\\\hline
UL&$\min_{D} \sum_{i=1}^{K} \sum_{X\in D_i} \vert\vert X-C_i \vert\vert^2_2$&It does not require any labeling of data for classification, It is a simple way to reduce the number of dimensions in a dataset&Since we don't have any input data to train from, the outcome could be less accurate, The complexity rises as the number of features grows\\\hline
RL&$\max_\pi P_\pi (S)$&It doesn't necessitate a large number of labelled datasets, This model of learning is remarkably similar to human learning&An excess of states will result from too much reinforcement learning, lowering the quality of the results, It's not recommended to use it to solve basic problems\\\hline
SSL&$\min \vert \vert \Gamma \vert \vert R \left [\sum_{i=1}^{l} \eta^i+\sum_{j=l+1}{N} \min(\Delta^i,z^i) \right]$& Provides little supervision to unlabeled data, It increases efficiency in terms of accuracy&The outcomes of iteration are not consistent, It does not apply to data at the network level\\\hline
\end{tabularx}\label{tab:3}
\end{table}
\newcolumntype{b}{>{\hsize=1.50\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{a}{>{\hsize=.50\hsize}X}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\caption{A summary of state-of-art ML-centric resource management approaches}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}a|>{\centering\arraybackslash}a|>{\centering\arraybackslash}b|>{\centering\arraybackslash}b|}
\hline
Study&Year&Author&Organisation\\\hline
\cite{bianchini2020toward}&2017&Bianchini et al.&Microsoft\\\hline
\cite{haghshenas2020prediction}&2020&Haghshenas et al.&University of Tehran\\\hline
\cite{shaw2019energy}&2019&Shaw et al.&National University of Ireland\\\hline
\cite{9272657}&2021&Ilager et al.&University of Melbourne\\\hline
\cite{nguyen2017virtual}&2017&Heiu et al.&Aalto University\\\hline
\cite{yang2014imeter}&2014&Yang et al.&Beihang University\\\hline
\cite{garg2014sla}&2014&Garg et al.&University of Tasmania\\\hline
\cite{calheiros2014workload}&2014&Calheiros et al.&University of Melbourne\\\hline
\cite{verma2016dynamic}&2016&Verma et al.&University of Hyderabad\\\hline
\cite{subirats2015assessing}&2015&Subirats et al.&Barcelona Supercomputing Centre\\\hline
\cite{messias2016combining}&2016&Messias et al.&University of Sao Paolo\\\hline
\cite{cao2014cpu}&2014&Cao et al.&Shanghai Jiaotong University\\\hline
\cite{shyam2016virtual}&2016&Shyam et al.&Reva Institute of Technology and Management\\\hline
\cite{ismaeel2015using}&2015&Ismaeel et al.&Ryerson University\\\hline
\end{tabularx}\label{tab:3}
\end{table}
\section{Challenges, state-of-art research and their limitations}\label{sec:2}
In this section, we discuss challenges identified in ML-based resource management in state-of-art research. In addition, we explore current approaches to addressing these challenges, as well as their advantages and limitations.
\subsection{Performance and online profiling of workload}
The main components of large commercial providers' workloads are not well addressed in cloud resource management research. For example, they don't look into VMs' lifetime virtual resource consumption. The majority of research focuses on offline workload profiling, which is infeasible because the input workload may not be available until the VMs are not running in production. Online profiling, on the other hand, is challenging because it is difficult to determine when a random VM has exhibited representative behaviour. If the different workload characteristics are accurately predicted with minimal time complexity, resource management can be more effective. As a result, prediction algorithms face another challenge in terms of accuracy and time complexity.
On Microsoft Azure compute fabric, \cite{bianchini2020toward} presented a machine learning-based prediction system. Through a rest API, this system is capable of learning behaviour from historical data and providing predictions online to various resource managers, such as Server health manager, migration manager, Container scheduler, and energy capping manager. They also released detailed Microsoft Azure real-world workload traces from this system, which show that several VMs consistently have peak CPU utilisation in various ranges. In the event of oversubscribed servers, they changed Azure's VM scheduler to use RC benefit predictions. This forecast-based schedule helps to avoid overuse and exhaustion of physical resources. However, (1) they did not consider memory utilisation in released traces or in the predictive system RC, despite the fact that memory utilisation plays a significant role in physical resource exhaustion. (2) They analysed CPU utilisation time series to determine whether a VM is interactive or delay-insensitive, categorised the workload into these two categories, and used Extreme Gradient Boosting Tree (EGBT) to perform supervised classification of these VM workloads. They did not, however, consider the case of a distributed data centre, where data is dispersed and may only have partial labels for these two classes; in this case, there will be insufficient labels to train this algorithm.
\newcolumntype{s}{>{\hsize=.20\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{a}{>{\hsize=1.40\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{b}{>{\hsize=1.40\hsize}X}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{A summary of simulation, used datasets and performance improvement of state-of-art research}
\adjustbox{width =\linewidth,totalheight=\textwidth}{
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}s|>{\centering\arraybackslash}a|>{\centering\arraybackslash}X|>{\centering\arraybackslash}b|}
\hline
Study&Experiments configuration&Dataset & Performance
improvement \\\hline
\cite{bianchini2020toward}&Online experimentation using real VM traces &Microsoft Azure Trace& Significant prediction accuracies for different workload \\\hline
\cite{haghshenas2020prediction}&Simulation using CloudSim with 7600 hosts& PlanetLab& It reduces the energy consumption upto to 38\% compared to other work. It takes 5\% less time overhead to execute for a modeled data center\\\hline
\cite{shaw2019energy}& Simulation using CloudSim with 800 hosts & PlanetLab& Reduces energy upto 18\% and service violation up to 34\% compared to its baseline\\\hline
\cite{9272657}&Simulation using CloudSim with 75 hosts& Private cloud data from University of Melbourne& Reduces peak temperaturure by 6.5 °C and consumes 34.5\% less energy compared to its baseline\\\hline
\cite{nguyen2017virtual}&\shortstack{Google Cluster
Data\\PlanetLab}&Simulation using CloudSim with 800 hosts& Significantly reduces energy consumption and VM migrations\\\hline
\cite{yang2014imeter}&Simulation using real VM workload&NASA NPB, IOzone and Cachebench& Predicts VM power usage with an average error of 5\% and 4.7\% compared to actual power measurement models\\\hline
\cite{garg2014sla}&Simulation using CloudSim with 1500 physical nodes& Grid Workload Archive (GWA) and PlanetLab&Reduces the number
of servers utilized by 60\% compared to other strategies\\\hline
\cite{calheiros2014workload}& Simulation using CloudSim with 1000 hosts&Wikimedia Foundation& Achieves efficiency in resource utilisation upto 91\% guaranteeing QoS\\\hline
\cite{verma2016dynamic}&Simulation using two data centers, and three hosts per data center&8 VMs in modeled data centers in CloudSim&Significant allocations of VMs to the host with full capacity\\\hline
\cite{subirats2015assessing}&Experimentation for predictions for different type of workloads&Workloads generated using SPECweb2005& It improves the precision of the forecasts of the energy efficiency while running different workload types
benchmark\\\hline
\cite{messias2016combining}&Experimentation using real web logs&FIFA world cup 98 Web servers, NASA Web servers and ClarkNet Web server&Significant prediction results\\\hline
\cite{cao2014cpu}&Colected CPU load from 12 different hosts&Private cloud environment&Improvement in prediction by 4.81\%, 5.92\% and 7.37\% for BEST MRE, 50\% MREs and 80\% MREs\\\hline
\cite{shyam2016virtual}&Simulation using SamIam Bayesian
network&Amazon EC2 and Google CE data centres& Workload predicted with accuracies greater than 80\%\\\hline
\cite{ismaeel2015using}&Experimentation using real workload VM traces&Google Cluster data&Produces lower RMSE value than other approaches\\\hline
\end{tabularx}}\label{tab:1}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\newcolumntype{s}{>{\hsize=.20\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{a}{>{\hsize=.70\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{b}{>{\hsize=1.55\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{f}{>{\hsize=1.55\hsize}X}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{State-of-art research: Objectives, Advantages and Limitations}
\adjustbox{width =\linewidth,totalheight=\textwidth}{
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}s|>{\centering\arraybackslash}a|>{\centering\arraybackslash}b|>{\centering\arraybackslash}f|}
\hline
Study&Objectives&Advantages&Limitations\\\hline
\cite{bianchini2020toward}&Online profiling of workload&Predictions are provided online&Memory use is not taken into account, nor is the case of distributed data centres\\\hline
\cite{haghshenas2020prediction}&VM consolidation&Time overhead is considered&Prediction relies on multiple features\\\hline
\cite{shaw2019energy}&VM placement&Dynamic VM placement based on CPU utilisation and network bandwidth&Disc throughput is not considered\\\hline
\cite{9272657}&Thermal management&Peak temperature is reduced significantly&Algorithm overhead\\\hline
\cite{nguyen2017virtual}&VM consolidation based on multiple resource usage&Combination of current and future resource utilization is considered&Overloaded host in the current period of time is not taken into account\\\hline
\cite{yang2014imeter}&Energy consumption prediction&Energy metering at software-level i.e., VM-level&Decision could be taken for an individual VM only based on predicted energy consumption in RMS\\\hline
\cite{garg2014sla}&Resource management strategy based on SLAs&Historical CPU utilisation data with SLA penalties is used&Deviation of prediction from actual value, Highly non-linear workload is not considered\\\hline
\cite{calheiros2014workload}&QoS aware workload prediction&Predicted requests are considered to provision VM dynamically&Future estimation is provided for a static time-interval\\\hline
\cite{verma2016dynamic}&Resource demand prediction and provision strategy&Classification of service tenants based on a binary problem&Information of how binaries are assigned to service tenants is not available, Assigning binaries could be time consuming, Supervised classification could have some limitations in case of partially labelled data\\\hline
\cite{subirats2015assessing}&Energy consumption prediction based on ensemble learning&Ensemble learning is considered&Last-level-cache (LLC), disc throughput are not considered, Accuracy is workload specific\\\hline
\cite{messias2016combining}&Auto-Scaling of web applications&Auto-scaling can adapt to any new workload, Independent of type of prediction models, It can adapt more advanced prediction models&High time complexity\\\hline
\cite{cao2014cpu}&Time-series prediction&Ensemble approach can dynamically adjust the models&Non-generalized approach\\\hline
\cite{shyam2016virtual}&Prediction of virtual resources&Detection of dependencies comprehensively in a variable based on the analysis of non-linear workloads&Combination of several application types is not considered, Non-generalized approach, Transaction throughput and latency are not taken into account\\\hline
\cite{ismaeel2015using}&VM categorization&Use of Extreme learning machine (ELMs), It can deal with non-linear processes, Use of a single network for prediction, Every cluster can have its own network for prediction&Static number of VM clusters.\\\hline
\end{tabularx}}\label{tab:2}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\newcolumntype{s}{>{\hsize=.05\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{b}{>{\hsize=1.0\hsize}X}
\newcolumntype{B}{>{\hsize=1.95\hsize}X}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\caption{Machine learning-centric resource management challenges and future research directions}
\adjustbox{width =\linewidth,totalheight=\textwidth+.7cm}{
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}s|>{\centering\arraybackslash}b|>{\centering\arraybackslash}B|}
\hline
X&Challenges (Section \ref{sec:2}.X)&Future Research Directions (Section \ref{sec:3}.X)\\\hline
1&
Online profiling of non linear workload, Prediction accuracy, Time complexity
&More precise estimate of prior workload using advanced ML models,
Prediction of memory utilisation in physical resource exhaustion along with CPU utilisation, Semi-supervised classification in categorising VMs\\\hline
2&
Excessive VM migrations, Host overutilisation, Memory and disc utilisation in VM consolidation
&Overloaded host detection based on the combination
of CPU, memory, and bandwidth utilisation,
Workload prediction using DL methods like LSTM, GRU, etc. \\\hline
3&Non-linear resource utilisation,
Various resource demands patterns,
Cloud network bandwidth
&Consideration of disc throughput along with CPU and bandwidth utilisation in VM placement heuristics\\\hline
4&To cool down the host,
Cost of the cooling system,
Thermal management
& Prior CPU estimation-based resource
provisioning, Use of GRU for inlet temperature prediction only\\\hline
5&
Rapid degradation of load, Unnecessary VM migration overhead&Development of ML algorithm with dynamic resource utilisation threshold\\\hline
6&Prediction of energy consumption at VM level,
Performance degradation due to lower the CPU frequency of server&Prediction of energy consumption state at VM level using clustering analysis\\\hline
7&Resource wastage,
Resource prediction in the presence of computationally
intensive applications&To involve current and future requirements of resources like CPU, memory and bandwidth and SLAs such as compute intensive non-interactive jobs and transactional applications in VM dynamic consolidation, To consider a combination of provisioned and utilised resources like CPU and memory in dynamic resource provisioning\\\hline
8&High utilization,
Exact number of resources in the presence of varying load&To deal with reactive approaches in resource provisioning, Adhoc decisions in dynamic resource provisioning, To predict the peak utilisation of resources using different ML models, Ensemble learning, Estimating future web requests with a dynamic time interval\\\hline
9& To obtain historical data, Amount of resources, Varying resource requirements&To classify service tenants using clustering or semi-supervised clustering
\\\hline
10&Prediction of energy consumption in real time production&To consider memory, disc, and network components system in energy consumption prediction, To inspect non-linear relationships such as polynomial or exponential between virtual resource and energy consumption, Combine information provided by an individual model, To keep track of the parameters value of each model from the
past record, To feed the ML model with average workload performance for training \\\hline
11&Prediction accuracy in proactive approaches, Limitations of statistical learning over machine learning&To use ML methods to forecast workload instead
of statistical methods, To use feature selection methods such as wrappers, filters, embedded method in ML models\\\hline
12&Arrival of new patters in workload, No single ML model for all time series, Fixed prediction models in ensemble learning approaches&Generalised ensemble framework, Novel models incorporating both global and
local parameters, Ensemble learning, Prediction using advanced neural networks like Temporal Convolution Networks (TCN)\\\hline
13&Dynamic resource prediction, optimal data training in ML model&Optimisation of hyperparameters of ML models using heuristics like Grid Search, Random Search, Bayesian Optimization, Gradient-based
Optimization, and Evolutionary Optimization\\\hline
14&Multiple virtual resources,Demand prediction of each type of virtual resource &To categorize the VMs using advanced clustering approach like cluster ensemble involving clustering accuracy, time complexity and resource usage (CPU and memory utilisation) as model evaluation criteria \\\hline
\end{tabularx}}\label{tab:3}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\subsection{Multiple Resource Usage in VM Consolidation}
VM consolidation approaches attempt to consolidate more VMs on a smaller number of hosts in order to turn off the remaining hosts and save energy. Most researchers used current CPU utilisation to determine whether a host was overloaded or not in this process. This may result in unnecessary VM migration and host power mode transition, lowering the consolidation process' efficiency. The destination host for migrating VMs is the host with the highest CPU utilisation, but due to the lack of future estimation, this may result in overutilisation. As a result, future resource utilisation estimation can address this issue. Aside from CPU utilisation, other resource consumption, such as memory and disc, can cause the host to become overloaded, making the consolidation process difficult and challenging.
\cite{haghshenas2020prediction} proposed an intelligent VM consolidation technique to reduce energy consumption. Based on historical data, this technique predicted resource utilisation in the past and used that prediction to choose a host with higher utilisation in advance for VM migration. A dynamic consolidation procedure was used to address this issue. To predict the future usage of all VMs, a machine learning method called Linear Regression (LR) was used. This task was carried out using real workload traces from PlanetLab VMs. They used the CloudSim toolkit \cite{calheiros2011cloudsim} to model a data centre and implement their VM migration strategy to save energy. Their work had the main benefit of taking into account time overheads while lowering energy consumption on a larger simulated benchmark with 7600 hosts. However, if this approach is used in real-world workload production, the time overhead is a significant factor that is also affected by the ML algorithm's data training time. However, they considered the LR method, which relies on various features to predict the target variable, making it time consuming and potentially affecting the data center's response time.
\subsection{Cloud Network Traffic}
The current research in VM allocation involves many solutions to allocate a single VM to a host and allocates various VM resources by ensuring that every host is having sufficient capacity to run the workload. This approach leads to inefficient resource utilisation as the application workload varies time to time with a mix of high and low resource utilisation. The challenges arise when different applications exhibit different resource demands and are allocated to suitable VMs in data centers that cause varying resource demand patterns. Moreover, many VM placement solutions consider only current resource utilisation like CPU demands, however, varying workload continuously poses a challenge to such solutions. Future resources like CPU demand can be more effective for VM placement strategies. In addition to CPU resource demand, cloud network bandwidth is also becoming another challenging factor in efficient resource management in data centers \cite{genez2015estimation}\cite{duggan2017network}. As \cite{networking2016cisco} reported that there will be 51,774GB/sec amount of internet traffic would be produced because of computing as a service via cloud computing and this would affect cloud network as well. And this key factor affects the VM migration time in case of dynamic VM placement and violates SLAs \cite{verma2008pmapper}.
\cite{shaw2019energy} proposed a network-aware predictive VM placement heuristic to reduce energy consumption and SLA violations by considering CPU demand along with the network bandwidth. The main advantage of their work was to design a dynamic VM placement strategy which was based on the prediction of both CPU utilisation and network bandwidth because estimating network bandwidth in case of large VM migration contributes in making decisions with improved scheduling and makes VM placement efficient and reliable. Thus, VM placement strategies should consider future insights of resources to balance limited resource availability and for energy efficient management. However, they did not not consider another aspect, disc throughput, that may also affect VM migration time \cite{brewer2016disks}.
\subsection{Host Temperature}
In modern cloud data centers, minimizing host temperature is a challenging issue. This is caused by the released heat in the process of energy consumption by the host. The cooling systems are deployed to rid of this dissipated heat to keep the host's temperature below the threshold. This increased temperature directly affects the cost of the cooling system and has become a challenging issue to resolve in resource management systems. It also creates host spots in the system and is responsible for several system failures. Thus, thermal management is necessary and challenging due to this dynamic behaviour of the host's temperature.
\cite{9272657} proposed a thermal aware predictive scheduling approach to reduce the peak temperature of a host and energy consumption. Since mostly data centers and servers are having monitoring sensors to record several parameters such as resource usage, energy consumption, thermal reading, and fan speed readings, hence this kind of data was collected from University of Melbourne's private cloud data center. They predicted host temperature by using several machine learning algorithms and proposed a thermal aware scheduling algorithm to minimize the peak temperature of hosts while migrating VMs to the fewest hosts to reduce energy consumption as well. In this approach, the prediction model is invoked to predict the host temperature and further scheduling is guided. The main advantage of their work is that they reduce the peak temperature up to 6.5$^{\circ}$ and 34\% energy consumption in comparison to existing algorithms, and it was reported by \cite{gao2014machine} that reducing even one degree in temperature can save up to millions of dollars in a large-scale data center. They consider the host's ambient temperature for prediction instead of CPU temperature that combines inlet temperature and CPU temperature, however, it may increase the algorithm overhead.
\subsection{False Host Overloaded Detection}
The current resource utilisation prediction causes unreliable overloaded host detection, especially in the case of when a current resource utilisation exceeds a threshold value. The challenge arises in deciding whether VMs allocated to this host should be migrated or not because the load decreases rapidly after a very short period of time that leads to a false hot detection point, i.e., false overloaded host detection. However, when the duration of load degradation is large enough, then VMs needs to be migrated to avoid over utilisation. Such kind of VM consolidation mechanism poses a unique challenge to the resource management system to avoid unnecessary VM migration overhead.
\cite{nguyen2017virtual} proposed a VM consolidation strategy based on multiple usage prediction and multi-step prediction for limiting the unnecessary VM migrations to avoid overheads and wasted energy consumption in data centers. Thus, this mechanism was computed to estimate the long-term utilisation of several resources such as CPU, memory based on the historical data for a particular PM. In VM consolidation, the main task it to detect overloaded and underloaded host. Thus, they considered both current and predicted resource utilisation to identify the overloaded and underloaded hosts. An efficient multiple usage prediction algorithm was presented to compute the long-term utilisation of different resource types based on local historical data. Furthermore, a VM consolidation based on multiple usage prediction was proposed to reduce energy consumption by limiting the unnecessary VM migrations from overloaded hosts. Hence, the combination of current and predicted resource utilisation plays an important role in reliable overloaded and underloaded host detection. According to this, a host is considered overloaded if it follows two constraints: (1)
if the host is overloaded in both current and predicted resource utilisation, and (2) if the host is in normal condition and will be overloaded in a future period of time. And VM consolidation was performed based on the detected overloaded hosts by following these two constraints. However, they did not consider the case, if a host is overloaded in a current period of time but will not be overloaded in the future period of time, then what about the overloaded host in the current period of time. This point should be considered in VM consolidation scheme.
\subsection{Energy metering at Software-Level}
Modern servers have multiple energy metres to monitor energy usage, but they are unable to monitor the energy of a single virtual machine, which is difficult to do since measuring energy at the software level is difficult. And, according to the energy budget in data centres, energy consumption has become a difficult factor to consider for a successful VM consolidation phase. The previous study only looked at server resource utilisation for VM consolidation, which contradicted the energy capping mechanism by increasing across the levels of certain servers during the process, which violated energy constraints. The term "energy capping" refers to a process introduced at the hardware level. As a result, by lowering the CPU frequency, it reduces the energy consumption of the combined server, which is in violation of the energy constraints. As a result, lowering the server's CPU frequency due to the load of one VM affects all other operating VMs at the same time. As a result, efficiency in workloads running in VMs degrades, breaching SLAs and the isolation property of virtualization. VM consolidation and energy capping are the two most common methods in data centres, but neither allows for accurate monitoring of energy usage for individual VMs.
\cite{yang2014imeter} proposed the iMeter energy consumption prediction model, which is based on the Support Vector Regressor machine learning method (SVR). They used principle component analysis (PCA) to identify the most associated components that influenced VM energy consumption and projected individual VM and multiple consolidated VM energy consumption for various workloads. However, predicting the energy consumption of a single VM is difficult due to the various types of cloud resources residing in the VM, such as CPU, memory, and IO, and the fact that different cloud end users can demand different volumes of the same resources at the same time. Furthermore, the resource manager must make individual decisions for VMs, which slows down end-user response time and violates QoS.
\subsection{SLA-based VM Management}
Over-provisioning has long been used in data centres to prevent the worst-case scenario of peak load utilisation while still meeting SLA obligations. During regular hours, however, the hosts use very few energy, resulting in resource waste. \cite{reiss2012heterogeneity} studied actual workload traces of VMs' resource utilisation from the Google data centre and found that the average CPU and memory utilisation were less than 60\% and 50\%, respectively. Overprovisioning of services, as a result, results in additional maintenance costs in host cooling and administrative activities \cite{sun2016optimizing}. The aim of research has been to solve this difficult problem by using dynamic resource provisioning of resources in virtualization technology, but it primarily focuses on a particular form of SLA or application, such as transactional workload. However, computationally intensive applications are increasingly becoming a part of enterprise data centres, which run multiple types of applications on multiple VMs without taking into account SLA criteria, such as the deadline that results in an under-utilized host. In the case of resource estimation, this factor presents a unique challenge.
\cite{garg2014sla} suggested a novel resource management approach that took into account various types of SLA specifications for various applications operating on various VMs. This approach addresses two types of applications: non-interactive compute-intensive jobs and transactional applications. Both types of applications had a wide range of SLA criteria and specifications. The key benefit of their work was that they used historical CPU utilisation data combined with SLA penalties to forecast potential insight, allowing them to make complex placement decisions in response to shifts in transactional workload and scheduled jobs, taking into account CPU cycles in case of under-utilisation during usual or off-peak periods. The sample of VM CPU usage was used to train an artificial neural network (ANN) to predict VM CPU usage for the next two hours, with the result plotted against actual usage. The X-axis was distributed at a regular interval of 5 minutes. We saw some shortcomings in their work at this point: (1) When there is a wide variance in preparation, the ANN forecast deviates from the actual value in some situations, (2) In a few instances, it also predicts low CPU utilisation from the actual value, (3) They didn't take into account highly non-linear data. The testing data had no non-linear variation, and non-linearity in workload is a major issue nowadays, as data centres have very high non-linearity in workload, which leads to a variety of issues such as high energy consumption, inconsistent QoS, and SLA violations \cite{kumar2020self}.
\subsection{QoS-Aware Resource Provisioning}\label{sec:2.8}
The pattern of evaluating applications deployed on running VMs in modern data centres varies from time to time, i.e., many users attempt to access the application at the same time. As a result, in the cloud, static resource allocation to SaaS applications has been shown to be inefficient because it results in non-linear resource use during periods of low demand and high utilisation. When demand is low, available resources are wasted, resulting in excessive overheads and costs for the cloud service provider; when demand is high, available resources can be inadequate, resulting in weak QoS. This problem can be solved with dynamic resource provisioning, but in this case, the difficulty is determining the correct number of resources to deploy in a given period of time to satisfy QoS requirements when varying workload is available. This challenge is being addressed in two ways: reactively and proactively. The latter has been significantly modified because it is dependent on future load variations prior to their occurrence, i.e., estimating the QoS parameters in advance.
\cite{calheiros2014workload} proposed an ARIMA-based workload prediction model. The main benefit of their work was that the expected requests were used to dynamically provision VMs in an elastic cloud environment while taking into account QoS parameters such as response time and rejection rate. The accuracy of forecast user requests was also assessed in order to see how it affected resource use and QoS parameters. However, we would like to draw your attention to the following limitation in this work. They gathered historical web request data from the Wikimedia Foundation and fed it into a component of their proposed model called \textit{Workload Analyzer}. The ARIMA model was used in this component to provide a future estimation for a specific time interval that can be adjusted for a specific application. The time interval should be long enough to allow for the placement of a new VM for optimal system utilisation. This static time interval may cause issues if a VM deployment time is less than this static time interval, as the extra remaining time may affect QoS parameters such as response time.
\subsection{Varying Patterns of a Service Tenant in Resource Allocation}
Resource demand prediction in a multi-tenant service cloud environment requires historical data to learn the past profiles of service tenants, which is challenging due to the need to update the prediction model on a regular basis because the profiles or trends of service tenants change. AAnother challenge is maintaining the amount of resources required by a service tenant to conduct its operations, which is dependent on many factors, including (1) the operation type, (2) the specific period when the operation is conducted, and (3) the load faced by the service tenant at a specific time. As a result, it presents a challenge because a service tenant's resource requirements can shift. This is a critical topic to address when dealing with resource provisioning using proactive methods for a single service tenant as well as multiple service tenants.
In multi-tenant service clouds, \cite{verma2016dynamic} proposed a dynamic resource demand prediction and provisioning approach to assign resources in advance. They divided the service tenants into groups based on whether or not their resource use would rise in the future. As a result, the proposed system forecast resource demand with priority for only those service tenants whose resource demand was expected to increase, reducing the time required for prediction, which in turn may affect the total time of all operations, thereby affecting QoS. Furthermore, the proposed mechanism used the Best-fit decreasing heuristic method to determine the efficiency of maximum PMs utilisation by combining the service tenants with the matched VMs and allocating them to physical machines (PMs). The most significant aspect of this research is that it classifies service tenants based on a binary issue of whether resource demand will increase or not, and then predicts resource demand for tenants whose resource demand will increase, resulting in a decrease in computational time and cost of prediction. However, (1) we are unable to determine on what basis they mark binaries (0,1) with the service tenants' characteristics, despite the fact that labelling data is needed in order to classify it using supervised learning techniques. (2) If we presume that the service tenants' features were labelled with binaries based on some condition, then labelling the data in a large-scale multi-tenant cloud would be time consuming and would increase the prediction cost. (3) Some data may be accessible without labels in a large-scale distributed multi-tenant cloud, in which case supervised classification would not work.
\subsection{Single ML model in energy consumption prediction}
The majority of cloud service providers' tools calculate and estimate the energy usage of a host or a group of hosts in offline mode, but performing this role in real-time running applications is a challenge. Furthermore, because of the non-linear workload in various hosts, a single ML algorithm cannot be considered to perform this task well. According to \cite{reiss2012heterogeneity}, a Google cluster or node does not use more than 60\% and 50\% of its CPU and memory, respectively. As a result, ensemble learning can be a key component of providing accurate predictions in a cloud architecture.
\cite{subirats2015assessing} introduced an ensemble learning method for forecasting future energy efficiency in virtual machine resources, such as CPU utilisation, infrastructure, and service levels in a cloud computing environment.Ensemble learning, which uses four different prediction approaches such as moving average, exponential smoothing, linear regression, and double exponential smoothing, is the key benefit of their work.They predict the next use of VM resources, such as CPU consumption, in each time iteration and calculate the mean absolute error (MAE) of all iterations to pick the best performing model predictions for measuring and forecasting energy efficiency and ecological efficiency in an IaaS setting in real time. They do not, however, take into account metrics like Last-level-cache (LLC) and disc throughput for prediction, which have an effect on a host's energy consumption at the VM level \cite{kansal2010virtual}. Furthermore, the accuracy of the chosen model is workload specific, i.e., interactive and batch workloads, rather than being generalised for all data.
\subsection{Prediction Accuracy in Auto-Scaling of web applications}
Auto scaling determines when and how resources are allocated for cloud-based applications. Auto-scaling is done in two ways: reactive and proactive. When system events such as CPU utilisation, number of requests, and queue length exceed a fixed threshold, the reactive approach allocates resources. The proactive approach is in charge of anticipating the amount of resources required ahead of time in order to avoid unneeded events. Furthermore, proactive approaches include predictions based on traditional statistical time-series analysis, which do not fit all cases in terms of prediction accuracy, making it challenging task. Furthermore, statistical learning has the following drawbacks: (1) Statistical Learning is based on rule-based programming, which is formalised as a relationship between variables. (2)Statistical Learning is based on a dataset consisting with a few attributes. (3)Statistical Learning relies on assumptions like normality, no multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and so on. (4)The majority of the ideas in statistical learning are generated from the sample, population, and hypothesis. (5)Statistical learning is a math-intensive subject that relies on the coefficient estimator and necessitates a thorough knowledge of a dataset.
\cite{messias2016combining} used a genetic algorithm to combine the advantages of individual ML models in order to obtain the best performing prediction results for web application auto-scaling. Each time-series prediction model used in the system is fitted with a suitable weight using a genetic algorithm. The primary benefits of their work are that, (1) Auto-scaling can adapt to any new workload as its characteristics change over time. (2) This approach is unaffected by the type of prediction models used. (3) It's simple to adapt to a variety of more advanced prediction models. However, this approach has a high time complexity, which may affect the response time of any web application hosted in cloud infrastructure, which is in violation of SLAs.
\subsection{Time-Series Prediction Data}
Workload in modern data centres follows a time series pattern. As a result, models for time series prediction should be trained on historical data, as it is presumed that future trends would be identical to those seen previously. However, data centres experience very non-linear workload variations, which is why new trends emerge often, making it difficult for the model to learn precisely. Due to the lack of a single model that is suitable for all types of time series prediction data, an ensemble approach is being used to address this issue \cite{wolski1998dynamically}. Furthermore, most ensemble models for time series prediction are based on a collection of fixed predictors, either homogeneous or heterogeneous, which makes it difficult for the models to learn pattern change in time series prediction.
\cite{cao2014cpu} suggested a new ensemble method that can dynamically update the predictors in the ensemble approach to quickly respond to trend changes in time-series prediction. The ensemble method dynamically adjusts the models, which is the key benefit of this work. It's adaptable, as new models can be quickly added and removed depending on how well it performs with non-linear workload. They set a threshold value of 5 and a floor limit of 0 to determine which predictor is performing well and which is not. Every predictor is given a score, which rises and falls in response to the predictor's results. This predictor is selected as a representative predictor if its score exceeds the threshold value, and it is discarded if it meets the floor limit. These fixed parameters, on the other hand, yield satisfactory results for their chosen dataset, resulting in a non-generalized approach.
\subsection{Data Training}
In modern cloud environments, virtual resources such as virtual CPUs (vCPUs) and memory (vRAMs) have a non-linear resource demand, resulting in complex resource utilisation behaviour. As a result, with this high amount of workload on a daily basis, optimization of virtual resource performance is required. Large corporations such as Amazon, Alibaba, and others have occasionally failed due to a lack of resource management planning. As a result, predicting virtual resources (such as vCPU and vRAM) is a challenging task. Furthermore, resource forecasting presents some challenges, (1) The prediction of these resources should be dynamic in order to respond to changing workload patterns over time, (2) The data for training should be chosen in such a way that it has the greatest impact on the target variable, so that the model can learn to predict it effectively.
\cite{shyam2016virtual} proposed a model that took into account a variety of parameters in a virtualized platform to reliably predict virtual resources with the least amount of SLA violations. This method was based on a Bayesian approach that identified various variables and took into account the best training data. The key benefit of their work is that it detects dependencies in a variable in a systematic manner based on the study of non-linear workloads from various data centres such as Amazon, EC2, and Google. However, (1) they do not take into account the combination of several application types, (2) Since it relies on the dependencies of a specific problem, this approach lacks generalisation, (3) For prediction, this method ignores high-level metrics including transaction throughput and latency of underlying resources, such as vCPU cores.
\subsection{VM Multi Resources}\label{sec:2.14}
Flexible resource provisioning frameworks are needed in cloud data centres to manage host load based on various requirements. As a result, data centres conduct dynamic resource provisioning, which uses prediction models to estimate the amount of resources needed in advance for varying workloads over time. Its aim is to predict future VM request workloads by looking at previous usage trends. However, since VM requests include a variety of virtual resources such as CPU, memory, disc, and network throughput, it is extremely challenging and complex to forecast demand for each form of resource separately. In the case of choosing an ML prediction model, the multi-resource existence of a VM presents a specific challenge. Furthermore, different cloud users can make different requests for cloud resources. As a result, forecasting the demand for each form of resource is difficult and impractical.
\cite{ismaeel2015using} proposed a model for dividing VM clusters into different categories and then developing prediction models for each cluster. The key benefit of their work is that (1) they use Extreme Learning Machines (ELMs), which can find the best weight for the predictor in a single step. (2) They avoid issues like stopping conditions, learning rate selection, learning epoch scale, and local minimums of gradient-based learning methods like NN and ANFIS by using ELMs. (3)As it deals with non-linear processes, this work can handle the linear behaviour of the LR method. (4) It predicts VM requests in each cluster using a single network. (5) Every cluster can have its own prediction network. However, in kmeans clustering, they set the number of clusters to 3, resulting in a model with a fixed number of VM clusters.
\section{Future Research Directions}\label{sec:3}
\subsection{Performance and Online Profiling of Workload}
The efficiency of the intelligent resource management system is determined by many factors, including the accuracy and time complexity of the prediction model. Huge corporations such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and others are in charge of extremely complex data centres with a wide range of workloads. As a result, in the presence of such a highly variable or nonlinear workload for VMs, a more accurate estimation of prior workload is a future research direction by employing more sophisticated ML and DL modes. Furthermore, the time complexity of an algorithm is a measurement of its performance in terms of the time it takes to run the input code. As a result, the algorithm should be designed to be as simple as possible in terms of time complexity. Furthermore, online profiling is necessary to prevent VM blackouts until they are running in development, as well as various resource utilisation such as CPU and memory, which are major contributors to physical resource exhaustion and should be considered for prediction. \cite{cortez2017resource,bianchini2020toward} conducted online workload profiling and provided an analysis to determine if a virtual machine is interactive or delay-insensitive. To categorise VMs into these two groups, they used supervised classification. In this situation, semi-supervised learning \cite{zhu2009introduction} may play a vital role and may be a potential research direction to train the data with these partial labels and perform classification with promising accuracy in large-scale distributed data centres.
\subsection{Multiple Resource Usage in VM consolidation}
A host is considered overloaded during the VM consolidation phase if CPU utilisation reaches a throughput threshold, such as 80\% \cite{nguyen2017virtual}. However, other resource utilisation, such as memory use and bandwidth use \cite{abdelsamea2017virtual}, leads to host overloading. As a result, detecting overloaded hosts using a combination of CPU, memory, and bandwidth use is a potential research direction in the VM consolidation phase. For an efficient VM consolidation operation, the estimation of current and future CPU, memory, and bandwidth use should be addressed. The current study \cite{abdelsamea2017virtual,haghshenas2020prediction} involves a variety of machine learning algorithms, such as linear regression and multiple regression, in which the model's training is based on multiple features in order to simulate a target variable, such as CPU utilisation. The training time of multiple features will affect the VM migration time in the VM consolidation process, which affects QoS and SLAs in large-scale distributed data centres where millions of VMs are running in production. As a result, dealing with the training time of ML models is a potential future research direction. Different deep learning (DL) approaches, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks \cite{hochreiter1997long} and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) \cite{cho2014learning}, can deal with training time by avoiding the overheads of multiple features by using a single feature, such as a vector of CPU utilisation, as an input for training to predict its next state in the future.
\subsection{Cloud Network Traffic}
The problem of varying patterns of various types of workloads when considering current resource utilisation in VM allocation on a host is a challenge. As a result, predicting potential resource demand, such as CPU and network bandwidth, has proven to be an alternative approach \cite{shaw2019energy}.However, in addition to these resources, disc throughput is a significant factor to consider. In VM placement heuristics, taking disc throughput into account is a new research direction. It calculates the amount of data that can be stored, read, and written per second. \cite{brewer2016disks} published a report stating that disc tail latency, especially reads, is a key factor when delivering online services where a user is waiting for a response.As a result, disc throughput can play a role in VM migration time, affecting tail latency time and violating SLAs. Therefore, according to our vision, a prior maximum estimate of disc throughput will play a critical role in avoiding delay.
\subsection{Host Temperature}
\cite{9272657} proposed a scheduling algorithm to minimise the host temperature that was driven by the host temperature prediction computed using several ML algorithms. As a consequence, estimating host temperature ahead of time can help with thermal management decisions like VM migration to reduce host temperature, i.e., CPU temperature. \cite{9272657}, on the other hand, took into account the ambient temperature for prediction, which is a combination of CPU and inlet temperature. This could result in an increase in algorithm overhead. Furthermore, they discovered that the host's CPU temperature is primarily affected by CPU load and power consumption. As a result, it is being waited for the CPU to become overloaded, causing the temperature to rise, resulting in additional cooling costs for the host. As a potential future research topic, Prior CPU estimation-based resource provisioning can prevent the CPU from becoming overloaded and save energy. Then we'll only have to deal with the inlet temperature, which may reduce the thermal management algorithm's overhead. Furthermore, several ML algorithms necessitate a significant amount of training time due to the training of multiple features, which can slow down VM migration. It will cause VM migration to be delayed, which will slow down host temperature degradation and add to the cost. Thus, using an ML or DL method like GRU, where the inlet temperature can be used as an input to train a model that can predict its future state using single feature training, could be an alternative. Doing so can avoid an overhead algorithm, a delay in VM migration, a delay in minimising the host temperature.
\subsection{False Host Overloaded Detection}
The overloaded host detection's static threshold can result in unreliable VM migration. If the utilisation of a VM's resources degrades in a short period of time, there is no need to migrate the VM. In this case, the algorithm should have a dynamic resource utilisation threshold that automatically prevents VM migration when it reaches the fixed threshold, taking into account near-future data. For efficient VM migration in VM consolidation, this is the future research direction. Furthermore, VMs should be migrated if the near future information has a long period of load degradation.
\subsection{Energy metering at Software-Level}
Many power management decisions, such as power capping, will benefit from visibility of energy usage at the host and VM levels. At the host level, energy consumption is simple to predict or calculate since modern data centres have several built-in sensors that track it, but it is difficult to measure at the VM level because to measure the energy consumption induced by memory, we must collect LLC (last-level-cache) events raised by each VM on each core, which is difficult to do \cite{kansal2010virtual,zhao2012power}. Rather than calculating or predicting energy consumption at the VM level, clustering analysis may be used to determine the status of VMs in terms of energy consumption, such as low, moderate, or critical. Thus, dividing VMs by conducting clustering analysis based on highly co-related features with energy consumption at the VM-level is a potential research direction, and there would be no need to obtain host-level features. ML techniques such as ChiSquare Score, Fisher Score, Gini Index, and Correlation-based Feature Selection (CFS) can be used to find the correlation with energy consumption \cite{vora2017comprehensive}. Then, using a clustering algorithm or a clustering ensemble \cite{kadhim2019rapid}, a clustering analysis can be performed to determine which VMs are in low and critical energy consuming states. By doing so, a group of VMs can be managed together in a data center's resource management system, potentially reducing response time and improving QoS.
\subsection{SLA-based VM Management}
Future research directions for avoiding non-linear resource utilisation in modern data centres include dynamic resource provisioning and dynamic VM consolidation, which take into account various types of VM resources such as CPU, memory, and bandwidth, current and future resource needs, and SLAs such as compute intensive non-interactive jobs and transactional applications. Both of these methods rely heavily on accurate resource prediction. \cite{garg2014sla}, for example, provided long-term CPU utilisation forecasts that differed significantly from actual test phase data due to a substantial shift in CPU utilisation during the training phase, which is critical for dealing with non-linear utilisation in modern data centres. Future research will focus on optimising hyper parameters used in Artificial Neural Network (ANN) learning, such as mini batchsize, epochs, and number of neurons. The model is said to work better if it is trained on the data in an optimised manner. The observation of the validation and loss graphs estimated with these optimised hyperparameters may indicate that the model has learned a lot when both plots begin moving closely and consistently, and learning should be stopped at these optimised parameters.
\subsection{QoS-Aware Resource Provisioning}
The aim of this study is to use constructive dynamic resource provisioning based on workload estimation using historical data to improve QoS parameters like response time and rejection rate. Future research could concentrate on dealing with it in a reactive manner, with resource provisioning occurring after resource demand, such as the number of requests, has arrived. Furthermore, according to the current study \cite{calheiros2014workload}, the error in request prediction can be mitigated by adhoc decisions in dynamic resource provisioning, which can help to boost poor QoS efficiency. Furthermore, there is a potential research direction to forecast peak CPU use using more sophisticated ML models such as XGBoost \cite{chen2016xgboost}, LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long}, and GRU \cite{cho2014learning} in a correct manner that cannot be equipped with the ARIMA model. Furthermore, no single machine learning algorithm can suit any non-linear workload with time-series data, necessitating an ensemble learning approach in which various ML and DL methods can be used in the future. After that, the best-performing model can be selected for potential use. \cite{calheiros2014workload}, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:2.8}, estimates web requests based on a static time interval that can affect response time. As a result, it can be addressed by estimating future web requests with a dynamic time interval that adjusts automatically based on the VM deployment time. In such a way that the time interval of estimation can be equivalent to the VM deployment time and the remaining time can be avoided if the VM deployment time is much shorter than this static time interval that affects the QoS parameter as the response time. Prior estimation of VM deployment time based on historical data should therefore be computed and used in the above-mentioned case to satisfy the condition of equivalence with the estimated time of the request prediction.
\subsection{Varying Patterns of a Service Tenant in Resource Allocation}
Clustering analysis, which does not require any data labelling, could be used to classify service tenants as a future research direction. On the basis of historical resource demands, similar patterns of service tenants can be automatically obtained. By observing the similarity between data using clustering, service tenants with high and low resource demand can be distinguished, and predictions for those with high resource demand can be provided using ML and DL regression techniques. In the case of a distributed data centre where data is dispersed and partial labels are available, a concept known as semi-supervised clustering \cite{smieja2020classification} can be used, in which unsupervised data is given a little supervision using partial labels and techniques such as instance-level constraints \cite{wagstaff2000clustering} and relative distance constraints \cite{cho2014learning}.
\subsection{Single ML model in energy consumption prediction}
Apart from the CPU, a system power model includes memory, disc, and network components, so these components could be considered as well. The current study looks at the linear relationship between these metrics and energy consumption; however, non-linear relationships, such as polynomial or exponential, could be explored in the future. In addition, in an ensemble learning approach, the best individual model is chosen, which may or may not be the best solution. Another option is to combine the information provided by each individual model and analyse the results. This can be accomplished by estimating the average using weights based on each individual predictor's mean average error. Furthermore, each workload type requires its own set of configuration parameters. The future research direction is to keep track of the parameters value of each model from the past record that have increased the maximum utilisation of resources and to use them in real-time scenarios to adapt the models to the workload type of each individual VM. In addition, the forecast accuracy is also affected by a sudden change in the use of resources. A further future research direction is therefore to feed the ML model with average workload performance, such as CPU utilisation.
\subsection{Prediction Accuracy in Auto-Scaling of web applications}
Machine learning models, rather than statistical methods, may be used to predict workload in the future, which has many advantages: (1) Machine Learning learns from data without the need for explicit programming. (2) Machine Learning has the ability to learn from billions of observations and features, (3) Machine Learning relies less on assumptions and, in most cases, disregards them. (4) Machine Learning emphasizes predictions, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and semi-supervised learning (5) Machine Learning uses iterations to identify patterns in a dataset, requiring far less human effort. The training of multiple features is needed to predict the target variable, which increases the time complexity of machine learning methods like regression. As a result of the existence of redundant features, ML methods suffer from latency and computational complexity problems when processing multiple features. In such datasets, the number of functions, feature dependency, number of records, feature types, and nested feature categories all substantially increase the processing time of ML methods. As a result, future research should concentrate on using suitable feature selection methods, such as wrappers, filters, embedded methods, and enhanced versions \cite{majeed2019improving}, to effectively overcome the computation speed versus accuracy trade-off when processing large and complex datasets.
\subsection{Time-Series Prediction Data}
The development of a generalised ensemble framework for any type of dataset in cloud time series workload data is a future research direction. Deep learning (DL), in general, is a rapidly expanding and broad research field that involves novel architectures. However, researchers are never sure when they need to adapt which methods to which situations. \cite{hewamalage2021recurrent} used global NN models, which are prone to outlier errors in some time series. As a result, novel models incorporating both global and local parameters for individual time series must be developed in the form of hierarchical models. These models can be combined with ensembling, which involves training multiple models with the same dataset in different ways. Furthermore, CNNs have long been used for image processing, but they are now being used to forecast time series data. According to \cite{lai2018modeling,shih2019temporal}, traditional RNN models are ineffective at modelling seasonality in time series forecasting. As a result, they combine CNN filters for local dependencies and a custom attention score function for long-term dependencies. In order to capture seasonality patterns, \cite{lai2018modeling} has also tried recurrent skip connections. \cite{oord2016wavenet} developed Dilated Causal Convolutions to effectively capture long-range dependencies along the temporal dimension. They've recently been used in conjunction with CNNs to solve problems involving time series forecasting. Temporal Convolution Networks (TCN), which combine dilated convolutions and residual skip connections, have also been introduced as more advanced CNNs \cite{borovykh2017conditional}. According to \cite{bai2018empirical} TCNs are promising NN architectures for sequence modelling tasks, in addition to being efficient in training. As a result, using CNNs instead of RNNs could provide a competitive advantage for forecasting practitioners. As a consequence, these potentially advanced neural networks could be used in the future to forecast workload time series in cloud infrastructure.
\subsection{Data Training}
The aim of optimising machine learning hyperparameters is to find the hyperparameters for a particular machine learning algorithm that achieves the best performances on validation data. The hyperparameters are set by the engineer before the training, contrary to the model parameters. The number of trees in a random forest, for example, is a hyperparameter, whereas the weights in a neural network are model parameters learned during training. Size and decay are support vector machine hyperparameters (SVM) and k in k-nearest neighbours (KNN), respectively. Furthermore, hyperparameter optimization returns an optimal model that reduces a predefined loss function and, as a result, improves the accuracy on given independent data by finding a combination of hyperparameters. Hyperparameters can thus have a direct effect on machine learning algorithm training. It is therefore critical to understand how to optimise them in order to achieve maximum performance. This points to a future research direction of optimising the hyperparameters of ML algorithms for achieving optimal dataset training. This can be accomplished by employing some common heuristics such as Grid Search, Random Search, Bayesian Optimization, Gradient-based Optimization, and Evolutionary Optimization \cite{feurer2019hyperparameter}.
\subsection{VM Multi Resources}
As stated in Section \ref{sec:2.14}, there is a future research direction to categorize the VMs and develop a prediction model for each cluster to address the multi-resource demand challenges. However, the use of a clustering algorithm such as kmeans can limit the number of clusters available, causing a VM to be placed in the incorrect cluster. A clustering ensemble can be a better approach than clustering because it aims to combine multiple clustering algorithms to produce a final consensus solution that is more robust and accurate than a single clustering algorithm \cite{alqurashi2019clustering}. This literature \cite{boongoen2018cluster} mentions a number of clustering ensemble methods. Furthermore, in a recent work \cite{kadhim2019rapid}, two additional evaluation criteria such as time complexity and resource usage (CPU and memory usage) were considered to evaluate the novel clustering ensemble, in addition to clustering accuracy. Thus, advanced clustering methods such as clustering ensemble can be used in the future to achieve the best clusters with the highest precision, least time complexity, and least resource consumption.
\section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
In this paper, we discuss the challenges of machine-learning-based resource management in a cloud computing environment, as well as the various approaches that have been used to solve these challenges in recent years, along with their benefits and drawbacks. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of studies looking at how to use machine learning techniques to conduct workload prediction, energy consumption prediction, and other tasks. Different ML methods are used in these techniques to deal with various types of problems. Finally, based on the challenges and drawbacks identified in the state-of-the-art work, new potential future research directions are proposed to strengthen the current ML methods for resource management in cloud-based systems. The overall knowledge provided in this paper aids cloud researchers in comprehending cloud resource management and the significance of machine learning techniques.
Our findings show that machine learning models can be used in cloud computing systems to achieve various optimization goals and deal with complex tasks. The use of ML approaches also opens up a new avenue for intelligent resource and application management. This article illustrates the progress of machine learning approaches in current research and helps readers understand the research gap in this field.
To improve system efficiency, one promising way is to use advanced machine learning techniques such as reinforcement learning and deep learning to perform intelligent resource management.
.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Optimized stellarators are regarded as a potential pathway for fusion reactors in which the general advantages of stellarators over the tokamaks are conserved (such as stationary pulses, absence of disruptions, etc.) while neoclassical fluxes are reduced to acceptable levels, thus solving or substantially improving one of the main disadvantages of the stellarator approach. The largest device of this kind is currently Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X), an optimized helias stellarator in which quasi-isodinamicity is used to reduce drift orbit losses caused by the three-dimensional magnetic field inhomogeneity combined with collisions, thus improving the traditional low confinement of stellarators at low collisionalities. This device, which began operation in 2016 \cite{Wolf17,Klinger17}, has conducted its last operational phase (OP1.2b) between the months of August and October of 2018, featuring diverted plasmas and wall boronization, and achieving 200 MJ discharges and complete detachment in the island divertor \cite{Pedersen19}. While the results of the first experimental campaign confirm that neoclassical transport in W7-X has been reduced with respect to non-optimized stellarators \cite{Beidler19}, comparison of neoclassical predictions with experimental measurements of the total energy transport suggests that under most scenarios turbulence accounts for a large fraction of the total transport, even in the core \cite{Dinklage18,Bozhenkov19}. This dominant role of turbulence has been invoked to explain the limited performance of W7-X so far, with energy confinement times, $\tau_E$, falling below the empirical ISS04 scaling for high density plasmas \cite{Fuchert20}. Perhaps, the most obvious effect of this is a cap on the core ion temperature, $T_{i,core}$, which is limited to $T_{i,core} \lesssim 1.7$ keV in gas puff discharges with electron-cyclotron resonance heating (ECRH) \cite{Bozhenkov19}. This upper limit is not affected by collisionality levels or the injected heating power, P$_{ECRH}$, at least in the available range, and is well below the values expected for neoclassical predictions \cite{Beruskens20, Beurskens21}, indicating that this limitation is related to the high turbulent transport. During the last experimental campaigns, a number of transient scenarios were found in which this clamping was relaxed and higher $T_{i,core}$ values could be observed. The most prominent of them is the "high performance" (HP) operation, equivalent to similar ones reported both in tokamaks \cite{Greenwald85, Tubbing91, Quigley04} and other stellarators \cite{Yamada00}. It consists of a phase after the injection of pellets during ECRH operation in which record values of $T_{i,core} \simeq 2.5$ keV and stored energy, $W_{dia} \simeq 1$ MJ are achieved while core transport is substantially reduced, matching neoclassical levels \cite{Bozhenkov20}. Consistently, a substantial reduction of turbulence amplitude is observed experimentally during this phase \cite{Stechow20,Estrada21}. Besides HP operation, similar transitory phases also featuring enhanced density gradients and reduced turbulence have been observed in W7-X following the injection of impurities \cite{Lunsford21}. Finally, some scenarios in which $T_{i,core} > 1.7$ keV is temporarily achieved involve the use of neutral beam injection (NBI) to obtain a steep density gradient \cite{Ford19}. However, the physical picture is more complicated in those, as some degree of additional ECRH is required, indicating some complex interplay between transport, fueling and heating.\\
These results indicate that core turbulent transport will be much more relevant in optimized stellarators - particularly for the ion channel-, and that a good understanding of the physical mechanisms underlying the turbulence will be critical to achieve sufficient global confinement to reach the $T_i = 5$ keV physics goal of W7-X in the road of a stellarator reactor based on the helias concept \cite{Wolf16}. In this work, we set out to approach this objective by performing a systematic characterization of experimental measurements of ion-scale core turbulence in W7-X, carried out with a Doppler reflectometer (DR) under a wide range of relevant scenarios from the last operational phase, including some of the aforementioned situations in which the $T_{i,core} \lesssim 1.7$ keV limit is relaxed. After this, we aim to evaluate the impact of different plasma parameters on fluctuation amplitude in order to identify the underlying instabilities and pave the way for a future discussion on the mechanisms regulating turbulent transport and their impact in it the general performance of the machine. It is generally accepted that ion-scale turbulence in magnetically confined fusion plasmas is dominated by ion-temperature gradient (ITG) modes \cite{Doyle07}, with spatial scales close to the ion gyroradius, $k_\perp\rho_i \simeq 1$, where $k_\perp$ is the mode wavelength in the binormal direction. This kind of drift wave instability typically features a critical stability threshold on the gradient ratio $\eta_{i} = L_{n_i}/L_{T_i}$ \cite{Horton99}, where $L_\alpha$ is the local gradient scale of the parameter $\alpha$ (in fact, in the 80s and 90s literature, ITG modes are sometimes referred to as the "$\eta_i$-modes" \cite{Rogister88}). In scenarios with flat density profiles, $L_n \rightarrow \infty$, the ITG mode is destabilized when a certain normalized gradient $R/L_{T_i}$ is exceeded instead \cite{Tang86}. While this physical picture was initially developed for tokamaks, it is considered to be valid also for stellarators. In particular, recent linear calculations show this for W7-X, with $\eta_i$ thresholds in the range of $\eta_{i,c} \simeq 1$ \cite{Riemann15,Zocco18}. This strong dependency on plasma profiles has been used to explain the HP regime as the result of ITG mode suppression: indeed, during the pellet phase a strong density gradient is built while core temperatures drop as the result of the cold ion and electron populations resulting from the pellets. Then, after the pellet injection has substantially decreased $\eta_i$ values, the confinement is improved and turbulent transport reduced. Consistently with this interpretation, the reduction in turbulent heat flux is only observed in the ion channel, with electron heat transport remaining clearly above neoclassical levels during the HP phase \cite{Bozhenkov20}. This relation to ITG turbulence could as well explain the transient nature of this regime: after turbulence is suppressed, $T_i$ would increase as a result of the enhanced confinement and eventually the density and its peaking would decay, recovering high $\eta_i$ values, thus destabilizing turbulence again and ending the transitory phase.\\
Density and temperature gradients are determinant for the ITG mode, and therefore the main quantities to be compared to fluctuation measurements for their characterization. However, there are other parameters that should be considered, as they may affect the stability of these modes: first, although gradients are enough to excite an ITG mode in the slab approximation, when more realistic geometries are considered the destabilizing effect of the $\nabla B$ and curvature drifts become important. As a result, ITG modes appear preferentially in regions of bad curvature (prone to interchange instabilities) in toroidal geometries, which in the case of W7-X comprise a localized band around the outer midplane in the bean section \cite{Kornilov04,Xanthopoulos14,Banon20}. Another factor influencing ITG turbulence is the local $T_e/T_i$ ratio, which reduces the stability for a given set of gradients when $T_e/T_i >1$ (and increases it in the opposite case). This has been discussed in the literature for the case of W7-X, for which linear simulations carried out with the gyrokinetic code GENE found the ITG critical temperature gradient to be a decreasing function of $T_e/T_i$ ratio, while growth rates increased with it \cite{Zocco18,Beurskens21}. As well, there are experimental evidence of both density fluctuation amplitude and turbulent impurity transport being enhanced in W7-X by increasing $T_e/T_i$ when laser blow-off is used to inject various impurities under different levels of $P_{ECRH}$ heating \cite{Wegner20}. Radial electric fields, $E_r$, may also have a noticeable influence in turbulent fluctuations, at least through two separate mechanisms: first, local $E_r$ induces an $\mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{B}$ rotation in the plasma which may displace fluctuations on each flux surface away from the regions of instability \cite{Riemann15}. Second, if a strong $E_r$ shear is present, the resulting shear flow may decorrelate turbulent structures, thereby reducing turbulence \cite{Bigliari90}. Turbulence suppression by $E_r$ shear has been observed in W7-X \cite{CarraleroIRW, AKF20} and the stabilization effect of $E_r$ has been studied by means of gyrokinetic simulations, which confirmed the existence of this mechanism but found its effect to be less than that of profiles \cite{Xanthopoulos20,Estrada21}. Finally, ITG modes are not the only possible instabilities in the $k_\perp\rho_i \simeq 1$ scale. Another mode which may play a role in ion heat transport is the trapped electron mode (TEM) \cite{Coppi74}, a loose term designating a family of instabilities driven by either the $n_e$ or the $T_e$ gradient. This mode, which has been found to be relevant for transport in stellarators \cite{Sanchez19}, is generated by the electron population having magnetically trapped orbits. As a result, it is most unstable in regions in which bad curvature is in the vicinity of a local minimum of $|\mathbf{B}|$ along the field line \cite{Hellander13} and only can be excited for sufficiently low values of electron collision frequency, $\nu_{e}$. TEMs may interact in complex ways with ITG modes, and a transition between them may occur if the relation between the relevant parameters ($\eta_i$, $\eta_e$, $\nu_{e}$) changes. In particular, such transition from TEM to ITG has been observed in tokamaks when collisionality was raised above a certain threshold, in good agreement with theoretical predictions by the gyrokinetic code GS2 \cite{Ryter05}. In order to provide a characterization of core turbulence, all these parameters are to be measured and discussed along with the fluctuations.\\
Two final comments regarding the scope of the study are in order: first, only data from a single magnetic configuration (standard) will be considered, leaving the analysis of the influence of magnetic geometry parameters for future work. Second, the focus of this paper is mostly to provide an empirical description of the different regimes of turbulence in relevant scenarios of operation, and the relation between measured fluctuations and the previously discussed parameters. In this sense, it must be stressed that general performance is determined by global turbulent transport, which is measured by power balance analysis \cite{Dinklage13,Bozhenkov20}, or only recently in stellarators, calculated by means of nonlinear gyrokinetic simulations \cite{Sanchez20,Xanthopoulos20,Regana21}. The relation between DR measurements of local fluctuations and such global turbulent transport is by no means trivial and, leaving aside some preliminary results which can be advanced from the data presented here, is considered out of the scope of this work and will be addressed at length in a forthcoming one. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the main diagnostics and analysis methodology are described in section \ref{Met} and the selected scenarios in section \ref{data}. Then, experimental results are presented in section \ref{exp} and compared to the various parameters in section \ref{drives}. To conclude, results are discussed and conclusions outlined in section \ref{discussion}.
\section{Methodology}\label{Met}
The main diagnostic used to characterize turbulence in this study is a Doppler reflectometer, a device capable of providing a $k_\perp$-selective measure of the amplitude of density fluctuations as well as their laboratory-frame perpendicular velocity based respectively on the power and Doppler shift of the backscattered power of a microwave beam launched into the plasma. The DR was first used to measure the radial electric field in the W7-AS stellarator \cite{Hirsch99} and the Tore Supra tokamak \cite{Zou99} and has since become a standard diagnostic for the study of $E_r$ and turbulence in both kinds of devices \cite{Happel09,Tokuzawa12,Estrada19,Happel15}, including some currently in development such as JT60-SA \cite{CarraleroJT60} or ITER \cite{Muscatello20}. A DR is based on the fact that an electromagnetic wave launched into a plasma propagates radially until a cutoff layer is reached, defined as the point in which its refractive index, $N$, achieves its minimum value. If the beam is launched with an oblique angle, and turbulence of a certain amplitude is present at the cutoff layer, a fraction of the power of the incident beam is backscattered by density fluctuations with a perpendicular wavenumber fulfilling the Bragg criterion, $k_\perp=2k_i$, where $k_i$ is the wavenumber of the incident beam \cite{Hirsch01}. In a monostatic DR, this backscattered wave travels back to the emitting antenna, where it is measured. For low turbulence levels the backscattered power, $S$, is related to the density fluctuations through the simple relation:
\begin{equation}
S \propto (\delta n)^2, \label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $\delta n$ is the amplitude of density fluctuations \cite{Gusakov04, Blanco08}. Besides, the frequency of the backscattered wave is shifted due to the Doppler effect induced by the perpendicular velocity, $u_\perp$, of the density fluctuations of $k_\perp$ wavenumber. Therefore, both $S$ and $u_\perp$ can be obtained from the measurement of the Doppler peak characteristics $\omega_D$, $A_D$, and $\Delta \omega_D$ (respectively the Doppler frequency shift, and the peak height and width): first, the backscattered power can be estimated as $S = A_D \Delta \omega_D/2\pi$. In order to determine $\delta n$ from $S$, it must be noted that both the microwave generator and the various microwave transmission systems feature a different power response depending on the beam frequency. As a result, a power calibration of the complete system is required for each frequency in order to obtain a general form of equation (\ref{eq1}). As explained in \cite{Estrada21}, this is done by a combination of a direct calibration of the ex-vessel system components, information provided by the manufacturer of the ones inside the vacuum vessel and systematic error analysis methods. Then, $\omega_D = \mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{k} \simeq u_\perp k_\perp$ permits the calculation of $u_\perp$ if the wavenumber is known. This rotation measurement can then be used to estimate the local radial electric field, $E_r$, by assuming that $u_\perp \simeq v_E$, where $v_E =|\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}|/B^2$ is the $E\times B$ bulk velocity of the plasma. This approximation is only correct if this velocity dominates the turbulence phase velocity $v_E \gg v_{ph}$. Such approach has often found to be correct in stellarator plasmas \cite{Hirsch01,Estrada09,AKF2019} and is supported at the core of W7-X by the general good agreement between $E_r$ profiles calculated form DR data and neoclassical code predictions \cite{Carralero20,Estrada21}. A more detailed discussion about the validity of this approximation and its limits can be found elsewhere \cite{Windisch19}.\\
The DR provides a good localization of turbulence amplitude and rotation both in real space and in the wavenumber spectrum: if the wave is polarized in the O-mode (as in the DR used in this study), $N$ is only a function of the beam frequency, $\omega$, and the local electron density,
\begin{equation}
N^2=\biggl(1-\frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2}\biggr), \label{eq0}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_p=(n_ee^2/\epsilon_0m_e)^{1/2}$ is the plasma frequency and $n_e$, $e$ and $m_e$ stand for the electron density, charge and mass. Under the slab approximation and assuming small refraction, the beam incidence at the cutoff layer can be associated to the launching angle of the beam, $\theta_0$. In this case, the cutoff density, $n_{co}$, can be calculated by setting the condition $N_{co}=\sin{\theta_0}$. Also, the wavenumber of the backscattering turbulence becomes $k_\perp=2k_0\sin{\theta_0}$, where $k_0$ is the vacuum wavenumber of the launched wave. Once the value of $n_{co}$ is known for a given beam frequency, an independent measurement of the density profile is also required in order to infer its radial position. In a more realistic setting, density profiles must be used as an input for a ray tracing code in order to calculate the evolution of the refraction index and the incidence angle of the beam. Along this work, such density profiles were obtained using the Thomson scattering (TS) diagnostic \cite{Pasch16} and the Travis ray-tracing code \cite{Marush14} was used to perform the calculation of $k_\perp$, $n_{co}$ and the cutoff position.\\
For this work, we will use the DR system installed in the AEA-21 port of W7-X (toroidal angle $\phi = 72^{\circ}$) with the fixed-angle antenna below the equator \cite{Windisch15}. This monostatic DR features a combination of V-band frequencies ($50$-$75$ GHz) and O-mode polarization, which yield cutoff densities of $ 2.8 \cdot 10^{19} $ m$^{-3} < n_{co} < 6.3 \cdot 10^{19}$ m$^{-3}$ in the slab approximation, as indicated by equation (\ref{eq0}). These values mean that access to a wide radial range of positions from the SOL to the core is possible under most experimental scenarios, typically obtaining measurements for $0.5 < \rho < 1$ if core plasma densities are not particularly high or low, where $\rho \equiv (\Psi/\Psi_{LCFS})^{1/2} $ is the radial magnetic coordinate defined using the toroidal flux through a given magnetic surface, $\Psi$, and LCFS stands for last closed flux surface. Under typical operation, the whole frequency range is swept over time, with $10$ ms steps increasing the frequency by $1$ GHz. This means that a full radial profile is produced every $250$ ms. The AEA-21 port is located at the bean-shaped cross section of the plasma and the launching position of this DR leads to measurement points near the outer midplane, where ITG turbulence is expected to be most unstable \cite{Xanthopoulos14,Banon20}. In figure \ref{fig00}, a view of this cross section is provided, along with a typical radial profile of measurement points, the position and launching angle of the antenna and one beam trajectory for reference. For this diagnostic, typical $k_\perp$ values of the backscattering turbulence are in the $k_\perp \simeq 7-11$ cm$^{-1}$. Since the launching angle is fixed, these values depend mostly on the beam frequency, and therefore are also linked to the cutoff-layer position. This is represented as well in figure \ref{fig00}, where the local values of $T_i$ are used to calculate the $k_\perp\rho_i$ values of the measured turbulence for a number of discharges representative of the scenarios which will be discussed in the study. As can be seen, $k_\perp\rho_i \simeq 1-1.5$ is achieved in the highlighted $\rho = 0.5-0.6$ region used for the analysis (as will be explained in the next section). As advanced in the Introduction, this $k_\perp\rho_i$ value represents a good measurement point for ion-scale turbulence and for ITG modes in particular. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig000.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig00.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Top: bean cross section of the standard configuration. The LCFS is indicated as a dotted red line. The DR antenna position is represented as a black triangle and the beam launching direction as a dashed line. Typical measurement points for the $0.4 < \rho < 1.05$ range are indicated as blue crosses. The result of one of the ray tracing calculations is included as a reference as a thin red line. Bottom: $k_\perp\rho_i$ values of the density fluctuations measured by the DR. Data points are representative of the scenarios discussed in section \ref{data}, indicated by colors and symbols as in figure \ref{fig1}. The measurement region $\rho = 0.5-0.6$ is highlighted with dashed lines. }}
\label{fig00}
\end{figure}
Besides the DR, data from other diagnostics were required for this study. First, an interferometer \cite{Brunner18} is used to calculate the plasma density averaged over a line crossing the core, $\bar{n}_e$, in order to provide a reference for the global density of the plasma. Then, the TS system is used to obtain $n_e$ and $T_e$ profiles. As already explained, density profiles are required for the radial localization of DR measurements, and both kinds of profiles are used to obtain local plasma parameters and normalized gradients, $a/L_n$ and $a/L_{T_e}$. In order to obtain $T_i$ profiles, from which to derive $a/L_{T_i}$, two different diagnostics are used: first, the X-ray imaging crystal spectrometer (XICS) is used routinely to obtain $T_i$ measurements from the plasma core to most of the edge by fitting argon impurity spectral lines \cite{Bitter10}. As well, when NBI power is injected (either as means of plasma heating, or in short blips for diagnostic purposes), the charge-exchange recombination spectroscopy system (CXRS) becomes available \cite{Ford20} and provides $T_i$ and rotation data (only the former is used in this study). The agreement between the two kinds of $T_i$ profiles and with $T_e$ data is generally good: electron and ion temperatures have similar values and gradients at the edge. Moving towards the core, both profiles depart at a a certain radius, $\rho_T$ (typically in the $0.5 < \rho_T < 0.75$ range, depending on plasma parameters) after which the $T_i$ profile becomes flatter. When combining all diagnostics to provide a coherent picture, some adjustments have been found to be required. First, in ECRH discharges all heating power is deposited in the electron species and then transferred to the ions via collisions. For this reason, profiles for which $T_i > T_e$ are considered unphysical (not so in NBI discharges, for which that situation is indeed feasible). Therefore, in this case $T_i$ values are substituted by $T_e$ ones whenever this situation is found. This leads sometimes to a problem when using XICS profiles, which are found to overestimate $T_i$ by around $100-200$ eV over the whole profile. Because of this, the two profiles do not join smoothly, leading to discontinuities in the $a/L_{T_i}$ values. However, it has been found generally that if the whole XICS profile is shifted to overcome that bias, not only the agreement with the TS data is good for $\rho > \rho_T$, but also the agreement between XICS and CXRS improves notably. Therefore, XICS data is corrected to reach a smooth coupling with the TS $T_e$ profile.\\
\section{Analyzed scenarios}\label{data}
The objective of this study is to provide a systematic characterization of core density fluctuations and to discuss how they are related to the local drive of turbulence. Therefore, as advanced in the Introduction, all selected discharges will have a common configuration in order to avoid mixing up possible effects associated to the characteristics of the magnetic configuration with those related to the gradient values. The standard configuration \cite{Beidler11} has been selected for this, as it was the most widely used during the campaign, thus providing a substantially larger database than the rest. Within this subset of the experimental results, selected data should ideally be representative of the most relevant operational regimes achieved during the 2018 experimental campaign and cover the widest possible range of plasma parameters. However, as discussed in the previous section, the DR imposes certain limitations on that range, as it can only measure fluctuation amplitude values within a range of operational parameters for which the core region is accessible for a given frequency band and polarization. This parametric space is presented in figure \ref{fig1}, in which W7-X operational limits are indicated as two solid lines: the first represents the maximum ECRH power typically available during the campaign, P$_{ECRH,max} \simeq 7$ MW \cite{Klinger19}. This limit is exceeded by a few discharges, as up to $3.5$ MW of NBI could be injected on top of the P$_{ECRH}$. The second is the critical density limit, which has been calculated taking from \cite{Fuchert20} the boronized wall values (featuring a low impurity fraction, $f_{imp} = 0.5\%$) and considering as a profile shape factor\footnote{The profile shape factor, $\delta$, is a parameter introduced in \cite{Fuchert20} which relates the edge density and the line-averaged density, as measured by the interferometer.} the average value for ECRH discharges, $\delta \simeq 1.33$. As well, the density limits to DR operation are indicated by shadowing both regions below the lowest cutoff density (which can not be probed by the V-band) and those for which the highest frequencies can only probe the edge of the plasma. Finally, in order to carry out a meaningful comparison of fluctuation levels between different plasma regimes, a common and relatively narrow radial region must be selected, thus imposing further constrains in the shape of the density profile. Taking into account the availability of data and the localization of the observed changes in fluctuation profiles (which will be discussed in the next section), the region $ 0.5 < \rho < 0.6$ is selected, and only discharges including data in this range are considered in the study. Once all these constrains are taken into account, a database of more than $150$ points from $18$ different discharges is created. As can be seen in figure \ref{fig1}, measurements (indicated as colored symbols) are selected to cover most of the accessible region, specially taking into account that the maximum theoretically available ECRH power was rarely achieved, with most discharges featuring lower power levels in the P$_{ECRH} \leq 6$ MW range. On top of that, a few extra measurements have been selected as representative of scenarios in which the $T_{i,core}$ clamping is relaxed. This way, the database is divided into three main families of discharges which will be discussed separately along this work:
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Parametric map of the experimental data. Measurement points are displayed as a function of the total heating power (including ECRH and NBI) and line averaged density. Four major groups of discharges are identified by symbols and colors: dark/light blue circles represent high/low density gas puff ECRH discharges. Redish squares represent NBI discharges. Black stars represent pellet-fueled high performance discharges. Blue star represents reference ECRH, gas puff phases for the corresponding HP scenario. Solid symbols correspond to the highlighted cases. Solid/dashed lines represent several operational/instrumental limits. }}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item [-] Gas puff-fueled, ECRH-heated discharges. These represent the bulk of the 2018 experiments and are represented as blue circles. Due to differences in the behaviour of fluctuations which will be introduced in the next section, dark/light colors are used to designate data points above/below a density value of $ \bar{n}_e \simeq 5 \cdot 10^{19}$ m$^{-3}$, which will be in the following referred to as $\bar{n}_0$. These two subgroups will be referred in the following as "high/low density ECRH".
\item [-] High $T_{i,core}$, NBI-heated discharges. These discharges represent the aforementioned scenario in which $T_{i,core} > 1.7$ keV is achieved by a particular combination of NBI and ECRH heating. They are represented as reddish squares, with an orange/dark red color indicating full/reduced ECRH power in addition to NBI heating (see figure \ref{fig02} below).
\item [-] Pellet-fueled, ECRH heated, high performance discharges. These data points represent the transient high confinement regime found after pellet fueling, also reaching $T_{i,core} > 1.7$ keV and already discussed in the Introduction. They are represented as black stars. Blue stars correspond to conventional ECRH discharges with similar $\bar{n}_e$ and $P_{ECRH}$ values, used as a reference.
\end{enumerate}
In order to facilitate the description of these families of discharges, a few representative cases have been selected for each (indicated in figure \ref{fig1} as solid symbols). These examples will be used to guide the discussion and to provide more details when a full representation of the whole database would be impractical. Next, these particular discharges are presented and used to show paradigmatic data from each of the groups.
\subsection{ECRH discharges}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_b.pdf}
\par
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_c.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_g.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Representative cases of gas-puff, ECRH discharges. On the top plot of each graph, temporal evolution of heating power and radiated power are displayed. On the bottom plot, line averaged density (blue, left axis) and stored energy (green, right axis) are shown. Dashed lines indicate the times corresponding to the symbols of the same colors in figure \ref{fig1} and successive.}}
\label{fig01}
\end{figure}
Four discharges have been selected to represent the first group, all of which are shown in figure \ref{fig01}. The first two are $180920.013$ and $180920.017$, use the same heating power ($P_{ECRH} \simeq 4.7$ MW) and feature constant density values respectively below and above $\bar{n}_0$. As well, short NBI blips are injected for instrumental purposes, thus allowing for the use of CXRS in the corresponding times. Theses discharges are represented in the plots at the top row of the figure. Instead, $181017.033$ and $181018.021$ are density ramps, in which $\bar{n}_e$ is increased for the duration of the discharge. Discharge $181017.033$, displayed in the bottom left of the figure, features high heating power ($P_{ECRH} \simeq 6$ MW) and crosses the $\bar{n}_0$ limit around one half into the shot. One time is selected for each part of the discharge in this case. Instead, $181018021$ (bottom right) features lower heating power ($P_{ECRH} \simeq 4$ MW) and $\bar{n}_e > \bar{n}_0$ at all times. In these last two shot, the representative point has been selected at time corresponding respectively to the highest density value. Given the interest of these shots, a large number of frequency ramps have been analyzed for each of them (10-15 for each discharge), leading to a corresponding cloud of points around the solid symbol in figure \ref{fig1}. In the case of the density ramps, these clouds extend vertically, as they cover the full range of density values found in the discharge.
\subsection{NBI discharges}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_d.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Representative NBI heated discharge. Plots and colors as in figure \ref{fig01}. Orange and red dashed lines indicate the times corresponding to the symbols of the same colors in figure \ref{fig1} and successive.}}
\label{fig02}
\end{figure}
The two NBI heating regimes shown in figure \ref{fig1} correspond to different times of a family of discharges in which different levels of ECRH and NBI are alternated with a relatively stable density. Discharge $180919.039$ is presented in figure \ref{fig02} as an example of this, with dashed lines indicating the two times corresponding to the symbols of the same color. As can be seen, first there is a phase with only ECRH heating, featuring parameters not too far from those of $180920.017$ (top right plot of figure \ref{fig01}), although with slightly lower density. Then, for $2.5$ s $ < t < 4$ s, the full $3.5$ MW of available NBI power are injected into the plasma for a total nominal heating power in excess of $8$ MW (in fact, nominal NBI values may somewhat overestimate the actual power being deposited in the plasma \cite{Lazerson20}), causing a moderate increase of density and stored energy. Finally, for $t > 4$ s there is a third phase in which the NBI heating is conserved, while ECRH heating is reduced to only $P_{ECRH} \simeq 0.5$ MW. In this phase, density gradient is increased across the whole profile and $T_{i,core}$ slightly over the clamping limit is achieved. Nevertheless, as density rises later in the discharge ($t > 5$ s) this transient phase ends and $T_{i,core}$ drops again under the limit.
\subsection{High performance discharges}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_e.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig0_f.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Representative high performance discharge (top graphic) and reference ECRH shot (bottom). Plots and colors as in figure \ref{fig01} (mind the different scale in the y-axis in the lower plots). Black and blue dashed lines indicate the times corresponding to the symbols of the same colors in figure \ref{fig1} and successive.}}
\label{fig03}
\end{figure}
High performance (HP) discharges have already been described at length in the literature \cite{Bozhenkov20}, including a dedicated study of the DR data which already showed how this regime is characterized by a strong suppression of turbulence and a steep E$_r$ well at the plasma edge \cite{Estrada21}. In this work, we take a few representative examples from that study, in which several discharges featuring a HP phase were compared to conventional gas-puff ECRH ones with equivalent density and $P_{ECRH}$ values. One of such comparisons is presented in figure \ref{fig03}: on the top plots, $180918.045$ features the characteristic pellet-induced, sharp increase of density after $t = 2$ s, followed by the HP phase: a fast, transient improvement of $W_p$ and $\tau_E$ after the end of the pellet injection. In the bottom plots, a gas-puff fueled discharge with a density ramp equivalent to the high density ECRH shots previously discussed. In it, a time is selected such that values close to those of the HP phase in $180918.045$ are achieved in both $\bar{n}_e$ and $P_{ECRH}$.
\section{Experimental results}\label{exp}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig2_a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig2_b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\linewidth]{fig2_c.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Typical density and temperature profiles of the representative discharges. From top to bottom, each row represents the profiles (solid) and normalized gradients (dashed) of $n_e$, $T_e$ and $T_i$. Each column corresponds to a different family of discharges including, from left to right, ECRH, NBI and HP. The HP family includes its reference ECRH phase in blue. Colors correspond to the symbols in figure \ref{fig1}.}}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The families defined in the previous section will be used as reference to describe the different experimental regimes observed in the database, often referring to the representative discharges highlighted in figure \ref{fig1}. First, typical density and temperature profiles are presented in figure \ref{fig2}: in it, data from each family are displayed in a separate column, including density and electron/ion temperature profiles and normalized gradients, $a/L_\alpha$, $a$ being the plasma minor radius, measured by TS, CXRS and XICS, as discussed in section \ref{Met}. Each curve stands for one of the representative discharges, sharing color with the corresponding symbol in figure \ref{fig1}. As can be seen, density profiles are typically flat towards the core, featuring $a/L_{n_e} \leq 0.5$ for $\rho < 0.7$. Instead, a different situation can be seen in the third phase of the NBI discharges (in red) and during the HP phases, in which the density profile becomes substantially more peaked. As well, it can be seen how as density increases in ECRH scenarios, the shape of the profile (and thus the gradients) becomes slightly more peaked, but does not change substantially. Electron temperature is the parameter with a greatest degree of external control, as it depends directly on $P_{ECRH}$ and density, reaching core values of several keV and up to $T_{e,core} \simeq 5$ keV for the low density ECRH shots in figure \ref{fig2}. As a result, $T_e$ gradient reaches rather high values in all cases, with $a/L_{T_e} \simeq 3-4$ for $\rho = 0.5-0.6$. Finally, $T_i$ profiles contrast with those of $T_e$ as a result of the clamping already discussed in the Introduction: with a few exceptions, $T_i$ profiles are similar to those of $T_e$ at the edge, but then become flatter at the core ($a/L_{T_i} \leq 2$ for $\rho = 0.5-0.6$) and remain below the core limit value of $T_{i,core} \simeq 1.7$ keV. Again, figure \ref{fig2} show two exceptions to this rule, as already discussed and reported elsewhere in the literature \cite{Bozhenkov20,Ford19}: the third phase of the NBI discharges featuring reduced values of $P_{ECRH}$, in which $T_{i,core}$ reaches 1.9 keV, and the HP phase, in which $T_{i,core}$ values clearly exceeding the clamping value are found.\\% Finally, it can be seen how the blue reference curves in the middle and right columns are very similar to the high density ECRH cases in the left one, as would be expected.\\
Once the plasma profiles have been presented for the different cases, measurements from the DR can be discussed: in figure \ref{fig3a}, characteristic $E_r$ profiles from each family are displayed. Again, solid symbols correspond the representative points of the same colors in figure \ref{fig1}. As can be seen, $E_r$ profiles in ECRH discharges are consistent with those already presented in previous work, in which good qualitative agreement with neoclassical predictions was found \cite{Carralero20,Estrada21}: negative $E_r$ inside the confined region, in good agreement with the dominant ion-root ambipolar condition at the plasma edge \cite{Hirsch08}, and positive in the SOL. Lower density discharges feature stronger electric field at the edge, with more negative minimum values around $\rho \simeq 0.9$.
NBI shots show $E_r$ profiles which are remarkably similar to those of high density ECRH discharges in the core. Instead, it can be seen that no field reversal is observed around the separatrix, suggesting a different behaviour at the SOL, with substantially reduced or even negative values of $E_r$. The reason for this is unclear and should be addressed in a separate work. Finally, as already discussed in \cite{Estrada21}, HP phases display substantially stronger negative electric field (note the different scale in figure \ref{fig3a}), which reach their minimum around $\rho \simeq 0.7$. As shown in previous work this value depends on the ECRH heating and density: lowest $E_r$ values can be reached by increasing $P_{ECRH} \cdot \bar{n}_e$ as shown by hollow points corresponding to discharge $180918.041$ (and the corresponding reference in blue), with a $P_{ECRH} \cdot \bar{n}_e$ value roughly $10\%$ greater than that of $180918.045$, represented by solid symbols).\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3_a.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Radial electric field measurements from the DR. Local $E_r$ values are presented, with no $|\nabla r|$ normalization to account for flux expansion in the magnetic surface \cite{Carralero20}. As in figure \ref{fig2}, each column corresponds to a different family of discharges (from left to right, ECRH, NBI and HP), with colors following the same convention. Solid symbols correspond the representative points of the same colors in figure \ref{fig1}.}}
\label{fig3a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3_b.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Fluctuation measurements from the DR. Signal power, $S$ is represented in dB. As in figure \ref{fig2}, each column corresponds to a different family of discharges (from left to right, ECRH, NBI and HP), with colors following the same convention. Solid symbols correspond the representative points of the same colors in figure \ref{fig1}.}}
\label{fig3b}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig3b} displays the measurements of density fluctuations from the DR following the same convention of symbols, columns and colors as figure \ref{fig3a}. In them, signal power $S \propto \delta n^2$ is represented in dB. As can be seen, fluctuation profiles are similar in all high density ECRH discharges (including the reference phase of the HP family): a sharp decrease in the vicinity of the separatrix followed by a shallow decreasing slope towards the core, reaching values around $S \simeq -15$ dB for the analyzed radial region, $\rho \simeq 0.5-0.6$. It must be taken into account that, given the logarithmic scale of the y-axis, this ``shallow'' slope still implies a drop of an order of magnitude in signal power with respect to the levels at the separatrix. Starting from this baseline case, a reduction in core turbulence amplitude can be seen in three scenarios: first, in the left plot, low density ECRH discharges have similar values at $\rho \simeq 0.9$, but then feature a marked drop of $S$ starting around $\rho \simeq 0.8$ and falling ca. $10$ dB below the previous case at $\rho = 0.5$. A very similar observation can be made in the third phase of the NBI discharges (corresponding to reduced ECRH heating) in the central plot, although interestingly, the intermediate phase -with full ECRH and NBI heating- remains mostly unaffected. Finally, on the right plot, HP discharges display a somewhat sharper suppression of turbulence than the other two scenarios, which may in some cases start at more exterior radial positions $\rho > 0.8$. In this case, signal power in the range of $S \simeq -30$ are achieved. Besides the behaviour at the core, it is interesting to point out that, between the $\rho \simeq 0.9$ region -in which similar $S$ values are found in all scenarios- and the separatrix, different levels of turbulence can be found: ECRH cases with lower density feature a stronger suppression of turbulence in that region, which suggests a relation to the greater $E_r$ shear present in those cases \cite{Carralero20}. However, a detailed discussion of edge turbulence is out of the scope of this work, and will be addressed in future studies. As well, it must be pointed out that, as indicated in section \ref{Met}, this interpretation of the data involves the hypothesis that turbulence levels are low enough for a linear power response. For higher turbulence levels, the response of the signal to the fluctuations becomes non-linear, increasing substantially the complexity of the analysis \cite{Pinzon17, Happel17}, as the relation between $S$ and $\delta n$ changes non-trivially depending on the region of the $k_\perp$ spectrum being measured, thus invalidating the simple relation in equation (\ref{eq1}). A discussion of the non-linear power response effects on the DR measurements is out of the scope of this work and is left for future studies. In any case, there are two reasons to expect that these effects are not too relevant for the results presented here: first, we will only be discussing measurements carried out in the core region, with radial positions meeting $\rho < 0.6$. In this region, fluctuation levels are expected to be moderate and therefore non-linear effects substantially less likely to become relevant. Second, as can be seen in figure \ref{fig00}, $k_\perp$ values of the discussed fluctuations are very similar due to the narrow radial region being considered. This also reduces the risk of the analysis being affected by non-linear effects, since no comparison is made between different regions of the wavenumber spectrum. \\
\section{Characterization of potential drives for turbulence}\label{drives}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig4_a.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Core fluctuations as a function of local values of normalized gradients. From left to right, normalized gradients of density, electron temperature and ion temperature. Colors and symbols indicate discharge family and representative shots, as in figure \ref{fig1}. }}
\label{fig4_a}
\end{figure}
Once fluctuations and profiles have been independently characterized, the relation between them can be addressed by relating fluctuation levels to the different elements potentially driving or suppressing turbulence. In figure \ref{fig4_a} the relation to local gradients is shown, with $S$ measurements from all three families of discharges represented as a function of normalized gradients of $n_e$, $T_e$ and $T_i$. As can be seen, the marked decrease of fluctuations in low density ECRH discharges observed in figure \ref{fig3b} can not be associated to any substantial differences in the gradients with respect to the high density ones: both groups share very similar, low values of density gradient, $a/L_n < 0.5$, with the former featuring higher values of $a/L_{T_e}$ and also slightly lower values of $a/L_{T_i}$. In NBI discharges, the second phase (full NBI+ECRH power, displayed as orange squares) features similar levels of fluctuations to those of high density ECRH discharges, and consistently, present very similar gradient values as that sub-group. Instead, in the third phase (reduced ECRH phase, displayed as red squares), the substantial decrease of fluctuations coincides with a clear increase of $n_e$ and $T_i$ gradients, as well as a more moderate decrease of $a/L_{T_e}$, consistent with the reduction of electron heating. Finally, the strong suppression of turbulence measured in HP discharges follows the trends observed for the NBI discharges in density and ion temperatures, with steeper profiles and higher normalized gradients as well as even lower fluctuation amplitudes.\\
These trends become more clear when fluctuations are represented as a function of both $a/L_n$ and $a/L_{T_i}$, as in figure \ref{fig4_b}: as can be seen, each of the families is neatly separated in a different region of the parameter space (highlighted in the figure with colored globes). In general, it can be said that the increase of density gradients for NBI and HP regimes is substantially stronger than that of $a/L_{T_i}$, leading to a clear trend of increasing fluctuations with the gradient ratio parameter $\eta_i = L_n/L_{T_i}$. This fact, highlighted by a few dashed lines indicating selected values of $\eta_i$ in the plot, is perfectly consistent with ITG turbulence expectations, as will be discussed in section \ref{discussion}. There is however, one exception to this general trend, which is represented to the group of low $S$ points in the lower left corner of the ECRH group. As can be deduced from the values presented in figure \ref{fig4_a}, these points correspond to the low density ECRH discharges. In this case, the reduction of fluctuation amplitude seems to be related to a different physical process as their $\eta_i$ values are rather similar, if not greater than the ones corresponding to high density ECRH shots, featuring high $S$ values. This different behaviour will also be addressed in the Discussion.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig4_b.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Fluctuation amplitude (in color), as a function of ion temperature normalized gradients, $a/L_{T_i}$ and $a/L_n$. Symbols represent discharge families (highlighted by colored globes) following previous convention, with solid ones indicating representative discharges. Dashed lines indicate selected values of the $\eta_i = L_n/L_{T_i}$ gradient ratio.}}
\label{fig4_b}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig4_c.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Fluctuation amplitude as a function of the local electron/ion temperature ratio. Symbols and colors represent discharge families and representative discharges following previous convention.}}
\label{fig4_c}
\end{figure}
Besides the value of local gradients, there are at least two other factors potentially influencing the growth of turbulent modes. The first of them is the local $T_e/T_i$ ratio, which is expected to destabilize ITG turbulence. In figure \ref{fig4_c} the measured fluctuation level is represented as a function of this ratio and no clear trends can be extracted from the data: as can be seen in figure \ref{fig2}, $T_e$ never takes values much higher than $T_i$ in the analyzed radial range (although it does for lower values of $\rho$). As a result $T_e/T_i < 1.5$ for the whole data set, and similar values of $T_e/T_i \simeq 1$ can be observed in the rather different high density ECRH and HP phases. Moreover, in the case in which a strongest change of this ratio is observed -low density ECRH discharges-, its increase of up to $50\%$ with respect to high density ECRH discharges corresponds to a strong decrease of fluctuations. This is contrary to expectations based on ITG models and reinforces the idea of some different physical phenomenon being responsible of the turbulence suppression observed in this family of discharges. The radial electric field is a second factor potentially influencing fluctuations, which are represented as a function of the former in figure \ref{fig4_d}. In the top plot, results already shown in figures \ref{fig3a} and \ref{fig3b} are summarized representing $S$ as a function of the local value of $E_r$ (i.e., values at the measurement location, without $|\nabla r|$ normalization to account for flux expansion in the magnetic surface \cite{Carralero20}): for most cases, $E_r$ values remain mostly unrelated to the amplitude of fluctuations, with $S$ changing over one order of magnitude while $E_r$ remains contained in a relatively narrow value range of $-15$ to $-10$ kV/m. Instead, substantially stronger electric fields are measured in the HP discharges, which also feature lower fluctuation amplitudes. In the bottom plot, fluctuations are represented as a function of the minimum value of the $E_r$ profile, which can be seen as a proxy for the corresponding general shearing effect of $E_r$. Although the effect is still weak for all but the HP scenarios, in this case a somewhat clearer trend can be observed, in which fluctuations tend to be reduced as the $E_r$ well deepens. This result is consistent with previous work \cite{Estrada21}, in which this was analyzed in detail by means of global linear gyrokinetic simulations using the code EUTERPE and it was concluded that, while $E_r$ and $E_r$ shear cause a reduction in the growth rate of instabilities, this contribution is small when compared to the effect of local gradients. Previous simulations carried out with the code GENE also found that, while $E_r$ causes a displacement of fluctuations towards regions of the magnetic surface with lower curvature thus contributing to the stabilization of the turbulence in W7-X, this effect is still secondary to the influence of profiles \cite{Xanthopoulos20}.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig4_d.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig4_e.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Fluctuation amplitude as a function of the local/minimum radial electric field (Top/bottom plot). Symbols and colors represent discharge families and representative discharges following previous convention.}}
\label{fig4_d}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}\label{discussion}
The parametric dependencies of density fluctuations described in the previous chapter allow us to define a "baseline scenario", which is found under most operational regimes, including all ECRH heated plasmas beyond a certain density $\bar{n}_0 \simeq 5\cdot 10^{19}$ m$^{-3}$ and also many NBI-heated discharges (including in particular the discharge phases discussed earlier in which NBI power is combined with high levels of ECRH). In it, fluctuations show only a shallow decline towards the core, still having comparatively large amplitudes in the range of $S \simeq -15$ dB at the $0.5 < \rho < 0.6$ region. These discharges are characterized at the core by a relatively flat density profile with rather low $a/L_{n}$ values and core ion temperatures never exceeding the clamping $T_{i,core} \simeq 1.7$ keV, thus featuring also moderate $a/L_{T_i}$ values. However, since the former is flatter than the latter, this leads to rather high values of $\eta_i \simeq 5-10$, which would be consistent with fully developed ITG modes. From this baseline scenario, two different pathways for core turbulence reduction have been observed in the surveyed operational regimes, one of which seems to be consistently related to changes in local values of gradients, while the second does not so clearly.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Fluctuations as a function of the gradient ratio $\eta_i$. Symbols and colors represent discharge families and representative discharges following previous convention. Vertical dashed line indicates the $\eta_i \simeq 5$ threshold discussed in the text.}}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
The first pathway is represented by the third phase of NBI shots (featuring reduced ECRH heating, as seen in figure \ref{fig02}) and HP phases. In both cases, fluctuations are suppressed as density and ion temperature gradients increase. As shown in figure \ref{fig4_b}, the former increases faster than the latter in both cases, leading to a net reduction of $\eta_i$. If fluctuations are represented as a function of $\eta_i$, as is done in figure \ref{fig5}, this effect is manifest: a clear threshold is set between baseline discharges, which have a constant, high level of fluctuations for $\eta_i > 5$, while $S$ falls with $\eta_i$ for $\eta_i < 5$. Again, this behaviour of turbulence would be consistent with that of ITG modes, and the observed reduction in the scattered power measured by the DR would indicate lower turbulence amplitude as the result of the stabilization of such mode following the drop of $\eta_i$, in good agreement with theoretical expectations. According to these data, ITG modes would be destabilized for some value $\eta_{i,c} \leq 2$ out of the measured range, and would saturate for values in the order of $\eta_i \simeq 5$, after which the baseline scenario sets in. Interestingly, this is consistent with linear gyrokinetic simulations carried out for W7-X, yielding an $\eta_{i,c} \simeq 1$ ITG critical threshold when the observed values of $T_e/T_i \simeq 1$ are considered \cite{Zocco18}. In the particular case of the HP discharges, the question remains about whether the strong observed $E_r$ may be also playing a role in the suppression of turbulence. In this sense, it must be noted that NBI and HP discharges seem to follow a common relation with $\eta_i$ despite their rather different $E_r$ values (in particular, it seems clear that $E_r$ does not play a role in the former), in line with the idea of $E_r$ playing a supporting but non-essential role in turbulence suppression as already discussed in the previous section. A word of caution is in order, though: while the different groups seem to be sufficiently separated and the existence of some threshold between them is clear, the quality of the fits to the experimental profiles of density and temperature is probably not enough to attempt a quantitative description. Therefore, exact values such as the $\eta_i = 5$ limit or the apparent value of the $S$ vs. $\eta_i$ slope should be approached with care.\\
The second pathway is represented by low density ECRH discharges. In this case, a reduction of fluctuations is observed without a clear change in the local gradients. In particular, as can be seen in figure \ref{fig5}, these points feature the same or even higher values of $\eta_i$ than those of the high density discharges, and never go below the previously introduced threshold at $\eta_i \simeq 5$. As discussed in the previous section and shown in figures \ref{fig3b} and \ref{fig4_d}, no major changes are observed either in $E_r$ which could justify this reduction, specially in the radial region under discussion. Looking at figure \ref{fig2} it can be seen that the main difference between the two groups of ECRH discharges at the core is that those with lower densities also feature substantially larger $T_e$ values. As a consequence of this, the $T_e/T_i$ ratio is also somewhat increased in them as shown in figure \ref{fig4_c}, which makes once again the reduction of fluctuations inconsistent with the expectations for ITG turbulence. Another consequence of the lower densities and higher electron temperatures is that electron collisionality, $\nu_{e} \propto n_eT_e^{-3/2}$ is substantially lower in this group of discharges. This points towards another possible explanation for the observed suppression of turbulence: since a strong $a/L_{T_e}$ is present in all the ECRH scenarios (specially so in the low density ECRH discharges), a reduction of collisionality below a certain threshold might destabilize some TEM which would then become the dominant turbulent mode at the expense of the ITG. As discussed in the Introduction, such process has been reported in tokamaks and supported by gyrokinetic GS2 simulations \cite{Ryter05}. In order to assess the stabilizing effect of collisionality on TEMs in the described discharges, a normalized electron frequency $\nu_e^* := \nu_{eff} \tau_{o}$ can be defined, where $\nu_{eff} := \nu_{e} R/a$ is the effective collision frequency of trapped electrons, $\tau_{o}^{-1} \simeq \epsilon^{1/2} v_{th,e}/R$ is the typical trapped electron orbit time, $v_{th,e}$ is the thermal velocity of electrons and $\epsilon = a/R$ is the inverse aspect ratio. If $\nu_e^* \ll 1$, trapped electrons may complete their orbits unimpeded by collisions thus allowing the onset of TEM turbulence, which is suppressed by collisionality otherwise.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Fluctuation amplitude (in color) as a function of gradient ratio $\eta_i$ and collisionality ratio $\nu^*_{e}$. Symbols represent discharge families following previous convention, with solid ones indicating representative discharges. Dashed lines represent the thresholds $\eta_i \simeq 5$ and $\nu^*_{e} \simeq 0.35$, discussed in the text. }}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
In order to discuss this effect, fluctuations are represented in figure \ref{fig6} as a function of $\eta_i$ and $\nu^*_{e}$. As can be seen, fluctuation amplitude is now well classified in four quarters, separated by two threshold vales. The first is the $\eta_i \simeq 5$ threshold already discussed in figure \ref{fig5}, and separates third phase NBI and HP points from the rest of the database. However, when considering ECRH discharges, a very clear second threshold appears at $\nu^*_{e} \simeq 0.35$, which effectively separates high density ECRH discharges, featuring strong fluctuations, and low density ECRH ones, for which turbulence is suppressed. This sharp separation of the two groups of points, along with the reasonable value of the threshold and the already discussed different behaviour of the low ECRH discharges, is a strong indication that this reduction might be caused by a transition from ITG-dominated to TEM-dominated turbulence. The general implications of such transition would be rather complex and are out of the scope of the present work. However, it could have some effects which would lead to a clear reduction in the fluctuations, as observed by the DR (although, not necessarily to a global reduction of turbulence or turbulent transport):
In particular, the region in real space with the most unstable modes would move away from the outer midplane of the bean section being probed by the DR -and where ITG modes are destabilized-, to regions with higher trapped electron fractions, which are generally away from the measurement zone \cite{Proll13}. In any case, while this hypothesis seems reasonable and could explain the observed phenomena, either further empirical evidence or realistic simulations of the two regimes carried out with some gyrokinetic code including kinetic electrons would be required to confirm it. This is left for future work.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Core ion temperature as a function of fluctuations at the measurement region $0.5 < \rho < 0.6$. Symbols and colors represent discharge families and representative discharges following previous convention. Dashed line represents the $T_{i,core} \simeq 1.7$ limit discussed in the Introduction. Black and blue arrows indicate the two pathways to turbulence reduction, respectively as a result of the decline of $\eta_i$ and $\nu_{e}$.}}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Regarding the relation between turbulence suppression and the global performance of W7-X, some preliminary observations can already be made from the data discussed so far. In particular, it can be seen how turbulence suppression is observed in all regimes in which the $T_{i,core} \simeq 1.7$ limit is exceeded: in figure \ref{fig7}, $T_{i,core}$ is represented as a function of the turbulence levels in the analyzed region $0.5 < \rho < 0.6$, and the same trend discussed in figure \ref{fig5} can be seen in it, going from baseline cases into third phase NBI ones (which go slightly over the threshold) and eventually into the HP shots, which clearly overpass the clamping. This result, which could be extended to less frequent situations in which this limit is surpassed such as the deliberate injection of Boron \cite{Lunsford21}, suggests that the local drop of turbulence observed by the DR when $\eta_i$ is reduced is representative of a global suppression of turbulent transport, leading to an enhanced performance of the machine. Finally, the behaviour of the $\eta_i$-suppression is in contrast with that of the $\nu_{e}$-suppression: low density ECRH discharges also display a strong suppression of turbulence, but it does not lead to high $T_{i,core}$ values, supporting the hypothesis of a change in the kind of turbulence rather than a global suppression. This picture is however somewhat complicated by the transient nature of the $T_{i,core}$ improvement in the NBI discharges: the continued increase of density observed in that example leads to the reversal to $T_{i,core} \leq 1.7$ keV below the clamping limit while $a/L_n$ increases, keeping low values of $\eta_i$ and, in good agreement with the ITG suppression hypothesis, consequently also low values of fluctuations. This way, the stabilization of the ITG and the subsequent reduction of turbulent transport would be a necessary condition for the achievement of high ion temperatures at the core, but might require additional conditions related to the heating and fueling conditions (which, as explained earlier, are substantially different in NBI scenarios). In order to clarify this point, the relation between local fluctuations and global turbulent transport will need to be systematically assessed for the discussed scenarios. This task will be addressed in a forthcoming work. \\
In conclusion, we have created a database of DR measurements of ion-scale turbulence from the core of W7-X, representative of a number of relevant scenarios carried out in the standard configuration during the last experimental campaign. These measurements have then been cross-referenced with local measurements of gradients and other parameters potentially influencing the stability of turbulent modes, such as the $T_e/T_i$ ratio, $E_r$ and its shear. By doing so, we have identified a number of different scenarios with respect to core turbulence amplitude: first, there is common scenario (thus designated as "baseline") found under most ECRH gas puffing and many NBI discharges, in which both fluctuation amplitude and $\eta_i$ are high, and $T_{i,core} \leq 1.7$ keV. Therefore, and taking into account that fluctuation measurements come from the region of bad curvature, this is considered consistent with ITG-dominated turbulence. Also in good agreement with such conclusion, amplitude of density fluctuations is observed to drop clearly as $\eta_i \lesssim 5$ in the high performance phase (ECRH heating after pellets) and one NBI scenario featuring limited ECRH heating. In this case, temperature ratio and $E_r$ seem to play a secondary role, but behave according to expectations. Other family of discharges also show a strong reduction of fluctuations when density is reduced in ECRH plasmas. In this case, neither $\eta_i$ nor $E_r$ seem to change substantially, and $T_e/T_i$ is actually increased (which should lead to a further destabilization of an ITG mode). Instead, it is found that this suppression is related to a $\nu^*_{e} \simeq 0.35$ collisionality threshold, therefore suggesting a possible ITG to TEM transition changing the region in which modes destabilize preferentially and moving it away from the DR measurement zone. Finally, it can be stated that for all scenarios in which the usual $T_{i,core} \simeq 1.7$ keV is exceeded, a reduction of turbulence is observed in the $0.5 < \rho < 0.6$ region following a clear reduction in the local value of $\eta_{i}$, experimentally validating the idea that the temperature clamping is associated to turbulent transport and pointing towards the suppression of ITG turbulence as a necessary condition mechanism for it. This will be studied at length in a forthcoming work which will deal with the relation between observed fluctuations and turbulent transport, thus trying to provide a solid link between different scenarios of operation in W7-X and microturbulence behaviour, and contributing to the design of future experiments in which transport can be kept under control and projected core temperatures eventually achieved.\\
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge the entire W7-X team for their support. This work has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under contract number FIS2017-88892-P and partially supported by grant ENE2015-70142-P, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain and by grant PGC2018-095307-B-I00, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spain. This work has been sponsored in part by the Comunidad de Madrid under projects 2017-T1/AMB-5625 and Y2018/NMT [PROMETEO-CM]. This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 and 2019-2020 under grant agreement No 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.\\
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of the non-equilibrium dynamics of one-dimensional many-body quantum systems covers a large portion of the statistical physics literature (both theoretical and experimental) of the last twenty years. This field has seen the important development of new exotic physics, see e.g.~\cite{Odor2004,Dziarmaga2010,pem-16,Polkovnikov2011,Bertini2021} for modern reviews-- and within it, the search for analytical results has always been strongly sought. The knowledge of exact results is the cornerstone of clear interpretations of general physical mechanisms involved in non-equilibrium settings and, it can furthermore be used to test new algorithms for the numerical simulations of more involved models, where analytical results are not available. Out-of-equilibrium statistical mechanics has led over the last decade to important developments such as the concept of of generalized Gibbs ensembles \cite{Rigol2007,Rigol2008,vr-16} and subsequently to the emergence of generalized hydrodynamics (GHD) \cite{Bertini2016,Castro-Alvaredo2016}. Equipped with these tools, it is nowadays possible to obtain exact results for the out-of-equilibrium evolution of conserved charges and currents \cite{Bertini2016,Castro-Alvaredo2016,Piroli2017,Bulchandani2017,DeLuca2017,Doyon2017,DeLuca2017b,Bulchandani2018,Doyon2018,Bastianello2019,Mestyan2019, Schemmer2019,Bastianello2020a,Ruggiero2020,Malvania2020,Bouchoule2020a} as well as correlation functions \cite{Doyon2018,Perfetto2020,Moller2020,d-ls} and transport properties (such as Drude weights \cite{Ilievski2017,Bertini2021}) of a large number of integrable models, see also \cite{Bertini2021,Alba2021,d-ls} as recent reviews. The transport properties of one-dimensional quantum systems has been also investigated using non-homogeneous (1+1) dimensional conformal field-theories, see \cite{sc-08,Dubail2017,Brun2017,Brun2018,Langmann2019,Moosavi2019,Ruggiero2019,Scopa2020,Collura2020,Gluza2020}.
In non-interacting models, another recent effort was conducted to classify universal results with the use of random matrix theory\cite{Dean2019,Dean2018,Smith2020,Gautie2021,DeBruyne2021}.
{Distinctive non-equilibrium features are usually and simply encoded into the entanglement entropy dynamics, which however is difficult
to characterize from ab-initio calculations}, due to its computational complexity.
{The} case of {\it global} quantum quenches \cite{Calabrese2006,Calabrese2007a},
where the out-of-equilibrium {dynamics is initiated} by a sudden variation of one or more Hamiltonian parameters {homogeneously},
{can be studied in integrable models} using the quench-action formalism \cite{Caux2013,Brockmann2014,Ilievski2015,Caux2016},
through which time-dependent out-of-equilibrium quantities are derived under the assumption that relevant states are found in the vicinity of the saddle point of a certain functional.
In {this} global quench setting, the {\it linear} growth of the entanglement entropy is well captured by the quasi-particle picture \cite{Calabrese2005,Alba2017,ac-18,c-20}, where one assumes that quasi-particles emitted from different points are unentangled while pairs of quasi-particles emitted from the same point are entangled and, as they move far apart, they are responsible for the spreading entanglement and correlations throughout the entire system. This construction has proved to be fruitful to the point that it has been extended to non-homogeneous settings, by incorporating GHD in its most recent formulation \cite{bfpc-18,Alba2019,a-19}. The situation is different for {\it local} quenches, where a slower -- and typically {\it logarithmic} -- growth of entanglement is expected, see e.g.~\cite{Calabrese2007,Eisler2008,Eisler2009,Igloi2009,Stephan2011,cc-13,Calabrese2016}.
{Halfway} between these two scenarios, a peculiar class of quantum quenches is that of bi-partitioning protocols see e.g.~\cite{Antal1999,Karevski2002,Vicari2012,Alba2014,chl-08,Allegra2016,Castro-Alvaredo2016,Dubail2017,Bertini2016,DeLuca2017,DeLuca2017b,Piroli2017,Bertini2018,Gruber2019,Collura2020}, where a logarithmic growth of entanglement \cite{Vicari2012,Dubail2017,Alba2014,Gruber2019,Collura2020} is associated with the integrability of the model. In this context, a remarkable example is the time-evolution of a domain-wall state $\ket{\uparrow\dots\uparrow\downarrow\dots\downarrow}$ of a spin chain model or equivalently a fermionic chain filled entirely on one of its halves, whose properties (conserved charges and entanglement respectively) have been fully characterized in both the non-interacting \cite{Antal1999,Karevski2002,Lancaster2010,Allegra2016,Dubail2017} and interacting \cite{DeLuca2017,Collura2020} cases. A similar non-equilibrium setting consists in joining a spin chain having a state $\ket{\psi}$ with a non-saturated value of magnetization {(typically the ground state)}, to another spin chain in a ferromagnetic reference state, e.g. $\ket{\psi}\otimes\ket{\downarrow\dots\downarrow}$
{(in some literature this protocol is known as a geometric quench \cite{mpc-10,Alba2014,Gruber2019}).
This setup has been studied intensively in the past} and the exact expressions for the conserved charges and current profiles have been found
for a spin-1/2 ${\rm xxz}$ model both in the free \cite{Antal1999,Antal2008} and interacting \cite{Gruber2019} cases.
{Very recently, it was also shown that initial quantum correlations can suppress particle transport \cite{Jin2021}.}
On the other hand, {so far the exact evolution of the entanglement entropy has been only conjectured} on the basis of heuristic arguments and numerical results \cite{Vicari2012,Alba2014,Gruber2019}.
In this work, we analytically investigate the evolution of the entanglement entropy of the initial state $\ket{\psi}\otimes \ket{\downarrow\dots\downarrow}$, focusing on the
non-interacting spin-$1/2$ {\rm xx} chain. Throughout the rest of the paper, we shall follow an equivalent interpretation of this setup in terms of a quantum gas made of hard-core particles (free spinless Fermi gas or, equivalently, hard-core bosons) at zero temperature. In particular, the gas is initially confined in the region $[-L,0]$ by a box potential with infinitely high edges. At $t=0$, the right wall is switched off and the gas is let free to expand to the right hand side of the system.
{This is nothing but a quantum version of the textbook Joule expansion}.
The quantum gas is studied at hydrodynamic scales where the post-quench evolution of the model is suitable described in terms of the Wigner function. The latter satisfies a simple transport equation that provides a very-intuitive interpretation of the non-equilibrium dynamics in phase-space. This semi-classical picture is then complemented with quantum fluctuations of the Fermi contour \cite{Ruggiero2019,Ruggiero2020}, described in terms of a Luttinger-liquid model \cite{Cazalilla2004,Giamarchi2007}.
The computation of the entanglement entropy requires instead the use of conformal-field theory (CFT) and a regularization of the initial state in the phase-space,
whose details are provided in the main text.
Within this framework, we find an analytical expression for the entanglement entropy evolution which {does not depend on the used regularization}.
Moreover, our formula predicts an asymptotic growth of the entanglement entropy at position $x=0$ as $S_1(0,t)\sim\frac{1}{4}\log t$, in contrast with the typical $\frac{1}{6}\log t$ growth which is found for an initial domain-wall state \cite{Dubail2017,Collura2020}.
The {study of the} interacting case goes beyond the scope of this work and will be therefore addressed in a subsequent publication \cite{next-pub}.
\paragraph{Outline.}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:model}, we introduce the lattice model and set up the {considered quench protocol}.
Moreover, we summarize the previous results in literature for the entanglement entropy {and compare them} with the exact prediction obtained in this work. Section~\ref{sec:hydro-limit} is dedicated to the hydrodynamic limit of the problem. After defining the model at hydrodynamic scales, we proceed by introducing the Wigner function of the coarse-grained model and with it, we establish a semi-classical hydrodynamic description of the time evolution in phase-space. Afterwards, we incorporate quantum fluctuations on top of the classical hydrodynamic background by introducing density fluctuating fields, whose dynamics is governed by a Luttinger-liquid theory.
In Section~\ref{sec:entanglement}, we explain the strategy of the computation of the entanglement entropy using a CFT approach. Here one can find the details of the derivation, including the regularization, in the CFT sense, of the initial problem.
Several numerical {exact calculations} have been performed to test and complement our findings. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} contains our conclusions as well as a few outlooks. Technical details on the {numerics} and further analysis on the entanglement evolution can be found in two appendices, \ref{app:numerics} and \ref{app:param-Jerome}.
\section{Setup and main result \label{sec:model}}
\subsection{The model: free expansion of {a} lattice hard-core gas}
We consider a semi-infinite one-dimensional lattice $j\in[-L,+\infty]$ loaded with hard-core particles with nearest-neighbor hopping and coupled to a potential $V$, described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{free-gas}
\Ha= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=-L}^{+\infty} \left(\hat{c}_j^\dagger \hat{c}_{j+1} + \hat{c}_{j+1}^\dagger \hat{c}_j \right) \, + \, \sum_{j=-L}^{+\infty} V_j\ \hat{c}_j^\dagger \hat{c}_{j} .
\end{equation}
Here the creation and annihilation operators $\hat{c}^\dagger_j$ and $\hat{c}_j$ are lattice fermion operators that satisfy the canonical anti-commutation rule, $\{ \hat{c}_i , \hat{c}_j^\dagger \} = \delta_{ij}$. It is well known that this model is equivalent to hard-core bosons, or, also, to the spin-$1/2$ ${\rm xx}$ chain
\begin{equation}\label{xx-model}
\Ha= - \frac{1}{4} \sum_{j=-L}^{+\infty} \left(\hat{\sigma}^x_j \hat{\sigma}^x_{j+1} + \hat{\sigma}^y_j\hat{\sigma}^y_{j+1}\right) \, + \, \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=-L}^{+\infty} V_j \ssz_j \, + \, {\rm constant}
\end{equation}
where $\hat\sigma_j^{a}$, $a=x,y,z$, are spin-$1/2$ operators acting at site $j$. Both forms of the Hamiltonian are related through the Jordan-Wigner transformation \cite{Jordan1928}
\begin{equation}
\hat{c}_j^\dagger= \exp\left(\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}} \pi \sum_{i<j} \hat{\sigma}^+_i\hat{\sigma}^-_i\right) \hat{\sigma}^+_j ,
\end{equation}
where $\hat\sigma^\pm_j=(\hat{\sigma}^x_j\pm \ensuremath{\mathbf{i}} \hat{\sigma}^y_j)/2$.
We assume that the gas is initially in the ground state of the Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas} with the infinite-wall potential
\begin{equation}\label{potential}
t<0: \qquad V_j \, = \, \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
0 &{\rm if}& j \in[-L,-1] \\
+\infty &{\rm if} & j\geq 0 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
In the absence of an additional chemical potential, the ground state {(in the grand canonical ensemble where the particle number is not a priori fixed)}
contains exactly $L/2$ particles (we assume $L$ is even). This can be easily seen by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian~\eqref{free-gas} with the potential \eqref{potential},
\begin{equation}
\Ha_{t<0} =- \sum_k \cos(k)\; \hat\eta_k^\dagger \hat\eta_k,
\end{equation}
with Fourier modes of momentum $k= \pi q/(L+1)$, $q=1,\dots, L$, given as
\begin{equation}
\hat\eta_k^\dagger= \sqrt{\frac{2}{L+1}} \sum_{j=-L}^{-1} \sin \left( k j \right) \hat{c}_j^\dagger,\qquad \{ \hat{\eta}_k^\dagger, \hat{\eta}_{k'} \}=\delta_{kk'}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, the single-particle energy $-\cos(k)$ is negative for $q=1, \dots,L/2$, so the ground state is obtained by acting on the fermion vacuum $ \left| 0 \right>$ with those single-particle creation modes, $\hat{\eta}_1^\dagger \hat{\eta}_2^\dagger \dots \hat{\eta}_{\nicefrac{L}{2}}^\dagger \left| 0 \right>$.
Then, at times $t>0$, the infinite wall at the origin is switched off,
\begin{equation}
t>0: \qquad V_j \, = \, 0,
\end{equation}
and the gas expands freely to the right, see Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}{\bf(a)}.
In the hydrodynamic limit $L\to \infty$, $t \rightarrow \infty$, $ j \rightarrow \infty $ with $t\leq L$ and $j/t$ fixed (see Sec.~\ref{sec:hydro-limit}), the density profile is modified in the region $-t\leq j \leq t$ according to~\cite{Antal1999,Antal2008}
\begin{equation}\label{dens-intro}
\rho(j,t) \, = \, \frac{1}{2\pi} {\rm arccos} \frac{j}{t},
\end{equation}
at times $0<t \leq L$. Thus, as the gas expands, the initially correlated region propagates towards the right hand side with a non-homogeneous profile, {spreading the
entanglement on the right side}. In particular, in this paper we will focus on the growth of the $\alpha$-R\'enyi entropy of the reduced density matrix of the subsytem $A= [j,+\infty]$,
\begin{equation}
S_\alpha(j,t)= \frac{1}{1-\alpha} \log \tr \ (\hat{\rho}_A(t) )^\alpha
\end{equation}
and to its limit $\alpha \to 1$, where it reduces to the Von Neumann entanglement entropy
\begin{equation}
S_1(j,t)= - \tr \hat{\rho}_A(t) \log \hat{\rho}_A(t).
\end{equation}
{The large-scale properties of the Von Neumann and R\'enyi entropy will be accessed exploiting} the hydrodynamic property of the quantum gas \eqref{free-gas}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{protocol_v2.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{S-exact4.pdf}\\
{\bf(a)} \hspace{5cm} {\bf (b)}\\
\caption{{\bf (a)} {\bf Illustration of the setup}: free expansion of a lattice gas at zero temperature, initially confined in the box $[-L,0]$. At $t=0$ the infinite wall at $j=0$ is removed, and for $t>0$ the gas freely expands to the right. During the expansion, the gas is inhomogeneous, with a density that depends on position $j$ and $t$, depicted with a light-blue area in the figure. The exact density profile was first computed in Refs.~\cite{Antal1999,Antal2008}.
{\bf (b)} The main result of this paper is the exact evolution of the entanglement entropy $S_1(j,t)$ of the subsystem $A = [j, + \infty]$, obtained by tracing
out the subsystem $B = [-L,j-1]$.
The black circles correspond to the exact {numerical results} for a lattice of size $2L$ (see text), while the colored curves are the analytic formula~\eqref{solution}.
For simplicity, we restrict to times $t \leq L$ (see text).
}\label{fig:summary}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Previous results in the literature}
We briefly {recap} the previous results in {the} literature for the entanglement evolution in the {free gas expansion} setup discussed in the previous section.
To our best knowledge, a first analysis {was performed} in Ref.~\cite{Alba2014}, where a conjectured formula for the asymptotic growth
{of the half system entanglement (i.e. $j=0$) matched very well the numerical data}.
This conjecture has been then extended in Ref.~\cite{Gruber2019} {to} the following ansatz for the entire entanglement profile
\begin{equation}\label{Eisler-ansatz}
S^{\rm ansatz}_1(j,t)=\frac{1}{6}\log\left(\frac{L}{\pi} \sin\left(\frac{\pi(t-j)}{2L}\right)\right) +\frac{1}{12}\log\left((t-j)(1-\frac{j^2}{t^2})\right)+\kappa
\end{equation}
{expected to hold for any} $|j|< t$. {Here} $\kappa$ is an additive constant treated as a fitting parameter.
{For $j=0$, Eq. \eqref{Eisler-ansatz} reduces to the one of} Ref.~\cite{Alba2014}.
As argued below, Eq.~\eqref{Eisler-ansatz} provides a good {description} of the entanglement entropy, but it is different from the exact result obtained in this work.
\subsection{Main result of this paper}
The main result of this paper is an exact asymptotic formula for the entanglement entropy of the subsystem $A=[j,+\infty]$ at time $t$ in the hydrodynamic limit,
\begin{equation}\label{solution}
\begin{split}
&S_1(j,t)=\\
&\begin{cases} \frac{1}{6}\log
\left(\frac{L}{2\pi}{\sqrt{\left|\frac{j}{t}-t(1-\frac{j^2}{t^2})\right|}} \ \left|\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{j^2}{t^2}}}-{\rm sign}(j)\sqrt{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{j^2}{t^2}}}\right| \left|\sin(\frac{\pi(j-t)}{2L}) \right| \right)+\Upsilon \\[4pt]
\hspace{13.3cm} \text{if $|j|< t$};\\[8pt]
\frac{1}{6}\log\left({\frac{L}{\pi}}\left|\sin\frac{\pi j}{L}\right|\right) +\Upsilon \qquad \text{if $j\leq-t$};\\[8pt]
0, \qquad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Upsilon\simeq 0.49502$ is a known non-universal constant\cite{Jin2004}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:summary}{\bf(b)}, we show the result in Eq.~\eqref{solution} compared
with exact {numerical results}. Importantly, taking $j=0$ in our formula, we find that the entanglement entropy grows as
\begin{equation}\label{asy-prediction}
S_1(0,t) \, = \, \frac{1}{4} \log t , \qquad {\rm for } \quad L \gg t,
\end{equation}
in agreement with the numerical observation of Refs.~\cite{Alba2014,Gruber2019}. We stress that, although logarithmic dependence on time or system size of the entanglement entropy is a ubiquitous phenomenon in one-dimensional quantum critical systems, the coefficient $\frac{1}{4}$ is very unusual in a system with central charge $c=1$. To our knowledge, the calculation we present in this paper is the first analytical derivation of that unusual prefactor $\frac{1}{4}$.
Our exact analytical formula \eqref{solution} also shows that, beyond the special case $j=0$, the result of Ref.~\cite{Gruber2019} for the entanglement profile is not correct, although, numerically, the ansatz in Eq.~\eqref{Eisler-ansatz} is quite close to \eqref{solution}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{comparison_v2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:comparison} Comparison between our exact result in Eq.~\eqref{solution} ({full line}) and the result of Ref.~\cite{Gruber2019} in Eq.~\eqref{Eisler-ansatz} ({dot-dashed line}), where $\kappa$ has been fixed with a best-fit of \eqref{Eisler-ansatz}.
Although the two curves are numerically very close, our result \eqref{solution} shows a better agreement with the numerics {(symbols)} for any value of $j$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Classical and quantum fluctuating hydrodynamic description}\label{sec:hydro-limit}
We consider a continuous hydrodynamic description of the lattice Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas}. Although it is possible to obtain exact results for several quantities in free Fermi models within their lattice formulation, the hydrodynamic approach allows {us} to avoid involved calculations and gives an easy access to asymptotically exact results. In addition, as we discuss in Sec.~\ref{sec:entanglement}, it {leads to} exact asymptotic results for the entanglement entropy evolution, whose lattice derivation is generically very demanding and, for {our} problem, it is out-of-reach with known techniques {(although results for the stationary states in similar settings
may be worked out, see e.g. \cite{fg-21})}. Therefore, throughout the rest of this work we consider the hydrodynamic limit of the setup of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, keeping its lattice formulation for the numerical test of our results.
\subsection{Continuum limit and regularization of the problem}
We first divide the chain into equally-spaced intervals of size $\Delta x=M\delta$, each of them containing a large number $M\gg 1$ of lattice sites, where $\delta$ is the lattice spacing. The continuum limit consists in having the double limit $\delta\to 0$, $\Delta x\to 0$ keeping the ratio $\Delta x/\delta=M$ fixed. The lattice site $j$ is subsequently replaced by a continuous variable $x=j\delta\in\mathbb{R}$ and the Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas} can be further written as \cite{Wendenbaum2013}
\begin{equation}\label{xx-confined-continuum}
\Ha=\int_{-L}^{+\infty} \mathrm{d} x \ \int_{0}^{\Delta x} \frac{\mathrm{d} y}{\delta \ \Delta x} \ \left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{c}^\dagger_{x+y} \ \hat{c}_{x+y-\delta} +{\rm h.c.} \right) + \hat{c}_{x+y}^\dagger \ V(x) \ \hat{c}_{x+y} \right],
\end{equation}
with continuous fermionic fields $\hat{c}^\dagger_x\equiv\hat{c}^\dagger_{j\delta}=\hat{c}^\dagger_j$, $(\hat{c}^\dagger_x)^\dagger=\hat{c}_x$.
{The hydrodynamic limit above corresponds} to a description of the model over mesoscopic scales such that $L\gg \Delta x \gg \delta$. Moreover, in writing Eq.~\eqref{xx-confined-continuum}, we assumed that the potential is varying slowly enough to be considered constant in each cell of size $\Delta x$, i.e. $V(x+y)\simeq V(x)$ for each $y\in[x,x+\Delta x]$. This in turns requires a regularization of the infinite-wall potential \eqref{potential} that we replace with
\begin{equation}\label{exp-potential}
V(x)= \exp(\beta x), \qquad \beta>0 .
\end{equation}
We further consider the double scaling limit where $\beta\to\infty$, $\Delta x\to 0$ keeping $\beta \Delta x \ll 1$ in such a way that the potential reproduces a infinite-wall confinement at large scales but it can be still considered to be constant inside each coarse-grained interval $\Delta x$. Such assumption is generically referred to as {\it scale separation hypothesis} \cite{Wendenbaum2013,Allegra2016,Dubail2017,Brun2017,Brun2018,Ruggiero2019,Bastianello2020,Scopa2020,Ruggiero2020}. It is then easy to see that
{the limit} $\beta \to \infty$ corresponds to
\begin{equation}\label{beta-limit}
\beta \to \frac{1}{\Delta x} \sim \frac{1}{\delta}\ ,
\end{equation}
since $\delta$ sets the UV scale of the problem. With this choice, the ground state of the {trapped} gas in Eq.~\eqref{xx-confined-continuum} reproduces the ground state of the lattice Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas} in the appropriate scaling limit. At time $t=0$, the trap $V$ is suddenly removed and the system evolves according to the Hamiltonian dynamics.
{An} equivalent hydrodynamic description of the model can be achieved by considering the scaling limit $L\to\infty$, $j\to\infty$, $t\to \infty$ at fixed ratio $j/t$. From this perspective, all the quantities are measured in units of $\delta$ and the parameter $\beta$ in Eq.~\eqref{beta-limit} is thought as a constant $\sim{\cal O}(1)$. The infinite-wall limit of the model is then recovered asymptotically for $L\to \infty$. Although the two hydrodynamic limits of the Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas} are equivalent, we will make use of the former, treating $\beta$ as a tunable parameter at large (but fixed) $L$ for the rest of the work, while, we keep the latter only for a direct comparison with numerical {calculations}.
Moreover, for a better exposition, we write the rescaled time variable {as} $\tau\equiv t \delta$, keeping the notation $t$ for the time measured in $\delta$ units.
\subsection{Classical hydrodynamic description}\label{sec:hydro-classical}
At hydrodynamic scales, the gas in each coarse-grained point $x$ is assumed to be the eigenstate of a system in a periodic box of size $\Delta x$. It follows that the Hamiltonian \eqref{xx-confined-continuum} can be diagonalized in Fourier space
\begin{equation}
\Ha=\int_{-L}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} x \; \int_{-\pi}^\pi \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2\pi} \left[V(x)- \cos k\right] \ \hat\eta^\dagger_{k,x} \ \hat\eta_{k,x},
\end{equation}
with Fourier modes
\begin{equation}
\hat{c}^\dagger_{x+y}=\int_{-\pi}^\pi \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2\pi} \ e^{\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}} k y} \;\hat\eta^\dagger_{k,x} \qquad \hat\eta_{k,x}=(\hat\eta^\dagger_{k,x})^\dagger.
\end{equation}
Its ground state is populated by particles of momentum $|k|\leq k_F(x)$, where $k_F$ is the local Fermi momentum obtained from the semi-classical energy
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon(x,k)=-\cos k + V(x)
\end{equation}
as
\begin{equation}\label{kF-initial}
k_F(x)=\arccos V(x).
\end{equation}
The left hand side of the system $x\in [-L,0]$ is initially populated by modes $k$ such that $k\leq k_F(x)$, while the right hand side $x\in (0,+\infty)$ is characterized by the absence of particles. At times $\tau\geq 0$, each mode $k$ propagates ballistically with a constant velocity $v(k)=\sin k$, due to the non-interacting nature of the system. From this simple picture one can conclude that the modes $k$ found around a spatial point $x$ at time $\tau$ are those emitted from a position $x_0$ such that the equation of motion
\begin{equation}\label{eq-of-motion}
x=x_0+ v(k) \ \tau
\end{equation}
is satisfied. Moreover, the particles spreading is bounded by the propagation velocity of the fastest modes $k=\pm \pi/2$, {$|v(\pm\pi/2)|=1$, which
define the {\it light-cone region} $|x/\tau|\leq 1 $}, outside of which the system keeps its initial configuration. Close to the light-cone, there is a boundary layer of width $x/\tau \pm 1\sim \tau^{-2/3}$ which allows the matching of the physics of the bulk of the light-cone with the one outside of it \cite{Eisler2013,Moriya2019, Jin2021}. We mention that within our hydrodynamic approach it is possible to establish the correct behavior also in this layer, see e.g.~\cite{Bettelheim2011,Bettelheim2012,Allegra2016}, but this analysis goes beyond the scope of this paper.
Hence, from Eq.~\eqref{eq-of-motion} one finds that the allowed modes $k$ at position $x$ and time $\tau$ are those belonging to the interval $[k_F^-, k_F^+]$, where the Fermi points $k_F^\pm$ correspond to particles initially emitted at positions $x_0^\pm$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{kF-def}
k_F^\pm(x,\tau) =\arcsin\frac{x-x_0^\pm}{\tau}.
\end{equation}
Since the momentum of the excitations is conserved during the time evolution, we can further impose that $|k_F^\pm|=\arccos V(x_0^\pm)$, obtaining
\begin{equation}\label{self-const}
\frac{(x-x_0^\pm)^2}{\tau^2}= 1-V(x_0^\pm)^2=1-\exp\left(2\beta x_0^\pm\right)
\end{equation}
which can be solved numerically for the initial position $x_0^\pm$ of the Fermi points $k_F^\pm$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:roots}. Notice that equation~\eqref{self-const} has always two solutions for $x\leq \tau$ and zero solution when $x>\tau$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{roots-finding2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:roots} Graphical solution of Eq.~\eqref{self-const} for a given value of $x$, $\tau$. In the figure, the two roots $x_0^\pm(x,\tau)$ (dashed vertical lines) has been numerically computed for $x=5$, $\tau=10$ and $\beta=1$.}
\end{figure}
By summing up each individual contribution coming from a filled mode at $x/\tau$, one can obtain several quantities {of interest}, as for instance the particle density profile during the gas expansion
\begin{equation}\label{dens-hydro}
\rho(|x/\tau|\leq1)=\int_{k_F^-}^{k_F^+} \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2\pi}=\frac{k_F^+(x,\tau)-k_F^-(x,\tau)}{2\pi},
\end{equation}
which reduces to Eq.~\eqref{dens-intro} in the case of an infinite-wall, see \cite{Antal1999,Antal2008}.
Such semi-classical description of the gas at hydrodynamic scales can be equivalently described in terms of the occupation number $W(x,k)$ of each Fourier mode $\hat\eta^\dagger_{k,x}$ inside the fluid cell $[x,x+\Delta x]$, which is nothing but the Wigner function of the non-interacting Fermi gas \cite{Wigner1997}, see also \cite{Hinarejos2012}. It is defined in terms of the fermionic creation and annihilation operators as
\begin{equation}
W(x,k)=\int_0^{\Delta x} \frac{\mathrm{d} y}{\delta \ \Delta x}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d} q \ e^{\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}} k q} \; \braket{ \hat{c}^\dagger_{\nicefrac{(x+y+q)}{2}}\hat{c}_{\nicefrac{(x+y-q)}{2}}}
\end{equation}
and it carries the physical interpretation of the semi-classical probability of finding a particle in a coarse-grained position $(x,k)$ of the phase space. In terms of the Wigner function, the ground state of the confined gas at $\tau<0$ reads
\begin{equation}\label{W-0}
W(x,k)=\begin{cases} 1 \qquad\text{if $|k|\leq \arccos V(x)$}, \\[4pt] 0 \qquad\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}
\end{equation}
At $\tau >0$, the time-evolution of the Wigner function is given by the Moyal equation \cite{Fagotti2017,Fagotti2020,Moyal1949} and, at lowest order in the $\partial_x$ and $\partial_k$ derivatives, it satisfies the transport equation\cite{Ruggiero2019}
\begin{equation}
\partial_\tau W(x,k,\tau)+\sin k\ \partial_xW(x,k,\tau)=0
\end{equation}
with solution
\begin{equation}\label{W-t}
W(x,k,\tau)= W(x-\tau\sin k,k,0),
\end{equation}
which essentially implements the constraint of Eq.~\eqref{eq-of-motion}. The Wigner function approach allows for a graphical interpretation of the gas expansion in phase-space, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:W-t-HW}.
Notice that the problem under analysis is characterized by the presence of only two Fermi points $k_F^\pm(x,\tau)$ at each time $\tau$ and around each spatial position $x$.
This can be seen from Eq.~\eqref{self-const} but also from Fig.~\ref{fig:W-t-HW}, as any vertical line will have either zero or two intersections with the contour of the Wigner function. Problems for which there are more than two Fermi points have also been considered, see \cite{Ruggiero2020} and references therein.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Wigner-reg.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:W-t-HW}{(Left panel)} Wigner function for the ground state of the confined gas in Eq.~\eqref{xx-confined-continuum} at $\tau=0$ \eqref{W-0} and {(right panel)} for $\tau>0$ \eqref{W-t}. The colored regions show the Wigner function for the potential \eqref{exp-potential} while the dashed lines show the contour of the Wigner function for an infinite-wall confinement \eqref{potential}.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quantum fluctuating hydrodynamics}\label{sec:quantum-fluct-hydro}
We now consider quantum fluctuations around the classical hydrodynamic description presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:hydro-classical}. For a given time $\tau$ and position $x$, it is possible to describe the quantum fluctuations around a classical configuration by introducing the density fluctuating-field $\hat\phi$ \cite{Brun2017,Brun2018,Ruggiero2019}
\begin{equation}
\delta\hat\rho(x,\tau)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\ \partial_x \hat\phi(x,\tau)
\end{equation}
in such a way that the semi-classical density profile in Eq.~\eqref{dens-hydro} accounts for particle-hole pairs formation around the Fermi points. In fact, such processes dominate the low-energy quantum physics of the model at the large scales \cite{Cazalilla2004,Giamarchi2007}. Moreover, by applying standard quantum hydrodynamics techniques \cite{Giamarchi2007}, it is possible to identify the time-dependent fermionic creation and annihilation fields $\hat{c}^\dagger_x(\tau)$, $\hat{c}_x(\tau)$ with a sum of local operators in the low-energy theory which share the same symmetry of the initial model. Following this program and retaining only the leading order terms in the sum (i.e., those operators in the low-energy theory with smallest scaling dimension), one obtains, up to a non-universal amplitude, the following expansion \cite{Allegra2016,Dubail2017,Ruggiero2019,Scopa2020}
\begin{equation}\begin{matrix}
\hat{c}^\dagger_x(\tau) \propto e^{\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}} \varphi(x,\tau)} \ \textbf{:} \exp\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}}}{2}\left[ \hat\phi_+(x,\tau) -\hat\phi_-(x,\tau)\right]\right) \textbf{:} + \ \text{less relevant operators}\\[10pt]
\hat{c}_x(\tau) \propto e^{-\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}} \varphi(x,\tau)} \ \textbf{:} \exp\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\mathbf{i}}}{2}\left[ \hat\phi_-(x,\tau) -\hat\phi_+(x,\tau)\right]\right) \textbf{:} + \ \text{less relevant operators}
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
where $\text{\bf :}\ . \ \text{\bf :}$ denotes the normal ordering of operators and $\varphi=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi_+-\varphi_-)$ is a semi-classical phase.
{The latter} is obtained by integrating the differential phase
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d} \varphi_{\pm}(x,\tau)= k_F^\pm(x,\tau) \mathrm{d} x - \varepsilon(k_F^\pm(x,\tau),x) \mathrm{d} t,
\end{equation}
which is the phase carried at small distances $\mathrm{d} x$ and at small times $\mathrm{d} t$ by the single-particle wave-function after the creation of a particle at position $(x,k_F^\pm)$ in phase space. The fields $\hat\phi_\pm(x,\tau)$ are instead the chiral components of $\hat\phi=\hat\phi_-+\hat\phi_+$ and carry the physical interpretation of left- and right- moving parts of the density fluctuating-field.
The low-energy effective Hamiltonian that governs the dynamics of the quantum fluctuations is that of a non-homogeneous Luttinger liquid (see e.g. \cite{Allegra2016,Dubail2017,Brun2017,Brun2018,Scopa2020,Bastianello2020})
\begin{equation}\label{LL}
\Ha_{\rm LL}= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-L}^\tau \mathrm{d} x \ \left[\sin k_F^+(x,\tau) \; \left(\partial_x \hat\phi_{a_+}(x,\tau) \right)^2+ \sin k_F^-(x,\tau) \; \left(\partial_x \hat\phi_{a_-}(x,\tau) \right)^2\right],
\end{equation}
whose dependence on the spatially dependent Fermi velocity can be removed with a simple change of coordinate $x\to \tilde{x}$, see Sec.~\ref{sec:param}. Here, $a_\pm\equiv a(k_F^\pm(x,\tau))$ and $a(k)=\mp$ if ${\rm sign}(k)\lessgtr 0$.\\
Equivalently, introducing a parametrization of the initial contour of local Fermi-points \eqref{kF-initial} (or {\it Fermi contour}) with the coordinate $\theta$ along the curve
\begin{equation}\label{Fermi-contour}
\Gamma=\left\{ \big(x(\theta),k(\theta)\big)\, : \, \left|k(\theta)\right|=\arccos V\big(x(\theta)\big)\right\}
\end{equation}
one can write the Luttinger liquid Hamiltonian as
\begin{equation}\label{LL-contour}
\Ha_{\rm LL}[\Gamma]=\int_\Gamma \frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{2\pi} \ {\cal J}(\theta) \ \sin k(\theta) \, \left(\partial_\theta \ \hat\phi_a(\theta) \right)^2,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal J}(\theta)$ is a Jacobian factor and $a=a(k(\theta))$.
In particular, in our hydrodynamic description of the problem, quantum fluctuations in the initial state are given by the ground state of $\Ha_{\rm LL}[\Gamma]$. As time flows, the Fermi contour $\Gamma$ is modified according to \eqref{W-t} and the quantum fluctuations are transported along the curve, spreading the entanglement {through the system}.
\section{Entanglement entropy evolution during the gas expansion}\label{sec:entanglement}
We now investigate the evolution of the entanglement entropy for the setup of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}. Notice that, although we deal with a non-interacting system, the derivation of exact results for the entanglement is currently out-of-reach with a lattice formulation of the setup under analysis.
Conversely, in the hydrodynamic approximation, such non-equilibrium and non-homogeneous problems \cite{Dubail2017,Collura2020} can be easily handled with tools stemming from CFT.
In particular, in the continuum limit, the $\alpha$-R\'enyi entropy for integer $\alpha$ can be related to the following expectation value of the twist field $\hat{\cal T}_\alpha$ \cite{Calabrese2004,Cardy2008,Calabrese2009}
\begin{equation}\label{EE}
\tilde{S}_\alpha(x,\tau)= \frac{1}{1-\alpha} \log\braket{\hat{\cal T}_\alpha(x,\tau)}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, in our model, the twist field can be written as product of the two chiral twist-fields $\{ \hat\Phi^+_\alpha, \hat{\Phi}^-_\alpha\} $ and, under conformal mappings, such chiral fields behave as primary CFT operators with dimension
\begin{equation}
h_\alpha=\frac{c}{24}\left(\alpha -\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the central charge of the underlying CFT, in particular $c=1$ for free Fermi gases.
It follows that $\tilde{S}_\alpha(x,\tau)$ can be written as the two-point correlation function of the chiral fields $\hat\Phi^+_\alpha$, $\hat{\Phi}^-_\alpha$ of the CFT which live along the Fermi contour at time $\tau$.
The Fermi points $k_F^\pm(x,\tau)$ at time $\tau$ are traced back to the initial Fermi contour where they are found at positions $x^\pm_0$.
Therefore, if $\theta$ denotes a parametrization of the contour $\Gamma$ \eqref{Fermi-contour}, then the computation of the $\alpha$-R\'enyi entropy reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{entanglement-hydro}
\tilde{S}_\alpha(x,\tau)=\frac{1}{1-\alpha} \log\left(\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|^{h_\alpha}_{\theta=\theta_1}\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|^{h_\alpha}_{\theta=\theta_2} \braket{\hat\Phi^+_\alpha(\theta_1) \hat{\Phi}^-_\alpha(\theta_2)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{1,2}$ are the coordinates of $k_F^\pm(x,\tau)$ along the initial Fermi contour, see Fig.~\ref{fig:backwards-evo}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{backwards_evo3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:backwards-evo} Position of the Fermi points $k_F^\pm(x,\tau)$ in terms of the coordinate $\theta$ along the initial Fermi contour. (Right) At time $\tau>0$ the coordinates of the Fermi points are $(x,k_F^\pm)$ in the $k$-$x$ space while (left) at $\tau=0$ they can be traced back to their initial positions $(x_0^\pm,k_F^\pm)$ and expressed in terms of the coordinate $\theta_{1,2}$ along the curve.}
\end{figure}
We emphasize that Eq.~\eqref{EE} provides solely the universal large-scale contribution to the $\alpha$-R\'enyi entropies and it has to be complemented with a non-universal cutoff so that
\begin{equation}\label{EE-full}
S_\alpha(x,\tau)= \frac{1}{1-\alpha} \log\left[ \epsilon^{2h_\alpha} \braket{\hat{\cal T}_\alpha(x,\tau)}\right]=\tilde{S}_\alpha(x,\tau) + \frac{2h_\alpha}{1-\alpha}\log \epsilon(x,\tau),
\end{equation}
which {encodes also the} ultraviolet divergences of $\tilde{S}_\alpha$ \cite{Calabrese2004,Calabrese2010}.
In our hydrodynamic approach,
the only relevant microscopic scale is the inverse local density $\rho^{-1}$, see Eq.~\eqref{dens-hydro}, { which in the von Neumann entropy enters} as \cite{Jin2004,Calabrese2010}
\begin{equation}\label{cutoff}
\epsilon(x,\tau)=\frac{C}{\sin\pi\rho(x,\tau)}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a non-universal constant related to $\Upsilon$ appearing in the {anticipated final results for the}
entanglement entropy \eqref{solution} as $\Upsilon=-\frac{1}{6}\log C$.
\subsection{Parametrization of the initial Fermi contour}\label{sec:param}
Since the modes propagate at different velocities, we first introduce the stretched coordinate \cite{Allegra2016,Dubail2017,Brun2017,Brun2018,Ruggiero2019,Bastianello2020,Ruggiero2020,Scopa2020}
\begin{equation}\label{isothermal}
\begin{split}
\tilde{x}(x_0)&=\int_{-L}^{x_0} \frac{ \mathrm{d} x'}{\sin k_F(x')} \\
&=\int_{-L}^{x_0} \frac{ \mathrm{d} x'}{\sqrt{1-V(x')^2}} \\
&= -\frac{1}{\beta}\tanh^{-1}\sqrt{1- e^{2\beta x'}} \ \Bigg\vert_{-L}^{x_0}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which measures the time needed by an excitation emitted at position $-L$ to reach the position $x_0$ with spatially-dependent propagation velocity $\sin k_F(x)$.
Equation~\eqref{isothermal} provides an unambiguous parametrization of the upper Fermi contour and can be easily extended to the lower part with symmetry arguments. In particular, we define the angular variable
\begin{equation}\label{param}
\theta(x_0)= \begin{cases}
\frac{\pi}{\cal N} \tilde{x}(x_0), \qquad &\text{if $\arcsin\frac{x-x_0}{\tau}\geq 0$}\\[4pt]
\pi + \frac{\pi}{\cal N} \tilde{x}(x_0) \qquad &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The normalization ${\cal N}$ of the stretched coordinate is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}= \int_{-L}^0 \frac{ \mathrm{d} x'}{\sin k_F(x')}=\frac{1}{\beta}\tanh^{-1}\sqrt{1-e^{-2\beta L}} \ .
\end{equation}
The second line in Eq.~\eqref{param} may be viewed as the folding of the stretched coordinate along the unit circle so that the finite-size of the chain $L$ is properly accounted in the CFT along the Fermi contour, see Fig.~\ref{fig:isothermal}. \\
In terms of the coordinate $\theta$, the low-energy effective Hamiltonian \eqref{LL-contour} takes the Jacobian factor ${\cal J}=\frac{\pi}{\cal N} [\sin k_F]^{-1}$, which cancels out the dependence of $\Ha_{LL}[\Gamma]$ on the non-homogeneous Fermi velocity.\\
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{isothermal.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:isothermal} Illustration of the parametrization of the initial Fermi contour. This procedure may be viewed as a stretching (see Eq.~\eqref{isothermal}) and a subsequent folding (see Eq.~\eqref{param}) of the initial Fermi contour along the unit circle. In this way, the reflection of the modes at the boundary $x=-L$ are properly accounted in the CFT by identifying the angles $\theta=\theta \ {\rm mod}\ 2\pi$.}
\end{figure}
Equipped with the parametrization \eqref{param} of the initial Fermi contour \eqref{Fermi-contour}, we now evaluate the entanglement entropy. At given positions in space $x$ and in time $\tau$, the large-scale contribution to the entanglement profile is obtained from Eq.~\eqref{entanglement-hydro} with the two-point correlation function along the unit circle
\begin{equation}
\braket{\hat\Phi^+_\alpha(\theta_1)\hat{{\Phi}}^-_\alpha(\theta_2)}=\left(\sin\frac{\theta_1-\theta_2}{2}\right)^{-2h_\alpha},
\end{equation}
$\theta_{1,2}=\theta(x_0^\pm)$, and the Weyl factors
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left|\frac{\mathrm{d} \theta(x_0)}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|_{x_0=x^\pm_{0}(x,\tau)} &= \frac{\pi}{{\cal N} }\tilde{x}^\prime(x_0^\pm(x,\tau)) \left|\frac{\mathrm{d} x^\pm_0(x,\tau)}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|\\
&=\frac{\pi}{{\cal N} }\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-V( x_0^\pm(x,\tau))^2}} \left|\frac{\mathrm{d} x_0^\pm(x,t)}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the final Jacobian is obtained from Eq.~\eqref{self-const} as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} x_0}{\mathrm{d} x}=\frac{x-x_0}{x-x_0-\tau^2 V^\prime (x_0)V(x_0)}= \frac{x-x_0}{x-x_0-\beta \ \tau^2 \ e^{2\beta x_0}},
\end{equation}
so that overall we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left|\frac{\mathrm{d} \theta(x_0)}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|_{x_0=x^\pm_{0}(x,\tau)} &=\frac{\pi}{{\cal N} } \left|\frac{x-x^\pm_{0}(x,\tau)}{t}-\beta \tau\left(1- \frac{(x-x^\pm_{0}(x,\tau))^2}{\tau^2}\right)\right|^{-1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The cutoff $\epsilon(x,\tau)$ is {read off} from Eq.~\eqref{cutoff} as function of the particle density profile $\rho(x,\tau)$, which can be expressed in terms of
$x_0^\pm(x,\tau)$ by {plugging} Eq.~\eqref{kF-def} into \eqref{dens-hydro}.
Combining Eqs.~\eqref{entanglement-hydro}, \eqref{cutoff} with Eq.~\eqref{EE-full} and taking the limit $\alpha\to 1$, we finally obtain
\begin{equation}\label{expectation}
S_1(x,\tau)=\frac{1}{6}\log\left(\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|_{\theta=\theta_1}^{-1/2} \left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|_{\theta=\theta_2}^{-1/2}
\frac{1}{C}\left|\sin\frac{k_F^+-k_F^-}{2} \right|\left|\sin \frac{\theta_1-\theta_2}{2}\right|\right)
\end{equation}
that can be written for $\tau >0$ in terms of the ratios
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{1,2}= \frac{x-x_0^\pm(x,\tau)}{\tau}
\end{equation}
and after simple algebra, as
\begin{equation}\label{S-finite-beta}\begin{split}
&S_1(x,\tau>0)=\frac{1}{6}\log\Bigg[\frac{\cal N}{2\pi}\sqrt{\left|\left(\zeta_1-\beta \tau (1-\zeta_1^2)\right)\left(\zeta_2-\beta \tau (1-\zeta_2^2)\right)\right|}
\\[4pt]
&\Bigg|{\rm sign}(\zeta_1)\sqrt{\left(1+\sqrt{1-\zeta_2^2}\right)\left(1-\sqrt{1-\zeta_1^2}\right)}
-{\rm sign}(\zeta_2)\sqrt{\left(1+\sqrt{1-\zeta_1^2}\right)\left(1-\sqrt{1-\zeta_2^2}\right)}\Bigg|\\[4pt]
& \times\Bigg| \sin\left(\frac{\pi}{2\beta{\cal N}}\left( \tanh^{-1}|\zeta_2| -\tanh^{-1}|\zeta_1|\right) +\frac{\pi}{2}({\rm sign}(\zeta_1) -{\rm sign}(\zeta_2)) \right) \Bigg|\Bigg] +\Upsilon,
\end{split}\end{equation}
where we {factorized} the non-universal constant $\Upsilon\equiv -\frac{1}{6}\log C\simeq 0.49502$ \cite{Jin2004}. Eq.~\eqref{S-finite-beta} gives the entanglement entropy evolution of a free Fermi gas initially {trapped in an} exponential potential \eqref{exp-potential}
up to subleading corrections {in time} (which {hereafter} we systematically drop).
{The values of $\zeta_{1,2}$ are provided by} the numerical solutions for $x_0^\pm(x,\tau)$ in Eq.~\eqref{self-const}.
At $\tau=0$, the formula for the entanglement entropy simplifies since $k_F^\pm=\pm \arccos V(x)$ and $\theta_1=-\theta_2$, from which we arrive to the result
\begin{equation}\label{S-finite-beta0}
S_1(x,0)=\frac{1}{6}\log\Bigg[{\frac{\cal N}{\pi}}\sqrt{1-V(x)^2} \;\Bigg| \sin\left(\frac{\pi}{\beta{\cal N}} \tanh^{-1}\sqrt{1-V(x)^2}\right) \Bigg|\Bigg] +\Upsilon.
\end{equation}
Although Eqs.~\eqref{S-finite-beta} and\eqref{S-finite-beta0} give the entanglement profiles for a trap-release protocol that {generalize} the setup of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}
{with the presence of a} finite value of $\beta$, {it is still an interesting physical protocol}.
Therefore, we proceed to test of Eq.~\eqref{S-finite-beta} and \eqref{S-finite-beta0} with exact numerical computations for the lattice Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas}
of size $2L$ with exponential potential for $t<0$:
\begin{equation}\label{xx-lattice-exp}
\Ha= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=-L}^{L-2} \left(\hat{c}_j^\dagger \hat{c}_{j+1} + \hat{c}_{j+1}^\dagger \hat{c}_j \right) \, + \, \sum_{j=-L}^{L-1} \exp(\beta j \delta)\ \hat{c}_j^\dagger \hat{c}_{j} .
\end{equation}
In particular, we {first compute the two-point correlation matrix in the ground state of the initial Hamiltonian \eqref{xx-lattice-exp} and we subsequently exactly evolve it with}
post-quench Hamiltonian (where $V=0$). For free Fermi gases, the entanglement entropy {is obtained with
the techniques of \ref{app:numerics}}.
The results are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:S-beta} for different times and for different values of $\beta=0.25,0.5$.
The agreement of the {analytic prediction} with the numerics is extremely good.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{S-finite-beta4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:S-beta} Evolution of the entanglement profiles in Eq.~\eqref{S-finite-beta} for the trap-release protocol of the gas in Eq.~\eqref{xx-confined-continuum} with potential \eqref{exp-potential} (colored curves) compared with exact numerics (circles) for the lattice Hamiltonian \eqref{xx-lattice-exp}. The plots show the entanglement profiles at different times $t=\tau/\delta$ (measured in units of $\delta\equiv 1$) and for different values of $\beta=0.25,0.5$. The agreement of the curves with numerics is excellent.}
\end{figure}
We {stress} that the result in Eq.~\eqref{S-finite-beta} is independent {from the employed} parametrization of the initial Fermi contour. {As a pedagogical example}, we report in \ref{app:param-Jerome} the computation of the entanglement entropy profiles for a different (but equivalent) parametrization
of the initial Fermi contour which leads to the same final result.
\subsection{Entanglement entropy profiles in the limit $\beta\to \infty$ \label{sec:solution}}
At this point, we {are finally ready to take} the limit of large $\beta$ of the exponential trap-release protocol studied {above}.
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:hydro-limit}, such auxiliary problem asymptotically reproduces the free expansion setup of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}
{which is the main goal of this paper}.
We first notice that Eq.~\eqref{self-const} can be solved analytically at large $\beta$. In particular, {as long as} $x/\tau\leq-1$ we find the following roots
\begin{equation}
x_0^-= x+\tau;\qquad x_0^+=x-\tau
\end{equation}
up to exponentially small corrections, whereas, when $|x|/\tau< 1$, one finds the two solutions
\begin{equation}
x_0^-=\frac{1}{2\beta}\log(1-\frac{x^2}{\tau^2}), \qquad x_0^+=x-\tau.
\end{equation}
{In the latter regime}, the corrections to the solution $x_0^-$ decay algebraically in $1/\beta$.
Introducing the stretched coordinate of Eq.~\eqref{isothermal}, one {easily} sees that the normalization constant {is} ${\cal N}=L$ up to
$\sim{\cal O}(1/\beta)$ corrections, {because} the region where $|k_F|\neq \pi/2$ has a zero measure for large $\beta$.
It follows that the angular coordinate~\eqref{param} (in the upper branch of the initial Fermi contour) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\theta(x_0)=\begin{cases}
\pi+ \frac{\pi}{L} (x+ \tau), \qquad &\text{if $x/\tau\leq-1$ and $x_0=x_0^-$};\\[4pt]
\pi- \frac{\pi}{L\beta}\tanh^{-1}(x/\tau), \qquad &\text{if $|x|/\tau< 1$ and $x_0=x_0^-$}; \\[4pt]
\pi+ \frac{\pi}{L} (x- \tau), \qquad &\text{if $x_0=x_0^+$},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
from which one can derive the Weyl factor
\begin{equation}\label{weyl-beta-infty}
\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta(x_0)}{\mathrm{d} x}\right|=\begin{cases} \frac{\pi}{\beta L} \left[\tau(1-\frac{x^2}{\tau^2})\right]^{-1}, \qquad &\text{if $|x|/\tau< 1$ and $x_0=x_0^-$;}\\[4pt]
\pi/L,\qquad &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The density profile is easily derived from Eqs.~\eqref{kF-def}-\eqref{dens-hydro} as
\begin{equation}\label{rhoHW}
\rho(x,\tau)=\begin{cases} \arccos(x/\tau)/(2\pi), \qquad &\text{if $|x|/\tau< 1$};\\[4pt]
1/2,\qquad &\text{if $x/\tau\leq-1$};\\[4pt]
0, \qquad &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and it reproduces the expected value in Eq.~\eqref{dens-intro}.
At this point, {starting} from Eq.~\eqref{expectation} and {after} simple algebra, one finds the entanglement entropy profile.
In particular, for $x\leq-\tau$, {we get}
\begin{equation}\label{S-out}
S_1(x\leq-\tau)=\frac{1}{6}\log\left({\frac{L}{\pi}}\left|\sin \frac{\pi x}{L}\right|\right) +\Upsilon
\end{equation}
whereas, from Eq.~\eqref{S-finite-beta}, {we obtain} for $|x|< \tau$
\begin{equation}\label{full}\begin{split}
S_1(|x|<\tau)=& \frac{1}{6}\log\Bigg(\frac{L}{2\pi}\sqrt{\left|\frac{x}{\tau} -\beta \tau(1-\frac{x^2}{\tau^2})\right|} \ \left|\sqrt{1+\sqrt{1-\frac{x^2}{\tau^2}}}-{\rm sign}(x)\sqrt{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{x^2}{\tau^2}}}\right| \\
&\times \left|\sin\Big(\frac{\pi}{2L}(x-\tau)\Big) \right| \Bigg) +\Upsilon.
\end{split}\end{equation}
Finally, recalling that asymptotically $\beta \sim 1/\delta$ (see Eq.~\eqref{beta-limit}), one obtains the result {anticipated} in Eq.~\eqref{solution},
where the time $t$ is measured in units of $\delta$ and $L\to \infty$.
The result in Eq.~\eqref{solution} has been tested against exact numerics made for the lattice Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas} of size $2L$ with a infinite-wall confinement \eqref{potential}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}{\bf(b)} we see that the solution \eqref{solution} correctly reproduces the evolution of the entanglement profiles for the setup of Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, even for modest value of the system size $L$, set to $200$ in our numerical calculations.
\subsection{Asymptotic growth of the entanglement}
It is {worth to briefly discuss} the time evolution of the entanglement entropy {for} $j=0$.
{Starting} from Eq.~\eqref{full} and expanding the sine for $L\gg j,t$, we obtain at leading order and up to an additive constant
\begin{equation}
S_1(|j|<t)\sim \frac{1}{6}\log\left(\sqrt{{\left|\frac{j}{t}-t(1-\frac{j^2}{t^2})\right|}} |j-t| \right),
\end{equation}
which reproduces Eq.~\eqref{asy-prediction} upon setting $j=0$.
{Notice in particular how the argument of the logarithm conspires to give $t^{3/2}$ which is the origin of the unusual $\frac14 \log t$ growth.
Exact numerical calculations for} the lattice model, presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:S-asy}, {confirm} that the {half-system} entanglement entropy {behaves as} $\frac{1}{4} \log t$,
as expected {also} from previous results in literature \cite{Alba2014,Gruber2019}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{asymptotic-growth.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:S-asy} Time evolution of the {half-system entanglement entropy (i.e. $j=0$)} for large times $t\ll L$.
{(Left)} The asymptotic prediction~\eqref{asy-prediction} is tested against exact numerics for the Hamiltonian \eqref{free-gas} with potential \eqref{potential} and size $2L$.
{(Right)} Same {plot} in logarithmic scale. }
\end{figure}
Concluding, {we recall a simple argument pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Gruber2019} for the asymptotic entanglement growth \eqref{asy-prediction}}.
The entanglement entropy during the gas expansion {can be thought as} the sum of two contributions.
The first is simply the propagation of particles towards the right vacuum and it gives the standard $\sim\frac{1}{6}\log t$ growth of the entanglement entropy,
{observed in the standard domain-wall quench} \cite{Dubail2017}.
The second (which is the main peculiarity of this setup) comes from the spreading of the initial correlations of the gas
and {its contribution can be estimated} as $\sim \frac{1}{12}\log t$ \cite{Gruber2019}.
Thus, summing up the two, one eventually finds that the entanglement asymptotically grows as $\sim\frac{1}{4}\log t$.
\section{Summary and conclusion\label{sec:conclusion}}
We investigated the entanglement entropy evolution after a quantum quench of a one-dimensional gas of hard-core particles at zero-temperature and at half-filling. The gas is initially confined inside the interval $[-L,0]$ by two {infinite walls}. At $t=0$ the wall at position $j=0$ is suddenly removed and the gas is let free to expand, see Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}({\bf a}). The non-equilibrium dynamics of the gas is characterized by a non-homogeneous density profile which can be understood, in simple terms, with a semi-classical hydrodynamic approach, see Sec.~\ref{sec:hydro-classical}. The study of the entanglement is instead non-trivial and it requires the use of quantum fluctuating hydrodynamics and of conformal field theory, see Sec.~\ref{sec:quantum-fluct-hydro} and Sec.~\ref{sec:entanglement}.
This program eventually leads to an exact prediction for the entanglement entropy evolution \eqref{solution} which is found in perfect agreement with {exact numerics}.
{We stress that our hydrodynamics prediction applies almost as it is to a hard-core gas in the continuum (with minor modification to account for the filling),
which can be simply studied adapting the overlap matrix technique of Refs. \cite{cmv-11,cmv-11b}.}
This work opens the doors to several further studies. For instance, it would be interesting to compute, with the same strategy, the entanglement entropy of a finite interval $[x_1,x_2]$. Indeed, such analysis will reduce to the computation of a four-point function of chiral twist fields, whose structure is known from CFT. Another example is to study a {\it quantum Joule expansion}, where at time $t=0$ the initial box potential is extended to size $[-L,L]$. In this context, it will be interesting to investigate the long-time dynamics of the entanglement, by considering the reflections of chiral modes at positions $j=\pm L$ \cite{Dubessy2020}. {Similar quenches can be studied in free fermionic Hamiltonians without particles conservation like the quantum {\rm\small XY} model \cite{Lieb1961}, see e.g. \cite{Mukherjee2007,Barmettler2010,Lancaster2010,Yoshinaga2021}.
}
Finally, this paper raises also some new questions. Perhaps, the most natural one is to ask what happens if the same setup is considered for an interacting quantum gas. This has been recently investigated for the case of a domain-wall melting \cite{Collura2020} but, in principle, it can be similarly done for this setup by using quantum generalized hydrodynamics \cite{Ruggiero2020,next-pub}.
\vspace{1cm}
{\bf Acknowledgments}. PC, AK and SS acknowledge support from ERC under Consolidator grant number 771536 (NEMO). JD acknowledges support from {\it CNRS International Emerging Actions} under the grant QuDOD. SS acknowledges Paola Ruggiero and Sara Murciano for useful discussions. JD and SS acknowledge the international conference {\it Statistical Physics and Low Dimensional Systems} 2020 (Pont-\'a-Mousson) during which part of this work has been discussed.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Multi-Label Classification (MLC)~\cite{mccallum1999multi} is an important task, in which each instance is associated with multiple labels simultaneously. It has a wide range of applications, such as text categorization~\cite{schapire2000boostexter}, bioinformatics~\cite{elisseeff2001kernel}, multimedia annotation~\cite{carneiro2007supervised}, and information retrieval~\cite{yu2005multi}. To evaluate the performance of different methods in MLC, various measures~\cite{zhang2013review, wu2017unified} have been developed from diverse aspects owing to the complexity of MLC. Among them, the \emph{(partial) ranking loss}~\cite{schapire2000boostexter, gao2013consistency}
is a widely-used measure in practice (or in theory).
Formally, the ranking loss calculates the fraction of pairs that a positive label does not precede a negative label according to the rank given by a \emph{score function} (or predictor). Accordingly, minimizing such a loss is usually referred to as Multi-Label Ranking (MLR)~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent}, which is our consideration in this paper.
Since (partial) ranking loss is non-convex and discontinuous, existing methods~\cite{zhang2013review} seek to optimize certain convex surrogate losses for computational efficiency. These surrogate losses can be divided into two main categories: pairwise ones~\cite{gao2013consistency} and univariate ones~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent}, which have their own advantages and limitations in terms of computational costs, theory and empirical performance.
Computationally, the pairwise losses, defined over pairs of positive and negative labels, lead to a complexity depending on $O(c^2)$ ($c$ is the number of labels), while
the univariate losses enjoy a complexity depending on $O(c)$. Thus the latter are preferable, especially in cases with a large-scale label space.
Theoretically, the pairwise losses are not (Fisher) consistent w.r.t. both the ranking loss and the partial ranking loss~\cite{gao2013consistency}, while, remarkably, certain univariate losses are consistent w.r.t. the partial ranking loss~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent, gao2013consistency}. Empirically, however, the consistent univariate losses usually have no significant superiority in comparison with the inconsistent pairwise losses~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent}. In fact, we observed that the former under-perform the latter on $10$ MLR benchmarks (see results in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark_results}).
Such a gap between the existing theory and practice is worth being further studied and it would be appealing if one can further improve the performance of the univariate losses especially when $c$ is large due to its computational efficiency.
\begin{table}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\caption{Summary of the main theoretical results. The contributions of this paper are highlighted in red.}
\label{main_theory_result}
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Algorithm & Surrogate loss & Generalization bound & Consistency\footnote{Note that this is in terms of partial ranking loss. Besides, these surrogate losses are all inconsistent w.r.t. ranking loss.} & Computational complexity \\
\midrule
$\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ & pairwise ($L_{pa}$) & $\hat{R}^{pa}_S(f) + O(\sqrt{\frac{c}{n}})$ & $\times$ & $O(c^2)$ \\
$\mathcal{A}^{u_1}$ & univariate ($L_{u_1}$) & $c \hat{R}^{u_1}_S(f) + O(\sqrt{\frac{c^2}{n}})$ & {\color{red}$\times$} & $O(c)$ \\
$\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$ & univariate ($L_{u_2}$) & {\color{red}$c \hat{R}^{u_2}_S(f) + O(\sqrt{\frac{c^2}{n}})$} & $\surd$\footnote{This is for the cases where the base loss is the exponential, logistic, least squared or squared hinge loss.} & $O(c)$ \\
{\color{red}$\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$} & reweighted univariate ($L_{u_3}$) & {\color{red}$\hat{R}^{u_3}_S(f) + O(\sqrt{\frac{c}{n}})$} & {\color{red}$\times$} & $O(c)$ \\
{\color{red}$\mathcal{A}^{u_4}$} & reweighted univariate ($L_{u_4}$) & {\color{red}$\hat{R}^{u_4}_S(f) + O(\sqrt{\frac{c^2}{n}})$} & {\color{red}$\times$ } & $O(c)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{minipage}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{table}
A natural explanation of the gap is that although the (Fisher) consistency~\cite{zhang2004statistical, bartlett2006convexity} provides valuable insights in the asymptotic cases, it cannot fully characterize the behaviour of a surrogate loss when the number of training samples is not sufficiently large and the hypothesis space is not realizable.
To address the issue, this paper presents a systematic study in a complementary perspective of generalization error bounds~\cite{mohri2018foundations} besides the consistency. In fact, we prove that the existing consistent univariate losses-based algorithms lead to an error bound depending on $O(c)$ while the pairwise losses based ones enjoy an error bound depending on $O(\sqrt{c})$~\cite{wu2020multi}, which explain the empirical behaviour better (see Table~\ref{tab:benchmark_results}). Further,
we present two \emph{reweighted surrogate univariate losses} that employ carefully designed penalties for positive and negative labels. Such losses strictly upper bound the (partial) ranking loss, which is crucial in generalization analysis (see Section~\ref{sec:gene_bound}).
Moreover, we analyze their consistency and generalization bounds of the corresponding algorithms.
Surprisingly, though not consistent, one of them enjoys an error bound depending on $O(\sqrt{c})$, which is nearly the same as the pairwise loss, and retains the computational efficiency.
See Table~\ref{main_theory_result} for a summary of our main theoretical results.
Experimental results validate our theory findings.
Technically, focusing on the widely used kernel-based algorithms~\cite{tan2020multi, wu2020joint,wu2020multi}, we present the generalization analyses based on Rademacher complexity~\cite{bartlett2002rademacher} and the vector-contraction inequality~\cite{maurer2016vector}, following recent work~\cite{wu2020multi}.
For the Fisher consistency, we consider more general reweighted univariate losses, which naturally extends the results in prior work~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent, gao2013consistency}. Considering different base losses (e.g., logistic loss), we present simple conditions that only involve penalties to characterize its consistency w.r.t. (partial) ranking loss, which may be of independent interest.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:related_work}, we review the related work in MLC and MLR. Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} introduces the problem setting, evaluation measures, risk and regret for MLR. Section~\ref{sec:methods} lists various surrogate losses, including the
reweighted univariate ones, and their associated learning algorithms.
In section~\ref{sec:theoretical_analysis}, we present the generalization analyses of the algorithms and the consistency analyses of the corresponding surrogate losses.
Section~\ref{sec:experimental_results} presents and analyzes the experimental results. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion_future_work} concludes this paper and discusses future work.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
Here we mainly review the theoretical work relevant to this paper in MLC and MLR.
\textbf{Consistency.} \cite{gao2013consistency} studied the consistency of various surrogate losses w.r.t. Hamming and (partial) ranking loss. Remarkably, \cite{dembczynski2012consistent} presented an explicit regret bound w.r.t. partial ranking loss for certain consistent univariate losses. Extensive work investigated the consistency w.r.t. other measures, especially the F-measure. For instance, \cite{ye2012optimizing} provided justifications and connections w.r.t. the F-measure using the empirical utility maximization (EUM) framework and the decision-theoretic approach (DTA) in binary classification, which were applied to the optimization of the macro-F measure in MLC. Further, \cite{dembczynski2017consistency} studied connections and differences between these two frameworks and clarified the notions of consistency\footnote{Note that, our generalization and consistency analyses are both under the EUM framework.} w.r.t. many complex measures (e.g., the F-measure and Jaccard measure) in binary classification. Besides, prior work~\cite{waegeman2014bayes,zhang2020convex} studied the consistency of the F-measure in MLC from the DTA perspective via different approaches to estimate the conditional distribution $P(\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{x})$. \cite{koyejo2015consistent} devoted to the study of consistent multi-label classifiers w.r.t. various measures under the EUM framework. \cite{menon2019multilabel} investigated the multi-label consistency of various reduction methods w.r.t. precision@$k$ and recall@$k$ measures.
\textbf{Generalization analysis.} \cite{wu2020multi} studied the generalization bounds of the algorithms based on the pairwise surrogate loss ($L_{pa}$) and the (variant) univariate surrogate loss ($L_{u_1}$) w.r.t. the ranking loss.
We mention that a specific form of Eq.~\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u3} with base hinge loss has been used as a part of prior work~\cite{xu2019robust}, which achieves excellent empirical results in MLC. In comparison, this paper considers a more general form of such reweighted surrogate losses and provides formal consistency and generalization analyses, which have not been investigated in the literature to our knowledge.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
In this section, we fist introduce the problem setting of MLC and MLR. Then, we present the evaluation measures, risk, and regret of MLR.
\textbf{Notations}. Let boldface lower case letters denote vectors (e.g., $\mathbf{a}$) and boldface capital letters denote matrices (e.g., $\mathbf{A}$).
For a matrix $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{a}_i$, $\mathbf{a}^j$ and $a_{ij}$ denote its $i$-th row, $j$-th column, and $(i,j)$-th element respectively.
For a vector $\mathbf{a}$, $a_{i}$ denote its $i$-th element.
For a square matrix, $\rm Tr(\cdot)$ denotes the trace operator. For a set, $|\cdot|$ denotes the cardinality. $[\![ \pi ]\!]$ denotes the indicator function, i.e., it returns $1$ when the proposition $\pi$ holds and $0$ otherwise. $sgn(x)$ returns $1$ when $x > 0$ and $-1$ otherwise.
$[n]$ denotes the set $\{1, ..., n\}$. For a function $g: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and a matrix $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$, define $g(\mathbf{A}): \mathbb{R}^{m \times n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$, where $g(\mathbf{A})_{ij} = g(a_{ij})$.
\subsection{Problem Setting}
Let $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mathbf{y} \in \mathcal{Y} \subset \{ -1, +1 \}^c$ denote the input and output respectively, where $d$ is the feature dimension, $c$ is the number of labels, and the value $y_j = 1$ (or $-1$) indicates that the associated $j$-th label is relevant (or irrelevant). Given a training set $S = \{ ( \mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{y}_i ) \}_{i=1}^n$ which is sampled i.i.d. from the distribution $P$ over $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$, the original goal of MLC is to learn a multi-label classifier $H: \mathbb{R}^d \longrightarrow \{ -1, +1 \}^c$.
To solve MLC, a common approach is to first learn a vector-based \emph{score function} (or predictor) $f = [f_1, ..., f_c]: \mathbb{R}^d \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^c$ and then get the classifier by a thresholding function. Multi-Label Ranking (MLR) aims to learn the best predictor from the finite training data in terms of some ranking-based measures, which is our consideration in this paper.
\subsection{Evaluation Measures}
To evaluate the performance of different approaches for MLR, many measures have been developed. Here we focus on two widely-used measures in practice (or theory), which are defined below\footnote{Our definition is over one sample and can be averaged over multiple samples.}.
\textbf{Ranking Loss}:
\begin{align}
L_r^{0/1}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{\sum_{(p, q) \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^+ \times S_{\mathbf{y}}^-} [\![ f_p(\mathbf{x}) \leq f_q(\mathbf{x}) ]\!]}{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+| |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|}, \label{eqn:spe_rl}
\end{align}
where $S_{\mathbf{y}}^+$ (or $S_{\mathbf{y}}^-$) denotes the relevant (or irrelevant) label index set induced by $\mathbf{y}$.
\textbf{Partial Ranking Loss}\footnote{To minimize the partial ranking loss is equivalent to maximize the instance-AUC.}:
\begin{align}
& L_{pr}^{0/1}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+| |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|} \sum_{(p, q) \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^+ \times S_{\mathbf{y}}^-} \bigg[ [\![ f_p(\mathbf{x}) < f_q(\mathbf{x}) ]\!]
+ \frac{1}{2} [\![ f_p(\mathbf{x}) = f_q(\mathbf{x}) ]\!] \bigg ]. \label{eqn:spe_prl}
\end{align}
From the above definitions, we can observe that the only difference between these two measures is the penalty when $f_p(\mathbf{x}) = f_q(\mathbf{x})$ holds. Besides, it is easy to verify that ranking loss upper bounds the partial ranking loss, i.e. $L_{pr}^{0/1}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) \leq L_r^{0/1}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y})$. Although these two measures are almost the same in practice for the evaluation of one algorithm, they have different consistency properties for some surrogate losses theoretically~\cite{gao2013consistency}.
\subsection{Risk and Regret}
Since (partial) ranking loss is non-convex and discontinuous, often leading to NP-hard problems \cite{arora2009computational}, extensive methods optimize it with convex surrogate losses in practice for computational efficiency. Define a surrogate loss $L_{\phi}: \mathbb{R}^c \times \{-1, +1\}^c \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$, where $\phi$ indicates the specific surrogate loss and will be detailed in the next section. Besides, define a vector-based predictor class $\mathcal{F} = \{ f: \mathcal{X} \mapsto \mathbb{R}^c \}$. For a predictor $f \in \mathcal{F}$, its true ($0/1$) expected risk, surrogate expected risk, and surrogate empirical risk are defined as follows:
\begin{align}
R_{0/1}(f) & = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) \sim P} [ L^{0/1} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) ], \\
R_{\phi}(f) & = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) \sim P} [ L_{\phi} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) ], \\ \hat{R}_{S}(f) & = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n L_{\phi} (f(\mathbf{x}_i), \mathbf{y}_i).
\end{align}
Besides, we use a superscript (i.e., $pr$ or $r$) to distinguish the risks for specific measures. For instance, $\hat{R}_{S}^{pr}(f)$ and $\hat{R}_{S}^{r}(f)$ denote the empirical partial ranking risk and the empirical ranking risk respectively. Moreover, for convenience the expected risk conditioned on an instance $\mathbf{x}$ (i.e., the conditional risk) can be expressed as:
\begin{align}
R(f | \mathbf{x}) & = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{y} \sim P(\mathbf{y} | \mathbf{x})} [ L (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) | \mathbf{x}]
= \sum_{\mathbf{y}} L (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) P(\mathbf{y} | \mathbf{x}),
\end{align}
where $L$ denotes the true ($0/1$) or surrogate loss. Thus, the expected risk of $f$ is $R(f) = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{x} \sim P(\mathbf{x})} [R(f | \mathbf{x})]$.
For each $\mathbf{x}$, given the conditional distribution $P(\mathbf{y} | \mathbf{x})$, we can get its optimal predictions\footnote{Notably, the optimal predictions can be not just one value but a set with many elements that share the same minimal conditional risk.} as follows.
\begin{align}
f^*(\mathbf{x}) = \argmin_{\mathbf{a} \in \mathbb{R}^c} \sum_{\mathbf{y}} L (\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{y}) P(\mathbf{y} | \mathbf{x}),
\end{align}
where $f^*$ is called the \emph{Bayes predictor} w.r.t. the loss $L$. Besides, the expected risk of $f^*$ (i.e., $R(f^*)$) is called the \emph{Bayes risk}, which is the minimal expected risk w.r.t. the loss $L$ and denoted by $R^*$ for convenience. Then, we can define the regret (a.k.a. excess risk) of a predictor $f$ w.r.t. the true and surrogate loss as follows.
\begin{align}
Reg_{0/1}(f) & = R_{0/1}(f) - R_{0/1}^*, \\
Reg_{\phi}(f) & = R_{\phi}(f) - R_{\phi}^*.
\end{align}
Besides, we also use a superscript (i.e., $pr$ or $r$) to distinguish the regrets for specific measures. Moreover, we denote the learned predictor from finite training data $S$ as $\hat{f}_n$. Note that, our goal is to find a predictor $\hat{f}_n$ that achieves the minimal true regret (i.e. $Reg_{0/1}(\hat{f}_n)$) as possible as it can.
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
In this section, we first introduce several specific surrogate losses. Then, we present their associated learning algorithms.
\subsection{Surrogate losses}
\label{sec:loss}
To optimize the (partial) ranking loss, it is natural to employ the convex surrogate pairwise loss~\cite{schapire2000boostexter, elisseeff2001kernel, dekel2003log, zhang2006multilabel} as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ral_surrogate_p}
L_{pa} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+| |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|}} \sum_{(p, q) \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^+ \times S_{\mathbf{y}}^-} \ell ( f_p(\mathbf{x}) - f_q(\mathbf{x}) ) .
\end{equation}
where the base (margin-based) convex loss $\ell(z)$ can be defined in various popular forms, such as the exponential loss $\ell(z) = e^{-z}$, the logistic loss $\ell(z) = \ln( 1 + e^{-z} )$, the hinge loss $\ell(z) = \max \{0, 1 - z\}$, and squared hinge loss $\ell(z) = (\max \{0, 1 - z\})^2$. A common property is that the base convex surrogate loss upper bounds the original $0/1$ loss\footnote{The original logistic loss can be easily changed to $\ell(z) = \log_2( 1 + 2^{-z} )$ or $\ell(z) = \ln( e - 1 + e^{-z} )$ to satisfy this condition.}, i.e., $[\![ z \leq 0 ]\!] \leq \ell(z)$.
Besides, the surrogate univariate loss, which primarily aims to optimize Hamming loss~\cite{boutell2004learning, wu2020multi}, can also be viewed as a surrogate loss for the (partial) ranking loss, which is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ral_surrogate_u1}
L_{u_1} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{c}
\sum_{j=1}^c \ell(y_{j} f_j(\mathbf{x})).
\end{equation}
Note that $L_{u_1}$ cannot strictly upper bound the (partial) ranking loss, i.e. $L_r^{0/1}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) \nleq L_{u_1} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y})$
Remarkably, previous work presents the consistent surrogate univariate loss~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent, gao2013consistency} w.r.t. partial ranking loss, which is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ral_surrogate_u2}
L_{u_2} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+| |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|}
\sum_{j=1}^c \ell(y_{j} f_j(\mathbf{x})).
\end{equation}
Again, the consistent surrogate loss $L_{u_2}$ cannot strictly upper bound the (partial) ranking loss either. Notably, when the surrogate loss strictly upper bounds the $0/1$ loss, the true ($0/1$) risk can be upper bounded by the surrogate risk too, which is crucial for its generalization analysis. Thus, we present two \emph{reweighted convex surrogate univariate losses}, which strictly upper bound (partial) ranking loss, defined as below.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ral_surrogate_u3}
L_{u_3} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{\sum_{p \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^+} \ell(y_{p} f_p(\mathbf{x}))}{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+|} + \frac{\sum_{q \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^-} \ell(y_{q} f_q(\mathbf{x}))}{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ral_surrogate_u4}
L_{u_4} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{\min\{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+|, |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|\}}
\sum_{j=1}^c \ell(y_{j} f_j(\mathbf{x})).
\end{equation}
For a clear presentation, we will formally discuss the relationships among these surrogate losses in the next section.
\subsection{Learning Algorithms}
In the following, we consider the kernel-based learning algorithms which have been widely used in practice~\cite{elisseeff2001kernel, boutell2004learning, hariharan2010large, tan2020multi, wu2020joint} and in theory~\cite{wu2020multi} in MLC. Besides, our following analyses can be extended to other forms of hypothesis class, such as neural networks~\cite{anthony2009neural}. Let $\mathbb{H}$ be a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) induced by the kernel function $\kappa$, where $\kappa: \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a Positive Definite Symmetric (PSD) kernel. Let $\Phi: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{H}$ be a feature mapping associated with $\kappa$. The kernel-based hypothesis class can be defined as follows.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kernel_hypothesis}
\mathcal{F} = \bigg\{ \mathbf{x} \mapsto \mathbf{W} ^\top \phi(\mathbf{x}): \mathbf{W}= (\mathbf{w}_1, \ldots ,\mathbf{w}_c)^\top, \| \mathbf{W} \| \leq \Lambda \bigg\} ,
\end{align}
where $\| \mathbf{W} \|$ denotes $\| \mathbf{W} \|_{\mathbb{H}, 2} = (\sum_{j=1}^c \| \mathbf{w}_j \|_{\mathbb{H}}^2)^{1/2}$ for convenience.
Here we consider the following five learning algorithms with the corresponding aforementioned surrogate losses.
\begin{align}
\label{alg:pa}
& \mathcal{A}^{pa}: \ \min_{\mathbf{W}} \ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n L_{pa}(f(\mathbf{x}_i), \mathbf{y}_i) + \lambda \| \mathbf{W} \|^2 ,\\
\label{alg:u}
& \mathcal{A}^{u_k}: \ \min_{\mathbf{W}} \ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n L_{u_k}(f(\mathbf{x}_i), \mathbf{y}_i) + \lambda \| \mathbf{W} \|^2 , k = 1, 2, 3, 4.
\end{align}
\section{Theoretical Analyses}
\label{sec:theoretical_analysis}
In this section, we present generalization error bounds of the learning algorithms presented before and consistency analyses of the corresponding surrogate losses.
Firstly, we want to highlight the complementary roles of the two perspectives. Recall that our goal is to find a predictor $\hat{f}_n$ learned from finite training data that achieves the minimal true regret $Reg_{0/1}(\hat{f}_n)$. In the following, we will decompose the regret appropriately for clear discussions.
For generalization analyses, the true regret can be decomposed into the following terms w.r.t. the $0/1$ loss.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& Reg_{0/1}(\hat{f}_n) = R_{0/1} (\hat{f}_n) - R_{0/1}^* = \underbrace{\left[ R_{0/1} (\hat{f}_n) - \inf_{g \in \mathcal{F}} R_{0/1} (g) \right]}_{\text{estimation error}} + \underbrace{\left[ \inf_{g \in \mathcal{F}} R_{0/1} (g) - R_{0/1}^* \right]}_{\text{approximation error}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}$ is the constrained function class that real learning algorithms utilize. For a given distribution $P(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$ and a specific measure, $R_{0/1}^*$ is fixed. Besides, $\inf_{g \in \mathcal{F}} R_{0/1} (g)$ depends on the size of $\mathcal{F}$ and is fixed for a given $\mathcal{F}$. Thus, in this case, the original goal becomes to minimize $R_{0/1} (\hat{f}_n)$ as possible as it can. In Section~\ref{sec:gene_bound}, we present the generalization error bounds of the learning algorithms to provide learning guarantees for $R_{0/1} (\hat{f}_n)$ through bounding the surrogate risk $R_{\phi} (\hat{f}_n)$\footnote{Note that, this requires that the surrogate loss $L_{\phi}$ strictly upper bounds the $0/1$ loss $L_{0/1}$ to make $R_{0/1} \leq R_{\phi}$.}. However, these error bounds cannot exactly tell the size of the gap between $R_{0/1} (\hat{f}_n)$ and $R_{\phi} (\hat{f}_n)$.
Consistency analyses aim to answer the question whether the ($0/1$) expected risk of the learned function converges to the Bayes risk~\cite{bartlett2006convexity,gao2013consistency}, i.e., when $n \rightarrow \infty$, $R_{\phi} (\hat{f}_n) \rightarrow R_{\phi}^* \Longrightarrow R_{0/1} (\hat{f}_n) \rightarrow R_{0/1}^*$. If a loss is consistent, a regret bound~\cite{bartlett2006convexity, dembczynski2012consistent} as follows is preferable. Namely, for all measurable function $f$ (including $\hat{f}_n$) and valid joint distribution $P(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y})$, the following holds:
\begin{align}
R_{0/1} (f) - R_{0/1}^* \leq \psi^{-1} (R_{\phi} (f) - R_{\phi}^*),
\end{align}
where $\psi$ is an invertible function such that for any sequence $(\theta_i)$ in $[0,1]$, $\psi(\theta_i) \rightarrow 0$ if and only if $\theta_i \rightarrow 0$~\cite{bartlett2006convexity}.
Prior work~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent} shows that $\psi^{-1}(\theta) = O(c\sqrt{c}) \sqrt{\theta}$ with logistic and exponential loss in MLR.
Besides, when learning in the real setting (with finite data), the surrogate regret of $\hat{f}_n$ can be decomposed into the following two terms w.r.t. the surrogate loss.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \quad R_{\phi} (\hat{f}_n) - R_{\phi}^* = \underbrace{\left[ R_{\phi} (\hat{f}_n) - \inf_{g \in \mathcal{F}} R_{\phi} (g) \right]}_{\text{estimation error}} + \underbrace{\left[ \inf_{g \in \mathcal{F}} R_{\phi} (g) - R_{\phi}^* \right]}_{\text{approximation error}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the estimation error is due to finite data size, and the approximation error is due to the choice of $\mathcal{F}$.
Notably, the consistency analysis~\cite{bartlett2006convexity} neglects these two errors since it allows $P(\mathbf{y} | \mathbf{x})$ known in the infinite data setting and assumes that the hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$ is over all measurable functions.
In summary, consistency can provide valuable insights for learning from infinite data (or data of relatively large $n$ w.r.t. $c$) with an unconstrained hypothesis class, while generalization bounds can offer more insights for learning from finite data with a constrained hypothesis class.
\subsection{Generalization Analyses}
\label{sec:gene_bound}
For generalization analyses, we mainly follow the recent theoretical work \cite{wu2020multi}.
First, we introduce the common assumptions for the subsequent analyses.
\begin{assumption}[The common assumptions]
\label{assump_1}
$ $
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item The hypothesis class is defined in Eq.\eqref{eq:kernel_hypothesis}.
\item The training dataset $S = \{ ( \mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{y}_i ) \}_{i=1}^n$ is sampled i.i.d. from the distribution $P$, where $\exists \ r > 0$, it satisfies $\kappa (\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}) \leq r^2$ for all $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}$
\item The base (convex) loss $\ell (z)$ is $\rho$-Lipschitz continuous and bounded by $B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Note that, the widely-used hinge and logistic loss are both $1$-Lipschitz continuous\footnote{Although the exponential, and squared hinge losses are not globally Lipschitz continuous, they are locally Lipschitz continuous.}. Then we provide the properties of surrogate losses in the following lemma. Notably, the Lipschitz constants of surrogate losses characterize the relationship between the Rademacher complexities~\cite{bartlett2002rademacher} of the loss class and hypothesis class based on the vector-contraction inequality~\cite{maurer2016vector}, which plays a central role in the generalization analysis.
\begin{lem}[The properties of surrogate losses; full proof in Appendix A.1]
Assume that the base (convex) loss $\ell (z)$ is $\rho$-Lipschitz continuous and bounded by $B$. Then, the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item the surrogate loss $L_{u_2} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y})$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u2} is $\frac{\rho \sqrt{c}}{c - 1}$-Lipschitz w.r.t. the first argument and bounded by $(1 + \frac{1}{c - 1})B$.
\item the surrogate loss $L_{u_3} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y})$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u3} is $2 \rho$-Lipschitz w.r.t. the first argument and bounded by $2B$.
\item the surrogate loss $L_{u_4} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y})$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u4} is $\rho \sqrt{c}$-Lipschitz w.r.t. the first argument and bounded by $cB$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Next, we analyze the relationship between true and surrogate losses as follows, which is used for the proof of learning guarantees of algorithms.
\begin{lem}[The relationship between true and surrogate losses]
For the ranking loss and its surrogate losses, the following inequalities hold:
\begin{align}
& L_r^{0/1} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) \leq L_{u_4} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) \leq c L_{u_2} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}), \\
& L_r^{0/1} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) \leq L_{u_3} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}).
\end{align}
\end{lem}
The full proof is in Appendix A.2. From this lemma, we can observe that when a learning algorithm minimizes $L_{u_2}$, it also optimizes an upper bound of $L_r^{0/1}$ which depends on $O(c)$. Besides, $L_{u_3}$ and $L_{u_4}$ strictly upper bound $L_r^{0/1}$. These upper bounds of $L_r^{0/1}$ would help to give learning guarantees of corresponding learning algorithms w.r.t. the (partial) ranking loss in the subsequent analyses.
First, we analyze the learning guarantee of $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$, as follows.
\begin{thm}[Learning guarantee of $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$]
Assume the loss $L_{\phi} = c L_{u_2}$, where $L_{u_2}$ is defined in Eq.\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u2}. Besides, \emph{Assumption~\ref{assump_1}} is satisfied. Then, for any $\delta > 0$, with probability at least $1 - \delta$ over $S$, the following generalization bound holds for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$:
\begin{align}
& R_{0/1}^{pr} (f) \leq R_{0/1}^r (f) \leq c \hat{R}^{u_2}_S(f) + 2 \sqrt{2} \rho c (1 + \frac{1}{c-1}) \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda^2 r^2}{n}} + 3Bc (1+\frac{1}{c-1}) \sqrt{\frac{\log \frac{2}{\delta}}{2n}}.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
The full proof is in Appendix A.3.1. From this theorem, we can see that the learning algorithm $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$ has a learning guarantee in terms of (partial) ranking loss which depends on $O(c)$
Then, we provide the learning guarantee of $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$ in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}[Learning guarantee of $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$]
Assume the loss $L_{\phi} = L_{u_3}$, where $L_{u_3}$ is defined in Eq.\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u3}. Besides, \emph{Assumption~\ref{assump_1}} is satisfied. Then, for any $\delta > 0$, with probability at least $1 - \delta$ over $S$, the following generalization bound holds for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$:
\begin{align}
R_{0/1}^{pr} (f) \leq R_{0/1}^r (f) \leq & \hat{R}^{u_3}_S(f) + 4 \sqrt{2} \rho \sqrt{\frac{c \Lambda^2 r^2}{n}} + 6B \sqrt{\frac{\log \frac{2}{\delta}}{2n}}.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
The full proof is in Appendix A.3.2. From this theorem, remarkably, we can see that the learning algorithm $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$ has a learning guarantee in terms of (partial) ranking loss which depends on $O(\sqrt{c})$, which enjoys the same order as the algorithm $\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ \cite{wu2020multi}.
Finally, we give the learning guarantee of $\mathcal{A}^{u_4}$ as following.
\begin{thm}[Learning guarantee of $\mathcal{A}^{u_4}$]
Assume the loss $L_{\phi} = L_{u_4}$, where $L_{u_4}$ is defined in Eq.\eqref{eq:ral_surrogate_u4}. Besides, \emph{Assumption~\ref{assump_1}} is satisfied. Then, for any $\delta > 0$, with probability at least $1 - \delta$ over $S$, the following generalization bound holds for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$:
\begin{align}
R_{0/1}^{pr} (f) \leq R_{0/1}^r (f) \leq & \hat{R}^{u_4}_S(f) + 2 \sqrt{2} \rho c \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda^2 r^2}{n}} + 3c B \sqrt{\frac{\log \frac{2}{\delta}}{2n}}.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
The full proof is in Appendix A.3.3. The above theorem indicates that $\mathcal{A}^{u_4}$ has a learning guarantee w.r.t. (partial) ranking loss depending on $O(c)$, which is the same as $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$.
\subsection{Consistency Analyses}
\begin{table}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\caption{The penalties of the specific univariate losses in Section~\ref{sec:loss} w.r.t. the general reweighted form in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni}.}
\label{penalty-table}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Loss & $1 / \beta_{\mathbf{y}}^+$ & $1 / \beta_{\mathbf{y}}^-$ \\
\midrule
$L_{u_1}$ & $ {c}$ & $ {c}$ \\
\specialrule{0em}{1pt}{1pt}
$L_{u_2}$ & $ { |S_{\mathbf{y}}^+| |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-| }$ & $ { |S_{\mathbf{y}}^+| |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-| }$ \\
\specialrule{0em}{1pt}{1pt}
$L_{u_3}$ & $ {|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+|}$ & $ {|S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|}$ \\
\specialrule{0em}{1pt}{1pt}
$L_{u_4}$ & $ { \min\{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+|, |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|\} }$ & ${ \min\{|S_{\mathbf{y}}^+|, |S_{\mathbf{y}}^-|\}}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
For consistency, following~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent,gao2013consistency}, we consider the {\it general ranking loss} and the {\it general partial ranking loss} as follows:
\begin{align}
L^{0/1}_{gr}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = \alpha_\mathbf{y}\sum_{(p ,q) \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^+ \times S_{\mathbf{y}}^-} \bigg [ [\![ f_p(\mathbf{x}) \le f_q(\mathbf{x}) ]\!] \bigg ] , \label{eqn:cons_rnk_notpartial}
\end{align} and
\begin{align}
L^{0/1}_{gpr}(f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y}) = & \alpha_\mathbf{y} \sum_{(p ,q) \in S_{\mathbf{y}}^+ \times S_{\mathbf{y}}^-} \bigg [ [\![ f_p(\mathbf{x}) < f_q(\mathbf{x}) ]\!]
+ \frac{1}{2} [\![ f_p(\mathbf{x} ) = f_q(\mathbf{x} ) ]\!] \bigg ], \label{eqn:cons_rnk}
\end{align}
where $\alpha_\mathbf{y}$ is a positive penalty. The losses in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:spe_rl} and Eq.~\eqref{eqn:spe_prl} are special cases of Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk_notpartial} and
Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk} with $\alpha_\mathbf{y} = \frac{1}{ |S_{\mathbf{y}}^+ | |S_{\mathbf{y}}^- | }$ respectively. For clarity and generality, we define the {\it general reweighted univariate surrogate loss} as follows:
\begin{align}
L_{u} (f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{y})
= &
\sum_{j=1}^c ([\![ y_j = + 1 ]\!] \beta_\mathbf{y}^+ + [\![ y_j = - 1 ]\!] \beta_\mathbf{y}^- ) \ell (y_j f_j(\mathbf{x})),
\label{eqn:gen_uni}
\end{align}
where $\beta_\mathbf{y}^+$ and $\beta_\mathbf{y}^-$ are penalties for the positive and negative labels respectively. We assume $\beta_\mathbf{y}^+\beta_\mathbf{y}^- > 0$ for convenience in our analyses. Note that the penalties can be different and all univariate surrogate losses presented in Section~\ref{sec:loss} are special cases of Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni}. (See Table~\ref{penalty-table} for details.)
Let $\mathcal{B}_L(\mathbf{x}, P(\mathbf{y | \mathbf{x}}))$ denote the set of the Bayes predictors of a loss $L$ given a data point $\mathbf{x}$ and a conditional distribution $P(\mathbf{y | \mathbf{x}})$. Remarkably, a sufficient and necessary condition (called \emph{multi-label consistency}~\cite{gao2013consistency}) for a surrogate loss to be (Fisher) consistent w.r.t. the (partial) ranking loss is presented in the following Lemma~\ref{cons_cond}.
\begin{lem}[Multi-label consistency \cite{gao2013consistency}]\label{cons_cond}
A surrogate loss $L$ is consistent w.r.t. a $0/1$ loss $L^{0/1}$, including the general ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk_notpartial} and the general partial ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk}, if and only if $\forall \mathbf{x}$ and $P(\mathbf{y} | \mathbf{x})$, $
\mathcal{B}_{L}(\mathbf{x}, P(\mathbf{y | \mathbf{x}})) \subset \mathcal{B}_{L^{0/1}}(\mathbf{x}, P(\mathbf{y | \mathbf{x}}))$.
\end{lem}
Note that it takes additional efforts to check the consistency of a new surrogate loss according to Lemma~\ref{cons_cond}, because one has to enumerate all possible conditional distributions. For the general loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni},
we present more intuitive characterization that only involves the penalties in Theorem~\ref{thm:cons_log} and Proposition~\ref{cons_pro_hinge}, considering different base losses. For clarity, we refer the readers to Appendix B for all proof.
\begin{thm}[Necessary condition for the consistency of Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni} w.r.t. Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk} with exponential, logistic or squared hinge loss]
A general reweighted univariate surrogate loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni} with $\ell(z) = e^{-z}$, $\ell(z) = \ln (1 + e^{-z})$ or $\ell(z) = (\max\{0, 1- z\})^2$ is consistent w.r.t. the general partial ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk} only if $\exists \tau > 0$, $\beta_\mathbf{y}^+ \beta_\mathbf{y}^- = \tau \alpha_\mathbf{y}^2 $ for all $\mathbf{y}$ such that $1-c\le \sum_{1\le j \le c}y_j \le c-1$.
\label{thm:cons_log}
\end{thm}
Note that, when $c \le 3$, the penalties of $L_{u_1}$, $L_{u_3}$ and $L_{u_4}$ may coincide with that of $L_{u_2}$ up to a multiplicative constant.
When $c \ge 4$, it is straightforward to construct counter examples that violate the necessary condition in Theorem~\ref{thm:cons_log} and obtain the following Corollary~\ref{cons_cor_log_all}.
\begin{corollary}[Inconsistency of $L_{u_1}$, $L_{u_3}$ and $L_{u_4}$ w.r.t. Eq.~\eqref{eqn:spe_prl} with exponential, logistic or squared hinge loss]
If $c \ge 4$, $L_{u_1}$, $L_{u_3}$ and $L_{u_4}$ with $\ell(z) = e^{-z}$ or $\ell(z) = \ln (1 + e^{-z})$ or $\ell(z) = (\max\{0, 1- z\})^2$
are inconsistent w.r.t. the partial ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:spe_prl}. \label{cons_cor_log_all}
\end{corollary}
We further show the inconsistency of the general reweighted univariate loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni} w.r.t. the general partial ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk} with hinge loss. Note that this includes the inconsistency of $L_{u_1}$, $L_{u_3}$ and $L_{u_4}$ w.r.t. Eq.~\eqref{eqn:spe_prl}.
\begin{pro}[Inconsistency of Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni} w.r.t. Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk} with hinge loss]
The general reweighted univariate surrogate loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni} with $\ell(z) = \max \{0, 1 - z\}$ are inconsistent w.r.t. the general partial ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:cons_rnk}, for all positive penalties $\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}$, $\beta^+_{\mathbf{y}}$ and $\beta^-_{\mathbf{y}}$. \label{cons_pro_hinge}
\end{pro}
An immediate conclusion from Corollary~\ref{cons_cor_log_all} and Proposition~\ref{cons_pro_hinge} is that $L_{u_1}$, $L_{u_3}$ and $L_{u_4}$ are inconsistent w.r.t. the ranking loss in Eq.~\eqref{eqn:spe_rl} because $\mathcal{B}_{L_{r}^{0/1}}(\mathbf{x}, P(\mathbf{y | \mathbf{x}})) \subset \mathcal{B}_{L_{pr}^{0/1}}(\mathbf{x}, P(\mathbf{y | \mathbf{x}}))$~\cite{gao2013consistency}.
Compared to existing work~\cite{dembczynski2012consistent,gao2013consistency}, although Theorem~\ref{thm:cons_log} and Proposition~\ref{cons_pro_hinge} are negative, such results consider surrogate losses in a more general reweighted form, i.e. Eq.~\eqref{eqn:gen_uni}, which may be of independent interest.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experimental_results}
\begin{table}[t]
\scriptsize
\caption{Basic statistics of the benchmark datasets.}
\label{tab:datasets}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Dataset & \#Instance & \#Feature & \#Label & Domain \\
\midrule
emotions & 593 & 72 & 6 & music \\
image & 2000 & 294 & 5 & images \\
scene & 2407 & 294 & 6 & images \\
yeast & 2417 & 103 & 14 & biology \\
enron & 1702 & 1001 & 53 & text \\
rcv1-subset1 & 6000 & 944 & 101 & text \\
bibtex & 7395 & 1836 & 159 & text \\
corel5k & 5000 & 499 & 374 & images \\
mediamill & 43907 & 120 & 101 & video \\
delicious & 16105 & 500 & 983 & text(web) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
To validate our theory findings,
we evaluate all algorithms presented in Section~\ref{sec:methods} on $10$ widely-used benchmark datasets\footnote{Datasets are available at http://mulan.sourceforge.net/datasets-mlc.html and \\ http://palm.seu.edu.cn/zhangml/.}
with various domains and sizes of label and data. We summarize their statistics in Table~\ref{tab:datasets}. Since the first four datasets are not properly prepossessed, we normalize the input as zero mean and unit variance following~\cite{wu2020multi}.
For all the learning algorithms, we utilize the linear models with the base logistic loss for simplicity and a fair comparison. Besides, we use the same efficient stochastic algorithm (i.e. SVRG-BB~\cite{tan2016barzilai}) to solve these convex optimization problems. Moreover, for fairness, we take $3$-fold cross validation on each dataset, where the hyper-parameter $\lambda$ is searched in a wide range of $\{10^{-8}, 10^{-7}, \cdots, 10^2\}$ for all algorithms. We use the ranking loss as the evaluation measure.
The experimental results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark_results} and we refer the readers to Appendix C for complete results with standard deviations. First, we observe that $\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$ outperform the others especially $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$ on almost all benchmarks. It agrees with our generalization analyses: $\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$ enjoy a generalization error bound of $O(\sqrt{c})$ while the others have a bound of $O(c)$. Besides, we would like to emphasize that such results do not contradict with the consistency results. In fact, there are two assumptions in consistency analyses are violated in the real settings. The first one is that the Bayes predictor may not be linear and the second one is that the number of samples may not be sufficient to achieve the Bayes predictor, which explain the relatively weaker results of $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$ considering its consistency. In this sense, the generalization error bounds may provide more insights than consistency when the number of training samples is finite (or not sufficiently large) and the hypothesis space is not realizable.
Further, we also note that $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$ outperforms $\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ on the last four datasets with a relatively large $c$. The underlying mechanism is not clear yet. Our hypothesis is that our univariate loss is easier to optimize than the pairwise loss, which may provide additional benefits beyond the scope of the generalization analyses. A deeper analysis is left as future work.
Moreover, as for computation efficiency, the pairwise loss is much slower than all univariate ones, including $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$.
Indeed, $\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ takes more than a week using a 48-core CPU server on the delicious dataset with $c=983$ and we do not finish it. We provide quantitative results of the running time in Appendix C.
In conclusion, the benchmark results
show the promise of our $L_{u_3}$ in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness.
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{4pt}
\scriptsize
\caption{Ranking loss of all five algorithms on benchmark datasets. On each dataset, the top two algorithms are highlighted in bold and the top one is labeled with $^{\dagger}$. }
\label{tab:benchmark_results}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\toprule
Dataset & $\mathcal{A}^{pa}$ & $\mathcal{A}^{u_1}$ & $\mathcal{A}^{u_2}$ & $\mathcal{A}^{u_3}$ & $\mathcal{A}^{u_4}$ \\
\midrule
emotions & $\bf 0.1511^{\dagger}$ & $0.1538$ & $0.1587$ & $\bf0.1530$ & $0.1616$ \\
image & $\bf 0.1625^{\dagger}$ & $0.1642$ & $0.1653$ & $\bf0.1645$ & $0.1678$ \\
scene & $\bf 0.0696^{\dagger}$ & $0.0809$ & $0.0821$ & $\bf0.0768$ & $0.0806$ \\
yeast & $\bf 0.1766^{\dagger}$ & $0.1768$ & $0.1785$ & $\bf0.1767$ & $0.1816$ \\
enron & $\bf 0.0682^{\dagger}$ & $0.0724$ & $\bf0.0696$ & $0.0698$ & $0.0715$ \\
rcv1-subset1 & $\bf 0.0361^{\dagger}$ & $0.0418$ & $0.0392$ & $\bf0.0368$ & $0.0391$ \\
bibtex & $\bf0.0516$ & $0.0545$ & $0.0551$ & $\bf 0.0401^{\dagger}$ & $0.0538$ \\
corel5k & $\bf0.1081$ & $0.1091$ & $0.1099$ & $\bf 0.1063^{\dagger}$ & $0.1096$ \\
mediamill & $\bf0.0395$ & $0.0402$ & $0.0412$ & $\bf 0.0389^{\dagger}$ & $0.0405$ \\
delicious & - & $\bf0.0960$ & $0.0974$ & $\bf 0.0946^{\dagger}$ & $0.0978$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
\label{sec:conclusion_future_work}
This paper presents a systematic study from two complementary perspectives of consistency and generalization error bounds in multi-label ranking. In particular, existing consistent univariate losses lead to an error bound depending on $O(c)$ while the inconsistent pairwise losses enjoy an error bound of $O(\sqrt{c})$~\cite{wu2020multi}.
Inspired by the generalization analyses, we present two reweighted surrogate univariate losses that strictly upper bound the (partial) ranking loss.
Surprisingly, though not consistent, one of them enjoys an error bound depending on $O(\sqrt{c})$, which is nearly the same as the pairwise loss and retains the computational efficiency. Empirical results validate our theory findings.
Some problems in MLR and MLC are still open and may inspire future work. Theoretically, consistency provides valuable insights when learning on large-scale samples with a unconstrained function space. However, our empirical results show that generalization explains the behaviour of a loss more accurately than consistency if the two assumptions are violated. Generally, a deeper understanding of the complementary roles of the two perspectives is intriguing.
Besides, it is also attractive to investigate whether one can design a loss such that it is consistent and its corresponding learning algorithm has a tight generalization bound.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is usually formulated as a Bayesian inference problem \cite{dellaert2017factor}. The state-of-the-art SLAM algorithms such as iSAM2~\cite{kaess2012isam2} seek the maximum \emph{a posteriori} (MAP) estimate.
Under the assumption of Gaussian measurement noise and priors, these methods can also provide a Gaussian approximation to the posterior. However, the posterior distribution in real-world SLAM problems is almost always non-Gaussian and may have multiple modes. This is in part due to non-linear measurement models and non-Gaussian factors~\cite{fourie2016nonparametric}. Examples include real-world scenarios involving range measurements \cite{fourie2017multi}, pose transformations on the special Euclidean group \cite{long2013banana}, multi-modal data association \cite{doherty2020probabilistic}, and odometry slip\slash grip error modelling \cite{olson2013inference}. Therefore, Gaussian (or any unimodal) approximation is \emph{inherently} incapable of capturing critical information about the uncertainty in SLAM, which is essential for safe navigation. The main challenge is that \emph{exact} inference is in general computationally intractable. This highlights the need for efficient \emph{approximate} inference methods that can adequately capture and represent uncertainty in SLAM.
The computational cost of traditional general-purpose methods, like Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) or nested sampling, is usually too high for high-dimensional factor graphs that arise in SLAM \cite{kaess2005markov,torma2010markov,skilling2006nested}. The efficiency of the state-of-the-art SLAM algorithms such as iSAM2 lies in exploiting the sparsity structure of SLAM via the Bayes tree. The Bayes tree converts a high-dimensional cyclic factor graph into an acyclic directed graph using an elimination game~\cite{Heggernes1996finding} and max-cardinality search~\cite{Tarjan1984simple}. In essence, the Bayes tree decomposes the high-dimensional inference problem into low-dimensional inference problems on cliques.
Recent extensions of iSAM2, such as mm-iSAM~\cite{fourie2017multi} and MH-iSAM2~\cite{hsiao2019mh}, all take advantage of the acyclic Bayes tree
to exploit the sparsity pattern of the original high-dimensional factor graphs~\cite{kaess2010bayes, Fourie2020wafr}. These algorithms, however, can only infer the \emph{marginal} posterior distribution (mm-iSAM) or are limited to certain sources of non-Gaussianity (MH-iSAM2).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{NFiSAM_fig1.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of core steps in NF-iSAM: (a) conversion from a factor graph to the Bayes tree with elimination ordering $(X_0, X_1, X_2, L_1, L_2)$ and (b) construction of clique conditional sampler via normalizing flows. The colon in a Bayes tree node splits frontal and separator variables. The normalizing flow model is learnt from training samples by neural networks. In factors of Bayes tree node $\mathcal{C}_1$, the measured value of $f_4$ is relaxed to forecast observation variable $O_1$ for rapidly drawing training samples.}
\vspace{-0.5 cm}
\label{fig: fig 1 illustration}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we present a novel general solution, Normalizing Flow iSAM (NF-iSAM), to infer the joint posterior distribution of general non-Gaussian SLAM problems using the Bayes tree and the normalizing flow model \cite{rezende2015variational}. We present experimental results from a synthetic dataset and a real dataset for range-only SLAM.
Key features of NF-iSAM include the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item NF-iSAM extends normalizing flows from low-dimensional inference to high-dimensional cyclic factor graphs by exploiting the sparsity structure encoded in the Bayes tree to efficiently perform inference incrementally.
\item NF-iSAM extends iSAM2 to non-Gaussian factor graphs by exploiting the expressive power of normalizing flows and neural networks on probabilistic modeling.
\item Unlike the state-of-the-art non-Gaussian factor graph inference algorithm, mm-iSAM~\cite{fourie2016nonparametric,Fourie2019iros}, which can only generate samples from the \emph{marginal} posterior distributions, NF-iSAM is able to draw samples from the \emph{joint} posterior distribution.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related Work}
Existing methods for factor graph inference can be categorized into two classes, namely parametric and non-parametric solutions.
The state-of-the-art optimization-based solutions to SLAM, such as iSAM2~\cite{kaess2012isam2}, are MAP point estimators that approximate the posterior distribution by a single, parametric Gaussian model~\cite{dellaert2017factor}, thus, they are not general solutions to non-Gaussian posteriors.
iSAM2 has also been extended to multi-hypothesis problems consisting of Gaussian mixture factors. The main challenge in such problems is the exponential number of Gaussian modes. The max-mixture \cite{olson2013inference} approach avoids the exponential complexity by selecting a highly probable component from all modes. However, uncertainty information of all other modes cannot be recovered in the max-mixture solution. MH-iSAM2~\cite{hsiao2019mh} aims to retain dominant hypotheses by pruning less likely hypotheses. While the multi-hypothesis approach can address uncertain data association and ambiguous loop closures, it cannot explicitly tackle more general non-Gaussianity such as range-only measurements.
Nonparametric models are able to capture some non-Gaussian posterior densities. These methods use sampling techniques, such as particle filters or MCMC \cite{montemerlo2003fastslam,kaess2005markov,torma2010markov}. The most well-known nonparametric SLAM algorithm is FastSLAM 2.0 \cite{montemerlo2003fastslam}. Sequential Monte Carlo methods such as FastSLAM suffer from the so-called particle depletion and degeneracy problems. Moreover, for each sample of robot's trajectory, FastSLAM uses extended Kalman filters to obtain a Gaussian approximation to the posterior distribution of the map. A more recent method, multimodal-iSAM (mm-iSAM)~\cite{fourie2016nonparametric,Fourie2019iros}, leverages the Bayes tree \cite{kaess2010bayes} to solve SLAM problems with a variety of non-Gaussian error sources~\cite{fourie2017multi, Fourie2020iros}.
mm-iSAM uses nested Gibbs sampling, derived from nonparametric belief propagation~\cite{sudderth2003nonparametric}, to approximate the \emph{marginal} belief of each clique. mm-iSAM is unable to generate samples from the \emph{joint} posterior distribution.
In the machine learning community, non-Gaussian inference has also drawn researchers' interest, however most works focus on low-dimensional problems instead of general factor graphs.
Kernel embedding is a tool to represent non-Gaussian densities \cite{smola2007hilbert, song2013kernel}, and can be applied to hidden Markov models \cite{fukumizu2013kernel, kanagawa2014monte, gebhardt2017kernel} and trees \cite{song2011kernel}.
Although this method has been successfully applied to a number of robotic problems \cite{mccalman2013multi, kim2018imitation}, converting an embedding back to a density is computationally challenging\cite{scholkopf2002learning}.
The nonparanormal model \cite{lafferty2012sparse}, also known as the Gaussian copula, is an extension to the Gaussian distribution.
It represents a density that can be transformed to a Gaussian after marginally applying an increasing map along each dimension, and has been applied to trees \cite{elidan2012nonparanormal}. Recent work uses a copula as the proposal distribution for particle filters~\cite{martin2020variational}, but is not yet tested at the scale of SLAM problems.
Another class of algorithms draws samples from a non-Gaussian target distribution by transforming samples from a simple reference distribution.
These methods are known as transport maps \cite{el2012bayesian}, or normalizing flows \cite{rezende2015variational} when the reference distribution is Gaussian.
Although they have shown good performance in noise modeling \cite{abdelhamed2019noise} and reinforcement learning \cite{mazoure2020leveraging}, research on high-dimensional graphical models is limited.
Specifically, existing solutions are still limited to problems with special structures, such as a hidden Markov model or data assimilation \cite{spantini2018inference, spantini2019coupling}. In this work, we leverage the Bayes tree to extend normalizing flow from a low-dimensional solution to high-dimensional cyclic factor graphs that arise in SLAM. The proposed algorithm, NF-iSAM, is able to draw samples from the non-Gaussian joint posterior distribution in SLAM problems.
\section{Factor Graphs and the Bayes Tree}
\label{sec:factor graph and Bayes tree}
A factor graph consists of variables and factors.
Given a variable elimination ordering, a factor graph can be converted to a Bayes tree by Algorithm~2 and~3 in \cite{kaess2012isam2}.
Nodes on the Bayes tree represent cliques of variables as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig: fig 1 illustration}(a).
Variables on a clique shared with its parent clique are called separator variables while the remainder are frontal variables.
The Bayes tree represents the following factorization of the posterior
\begin{equation}
p(\Theta|z)=\prod_{\mathcal{C}\in\mathbf{C}} p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C},z)=\prod_{\mathcal{C}\in\mathbf{C}} p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C}),\label{eqn: Bayes tree factorization}
\end{equation}
where $\Theta$ is a high-dimensional random variable consisting of all poses and landmark locations, $z$ denotes all of the robot's observations, $\mathbf{C}$ is the collection of cliques, $F_\mathcal{C}$ denotes the set of frontal variables at clique $\mathcal{C}$, $S_\mathcal{C}$ denotes separator variables, and $z_\mathcal{C}$ denotes the set of observations in and below clique $\mathcal{C}$ on the Bayes tree.
If, for every clique $\mathcal{C}$ and any $S_\mathcal{C}=s_\mathcal{C}$, we could construct a conditional sampler that can efficiently draw independent samples of $F_\mathcal{C}$ from $p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C}=s_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C})$, then we would be able to sample the joint posterior from the root to the leaves of the Bayes tree. In the Bayes tree construction process of clique $\mathcal{C}$, the clique joint density $p(S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$ is refactored as product of the conditional density $p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C})$ and the separator marginal density $p(S_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$. $p(S_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$ will be attached to its parent clique as new factors in the elimination process, thus, it will be used in following computation and we also need to characterize it.
\section{SLAM via normalizing flows}
\label{sec: method}
In this section, we first briefly review normalizing flows (Section \ref{sec: normalizing flows}). We then present our novel technique for building samplers for $p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C})$ and $p(S_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$ via normalizing flows in Section \ref{sec: clique conditional sampler}. Lastly, in Section \ref{sec: incremental update}, we describe our \emph{incremental} inference approach that generates joint posterior samples.
\subsection{Normalizing Flows}
\label{sec: normalizing flows}
A normalizing flow is the transformation $T$ from a target random variable $X\in \mathbb{R}^{D}$ to another variable $Y$ that follows a reference distribution $q_{Y}(y)$ which is standard Gaussian.
The transformation here is a lower-triangular map:
\begin{align}
T(x)=
\begin{bmatrix*}[l]
T_1(x_1)\\
T_2(x_1,x_2)\\
\vdots\\
T_D(x_1,x_2,\hdots,x_D)\\
\end{bmatrix*}
=
\begin{bmatrix*}[c]
y_1\\
y_2\\
\vdots\\
y_D\\
\end{bmatrix*}
=
y,\label{eq: change of variables}
\end{align}
where each row $T_d$ is differentiable, bijective, and increasing with respect to $x_d$ \cite{rezende2015variational,durkan2019neural,jaini2019sum,papamakarios2019normalizing,rezende2020normalizing}. Therefore, if the transformation $T$ is known, we can easily draw samples from $x \sim p_{X}$ by
\begin{enumerate}
\item drawing samples $y\sim q_{Y}$ and
\item solving the inverse transformation problem
\begin{align}
x
=
T^{-1}(y)
=
\begin{bmatrix*}[l]
T_{1}^{-1}(y_1)\\
T_{2}^{-1}(y_2;x_1)\\
\vdots\\
T_{D}^{-1}(y_D;x_1,x_2,\hdots,x_{D-1})
\end{bmatrix*}.\label{eqn:inverse map}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
Since in \eqref{eqn:inverse map} one first solves for $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{d-1}$ before solving for $x_d$, finding $x_d$ requires inverting a one-dimensional function given $y_d$ and $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{d-1}$. In general, the transformation between random variables of two distributions is not unique. It has been proven, however, that triangular maps to a standard Gaussian exist and are unique for any non-vanishing densities \cite{carlier2010knothe,bonnotte2013knothe,bogachev2005triangular,villani2008optimal}. The triangular map has also been exploited in prior work on Bayesian inference and sampling \cite{el2012bayesian, spantini2018inference, parno2018transport}. An important property of the triangular map is that $T_{d}$ encodes the conditional probability $p(x_d|x_{d-1},...,x_{1})$ \cite{jaini2019sum}. For examples, function $T_1(\cdot)$ transforms marginal sample $x_1\sim p(x_1)$ to a sample $y_1$ that follows a one-dimensional standard Gaussian distribution $q_1$. For $d\neq 1$, if a sample $x_d$ follows the conditional distribution $p(x_d|X_1=x_1, X_2=x_2, \ldots, X_{d-1}=x_{d-1})$, then conditional normalizing flow $T_d(x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{d-1}, \cdot)$ transforms $x_d$ to a one-dimensional standard Gaussian sample $y_d\sim q_d$. This property is important and will be used to build the desired clique conditional sampler in Section \ref{sec: clique conditional sampler}.
Our goal here is to parameterize the triangular map and solve for it. $T_d$ can be expressed as a one-dimensional function of $x_d, T_d(x_d;c_d(x_1,x_2,...,x_{d-1}))$,
where $c_d(x_1,x_2,...,x_{d-1})$ is named a conditioner whose output is a set of parameters fixing the one-dimensional function. For example, sum-of-square polynomials and splines can be used to parameterize the function $T_d$, so the outputs of their conditioners will be polynomial coefficients or spline segments, respectively \cite{jaini2019sum, durkan2019neural}.
Given a family of functions $\mathcal{F}$ for parameterization, and $n$ training samples of $x$, we seek the triangular map minimizing the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence between $p(x)$ and $p_T(x)$, where $p_T(x)$ denotes the density transformed from $q(y)$ by $T^{-1}$ for a triangular map $T$. For any $T$, by change of variables, we have $p_T(x)=q(T(x)) \,\, |{T'}(x)|$,
where $|{T'}(x)|$ is the determinant of the Jacobian. Therefore, with the $n$ training samples, an optimal triangular map $T^\star \in \argmin_{T\in\mathcal{F}}\text{KL}\left({p(x)}\|{p_T(x)}\right)$ is given by
\begin{align}
T^{\star} &\in \argmin_{T\in\mathcal{F}} \int_{x}p(x) \log{\frac{p(x)}{p_T(x)}}\,\text{d}x,\\
&= \argmax_{T\in\mathcal{F}} \int_{x}p(x) \left[ \log{q(T(x))}+\log{|{T'}(x)|}\right]\,\text{d}x,\\
&\approx \argmax_{T\in\mathcal{F}} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \left[ \log{q(T(x_{(k)}))}+\log{|{T'}(x_{(k)})|} \right],\label{eqn:MC KL}
\end{align}
where the last step uses samples from $p$ and Monte Carlo integration as approximation.
Considering the flexibility of splines, we use rational-quadratic splines to parameterize $T_d$ \cite{durkan2019neural}. The parameters are coordinates of spline knots on the $x$-$y$ plane and spline derivatives at those knots. For a univariate transformation, e.g., $T_1$, its conditioner does not depend on $x$ and just outputs constant knot parameters. We can simply optimize over those knot parameters to find a univariate transformation minimizing the KL divergence. Fig.~\ref{fig:1d normalizing flow} shows such a one-dimensional transformation that maps raw samples to standard Gaussian samples. However, for higher dimensional functions, e.g. $T_{d}$ with $d>1$, those knot parameters have to depend on $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{d-1}$. Exploiting the expressive power of neural networks, we use fully connected neural networks to model those conditioners; see \cite[Sec.\ 3]{durkan2019neural} for details of the parameterization. Our implementation is adapted from \cite{normalizing-flows}.
A usual routine before training is standardizing raw samples by their means and standard deviations to regularize unbounded large values \cite{ioffe2015batch}. Samples of orientation variables are transformed to $[-\pi,\pi]$ before being standardized. This standardizing step is equivalent to an affine transformation which makes training more efficient and does not alter the problem nor affect the non-Gaussianity in the raw samples. When the training is finished, the resulting triangular map will be transformed back to the space of raw samples by the inverse of the affine transformation.
\begin{figure}[t]\vspace*{3mm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{1d_flow.png}
\vspace*{-0.05cm}
\caption{A one-dimensional example of normalizing flow: histogram of sample $x$ (left), transformation function $T(x)$ (middle), and histogram of transformed samples and reference variable $y\sim N(0,1)$ (right).}
\label{fig:1d normalizing flow}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Clique Conditional Samplers via Normalizing Flows}
\label{sec: clique conditional sampler}
As suggested in Section \ref{sec: normalizing flows}, we can learn the normalizing flow
\begin{equation}
T_{\mathcal{C}}(S_\mathcal{C}, F_\mathcal{C})=
\begin{bmatrix*}[l]
T_{S_\mathcal{C}}(S_\mathcal{C})\\
T_{F_\mathcal{C}}(S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C})\\
\end{bmatrix*}
\label{eq: conditional normalizing flows without observations}
\end{equation}
for density $p(S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$ on clique $\mathcal{C}$ if we have training samples from $p(S_\mathcal{C}, F_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$. $T_{S_\mathcal{C}}$ is the normalizing flow for separator marginal $p(S_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$, and $T_{F_\mathcal{C}}$ is the conditional normalizing flows for $p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C})$. There are many well-developed off-the-shelf implementations of MCMC sampling such as {PyMC3} \cite{salvatier2016probabilistic} or nested sampling such as {dynesty} \cite{speagle2020dynesty}. However, even though the dimension of a clique is much smaller than that of the entire factor graph, those packages are still too slow for obtaining training samples on a clique in real-time for robotics applications since they involve iterative evaluation of densities.
Inspired by the so-called forecast-analysis scenario in hidden Markov models \cite{spantini2019coupling}, we propose the following alternative strategy:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Draw training samples from another density $\widetilde{p}$, where sampling is efficient.
\item Train normalizing flow $\widetilde{T}$ for $\widetilde{p}$, and retrieve $T$ for $p(S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$.
\end{enumerate}
In step 1, we sample from density $p(O_\mathcal{C},S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C}')$, where $z_\mathcal{C}'=z_\mathcal{C}\backslash O_\mathcal{C}$. We can select a set of likelihood factors, whose measurement variables are $O_\mathcal{C}$, that breaks the clique into a forest, where each tree has a node with prior samples. For example, in Fig. \ref{fig: fig 1 illustration}(b), there is only one tree with variables $X_0$, $X_1$ and $L_1$, $f_4$ is the factor that breaks the clique into a tree, and $O_1$ is its measurement variable. With the knowledge of measurement models, we can efficiently sample these trees using ancestral sampling \cite{bishop2006pattern}. Starting from these samples which follow $p(S_\mathcal{C}, F_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C}')$, we generate samples for measurements $O_\mathcal{C}$ using measurement models. For example, in Fig.~\ref{fig: fig 1 illustration}(b), we simulate forecast observation $O_1$ between $X_1$ and $L_1$ samples by $f_4$ noise. Thereby, a sample is drawn without the need of iterative procedures (see Algorithm \ref{algo: clique sampler}).
This strategy works for any clique $\mathcal{C}$ when $\mathcal{C}$ has no node connected to two prior factors simultaneously, and this is ensured by the elimination ordering.
In step 2, we use training samples from $p(O_\mathcal{C},S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}|z_{\mathcal{C}}^{\prime})$ to obtain the normalizing flow $\widetilde{T}_\mathcal{C}$ for $p(S_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$ and $p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C})$. According to Section \ref{sec: normalizing flows}, by ordering variables in $\widetilde{T}_\mathcal{C}$ according to $(O_\mathcal{C}, S_\mathcal{C}, F_\mathcal{C})$, we get the triangular map
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{T}_\mathcal{C}(O_\mathcal{C}, S_\mathcal{C}, F_\mathcal{C})=
\begin{bmatrix*}[l]
\widetilde{T}_{O_\mathcal{C}}(O_\mathcal{C})\\
\widetilde{T}_{S_\mathcal{C}}(O_\mathcal{C},S_\mathcal{C})\\
\widetilde{T}_{F_\mathcal{C}}(O_\mathcal{C},S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C})
\end{bmatrix*}.
\label{eq: conditional normalizing flows with observations}
\end{equation}
When we fix $O_\mathcal{C}$ to its measured value $o_\mathcal{C}$, $\widetilde{T}_{S_\mathcal{C}}(o_\mathcal{C},\cdot)$ gives the normalizing flow for separator $S_\mathcal{C}\sim p(S_\mathcal{C}|z_\mathcal{C})$, and $\widetilde{T}_{F_\mathcal{C}}(o_\mathcal{C},s_\mathcal{C},\cdot)$ gives the conditional normalizing flow for $F_\mathcal{C}\sim p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C}=s_\mathcal{C},z_\mathcal{C})$ (see Algorithm \ref{algo: clique normalizing flows}).
Therefore, we can retrieve $T_\mathcal{C}$ from $\widetilde{T}_\mathcal{C}$:
\begin{equation}
T_\mathcal{C}\left(S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}\right)
=
\begin{bmatrix*}[l]
\widetilde{T}_{S_\mathcal{C}}\left(O_\mathcal{C}=o_\mathcal{C},S_\mathcal{C}\right) \\
\widetilde{T}_{F_\mathcal{C}}\left(O_\mathcal{C}=o_\mathcal{C},S_\mathcal{C},F_\mathcal{C}\right)
\end{bmatrix*}.
\label{eqn: T tilde to T}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Incremental Inference on Bayes Tree}
\label{sec: incremental update}
Our inference will start from the leaf clique ${\mathcal{C}_\text{L}}$.
By Section \ref{sec: clique conditional sampler}, we can learn samplers for $p(S_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}}|z_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}})$ and $p(F_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}}|S_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}},z_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}})$. Then $p(S_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}}|z_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}})$ will be passed to the parent clique as its new prior factor as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig: fig 1 illustration}(b); $p(F_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}}|S_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}},z_{\mathcal{C}_\text{L}})$ will be saved on clique ${\mathcal{C}_\text{L}}$ for sampling the joint posterior density later. Our algorithm learns all clique conditional samplers during a single upward pass on the Bayes tree.
\setlength{\floatsep}{0.0 cm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\fontsize{9pt}{9pt}\selectfont
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Prior $\mathcal{P}$ and likelihood $\mathcal{L}$ factors in the clique}
\KwOut{Training samples}
Sample variables in $\mathcal{P}$\;
\While{$\mathcal{L} \neq\emptyset$}{
$f \gets \mathcal{L}\mathsf{.pop()}$\;
\uIf{\text{\normalfont all variables in $f$ sampled}}{
Sample forecast observations in $f$\;
}
\uElseIf{\text{\normalfont only one variable in $f$ unsampled}}{
Sample that variable\;
}
\Else{
$\mathcal{L}\mathsf{.push(}f\mathsf{)}$\;
}
}
\Return{\text{\normalfont All training samples}}\;
\caption{{CliqueTrainingSampler}}
\label{algo: clique sampler}
\end{algorithm}
\setlength\floatsep{.0 cm}
\begin{algorithm}
\fontsize{9pt}{9pt}\selectfont
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Training samples and realized observations $o$}
\KwOut{Conditional sampler and separator factor}
Rearrange training samples to the order of observation ($O$), separator ($S$), and frontal variables ($F$)\;
Find $\widetilde{T}$ in \eqref{eq: conditional normalizing flows with observations} by minimizing the KL divergence according to \eqref{eqn:MC KL} using the training samples\;
$T(S,F) \gets \widetilde{T}(O=o,S,F)$ \tcp*{fix observations in (\ref{eqn: T tilde to T})}
$T_{S},T_{F} \gets $ partition $T(S,F)$ following (\ref{eq: conditional normalizing flows without observations})\;
Obtain samplers of $p(F|S)$, $p(S)$ from $T_{S}$ and $T_{F}$ by (\ref{eqn:inverse map})\;
\Return{\text{\normalfont Samplers of} $p(F|S), p(S)$}\;
\caption{{ConditionalSamplerTrainer}}
\label{algo: clique normalizing flows}
\end{algorithm}
\setlength\textfloatsep{.0 cm}
\begin{algorithm}[!ht]
\fontsize{9pt}{9pt}\selectfont
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{New factors $\mathcal{F}$, factor graph $\mathcal{G}$, ordering $\mathcal{O}$}
\KwOut{Samples of the joint posterior distribution}
$\mathcal{T} \gets \mathcal{G} \mathsf{.update(}\mathcal{F},\mathcal{O}\mathsf{)}$ \tcp*{update the Bayes tree}
$\mathcal{T}_s \gets \mathcal{T}\mathsf{.extract(}\mathcal{F},\mathcal{O}\mathsf{)}$ \tcp*{extract the affected sub-tree of $\mathcal{T}$}
\For{\text{\normalfont clique} $\mathcal{C}$ \text{\normalfont in leaf-to-root traverse of} $\mathcal{T}_s$}{
Training samples $\mathbf{x} \gets$ CliqueTrainingSampler($\mathcal{C}$)\;
$p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C}), p(S_\mathcal{C})\gets$
ConditionalSamplerTrainer($\mathbf{x}$, $o_{\mathcal{C}}$)\;
Append $p(S_\mathcal{C})$ to the parent clique as a factor\;
}
$\mathcal{D}\gets \{\}$ \tcp*{initialize an empty dictionary for posterior samples}
\For{\text{\normalfont clique} $\mathcal{C}$ \text{\normalfont in root-to-leaf traverse of} $\mathcal{T}$}{
$p(F_\mathcal{C}|S_\mathcal{C}) \gets$ retrieve the conditional sampler in $\mathcal{C}$\;
$s \gets \mathcal{D}[S_\mathcal{C}]$ \tcp*{retrieve samples of separator variables}
$\mathcal{D}[F_\mathcal{C}] \gets$ draw samples from $p(F_{\mathcal{C}}|S_{\mathcal{C}}=s)$ using (\ref{eqn:inverse map})\;
}
\Return{$\mathcal{D}$}\;
\caption{{NF-iSAM}}
\label{algo: incremental infernce}
\end{algorithm}
Once all cliques have learned their conditional samplers, we start sampling the joint posterior $p(\Theta|z)$.
At the root clique $\mathcal{C}_\text{R}$, we use the sampler for $p(F_{\mathcal{C}_\text{R}}|z_{\mathcal{C}_\text{R}})$ to generate samples for $F_{\mathcal{C}_\text{R}}$, which includes separator samples for its child cliques.
For the downward pass from root to leaves, clique ${\mathcal{C}_k}$ has its separator samples $s_{\mathcal{C}_k}$ shared from its parent clique. We fix $S_{\mathcal{C}_k}$ to $s_{\mathcal{C}_k}$, and use the conditional sampler for $p(F_{\mathcal{C}_k}|S_{\mathcal{C}_k}=s_{\mathcal{C}_k},z_{\mathcal{C}_k})$ to draw samples for $F_{\mathcal{C}_k}$.
Once all cliques are visited, the algorithm terminates and we have samples from the joint posterior density.
Compared to learning the conditional samplers, the computational cost of the downward pass is minimal.
When performing incremental updates, we do not need to recompute normalizing flows for all cliques of the Bayes tree.
Every time a new factor is added into the factor graph, only a part of the old Bayes tree needs to be updated \cite{kaess2012isam2, Fourie2020wafr}.
We take out the affected part of the factor graph and form a sub-tree from the Bayes tree construction process.
The upward pass starts from leaves of the sub-tree instead of the entire Bayes tree.
Normalizing flows for cliques outside the sub-tree are not changed and can be reused directly.
Thus, the computational cost for training clique conditional samplers depends only on the sub-tree instead of the entire problem. To draw samples from the full joint posterior density, the downward pass still needs to visit all cliques. However, as mentioned above, the computational cost for the downward sampling pass is much lower than that for training normalizing flows. The detailed algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{algo: incremental infernce}.
\section{Results}
\subsection{A Synthetic Dataset}
In our first experiment, we use a small-scale synthetic range-only SLAM dataset where we can explicitly show posterior samples. Since the dimension of this problem is not too high, it is possible to obtain a reference solution (i.e., samples from the "true" posterior) by a nested sampling package, {dynesty} \cite{speagle2020dynesty}.
The objective in this experiment is to demonstrate that the algorithm correctly captures the non-Gaussian posterior.
Comparisons are made with the sate-of-the-art methods iSAM2 and mm-iSAM, which are implemented in {GTSAM} and {Caesar.jl}, respectively \cite{dellaert2012factor,caesarjl}.
We assume there is a mobile robot operating on the $x$-$y$ plane. At each time step, the robot moves forward, rotates in-place, and then takes a range measurement with known data association. Gaussian noises are used to perturb the ground truth data for synthesizing pose transformation and range measurements. Note that since both the odometry measurements (pose transformations) and range measurements are nonlinear, the resulting posterior is non-Gaussian with multiple modes.
Fig. \ref{fig: step 2 and 5} shows samples of the posterior density at time step 2 and time step 5 on the $x$-$y$ plane (see Fig. \ref{fig: fig 1 illustration} for the Bayes tree at time step 2). 6 knots and 500 training samples were used in NF-iSAM for this experiment.
Since Gaussian noises of pose transformations are defined in the Lie algebra of $\mathrm{SE}(2)$, the resultant robot position samples on $x$-$y$ are distributed with a banana shape \cite{barfoot2014associating,long2013banana}. In Fig. \ref{fig: step 2 flow}, landmark $L_1$ has been spotted twice from different robot poses so it has two probable locations. The distance to landmark $L_2$ is only measured once so its density is supposed to be circular; however, as the robot pose ($X_2$) detecting it has a banana-shaped density, the $L_2$ posterior turns out to be a mix of a banana and a ring shape. Both NF-iSAM and {dynesty} are able to capture the correct shape. As the robot moves to $X_5$, where three distinct range measurements have been made to each landmark, the landmarks can be located by trilateration. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: step 5 flow}, samples of both landmarks converge to be unimodal, which demonstrates the smoothing capacity of our algorithm. It should be mentioned that when running {iSAM2} on this problem for time step 0 and time step 2, the information matrix is singular due to landmarks not being sufficiently constrained by the measurements. In order to obtain a solution with {iSAM2}, we added Gaussian priors with a large variance on the landmarks when using {iSAM2}. The mean values for these artificial priors are set to the ground truth, which would not be known in practice; but even with the extra information, {iSAM2} still performs worse than the other methods (note that the linearly distributed samples in Fig.~\ref{fig: step 2 GTSAM} are with $L_2$).
\setlength\intextsep{0 pt}
\begin{figure}[t]\vspace*{3mm}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step2_NF-iSAM.png}
\vspace*{-15pt}
\subcaption{Step 2 (NF-iSAM)}
\label{fig: step 2 flow}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step5_NF-iSAM.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 5 (NF-iSAM)}
\label{fig: step 5 flow}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step2_GTSAM.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 2 ({iSAM2})}
\label{fig: step 2 GTSAM}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step5_GTSAM.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 5 ({iSAM2})}
\label{fig: step 5 GTSAM}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step2_Caesar.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 2 ({mm-iSAM})}
\label{fig: step 2 Caesar}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step5_Caesar.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 5 ({mm-iSAM})}
\label{fig: step 5 Caesar}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step2_dynesty.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 2 ({dynesty})}
\label{fig: step 2 dynesty}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.45\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace*{8pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/small_case_step5_dynesty.png}
\vspace*{-12pt}
\subcaption{Step 5 ({dynesty})}
\label{fig: step 5 dynesty}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Scatter plot of samples at time step 2 and time step 5, for four different methods: (a,b) NF-iSAM; (c,d) iSAM2; (e,f) mm-iSAM; (g,h) dynesty. At time step 2, the robot ($X$) makes two movements and three distance measurements in which two landmarks ($L$) are spotted; At time step 5, the robot makes five movements and six distance measurements. Landmark and robot ground truth positions are marked by "+" while ground truth trajectory and range detection are plotted by solid lines.}
\label{fig: step 2 and 5}
\end{figure}
In the SLAM literature, root-mean-square error (RMSE) is usually employed to evaluate how far the MAP solution is from the ground truth. Here, since we aim to infer the full posterior distribution instead of a point estimate, the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) \cite{gretton2012kernel} is a more reasonable choice. Given samples from two densities, MMD is a metric to evaluate how far the two distributions are apart. Therefore, a lower MMD from a solution to the {dynesty} solution indicates a more ``accurate" approximation of the posterior. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: accuracy and timing comparison}(a), our solution is much closer to {dynesty} compared with others. Another important feature of NF-iSAM is that, similar to iSAM2, the output samples are from the joint posterior distribution. On the contrary, mm-iSAM can only compute marginal posterior distributions. As a result, in Fig. \ref{fig: accuracy and timing comparison}(a), it cannot be compared with the reference solution of the joint distribution. While having the best accuracy, as shown in Fig.\ref{fig: accuracy and timing comparison}(b), NF-iSAM (despite our Python implementation) is still comparable to mm-iSAM in terms of speed.
\setlength\intextsep{0 pt}
\begin{figure}[t]\vspace*{3mm}
\centering
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figs/small_case_mmd_time.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Comparison against different approaches (iSAM2 provided by GTSAM and mm-iSAM provided by Caesar.jl): (a) MMD to {dynesty} joint distribution samples and averaged MMD over all variables to {dynesty} marginal distribution samples and (b) time to solve each step. Note that the vertical axis has logarithmic scale.}
\label{fig: accuracy and timing comparison}
\vspace{+0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{figs/final_sub_plaza_traj.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Posterior estimation of {Plaza1} dataset obtained by NF-iSAM: landmark samples and robot trajectory (average of robot samples). (a) Early stage (step 709 in Fig. \ref{fig: plaza time and traj}) and (b) full trajectory (step 9368 in Fig. \ref{fig: plaza time and traj})}
\label{fig: plaza1 samples}
\vspace{+0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Plaza Dataset}
We also evaluate the scalability and computational cost of NF-iSAM on a larger real SLAM dataset.
The Plaza dataset provides time stamped range and odometry measurements ($\delta x, \delta \theta$) of a vehicle moving in a planar environment~\cite{djugash2009navigating}. One of its sequences, {Plaza1}, is available in the {GTSAM} software distribution. There are four unknown landmarks in the sequence. The range-only dataset is challenging for the state-of-the-art SLAM techniques (e.g., iSAM2) that rely on Gaussian approximation obtained by linearization around a posterior mode. At the early stage, landmarks are not completely constrained by the range measurements, which makes the information matrix to be singular or ill-conditioned, and the posterior to be multi-modal. {iSAM2} does not converge to a solution until the robot has moved hundreds of steps and good initial values are available. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: plaza1 samples}, our approach can solve for posterior distributions in the sequence from beginning to end. 10 knots and 1000 training samples were used in NF-iSAM for this experiment. The result shows that we can infer ``highly non-Gaussian'' distributions that arise during the early stage.
Fig.~\ref{fig: plaza time and traj}(a) presents estimated full trajectories by NF-iSAM and iSAM2 and the ground truth. The absolute trajectory error (ATE) averaged over the pose number in the NF-iSAM solution is 1.39 meters, and that in the iSAM2 solution is 0.99 meters. The error in part is due to the fact that not all the range and odometry measurements are added to the factor graph. To reduce the computational burden for this complex problem, odometry measurements with small displacement ($<10^{-2}$ meters) and rotation ($<10^{-3}$ radians) are skipped since we assume those measurements were taken when the robot stayed in-place. We designate 10 admitted odometry measurements as a batch. Only the range measurements taken at the end of a batch are added to our factor graph. Thus, the factor graph we solved has been simplified compared with that admitting all raw data. Note that the trajectory from NF-iSAM is obtained by computing the mean of robot pose samples (i.e., posterior mean vs.\ posterior mode sought by iSAM2), partially leading to the increased ATE. Although NF-iSAM aims at inferring the posterior distribution instead of point estimates, our trajectory estimate still resembles the ground truth well; furthermore, NF-iSAM can adequately represent the non-Gaussian joint posterior distribution (Fig.~\ref{fig: plaza1 samples}(a)).
Fig.~\ref{fig: plaza time and traj}(b) shows the run time of our algorithm. We set our solver to perform incremental inference every 100 time steps (i.e., 10 batches). The run time per update is quite even as the robot proceeds, reflecting small and consistent sizes of cliques on the sub-tree for incremental inference (Section \ref{sec: incremental update}). The spike occurring around time step 9000 is caused by excessive range measurements at that point, which leads to larger clique sizes on the sub-tree of that incremental update. This mostly constant run time demonstrates that, under the non-Gaussian setting, we can still exploit sparsity of SLAM factor graphs via the Bayes tree which iSAM2 \cite{kaess2012isam2} exploited for Gaussian cases.
\setlength\intextsep{0 pt}
\begin{figure}[t]\vspace*{3mm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{figs/final_sub_plaza_time_traj.pdf}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{(a) Estimated full trajectories (iSAM2 provided by GTSAM), and (b) run time of NF-iSAM on Plaza1 dataset. Evo with Umeyama alignment was used to align the estimates with the ground truth\cite{grupp2017evo}.}
\label{fig: plaza time and traj}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
We presented a novel algorithm, NF-iSAM, that provides a promising foundation for addressing non-Gaussian inference problems encountered in SLAM due to non-linear measurement models and non-Gaussian (e.g., multi-modal) factors. NF-iSAM utilizes the Bayes tree coupled with neural networks to achieve efficient incremental updates to the joint posterior distribution for non-Gaussian factor graphs. We demonstrated the advantages of the approach over alternative state-of-the-art Gaussian and non-Gaussian SLAM techniques, with a synthetic dataset and a real dataset.
We conclude the paper by noting that by restricting normalizing flow in NF-iSAM to affine transformations, our approach recovers iSAM2 as a special case. This shows that NF-iSAM is a ``canonical" extension of iSAM2 to the non-Gaussian setting, thus warranting further research as a promising algorithmic framework.
Future work will focus on additional experimental evaluation, on exploring the speed-accuracy trade-off, and on extending the range of applications, including:
(1) experimentally evaluate the algorithm with more sources of non-Gaussianity like outlier rejection;
(2) optimizing the normalizing flows, via neural network structures, knots of splines, and optimization method, to achieve better efficiency while maintaining accuracy;
(3) utilizing faster incremental update strategies on the Bayes tree such as marginalization operations and variable elimination ordering with heuristics\cite{dellaert2012factor,Fourie2020wafr};
(4) improving the treatment of orientation. Recently, more sophisticated treatments for orientation have been proposed for normalizing flows, which may enable customized parameterizations for robotics applications~\cite{rezende2020normalizing}; and
(5) generalizing the fixed spline-based parameterization to an adaptive parameterization that can switch between Gaussian and non-Gaussian SLAM problems.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum phase transitions, unlike classical phase transitions, are induced by quantum fluctuations related to Heisenberg uncertainty and can occur at zero temperature. They are usually triggered by a change of a macroscopic parameter, like an external magnetic field, when two competing parts of the system Hamiltonian (represented by noncommuting operator terms) exchange magnitude. The crossing of a phase transition is signaled by a profound change in ground-state properties that are reflected in the order parameter (e.g., the magnetization in a ferromagnet) and correlation functions~\cite{Amico2008,sachdev_2011,Suzuki_2013}. Quantum information theory provides a plethora of theoretical tools to analyze these properties and acquire more insights into the mechanism of quantum phase transitions~\cite{information_transitions}. Here, we focus on the fidelity that for pure states is defined in terms of the overlap between the ground states corresponding to close values of the external parameter $g$ that drives the phase transition:
\begin{equation}\label{fidoverlap}
F_0\pap{g_1\vert g_2} = \vert \braket{\psi(g_1) \vert \psi(g_2)} \vert,
\end{equation}
where $\ket{\psi(g)}$ denotes the ground state of parameter-dependent Hamiltonian $H(g)$.
The ground-state fidelity quantifies how sensitive the ground-state is to changes in the control parameter $g$. The potential of the ground-state fidelity as an indicator of phase transitions became apparent in the work of Quan, \emph{et al}~\cite{Quan2006}, where it was observed that the decay of Loschmidt echo is enhanced by criticality~\cite{ViyuelaPRB18}. Shortly after, Zanardi and Panukovic~\cite{Zanardi2006} proposed that static fidelity can be a good indicator of the phase transition and demonstrated this in the one-dimensional transverse field XY model and the Dicke model. These results initiated a vivid research activity focused on the use of fidelity to characterize quantum critical systems~\cite{Gu2008}. The success of this approach lies in the ability of the fidelity to capture abrupt changes in the ground state caused by a small variation of the driving parameter, with no prior knowledge of the order parameter or the location of the critical point. This observation suggests identifying the leading nontrivial term in a Taylor expansion in the shift of the control parameter
\begin{equation}
F_0\pap{g\vert g+\delta} = \vert \braket{\psi(g) \vert \psi(g+\delta)} \vert = 1 - \frac{\chi_0(g)}{2}\delta^2 +\ldots
\end{equation}
The importance of the quantity $\chi(g)$, known as the fidelity susceptibility, was first pointed out by You, \emph{et al.}~\cite{Yu2007}. More generally, one can consider the Riemann metric on the ground-state manifold spanned by varying all driving parameters, with the diagonal elements of the Riemann tensor corresponding to fidelity susceptibility, and any singularity in them indicating a phase transition~\cite{zanardi_geometric}.
The role of fidelity has been investigated in many models, including integrable spin chains like the Ising model in a transverse field and the XY models (and more general integrable spin chains), the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model~\cite{Scherer_2009}, and the Bose-Hubbard model~\cite{Lacki_2013}, to name some representative examples. For generic models of correlated fermions, bosons, and spin systems, the use of Monte Carlo methods has been proposed \cite{Albuquerque10,Wang15}. Likewise, the use of tensor networks has also been advanced to compute the fidelity susceptibility, in the study of many-body quantum metrology \cite{Chabuda2020}. The family of integrable spin chains is particularly useful in this context given its representation in terms of non-interacting fermions which allows for efficient computations and plenty of analytical results. This family is a good testbed for theoretical concepts and it is believed to capture properties of quantum many-body systems with long-range interactions, that are realized in laboratory~\cite{Islam2011,Zhang2017}. A phase transition in these systems is induced by varying the external transverse magnetic field (say, in the in $z$ direction) represented by the Hamiltonian term $-g \sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i^z$, where $N$ is the system size.
Efforts to characterize the ground-state fidelity have been extended to the fidelity between thermal states~\cite{Zanardi2007,Quan2009}. The latter introduces the inverse temperature $\beta = 1/kT$ as an external control parameter, in addition to the driving parameter $g$, and requires generalizing Eq.~(\ref{fidoverlap}) to mixed states using the Uhlmann fidelity~\cite{jozsa_fidelity,QingPRE18,BrunoPRL17}
\begin{equation}
F\pap{\beta_1,g_1\vert \beta_2, g_2} =F(\rho_1,\sigma_2)= \mathrm{Tr} \pap{\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_1} \sigma_2 \sqrt{\rho_1}}},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_1\pap{\beta_1,g_1} = \mathrm{e}^{-\beta_1 H(g_1)}/ \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{e}^{-\beta_1 H(g_1)})$ and $\sigma_2 \pap{\beta_2,g_2}= \mathrm{e}^{-\beta_2 H(g_2)}/ \mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{e}^{-\beta_2 H(g_2)})$. One can define two kinds of susceptibilities, one with respect to a change of temperature with fixed value of the driving parameter, and the second one, with respect to a change of the parameter $g$ at constant temperature:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:thermal_susc}
\xi(\beta,g) &= - \frac{d^2 }{d \delta^2}F\pap{\beta,g\vert\beta+\delta,g}\Bigg|_{\delta=0},\\
\chi(\beta,g) &= - \frac{d^2 }{d \delta^2}F\pap{\beta,g\vert\beta,g+\delta}\Bigg|_{\delta=0}.\label{eq:field_susc}
\end{eqnarray}
It was shown~\cite{Quan2009} that the thermal fidelity susceptibility $\xi(\beta,g)$ is proportional to the specific heat. Further, for a sufficiently large temperature, the fidelity susceptibility related to the field $\chi(\beta,g)$ is proportional to magnetic susceptibility, as in this limit density matrices approximately commute and the phase transition can be treated as approximately classical.
On the other hand, one can consider the limit $\beta \rightarrow \infty$, when one expects convergence to the results for ground-state fidelity. This limit justifies the expectation for the fidelity to remain a good indicator of phase transitions at finite temperature.
In this work, we focus on the exact characterization of the fidelity and fidelity susceptibility of finite-size integrable spin systems, paying particular attention to the intermediate temperature regime. Specifically, we consider that the thermal energy is comparable with the energy gap (or elementary excitation) of the system. At the critical point (and its vicinity), the fidelity susceptibility exhibits a sharp peak. The height of this peak measures how different are the states in the two phases. We provide exact formulas for the fidelity between thermal states of integrable spin chains and analyze the dependence of the height of the peak on temperature. Many spin chains widely considered in the literature share a common property, namely their Hamiltonian commutes with the parity operator
\begin{equation}
P = \prod_{i=1}^N \sigma_i^z.
\end{equation}
The latter has eigenvalues $\pm 1$ and therefore, the energy spectrum splits into two parts of positive and negative parity. For instance, in the Ising model for an even number of spins the ground state is in the positive parity subspace, but dealing with thermal states requires careful treatment of eigenstates of both parities. The necessity of proper handling of parities in finite-temperature spin chains was first stated by Katsura~\cite{Katsura62}. Later, Kapitonov and Il'inskii~\cite{Kapitonov1998} provided a derivation of full partition function using integrals over Grassmann variables. In our recent work~\cite{Bialonczyk2020}, we provide an elementary method to derive exact expressions for partition function and characteristic function of a wide class of observables using only the structure of Hilbert space. The big discrepancy, even in the thermodynamic limit, between the fidelity susceptibility of lowest energy states in positive and negative parity subspaces, was first reported by Damski and Rams~\cite{Damski2014}. A thorough analysis of the scaling of the ground state fidelity susceptibility in the XY model was conducted in~\cite{Damski_2011}, while closed-form expressions for the fidelity susceptibility in the quantum Ising model in a transverse field were derived in \cite{Damski2013}. However, to our best knowledge, an exact treatment of the fidelity between thermal states of integrable spin chains in the complete Hilbert spaces seems to be lacking at the time of writing. We aim at filling this gap by using methods developed in~\cite{Bialonczyk2020}. We provide exact expressions for fidelity between two arbitrary thermal states in the quantum XY models and analyze the temperature dependence of fidelity susceptibility in a paradigmatic test-bed for quantum critical phenomena, the quantum Ising model in a transverse field.
In the remaining part of the paper, we first review the diagonalization of the XY model with particular stress on the exact treatment of the parity subspaces in~\Sref{secXYdiag}. In ~\Sref{secHilbert} we recall the methods developed in~\cite{Bialonczyk2020} and use them to derive the full expression for Uhlmann fidelity between arbitrary thermal states in~\Sref{secUhlmann}. We then focus on fidelity susceptibility computed at the critical point, analyze its temperature dependence and compare it with the simplified expression obtained considering only the positive parity contribution; see~\Sref{secChi}. Although such simplification is often justified in the thermodynamic limit, we show that this is not the case for fidelity susceptibility. In particular, we show that the discrepancy between exact and simplified expressions persists when increasing the system size. We also introduce an accurate low-temperature approximation using two lowest-lying energy eigenstates, that we use to characterize the thermal susceptibility and specific heat. Our results are thus of direct relevance to the use of the fidelity and fidelity susceptibility to characterize quantum critical phenomena.
\section{Diagonalization of the XY chain}\label{secXYdiag}
In this section, we outline the basic steps to diagonalize the XY model in one spatial dimension. The method we use can be applied as well in extended XY models~\cite{ExtendedXY}, with special care of the parity of the ground state. The Hamiltonian of an XY chain is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:XYHamiltonian}
H(\gamma, g) = -\sum_{i=1}^N \pap{ \frac{1+\gamma}{2} \sigma_i^x \sigma_{i+1}^x + \frac{1-\gamma}{2} \sigma_i^y \sigma_{i+1}^y} - g\sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i^z.
\end{equation}
When $\gamma = 1$, the Hamiltonian~\eref{eq:XYHamiltonian} corresponds to the Ising model in a transverse magnetic field (TFQIM), while the limit $\gamma = 0$ describes the isotropic XY model. For the anisotropic case $0 < \gamma \leq 1$ the model belongs to the Ising universality class, and its phase diagram is determined by the value of $g$. When $g > 1$ the magnetic field dominates over the nearest-neighbor coupling, polarizing the spins along the $z$ direction. This corresponds to a paramagnetic state, with zero magnetization in the $xy$ plane. On the other hand, when $0 \leq g < 1$ the ground state of the system corresponds to a ferromagnetic configuration with polarization along the $xy$ plane. These phases are separated by a second-order quantum phase transition (QPT) at the critical point $g = 1$. Finally, for the isotropic case $\gamma = 0$, a QPT is observed between the gapless phase ($g < 1$) and the ferromagnetic phase ($g > 1$).
In the following, we assume periodic boundary conditions, i.e., $\sigma_{N+1}^{\alpha}=\sigma_{1}^{\alpha}$. The Hamiltonian~\eref{eq:XYHamiltonian} can be diagonalized with mapping onto noninteracting fermions using the Jordan-Wigner transformation~\cite{Lieb1961}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_i^z = 1-2c_i^{\dagger} c_i, \quad \sigma_i^x = (c_i+c_i^{\dagger}) \prod_{j<i} (1-2 c_j^{\dagger} c_j), \quad
\sigma_i^y = \mathrm{i} (c_i-c_i^{\dagger}) \prod_{j<i} (1-2 c_j^{\dagger} c_j),
\end{equation}
where the fermionic operators satisfy $\pac{c_i,c_j} = 0$ and $\pac{c_i,c_j^{\dagger}} = \delta_{ij}$.
Using the fermionic representation in real space, the Hamiltonian takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:XYFerm}
H\pap{\gamma,g}&=-\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\pas{c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{i+1} +c_{i+1}^{\dagger}c_{i}+\gamma\pap{c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{i+1}^{\dagger} + c_{i+1}c_{i}}}\nonumber\\
&\quad+P\pas{c_{N}^{\dagger}c_{1}+c_{1}^{\dagger}c_{N}+\gamma\pap{c_{N}c_{1}+c_1c_{N}}}\\
&\quad-g\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pap{1-2c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{i}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $P = \prod_{i=1}^N \sigma_i^z$ is the \emph{parity operator} already mentioned in the introduction. The next step is to make use of the Fourier transform
\begin{equation}
c_j = \frac{\exp\pap{-\mathrm{i} \pi/4}}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{k \in \mathbf{K}} c_k \exp\pap{\mathrm{i} k j}.
\end{equation}
Because of the presence of the parity operator, Hamiltonian~\eref{eq:XYFerm} is not in the form of noninteracting fermions yet. However, the operator $P$ has eigenvalues $\pm 1$ and commutes with the Hamiltonian. Therefore, the Hamiltonian can be diagonalized separately in two sectors of the total Hilbert space, with $P=1$ (even number of quasiparticles) and $P=-1$ (odd number of quasiparticles). The difficulty lies in the fact that the boundary conditions obeyed by the fermionic operators depend on the sector of the Hilbert space. This changes the set of momenta $\mathbf{K}$ relevant for the Fourier transform. In the following, we write down the most important results in both subspaces. We assume an even number of particles $N$; for details see for example~\cite{Damski2014,rams2015}.\\
\\
\emph{Positive parity subspace.} The condition $P=1$ implies $c_{N+1} = -c_1$ and the set of momenta is the following:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{K}^+ = \pac{\pm \frac{\pi}{N}, \pm \frac{3\pi}{N}, \ldots, \pm \pap{\pi - \frac{\pi}{N}}} = \mathbf{k}^+ \cup -\mathbf{k}^+,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{k}^+$ denotes the set of only positive momenta: $\mathbf{k}^+ =\pac{\frac{\pi}{N}, \frac{3\pi}{N}, \ldots, \pap{\pi - \frac{\pi}{N}}}$. The Hamiltonian takes the form
\begin{equation}
H(\gamma, g) = 2 \sum_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+} \pas{\pap{c_k^{\dagger} c_k - c_{-k} c_{-k}^{\dagger}}\pap{g-\cos k} + \pap{c_k^{\dagger}c_{-k}^{\dagger} + c_k c_{-k}} \gamma\sin k}.
\end{equation}
After a Bogoliubov transformation, it can be written as
\begin{equation}
H^+(\gamma, g) = \sum_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+} 2 \epsilon_k \pap{\gamma,g}\pap{\gamma_k^{\dagger} \gamma_k + \gamma_{-k}^{\dagger} \gamma_{-k}-1},
\end{equation}
where, for all $k \in \mathbf{k}^+$:
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_k \pap{\gamma,g} = \sqrt{(g-\cos k)^2 + (\gamma \sin k)^2},\label{eq:energiesp1}\\
\gamma_k = \cos \pap{\frac{\vartheta_k}{2}} c_k + \sin\pap{\frac{\vartheta_k}{2}} c_{-k}^{\dagger}, \label{eq:energiesp2}\\
(\sin \vartheta_k, \cos\vartheta_k) = \pap{\frac{\gamma\sin k}{\epsilon_k \pap{\gamma,g}}, \frac{g-\cos k}{\epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}}}.\label{eq:energiesp3}
\end{eqnarray}
\endnumparts
The lowest energy state in this subspace and its energy are respectively given by
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
\ket{\gamma,g }^+ &= \prod_{k\in \mathbf{k}^+} \pas{ \cos \pap{\frac{\vartheta_k}{2}} - \sin \pap{\frac{\vartheta_k}{2}} c_k^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\dagger}}\ket{\rm vac}.\label{state0p}\\
E_0^+\pap{\gamma,g} &= -2 \sum_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+} \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ket{\rm vac}$ is a state annihilated by fermionic operators $c_k$ for $k \in \mathbf{K}^+$.
\endnumparts
\emph{Negative parity subspace.} Similarly, the condition $P=-1$ implies $c_{N+1} = c_1$ and the set of allowed momenta
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{K}^- = \pac{0, \pm \frac{2\pi}{N}, \pm\frac{4\pi}{N}, \ldots,\pm\pap{\pi-\frac{2\pi}{N} } , \pi} = \mathbf{k}^- \cup -\mathbf{k}^-\cup \pac{0,\pi},
\end{equation}
where the set of positive momenta different then $0, \pi$ is $\mathbf{k}^-=\pac{\frac{2\pi}{N}, \frac{4\pi}{N}, \ldots \pap{\pi-\frac{2\pi}{N} }}$. All steps of diagonalization are the same as for the positive-parity subspace, except for the fact that the modes with $0$ and $\pi$ momenta require careful treatment. We thus repeat the steps for $k \in \mathbf{k}^-$ and treat $0,\pi$ momenta separately.
The Hamiltonian takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
H^-(\gamma, g) =& 2 \sum_{k \in \mathbf{k}^-} \left[\pap{c_k^{\dagger} c_k - c_{-k} c_{-k}^{\dagger}}\pap{g-\cos k}\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad+\left.\pap{c_k^{\dagger}c_{-k}^{\dagger} + c_k c_{-k}} \gamma\sin k \right]\\
&+(g-1) (c_0^{\dagger} c_0 - c_0 c_0^{\dagger}) + (g+1) (c_{\pi}^{\dagger} c_{\pi} - c_{\pi} c_{\pi}^{\dagger}).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
After a Bogoliubov transformation, it can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
H^-(\gamma, g) =& \sum_{k \in \mathbf{k}^-} 2 \epsilon_k \pap{\gamma, g}\pap{\gamma_k^{\dagger} \gamma_k + \gamma_{-k}^{\dagger} \gamma_{-k}-1} \nonumber\\
&+ (g-1) (c_0^{\dagger} c_0 - c_0 c_0^{\dagger}) + (g+1) (c_{\pi}^{\dagger}c_{\pi} - c_{\pi} c_{\pi}^{\dagger}),
\end{eqnarray}
where, for all $k \in \mathbf{k}^-$ the equations~\eref{eq:energiesp1},~\eref{eq:energiesp2}, and~\eref{eq:energiesp3} take the same forms. Additionally, for $0,\pi$ momenta
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:energies0pi}
\epsilon_0 = g-1, \quad \epsilon_{\pi} = g+1, \\
\vartheta_0 = 0, \quad \vartheta_{\pi} = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
The ground state in this subspace and its energy read
\numparts
\begin{eqnarray}
\ket{\gamma, g}^- &=c_0^{\dagger} \prod_{k\in \mathbf{k}^-} \pas{ \cos \pap{\frac{\vartheta_k}{2}} - \sin \pap{\frac{\vartheta_k}{2}} c_k^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\dagger}}\ket{\rm vac}.\label{state0n}\\
E_0^-\pap{\gamma, g} &= -2 \sum_{k \in \mathbf{k}^-} \epsilon_k \pap{\gamma, g}-2.
\end{eqnarray}
\endnumparts
In the limit case $\gamma=1$, the ground state of the total Hamiltonian, for an even number of spins, always lies in the positive-parity subspace~\cite{Damski2014}. In the case of the general XY model, this is not always true~\cite{rams2015}. Later on, we will analyze in detail the Ising model, in which the energy gap is well defined
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:symmetry_gap_definition}
\Delta(g) = \Delta(\gamma=1,g) = E_0^-(g) - E_0^+(g) \geq 0.
\end{equation}
In the following, the explicit expression for this gap at the critical point ($g=1$) will be useful \cite{Damski2014}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:symmetry_breaking_gap}
\Delta(g=1) = 2 \tan\pap{\frac{\pi}{4N}} \approx \frac{\pi}{2N}.
\end{equation}
In the ferromagnetic phase the gap $\Delta(g)$ vanishes exponentially with the system size and we refer to it as a ``symmetry-breaking gap'' to distinguish it from the ``dynamical gap'', which is defined as the lowest excitation within the positive-parity subspace \cite{BialonczykSymmetry}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{gap}(g) = \mathrm{gap}(\gamma = 1, g) = \sqrt{g^2-2g\cos(\pi/N)+1}.
\end{equation}
At the critical point, this gap behaves as
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{gap}(g=1) \approx \frac{4 \pi}{N}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, at the critical point, the dynamical gap is approximately eight times bigger than the symmetry-breaking gap. By contrast, in the ferromagnetic phase ($g<1$) the symmetry-breaking gap is negligible in comparison with the dynamical gap. As we shall see, this fact is important in approximating the Gibbs state. The importance of the symmetry-breaking gap and its dependence on the boundary conditions was first highlighted in \cite{Carbera1987}.
Calculations in the positive-parity subspace are sufficient at zero temperature. Moreover, the positive parity is preserved during dynamics. However, at finite-temperature both positive and negative parity subspaces play a role, given their contribution to the unnormalized Gibbs state
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_{\rm Gibbs} (\beta, \gamma, g) = \exp\pas{-\beta H(\gamma, g)}.
\end{equation}
Here and elsewhere, we use a tilde to denote unnormalized density matrices.
\section{Structure of the Hilbert space}\label{secHilbert}
In this section, we briefly recall the methods and results from~\cite{Bialonczyk2020}.
To begin, we note that from the transformation to fermionic quasiparticles, the total Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ can be written as a tensor product of 4-dimensional Hilbert subspaces corresponding to each pair of momenta
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = \bigotimes_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+} \mathcal{H}_k, \quad \mathcal{H}_k = \mathrm{span}\pac{\ket{0}_k, c_k^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k, c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k, c_k^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k},
\end{equation}
where $\ket{0}_k$ is annihilated by $c_k$ and $c_{-k}$. Note that dimensions match: there are $N/2$ momenta, which gives the total $2^N$ dimension. For negative subspace one has $0$ and $\pi$ momenta with corresponding 2-dimensional Hilbert spaces span by $\pac{\ket{0}_0, c_0^{\dagger} \ket{0}_0}$ and $\pac{\ket{0}_{\pi}, c_{\pi}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_{\pi}}$, together with $(N/2)-1$ momenta in $\mathbf{k}^-$. On the other hand, the subspaces of the given parity have dimension two times smaller. Therefore, it is clear that usual tensor product is not adapted for manipulations involving a definite parity. In order to handle this, we introduced the operations of ``positive'' and ``negative'' tensor products which pick only vectors of correct parity. They can be defined recursively:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}\pap{\mathcal{H}_{k_1}} = \mathcal{H}_{k_1}^{(p)}, \quad \mathcal{N}\pap{\mathcal{H}_{k_1}} = \mathcal{H}_{k_1}^{(n)},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n+1} \mathcal{H}_{k_i}} = \mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} \mathcal{H}_{k_i}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{k_{n+1}}^{(p)} \oplus \mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} \mathcal{H}_{k_i}}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{k_{n+1}}^{(n)} , \: n \geq 1 \nonumber\\
\mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n+1} \mathcal{H}_{k_i}} = \mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} \mathcal{H}_{k_i}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{k_{n+1}}^{(n)} \oplus \mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} \mathcal{H}_{k_i}}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{k_{n+1}}^{(p)}, \: n \geq 1\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{H}_k^{(p)}$ and $\mathcal{H}_k^{(n)}$ are subspaces of $\mathcal{H}_k$ spanned by all positive parity an negative parity vectors:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{H}_k^{(p)} = \mathrm{span} \pac{\ket{0}_k, c_k^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k}, \quad \mathcal{H}_k^{(n)}=\mathrm{span} \pac{c_k^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k, c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k}, \\
\mathcal{H}_0^{(p)} = \mathrm{span} \pac{\ket{0}_0}, \quad \mathcal{H}_0^{(n)} = \mathrm{span} \pac{c_0^{\dagger} \ket{0}_0},\\
\mathcal{H}_{\pi}^{(p)} = \mathrm{span} \pac{\ket{0}_{\pi}}, \quad
\mathcal{H}_{\pi}^{(n)} = \mathrm{span} \pac{c_{\pi}^{\dagger}\ket{0}_{\pi}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, one can define analogous relations for positive and negative parity part of a tensor product of operators. Let us assume that each $O_k$ has zero matrix elements between vectors of different parity (such as $\bra{0_k} c_k O_k \ket{0}_k$ or $ \bra{0_k} c_k O_k c_k^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k$ for instance). For such operators we define a positive and negative part in an intuitive way through the following relations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\restr{O_k^{(p)}}{\mathcal{H}_k^{(p)} }= \restr{O_k}{\mathcal{H}_k^{(p)}}, \quad
\restr{O_k^{(p)}}{\mathcal{H}_k^{(n)} }= 0, \\
\restr{O_k^{(n)}}{\mathcal{H}_k^{(n)} }= \restr{O_k}{\mathcal{H}_k^{(n)}}, \quad \restr{O_k^{(n)}}{\mathcal{H}_k^{(p)} }= 0,
\end{eqnarray*}
with recursive relations taking the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:oprecursion1}
\mathcal{P} \left (O_{k_1} \right) = O_{k_1}^{(p)}, \quad \mathcal{N} \left (O_{k_1} \right) = \mathcal{O}_{k_1}^{(n)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{P} \left ( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n+1} O_{k_i} \right ) = \mathcal{P} \left ( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} O_{k_i} \right ) \otimes O_{k_{n+1}}^{(p)} + \mathcal{N} \left ( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} O_{k_i} \right ) \otimes O_{k_{n+1}}^{(n)}, \, \, \, n \geq 1,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{N} \left ( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n+1} \mathcal{O}_{k_i} \right ) = \mathcal{N} \left ( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} O_{k_i} \right ) \otimes O_{k_{n+1}}^{(p)} + \mathcal{P} \left ( \bigotimes_{i=1}^{n} O_{k_i} \right ) \otimes O_{k_{n+1}}^{(n)}, \, \, \, n \geq 1.
\end{equation*}
These relations are true provided that momenta $k_1, \ldots k_n$ are all relevant for one subspace (positive or negative parity). At this point we emphasize that the condition of vanishing ``mixing'' matrix elements is an important restriction that does not apply to many important properties, such as the longitudinal magnetizations $\sigma_i^x$ or $\sigma_i^y$. Dealing with such operators is particularly difficult because subspaces with different momenta mix. For some methods and results involving ground states, see for example~\cite{ningWu2020}. We shall make use of the following propositions:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:products}
For every operators $O_k$ and $R_k$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \right)\, \mathcal{P}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n R_{k_i} \right) = \mathcal{P}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \, R_{k_i} \right) ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \right)\, \mathcal{N}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n R_{k_i} \right) = \mathcal{N}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \, R_{k_i} \right).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:exponents}
The exponentials of restricted tensor products obey:
\begin{equation}
\exp\mathcal{P}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \right) = \mathcal{P}\left( \bigotimes_{i=1}^n \exp O_{k_i}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\exp\mathcal{N}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \right) = \mathcal{N}\left( \bigotimes_{i=1}^n \exp O_{k_i}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:traces}
Traces of restricted tensor products read:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:trace1}
\mathrm{Tr} \, \mathcal{P}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \right) = \frac{1}{2} \left (\prod_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Tr} \, O_{k_i} + \prod_{i=1}^n (\mathrm{Tr} \, O_{k_i}^{(p)} - \mathrm{Tr} \, O_{k_i}^{(n)} )\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:trace2}
\mathrm{Tr} \, \mathcal{N}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n O_{k_i} \right) = \frac{1}{2} \left (\prod_{i=1}^n \mathrm{Tr} \, O_{k_i} - \prod_{i=1}^n (\mathrm{Tr} \, O_{k_i}^{(p)} - \mathrm{Tr} \, O_{k_i}^{(n)}) \right).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
These propositions suffice to derive the formula for fidelity between arbitrary thermal states. We finish this section with an example:
\section*{Example 1: Canonical Gibbs state}
The complete Hamiltonian can be written in the form:
\begin{equation}
H(\gamma,g) = H^+(\gamma,g) \oplus H^-(\gamma, g),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
H^+(\gamma,g) = \mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_{k\in \mathbf{k}^+} H_k(\gamma,g)}, \: H^-(\gamma,g) = \mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_{k\in \mathbf{k}^-\cup \pac{0,\pi}} H_k(\gamma,g)}.
\end{equation}
Operators $H_k$ have the following matrix representations
\begin{eqnarray}
H_k (\gamma,g)&= 2\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\cos k - g & \gamma\sin k & 0 & 0 \\
\gamma\sin k & g-\cos k & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0& 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\\
H_0 (g)&= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 - g & 0 \\
0 & g-1 \\
\end{array}
\right),\\
H_{\pi} (g)&= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-1 - g & 0 \\
0 & 1+g \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
in the basis $\pac{\ket{0}_k, c_k^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k, c_k^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k, c_{-k}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_k}$ and $\pac{\ket{0}_{0,\pi}, c_{0,\pi}^{\dagger} \ket{0}_{0,\pi}}$, respectively.
Using Proposition~\ref{prop:exponents}, we can write the unnormalized thermal Gibbs state as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gibbs_decomposition}
\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs} (\beta, \gamma, g) =\exp\left(-\beta H(\gamma, g)\right)= \mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_{k\in \mathbf{k}^+} \tilde{\rho_k}} \oplus
\mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_{k\in \mathbf{k}^-\cup \pac{0,\pi}} \tilde{\rho_k}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho_k} =
\mathrm{exp}\pas{-2\beta\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos k -g & \gamma\sin k \\
\gamma\sin k & g-\cos k \\
\end{array}
\right)} \oplus \mathbb{I}_2,
\quad
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_0 =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathrm{exp}\pas{\beta(g-1)} & 0 \\
0 & \exp{\pas{\beta(1-g)}} \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_{\pi} =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathrm{exp}\pas{-\beta(g+1)} & 0 \\
0 & \exp{\pas{\beta(g+1)}} \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
The even and odd parity parts of $\rho_k$ are
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_k^{(p)} =
\mathrm{exp}\pas{-2\beta\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos k -g & \gamma\sin k \\
\gamma\sin k & g-\cos k \\
\end{array}
\right)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_k^{(n)} = \mathbb{I}_2, \quad \tilde\rho_0^{(p)} = \exp\pas{\beta(g-1)}, \quad \tilde\rho_{0}^{(n)} = \exp\pas{\beta(1-g)}.
\end{equation}
Using~\Eref{eq:energiesp1} one has $\mathrm{Tr}\pap{ \tilde\rho_k }= 2 \cosh\pap{2\beta \epsilon_k}$. Thanks to Proposition~\ref{prop:traces}, we can easily write down the formula for the partition function, that is the trace of the unnormalized Gibbs state:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:FullZ}
Z\pap{\beta,\gamma,g} &= \mathrm{Tr}\pap{ \tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}(\beta, \gamma, g)}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\Bigg[ \prod_{k\in \mathbf{K}^{+}} 2 \cosh\pap{\beta \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}}+\prod_{k\in \mathbf{K}^{+}} 2 \sinh\pap{\beta \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}}\\
&\quad+\prod_{k\in \mathbf{K}^{-}} 2 \cosh\pap{\beta \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}}-\prod_{k\in \mathbf{K}^{-}} 2 \sinh\pap{\beta \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}}\Bigg].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the use of the full sets of momenta $\mathbf{K}^+$ and $\mathbf{K}^-$ leads to a compact expression, but we emphasize the need to use the correct formulas for excitations in the modes with $0$ and $\pi$ momenta~\eref{eq:energies0pi}.
\Eref{eq:FullZ} can be divided into four parts~\cite{Kapitonov1998} $[$Positive Fermionic $\pap{Z_F^+(\beta, \gamma, g)}$, Positive Boundary $\pap{Z_B^+(\beta, \gamma, g)}$, Negative Fermionic $\pap{Z_F^-(\beta, \gamma, g)}$, and Negative Boundary $\pap{Z_F^+(\beta, \gamma, g)}]$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Z_decomp}
Z(\beta, \gamma, g) = \frac{1}{2} \pas{Z_F^+(\beta, \gamma, g) + Z_B^+(\beta,\gamma, g) + Z_F^-(\beta,\gamma, g)-Z_B^-(\beta,\gamma, g)}.
\end{equation}
These four terms originate from the trace formulas in Proposition~\ref{prop:traces}. It is thus reasonable to assume that many physically relevant quantities (such as characteristic functions of observables or fidelity susceptibility) can be decomposed in an analogous form. It has been argued that in the thermodynamic limit only $Z_F^+$ is relevant, i.e., that the partition function is governed by the Positive Fermionic part corresponding to the first part of~\Eref{eq:trace1} ~\cite{Katsura62}. While this is true in many cases, one has to be careful; see~\cite{Bialonczyk2020} for details. Explicitly, the Positive Fermionic part of the partition function has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FermionicZ}
Z_F(\beta, \gamma, g) = \prod_{k \in \mathbf{K}^+} 2 \cosh\pap{\beta \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}}.
\end{equation}
We note that decompositions resembling~\eref{eq:Z_decomp} appear naturally in equations describing fidelities. In what follows, we use the acronym PPA to refer to the Positive Parity Approximation that includes only Positive Fermionic contribution. As we shall see, in the study of the fidelity susceptibility the exact expression involving all contributions is significantly different from the PPA approximation frequently used in the literature~\cite{sachdev_2011,Suzuki_2013,Zanardi2006,Zanardi2007,Quan2009,Pfeuty70, Barouch1975, Deng2011}.
The algebraic method we have presented for the exact treatment of the partition function is natural and elementary, but not the only one. Alternative derivations are possible making use of Grassmann variables, see~\cite{Kapitonov1998} or group theory~\cite{Fei19}.
\section{Expressions for fidelity between arbitrary thermal states}\label{secUhlmann}
In this section, we derive the exact expression for the Uhlmann fidelity between thermal states in the XY model with periodic boundary conditions. The method can be generalized to states that are exponentials or quadratic expressions in Fermionic operators.\\
\\
We begin by restating the definition of the Uhlmann fidelity between two density matrices $\rho$ and $\sigma$ ~\cite{Uhlmann76}
\begin{equation}\label{UhlmannEq1}
F\pap{\rho, \sigma} = \mathrm{Tr} \pap{\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho} \sigma \sqrt{\rho}}}.
\end{equation}
As $\sqrt{\rho}_k$ is the square root of $\rho_k$, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\pas{\mathcal{P} \pap{\bigotimes_k \sqrt{\tilde\rho_k}}}^2 = \mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_k\sqrt{\tilde\rho_k}\sqrt{\tilde\rho_k}} = \mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_k\tilde\rho_k}.
\end{equation}
As a result, one finds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:positive_square}
\sqrt{\mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_k\tilde\rho_k}} = \mathcal{P} \pap{\bigotimes_k \sqrt{\tilde\rho_k}},
\end{equation}
and similarly for $\sqrt{\mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_k\tilde\rho_k}}$. Using the results from Example 1 and the unnormalized thermal states $\tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}$, $\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_{\rm Gibbs} = \tilde\rho_{\rm Gibbs}^+ \oplus \tilde \rho_{\rm Gibbs}^-, \quad \sqrt{\tilde\rho_{\rm Gibbs}} = \sqrt{\tilde\rho_{\rm Gibbs}^+} \oplus \sqrt{\tilde\rho_{\rm Gibbs}^-},
\end{equation}
which yields a decomposition of the exact fidelity into the sum of the components with positive and negative parity
\begin{eqnarray}
F\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs} , \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}} = F^+\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs} ,\tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}} + F^-\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs} , \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs} },
\end{eqnarray}
Using~\Eref{eq:positive_square} and Proposition~\ref{prop:products} again, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
F^+\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}, \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}} = \mathrm{Tr}\pap{\mathcal{P}\pap{\bigotimes_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+} \sqrt{\sqrt{\tilde\rho_k} \tilde\sigma_k \sqrt{\tilde\rho_k}}}}\\
F^-\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}, \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}} = \mathrm{Tr}\pap{\mathcal{N}\pap{\bigotimes_{k \in \mathbf{k}^- \cup \pac{0,\pi}} \sqrt{\sqrt{\tilde\rho_k} \tilde\sigma_k \sqrt{\tilde\rho_k}}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Next we make use of Proposition~\ref{prop:traces} to write down explicit expressions for general thermal states, with different temperatures and field values. We consider the fidelity between two thermal states characterized by field values $g^{\rho}, g^{\sigma}$, anisotropy coefficients $\gamma^{\rho}, \gamma^{\sigma}$ and inverse temperature $\beta^{\rho}, \beta^{\sigma}$, that is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde\rho_k = \exp \left[-2\beta^{\rho}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos k - g^{\rho} & \gamma^{\rho} \sin k \\
\gamma^{\rho} \sin k & g^{\rho} - \cos k \\
\end{array}
\right)\right]
\oplus \mathbb{I}_2 = \tilde\rho_k^{(p)} \oplus \mathbb{I}_2, \\
\tilde\sigma_k =
\exp \left[-2\beta^{\sigma}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos k - g^{\sigma} & \gamma^{\sigma} \sin k \\
\gamma^{\sigma} \sin k & g^{\sigma}- \cos k \\
\end{array}
\right)\right]
\oplus \mathbb{I}_2 = \tilde\sigma_k^{(p)} \oplus \mathbb{I}_2.
\end{eqnarray}
Calculation of $\mathrm{Tr} \pap{\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_k} \sigma_k \sqrt{\rho_k}}}$ for thermal states boils down to calculation of fidelity between qubit states, which has a particularly simple form~\cite{jozsa_fidelity}:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr} \pap{\sqrt{\sqrt{\tilde\rho_k^{(p)}}\tilde\sigma_k^{(p)} \sqrt{\tilde\rho_k^{(p)}}}} = \pas{\mathrm{Tr} \pap{\tilde\rho_k^{(p)} \tilde\sigma_k^{(p)) }}+ 2\,\mathrm{det} \pap{\tilde\rho_k^{(p)} \tilde\sigma_k^{(p)}}}^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Using the Bogoliubov energy and angles for the states $\rho_k$ and $\sigma_k$, we can derive compact expressions for fidelity of thermal states. Although the overall structure of the formulas is simple, there are many parameters and expressions become lengthy. For clarity we introduce the following notation:
\begin{eqnarray}
u_k\pap{\rho\vert \sigma} = 2 \cosh\pap{\frac{\beta^{\rho}\epsilon_k^{\rho}+\beta^{\sigma}\epsilon_k^{\sigma}}{2}} \cos\pap{\frac{\vartheta_k^{\rho}-\vartheta_k^{\sigma}}{2}}, \\
v_k\pap{\rho\vert \sigma} = 2 \cosh \pap{\frac{\beta^{\rho}\epsilon_k^{\rho}-\beta^{\sigma}\epsilon_k^{\sigma}}{2}} \sin\pap{\frac{\vartheta_k^{\rho}-\vartheta_k^{\sigma}}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The Uhlmann fidelity between thermal states $\rho_{\rm Gibbs}$ and $\sigma_{\rm Gibbs}$, respectively characterized by the parameters $\beta^{\rho}, g^{\rho}, \gamma^{\rho}$ and $\beta^{\sigma}, g^{\sigma}, \gamma^{\sigma}$, reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fidelity_full1}
F\pap{\rho_{\rm Gibbs}, \sigma_{\rm Gibbs}} = \frac{ F^+\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}, \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}} + F^-\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}, \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}}}{\sqrt{Z(\beta^{\rho}, g^{\rho}, \gamma^{\rho})Z(\beta^{\sigma}, g^{\sigma}, \gamma^{\sigma})}}.
\end{equation}
Here, the positive part equals
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:fidelity_full2}
F^+\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}, \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}} = \frac{1}{2}\Bigg[ &\prod_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+}\pap{ \sqrt{u_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}+v_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}}+ 2}\nonumber\\
&+\prod_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+}\pap{ \sqrt{u_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}+v_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}}-2}\Bigg],
\end{eqnarray}
and the negative part is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:fidelity_full3}
F^-\pap{\tilde{\rho}_{\rm Gibbs}, \tilde{\sigma}_{\rm Gibbs}}=\frac{1}{2}\Bigg[ &4\cosh\pap{\frac{\beta^{\rho} \epsilon_0^{\rho} + \beta^{\sigma} \epsilon_0^{\sigma}}{2}} \cosh\pap{\frac{\beta^{\rho} \epsilon_{\pi}^{\rho} + \beta^{\sigma} \epsilon_{\pi}^{\sigma}}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\quad\prod_{k \in \mathbf{k}^-}\pap{ \sqrt{u_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}+v_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}}+2}\\
&-
4 \sinh\pap{\frac{\beta^{\rho} \epsilon_0^{\rho} + \beta^{\sigma} \epsilon_0^{\sigma}}{2}} \sinh\pap{\frac{\beta^{\rho} \epsilon_{\pi}^{\rho} + \beta^{\sigma} \epsilon_{\pi}^{\sigma}}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\quad\prod_{k \in \mathbf{k}^-}\pap{ \sqrt{u_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}+v_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}}-2}\Bigg],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where excitations $\epsilon_k, \epsilon_{0,\pi}$ and Bogoliubov angles $\vartheta_k$ can be calculated with standard formulas~\eref{eq:energiesp1},~\eref{eq:energiesp2},~\eref{eq:energiesp3} and the exact partition function $Z$ is given by~\Eref{eq:FullZ}.
As in the case of partition function, we can single out the Positive Fermionic part
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fidelity_simp}
F^+_F\pap{\rho_{\rm Gibbs}, \sigma_{\rm Gibbs}} = \frac{\prod_{k \in \mathbf{k}^+}\pap{ \sqrt{u_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}+v_k^2\pap{\rho\vert \sigma}}+ 2}}{\sqrt{Z_F^+(\beta^{\rho}, \gamma^{\rho},g^{\rho})Z_F^+(\beta^{\sigma}, \gamma^{\sigma},g^{\sigma})}} \quad \mathrm{(PPA)} ,
\end{equation}
where $Z_F^+$ is given by the first term in decomposition~\eref{eq:Z_decomp} and explicitly reads
\begin{equation}
Z_F^+ \pap{\beta,\gamma,g}= \prod_{k \in \mathbf{K}^+} 2 \cosh(\beta \epsilon_k\pap{\gamma,g}) \quad \mathrm{(PPA)}.
\end{equation}
The PPA formula~\eref{eq:fidelity_simp} has been commonly used in literature~\cite{Zanardi2007,Quan2009}. In the following sections, we are going to show the limits of this approximation by comparing it to the exact formula for the fidelity. As it turns out, the latter includes important physics in the intermediate temperature regime, which is missed by the simplified expression~\eref{eq:fidelity_simp}. We will use the notation
\begin{equation}
F\pap{\rho_{\rm Gibbs}, \sigma_{\rm Gibbs}} = F\pap{\beta^{\rho}, \gamma^{\rho}, g^{\rho}\vert \beta^{\sigma}, \gamma^{\sigma}, g^{\sigma}}.
\end{equation}
There are two limiting cases of these general expressions that are particularly relevant. One concerns the Uhlmann fidelity between two thermal states at equal inverse temperature but a different value of the external control parameter $g$. This limit is natural to quantify the role of thermal excitations above the ground state. The second case concerns the Uhlmann fidelity between two thermal states with common control parameter $g$ but different inverse temperatures. The explicit form of the Uhlmann fidelity can be easily derived in this case given that the two density matrices commute, i.e., $[\rho_{\rm Gibbs}, \sigma_{\rm Gibbs}]=0$.
As a result, the Uhlmann fidelity can be written down in terms of the partition function
\begin{equation}\label{UFcomm}
F\pap{\beta, \gamma, g\vert \beta', \gamma, g}=\frac{Z\left(\frac{\beta+\beta'}{2}, \gamma, g\right)}{\sqrt{Z(\beta, \gamma, g)Z(\beta', \gamma, g) }}.
\end{equation}
By using the full expression for the partition function~\eref{eq:Z_decomp}, one obtains the exact result, without the need to resort to the PPA based on the simplified partition function in the even parity subspace, previously considered, e.g., in~\cite{sachdev_2011,Suzuki_2013,Quan2006,Yu2007,Zanardi2007,Quan2009,Pfeuty70}.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{Figure_0.pdf}
\caption{\label{UhlmannFide}Uhlmann fidelity between two Gibbs states differing by the value of the magnetic field or inverse temperature. In panels (a) and (b), the magnetic field of the first state is set to $g_c=1$ and that of the second state is the variable $g$. Panel (a) shows the results in the high-temperature regime, in which the PPA approximation works very well. Panel (b) shows the results in the regime in which discrepancies between the exact expression and the PPA are manifested (the inset zooms in close to the critical magnetic field). Panel (c) shows the Uhlmann fidelity between the Gibbs states $\rho\pap{\beta = 75,g=1}$ and $\sigma\pap{\beta ,g=1}$ as a function of $\beta$. A logarithmic scale on the horizontal axis is used to capture a wide range of the inverse temperature. System size $N=50$.
}
\label{fig:Uhl_fid}
\end{figure}
We independently verified the correctness of the formula (\ref{eq:fidelity_full1}) by showing that it reproduces the results obtained numerically by exact diagonalization for small system ($N=6,8,10$). For details of the numerical simulations, see~\ref{AppendixA}.
\section{Numerical results for the fidelity susceptibility}\label{secChi}
In this section we analyze the fidelity susceptibility with respect to external field $g$ for fixed inverse temperature $\beta$. We also set $\gamma=1$ (case of Ising model in transverse field). We thus focus on the quantity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:suscept_full}
\chi(\beta, g) = -\restr{\frac{d^2 }{d\delta^2}F\pap{\beta, \gamma=1, g\vert \beta, \gamma=1, g+\delta}}{\delta=0},
\end{equation}
which provides the leading nontrivial term in the expansion
\begin{equation}
F\pap{\beta,\gamma=1,g\vert\beta, \gamma=1, g+\delta} = 1 - \frac{1}{2} \chi(\beta, g) \delta^2 + \ldots
\end{equation}
By contrast, the fidelity susceptibility obtained from the PPA reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:suscept_simple}
\chi_F^+(\beta,g) = -\restr{\frac{d^2 }{d\delta^2}F^+_F\pap{\beta, \gamma=1, g\vert \beta, \gamma=1, g+\delta}}{\delta=0} \quad \mathrm{(PPA)}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Figure_2.pdf}
\caption{\label{susc_g2}Fidelity susceptibility as a function of the transverse magnetic field $g$ at fixed temperature. The exact fidelity susceptibility, given by formulas~\eref{eq:fidelity_full1} and~\eref{eq:suscept_full} (black solid line), is compared with the corresponding PPA given by ~\eref{eq:fidelity_simp} and~\eref{eq:suscept_simple} (red dashed line) for a chain of $N=50$ spins. The location and magnitude of the maximum are altered in the PPA. The discrepancy between the exact and approximate results increases with $\beta$ as one approaches the low-temperature regime. }
\end{figure}
A representative plot of the Uhlmann fidelity is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Uhl_fid} for two Gibbs states
that differ in the value of magnetic field or
inverse temperature. Significant discrepancies between the exact expression and the PPA are manifested at low temperatures.
The choice of parameters has not been optimized to maximize the latter; discrepancies can be bigger, especially for general XY model ($\gamma \neq 1$), where states with negative parity can appear more often then for Ising model \cite{rams2015}. In the following, we examine the nature of the discrepancies by a detailed analysis of fidelity susceptibility.
In~\Fref{susc_g2}, we compare the exact and PPA results and show the dependence of fidelity susceptibility on the magnetic field for different $\beta$. Because the fidelity susceptibility is an even function of $g$, $\chi(\beta,g) = \chi(\beta, -g)$, we present the results only for $g>0$. The PPA yields qualitatively different results from the exact expression, with the difference being more pronounced in the low-temperature limit. Not only the value of the maximum differs, the PPA also leads to a shift of its location. It is clear that the discrepancy is enhanced in the vicinity of $g_c = 1$. Figure \ref{fig:suscept_max_beta} shows the dependence of the fidelity susceptibility on $\beta$ at the critical point $g_c= 1$. It is found that the enhancement of the exact fidelity susceptibility
occurs for a specific value of $\beta$ that depends on the system size, a feature we analyze next.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{Figure_3.pdf}
\caption{Dependence of the maximum fidelity susceptibility on inverse temperature at the critical point $g_c=1$. The exact expression (black solid line) computed using~\eref{eq:fidelity_full1} and~\eref{eq:suscept_full} is compared with the PPA expression (red solid line) in ~\eref{eq:fidelity_simp} and~\eref{eq:suscept_simple}. The blue dashed line corresponds to the ground-state fidelity susceptibility $\chi^+_{0}$~\eref{eq:ground_susc}. In the intermediate temperature regime, a significant enhancement of the fidelity susceptibility that scales as $N^2$ is found. The value of $\beta$ at the maximum scales linearly with system size.}
\label{fig:suscept_max_beta}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-level Approximation of the Gibbs state}
Deviations between the PPA and the exact results are particularly pronounced at intermediate and low temperatures. We next introduce an accurate approximation in this regime by truncating of the Gibbs state, taking only the two lowest energy states into account. We refer to it as the the Two-Level Approximation (TLA) which yields the following truncation for the Gibbs state:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:approximation_def}
\rho_{\rm TLA}(\beta,g) = \frac{1}{Z_{\rm TLA}(\beta,g)}\pap{\mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_0^+(g)}\ket{g^{+}}\bra{g^{+}}
+ \mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_0^-(g)}\ket{g^-}\bra{g^-}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Zapprox}
Z_{\rm TLA}(\beta,g) = \mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_0^+(g)} + \mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_0^-(g)}.
\end{equation}
Analogously, the neighboring thermal state can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\rm TLA}(\beta,g+\delta) = \frac{1}{Z_{\rm TLA}(\beta,g+\delta)}\Bigg( &\mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_0^+(g+\delta)}\ket{g+\delta^+}\bra{g+\delta^+}\nonumber\\
&+ \mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_0^-(g+\delta)}\ket{g+\delta^-}\bra{g+\delta^-}\Bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
In principle, the TLA should work well for big $\beta$, i.e., in the low-temperature regime. The accuracy of this approximation relies on the structure of energy levels and the relation between the dynamical and symmetry-breaking gap. Recall that the symmetry-breaking gap vanishes exponentially with $N$ for $g<1$ and is eight times smaller than the dynamical gap at the critical point. Because the energy $E_1^+$ of the first excited state in the positive-parity subspace is well separated from $E_0^+$ and $E_0^-$, one expects the contribution from $e^{-\beta E_1^+}$ and higher energy states to be small in comparison to~\Eref{eq:approximation_def}.
The Uhlmann fidelity between thermal states in the TLA reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:full_fidelity_approx}
F_{\rm TLA}\pap{\beta, g\vert \beta, g+\delta} = &\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \Delta(g)}}} \frac{F_0^+\pap{g\vert g+\delta}}{\sqrt{1+ \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \Delta(g+\delta)}}} +\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ \mathrm{e}^{\beta \Delta(g)}}} \frac{F_0^-\pap{g\vert g+\delta}}{\sqrt{1+ \mathrm{e}^{\beta \Delta(g+\delta)}}} \quad \mathrm{(\rm TLA)},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta(g)$ is a symmetry breaking gap defined in~(\ref{eq:symmetry_gap_definition}) and $F_0^+$ and $F_0^-$ denote the ground state fidelities in the even and odd parity subspace, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ground_susc_serie}
F^{\pm}_0\pap{g\vert g+\delta} = \vert \braket{g^{\pm} \vert g+\delta^{\pm}} \vert = 1 - \frac{\delta^2}{2} \chi^{\pm}_{0}(g) + \ldots
\end{equation}
The expression~\eref{eq:full_fidelity_approx} can be used as a starting point for computation of approximated fidelity susceptibility. Expressions for $\chi_0^{\pm}$ were derived analytically in~\cite{Damski2013}:
\begin{equation}
\chi_0^+(g ) = \frac{N^2}{16 g^2} \frac{g^N}{(g^N+1)^2} + \frac{N}{16g^2}\frac{g^N-g^2}{(g^N+1)(g^2-1)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\chi_0^-(g ) = -\frac{N^2}{16 g^2} \frac{g^N}{(g^N-1)^2} + \frac{N}{16g^2}\frac{g^N+g^2}{(g^N-1)(g^2-1)}.
\end{equation}
To explain the temperature dependence of the fidelity susceptibility, we focus on the case $g = 1$. Although for a finite system the maximum of the fidelity susceptibility is not exactly at $g_c=1$, it is very close to $1$ and in practice it is convenient to consider $\chi(\beta) = \chi(\beta, g=1)$. The ground-state positive and negative susceptibilities are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ground_susc}
\chi_0^+ = \frac{1}{32} N(N-1), \quad \chi_0^- = \frac{1}{96} (N^2-3N+2).
\end{equation}
At $g=1$, we can use formulas~\eref{eq:full_fidelity_approx} and~\eref{eq:ground_susc_serie} to find $\chi(\beta)$ in the TLA
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:approximation_full}
\chi_{\rm TLA}(\beta) = \frac{\chi_0^+}{1+e^{-\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}}} + \frac{\chi_0^-}{1+e^{\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}}} + R(\beta),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Figure_4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:approximation_check}Comparison between the maximal fidelity susceptibility computed with exact formula~\eref{eq:fidelity_full1} and the approximation~\eref{eq:approximation_full}. The match is excellent in a very wide range of temperatures and the relative error in the vicinity of maximum does not exceed 2\%.}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
R(\beta) = -\restr{\frac{d^2}{d\delta^2} \pap{\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+e^{-\frac{\beta \pi}{2N} }} \sqrt{1+e^{-\beta \Delta(1+\delta)}}} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+e^{\frac{\beta \pi}{2N} }} \sqrt{1+e^{\beta \Delta(1+\delta)}}} }}{\delta=0}.
\end{equation}
Here, we used the asymptotic behavior of the symmetry breaking gap at $g_c=1$; see Eqs.~\eref{eq:symmetry_gap_definition} and \eref{eq:symmetry_breaking_gap}.
Explicit evaluation yields
\begin{eqnarray}
R(\beta) = &
\frac{\beta ^2 e^{\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}} \Delta_c'^2}{2 \left(e^{\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}}+1\right)^{2}}
-\frac{3 \beta ^2 e^{\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}} \Delta_c'^2}{4 \left(e^{\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}}+1\right)^{3}}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\beta ^2 e^{-\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}} \Delta_c'^2}{2 \left(e^{-\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}}+1\right)^{2}}
-\frac{3 \beta ^2 e^{-\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}} \Delta_c'^2}{4\left(e^{-\frac{\beta\pi}{2N}}+1\right)^{3}},
\end{eqnarray}
where the first derivative of the energy gap with respect to $g$ evaluated at $g_c=1$ is denoted by
\begin{equation}
\Delta_c' = \restr{\frac{d}{d\delta}\Delta(1+\delta)}{\delta=0} = \restr{\frac{d}{dg}\Delta(g)}{g=1}.
\end{equation}
and we note that terms depending on the second derivative cancel out.
The explicit expression for $\Delta_c'$ readily follows using ~\eref{eq:energiesp1}
\begin{equation}
\Delta_c' = \frac{1}{2} \Delta + 1 = \tan\pap{\frac{\pi}{4N}}+1 \approx \frac{\pi}{4N}+1.
\end{equation}
Substituting
\begin{equation}
x(\beta) = \frac{\pi}{4N}\beta
\end{equation}
and simplifying the expression for $R(\beta)$, one finds
\begin{equation}
R(x(\beta)) =\frac{x^2(\beta)}{16\cosh^2 \pas{x(\beta)}} \pap{\frac{16}{\pi^2}N^2 + \frac{8}{\pi} N +1}.
\end{equation}
From this expression it is clear that the maximum of the susceptibility scales quadratically with the system size. Moreover, the inverse temperature for which the maximum is achieved scales linearly with the system size. Further, the presence of the maximum is due to the particular behavior of the first derivative of the symmetry breaking gap,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \Delta_c' = 1 > 0.
\end{equation}
\Fref{fig:approximation_check} shows the range of $\beta$ where the approximation works. Obviously, the approximation fails in the classical limit associated with large temperatures. For $\beta \rightarrow 0$, both $\rho_{\rm Gibbs}(0,g)$ and $\rho_{\rm Gibbs}(0,g+\delta)$ are maximally mixed states, proportional to the identity operator. As a result, the fidelity
$F(0,g \vert 0,g+\delta)=1$ for any $h$ and $\delta$. Consequently, the fidelity susceptibility vanishes by definition,
\begin{equation}
\label{lime}
\lim _{\beta\rightarrow 0}\, \chi_{\rm Exact}(\beta) = 0.
\end{equation}
In this limit, the TLA naturally fails
and predicts incorrectly a finite value
\begin{equation}
\label{lima}
\lim _{\beta\rightarrow 0}\, \chi_{\rm TLA}(\beta) = \frac{1}{96} \pap{2N^2-3N+1},
\end{equation}
which scales quadratically with the system size and diverges in the thermodynamic limit.
The appearance of $\chi^{-}$ in \eref{eq:approximation_full} indicates the importance of the negative parity sector, which was omitted in previous studies \cite{Zanardi2007, Quan2009}.
\subsection{Thermal fidelity susceptibility and specific heat}
When the thermal states commute with each other, the Uhlmann fidelity is given in terms of the partition function, as we have discussed.
The Taylor series expansion of equation ~(\ref{UFcomm}) yields the thermal fidelity susceptibility, which is itself proportional to the specific heat of the system at constant magnetic field. Specifically, taking $\beta\rightarrow\beta-\delta\beta/2$ and $\beta'\rightarrow\beta+\delta\beta/2$, and expanding in $\delta\beta$, one find the leading term~\cite{Yu2007}
\begin{equation}
\xi(\beta,g)=-2\lim_{\delta\beta\rightarrow 0}\frac{\ln F(\beta-\delta\beta/2,g \vert \beta+\delta\beta/2,g)}{(\delta\beta)^2}=\frac{C_v(\beta,g)}{4\beta^2}.
\end{equation}
Next, we aim at computing the thermal fidelity susceptibility (and, thus, the specific heat) using the TLA~\eref{eq:approximation_def}. Exact expressions, in this case, can be calculated with help of equation~\eref{UFcomm} and knowledge of partition function~\eref{eq:FullZ}. Simplified expressions, used in literature, can be easily obtained just by substitution of the PPA partition function~\eref{eq:FermionicZ} into equation~\eref{UFcomm}. To derive the TLA thermal fidelity susceptibility we use the approximated formula for fidelity between equilibrium states with temperatures differing by $\delta$,
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Figure_5_R.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:thermal_suscept_50}Specific heat at $g=1$ computed with the exact formula for thermal susceptibility (black solid line) versus the corresponding PPA (red doted-dashed line). The TLA~\eref{eq:heat_approximation} is shown by the blue dashed line. The chosen system sizes are $N=50$ and $N=100$. Note that in the low-temperature regime the height of the maximum is the same for $N=100$ and $N=50$. To bring out the characteristic features of both temperature regimes, a logarithmic scale is used in both axes.}
\end{figure}
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{\rm TLA}\pap{\beta,g\vert\beta+\delta,g} &= F\pap{\beta, \gamma=1, g\vert \beta+\delta,\gamma=1 ,g}\nonumber \\
&= \frac{Z_{\rm TLA}(\beta+\delta/2)}{\sqrt{Z_{\rm TLA}(\beta,g)\, Z_{\rm TLA}(\beta+\delta,g)}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z_{\rm TLA}$ is given by formula~\eref{eq:Zapprox}.
The explicit expression reads
\begin{equation}
F_{\rm TLA}\pap{\beta,g\vert\beta+\delta, g} = \frac{1+ e^{(-\beta+\delta/2) \Delta(g)}}{\sqrt{1+e^{-\beta \Delta(g)}}\sqrt{1+e^{(\beta+\delta) \Delta(g)}}},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta(g)$ is symmetry-breaking gap defined in the formula~\eref{eq:symmetry_gap_definition}. Using it, the calculation of specific heat yields a remarkably simple expression
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{v}\pap{\beta,g} = 4\beta^2\, \xi(\beta,g) &= -4 \beta^2\, \frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \delta^2}F(\beta,g\vert\beta+\delta,g) \vert_{\delta=0}\nonumber\\
&= \frac{\beta^2 \Delta^2(g)}{4}{\rm sech}^2\pas{\frac{\beta \Delta(g)}{2}}.\quad {\rm (TLA)}
\end{eqnarray}
Above formula gives TLA approximation for arbitrary values of $\beta$ and $g$, one expects that approximation works better for larger $\beta$. In order to channel the discussion, we restrict ourselves to the case $g=1$. Then, substituting $x(\beta) = \frac{\beta \pi}{4N}$, one finds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heat_approximation}
C_{v} \pap{\beta}= C_v(\beta,g=1) = x^2(\beta){\rm sech}^{2}\pas{ x(\beta)}.\quad {\rm (TLA)}
\end{equation}
The temperature dependence of the specific heat at the critical point is shown in the \Fref{fig:thermal_suscept_50}, where the exact results are compared with the PPA and TLA. A characteristic feature of the temperature dependence of the specific heat is the big contrast between the high- and low-temperature regimes. In the high-temperature regime, the specific heat exhibits a sharp peak, which scales linearly with the system size. On the other hand, at low temperatures, the TLA formula~\eref{eq:heat_approximation} provides an accurate prediction, with a maximum $C_{v}^{\max} \approx 0.439229$ independent of the system size. By contrast, the PPA partition function gives results very close to the exact one for high temperatures, as in the case of the susceptibility related to the field $g$ (compare with the previous section).
In short, the exact results are well reproduced by the TLA in the low-temperature regime, and by the PPA in the high-temperature regime.
\section{Conclusions}
An important family of paradigmatic spin models-including the one-dimensional XY and Ising models-are integrable and can be expressed in terms of free fermions. The parity operator commutes with the Hamiltonian and it is often convenient to simplify their description by considering only the positive-parity subspace. This yields simple approximate formulae for relevant quantities such as the partition function which are ubiquitous in the literature~\cite{sachdev_2011,Suzuki_2013}.
We have shown that such an approach fails in the characterization of quantum critical phenomena using the ground-state fidelity and fidelity susceptibility. Using an algebraic approach to exactly account for the complete Hilbert space~\cite{Bialonczyk2020}, we have shown that the exact result for the fidelity susceptibility between thermal states qualitatively differs from the conventional approximation, away from the classical high-temperature regime. The discrepancy is pronounced in the quantum, low-temperature limit when the accurate treatment of the low-lying energy states is crucial. Furthermore, the discrepancy is robust against variations of the system size and is manifested even in the thermodynamic limit.
Our results show the limitation of disregarding the odd parity subspace in the characterization of integrable spin chains at finite temperature and are potentially relevant to applications ranging from quantum thermodynamics to parameter estimation, among other quantum technologies using quantum critical spin chains. The exact expressions we have provided for the fidelity between thermal states should be of broad interest in the quantum-information characterization of these systems at finite temperature, with applications ranging from quantum thermodynamics to many-body and criticality-enhanced quantum metrology \cite{Rams18,Frerot18,Chabuda2020}. Likewise, the exact treatment of the fidelity susceptibility is required for the analysis of their critical phenomena and could be used for benchmarking quantum simulators, annealing devices, and the performance of quantum algorithms using quantum spin chains as a testbed.
Our results apply to the canonical Gibbs state at thermal equilibrium resulting from thermalization dynamics without other conserved quantities than the energy in chains of fixed size. An interesting outlook concerns the characterization of the fidelity and fidelity susceptibility in the Generalized Gibbs Ensemble, i.e., in the presence of additional invariants of motion.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
M. B. would like to thank Bogdan Damski and Andrzej Syrwid for insightful discussions. We further thank Marek M. Rams for feedback on the manuscript. M. B. also acknowledges the support of the Polish National Science Center under scholarship ETIUDA (2020/36/T/ST3/00332) and research grant DEC-2016/23/B/ST3/01152. F.J.~G-R thanks the University of Luxembourg for hospitality during the completion of this work. This work is further supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci\'on (PID2019-109007GA-I00).
|
\section{Non-optimal Segregative Equilibrium}
\label{appx:prop}
In this appendix, we show that our model supports segregative equilibria that are not socially optimal.
\begin{proposition}
Let all agents be of the same hidden type but belong to K separate social groups, $N^{1}, N^{2}, ..., N^{K} \subset N$ and let $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2$.
Assume that beliefs are such that:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item for $i,j \in N^{k},\ \pi_i(s_j) \geq \tfrac{c_H - (\delta - \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}$
\item for $i \in N^{k}, j \in N^{s}, k \neq s,\ \pi_i(s_j) < \tfrac{c_H - (\delta + (n_s - 1)\ \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}$
\end{enumerate}
Starting a new network from the empty network, agents will be perfectly segregated in a pairwise stable equilibrium that is not socially optimal.
\label{prop-suboptimal}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Start with the empty network and take any agent $i$ belonging to some social group $k$.
Given that $i$'s beliefs comply with the first condition for any $j \in N^{k}$, Prop. \ref{prop1} implies that agent $i$ will meet all such agents $j$, that is, he will want to meet everyone from his social group. Since all agents are of the same hidden type and $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2$, all such meetings result in lasting connections.
Given that $i$'s beliefs comply with the second condition for any $j \in N^{s}, k \neq s$, Lemma \ref{prop-antisocial} implies that $i$ will refuse to meet $j$ no matter how well-connected she is within her group.
Given $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2$, the efficient network must be fully connected amongst agents of the same type, as the incremental utility of forming a link will be at least $u_{ij} \geq \delta - \delta^2 - c_L \geq 0$. Yet we have just shown that agents stay within their social groups, giving the proposition.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs}
\label{appx:proof}
This appendix contains the proofs for the statements in the main body of the paper.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop1}}
\begin{proof}
To prove this by contradiction, suppose there is a pairwise stable equilibrium in which agents $i$ and $j$ have not met.
W.l.o.g, the least amount of utility agent $i$ expects to gain from meeting $j$ corresponds to the case when $i$ and $j$ are already as closely connected as possible without being neighbours, i.e., $d_{ij} = 2$. The expected gain is therefore non-negative if:
\begin{equation*}
\delta - [\pi_i(s_j)\ c_L + (1 - \pi_i(s_j))\ c_H] - \delta^2 \geq 0
\end{equation*}
where the first two terms are the benefit of becoming neighbours less the expected cost of doing so, and where the last term is the lost benefit of being closely but indirectly connected.
This expression can be rewritten as:
\begin{equation*}
\pi_i(s_j) \geq \dfrac{c_H - (\delta - \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}
\end{equation*}
which gives us a contradiction, as agents $i$ and $j$ must therefore have met. Statements 1 and 2 then follow directly.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor1}}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Prop. \ref{prop1}, as $\tfrac{c_H - (\delta - \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L} \leq 1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}}
\begin{proof}
To prove this by contradiction, suppose the empty network with entirely ignorant agents was pairwise stable. Take any agents $i$ and $j$, who must be unacquainted with one another, so that the expected utility of forming a link for agent $i$ is therefore always non-negative if:
\begin{equation*}
\delta - \pi_i(s_j)\ c_L - (1 - \pi_i(s_j))\ c_H \geq 0
\end{equation*}
This is equivalent to:
\begin{equation*}
\pi_i(s_j) \geq \dfrac{c_H - \delta}{c_H - c_L}
\end{equation*}
This results in a contradiction and a link will then be formed if agent $j$'s expected utility is also non-negative. The proposition thus follows by symmetry.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor2}}
\begin{proof}
This corollary follows from Prop. \ref{prop1} and Prop. \ref{prop2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{prop-antisocial}}
\begin{proof}
Suppose agent $i$ contemplates a link with agent $j$. The highest net utility agent $i$ can receive from becoming connected to $j$ occurs when $j$ is himself directly connected to all individuals in his component $C_j$, so that $i$ could become indirectly connected to everyone in $C_j$. The expected incremental gain of connecting is therefore negative if:
\begin{equation*}
\delta + (|C_j| - 1)\ \delta^2 - \pi_i(s_j)\ c_L - (1 - \pi_i(s_j))\ c_H < 0
\end{equation*}
which shows the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop3}}
\begin{proof}
Statement 1 -- Note that Prop. \ref{prop1} implies that it must be the case that $E_i[u_{ij}] \geq 0$ for all $i,j \in N$. Thm. \ref{song1} thus gives us the first statement.
Statement 2 -- We show this by contradiction. Suppose it was the case that $G^{IC}_S(N) \subset G^{C}_S(N)$.
Lemma \ref{prop-antisocial} shows that under incomplete information some agents would stay singletons for inter-type costs that are high enough and pessimistic enough beliefs. Let this network be denoted $g^o \in G^{IC}_S(N)$.
Under complete information, agents would always connect with anyone from their own type, as the least amount of utility they would receive is:
\begin{equation*}
u_{ij} \geq \delta - \delta^2 - c_L \geq 0
\end{equation*}
Singletons, therefore, do not survive under complete information, that is, $g^o \notin G^{C}_S(N)$. Hence $G^{IC}_S(N) \not\subset G^{C}_S(N)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Additional Simulations}
We discuss a number of ancillary simulations in this appendix.
\subsection{Varying the Degree of Bias}
\label{appx:sim:bias}
In Fig. \ref{fig:bflex} we show a full comparison of network dynamics under different levels of bias induced by changes to the $\beta$ shape parameter. We can observe that the networks with more biased agents reflect a step-up in segregation. Interestingly, such networks tend to collapse at a slightly later point when intra-type costs are increased. Intuitively, more biased agents are more willing to form connections with peers from the same social group, as they are more optimistic that such agents would also have the same hidden type.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results/bflex.eps}
\caption{Increasing bias results in greater segregation. Freeman's segregation index approaches 1 when the biased network collapses to singletons.}
\label{fig:bflex}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Compositional Changes: Social Groups}
\label{appx:sim:grp}
In this section, we compare network dynamics under different social groupings of the network. An overview of the network compositions is shown in Table \ref{table:grp}.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\centering
\caption{Network compositions. Entries of arrays indicate size of a particular social group.}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{l Y Y Y}
\addlinespace
\toprule
{Parameter} & {Base} & {4 Groups} & {Imbalanced} \\ \midrule
Social group size & [24, 24] & [12, 12, 12, 12] & [12, 36] \\
Hidden type distribution & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Even split within each group} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\label{table:grp}
\end{table}
In Fig. \ref{fig:grp} we can observe that changes to the social groups do not seem to have a significant impact on segregative dynamics, as they closely align to our base case results.
Note that Freeman's segregation index is calculated with respect to the number of inter-group links expected in a randomly formed network. An increase in the number of social groups or a re-balancing to create majority and minority groups result in adjustments to the expected number of random inter-group links. The absolute number of inter-group link will therefore have changed between the different compositions of the network, yet the relative proportion to the respective random networks must have largely remained constant.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results/grp.eps}
\caption{Segregative network dynamics under different social groupings of the network. Freeman's segregation index approaches 1 when the network collapses to singletons.}
\label{fig:grp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Compositional Changes: Hidden Types}
\label{appx:sim:typ}
In this section, we compare network dynamics under different distributions of hidden types. An overview of the network compositions is shown in Table \ref{table:types}.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\centering
\caption{Network compositions. Array entries in the first row indicate size of a particular social group. Array entries in the second row indicate size of a particular hidden type \emph{given} a social group.}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{l Y Y Y Y}
\addlinespace
\toprule
{Parameter} & {Base} & {4 Types} & {Imbalanced} & {Correlated} \\ \midrule
Social group size & \multicolumn{4}{c}{[24, 24]}\\
\makecell[l]{Hidden type\\ distribution} & \makecell{[12, 12] \\ per group} & \makecell{[6, 6, 6, 6] \\ per group} & \makecell{[18, 6]\\ per group} & \makecell{Group 1: [18, 6] \\ Group 2: [6, 18]} \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\label{table:types}
\end{table}
In Fig. \ref{fig:type} we observe that network dynamics are sensitive to the distribution of hidden types. This is expected given their direct relationship to agent preferences.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results/type.eps}
\caption{Segregative network dynamics under different hidden type distributions. Freeman's segregation index approaches 1 when the network collapses to singletons.}
\label{fig:type}
\end{figure}
The results indicate that increasing the number of types appears to have a disincentivising effect on network formation. Intuitively, a larger number of rival types dilutes incentives to form connections, as all connections with agents of a different type are penalised. Networks with 4 hidden types thus show a rapid rise in the segregation index as costs increase and collapse to singletons comparatively early.
Initialising the network with a type that represents the majority in each social group (the imbalanced case) appears to not impact the dynamics significantly. We can observe that these networks tend to be slightly better connected and collapse to singletons at slightly higher intra-type costs compared to the base case.
In contrast, in the correlated case in which each social group is dominated by a different hidden type, the corresponding results reflect a marked increase in segregation at a comparable level of connectedness. This is not surprising, as this case naturally encourages segregation given that agents of the majority type in a given social group would \emph{rationally} prefer connections to the same social group, all things being equal.
\section{Additional Figures}
\label{appx:figs}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{results/beta.eps}
\caption{Probability density functions underlying the biased belief mechanism anchored by different rational expectations with the adjustment factor $\gamma \sim Beta(1,7)$. Beliefs are drawn from the right-hand side of the peak for agents of the same social group and from the left-hand side of the peak otherwise.}
\label{fig:beta}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results/networks.eps}
\caption{Example networks generated with the baseline parameterisation in Table \ref{table:case1} using (a) biased beliefs and (b) complete information. Colours (green vs red) indicate social groups, tones (light vs dark) denote hidden types.}
\label{fig:examples}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have contributed an agent-based network formation model for the study of group segregation relaxing the common assumption of complete information. We have done so by introducing notions of expectations and beliefs that are allowed to be heterogeneous across agents, drawing inspiration from the field of psychology. We have shown that our model is rich enough to not only generate those networks that a complete information equivalent could support but indeed is capable of generating an even more diverse set of networks. Beyond this, we have demonstrated that segregative equilibria can be supported in our model when agents are sufficiently biased. We have proceeded to a simulation-based approach to investigate the dynamics of segregation and found clear evidence pointing to the role of biased beliefs in generating segregation under incomplete information.
This has not been an exhaustive study of beliefs. The belief mechanisms we have assumed throughout have been static to enable our focus on the presence and absence of complete information. A promising avenue of further research would be to imbue our mechanisms with greater realism. A first step could be to assume that beliefs gradually update as agents meet each other. Similarly, agents may not have perfect memory and forget each other if enough time has passed. A second line of extensions could emanate from incorporating more complex relationships between social groups and beliefs, where a spatial cost topology, such as in Johnson and Gilles \cite{Johnson2000}, could be applied to expected costs. This could be useful in moving the focus from overall segregative patterns as in this paper to studying segregation between specific groups. A third topic of future research could revolve around the stability conditions underlying our model. While pairwise stability offers some attractive properties, it would be worthwhile investigating the effect of coalitional stability concepts such as that proposed by Jackson and van den Nouweland (2005) \cite{JacksonNouweland2005}.
\subsection{Application to Segregation in Social Networks}
One of our key objections to the existing literature relate to an implicit assumption that homophily is an inherent preference over observable attributes. This assumption appears to suggest that segregative patterns in society which are most vividly based on outward traits -- such as ethnicity, gender or class -- are the socially optimal result of our supposed preference to be with people of similar such traits.
A more nuanced argument could be made which points out that the groups in de Mart{\'{i}} and Zenou (2017) \cite{DeMarti2017} or the islands in Jackson and Rogers (2005) \cite{JacksonRogers2005} do not need to correspond to social groups defined by their outward appearance. Segregative patterns could be the result of people forming relationships based on preferences for some underlying trait which happens to correlate with the outward traits we observe. Homophily could, in that case, be interpreted as a resulting phenomenon rather than an inherent preference. This line of reasoning, however, does not fully convince, as the underlying traits are then necessarily assumed to be observable by everyone.
We have therefore proposed a model of a heterogeneous agent-based network formation model under uncertainty to relax this assumption and, instead, allow for people to look for hidden traits in each other based on expectations formed from their outward appearances. If these expectations are biased, as this paper contends, then social group homophily could be interpreted as a reflection of these biases rather than an inherent preference.
The introduction of a distinction between hidden types and overt social groups provides an additional advantage in that the characterisation of efficient networks carries over from complete information models. The analysis of Jackson and Rogers (2005) \cite{JacksonRogers2005}, for instance, can be applied to our model by assuming that their islands are defined based on our hidden types rather than social groups.
We demonstrate in Appendix \ref{appx:prop} that we are easily able to generate a segregative equilibrium which is not socially optimal.
\section{Introduction}
Frequently, members of the same group exhibit similar outward appearances -- a phenomenon referred to as homophily. This paper aims to provide an approach to studying this feature of social networks under uncertainty. We specifically build on an agent-based network formation model first proposed by Jackson and Wolinsky (1996) \cite{Jackson1996}.
A number of extensions have been made to study segregation from a network formation perspective. These extensions have in common that agents belong to different types, where a type denotes shared attributes. Further, agents may exhibit heterogeneity in either benefits or costs when connecting to other agents. Specifically, forming a link with someone of the same type is usually assumed to either offer greater benefits or come at a lower cost than forming a link when types differ. By way of illustration, these models imply that a person finds it easier to form friendships with other people of the same ethnicity. These models show that segregation equilibria exist when agents exhibit even small preferences for homophily.
\subsection{Our Contribution}
The key shortcoming in most of the existing literature is the strong assumption that agents have complete information about each other’s types or, equivalently, utilities depend only on observable attributes. This paper departs from this assumption by introducing a distinction between overt social groups, which subsume all publicly observable attributes, and covert types, denoting private attributes. Agents are assumed to prefer connecting to other agents of the same type which, however, is \textit{ex-ante} unobservable. Agents are thus indifferent over observable attributes. Instead, agents use a heuristic device and rely on social group memberships to gauge someone’s hidden type. This, in turn, allows for “errors” in people’s judgement of each other’s types.
We present a model designed to give us the ability to investigate if segregation between social groups can simply occur when people are sufficiently prejudiced, i.e., exhibit beliefs that are detached from the true distribution of covert types. We introduce the concept not just of hidden types, but also of agents' beliefs to intuit these types from observable attributes and form connections based on these beliefs.
Finally we implement various simulated experiments in order to provide comparisons to complete information networks and incomplete information networks with rational beliefs. We demonstrate that even mildly biased beliefs are an important driver of segregation under incomplete information.
\subsection{Related Literature}
Since Schelling's (1969, 1971) \cite{Schelling1969,Schelling1971} landmark segregation models, numerous studies of homophily in heterogeneous networks have been undertaken in recent years. Jackson and Xing (2014) \cite{JacksonXing2014} argue that homophily reflects how norms could help members of a group predict each other’s behaviour and thus facilitate cooperative play in coordination games. McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) \cite{McPherson2001} show that having similar attributes is a strong predictor that two individuals maintain social ties along a variety of dimensions.
Aits, Carver and Turrini (2019) \cite{DBLP:conf/atal/AitsCT19} demonstrate how tolerance can result in complex intra-group segregation. De Mart{\'{i}} and Zenou (2017) \cite{DeMarti2017} determine that segregation can be the socially optimal outcome when agents are not sufficiently exposed to each other's groups as to reduce inter-group linking costs. Centola, Gonzalez-Avella, Eguiluz and San Miguel (2007) \cite{Centola2007} show how homophily can lead to the formation of distinct cultural groups that persist even when random shocks variously bring groups closer together. Within this divergence, group membership can have profound effects on the individuals. This has been examined, amongst others, in the context of migration and assimilation decisions \cite{Blumenstock2019,Chay2013,Munshi2016,Verdier2017}, occupation and employment \cite{Granovetter1983,Munshi2011,Zenou2015}, and even marriage \cite{Skopek2011}.
However, to date, only a relatively small body of literature exists which has investigated the role of incomplete information in networks. Jackson and Yariv (2007) \cite{JacksonYariv2007} investigate incomplete information pertaining to the structure of the network. They present a model in which agents are uncertain over how well connected other agents are. Since an agent's payoffs depend in part on the indirect connections gained through her direct connections, her actions will be a response to her \emph{beliefs} of the structure of those connections.
De Mart{\'{i}} and Zenou (2015) \cite{DeMarti2015} assume that there is a shared state of the world which determines the return individuals receive from expending private effort to interact with each other. Since this state is further assumed to be unknown, players use signals to partially infer the true state.
This type of model arguably forms the main stream within this literature and generally focuses on network \emph{games}. That is, the objective is to understand better how games are played when the players are already connected in a network in some fashion and, as such, these models differ significantly from network \emph{formation} models.
The work of Song and van der Schaar (2015) \cite{Song2015} is a notable exception that parallels the approach of this paper. They consider not only a network formation model but also a heterogeneous agent setting in which agents have incomplete information about each others' types. Their model, however, assumes that heterogeneity is expressed in benefits and that beliefs are shared across agents.
Galeotti, Goyal and Kamphorst (2006) \cite{Galeotti2006} note that heterogeneity in cost shapes both the level of connectedness as well as the general structure of a network, whereas heterogeneity in benefits appears to have much less of an influence on the latter.
\section{Simulation Results}
We present our results, which were generated with the parameterisation summarised in Table \ref{table:case1}. We choose a network size for which convergence can still be reasonably expected in a real life setting, considering that all pairs of agents need to have interacted a potentially large number of times.
We focus in the main body on networks with two social groups which are each equally divided between two hidden types. In Apps. \ref{appx:sim:grp} and \ref{appx:sim:typ} we compare and discuss results from compositional changes to the network using different distributions of social groups and hidden types. In general, these additional results indicate that segregation dynamics are not significantly influenced by social groups but do depend on the composition of hidden types. We, however, show that the case of two hidden types has the advantage of incentivising network formation and thus serves as a useful counterpoint to the distortive and segregative influence of biased beliefs.
We focus on the network dynamics by varying one type of cost at a time to investigate their independent effects. In addition, we are holding the decay factor, $\delta$, constant in all cases, as results mainly depend on the relative magnitude of benefits and costs.
All simulations were repeated 30 times. Specimen networks are illustrated in Appx. \ref{appx:figs}. Averaged results are reported below.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\centering
\caption{Simulation parameters.}
\begin{tabularx}{0.75\textwidth}{l Y}
\addlinespace
\toprule
{Parameter} & {Value} \\ \midrule
Number of nodes & 48 \\
Social groups & 2 of size 24 \\
Hidden types & 2 of size 12 per group \\ \midrule
Decay factor $\delta$ & 0.7 \\
Intra-type cost $c_L$ (base case) & 0.2 \\
Inter-type cost $c_H$ (base case) & 1.0 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\label{table:case1}
\end{table}
\subsection{Segregation under uncertainty}
In Fig. \ref{fig:base} we compare the network dynamics under biased beliefs with those under rational expectations and complete information.
The segregation indices in the top panels confirm our hypothesis that biased beliefs play an important role in segregation under uncertainty. Freeman's segregation index remains distinctly positive as intra-type and inter-type costs change. Moreover, as both the incremental segregation indices with respect to rational expectations and complete information closely track Freeman's index, this suggests that the segregation is not a result of uncertainty alone or agent preferences respectively.
The middle panels provide a comparison of how much agents are willing to link up and reveal each other's types under biased beliefs and rational expectations. This in itself does not imply that the links that are initially formed survive once types are revealed. We observe that biased beliefs sustain connection-forming between agents for both higher intra-type and inter-type costs compared to the case under rational expectations.
Intuitively, biased beliefs imply that agents may hold different beliefs, specifically there will exist both more and less optimistic agents in a network under beliefs following a distribution than in one under rational expectations where all agents share the same rational beliefs. The existence of more optimistic agents is significant, as they are the ones that will still be willing to risk forming a link under higher costs. As such, biased beliefs induce connections to form in higher cost ranges whereas they wouldn't under rational expectations.
The lower panels show how well connected the network is, that is, how many connections between agents survive in equilibrium. Firstly, we can observe that networks under biased beliefs and rational expectations appear to have a similar degree of connectedness for the lower part of the cost ranges. Given the evolution of the segregation indices, this suggests that biased networks support as many links as networks with rational expectations, but with a greater number of links between agents of the same social group.
Secondly, we can observe that the greater willingness to connect at higher costs under biased beliefs compared to under rational expectations also results in a correspondingly later collapse of the biased network.
Lastly, networks under complete information are better connected in equilibrium. This is intuitive, as unconnected agents of the same type will always form and maintain a link as long as the intra-type cost lies below the decay factor -- a decision that is independent of inter-type costs as indicated by the flat degree centrality curve on the right-hand side of the panel.
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results/base.eps}
\caption{Biased beliefs sustain segregation as each cost is varied. Note that incremental segregation cannot be computed where the baseline network has collapsed to singletons (i.e., $p_{base} = 0$). Freeman's segregation index approaches 1 when the biased network collapses to singletons.}
\label{fig:base}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-10pt}
In Fig. \ref{fig:bflex-redux} we vary the degree of bias by changing the $\beta$ shape parameter of the beta distribution seeding our beliefs where a lower $\beta$-value corresponds to a greater degree of bias. We observe that while increasing the bias is clearly associated with a step-up in the segregation index, a reduction in the bias still yields distinctly segregative results. A full comparison of network dynamics is shown in Appx. \ref{appx:sim:bias}.
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{results/bflex-redux.eps}
\caption{An increase in bias (a reduction in the $\beta$ shape parameter) leads to greater segregation. Freeman's segregation index approaches 1 when the network collapses to singletons.}
\label{fig:bflex-redux}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-10pt}
\section{Simulation Setup}
To complement the static perspective taken thus far, we will now turn to the numerical investigation of the role of beliefs in dynamic network formation under incomplete information. We specifically focus on the properties of the networks after they have converged to a steady state.
In the following we discuss specifics of the design of our simulation and the key metrics that we are measuring.
\subsection{Initial Conditions}
From our theoretical results, it is clear that given the initial state of the system, different pairwise stable networks will form.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the effect of incomplete information on the formation of networks. As such, the focus is not on the analysis of any particular architectures which may require specific initialisation of the network. We will therefore initialise the network as the empty network.
\subsection{Dynamic Process}
Our simulation will closely follow the definition of dynamic network formation due to Jackson and Watts (2002) \cite{Jackson2002} -- as we did in our theoretical framework.
Recall that network formation is thus described as a stochastic dynamic process in which a pair of agents, $\{i,j\}$, is randomly selected in every period. This pair is then evaluated for pairwise stability.
Instead of ending the period when a stable pairing has been encountered, we instead randomly select another pair of agents until an unstable pair has been identified or until no pairs remain. We make this change to enable faster detection of a network's pairwise stability.
Once the relationship between one pair of agents has been modified, we subsequently move on to the next period, in which a new pair of agents, $\{k,l\}$, is selected. The process converges when no unstable pairs remain.
\subsection{Terminating Conditions}
Given that dynamic processes may either converge to a steady state or diverge, we turn to the definition of the conditions under which our system comes to a halt.
We follow Jackson and Watts (2002) \cite{Jackson2002} and make use of what they call \textit{``improving paths"}.
Jackson and Watts (2002) \cite{Jackson2002} show that given a finite number of network states, any improving path must either terminate in a pairwise stable network or result in a cycle, which repeatedly visits the same set of networks.
In order to capture the role of information, we will add to the original definition of improving paths and reflect that the state of the network not only includes a description of the relationship between all agents but also the information that each agent holds. Recall that we represent this information with an $n \times n$ matrix $M$, giving us networks represented as $(N, M, g)$.
In the spirit of Jackson and Watts (2002) \cite{Jackson2002}, we define an improving path from a network $(M, g)$ to a network $(M', g')$ -- where we suppress the constant set of agents $N$ for ease of notation -- as a finite sequence of adjacent networks $(M_1, g_1), (M_2, g_2), ..., (M_K, g_K)$ with $(M_1, g_1) = (M, g)$ and $(M_K, g_K) = (M', g')$ so that for any $k \in \{1,...,K-1\}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mbox{(i)\ \ } & g_{k+1} = g_k - ij \mbox{\ for some\ } ij \mbox{\ s.t.\ } u_i(g_k - ij) > u_i(g_k), \mbox{\ or} \\
\mbox{(ii)\ \ } & g_{k+1} = g_k + ij \mbox{\ for some\ } ij \mbox{\ s.t.\ } E_i[u_{ij}] \geq 0 \mbox{\ and\ } E_j[u_{ji}] \geq 0, \mbox{\ or}\\
\mbox{(iii)\ \ } & \mathds{1}(M_{k+1}) > \mathds{1}(M_k).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the function $\mathds{1}$ returns the number of ones in matrix $M$.
Following Jackson and Watts (2002) \cite{Jackson2002}, we similarly define cycles as a set of networks $C$ so that for any of its networks, $(M,g), (M',g') \in C$, there exists an improving path from $(M,g)$ to $(M',g')$. A \emph{closed} cycle is then a cycle $C$ that does not contain any network which lies on an improving path to a network outside of $C$.
If the improving path terminates, we can thus terminate the simulation as convergence to a pairwise stable solution has been achieved. If the improving path has a closed cycle, then our simulation will never converge and we thus also terminate.
\subsection{Belief Mechanism}
One of the key features of our network formation model is a flexible specification of agent beliefs. This is motivated by substantial evidence that people exercise heuristic thinking in many aspects of their lives \cite{Chen2007,Gant1984,Grether1980,Kahneman1973,Krawczyk2019,Tversky1974} so that beliefs may be biased and thus differ from rational expectations. While we draw inspiration from that body of literature, our theoretical framework, however, does not assume any particular belief mechanism.
We therefore use a simulation-based approach to investigate the role of biased beliefs in generating segregation. To do so, we consider a mechanism based on heuristic thinking whereby agents judge each other's compatibility based on similarity. We specifically assume that agents possess base beliefs that are rationally anchored but tend to be more optimistic when judging people of their own social group and less so for any other social group. We express this formally as follows:
\begin{equation}
\pi_i(s_j) = \begin{cases}
\dfrac{n_{s_jt_j}}{n_{s_j+}} + (1-\dfrac{n_{s_jt_j}}{n_{s_j+}}) \gamma &\text{if $s_i = s_j$} \\
\dfrac{n_{s_jt_j}}{n_{s_j+}} - \dfrac{n_{s_jt_j}}{n_{s_j+}} \gamma &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $n_{s_jt_j}$ is the cardinality of the set of agents from group $s_j$ and of type $t_j$ and $n_{s_j+}$ is the cardinality of the set of agents from group $s_j$. Their ratio corresponds to the true probability that an agent belongs to type $t_j$ in group $s_j$ and therefore equals the beliefs an agent under rational expectations would hold. The bias enters via an adjustment factor $\gamma \in [0,1]$ moving beliefs upward for agents of the same group and downward otherwise. The adjustment is normalised to ensure beliefs remain in the unit interval.
For our base case, we assume $\gamma$ is drawn from a positively skewed beta distribution:
\begin{equation}
\gamma \sim Beta(\alpha,\beta) \ \text{with} \ \alpha = 1, \beta > 1
\end{equation}
Note that the shape parameter $\beta$ controls the degree of bias, i.e., the extent to which agent beliefs deviate from rational beliefs. In our proposed base case parameterisation we choose $\beta = 7$ which implies that c.52\% of agents do not deviate more than 10\% and c.79\% do not deviate more than 20\% from rational beliefs. We show an illustration of the proposed belief distribution in Appx. \ref{appx:figs}.
\subsection{Metrics}
\paragraph{Segregation Indices}
We make use of the generalised Freeman's segregation index as derived in Bojanowski and Corten (2014) \cite{Bojanowski2014} which is given by:
\begin{equation}
S_{F} = 1 - \dfrac{pn(n-1)}{(\Sigma_kn_{+k})^2 - \Sigma_kn^2_{+k}}
\label{eq:freeman}
\end{equation}
where $n$ and $n_{+k}$ denote the cardinality of the set of all agents and the set of agents of type $k$ respectively. Further, $p$ denotes the proportion of inter-group links, which is given by the following expression:
\begin{equation}
p = \dfrac{\Sigma_{g,h;g \neq h}m_{gh1}}{m_{++1}}
\label{eq:intergroup}
\end{equation}
where $m_{gh1} = |\{ij \in g| i\in N^g; j \in N^h\}|$ and $m_{++1} = \Sigma_g\Sigma_h m_{gh1}$ are, respectively, the number of inter-group links and the number of all links.
Given the random graph benchmark used in Freeman's segregation index, it can be interpreted as a measure of the segregation introduced by agent preferences guiding link formation. Our model of agent-based network formation under incomplete information, however, introduces an additional information effect, which would be confounded in Freeman's segregation index.
In order to disentangle information effects from agent preferences we are therefore proposing additional \emph{incremental segregation indices} defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
S_{IS} = \dfrac{p_{base} - p_{biased}}{p_{base}}
\label{eq:incremental}
\end{equation}
where $p_{biased}$ denotes the proportion of inter-group links under our network with biased beliefs and where $p_{base}$ represents the proportion of such links in a baseline network. We use a network under complete information and a network under rational expectations for our baselines. The incremental segregation indices with these baselines serve as a gauge of how much of Freeman's segregation index is attributable to biased beliefs, incomplete information and agent preferences.
To enhance comparability between the networks, we hold the random seed constant for each biased belief network and its baseline networks.
\paragraph{Degree Centrality}
In order to measure how well-connected the graph is, we make use of the notion of \emph{degree centrality}. Since we wish to focus on the macro-characteristics of the network as a whole, we will specifically report the average of the degree centrality across all agents.
\paragraph{Discovery}
A distinguishing feature of our model lies in the information matrix capturing varying degrees of information present in the system. As agents become less likely to form links when the expected costs of doing so increase, the amount of information they will discover will suffer as a result. We therefore report on the proportion of discovery, which is calculated as the following ratio:
\begin{equation}
discovery(g) = \dfrac{\Sigma_{i}\Sigma_{j}M_{ij}}{n^2}
\label{eq:degree-centrality}
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the sum of the number of agents each person knows, normalised by the maximum possible such sum given a population of $n$ agents.
\section{The Incomplete Information Model}
\subsection{Design}
In order to allow for homophily to be the result rather than the entry point of a model, we introduce the idea that agents belong to distinct \emph{social groups} which share observable characteristics but also have a hidden \emph{type} which can be revealed by forming a link.
\paragraph{Agents}
Let every agent $i \in N = \{1,...,n\}$ belong to one of $K$ social groups so that $s_i = k \in K$ denotes $i$'s membership of group $k$. We define $N^k \subset N$ to be the set of all agents from group $k$.
Let each agent also have a hidden type $t_i \in T$, where $T$ is the set of all possible types. Agents are assumed to \emph{memorise} the types of all agents whose type they learn by forming a link. Let the $n \times n$ matrix $M$ contain the memory of all agents, where $M_{ij} = 1$ if agent $i$ knows the type of agent $j$ and $M_{ij} = 0$ otherwise.
\paragraph{Networks}
To encompass the information present within the network, we represent networks as $(N, M, g)$, where $g$ is an undirected graph.
\paragraph{Dynamic Network Formation}
We follow Jackson and Watts (2002) \cite{Jackson2002} and explicitly define network formation as a stochastic dynamic process in which at every time step a random pair $\{i,j\}$ is selected with uniform probability. This pair is evaluated for pairwise stability and, should their relationship be unstable, a link is then either added or removed.
\paragraph{Actual Utility}
Agents are assumed to receive utility from their location within the network as follows:
\begin{equation}
u_i(g) = \sum_{j \neq i} \delta ^{d_{ij}} - \sum_{j:\ ij\ \in\ g}c_{ij}
\label{realised_utility}
\end{equation}
where we assume that benefits decay with the geodesic distance, $d_{ij}$, given the decay factor, $0 < \delta < 1$. Further, we assume the cost of a direct connection, $c_{ij}$, depends on the agents' types, specifically:
\begin{equation}
c_{ij} = c(t_i, t_j)
\label{general_cost}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Expected Utility}
For prospective links, agents are required to consider \emph{expected utility} when contemplating a link with someone they do not yet know.
This paper contributes a \emph{specific} formulation for the expected utility. First note that since agents have met everyone they are presently in a direct connection with, the uncertain component is expressed only when the incremental change from a link \emph{addition} is considered. The utility an agent expects to enjoy if the link is added can then be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
E_i[u_i(g+ij)] & = [\delta - \sum_{t \in T} \pi_i(t|s_j)\ c(t_i, t)] \\
& + [\sum_{k \notin \{i,j\}} \delta ^{d_{ik}} - \sum_{k:\ ik\ \in\ g \setminus ij}c_{ik}]
\end{split}
\label{expected_gain}
\end{equation}
The first bracketed term on the right-hand side corresponds to the benefit of becoming neighbours with $j$ less the expected cost of doing so. The expected cost is an average of the costs to connect with each type $t \in T$ weighted by agent $i$'s belief -- $\pi_i(t|s_j)$ -- that agent $j$ is of type $t$ given their social group. The second bracketed term describes the net utility from the remainder of the network defined by $g+ij$.
Note that we can thus decompose the above expression into (i) the expected incremental change in utility from adding a link to agent $j$, $E_i[u_{ij}]$, and (ii) the utility she starts off with, giving the following expression:
\begin{equation}
E_i[u_i(g+ij)] = E_i[u_{ij}] + u_i(g)
\label{Eu_ij}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Beliefs}
To complete our definition of expected utilities, agent $i$'s belief that agent $j$ is of type $t \in T$ given $j$'s group membership, $s_j$, is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\pi_i(t|s_j) \in \begin{cases}
[0,1] &\text{if $i$ and $j$ do not know each other} \\
\{0,1\} &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{beliefs}
\end{equation}
This definition captures how beliefs are uncertain if agents are unacquainted but update to reflect certainty once they meet and reveal each other's types.
\paragraph{Stability}
We can now state a refinement of the pairwise stability conditions of Jackson and Wolinsky (1996) \cite{Jackson1996} which reflects that agents do not know each other's types \textit{ex-ante}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mbox{(i)\ \ \ } & \forall ij \in g,\ u_i(g) \geq u_i(g-ij) \mbox{\ and\ } u_j(g) \geq u_j(g-ij), \mbox{\ and} \\
\mbox{(ii)\ \ \ } & \forall ij \notin g, \mbox{\ if\ } E_i[u_{ij}] \geq 0 \mbox{\ then\ } E_j[u_{ji}] < 0
\end{split}
\label{expstable}
\end{equation}
Note that we assume that links only require non-negative instead of strictly positive utilities to cover cases where both agents are indifferent and which are otherwise indeterminate.
\paragraph{Further Assumptions}
Having set up the general model, it is useful to follow the cost assumption of the insider-outsider model of Galeotti et al. (2006) \cite{Galeotti2006} and simplify costs to:
\begin{equation}
c(t_i, t_j) = \begin{cases}
c_L &\text{if $t_i = t_j$} \\
c_H &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{costs}
\end{equation}
where $0 < c_L < c_H$. This allows us to simplify expected costs to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{t \in T} \pi_i(t|s_j)\ c(t_i, t) & = \pi_i(t_i|s_j)\ c_L + (1 - \pi_i(t_i|s_j))\ c_H \\
& = \pi_i(s_j)\ c_L + (1 - \pi_i(s_j))\ c_H
\end{split}
\label{expcosts}
\end{equation}
where $\pi_i(s_j)$ is shorthand for $\pi_i(t_i|s_j)$.
This simplification implies that the cost of forming inter-type links only depends on the fact that types differ rather than by how much. This allows us to hone in on the relationship between beliefs and network outcomes.
\paragraph{Complete Information}
One observation to make is that our model nests the complete information case. In particular, if agents are assumed to know each other, then their beliefs are updated to $\pi_i(s_j) \in \{0,1\}$ for all $i,j \in N$ prior to the start of the game. Expected utilities then collapse to actual utilities. Further, our stability conditions will effectively coincide with those of other complete information models, such as Jackson and Wolinsky (1996) \cite{Jackson1996} or Jackson and Rogers (2005) \cite{JacksonRogers2005}, save for our inclusion of an explicit definition for previously indeterminate links.
We can further observe that the model of Jackson and Rogers (2005) \cite{JacksonRogers2005} (with their truncation parameter set to infinity) is a special case of our model with complete information where hidden types and social groups coincide.
\subsection{The Role of Beliefs}
Our first set of propositions revolves around the role of beliefs in the decision of when to make connections, particularly for low intra-type costs. Note that the relationship between beliefs and networks is, in general, quite complex when costs are entirely unrestricted. Given our objective of studying social networks, it seems reasonable, however, to assume that like-minded individuals would want to meet. We thus focus our attention on the low intra-type cost case.
These propositions demonstrate that in many cases, beliefs are sufficient for links to initially form or not form, irrespective of gains in actual utility. This further has implications on the information agents will acquire over each other's types.
Note that all proofs are given in Appendix \ref{appx:proof}.
\begin{proposition}
Let $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2$. Any two agents $i$ and $j$ must know each other in a pairwise stable equilibrium, if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $min\{\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i)\} \geq \tfrac{c_H - (\delta - \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}$, provided $c_H > \delta - \delta^2$, or
\item for any $\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i) \in [0,1]$, provided $c_H \leq \delta - \delta^2$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{prop1}
\end{proposition}
This proposition has an intuitive interpretation. If inter-type costs are low, then agents will always want to meet regardless of their beliefs. If inter-type costs are high, then both agents need to be sufficiently optimistic about compatibility before agreeing to meet.
\begin{corollary}
Let $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2 < c_H$. There exist $\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i) \in [0,1]$ so that agents $i$ and $j$ must know each other's types in a pairwise stable equilibrium.
\label{cor1}
\end{corollary}
This corollary is useful, as it implies that for inter-type costs that are arbitrarily high, there are beliefs that are able to persuade the agents to still meet.
\begin{proposition}
Consider the empty network with agents that have never met. This network cannot be pairwise stable if and only if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item for some $i, j \in N$, $min\{\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i)\} \geq \tfrac{c_H - \delta}{c_H - c_L}$ when $c_H > \delta$, or
\item $c_H \leq \delta$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{prop2}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}
Consider a network that is initially empty with agents that have never met and let $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2 < \delta < c_H$. Then a pairwise stable network must have:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item no one knowing each other if for any $i,j \in N, \pi_i(s_j) < \tfrac{c_H - \delta}{c_H - c_L}$ \smallskip
\item some agents $i,j$ that have discovered each other's types if \\
$min\{\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i)\} \geq \tfrac{c_H - \delta}{c_H - c_L}$ \smallskip
\item everyone knowing each other if for any $i,j \in N, \\
min\{\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i)\} \geq \tfrac{c_H - (\delta - \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}$
\end{enumerate}
\label{cor2}
\end{corollary}
This proposition and corollary are useful for simulations where the network may be initially instantiated as the empty network with agents that do not yet know each other. The proposition provides parameterisation that ensures agents will start revealing to each other their types, while the corollary provides some additional predictions about the extent to which discovery occurs. Note that they do not imply that the empty network cannot be pairwise stable, as agents may decide to terminate their links once they know their neighbours' types.
\begin{lemma}
Consider an agent $i$ who belongs to a component $C_i$ and who is not connected to and does not know agent $j$ who belongs to a separate component $C_j$. Let $c_H > \delta + (|C_j| - 1)\ \delta^2$. In a pairwise stable equilibrium, agent $i$ will refuse to become acquainted with $j$ if:
\begin{equation*}
\pi_i(s_j) < \dfrac{c_H - (\delta + (|C_j| - 1)\ \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}
\end{equation*}
\label{prop-antisocial}
\end{lemma}
This lemma shows that our model is also able to support pairwise stable equilibria in which components coexist. Note that this nests the special case of a singleton refusing to connect to any component. The interpretation is, in addition, intuitive. An agent $i$ will refuse to branch out of his group, even to the best connected individual of another group, if he is sufficiently pessimistic about compatibility.
\subsection{Comparison with Complete Information Networks}
Song and van der Schaar (2015) \cite{Song2015} derive a theorem that includes a useful relationship between incomplete and complete information networks, showing that the set of networks that can be generated and the set of networks that are stable under complete information are, respectively, subsets of those under incomplete information. While their model assumes heterogeneity in benefits, the proof of their theorem does not depend on this fact and can thus be applied to our model. We therefore restate a generalised excerpt of their theorem without proof.
First, denote the set of all networks generated under complete information as $G^C(N)$ and those under incomplete information as $G^{IC}(N)$. Let the networks that are pairwise stable under complete and incomplete information respectively be denoted as $G^C_S(N)$ and $G^{IC}_S(N)$.
\begin{theorem}
If $E_i[u_{ij}] \geq 0$ for all $i,j \in N$, then $G^C(N) \subset G^{IC}(N)$ and $G^C_S(N) \subset G^{IC}_S(N)$.
\label{song1}
\end{theorem}
This allows us to derive the following proposition characterising the relationship between incomplete and complete information networks in dependence of beliefs.
\begin{proposition}
Let $c_L \leq \delta - \delta^2$ and $min\{\pi_i(s_j), \pi_j(s_i)\} \geq \tfrac{c_H - (\delta - \delta^2)}{c_H - c_L}$ for all $i,j \in N$. Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $G^C(N) \subset G^{IC}(N)$ and $G^C_S(N) \subset G^{IC}_S(N)$, but
\item $G^{IC}_S(N) \not\subset G^{C}_S(N)$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{prop3}
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop3} proves that for low intra-type costs our model is both capable of generating any network that can be generated under complete information as well as supporting all pairwise stable networks. Further, it shows that the set of pairwise stable networks under complete information constitutes a strict subset.
This is a significant result, as it implies that some links are formed and \emph{kept} under incomplete information that would otherwise never have survived if agents knew who they were about to connect with.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
When exploring many particle systems with nonlinear interactions, we often learn about continuum nonlinear equations of motion that are integrable \cite{Re03,Ja91,Wh74} and yield solutions in the form of solitons or localized excitations such as breathers and/or bound solitons (see for example in \cite{Ch75}). Among these we have the Korteweg deVries equation, the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation and others. Then there is an exactly solvable discrete system, the monodispersed Toda lattice \cite{To70,To81,Fe82}. A feature of the Toda system is that the solitary waves (SWs) typically suffer a phase shift when they interact with one another. Other than the phase shift they remain unscathed \cite{To81,Re03,Fo92,Sh14}. However, the vast majority of equations of motion for many body systems with nonlinear forces are not necessarily accurately represented by integrable equations of motion. Hence there is a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed by examining the dynamics of nonintegrable, strongly nonlinear systems at both early and late times.
It turns out that the study of SW interactions with each other and in systems with boundaries offer insights into the consequences of non-integrability. Further, this is a mature subject that is well over 40 years old \cite{Ab76,Ei77,Bo80,Na81,Ko87,Se01,De20}. For these non-integrable systems one often finds that SWs of finite spatial expanse, localized excitations and acoustic-like oscillations are the energy carriers \cite{Bi78,Ka17}. Further, one may encounter unknown (neither SWs nor localized excitations but some combination of both) and unstable nonlinear objects that are neither of the three just noted \cite{Ka17,Fl89,Se03,KM09,Av11}. These objects interact in nontrivial ways \cite{Ma00,Ma02,Jo05,Sa11,Ka19}.
The SW-SW and SW-wall interactions may {\it{eventually}} drive the system to an equilibrium state. The equilibrium state is characterized by Maxwell's Gaussian distribution of velocities and the system's energy is approximately equally distributed among the available degrees of freedom thereby leading to equipartitioning of energy and the natural introduction of an equilibrium temperature of the system \cite{Pa73,Li00}. Additionally, in equilibrium there is no memory of the initial perturbation that was used to remove the system from the original equilibrium state and the system is presumed to be ergodic \cite{Lo86,Le82,Le83,Se91,Se06,Le07}. The approach to some form of equilibrium-like state of an interacting many body system is a subject of considerable fundamental interest in the context of the work presented below \cite {Ki46,Zw65,Be66,Be71,Ku2}.
In a recent study \cite{Ha14} we pushed the idea of strongly perturbing a system and considered an intrinsically nonlinear many particle system represented by an alignment of elastic beads in gentle contact interacting via the one-sided Hertz potential (i.e., no interaction upon contact breaking) and held between two fixed end walls \cite{He81}. We ignored the role of dissipative losses in our studies and considered a conservative system. We gave each bead a random velocity at initiation. These {\it strong} perturbations led to the development of an early phase of the system that may be viewed as one with many interacting SWs. Such a problem would be hard to approach analytically. The equations of motion were hence carefully and numerically integrated forward in time to probe the time evolution of the system. The results of the high accuracy simulations were as follows.
It was found that due to the persistent interactions between the SWs, the system ended up for extended times in a phase that was characterized by large kinetic energy fluctuations. These large kinetic energy fluctuations manifested themselves as what we called hotspots (HS) and rogue fluctuations (RF) \cite{Ka17,Ha14}. The state of the system with large kinetic energy fluctuations has been earlier referred to as the quasi-equilibrium (QEQ) state \cite{Se04,KM05,Se05,Av09}. Upon continued simulation one would expect, based on our earlier work \cite{Ka19,Fu20,Pr17b,Pr17a}, that the system would eventually reach a state with energy equipartitioning and hence an equilibrium state.
It is worth noting that ideas akin to that of the QEQ state appear to have been independently developed in studies of small quantum systems and are often referred to as the prethermalization phase \cite{Be04,Gr12}. In this context, we ask {\it if RF are generic to nonlinear many-body systems and whether they play a role in the dynamics of the system in QEQ}. In seeking to answer these questions we examine the nature of HS and RF in the $\beta$-Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou ($\beta$-FPUT) system and this work is described below \cite{Fe55}.
In closing here, we should mention that formalisms such as Kubo's linear response theory \cite{Ku86,Se06} have been very successful in describing relaxation processes in a great many systems to the equipartitioned state. However, it is our understanding that applying such an approach to study relaxation in these strongly perturbed systems in an analytic manner is still not practical and this is why the current work is based purely on dynamical simulations based on the well tested and openly accessible PULSEDYN \cite{Ka19} code.
The paper is organized as follows: the model and the simulational details are addressed in Sec. 2, the results are discussed in Sec. 3 and the conclusion and discussions are presented in Sec. 4. Sec 3 is split into 4 subsections: 3.1 and 3.2 which discuss the HSs and the more nuanced behavior of the RF in the $\beta$-FPUT system, 3.3 addresses the studies when different initial conditions are used and 3.4, where we contend that the RF enter late in the QEQ phase.
\section{Model System and Simulational Details}
\label{sec:2}
We consider systems with the $\beta$-FPUT {\it like} Hamiltonian below,
\begin{eqnarray}
H & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{p_i^2}{2m}+\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} V(x_i-x_{i+1}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the potential $V(x_i -x_{i + 1})$ is given by \cite{Fe55}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(x_i - x_{i + 1}) & = & \alpha (x_i - x_{i + 1})^2 + \beta (x_i - x_{i + 1})^{2n}.\\ \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $p_i$ and $m_i$ are the momentum and mass of the $i$th particle, respectively, $x_i$ is the displacement of the $i$th particle, $\alpha$ controls the strength of the harmonic term and $\beta$ controls the strength of the nonlinear term in the potential. We control the exponent of the nonlinear potential term by varying $n$. We use $n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6$ and $7$. Increasing $n$ beyond 7 proves to be too expensive computationally. $N$ is the system size. For the studies reported here we set $N = 100$, which is sufficiently large to observe RF without making the simulations too expensive.
It is important to note that with the current model we are unable to explore potentials with nonlinear power less than 4 and hence the results shown here cannot be easily connected to those seen in the granular chain system where the nonlinearity in the potential is $5/2$ \cite{Ha14}. We also do not address the consequences of asymmetry of the potential in the realization of RF here, which could have interesting consequences, and would be addressed in future work.
To integrate the force equations, we use the velocity Verlet algorithm \cite{Ka19,Ve67,Al87,Ha92}. The issue of error accumulation over long simulation times sets limits on the time step of integration and the extent of nonlinearity we can consider. We observe that increasing $n$ increases the computational expense and the error associated with the dynamical simulations. For this reason, we use $n = 2, 3$ and 4 for most of our simulations, while $n = 5, 6$ and $7$ are used less often. We have used a time step $\delta t = 10^{-5}$. With this time step, we achieve energy conservation of up to 1 part in $10^9$ on average per time step across extended times.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{Subfigure (a) shows the of number of HS as a function of $v_o$ for two different values of $\alpha$. Subfigure (b) shows the plot of HS as a function of $\alpha$ for $n = 2, 3$ and $4$. }
\label{hotspotsVsVoAlpha}
\end{figure*}
We record data every $1/\delta t$ time steps and the simulations are run to $10^{11}$ time steps, i.e. $N_t = 10^6$, where $N_t$ is the number of recorded snapshots of the system in time. From our simulations, we find that $N_t = 10^6$ is a long enough simulation time such that we recover results for RF that are not influenced by the run times. This length of run time is also computationally feasible.
While it may be possible to observe RF from any velocity perturbation as an initial condition, simpler the condition or weaker the magnitude of the perturbation, longer it would likely take the RF to form and weaker they are likely to be. Hence, from an intuitive standpoint it makes sense to start from as disordered a state as possible to observe a large number of RF within reasonable times after initiating the system. With this in mind we assign {\it uniformly} distributed random velocity perturbations to each particle within the bounds $v_o$ and $-v_o$. All the results shown in this paper have been obtained with $v_o = 0.6$, though studies with a range of values of $v_o$ have been done. Values much larger than 0.6 are not recommended as they can incur unnecessary calculational errors. While we have also used the {\it Gaussian} and beta distributions to explore the role of initial conditions, all results shown are obtained using the uniform distribution unless stated otherwise. As we shall see in Sec. 3.3, the details of the distributions do not influence the statistics of RF we observe in our studies. With the chosen $v_o$ and $N$ values, the system has a total energy in our dimensionless units of $\sim 10^{-2}$ and relaxes to the early stage QEQ phase within the first few hundred recorded time steps. The relaxation process of the system to QEQ and in QEQ itself is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
We discuss the dynamical simulation based observation of HS and RF for our system below. For our studies, the kinetic energy fluctuations in the system turn out to be important to understand. We will define the kinetic energy per particle as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_K & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_t(N-1)}\sum_{i=1} ^{N}\sum_{j=1} ^{N_t}[E_{K_i}(j) - \frac{\langle E_K\rangle}{N}]^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\langle E_K \rangle$ and $ \langle E_K \rangle/N$ denote the average kinetic energy of the system and the average kinetic energy per particle in the QEQ phase, respectively. By the virial theorem, for $\alpha = 0$ in Eq. (2), $\langle E_K \rangle = \frac{2nE}{2n+2}$, where $E$ is the total system energy.
To identify high energy regions in the chain, we search for sites in the space-time lattice with kinetic energy greater than $\frac{\langle{E_K}\rangle}{N} + 6\delta_K$. We call these sites HS. However, since HS are typically fleeting, we associate RF with fluctuations that last across a small window of time. Therefore, we define a RF as a set of \textit{contiguous} HS on the space time lattice. Here we have set the minimum number of contiguous spots to be 6. The criteria for choosing 6 as the threshold is arbitrary and is discussed below. A larger number than 6 would reduce the number of RF seen while a smaller number would increase the same without significantly affecting the findings reported here. In our experiments, varying this threshold does not affect the trends in any significant manner. We report the results of our calculations in Sec. \ref{results} below.
\subsection{Hotspots}
In all of our simulations, we find that HS are abundant at sufficiently late times. This observation is fully consistent with the findings on the Hertz system reported earlier \cite{Ha14}. To the extent we can accurately study these systems up to late times, we note that the number of HS do not depend in any significant manner on the total energy of the system (set by $v_o$), on the nonlinearity of the system which is controlled by $n$, and the strength of the harmonic forces which is set by $\alpha$ in Eq. (1) (see Fig. \ref{hotspotsVsVoAlpha}). Typical variations in the number of HS seen is $\sim 5-10$\%. The calculations reported here have been run significantly deeper into QEQ and for a system which is 1/5$^{th}$ of the system size compared to that reported in Ref. \cite{Ha14}. This is why the typical number of HS is larger by a factor of 10 in the studies reported here compared to that reported in Ref. \cite{Ha14}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.275]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{Subfigure (a) shows the kinetic energy contour plot on the space-time lattice. The RF are circled in ellipses and the excitations which tend to show localization are shown in the rectangular boxes. Subfigure (b) shows the contour plot of HS filtered from the kinetic energy data. The RF are circled in ellipses. Here, $\alpha = 0$ in Eq. (2) and $n = 2$. Note that not all the RF have been identified on the plots.}
\label{contourMaps}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Rogue Fluctuations}\label{rfResults}
We now turn our attention to the nature of RF in the $\beta$-FPUT chain. In Fig. \ref{contourMaps}(a) we show the contour plots of the kinetic energy of the system versus space and time with lighter regions representing higher kinetic energy. The HS and the RF can be seen in Fig. \ref{contourMaps}(a). The simulations reveal that there are two kinds of high kinetic energy footprints in Fig. \ref{contourMaps}(a). We see fast moving (shown inside ellipses) and slow moving or nearly localized regions (shown inside rectangular boxes). Fig. \ref{contourMaps}(b) shows the contour map of just the HS in the chain. We should mention that localized excitations for significant times are rare in QEQ (see Ref. \cite{Ka17} for details). While the fast-moving excitations are identified as RF (shown inside ellipses), the semi-localized excitations (shown in rectangular boxes) are rejected based on our definition. {\it We also note that the RF we report here appear to be ubiquitous for all strongly nonlinear systems and appear to be distinct from the rogue waves alluded to in studies of Peregrine solitons of the {\it weakly} nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation} \cite{Pe83}. We further note here that while there is extensive evidence of existence of rogue waves, the oceanographic analyses of the origins of these waves in the open ocean is very much an evolving subject \cite{Ta80,Ta07,Fe16}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.120]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{Figure shows $n_{RF}$ as a function of $n$ and the linear fit for the data. Here $\alpha = 0$ and we have used $v_o = 0.58, 0.60$ and 0.63.}
\label{nRFVsN}
\end{figure}
In earlier work on granular systems it has been shown that as $n\to\infty$, the width of a SW should shrink \cite{Su13}. We anticipate that with increasing $n$, the width of the SWs would be smaller and hence the number SWs that can be accommodated in a system ought to increase. Such an increase is expected in due course to increase the number of RF in the system. This can be seen clearly in Fig. \ref{nRFVsN} for the case $\alpha = 0$.
For Fig. \ref{nRFVsN} we have used a linear fit to the data obtained from the dynamical simulations,
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{RF} & = & an + b,
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_{RF}$ is the total number of RF found in the system. The parameters of the fit are calculated to be $a = 550\pm 32$ and $b = -680\pm 130$. We observe that this growth behavior of RF with increasing $n$ for $1 < n \leq 1.3$ in the Hertz potential (i.e., greater than quadratic and less than quartic) is exponential in nature as reported in our earlier work \cite{Ha14}. The $1.3 < n < 2$ region is not readily accessible in the studies reported here for the $\beta$-FPUT chain. The nonlinear regimes with $1 < n < 2$ and the $n \ge 2$ regimes cannot be easily connected in this work. However, our earlier study in Ref. \cite{Ha14} and the current work together {\it suggest} that strongly nonlinear systems are generically prone to RF in QEQ.
Harmonic forces can be introduced in the system by setting $\alpha > 0$. Typically, harmonic oscillations tend to progressively disperse SWs in a system \cite{Fl89,Se03,We18,Re02}. Therefore, we expect that increasing $\alpha$ would decrease $n_{RF}$. Our dynamical simulations strongly suggest that $n_{RF}$ decreases exponentially with increasing $\alpha$ as expected except for a region of $\alpha$ where $n_{RF}$ shows {\it an unexpected rise followed by a fall to the exponential decay with increasing} $\alpha$ as can be seen in Fig. \ref{nrfVsAlphaFits}.
Initially this unexpected increase in $n_{RF}$ over a window of increasing $\alpha$ may seem like an error. However, after extensive analyses of the results such as exploring whether there are errors in energy conservation over extended time simulations and repeating the calculations with slightly changed parameters we found that the effect showed up in every study and hence is {\it real}. What is remarkable is that the behavior is observed for all values of $n$ that we are able to explore while maintaining the energy conservation accuracy over long time simulations.
The simulations also suggest that the maximum number of RF are realized for progressively larger values of $\alpha$ as $n$ increases (see Fig. \ref{nrfVsAlphaFits}(a)). In earlier work, we have reported strongly nonlinear behavior when the linear and nonlinear parts of the potential become highly competitive leading to exceedingly long-lived system dynamics and absence of relaxation \cite{Ta12,Jo90,Av20,Wu20}. Further, the system behaves almost like an integrable system \cite{Ne01} with the SW-SW interactions being much weaker than what is seen in the $\beta$-FPUT system \cite{Wu20}. Hence, in retrospective, the observed behavior is perhaps not entirely unexpected.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.300]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{Subfigure(a) shows $n_{RF}$ as a function of $\alpha$ for $n = 2, 3$ and $4$ respectively. Subfigure (b) shows the exponential fits to the data, while excluding the co-existence regime. Here, $v_o = 0.60$.}
\label{nrfVsAlphaFits}
\end{figure}
In summary, our studies suggest that the system behaves as a {\it nearly integrable system} in this special regime where the acoustic oscillations and the solitary waves become weakly interactive. This is so possibly because the length scales and the velocities associated wth these typical acoustic-like waves is comparable to that of the SWs \cite{Ta12,Jo90,Av20,Wu20}.
Excluding the co-existence regime, we find that the exponential function provides a suitable fit as shown in Fig. \ref{nrfVsAlphaFits} (b) for $n = 2$. The fit uses the following function
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{RF} & \sim & e^{-\rho\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray}
We obtain $\rho = 3.07\pm 0.49, 3.90\pm 0.35$ and $5.1\pm 0.46$ for $n = 2,~3$ and 4, respectively. Interestingly, our fits suggest that $\rho \approx (n+1)$. Therefore, for progressively increasing $\alpha$, the RF get increasingly suppressed as $n$ increases. The results in Ref. \cite{Ha14} were for various values of $v_o$ rather than for various values of $n$ as discussed here.
\subsection{Role of Initial Conditions}
We now address the role of initial conditions in the formation of RF. In QEQ the system loses memory of its initial conditions \cite{Se06,Zw65,Be66,Be71}. The formation of RF, therefore, must not depend on the initial conditions. While we have used the uniform random distribution of particle velocities as an initial condition for the results reported discussed in this paper until now, we explored the cases where the initial velocities of the particles have been drawn from the beta and Gaussian distributions to test if our expectation was correct. Fig. \ref{nrfVsE}(a) shows $n_{RF}$ plotted against total system energy $E$ for various initial conditions with random velocities. In Fig. \ref{nrfVsE} (b), the dependence of the initial conditions on the onset of QEQ is explored.
When the system is initiated by a single SW we see that the system eventually reaches the QEQ phase characterized by the small values of $E_{Kmax}/E$ (see the caption of Fig. \ref{nrfVsE}(b)) where RF are eventually observed. We thus show that the QEQ phase is reached regardless of the initial conditions used and this happens to be the case for the $\alpha = 0$ and $\alpha > 0$ cases with $n=2$ as shown in Fig. \ref{nrfVsE} (b). As we shall see below, many more interactions are needed when a SW is seeded at $t=0$ as opposed to when some random distribution of velocities is used to seed the dynamics. This explains why the case where the SW is seeded takes nearly a decade longer to reach the QEQ phase as seen in Fig. \ref{nrfVsE} (b). RF are seen in all the cases we have probed.
The beta distribution used to explore a case of an initial random distribution of velocities is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P(x ; \alpha_D, \beta_D) & = & \frac{1}{B(\alpha_D, \beta_D)}x^{\alpha_D - 1}(1 - x)^{\beta_D - 1},
\end{eqnarray}
where, $B(\alpha_D, \beta_D)$ is a normalization constant. The parameters $\alpha_D$ and $\beta_D$ change the shape of the probability distribution. The Gaussian distribution which is also used to explore a separate case of random distribution of initial velocities is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P(x ; \mu, \sigma) & = & \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\Big (-\frac{1}{2}\Big ( \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma} \Big )^2 \Big ),
\end{eqnarray}
where, $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are the mean and the standard deviation of the distribution, respectively. Although we have studied several cases of beta and Gaussian distributions for our studies, we show results from a selected study where we set $(\alpha_D, \beta_D) = (0.5, 0.5)$ and $(\mu, \sigma) = (0, 0.01)$ for the simulations corresponding to the beta and Gaussian distributions. For the two simulations with initial velocities sampled from the uniform distribution, we have set $v_0 = 0.6$. For the simulation with a single SW, we have set the initial velocity of particle 50 in the chain to 0.6 while the rest of the particles in the chain are unperturbed. As expected, we observe that the occurrence of RF is independent of initial conditions. Further, the occurrence of RF does not depend on the total energy of the system in a significant manner as seen in Fig. 5 (a).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.300]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{Subfigure (a) shows $n_{RF}$ as a function of total energy of the system $E$, for three different distributions of the initial conditions - uniform, Gaussian and the beta distribution. Subfigure (b) shows the kinetic energy of the most energetic SW $E_{K,max}$, normalized by the total system energy $E$, for a range of initial conditions and system parameters. The inset shows early time transition of the system to QEQ for all the cases except the case of the single seeded SW. Both the plots show data for $\alpha = 0$ and $n = 2$.}
\label{nrfVsE}
\end{figure}
We note that the number of RF we see in the studies shown here are $\sim 10^2$ in simulations across $10^{11}$ time steps. A question that will be addressed in future work has to do with the minimal conditions needed to realize RF in these strongly nonlinear systems? RF are rare events and to understand {\it how rare and why} are daunting challenges for future analyses. Our preliminary studies along these lines suggest that the birth of RF presumably requires 5-6 energetic SWs to come together within a small time window and it is necessary to understand what conditions control such conditions.
\subsection{The RF in the Late QEQ Phase}
It is important to examine whether the RF recorded are late in the QEQ phase (as shown in Figs. \ref{contourMaps}) or past the same into an energy-equipartitioned state. Because if indeed RF are seen in the energy equipartitioned state, it could be possible to see them when systems are in equilibrium as well.
In earlier work we have studied how the $\beta$-FPUT system with $n=2, \alpha=0$ at late enough times relaxes {beyond QEQ} to an energy equipartitioned state \cite{Ka19}. A key test used to determine the establishment of the equipartitioned state was to examine whether the simulations yielded a value of $C_v$ that can only be obtained when equilibrium prevails. Hence, it is reasonable to examine whether the system in our study relaxes past the QEQ state to an energy equipartitoned state by calcuating the specific heat $C_v$ across various time windows of relaxation. The key idea here is that if the equilibrium $C_v$ is attained then the system must have gone past the QEQ phase to the equilibrium phase. We followed the approach outlined recently by Przedborski {\it et al.} and presented in Eq. (16) in Ref. \cite{Pr17a} to carry out our calculations.
For $n = 2, 3$ and 4, the theoretical values of $C_v$ when the systems reach the energy equipartitioned state were calculated to be 0.725, 0.64 and 0.608, respectively \cite{Pr17a}. The corresponding $C_v$ values from our simulations using Eq. (24) in Ref. \cite{Ka19} were found to be 0.741, 0.657 and 0.615. While these values are close to the values in the energy equipartitioned state, our experiences with these calculations (see \cite{Ka19}) suggest that they are not close enough to infer that the equipartitioned stage has been reached. Further, for the strongly nonlinear systems under various initial conditions being studied, the simulation times to reach the equipartitioned state turn out to be too long to simulate. Our results hence suggest that our study of RF is for systems that have {\it not} quite reached the equipartitioned state and that our calculations have been performed in QEQ.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}\label{summary}
The story of RF in non-integrable 1D systems with strongly nonlinear interactions is an interesting as well as an evolving one. Given that RF emerge late into system dynamics, and that nonlinear dynamical simulations need to be done with high precision, it is challenging to resolve even relatively simple questions within a short time. Our studies in this work were done on RF as the systems evolved through the time steps outlined in Sec. \ref{sec:2}. Hence, in this second paper on RF, we lay out our progress and close with questions that we wish to address in future work.
We note here that depending on the nature of the interactions, these systems when subjected to a perturbation typically exchange energy between the particles using energy carriers that are characteristic of strongly nonlinear systems. Depending upon the details of the interactions, the carriers can be some or all of propagating SWs, localized nonlinear excitations, and objects that have SW and localized excitation-like features along with acoustic-like oscillations \cite{Ka17}. Interactions between these objects are non-trivial. Eventually these systems evolve into the QEQ phase characterized by no memory of initial conditions, a Gaussian distribution of velocities and no equipartitioning of energy. Our contention is that RF seem to appear in the QEQ phase and possibly are characteristic of strongly nonlinear systems.
In earlier work \cite{Ha14}, we showed that for granular chains held within fixed boundaries characterized by Hertz and Hertz-like potentials with $1 < n < 1.3$, $n_{RF} \sim \exp({\gamma}2n)$, where $\gamma = 6.41 \pm 0.81$. Here we report that for $\beta$-FPUT systems and similar systems with sextic, octic, etc potentials (see Eq. (2)), i.e., for $n \ge 2$, where $n$ is an integer, $n_{RF} \sim an + b$, where $a = 550 \pm 32$ and $b = -680 \pm 130$ are constants. The region between $1.3 < n < 2.0$ where the cross-over happens from exponential to linear growth of $n_{RF}$ with respect to $n$ cannot be explored using the $\beta$-FPUT like systems and will be the subject of future work using the Hertz-like potential.
Our studies show that increasing $\alpha$ in the $\beta$-FPUT chain suppressed $n_{RF}$ as $n_{RF} \sim \exp(-\rho\alpha$), where $\rho \approx (n + 1)$. This result is similar to the suppression of $n_{RF}$ reported with increasing precompression in the Hertz and Hertz-like chains (see Fig. 3 in \cite{Ha14}). However, in the Hertz chain we found that $n_{RF}$ decayed with precompression in a way that seemed consistent with a double-exponential function. While the Hertz-like and FPUT potentials are different, and there is no reason to expect that the suppression of $n_{RF}$ in all models would be the same, it would be interesting and important to understand more about how $n_{RF}$ gets suppressed by the presence of harmonic interactions for various model systems.
The co-existence regime is where the harmonic and nonlinear pieces of the potential become competitive as alluded to in Refs. \cite{Ta12} and in \cite{Wu20} and the system shows behavior akin to that of a strongly nonlinear system. In our $\beta$-FPUT-like systems we see a similar co-existence phase when the harmonic and nonlinear forces become competitive, i.e., for a range of values of $\alpha$ given $\beta = 1$ and the power of $n$ in Eq. (2). Our investigations in \cite{Ta12} suggest that the system dynamics in this co-existence phase is similar to that in an integrable system where the SW never gets destroyed. Typically, in this state, we find that the SW interacts very weakly with the background oscillations of the particles in the chain. We contend that the SW seen in this regime for the Hertz chain problem is best described by Nesterenko's solitary wave solution for the strongly nonlinear Hertz chain under weak loading \cite{Ne01}. It is conceivable that Nesterenko's solution could hold the key to a better understanding of the co-existence phase in the $\beta$-FPUT like system.
Future work may need to address the following outstanding questions - (1) exactly when do the RF appear in the relaxation process of a perturbed chain and how long do they last, and how does their number distribution change as the system evolves? (2) Do RF exist in QEQ phases only or do they appear infrequently in equilibrium as well? (3) Are RF special to 1D systems or can they happen in higher dimensions?
\section{Acknowledgments}
SS has been partially supported by a Fulbright-Nehru Academic and Professional Excellence R-Flex Fellowship while at IIESTS, India where a part of this work was completed. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest associated with publishing this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
In standard inflationary $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, the early universe underwent a phase of
quasi-exponential expansion due to the action of a scalar (inflaton) field with a near-flat
potential, a process typically referred to as `slow-roll' inflation
\cite{Starobinsky:1980,Guth:1981,Linde:1982,Albrecht:1982,Linde:1983}.
The concept of inflation was introduced to solve several global inconsistencies with
standard Big Bang cosmology, notably its horizon problem, but an even more important
consequence of inflation was realized with the introduction of quantum effects
\cite{Mukhanov:1981,Mukhanov:1982,Starobinsky:1982,Guth:1982,Hawking:1982}. Small
inhomogeneous fluctuations on top of an otherwise isotropic and homogeneous background
are now broadly believed to be the explanation for the anisotropies in the cosmic
microwave background (CMB) and the formation of large-scale structure
\cite{Bardeen:1983}. Beginning as quantum seeds in the distant conformal past, well before
the Planck time $t_{\rm Pl}$, these inhomogeneities grew with the expansion of the universe
and produced a near scale-free power spectrum as they crossed the Hubble horizon
\cite{Stewart:1993}. Indeed, the small departure from a perfectly scale-free distribution
is viewed (in this model) as a consequence of `Hubble friction,' whose strength and duration
are directly attributable to the detailed shape of the inflaton potential. Considerable work
has been carried out over the past four decades to use this framework in order to constrain
the physical conditions in the early universe
\cite{Martin:2006,Lorenz:2008,Larson:2011,Komatsu:2011,Melia:2020b}, at energies up to the
grand unified scale at $\sim 10^{15}$ GeV.
But the CMB anisotropies and galaxy clusters are classical, so we are faced with the
problem of understanding how quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field transitioned
into purely classical objects---an issue closely related to the long-standing
`measurement' problem in quantum mechanics, i.e., how does a deterministic outcome appear
in a measurement process performed on a quantum system prepared in a superposed state?
Different authors use a range of descriptions to characterize the distinctions between
quantum and classical states (see, e.g., refs.~\cite{Nambu:1992,Mijic:1997,Lee:2001})
but, at a fundamental level, a successful transition from the former to the latter requires
the substantial elimination of interference between the various degrees of freedom in a
superposed quantum state and the subsequent appearance of macroscopic variables. The
second condition is the emergence of classical correlations in the phase space of such
canonical variables. In other words, classical trajectories (e.g., orbits) with well-defined
values of these variables need to be established.
The age-old (mostly heuristic) Copenhagen interpretation suggests that a quantum system
remains in its superposed state until an observer performs a measurement on it, the
interaction of which causes it to `collapse' into one of the eigenstates of the
observable being measured \cite{Zurek:1981}. The original version of this
concept has since been refined with the phenomenon of decoherence, in which the system
becomes entangled with its environment \cite{Joos:1985}, consisting of a
very large number of degrees of freedom, bringing the original quantum state into an
ensemble of classical looking ones. The manifestation of this problem specifically in
the cosmological context has sometimes been framed in the sense that the CMB anisotropies
constitute a measurement of the field variable \cite{Kiefer:1998,Kiefer:2007,Kiefer:2009}.
The formalism based on decoherence, however, is subject to considerable debate.
It has been argued by some \cite{Adler:2003,Schlosshauer:2004,Sudarsky:2011}
that decoherence by itself does not solve the problem of a single outcome. As we shall
discuss later in this paper, this mechanism is arguably even less likely to be
relevant to the early universe---a `closed' system where the distinction between
the quantum state and an `environment' is essentially nonexistent. Other types
of approaches, such as Bohmian mechanics \cite{Bohm:1952a,Bohm:1952b}, do not by
themselves predict testable features that may be verified or refuted.
Our entry point into this discussion is motivated by several significant new developments
in the updated analysis of the latest {\it Planck} data release \cite{Planck:2018},
which build on many attempts made over the past two decades to find specific features
associated with the primordial power spectrum, ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$. For example, several large-angle
anomalies have been present in the CMB maps since the 1990's. The most recent studies
\cite{MeliaLopez:2018,Melia:2020a} of the {\it Planck} data have extended our ability
to examine whether these issues are more likely due to instrumental or other systematic
effects, or whether they truly represent real characteristics in ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$. And
in \S~3.1, we shall briefly discuss why these anomalies may now be viewed as possibly being
due to a cutoff $k_{\rm min}$ in the power spectrum. Its value, however, calls into question
whether slow-roll inflation remains viable \cite{LiuMelia:2020}, at least based on the
inflaton potentials proposed thus far. As we shall explore in \S~3.2, a more interesting
interpretation for the appearance of $k_{\rm min}$ is that this represents the first mode
to exit from the Planck scale into the semi-classical universe at about the Planck time.
If correct, this interpretation would clearly have a considerable impact on the
quantum-to-classical transition.
In this paper, we focus on how this interpretation could alter our view of the long-standing
classicalization problem in the early universe. The conventional view has been that quantum
fluctuations were seeded in the Bunch-Davies vacuum, though without much guidance other than
they emerged in the ground state. But if they appeared at the Planck scale at about the Planck
time, the manner in which the quantum states were `prepared' may have some bearing on the
classicalization problem. In \S~2, we shall summarize the current status with the quantum-to-classical
transition of fluctuations in the inflaton field, and then transition into a discussion of the
analogous situation for a non-inflationary scalar field with the zero active mass equation-of-state
(relevant to the above interpretation of $k_{\rm min}$) in \S~3. We shall describe
the impact of these new developments on the classicalization question in \S~4 and end with
our conclusions in \S~V.
\section{Classicalization of Quantum Fluctuations in the Inflaton Field}
\subsection{Quantum Fluctuations in the Inflaton Field}
The essential steps for deriving the perturbation growth equation are by now well known,
and one may find many accounts of this procedure in both the primary and secondary
literature. For the sake of brevity, we here show only some key results---chiefly those
that will also be relevant to our discussion of quantum fluctuations at the Planck scale
in \S\S~3 and 4---and refer the reader to several other influential publications for
all the details.
The perturbed Friedmann-Lema{\^i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime for linearized
scalar fluctuations is given by the line element
\cite{Bardeen:1980,Kodama:1984,Mukhanov:1992,Bassett:2006}
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 &=& (1+2A)\,dt^2-2a(t)(\partial_iB)\,dt\,dx^i-\nonumber\\
&\null&\hskip-0.1in a^2(t)\left[(1-2\psi)\delta_{ij}+2(\partial_i
\partial_jE)+h_{ij}\right]\,dx^i\,dx^j\,,\quad
\label{eqn:metric}
\end{eqnarray}
where indices $i$ and $j$ denote spatial coordinates, $a(t)$ is the expansion
factor, and $A$, $B$, $\psi$ and $E$ describe the scalar metric perturbations,
while $h_{ij}$ are the tensor perturbations.
For small perturbations about the homogeneous scalar field $\phi_0(t)$,
\begin{equation}
\phi(t,\vec{x}) = \phi_0(t)+\delta\phi(t,\vec{x})\;,
\end{equation}
one can identify the curvature perturbation ${\mathcal{R}}$ on hypersurfaces orthogonal to worldlines
in the comoving frame written as a gauge invariant combination of the scalar field perturbation
$\delta\phi$ and the metric perturbation $\psi$ \cite{Bardeen:1980}:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{R}}\equiv \psi+\left({H\over \dot{\phi}}\right)\,\delta\phi\;.
\end{equation}
A solution for ${\mathcal{R}}$ may then be obtained by (i) using an expansion in Fourier modes,
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{R}}(\tau,{\bf x})\equiv\int {d^3{\bf k}\over (2\pi)^{3/2}}\;{\mathcal{R}}_{\bf k}(\tau)
e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}}\;,\label{eqn:Fourier}
\end{equation}
and (ii) inserting the linearized metric (Eq.~\ref{eqn:metric}) into Einstein's equations,
which together yield the following perturbed equation of motion for each mode {\bf k}:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{R}}_{\bf k}^{\prime\prime}+2\left({z^\prime\over z}\right){\mathcal{R}}_{\bf k}^\prime+
k^2{\mathcal{R}}_{\bf k}=0\;.
\label{eqn:mathcalR}
\end{equation}
Overprime denotes a derivative with respect to conformal time $d\tau=dt/a(t)$, and
we have defined the variable
\begin{equation}
z\equiv {a(t)(\rho_\phi+p_\phi)^{1/2}\over H}\;.
\label{eqn:z}
\end{equation}
Using the canonically normalized Mukhanov-Sasaki variable \cite{Kodama:1984,Mukhanov:1992}
\begin{equation}
u_{\bf k}\equiv z{\mathcal{R}}_{\bf k}\;,
\label{eqn:MS}
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eqn:mathcalR}) may be recast into the more familiar form of a parametric oscillator
with a time-dependent frequency, known (in this context) as the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation,
\begin{equation}
u_{\bf k}^{\prime\prime}+\omega_{\bf k}^2(\tau)\,u_{\bf k}=0\;,
\label{eqn:uk}
\end{equation}
where the time-dependent frequency is
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\bf k}(\tau)^2\equiv k^2-{z^{\prime\prime}\over z}\;.
\label{eqn:freq}
\end{equation}
In Minkowski spacetime, the scale factor $a(\tau)$ is constant and $\omega_{\bf k}=k$, which
reduces Equation~(\ref{eqn:uk}) to that of the more basic harmonic oscillator with a
constant frequency.
Since $\omega_{\bf k}(\tau)$ depends solely on $\tau$ and $k$ (not the direction of {\bf k}),
the most general solution to the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation may be written
\begin{equation}
u_{\bf k}=a_{\bf k}^-u_k(\tau)+a_{\bf -k}^+u_k^*(\tau)\;,
\end{equation}
where $u_k(\tau)$ and its complex conjugate are linearly independent solutions to Equation~(\ref{eqn:uk}),
and are the same for all Fourier modes with $k=|{\bf k}|$. In general, however, the integration
constants $a_{\bf k}^-$ and $a_{\bf -k}^+$ may depend on the direction of {\bf k}. From
Equations~(\ref{eqn:Fourier}) and (\ref{eqn:MS}), one may thus write the complete solution to
the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation as
\begin{equation}
u(\tau,{\bf x})=\int {d^3{\bf k}\over (2\pi)^{3/2}}\left[a_{\bf k}^-
u_k(\tau)e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}}+a_{\bf k}^+u_k^*(\tau)e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}}\right],\quad
\label{eqn:utotal}
\end{equation}
which is manifestly real since $a_{\bf k}^+=(a_{\bf k}^-)^*$.
Our derivation of Equation~(\ref{eqn:utotal}) has made no reference to the definite size
of the inhomogeneities. This result therefore merely shows us the dynamics of such
inhomogeneities if they came into existence. To address their presence and magnitude, one
must consider states at the quantum level, where the fluctuation field becomes an operator.
The next step is therefore the quantization of the field, noting that the Hilbert space for
the quantum field will be a direct product of individual Hilbert spaces for the Fourier modes.
The field $u(\tau,{\bf x})$ is quantized like the harmonic oscillator, except that the frequency
(Eq.~\ref{eqn:freq}) is now time dependent, which is itself a consequence of the curved spacetime
within which these modes are evolving. To properly normalize the quantum fluctuation, one must
therefore choose the vacuum carefully, since the spacetime is generally not Minkowskian.
The field $u(\tau,{\bf x})$ and its canonical conjugate `momentum' $\pi(\tau,{\bf x})\equiv
u^\prime(\tau,{\bf x})$ are promoted to quantum operators $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{\pi}$, satisfying
the standard equal-time canonical quantization relations
\begin{eqnarray}
&\null&[\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x}_1),\hat{\pi}(\tau,{\bf x}_2)]=i\delta^3({\bf x}_1-{\bf x}_2)\nonumber\\
&\null&[\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x}_1),\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x}_2)]=0\nonumber\\
&\null&[\hat{\pi}(\tau,{\bf x}_1),\hat{\pi}(\tau,{\bf x}_2)]=0\;.
\label{eqn:can}
\end{eqnarray}
The constants of integration $a_{\bf k}^-$ and $a_{\bf k}^+$ in the mode expansion of
$u(\tau,{\bf x})$ become operators $\hat{a}_{\bf k}^-$ and $\hat{a}_{\bf k}^+$, so that
\begin{equation}
\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x})=\int {d^3{\bf k}\over (2\pi)^{3/2}}\left[\hat{a}_{\bf k}^-
u_k(\tau)e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}}+\hat{a}_{\bf k}^+u_k^*(\tau)e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}}\right].\quad
\label{eqn:fieldop}
\end{equation}
We thus see from Equations~(\ref{eqn:can}) and (\ref{eqn:fieldop}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
&\null&[\hat{a}^-_{\bf k},\hat{a}^+_{{\bf k}^\prime}]=\delta^3({\bf k}-{\bf k}^\prime)\nonumber\\
&\null&[\hat{a}^-_{\bf k},\hat{a}^-_{{\bf k}^\prime}]=0\nonumber\\
&\null&[\hat{a}^+_{\bf k},\hat{a}^+_{{\bf k}^\prime}]=0\,,
\label{eqn:raiselow}
\end{eqnarray}
which allows us to interpret $\hat{a}_{\bf k}^-$ and $\hat{a}_{\bf k}^+$ as annihilation and creation
operators, respectively, creating and annihilating excitations, or particles, of the field
$u(\tau,{\bf x})$. And in the usual fashion, the quantum states in the Hilbert space are constructed
by a repeated application of the creation operator,
\begin{equation}
|n_{{\bf k}_1},n_{{\bf k}_2},\cdots\rangle = {1\over\sqrt{n_{{\bf k}_1}!\,n_{{\bf k}_2}!\cdots}}
\left\{(\hat{a}_{{\bf k}_1}^+)^{n_{{\bf k}_1}}(\hat{a}_{{\bf k}_2}^+)^{n_{{\bf k}_2}}\cdots\right\}|0\rangle,\;
\label{eqn:Hilbertstate}
\end{equation}
starting with the vacuum state $|0\rangle$, which is defined by
\begin{equation}
\hat{a}_{\bf k}^-|0\rangle=0\;.
\end{equation}
In de Sitter space, where $a(\tau)=-(H\tau)^{-1}$ (in terms of the Hubble constant $H$ during
inflation), the exact solution to Equation~(\ref{eqn:uk}) is
\begin{equation}
u_k(\tau)=A_k{e^{-ik\tau}\over\sqrt{2k}}\left(1-{i\over k\tau}\right)+
B_k{e^{ik\tau}\over\sqrt{2k}}\left(1+{i\over k\tau}\right)\;,
\label{eqn:uksoln}
\end{equation}
where $A_k$ and $B_k$ are integration constants to be fixed by the choice of vacuum. In a
time-independent spacetime, the normalization of the wavefunction is obtained by imposing
canonical quantization or, equivalently, by minimizing the expectation value of the
Hamiltonian in the vacuum state. For example, in Minkowski space, one would find from
Equation~(\ref{eqn:uk}) with $\omega_k=k$, and the Hamiltonian written in terms of
$u_k$ and $\pi_k$, that
\begin{equation}
u_k(\tau)={e^{-ik\tau}\over\sqrt{2k}}\;\;{\rm (Minkowski)}\;.
\label{eqn:Mink}
\end{equation}
In de Sitter spacetime, such a solution would therefore correspond to $|\tau|\rightarrow\infty$,
and $A_k=1$, $B_k=0$. This is interpreted to mean that in the remote conformal past, all
modes of current interest were much smaller than the Hubble radius, allowing us to ignore
curvature effects on the mode normalization, thereby defining a unique physical vacuum known
as the Bunch-Davies vacuum \cite{Bunch:1978}.
With the time evolution
\begin{equation}
u_k(\tau)={e^{-ik\tau}\over\sqrt{2k}}\left(1-{i\over k\tau}\right)\;\;{\rm (de\; Sitter)}\;,
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eqn:fieldop}) gives us the full form of the field operator $\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x})$,
which may be used to find the quantum states of the inflaton scalar field. As we shall
see in \S~3, much of this derivation remains intact for the (non-inflationary) numen field as
well, though with several crucial differences we shall discuss shortly. (As we shall
see in \S~3.2, it will be necessary to clearly distinguish between inflaton scalar fields and
those that do not produce an inflated expansion. We shall therefore informally refer to the latter
as `numen' fields.)
We now turn our attention to describing the vacuum state with a wavefunctional that gives the probability
amplitudes for different field configurations in Fourier space. Though we have developed the expression
for the field operator, $\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x})$, in the Heisenberg picture, finding the various occupation
numbers in a quantum state such as Equation~(\ref{eqn:Hilbertstate}) is more easily accomplished
using a functional approach in the Schr\"odinger picture (see, e.g., refs.~\cite{Polarski:1996,Martin:2008}).
As long as the various $k$-modes are all independent, the Hilbert space for the field operator
$\hat{u}(\tau,{\bf x})$, containing eigenstates $|u\rangle$, is simply a direct product of Hilbert
spaces for the different Fourier components. If a state is initially decomposed as $|\Psi\rangle$,
the probability amplitude of measuring the field configuration $u(\tau,{\bf x})$ is then the
wave functional $\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]\equiv \langle u|\Psi\rangle$ where, in the Schr\"odinger
approach, one may factor it into independent mode components according to:
\begin{equation}
\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]=\prod_k\Psi_{\bf k}[u_k(\tau)]\;,
\label{eqn:Psitotal}
\end{equation}
each of which is a solution to Schr\"odinger's equation:
\begin{equation}
i{\partial\Psi_{\bf k}\over\partial\tau}=\hat{H}_{\bf k}\Psi_{\bf k}\;.
\label{eqn:Schro}
\end{equation}
The Hamilton operator in Fourier space may be written
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}={1\over 2}\int d^3{\bf k}\,\hat{H}_{\bf k}=
{1\over 2}\int d^3{\bf k}\left[\hat{\pi}_{\bf k}\hat{\pi}_{\bf k}^\dag+
\omega_{\bf k}^2\hat{u}_{\bf k}\hat{u}_{\bf k}^\dag\right]\;.
\label{eqn:Ham}
\end{equation}
The solution to Equations~(\ref{eqn:Schro}) and (\ref{eqn:Ham}) for a harmonic oscillator is
well known, and has the form of a Gaussian function:
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{\bf k}[u_{\rm k}(\tau)]=N_{\bf k}(\tau)e^{-\Omega_{\bf k}(\tau)(u_{\bf k})^2}\;,
\label{eqn:Psi}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
|N_{\bf k}|\equiv \left({2{\rm Re}\{\Omega_{\bf k}\}\over\pi}\right)^{1/4}
\end{equation}
is the normalization factor, and
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{\bf k}\equiv -{i\over 2}{f_k^\prime\over f_k}
\label{eqn:Omega}
\end{equation}
is written in terms of the function $f_k$, the solution to Equation~(\ref{eqn:uk}), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
f_k={1\over \sqrt{2k}}\left(1-{i\over k\tau}\right)e^{-ik\tau}\;.
\label{eqn:fk}
\end{equation}
The functional $\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]$, representing a quantum
fluctuation in the inflaton field, is a superposition of many separate Fourier states
$\Psi_{\bf k}$ (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:Psitotal}). Somehow, this quantum description, which includes
interference between the various modes and no {\it a priori} classical correlations in phase
space between the field amplitudes and their canonical partners, must have transitioned into
classical fluctuations, characterized in part by a diagonalized density matrix and well defined
dynamical trajectories. How this might have happened is the issue we shall address next.
\subsection{The Quantum to Classical Transition}
The question concerning whether or not the state $\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]$ can complete
the quantum to classical transition based on the factors we have summarized above has
received considerable attention over the past four decades, and is still an
open one \cite{Halliwell:1985,Zurek:1992,Brandenberger:1992,Laflamme:1993,Polarski:1996,Grishchuk:1997,Hartle:1998,Kiefer:2000,Castagnino:2003,delCampo:2004,Martin:2005,Perez:2006}. As noted
in the introduction, the cosmological scalar perturbations must satisfy at least two
conditions to classicalize: (i) the system must undergo decoherence, so that quantum
interference becomes negligible and macroscopic variables appear. We see a universe with
well-defined, classical perturbation field values, not superpositions of multiple components
represented by Equation~(\ref{eqn:Psitotal}). (ii) One must see the establishment of classical
correlations in phase space, meaning that the allowed dispersion in the canonical variables
$(u,\pi)$ becomes insignificantly smaller than their classical orbital values.
Different authors have proposed somewhat different schemes for this transition, indicating
that no consensus has yet been reached. In part, this is due to the fact that the conventional
rules one may rely on in ordinary quantum mechanical applications are not necessarily all
available in cosmology. To begin with, the system being studied quantum mechanically is the
entire Universe. There is no possible separation into a subsystem of interest, its environment
and the observer. Moreover, there is just one universe, obviating any possibility of adopting
the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanical measurements. Even more importantly,
the observer is here a consequence of the quantum to classical transition, and could not
have played any causal part in it. For these (and other) reasons, the system being studied is
thus unusual by typical quantum mechanical standards.
A common step taken by the various approaches to solving this problem is to relegate most
of the very large number of degrees of freedom in $\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]$ to an `environment'
and then to ignore them, allowing one to evolve the reduced density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ for the
subset of remaining (presumably more interesting) observables. Under some circumstances, also
involving suitable time averaging, this procedure eventually diagonalizes $\hat{\rho}$,
representing a complete mitigation of any interference effects, which is interpreted as the
emergence of classical behavior.
This is not entirely satisfactory, however, because decoherence has not yet successfully
solved the long-standing `measurement' problem in quantum mechanics. Certainly, the diagonalization
of $\hat{\rho}$ removes certain quantum traits from the system, but it is not clear that a
non-interfering set of simultaneous co-existing possibilities is necessarily classical
(see, e.g., ref.~\cite{Grib:1999}). Note, for example, that changing the Hilbert space of the
quantum system to a different basis would destroy the diagonal nature of the density matrix.
The interpretation of $\hat{\rho}$ is therefore subject to various observer-dependent choices.
What is lacking is a clear understanding of how to choose the basis and an interaction specific
eigenstate for the preferred observable. In our everyday experience, some progress may be made
by allowing the measurement device to `select' the basis, and adopting the ensemble interpretation
for the density matrix. But these features are obviously missing in the cosmological
context \cite{Hartle:1998,Hartle:2006}.
To solve the classicalization problem using decoherence in a cosmological setting, one must
therefore identify a physical mechanism and a preferential basis it selects. It is also
necessary to find a criterion for separating the large number of degrees of freedom into
the `interesting set' and `the environment' dictated by the physical problem at hand.
At least some of the proposed treatments then appeal to `a specific realization' of the
stochastic variables \cite{Polarski:1996,delCampo:2004}, sounding very much like a
conventional `collapse' from the statistical description of the universe to one of the
members in the statistical ensemble. But no insight is provided into how and when such
a transition occurred in the real universe.
To address the second requirement, we begin by noting that in the remote conformal past, where
$\Omega_{\bf k}\rightarrow k/2$, the wavefunctional $\Psi_{\bf k}$ represented the ground state
of a harmonic oscillator, consistent with the previously described Bunch-Davies vacuum. For the
largest modes (those of relevance to the structure we observe today), the function $\Omega_{\bf k}$
acquired a non-trivial time dependence and Equation~(\ref{eqn:Psi}) evolved into a squeezed
state---meaning that, for these modes, there exists a direction in the
$(u_{\bf k},\pi_{\bf k})$ plane where the dispersion is exponentially small, while the
dispersion in a perpendicular direction is very large. The resultant linear combination
of $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$ for which the dispersion is minimized is often viewed
as the emerging classical phase-space trajectory.
A convenient tool to study this process, and its possible relevance to the classicalization
question, is the Wigner function (see, e.g., the reviews in
refs.~\cite{Hillery:1984,Lee:1995}; for a more pedagogical account, see also
ref.~\cite{Case:2008}), defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal{W}}(u_{\bf k}^R,u_{\bf k}^I,\pi_{\bf k}^R,\pi_{\bf k}^I)&=&{1\over (2\pi)^2}
\int dx\,dy\nonumber\\
&\null&\hskip-0.8in\Psi_{\bf k}\left(u_{\bf k}^R-{x\over 2},u_{\bf k}^I-{y\over 2}\right)
e^{-i\pi_{\bf k}^Rx-i\pi_{\bf k}^Iy}\times\qquad\nonumber\\
&\null&\hskip-0.4in\Psi_{\bf k}\left(u_{\bf k}^R+{x\over 2},u_{\bf k}^I+{y\over 2}\right)\;,
\label{eqn:Wigner}
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of the real and imaginary parts of $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$.
Quantum mechanics inherently deals with probabilities, while classical physics deals with
well-defined trajectories in phase space. The Wigner function provides a means of representing
the density distributions in $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$ for comparison with the ensemble
of trajectories one would get using classical means.
The literature on Wigner functions is extensive (including the aforementiond reviews
in refs.~\cite{Hillery:1984,Lee:1995,Case:2008}). Its properties suggest that it behaves like
a probability distribution in $(u,\pi)$ phase space, except that it can sometimes
take on negative values, so it is generally not a true probability distribution.
Moreover, points in the $(u,\pi)$ space to not represent actual states of the system
because the values of $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$ cannot be determined precisely
at the same time. Nevertheless, ${\mathcal{W}}$ can be used to visualize correlations
between $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$, particularly for Gaussian states, such as
we have in Equation~(\ref{eqn:Psi}), for which the Wigner function is indeed always
positive definite.
It is trivial to show in the case of Equation~(\ref{eqn:Psi}) that the explicit
form of ${\mathcal{W}}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal{W}}(u_{\bf k}^R,u_{\bf k}^I,\pi_{\bf k}^R,\pi_{\bf k}^I)&=&{1\over \pi^2}
e^{-{\rm Re}\{\Omega_{\bf k}\}\left[(u_{\bf k}^R)^2+(u_{\bf k}^I)^2\right]}\times\nonumber\\
&\null&\hskip-1.3in
e^{-(\pi_{\bf k}^R+{\rm Im}\{\Omega_{\bf k}\}u_{\bf k}^R)^2/{\rm Re}\{\Omega_{\bf k}\}}
e^{-(\pi_{\bf k}^I+{\rm Im}\{\Omega_{\bf k}\}u_{\bf k}^I)^2/{\rm Re}\{\Omega_{\bf k}\}},\qquad
\label{eqn:squeeze}
\end{eqnarray}
with which one may clearly see the effect of strong squeezing as $\Omega_{\bf k}$ changes
dramatically with time (Eqns.~\ref{eqn:Omega} and \ref{eqn:fk}) during the cosmic expansion.
As long as $\Omega_{\bf k}\rightarrow k/2$, ${\mathcal{W}}$ is peaked over a small region
of phase space, representing the Wigner function of a coherent state, i.e., the ground state
of a harmonic oscillator. We shall return to this in \S~4 below, where we consider the corresponding
Wigner function for the numen quantum fluctuations. We shall see that this limiting situation takes on
added significance in that case, given that $\Omega_{\bf k}$ actually remains constant for a numen
field. But $\Omega_{\bf k}$ is definitely not constant here. As $\tau$ advances, ${\mathcal{W}}$
spreads and acquires a cigar shape typical of squeezed states \cite{Grishchuk:1990}, with a
drastically reduced dispersion around $\pi_{\bf k}$ and a correspondingly enormous dispersion
around $u_{\bf k}$. But the overall dispersion may be minimized, as we alluded to earlier, by
choosing an appropriate linear combination of $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$, an outcome that
some argue represents the emerging correlation in classical phase space.
One may therefore think of a squeezed state as a state with the minimal uncertainty, though
not in terms of the original $(u,\pi)$ variables \cite{Polarski:1996,Kiefer:2000}.
In the cosmological context, the inflationary expansion created an uncertainty on the
value of the field and its conjugate momentum that was much larger than the minimum
uncertainty implied by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The minimum uncertainty was
instead associated with a new pair of `rotated' canonical variables. But this outcome
has also been challenged as not necessarily representing a classical system
\cite{Laflamme:1993,Perez:2006}.
Take the following situation as an example. Consider an electron in a minimal wavepacket
localized at the origin, with an uncertainty $\Delta x$ in position and
$\Delta p=\hbar/(2\Delta x)$ in momentum. Then form a superposition of this state with an
identical one after a translation by a large distance $D$. The overall uncertainty is
now $\sim D\hbar/(2\Delta x)$, which can be increased arbitrarily by simply choosing a
sufficiently large distance $D$. This situation is clearly analogous to one of our
squeezed states, but the superposition we have created is nonetheless not classical.
And then there is the issue of definite outcomes, also known as the `measurement
problem' \cite{Colanero:2012}, as we alluded to in the introduction. This aspect of quantum
mechanics has been with us for over a century. Even if decoherence were successful in
diagonalizing the density matrix, it cannot solve the definite outcome problem,
which is far worse in cosmology than it is in typical laboratory situations.
The usual approach of adopting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics,
in which a measurement `collapses' the state vector of the system into an eigenstate
corresponding to the measurement result, does not work in the early Universe, where
there were no measurement devices or observers present.
While decoherence might have diagonalized the reduced density matrix of the system
to an ensemble of classically observable universes, it does not explain how a
certain universe was singled out to be observed \cite{Sudarsky:2011}. Perhaps the
Copenhagen interpretation is just not well suited to cosmology. In addition, if
decoherence resulted from an environment comprised of the `non-interesting' degrees
of freedom in $\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]$, how could this happen when inflation would
have driven all such fields towards their vacuum states? Moreover, why do we have
the privilege of deciding which degrees of freedom to relegate to the background
based solely on whether our current technology allows us to observe them today?
We shall now divert our attention away from the traditional inflationary scenario
we have been describing, and seriously consider the implications of a novel feature
emerging from the latest release of the {\it Planck} data: the observational
measurement of a cutoff in the primordial spectrum bears directly on the question
of how and when quantum fluctuations were generated in the early Universe. We shall
study what new ideas and constraints this brings to the classicalization process.
\section{Quantum Fluctuations at the Planck Scale}
\subsection{Emergence of a Cutoff in the primordial power spectrum ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$}
All three of the major satellite missions designed to study the CMB---COBE
\cite{Hinshaw:1996}; WMAP \cite{Bennett:2003}; and {\it Planck}
\cite{Planck:2018}--- have uncovered several anomalies in its fluctuation spectrum. The
two most prominent among them are: (1) an unexpectedly low level---perhaps even a
complete absence---of correlation at large angles (i.e., $\theta\gtrsim 60^\circ$),
manifested via the angular correlation function, $C(\theta)$; and (2) relatively
weak power in the lowest multipole moments of the angular power spectrum, $C_\ell$.
Their origin, however, is still subject to considerable debate, many arguing in favor
of a misinterpretation or the result of unknown systematics, such as an incorrect
foreground subtraction (see refs.~\cite{Bennett:2011,Copi:2010} for reviews). This
uncertainty is also fueled in large part by a persistent lack of clarity concerning
how quantum fluctuations were seeded in the early universe \cite{Melia:2019a,LiuMelia:2020}.
The large-scale anomalies stand in sharp contrast to our overall success
interpreting the CMB anisotropies at angles smaller than $1^\circ$. Over
the past several decades, a concerted effort has therefore been made in attempting to identify
features in the primordial power spectrum, ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$, responsible for their origin.
For example, in their study of the CMB angular power spectrum, Shafieloo \& Souradeep
\cite{Shafieloo:2004} assumed an exponential cutoff at low $k$-modes, and identified a
turnover generally consistent with the most recent measurement we shall discuss below
(see Eq.~\ref{eqn:kmin}). This early treatment was based on WMAP observations
\cite{Bennett:2003}, however, not the higher precision {\it Planck} measurements
\cite{Planck:2018} we have today, so the reality of a non-zero $k_{\rm min}$ remained
somewhat controversial.
In followup work, Nicholson et al. \cite{Nicholson:2009} and Hazra et al. \cite{Hazra:2014}
inferred a `dip' in ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ on a scale $k\sim 0.002$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for the WMAP data,
confirming the outcome of an alternative approach by Ichiki et al. \cite{Ichiki:2010} that
identified an oscillatory modulation around $k\sim 0.009$ Mpc$^{-1}$. In closely aligned work,
Tocchini et al. \cite{Tocchini:2005} modeled both a dip at $k\sim 0.035$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and a `bump'
at $k\sim 0.05$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Like the others, though, these features were based solely on WMAP
observations and therefore appeared to be merely suggestive rather than compelling. Tocchini
et al. \cite{Tocchini:2006} improved on this analysis considerably, and found evidence for
three features in ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$, one of which was a cutoff at $\sim 0.0001-0.001$
Mpc$^{-1}$ at a confidence level of $\sim 2\sigma$. Complementary work by Hunt \& Subir
\cite{Hunt:2014,Hunt:2015} confirmed the likely existence of a cutoff $k < 5 \times
10^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ but, as before, also concluded that more accurate {\it Planck}
data would eventually be needed to confirm these results more robustly.
The subsequent {\it Planck} observations have not only largely confirmed these earlier
results, but have provided us with a greatly improved precision in the `measurement'
of $k_{\rm min}$. For example, the Planck Collaboration \cite{Planck:2016} fit a cutoff
to the CMB angular power spectrum and found a value $\sim 3-4\times 10^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
Still, though these studies all pointed to the likely existence of a cutoff in
${\mathcal{P}}(k)$, a non-zero $k_{\rm min}$ could not be claimed with a confidence
level exceeding $1-2\sigma$.
This situation improved considerably when, instead of looking solely at the power spectrum,
the impact of a cutoff was also considered on the angular correlation function, independently
of the angular power spectrum. Two separate
(though complementary) studies of the latest {\it Planck} data release have provided more
compelling evidence that the two large-angle features in the CMB anisotropies may be real.
The first of these \cite{MeliaLopez:2018} demonstrates that the most likely explanation for
the missing large-angle correlations is a cutoff,
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm min}={4.34\pm0.5\over r_{\rm cmb}}\;,\label{eqn:kmin}
\end{equation}
in the primordial power spectrum, ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$, where $r_{\rm cmb}$
is the comoving distance to the surface of last scattering. For the {\it Planck}-$\Lambda$CDM
parameters, $r_{\rm cmb}\approx 13,804$ Mpc \cite{Planck:2018}, and we therefore have
$k_{\rm min}=(3.14\pm 0.36)\times 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-1}$. A zero cutoff (i.e., $k_{\rm min}=0$)
is ruled out by the $C(\theta)$ data at a confidence level exceeding $\sim 8\sigma$.
A subsequent study \cite{Melia:2020a} focused on the CMB angular power spectrum itself
(i.e., $C_{\ell}$ versus $\ell$), and its results (i) confirmed that the introduction of
this cutoff in ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ does not at all affect the remarkable consistency
between the standard inflationary model prediction and the {\it Planck} measurements
at $\ell>30$ \cite{Planck:2018}, where the underlying theory is widely believed to be
correct; and (ii) showed that such a cutoff ($k_{\rm min}$) also self-consistently explains
the missing power at large angles, i.e., the low multipole moments ($\ell=2-5$). The cutoff
optimized by fitting the angular power spectrum over the whole range of $\ell$'s is
$k_{\rm min}=(2.04^{+1.4}_{-0.79}) \times 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, while a fit to the restricted
range $\ell\le 30$, where the Sachs-Wolfe effect is dominant \cite{Sachs:1967}, gives
$k_{\rm min}=(3.3^{+1.7}_{-1.3})\times 10^{-4}$~Mpc$^{-1}$. The outcome based on the CMB
angular power spectrum therefore rules out a zero cutoff at a confidence level
$\gtrsim 2.6\sigma$. In either case, the inferred value of $k_{\rm min}$ is fully
consistent with the cutoff implied by missing correlations in $C(\theta)$, and one
concludes that both of these large-angle anomalies are probably due to the same truncation,
i.e., $k_{\rm min}\sim 3\times 10^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, in ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$. The
confidence with which one may make such a claim depends on whether the cutoff is used to
address the missing power at low $\ell$'s, or the missing correlations at large
angles. Nevertheless, the fact that the same $k_{\rm min}$ apparently solves both
anomalies makes the assumption of a cutoff quite reasonable.
These results reinforce the perception that the small-angle anisotropies (for $\ell\gtrsim 30$),
which are mostly due to acoustic oscillations, are well understood, while the fluctuations
associated with angular correlations at $\theta\gtrsim 60^\circ$, due to the
Sachs-Wolfe effect, continue to be problematic for the standard inflationary picture
\cite{Hinshaw:1996,Bennett:2003,Planck:2018}. The evidence for a non-zero $k_{\rm min}$
speaks directly to the cosmological expansion itself. At $\ell\lesssim 30$, we are probing ever
closer to the beginning of inflation, culminating with the cutoff $k_{\rm min}$, signaling
the very first mode that would have crossed the horizon when the quasi-de Sitter
phase started \cite{Mukhanov:1992,LiuMelia:2020,Melia:2020b}.
But if one insists on inflation simultaneously fixing the horizon problem and accounting
for the observed primordial power spectrum, ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$, the implied time at which
the accelerated expansion began would have suppressed the comoving size of the universe
to a tenth of the required value \cite{LiuMelia:2020,Melia:2020b}. Moreover,
neither a radiation-dominated, nor a kinetic-dominated, phase preceding inflation could have
alleviated this disparity \cite{Destri:2008,Destri:2010}.
\subsection{A Reinterpretation of $k_{\rm min}$}
To be clear, the measurement of $k_{\rm min}$ does not completely rule out inflation, nor even the
idea that some slow-roll variant may eventually be constructed to address the inconsistency described
above. At a minimum, however, the currently proposed inflaton potentials $V(\phi)$ require at
least some modification. Moreover, a cutoff in ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ does not argue {\it against}
the influence of a scalar field, $\phi$, nor anisotropies arising from its quantum fluctuations,
but there is now some motivation to question whether $V(\phi)$ was truly inflationary.
Over the past decade, some evidence has been accumulating that the cosmic fluid may possess
a zero active mass equation-of-state, $\rho+3p=0$ (in terms of its total energy density
$\rho$ and pressure $p$), supported by over 27 different kinds of observation at low and high
redshifts (see Table~2 in ref.~\cite{Melia:2018a} for a recent summary of these results).
Such a universe lacks a horizon problem \cite{Melia:2013,Melia:2018b}, so the lack of a fully
self-consistent inflationary paradigm may be telling us that the universe does not need it.
This is the key assumption we shall make to reinterpret $k_{\rm min}$ in this paper. In
addition to the growing body of empirical evidence favoring this approach, there is also
theoretical support for the zero active mass equation-of-state from the `Local Flatness
Theorem' in general relativity \cite{Melia:2019b}.
As noted earlier, we shall clearly distinguish between the roles played by a non-inflaton
$\phi$ and a conventional inflaton field by informally refering to the former as a `numen'
field, based on our inference that it may represent the earliest form of substance in the
universe. Its equation-of-state is assumed to be $\rho_\phi+3p_\phi=0$, and we shall see
shortly why this property appears to provide a more satisfactory interpretation of
$k_{\rm min}$ than an inflaton field.
The background numen field is homogeneous, so its energy density $\rho_\phi$ and
pressure $p_\phi$ are simply given as
\begin{equation}
\rho_\phi={1\over 2}{\dot{\phi}}^2+V(\phi)\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
p_\phi={1\over 2}{\dot{\phi}}^2-V(\phi)\;.
\end{equation}
The zero active mass equation-of-state therefore uniquely constrains the potential to be
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)={{\dot{\phi}}^2}\;,
\label{eqn:potnumen}
\end{equation}
with the explicit solution
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)=V_0\,\exp\left\{-{2\sqrt{4\pi}\over m_{\rm Pl}}\,\phi\right\}\;,
\label{eqn:numenpot}
\end{equation}
in terms of the Planck mass
\begin{equation}
m_{\rm Pl}\equiv {1\over\sqrt{G}}\;.\label{eq:Planckmass}
\end{equation}
Some may recognize this as a special member of the category of minimally coupled fields
explored in the 1980's \cite{Abbott:1984,Lucchin:1985,Barrow:1987,Liddle:1989}, intended
to produce so-called power-law inflation. But unlike the other fields in this cohort, the
numen field's zero active mass equation-of-state makes it the only member of this group
that does {\it not} inflate, since the Friedmann equations with this density and pressure
lead to an expansion factor $a(t)=t/t_0$, written in terms of the age of the universe,
$t_0$. This normalization of $a(t)$ is appropriate for a spatially flat FLRW metric,
which the observations appear to be telling us.
With this expansion factor, the conformal time may be written
\begin{equation}
\tau(t)=t_0\ln a(t)\;,
\label{eqn:tau}
\end{equation}
such that the zero of $\tau$ coincides with $t=t_0$. The parameter $z$ in Equation~(\ref{eqn:z})
thus becomes
\begin{equation}
z={m_{\rm Pl}\over \sqrt{4\pi}}a(t)\;,
\end{equation}
so that $z^\prime/z=1/t_0$ and $z^{\prime\prime}/z=1/t_0^2$.
The resulting curvature perturbation equation analogous to Equation~(\ref{eqn:uk})
may thus be written
\begin{equation}
u_{\rm k}^{\prime\prime}+\alpha_{\rm k}^2 u_{\rm k}=0\;,
\label{eqn:uknumen}
\end{equation}
where the frequency (analogous to Eqn.~\ref{eqn:freq}) is now given by the expression
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\rm k}\equiv {1\over t_0}\sqrt{\left(2\pi R_{\rm h}\over \lambda_{\rm k}\right)^2-1}\;,
\label{eqn:freqnumen}
\end{equation}
in terms of the proper wavelength of mode $k$,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\rm k}\equiv {2\pi\over k} a(t)\;.
\end{equation}
In this expression, the quantity $R_{\rm h}\equiv c/H=ct$ is the apparent (or
gravitational) radius \cite{Melia:2018c}, which defines the Hubble horizon in
a spatially flat universe. The most critical difference between Equations~(\ref{eqn:uk})
and (\ref{eqn:freq}), and Equations~(\ref{eqn:uknumen}) and (\ref{eqn:freqnumen}), is
that here both $R_{\rm h}$ and $a(t)$ scale linearly with $t$, and therefore the frequency
$\alpha_{\rm k}$ of the numen quantum fluctuations is {\it always time-independent}.
This is because the ratio $R_{\rm h}/\lambda_k\propto kR_{\rm h}/a(t)$ is constant
for each $k$, and therefore numen fluctuations do not criss-cross the horizon; once
$\lambda_{\rm k}$ is established upon the mode's exit into the semi-classical universe,
it remains a fixed fraction of $R_{\rm h}$ as they expand with time. This feature is
crucial to understanding how and why numen quantum fluctuations provide a more
satisfactory explanation than inflation for the origin of $k_{\rm min}$.
The solution to Equation~(\ref{eqn:uknumen}) is that of the standard harmonic
oscillator:
\begin{equation}
u_{\rm k}(\tau) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
B(k)\,e^{\pm i\alpha_{\rm k}\tau} & \mbox{($2\pi R_{\rm h}>\lambda_{\rm k}$)} \\
B(k)\,e^{\pm |\alpha_{\rm k}|\tau} & \mbox{($2\pi R_{\rm h}<\lambda_{\rm k}$)}\end{array} \right. \;.
\label{eqn:numenmode}
\end{equation}
That is, all modes with $\lambda_{\rm k}<2\pi R_{\rm h}$ oscillate, while the super-horizon
ones do not, mirroring the behavior of the more conventional inflaton field. Here, however,
the mode with the longest wavelength relevant to the formation of structure is
the one for which $\lambda_{\rm k}(\tau)=2\pi R_{\rm h}(\tau)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
k^{\rm numen}|_{\rm min}=1/t_0\;.
\end{equation}
One's intuition would immediately suggest that $k^{\rm numen}|_{\rm min}$ ought to be identified
with the cutoff $k_{\rm min}$ measured in the CMB, and it is not difficult to demonstrate why
that has to be the case for a numen scalar field, as we shall see shortly.
A slightly different (and simpler) definition of the Planck scale than that appearing in
Equation~(\ref{eq:Planckmass}) is based on the length $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$ at which the Compton
wavelength $\lambda_{\rm C}\equiv 2\pi/m$ for mass $m$ equals its Schwarzschild radius
$R_{\rm h}\equiv 2Gm$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\rm Pl}\equiv \sqrt{4\pi G}\;.
\end{equation}
The Compton wavelength $\lambda_{\rm C}$ grows as the gravitational radius $R_{\rm h}$ shrinks,
so the standard inflationary picture conflicts with quantum mechanics in its interpretation of
wavelengths shorter than $2\pi\lambda_{\rm Pl}$ (the factor $2\pi$ arising from the definition
of $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$ in terms of $R_{\rm h}$). This is a serious problem for the standard
model because the fluctuation amplitude $A_s$ measured in the CMB anisotropies requires
quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field to have been born in the Bunch-Davies vacuum,
long before the Planck time $t_{\rm Pl}\equiv\lambda_{\rm Pl}$, a conundrum commonly referred
to as the ``Trans-Planckian Problem" \cite{Martin:2001}.
The numen field can completely avoid this inconsistency if we argue that each mode $k$ emerged
into the semi-classical universe when
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{\rm k}=2\pi\lambda_{\rm Pl}\;,
\end{equation}
and then evolved subject to the oscillatory solution in Equation~(\ref{eqn:numenmode}). As we shall
see shortly, the fact that each succeeding $k$-mode emerges at later times in this picture produces
a near scale-free power spectrum ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ with $n_s\lesssim 1$ \cite{Melia:2019a}. Such
an idea---that modes could have been born at a particular spatial scale---has already received some
attention in the past, notably by Hollands \& Wald \cite{Hollands:2002}. In their case, however, the
fundamental scale was not related to $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$. Others supporting this proposal include
Brandenberger et al. \cite{Brandenberger:2002} and Hassan et al. \cite{Hassan:2003}.
It is not difficult to understand why the fundamental scale for the numen field must be
$\lambda_{\rm Pl}$. If we interpret $k^{\rm numen}|_{\rm min}$ to be $k_{\rm min}$,
the latter defines the time $t_{\rm min}$ at which the first quantum fluctuation emerged
out of the Planck domain into the semi-classical universe. From Equation~(\ref{eqn:kmin})
and the expression for $r_{\rm cmb}$ in a universe with zero active mass,
\begin{equation}
r^{\rm numen}|_{\rm cmb}={c\over H_0}\ln(1+z_{\rm cmb})\;,
\end{equation}
one therefore finds that
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm min}={4.34\,t_{\rm Pl}\over \ln(1+z_{\rm cmb})}\;.
\end{equation}
Its dependence on $z_{\rm cmb}$ is so weak that $t_{\rm min}$ is approximately
equal to $t_{\rm Pl}$ regardless of where the last scattering surface was located.
For example, in {\it Planck}-$\Lambda$CDM, $z_{\rm cmb}\sim 1080$, for which
$t_{\rm min}\sim 0.63\, t_{\rm Pl}$. But even if we were to adopt a very different value
$z_{\rm cmb}=50$, the first quantum fluctuation would have emerged at
$t_{\rm min}\sim 1.1\, t_{\rm Pl}$.
If the spatially largest fluctuation we see in the CMB was due to a numen fluctuation,
one concludes from this analysis that it must have emerged out of the Planck regime
at roughly the Planck time. In other words, this fluctuation would have physically
exited into the semi-classical universe shortly after the Big Bang---indeed, it would
have appeared as soon as it could, given what we currently understand about the Planck
time $t_{\rm Pl}$. No other scalar field introduced thus far, inflaton or otherwise, has
this very interesting property.
But if a Bunch-Davies vaccum in the remote conformal past is not used
for these fluctuations, how does one then determine the normalization constant $B(k)$
of the modes in Equation~(\ref{eqn:numenmode})? As we saw in \S~2.1, a principal complication
with the inflaton field is the significant spacetime curvature encountered by its quantum
fluctuations as they cross the Hubble radius. This led to the introduction of a Bunch-Davies
vacuum in the distant conformal past, where the modes could have been seeded in
Minkowski space. We made reference to the fact that this situation actually creates
an inconsistency with quantum mechanics, often referred to as the trans-Planckian problem.
This issue is largely beyond the scope of the present paper, however, because the numen field
completely avoids this inconsistency.
Even though the numen quantum fluctuations emerged at the Planck scale---with a wavelength
comparable to the gravitational radius $R_{\rm h}$---the zero active mass equation-of-state
in the cosmic fluid (leading to Eqn.~\ref{eqn:potnumen}) ensures that the frame into which they
emerged from the Planck regime was geodesic. That is, in spite of the Hubble expansion, the universe
was always in free fall, with {\it zero internal acceleration}. One can easily confirm this
from the fact that the frequency $\alpha_{\rm k}$ in Equation~(\ref{eqn:freqnumen}) is always
time-independent. One therefore does not need an ad hoc construction of a Bunch-Davies
vacuum, and we may simply set
\begin{equation}
B(k)={1\over \sqrt{2\alpha_{\rm k}}}
\label{eqn:numennorm}
\end{equation}
for the numen quantum fluctuations (in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:numenmode}), following the same
minimization of the Hamiltonian argument that led to Equation~(\ref{eqn:Mink}).
We complete this brief survey by considering the spectrum ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ one
should expect from the birth of quantum fluctuations at the Planck scale. Right away, we can
see from Equation~(\ref{eqn:freqnumen}) that the difference between $\alpha_{\rm k}$ and $k$
is what distorts the primordial power spectrum away from a pure, scale-free distribution, as
we shall confirm below. This is most easily recognized if we rewrite the mode frequency in the
form $\alpha_{\rm k}=\sqrt{k^2-{1/t_0^2}}$ (which is $<k$).
From the definition of $u_{\rm k}$ and the curvature perturbation, we see that
\begin{equation}
|{\mathcal{R}}_{\rm k}|^2={2\pi\over m_{\rm Pl}^2}{1\over \alpha_{\rm k} a^2}\;.
\end{equation}
The power spectrum ${\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)\equiv {k^3\over 2\pi^2}|{\mathcal{R}}_{\rm k}|^2\;,
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)={1\over (2\pi)^2}\left[{a(t_k)\over a(t)}\right]^2\left[1-
\left({k_{\rm min}\over k}\right)^2\right]^{-1/2}\;.\label{eqn:spec1}
\end{equation}
What is not known yet is how these quantum fluctuations devolved into grand unified theories
particles, after which the perturbation amplitude remained frozen. Nevertheless, it is likely that
the dynamics of this decay/evolution is associated with a particular length (or energy) scale,
$L_*$ \cite{Brouzakis:2012,Dvali:2012}, not unlike the Planck scale $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$.
Mode $k$ reached this scale at $a(t_k^*)=L_*k/2\pi$ or, equivalently, at
time $t_k^*=t_0L_*k$. And so Equation~(\ref{eqn:spec1}) may be re-written
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)={1\over (2\pi)^2}\left[{\lambda_{\rm Pl}\over L_*}\right]^2\left[1-
\left({k_{\rm min}\over k}\right)^2\right]^{-1/2}\;,\label{eqn:spec2}
\end{equation}
which one then needs to compare with the observed CMB power spectrum ${\mathcal{P}}(k)=A_s(k/k_0)^{n_s-1}$.
In the context of the standard model, the {\it Planck} optimizations \cite{Planck:2018} give
$A_s=(2.1\pm 0.04) \times 10^{-9}$ and $n_s=0.9649\pm 0.0042$. And it is not difficult to
see that $L_*$$\sim$$3.5\times 10^3 \lambda_{\rm Pl}$. Therefore, with the Planck scale set at
$m_{\rm Pl}\approx 1.22\times 10^{19}$ GeV, one finds that $L_*$ corresponds to an energy
of roughly $3.5\times 10^{15}$ GeV, remarkably consistent with the energy
scale expected in grand unified theories. Of course, much of this is mere speculation at
the present time, given that the physics of this process lies beyond the standard model.
Nevertheless, the quantum fluctuations in this picture would have oscillated until
$t\sim 3.5\times 10^3t_{\rm Pl}$, after which the numen field would have devolved into
grand unified theory particles, with a freezing of the perturbation amplitude thereafter.
The primordial power spectrum (Eq.~\ref{eqn:spec2}) is almost scale-free, but
not exactly. Using the conventional definition of the scalar index, we find that
\begin{equation}
n_s=1+{d\,\ln {\mathcal{P}}_{\mathcal{R}}(k)\over d\,\ln k}= 1-{1\over (k/k_{\rm min})^2-1}\;.\label{eqn:ns}
\end{equation}
The index $n_s$ is therefore slightly less than $1$, and we confirm that the deviation from
a pure scale-free distribution is due to the aforementioned difference between $\alpha_{\rm k}$
and $k$, which in the end arises from the Hubble expansion (or `frictional') term
${\mathcal{R}}^\prime_k$ in the growth Equation~(\ref{eqn:mathcalR}).
At least qualitatively, this result agrees with the value of $n_s$ measured by {\it Planck}.
Of course, the numen optimization may produce a different outcome than that seen with
$\Lambda$CDM, but it would be difficult to see why the `red' tilt ($n_s<1$) should be converted
into `blue' ($n_s>1$) with a change in background cosmology. An average of $n_s$ over
$k$ in Equation~(\ref{eqn:ns}) gives $\langle n_s\rangle\sim 0.96$ over the range
$k_{\rm min}\lesssim k\lesssim 50k_{\rm min}$. The spectral index would approach closer to
one at larger values of $k$.
The caveat here, of course, is that there are still several unknowns with this process that
make it impossible for us to know all the factors influencing the value of $n_s$. For example,
we have assumed that the length scale at which the modes emerge from the Planck regime
is always fixed at $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$. But this constraint depends critically on the nature
of quantum gravity and its transition into general relativity. It may turn out that the actual
length scale varies as the Universe expands. If so, this evolution would produce an additional
deviation of $n_s$ from one. As a quick illustration, suppose we were to represent such a
variation with the scaling $\lambda_{\rm PL}\rightarrow \lambda_{\rm Pl}k^{-\beta}$. In that
case, Equation~(\ref{eqn:ns}) would become
\begin{equation}
n_s= 1-2\beta-{1\over (k/k_{\rm min})^2-1}\;,\label{eqn:nsbeta}
\end{equation}
and the {\it Planck} data would then imply that $\beta\lesssim 0.02$.
\section{Classicalization of Quantum Fluctuations at the Planck Scale}
\subsection{The Birth of Quantum Fluctuations at the Planck Scale}
The acute classicalization problem plaguing the inflaton field stems directly from the nature
of the wave functional $\Psi[u(\tau,{\bf x})]$ describing its fluctuations (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:Psitotal}).
As discussed in \S~2.2, there is no consensus yet on how the interference between its mode
components could have been completely removed. This problem does not exist for numen quantum
fluctuations due to the way they were seeded---unlike their inflaton counterparts, each of the
numen fluctuations emerged with a single $k$-mode. Pure, single $k$-mode quantum states were
established from the very beginning as a result of the distinct {\it time} at which they entered
the semi-classical universe out of the Planck domain.
A numen fluctuation {\bf b}orn at time $t_{\rm b}$, had a unique comoving wavenumber defined
by the relation
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm b}\equiv {2\pi a(\tau_{\rm b})\over \lambda_{\rm Pl}}
\end{equation}
or, more explicitly,
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm b}={2\pi\over \lambda_{\rm Pl}\,t_0}t_{\rm b}\;.
\label{eqn:kb}
\end{equation}
Thus, the oscillating modes in Equation~(\ref{eqn:numenmode}) should more accurately be
written as follows:
\begin{equation}
u_{\rm k}(\tau,\tau_{\rm b})={1\over\sqrt{2\alpha_{\rm k}}}e^{\pm i\alpha_{\rm k}\tau}\delta(k-k_{\rm b})\;,
\label{eqn:uknumen2}
\end{equation}
where clearly $k_{\rm b}$ is uniquely related to $\tau_{\rm b}$ via Equations~(\ref{eqn:tau})
and (\ref{eqn:kb}). In other words, it is not sufficient to merely track the temporal evolution
of a numen quantum fluctuation. One must also specify its time of birth.
For the numen quantum fluctuation operator, one thus has
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{u}(\tau,\tau_{\rm b},{\bf x})&=&{1\over (2\pi)^{3/2}}\int {d^3{\bf k}\over \sqrt{2\alpha_{\rm k}}}
\delta(k-k_{\rm b})\times\nonumber\\
&\null&\left[\hat{a}_{\bf k}^- e^{i({\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}-\alpha_{\rm k}\tau)}+
\hat{a}_{\bf k}^+ e^{-i({\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}-\alpha_{\rm k}\tau)}\right].\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
The integral is straightforward to evaluate, and one finds that the numen field operator,
analogous to Equation~(\ref{eqn:fieldop}) for the inflaton field, is
\begin{equation}
\hat{u}(\tau,\tau_{\rm b},{\bf x})={k_{\rm b}^2\over \sqrt{\pi\,\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}}\,
j_0(k_{\rm b}|{\bf x}|)\left[\hat{a}_{{\bf k}_{\rm b}}^-e^{-i\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau}
+\hat{a}_{{\bf k}_{\rm b}}^+e^{i\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau}\right]\;,
\label{eqn:Bess}
\end{equation}
where $j_0(k_{\rm b}|{\bf x}|)$ is a spherical Bessel function of the first kind.
We emphasize again that, in this picture, the entire numen quantum fluctuation born
at $\tau_{\rm b}$ is characterized by a single wavenumber $k_{\rm b}$. A schematic
diagram showing the amplitude of this operator at any given time, $\tau\ge \tau_{\rm b}$,
is shown in figure~1.
\begin{figure}
\vskip 0.1in
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Schematic diagram showing the amplitude (plotted along $\hat{z}$) of a numen field
operator projected onto the $xy$-plane. The spatial variation (in comoving coordinates {\bf x})
is proportional to the spherical Bessel function of the first kind, $j_0(k_{\rm b}|{\bf x}|)$,
where $k_b$ is the unique wavenumber corresponding to the time $\tau_{\rm b}$ at which the
fluctuation emerged into the semi-classical universe across the Planck scale $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$
(see Eqns.~\ref{eqn:kb} and \ref{eqn:Bess}).}
\end{figure}
Several of the characteristics we see in the numen field were anticipated by the model
proposed by Hollands and Wald \cite{Hollands:2002}, though their basic concept and scales
were quite different. The essence underlying the numen field's behavior is its inferred potential
given in Equation~(\ref{eqn:numenpot}). As in our case, Hollands and Wald also started by
considering the dynamics of a scalar field in a background cosmological setting, though the
equation-of-state in their cosmic fluid was inconsistent with the zero active mass
condition. Nevertheless, in both their and our cases we require that the fluctuations were
born in their ground state at a fixed length scale. The work described in this paper
is strongly informed by the recent {\it Planck} data release and its subsequent analysis,
which were not available at the time Hollands and Wald proposed their model. As we have
seen, the latest measurements strongly suggest that the cutoff in the observed primordial
spectrum is associated with the very first quantum fluctuation that exited the Planck
domain at about the Planck time. There is no room, in this proposal, for the basic length
scale at which the numen fluctuations were born to be anything but the Planck wavelength.
But though the proposal by Hollands and Wald lacked the rigor imposed by the latest
{\it Planck} observations, already Perez et al. \cite{Perez:2006} noted a very important
trait of quantum fluctuations born in this fashion. They pointed out that such a model
clearly demonstrates the need for some process to be responsible for their birth,
playing a role analogous to that of quantum mechanical {\it measurement}. The birth of
the mode, they argued, is effectively the step in which quantum mechanical uncertainty
is removed. This is precisely the situation we describe in Equation~(\ref{eqn:uknumen2}),
whereby each quantum fluctuation emerging into the semi-classical universe is
characterized by a unique wavenumber, constrained by the time at which the fluctuation
was created.
Perez et al. \cite{Perez:2006} also wondered what process could be associated
with the particular time of such an occurrence. With the insights we have gained from the
{\it Planck} data, we can now suggest that the length scale at which the numen modes
were born is not at all random. It carries significant physical meaning. As we have seen,
the Planck length is the scale at which the Compton wavelength equals the Schwarzschild
radius, meaning that below this scale is the realm of quantum gravity. If the picture
we are describing in this paper is correct, the birth of numen quantum fluctuations was
associated with the release of these modes into the semi-classical universe, where
gravity is adequately described by (the classical theory of) general relativity. Moreover,
as far as we know, the Planck scale never changes. Thus, as quantum fluctuations
stochastically exited in time, their wavenumber had to reflect their time of `birth'
and it is this correlation that built the near scale-free power spectrum seen in the
cosmic microwave background \cite{Planck:2018,Melia:2019a}.
The manner in which numen fluctuations were born thus already removes a major
hurdle in the classicalization process. Rather than having to deal with quantum mechanical
interference between many degrees of freedom, here we have distinct quantum fluctuations
possessing unique wavenumbers. Two issues remain, however, one having to do with how these
modes acquired classical correlations in phase space and the mechanism that converted a
homogeneous, isotropic universe into an inhomogeneous one. We shall consider the latter
next, and then revisit the Wigner function (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:Wigner}) to resolve the former.
\subsection{Anisotropies}
A missing ingredient from much of the past discussion concerning classicalization in the early
universe has been the process by which a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic state transformed
into an inhomogeneous and anisotropic state described by the density fluctuations. A chief
reason for this handicap has been the absence of an obvious `external' source of asymmetry.
Broadly speaking, such a transition can be effected as part of an `R' process, e.g.,
measurement or collapse, but not a U process, i.e., a unitary evolution via a Schr\"odinger
type of equation. It has been recognized that without a measurement-like process, the
required transition could not have happened. In hindsight, the problem has actually been
a lack of appreciation for the importance of the gravitational (or `apparent') horizon
$R_{\rm h}(\tau)=c/H(\tau)$ \cite{Melia:2018c}.
Yes, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, but only when described using
the `community' coordinates of myriads of observers dispersed throughout the cosmos
\cite{Weinberg:1972}. But from the perspective of a single observer at a fixed spacetime
point, the universe does not appear to be homogeneous. His/her description of the physical
state of the system, using their coordinates centered at their location, must take into account
the effects of spacetime curvature. Take $R_{\rm h}$, as a prime example. The gravitational
radius is an apparent horizon that separates null geodesics approaching the observer from
those that are receding. One could not argue that such a divided congruence of null geodesics
is consistent with homogeneity. But let us affirm that there is no conflict between these
two descriptions, because the universe is indeed homogeneous when viewed relative to the
comoving frame.
Given the thesis developed in this paper, it should be clear why the role of $R_{\rm h}$
is central to the manner in which numen quantum fluctuations were born and how they classicalized.
It is this gravitational horizon that delimited the size of the fluctuations, which
were isotropic, but nevertheless initially restricted in size to the Planck scale. Remember
that $\lambda_{\rm Pl}$ actually equals $R_{\rm h}$ at the time, $t_{\rm b}$, when mode
$k$ emerged into the semi-classical universe.
Crucially, an apparent horizon in the cosmological context is not an event horizon
\cite{Melia:2018c}. It may turn into one in our asymptotic future, but has not been static
up until today. It has been growing, and causally-connected regions of spacetime continue to
change as $R_{\rm h}$ expands. The `measurement-like' process that created the numen fluctuations
at the Planck scale therefore also introduced an inhomogeneity relative to the observer who
appeared later, at time $t>t_{\rm b}$, outside the region bounded by $R_{\rm h}(t_{\rm b})$.
In the numen context, the largest CMB fluctuation we see today corresponds to $R_{\rm h}$
at decoupling. Since $\lambda_{\rm max}$ (corresponding to $k_{\rm min}$) grew at the same
rate as $R_{\rm h}$, this happens to be the largest-size mode created right after the Big
Bang, at the Planck time $t_{\rm Pl}$. This region has been exposed to us by the expanding
universe, so that we can now see the impact of that first quantum fluctuation on the CMB.
The seeding of numen fluctuations at the Planck scale not only created pure, single $k$-mode
fluctuations, but also explains why these quantum fluctuations have always been finite in
size, and why the universe we see is therefore a patchwork of inhomogeneities. At least
in this context, the breakdown of spherical symmetry was not due to some unknown process
in quantum mechanics itself. It was the result of an inherent property of the FLRW
spacetime when we take into account the physical characteristics of the gravitational
(or, apparent) horizon.
\subsection{Classical Phase Space Correlations}
A distinguishing feature of quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field is that their
frequency changed with time in response to the spacetime curvature they encountered as
they grew into the expanding universe. This led to the very strong time dependence
in $\Omega_{\bf k}$ (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:Omega}) which, according to the Wigner
function (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:squeeze}), then produced a highly squeezed state. For the
various reasons outlined in \S~2.2, however, it is not clear that this restructuring
of the dispersions about $u_{\bf k}$ and $\pi_{\bf k}$ is consistent with emerging
classical correlations in phase space.
The situation with numen quantum fluctuations was completely different, principally because
their frequency $\alpha_{\rm k}$ (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:freqnumen}) was constant in time. As we alluded
to earlier, this property results from the zero active mass equation-of-state ($\rho_\phi+
3p_\phi=0$), which produced a constant expansion rate with $a(t)\propto t$. The numen modes
therefore mimicked a classical harmonic oscillator.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.05\linewidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Schematic diagram showing the Wigner function of the coherent numen state
(see Eqn.~\ref{eqn:final}). The state begins at the right, where $\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau=\pi/4$,
and moves clockwise about $(0,0)$. The second peak is plotted at $\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau=3\pi/4$,
and the third at $\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau=5\pi/4$. In generating these plots, the following
values were chosen for the constants in Equation~(\ref{eqn:final}): $\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}=3$,
and $\mu=3$.}
\end{figure}
Such a coherent state is considered to be the most classical of all states because their Wigner
function peaks over tiny regions in phase space, and retains this configuration for all times.
Given a value of $u_{\bf k}$ for such a state, one may then obtain the corresponding canonical
momentum $\pi_{\bf k}$ very close to the value calculated using classical dynamics. The Wigner
function thus follows a classical trajectory, with minimal outward spread in all phase-space
directions.
To see this quantitatively, let us examine the Wigner function for a numen fluctuation,
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}})\equiv
\int {dy\over \pi}\,\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}^*(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}+y)e^{2i\,\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}y}
\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}-y)\;,
\end{equation}
which is reminiscent of the quantum harmonic oscillator. Its derivation is very well known,
so we won't dwell on the details (see, e.g., ref.~\cite{Case:2008}). With the
ground-state solution to the Schr\"odinger Equation~(\ref{eqn:Schro}),
\begin{equation}
\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}[u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)]=\left({\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\over\pi}\right)^{1/4}
e^{-\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}{u^2_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}/2}\;,
\label{eqn:psiground}
\end{equation}
we may easily evaluate the integral and find that
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}})=
{1\over\pi}e^{-\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}{u^2_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}-{\pi^2_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}/
\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}\;.
\end{equation}
To see how ${\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}$ varies in time, let us briefly return
to Equations~(\ref{eqn:numenmode}) and (\ref{eqn:numennorm}), and solve for the time evolution
of $u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)$ and $\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)$ in terms of their values at
$\tau=0$: $u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(0)$ and $\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(0)$. We find that
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(0)&=& u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)\cos(\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau)-
{\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\over\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}\sin(\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau) \nonumber\\
\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(0)&=& \pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)\cos(\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau)+
\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\sin(\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau)\;.\quad
\label{eqn:array}
\end{eqnarray}
Now take the Wigner function at time $\tau=0$ to represent the lowest energy state
for the field amplitude $u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(0)$ shifted by a constant $\mu$. That is,
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},0)=
{1\over\pi}e^{-\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}-\mu)^2-\pi^2_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}/
\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}\;.
\end{equation}
\null\vskip 0in\noindent
With the use of Equation~(\ref{eqn:array}), this becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\tau)&=&
{1\over\pi}e^{-\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}[u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)-
\mu\cos(\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau)]^2}\times\nonumber \\
&\null&\hskip-0.5in e^{-[\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}(\tau)+\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\mu
\sin(\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}\tau)]^2/\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}}\;.\quad
\label{eqn:final}
\end{eqnarray}
The Wigner function thus oscillates back and forth with an amplitude $\mu$ and angular
frequency $\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}$---a coherent state with a very small dispersion
relative to the classicalized trajectory in the $(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}})$
plane (see fig.~2).
This result has a rather simple interpretation. The fact that numen fluctuations were born
into the semi-classical universe in their ground state, with a time-independent frequency
$\alpha_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}}$, means that they functioned exactly like the coherent states of
a conventional quantum harmonic oscillator. They therefore acquired classical correlations
in the $(u_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}},\pi_{{\rm k}_{\rm b}})$ phase space from the very beginning.
\section{Conclusions}
The {\it Planck} data suggest that the primordial power spectrum has a cutoff, $k_{\rm min}$,
probably associated with the first quantum fluctuation to emerge out of the Planck domain
into the semi-classical universe. Moreover, this birth must have occurred at about the Planck
time---the earliest moment permitted by our current theories following the Big Bang. It is
easy to appreciate the physical significance of such an interpretation, because our current
(classical) theory of gravity is valid only down to the Planck scale, not beyond. It is
therefore tempting to view the manner in which these (numen) quantum fluctuations were born
as a physical consequence of the transition from quantum gravity to general relativity.
Insofar as the question of classicalization is concerned, this picture effectively removes
the hurdles faced by inflation. Leaving aside the related issue that the existence of
$k_{\rm min}$ challenges the viability of slow-roll inflation to simultaneously explain
the fluctuation spectrum and mitigate the horizon problem, which has been dealt with elsewhere
\cite{LiuMelia:2020}, one cannot ignore the challenge of explaining how fluctuations
in the inflaton field successfully transitioned from the quantum to classical domains.
With the interpretation we have examined in this paper, two factors stand out clearly
as the most influential. These are (i) the birth of quantum fluctuations with a fixed
length scale at the Planck time constitutes a `process' that effectively replaces the need
for a `measurement' in quantum mechanics; and (ii) the implied scalar field potential
has an equation-of-state consistent with the zero active mass condition in general
relativity. The spacetime associated with the expansion profile in this cosmology
would have allowed the fluctuations to emerge in their ground state, with a time-independent
frequency, $\alpha_{\rm k}$. This makes all the difference because the numen quantum
fluctuations were therefore essentially quantum harmonic oscillators, with classical
correlations of their canonical variables from the very beginning.
Should the proposal we have made in this paper turn out to be correct, an obvious question
concerns the need for inflation in cosmology. For a paradigm that has been with us for over
four decades, it is somewhat troubling that no complete theory yet exists. Some of the
complications appear to be that the data tend to shy away from its predictions as the
measurement precision continues to improve, rather than confirm the basic inflationary
premise with increasing confidence. The large-scale anomalies in the CMB anisotropies are
a good illustration of this point. Today, after three major satellite missions have
completed their work studying the CMB, one would reasonably have expected all of the
nuances associated with the primordial power spectrum ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ to have
fallen into place. But they don't, and it is difficult to discount the observational
constraint that a zero $k_{\rm min}$ is now ruled out by the data at a relatively high
level of confidence \cite{MeliaLopez:2018,Melia:2020a}.
On the flip side, inflation may not even be necessary to solve the horizon problem,
which actually does not exist in cosmologies that avoided an early phase of deceleration
\cite{Melia:2013,Melia:2018d}. In that case, the fact that this paradigm struggles
explaining the angular correlation function in the CMB, and that its quantum fluctuations
have no obvious path to classicalization, may be indicators that it simply never happened.
The many observational tests already completed to examine this question would not reject
such a view (see, e.g., Table~2 in ref.~\cite{Melia:2018a}).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I am grateful to the anonymous referee for an exceptional review of this
manuscript and for suggesting several improvements to its presentation.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In observational cosmology, Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) --- titanic explosions of white dwarfs in multistar systems \citep[e.g.,][]{Hoyle1960,Colgate1969,Nomoto1984} --- are highly prized for their standardiseability via the so-called ``width-luminosity relationship''\footnote{Here, ``width'' is with regard to an optical light curve, thus capturing the characteristic luminosity evolution timescale.} \citep[WLR; e.g.,][]{Phillips1993,Riess1996,mlcs2k2,SALT2,SNooPy}, which imbues them with the property of being precise extragalactic distance indicators. Exploiting this property with statistical samples of SNe~Ia has borne considerable fruit, including the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe \citep{Riess1998,Perlmutter1999}, as well as the identification of a tension between local and distant measurements of the Hubble constant \citep[as reviewed by][]{RiessReview}. More recently, SNe~II --- colossal explosions of massive, evolved, hydrogen-envelope-bearing stars via core collapse \citep[see, e.g.,][for a review]{SmarttCC} --- have been used for such purposes \citep[e.g.,][]{SCM-TdJ,H0-TDJ} owing to their standardiseability via the standard candle method \citep[SCM;][]{hamuy02}.
In both sets of aforementioned cosmological analyses, recession velocities (i.e., redshifts) are compared to luminosity distances (i.e., distance moduli) to constrain the relevant cosmological parameters \citep[see, e.g.,][and references therein]{JhaReview}. There exists, however, a distinct set of cosmologically important parameters that can be probed not by the relationship between the aforementioned observables, but instead by the residuals that remain between them after removing a fiducial cosmological model \citep[e.g.,][]{Peebles,Huterer_cosmo,ScolnicWP}. Discounting unmodeled diversity in the underlying populations of SNe~Ia and SNe~II (which is still considerable in the latter), a significant contributor to these residuals comes from peculiar velocities --- i.e., deviations from the Hubble flow that are gravitationally induced by inhomogeneities. In turn, this makes SNe~Ia (and now, for the first time thanks to the SCM, SNe~II) an excellent probe of peculiar velocities \citep[e.g.,][]{MillerPV,Riess1997,WeyantPV,CF3}, as well as quantities derivable from them such as bulk flows in the nearby Universe \citep[which can shed light on the structures driving the flows of galaxies; e.g.,][]{RiessBF,ColinBF,DaiBF,FeindtBF,MathewsBF} and the cosmological parameter combination $f\sigma_8$ \citep[e.g.,][]{A1,HowlettLSSTSNIa,Huterer_SN,A2}.
Though our analysis touches on each of these facets, our primary focus is on $f\sigma_8$, which can be decomposed as the dimensionless growth rate, $f = \frac{d\ln D}{d\ln a}$ \citep[where $D$ is the growth function of linear perturbations and $a$ is the scale factor; see][]{Peebles}, times the matter overdensity root-mean-squared fluctuations in a sphere of radius 8\,$h^{-1}$ Mpc, $\sigma_8$. The link back to peculiar velocities is provided by linear perturbation theory \citep{Peebles} via
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{H_0 f}{4\pi}\int d^3 \mathbf{r}^\prime \delta (\mathbf{r}^\prime)\frac{\mathbf{r}^\prime - \mathbf{r}}{|\mathbf{r}^\prime - \mathbf{r}|^3},
\label{eq:perturbation}
\end{equation}
where $\delta = \rho/\overline{\rho} - 1$ is the overdensity field. Through $f \approx \Omega_m^\gamma$ \citep[where, e.g., $\gamma = 0.55$ for general relativity and a simple function of the dark energy equation of state in general; see][]{Linder07}, a constraint on $f\sigma_8$ can serve as a test of gravity \citep[e.g.,][]{Said_Gal}. As \citet{Linder13} show in their Figure 2, $f\sigma_8$ is most influenced by $\gamma$ at low redshifts. Thus, the use of SNe~II in our analysis (in addition to a large sample of SNe~Ia as described below) yields a tertiary benefit beyond (i) increasing statistical weight via a larger sample, and (ii) laying the foundation for future such analyses, of (iii) lowering the aggregate redshift of our full sample.
Still, as noted, the bulk of our sample is intentionally composed of SNe~Ia: they (with typical distance uncertainties of $\lesssim 10\%$ after standardisation via a WLR) offer more constraining power per unit object than do SNe~II \citep[with distance uncertainties of 10--15\% after applying the SCM;][]{SCM-TdJ} and galaxies \citep[with distance uncertainties of $\sim 25\%$ after applying scaling relationships; e.g.,][]{Said_Gal}. An unfortunate requirement, however, of applying a standard WLR-based standardisation to SN~Ia observations is that the requisite photometry must be sufficiently well sampled to reconstruct the ``width'' of the light curve. Consequently, there exists a significant set of SN~Ia observations that have not been used in cosmological analyses \citep[SNe~Ia are routinely cut for having too few epochs of photometry; e.g.,][]{Betoule2014,Foundation}.
With the advent of \texttt{deepSIP} \citep{deepSIP}, this requirement and the waste it incurs can be mitigated \emph{if} an optical spectrum is available --- by using a sophisticated convolutional neural network trained on a significant fraction of all relevant SN~Ia observations, \texttt{deepSIP} is able to map the spectrum of an SN~Ia to its corresponding light-curve shape with impressive precision. In turn, this has enabled the snapshot distance method \citep[SDM;][]{SDM}, which allows SN~Ia distances to be estimated with as little as one spectrum and two photometric points in different passbands. For the first time ever, we use the SDM to ``resurrect'' a significant sample of SNe~Ia which would otherwise have to be discarded in cosmological studies, and we include this sample in our analysis.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, we describe our accumulation of a sizeable dataset (Sec.~\ref{sec:data}) consisting of SNe~Ia and SNe~II, and then provide a comprehensive description of our analysis methodology (Sec.~\ref{sec:method}). We present our results in Section~\ref{sec:results} and then offer conclusions in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}. Throughout we assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_{m} = 0.3$ and $h = \mathrm{H}_0/(100\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}})$, where H$_0$ is the local Hubble constant.
\section{Data}
\label{sec:data}
\subsection{Type Ia Supernovae}
\subsubsection{Amended Second Amendment SN~Ia Compilation}
As a starting point we turn to the --- until now --- largest ever peculiar-velocity catalogue derived from nearby SNe~Ia: the Second Amendment (A2) compilation of 465 SN~Ia distances \citep{A2}. A2 draws SNe~Ia from the third Carnegie Supernova Program (CSP) data release \citep{CSP3}, the Lick Observatory Supernova Search (LOSS) cosmology sample \citep{G12}, the first Foundation Supernova Survey data release \citep{Foundation}, and the First Amendment (A1) compilation \citep{A1}, which is itself an aggregation of SNe~Ia from the first CSP data release \citep{CSP1a} and the ``Constitution'' set \citep{Hicken2009}, atop which the ``Amendments'' are made.
Though nicely organised and homogenised in many regards, the A2 compilation remains fundamentally heterogeneous. For example, the A1 and CSP DR3 subcatalogs consist of distance moduli (derived using \emph{different} light-curve fitters), while the Foundation and LOSS subcatalogs provide only SALT2 \citep{SALT2} light-curve parameters\footnote{The parameters derived from fitting the SALT2 model to a multipassband temporal series of SN~Ia fluxes (i.e., a multiband light curve) are $m_B$, the observed $B$-band magnitude at maximum light; $x_1$, the light-curve stretch parameter; and $c$, the colour parameter.}, from which distances are derived using the \citet{Tripp} formula,
\begin{equation}
\mu = m_B - M + \alpha x_1 - \beta_\textrm{SN} c,
\label{eq:tripp}
\end{equation}
where we have added the ``SN'' subscript to $\beta$ to avoid any confusion with $\beta = f/b$ used elsewhere in our analysis. Our analysis method (see Sec.~\ref{sec:method}) is therefore carefully formulated to account for these and other differences between subcatalogs, ensuring (among other things) a consistent relative distance scale and proper weighting.
For the analysis described herein we use an \emph{amended} version of A2 (hereafter A2.1), derived by removing\footnote{In cases of duplicated SNe~Ia, we choose which set of data to keep by using the following order of preference (highest first): CSP DR3, CSP DR1 (in A1), LOSS, Constitution (in A1).} all duplicates of individual SNe~Ia from A2. Though scientifically important in the sense that it prevents any particular peculiar-velocity signal from having an artificially high weight in our fit, this removes just 13/465 distances. As a result, prior and future analyses that use the full A2 set (instead of the 452 in A2.1) should only suffer from a minimal (perhaps imperceptible) bias due to duplication.
\subsubsection{Lick Observatory Supernova Search Sample}
In the time since the publication of the first LOSS data release \citep{Ganeshalingam2010} --- the source for many of the low-redshift objects used in the LOSS cosmology sample --- the LOSS team has continued to perform multiband photometric and spectroscopic follow-up observations of newly discovered SNe~Ia \citep{S19,S20,deepSIP}. We draw from these new data to construct LOSS2.0: a set of 45 distinct (from A2.1) SNe~Ia that pass minimal cuts for utility and reliability. In contrast to the SALT2 parameters of LOSS1.0 (from A2.1), LOSS2.0 is a catalog of distance moduli taken directly from the \texttt{SNooPy} \citep{SNooPy} fits that were published in accompaniment to the light curves from which they were derived, and then uniformly shifted to be consistent with our fiducial distance scale. The corresponding redshifts are all firmly established from SN host galaxies and in the CMB frame, except that those objects known to be within a group of galaxies have their redshifts updated to that of their host group. This is consistent with the preparation of A2 \citep[and hence A2.1;][]{A2}, and helps to mitigate the noise induced by the velocity dispersion between member galaxies.
\subsubsection{Snapshot Distances Sample}
\label{sssec:sdm}
The amalgamation described above (A2.1 $+$ LOSS2.0) is, perhaps, the largest ever compilation of low-redshift SN~Ia distances ever assembled, utilising the collective observations of many campaigns over the last $30+$ years. With conventional methods (i.e., applying a WLR to well-sampled SN~Ia light curves), one would find that this set already accounts for the majority of data that are publicly available. However, this set \emph{can} be further expanded by employing the SDM, which removes the requirement that light curves be well sampled in exchange for providing an optical spectrum. We therefore devote this section to describing the accumulation of a significant sample of SDM-derived distances for sparsely observed SNe~Ia.
To do so, we turn to the Open Supernova Catalog\footnote{\url{https://sne.space}} \citep[OSC;][]{openSNe} which, as of the date of our original query, contained a total of 64,715 transients with 14,140 classified as some form of SN~Ia. From this subset, we impose three additional cuts to derive our initial candidate pool for the SDM: (i) we keep only those 6359 that have redshift $z < 0.07$ as required by our analysis method (see Sec.~\ref{sec:method}), (ii) of these, we keep those 3951 that have at least one spectrum, and (iii) we keep those 2900 objects that, in addition to the above, have at least two epochs of photometry. We emphasise that these cuts yield only an \emph{initial} sample of candidates that satisfy the most basic prerequisites of our analysis.
Following a sequence of judiciously chosen cuts to ensure quality, consistency, and compatibility (see Appendix~\ref{app:sdm} and Figure~\ref{fig:cuts}), we perform the SDM and as a check, a na\"ive fit to the light curves using no \texttt{deepSIP}-derived information. The top-line results are consistent with our high expectations for the power of the SDM: out of the 223 objects considered, the SDM succeeds in deriving a distance in 197 cases while the standard fit succeeds in only 175 (owing mostly to data sparsity). Moreover, we find a high degree of consistency between SDM distances and their conventionally derived counterparts when both methods are successful --- a Kolmorgorov-Smirnoff test produces a $p$-value of 0.993, and the distances have a median residual of just 0.001\,mag.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figures/cuts.pdf}
\caption{Full accounting of the cuts that take the initial sample of Open-Supernova-Catalog-obtained SN~Ia candidates for snapshot distances to the final sample of robust, high-confidence distances. The colour map shows the size of each cut (per column) as a percentage of the number initially retrieved. Numbers marked with an asterisk (*) are omitted from the calculations because they are self-reported by the Open Supernova Catalog. Boxes are used to denote the data level (e.g., SNe, spectra, photometry) to which a given cut is applied. Repeated cuts are intentional and explained in Appendix~\ref{app:sdm}.}
\label{fig:cuts}
\end{figure}
Still, there are several instances where the difference between an individual SDM distance and its corresponding conventional estimate do differ significantly. This is not unexpected, given the highly underconstrained nature of the conventional fits in the presence of sparse data; however, to be cautious, we visually inspect the fits for all SNe whose distance estimates (SDM and conventional) differ by more than the lesser of their corresponding error bars. Of the 34 SNe for which this is the case, we manually assign the distance used in our analysis to be from the SDM in 19 cases, from the conventional fit in one case, and for the remainder, to be selected using our default strategy of using the distance with a smaller uncertainty. All told, this distills our OSC sample into 199 SNe, 150 of which have distances derived using the SDM (the remainder are derived via the conventional method).
After uniformly shifting all distances to our fiducial distance scale, we impose minimal reliability cuts that reduce the sample to 193 objects, and we cut a further 13 objects for having distance moduli that differ by more than 1\,mag from the cosmologically-expected value at their redshifts. In our sample, this preferentially removes fainter-than-expected objects --- an encouraging result in light of the fact that our selection criteria do not include a spectroscopic classification step to explicitly identify and remove contaminating transient events (such as core-collapse SNe) that may be spuriously present. This results in a final sample of 180 distances (137 of which are derived from the SDM).
\subsection{Type II Supernovae}
With the addition of the OSC sample, our low-redshift SN~Ia distance compilation provides \emph{comprehensive} coverage of all publicly available objects that satisfy basic suitability criteria (note that these criteria are now agnostic to how well sampled an individual object's light curve is, thanks to the SDM). Without proprietary datasets, one would be unable to meaningfully increase the sample size at the present time. With this limitation in mind and a persisting desire to grow the sample larger while simultaneously building a foundation for further work, we turn to another class of standardiseable SNe.
In contrast to SNe~Ia (which are standardised via a WLR), SNe~II can be standardised using the SCM \citep{hamuy02,SCM-2017}, which exploits the empirical fact that intrinsically brighter SNe~II have higher expansion velocities (as probed by the H$\beta$ spectral feature velocity, $v{_\mathrm{H\beta}}$) and are bluer in colour ($c$). As such, one can write (similar to Eq.~\ref{eq:tripp})
\begin{equation}
\mu = m - M + \alpha \log_{10}\left(\frac{v_{\mathrm{H}\beta}}{\overline{v}_{\mathrm{H}\beta}}\right) - \beta_\textrm{SN} (c - \overline{c}),
\label{eq:tripp-SNeII}
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the apparent magnitude in a given passband at 43\,d after the explosion and the overbars are used to denote averaged quantities. As in Equation~\ref{eq:tripp}, the absolute magnitude ($M$) and slopes ($\alpha$ and $\beta_\textrm{SN}$) are nuisance parameters to be derived jointly with the scientifically important parameters in our analysis (see Sec.~\ref{sec:method} for more details).
We therefore compile a sample of 98 low-redshift SNe~II --- the first ever to be used in a peculiar-velocity analysis --- from the following surveys: CSP-I \citep[][]{ham06}, LOSS \citep{dejaeger19}, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey-II SN Survey \citep[SDSS-II;][]{SDSSSNe,andrea10}, and the Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program \citep[DES-SN;][]{bernstein12,SCM-TdJ}. More information about our SN~II compilation is provided by \citet{H0-TDJ}. Consistent with the other samples used herein, we use group redshifts for any SNe~II known to be in a group of galaxies.
\subsection{Final Compilation: The Democratic Samples of SNe}
Aggregating over all sources listed above (A2.1 + LOSS2.0 + OSC + SNe~II), we arrive at a catalog of 775 SN-based distances. As it is built atop the ``Constitution'' set and its ``first'' and ``second'' amendments, we dub this catalog the ``Democratic Samples of Supernovae'' (DSS). The DSS represents a $\sim 70\%$ increase over the number of unique objects in A2 (i.e, the number of SNe~Ia in A2.1), which was, until now, the largest such catalog used to study bulk flows in the nearby Universe. Moreover, our sample is the first \emph{ever} to use SNe~II for this purpose. In addition to opening an entirely new avenue with which to study peculiar velocities, our SN~II subcatalog benefits our analysis by lowering the aggregate redshift (as is clearly visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:zhist}) and characteristic depth,
\begin{equation}
d_* = \frac{\sum_i r_i/\sigma_i^2}{\sum_i 1/\sigma_i^2} ,
\end{equation}
of our full sample (e.g., $d_*^\mathrm{A2.1} = 39\,h^{-1}$\,Mpc, $d_*^\mathrm{SNe\,II} = 10\,h^{-1}$\,Mpc, and $d_*^\mathrm{DSS} = 28\,h^{-1}$\,Mpc). As noted in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, our analysis has the most discriminating power between gravitational models at low redshifts.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figures/hubble.pdf}
\caption{Hubble diagram with redshift distribution projected above for our DSS sample, with subcatalogs distinguished by colour. Distance moduli and error bars (which include subcatalog-specific instrinsic scatter) are derived following the prescription of Section~\ref{sec:method}.}
\label{fig:zhist}
\end{figure}
A secondary benefit of including the SN~II subcatalog in our analysis is the added Southern-hemisphere coverage that it yields (see Fig.~\ref{fig:sky}, though our SN~Ia sample also fares much better than prior samples in this regard). With upcoming wide-field surveys, we expect sky coverage to become even better in short order, and especially for studies that use SNe~Ia (both well and sparsely observed) and SNe~II as we do here.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figures/skydistr.pdf}
\caption{Mollweide projection of the on-the-sky distribution of our sample (in equatorial coordinates), with subcatalogs distinguished by colour. Unlike some prior studies, our Southern-hemisphere coverage is substantial.}
\label{fig:sky}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reconstructed Density and Velocity Fields}
\label{ssec:reconstruction}
As will be shortly understood, our analysis methodology requires \emph{observed} peculiar velocities (e.g., our DSS catalog) and knowledge of the overdensity field ($\delta$) which, in light of Equation~\ref{eq:perturbation}, dictates the peculiar-velocity field for a given set of cosmological parameters. There are, however, two problems that prevent the direct application of Equation~\ref{eq:perturbation} in our (and indeed, every) case:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\delta$ is not observable. The density contrast as traced by galaxies ($\delta_g$) is, however, and we assume the two are related by $\delta_g = b\delta$, where $b$ is the linear bias factor.
\item $\delta_g$ cannot be measured for all space. Instead, we assume it is measured only up to some maximum distance, $R_\mathrm{max}$, by (for example) an all-sky redshift survey.
\end{enumerate}
Invoking the above and defining $\beta \equiv f/b$, we modify Equation~\ref{eq:perturbation} to
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{H_0 \beta}{4\pi}\int_0^{R_\mathrm{max}} d^3 \mathbf{r}^\prime \delta_g (\mathbf{r}^\prime)\frac{\mathbf{r}^\prime - \mathbf{r}}{|\mathbf{r}^\prime - \mathbf{r}|^3} + \mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext},
\label{eq:modified_perturbation}
\end{equation}
where the first term is the peculiar-velocity field generated by structure within the volume covered by the redshift survey, and the second term ($\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$) is a coherent, residual bulk flow driven by structure \emph{outside} the covered volume. Together, then, these terms constitute a \emph{reconstructed} peculiar field that can be compared with direct measurements (as we do here) to constrain $\beta$ and $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$. This method has been validated with $N$-body simulations and semi-analytic galaxy formation models; bias in the resulting values of $f \sigma_8$ (as derived from $\beta$) are found to be $\lesssim 5$\% \citep{HollingerHudsonVV}. We note that all uncertainties reported herein are statistical only.
As a matter of implementation, we derive $\delta$ and $\mathbf{v}$ (both as a function of position) by interpolating over the reconstructions\footnote{The reconstructions are available at \url{https://cosmicflows.iap.fr}.} produced by \citet{Carrick} up to $R_\mathrm{max} = 200$\,$h^{-1}$\,Mpc using the 2M++ galaxy redshift catalog \citep{2mpp}. For $\mathbf{v}$, we remove the coherent bulk flow, $\mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext} = (89, -131, 17)$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ in galactic Cartesian coordinates, and normalise over $\beta = 0.43$, included in their published velocity field, because our aim is to refit those quantities here. Hereafter, $\mathbf{v}$ will refer to the peculiar-velocity reconstruction with this modification.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
The fundamental aim of this study is to compare the reconstructed peculiar-velocity field (see Sec.~\ref{ssec:reconstruction}) to the tracers which comprise our DSS catalog, and in doing so, to fit for $\beta$ and $\mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}$. The former allows us to constrain the degenerate cosmological parameter combination $f\sigma_8$ (see Sec.~\ref{sec:results}), while the latter may result from, and thus constrain, properties of large-scale structures that exist beyond the volume of our selected peculiar velocity field reconstruction. We devote the remainder of this section to describing our method for fitting these quantities, which we denote collectively as the \emph{flow model}, as well as a number of subcatalog-specific nuisance parameters that homogenise the objects in our global catalog.
\subsection{The Forward Likelihood Method}
\label{ssec:fwd_lkl}
We use an updated implementation of the \emph{forward likelihood method} \citep{fwd_lkl} used by \citet{A2}. In this method, the flow model ($\beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}$) and (mostly subcatalog-specific) nuisance parameters ($\mathbf{\Theta}$) are coupled to the observable parameters of an SN ($\mathbf{x}_i$) through the conditional probability $\mathcal{P}(\beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta} | \mathbf{x}_i)$, which, given Bayes' theorem, can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta} | \mathbf{x}_i) \propto \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{x}_i | \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) \mathcal{P}( \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) . \label{eq:bayes}
\end{equation}
An advantage of this method is that it mitigates inhomogeneous Malmquist bias, which arises when line-of-sight inhomogeneities are ignored \citep{1995PhR...261..271S} and can cause the inferred value of $\beta$ to be biased high \citep[e.g.,][]{Carrick}. This is accomplished by accounting for inhomogeneities along the line of sight via the radial distribution
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{r}|\mathbf{\Theta}) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{\Theta})}r^2 \exp\left\{-\frac{\left[\mu(r) - \mu(\mathbf{\Theta})\right]^2}{2\sigma^2_\mu(\mathbf{\Theta})}\right\}\left[1 + \delta_g(\mathbf{r})\right],
\label{eq:radial}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{r}$ is a vector whose length ($r$) denotes a comoving distance and whose direction corresponds to a point on the celestial sphere, $\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{\Theta})$ is a nuisance-parameter-dependent normalisation factor, $\delta_g$ is the overdensity in the galaxy field, and $\sigma_\mu$ --- the quadrature-sum of the (fitted, subcatalog-specific) intrinsic scatter and the propagated distance uncertainty --- is explicitly shown as a function of $\mathbf{\Theta}$ for clarity. This is then marginalised over to derive the likelihood
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{x}_i | \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) = \int_0^{R_\mathrm{max}} dr \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{x}_i | \mathbf{r}, \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{r}|\mathbf{\Theta}) ,
\label{eq:marginalization}
\end{equation}
where $R_\mathrm{max}$ corresponds to the extent of our reconstructed density and peculiar velocity fields, and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{x}_i | \mathbf{r}, \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma_v^2}}\exp\left\{-\frac{\left[cz_\mathrm{obs} - cz_\mathrm{pred}(\mathbf{r}, \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}) \right]^2}{2\sigma_v^2}\right\}.
\end{equation}
In our analysis, we treat $\sigma_v$ as a global nuisance parameter (i.e., a component of $\mathbf{\Theta}$) to be fit simultaneously with the other parameters of our model \citep[in contrast to other studies that fix $\sigma_v$ to (for example) 200\,km\,s$^{-1}$ or 150\,km\,s$^{-1}$;][respectively]{fwd_lkl,A2}, take $z_\mathrm{obs}$ as a mandatory component of $\mathbf{x}_i$ (prepared as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:data}), and compute the predicted redshift (shown above with its explicit parameter dependence) according to \citep{DavisRedshiftPV}
\begin{equation}
1 + z_\mathrm{pred} = \left[1 + \tilde{z}(r)\right]\left\{1 + \frac{1}{c}\left[\beta \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}) + \mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}\right]\cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}\right\},
\label{eq:zpred}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{v}$ is the reconstructed peculiar velocity and $\tilde{z}$ is the cosmological redshift, approximated to second order \citep{Peebles} as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{z} = \frac{1}{1 + q_0}\left[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2H_0 r}{c}(1 + q_0)}\right],
\end{equation}
which makes it clear that $\tilde{z}$ is solely a function of the assumed cosmological model and a precise, redshift-independent SN distance (parameterised here by the comoving distance, $r$). For the deceleration parameter, we use $q_0 = \Omega_m/2 - \Omega_\Lambda$ for a flat $\Lambda$CDM Universe.
\subsection{Observable Parameters, Nuisance Parameters, and Priors}
\label{ssec:params}
Thus far, we have maintained a level of abstraction from the data-specific details of our method, but in order to continue our development, we must now delve into them. Namely, we have referred to the observable parameters of a given SN only as $\mathbf{x}_i$ and nuisance parameters (with the exception of $\sigma_v$) as $\mathbf{\Theta}$. Moreover, we have not yet addressed the prior probability term in Equation~\ref{eq:bayes}, $\mathcal{P}( \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta})$. There are three specific cases to describe, but first we delineate those attributes that are generically present, regardless of the case.
As was stated in Section~\ref{ssec:fwd_lkl}, $z_\mathrm{obs}$ is a mandatory component of all $\mathbf{x}_i$. This is also true for object coordinates (right ascension and declination), from which $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ (i.e., the direction of $\mathbf{r}$) is computed. The remaining components of a given $\mathbf{x}_i$ --- which are responsible for providing a redshift-independent distance --- depend on the type of subcatalog to which it belongs. We delve into this, along with nuisance parameters and priors, in the following paragraphs.
\subsubsection{``Simple Distance'' Subcatalogs}
``Simple distance'' subcatalogs are those which directly include distance moduli (e.g., A1, CSP, LOSS2.0, OSC). These distance moduli (and their corresponding error bars) are converted into comoving distances (with propagated error bars), which then become the final components of the vector of observables for a given SN, $\mathbf{x}_i$.
For such catalogs there are two nuisance parameters, $\mathbf{\Theta} = (\eta, \sigma_\mathrm{int})$, that are jointly fit with the flow model. The first, $\eta$\footnote{Our $\eta$ plays the same role as the $\tilde{h}$ used by \citet{A2}.}, rescales the reported distance as $r\to \eta r$, ensuring a globally consistent relative distance scale across multiple subcatalogs. The second, $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$, is the usual (fitted) intrinsic scatter employed in SN analyses to account for unmodeled behaviour that is not captured in the standardisation technique. In our analysis, $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ serves a secondary purpose of controlling the weight of a given subcatalogue in the global fit (because each catalogue has its own fitted $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$).
For $\eta$, we impose a simple, positive-only prior and for $\sigma_\mathrm{int}^2$ we use a log-normal prior with a peak corresponding to $\sigma_\mathrm{int} = 0.15$\,mag. The latter enforces the requirement that $\sigma_{\mathrm{int}}$ be positive while simultaneously being flexible enough to accommodate the range of values expected for both conventionally- and SDM-standardised SNe~Ia.
\subsubsection{SN~Ia Tripp Distance Subcatalogues}
For the remaining SN~Ia subcatalogues in the DSS (e.g., LOSS, Foundation), we add the fitted SALT2 parameters $(m_B, x_1, c)$ and their uncertainties as the final components of the vector of observable quantities for a given SN, $\mathbf{x}_i$. Distance moduli are then derived via Equation~\ref{eq:tripp} with the requisite nuisance parameters being jointly fit with the flow model and drawn from $\mathbf{\Theta} = (M, \alpha, \beta_\mathrm{SN}, \sigma_\mathrm{int})$. Using concepts from differential calculus, we express the propagated distance modulus error (including the intrinsic scatter term) as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\mu^2 = \sigma_{m_B}^2 + (\alpha \sigma_{x_1})^2 + (\beta_\mathrm{SN} \sigma_c)^2 + \sigma_\mathrm{int}^2.
\label{eq:tripp-error}
\end{equation}
Finally, we convert the distance moduli (and their corresponding error bars) into comoving distances (with propagated error bars). From a practical point of view, the peak \emph{absolute} magnitude, $M$, serves a role analogous to $\eta$, in the sense that its value brings the relative distance scale of the subcatalogue for which it is fit into agreement with the global scale used in our analysis.
We place only very simple and nonrestrictive priors on $M, \alpha,$ and $\beta_\mathrm{SN}$, requiring $M < 0$ and $\alpha, \beta_\mathrm{SN} > 0$. For $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ we impose the same log-normal prior as for simple distance subcatalogues.
\subsubsection{SN~II Subcatalogue}
Parallel to our treatment of SN~Ia Tripp Distance Subcatalogues, we add the parameters (and their uncertainties) required by Equation~\ref{eq:tripp-SNeII} (i.e., $m, v_{\mathrm{H}\beta}, c$) for deriving SN~II distance moduli as the final components of the vector of observable quantities for a given object, $\mathbf{x}_i$. Propagating all uncertainties and including the intrinsic scatter term, the distance modulus error can be expressed (in light of Eq.~\ref{eq:tripp-SNeII}) as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\mu^2 = \sigma_{m}^2 + \left(\frac{\alpha \sigma_{v_{\mathrm{H}\beta}}}{\ln(10) v_{\mathrm{H}\beta}}\right)^2 + (\beta_\mathrm{SN} \sigma_c)^2 + \sigma_\mathrm{int}^2.
\label{eq:tripp-SNII-error}
\end{equation}
As a result, the nuisance parameters for our SN~II Tripp Distance Subcatalogue are $\mathbf{\Theta} = (M, \alpha, \beta_\mathrm{SN}, \sigma_\mathrm{int})$, consistent with the previous case. We therefore impose the same priors, except that the peak of the $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ prior is shifted to 0.27\,mag, consistent with the result found by \citet{H0-TDJ}.
\subsection{Implementation}
Given the definitions above and the dataset described in Section~\ref{sec:data}, we are now able to implement our model and derive the best-fitting flow model (and nuisance parameters). Formally, these optimal values are, in light of Equation~\ref{eq:bayes}, the ones that given our entire DSS catalogue, $\{\mathbf{x}\}$, maximise the joint posterior (assuming statistical independence),
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta} | \{\mathbf{x}\}) \propto \mathcal{P}(\beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta})\prod_i \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{x}_i | \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) . \label{eq:likelihood}
\end{equation}
In practice, it is more convenient to work with the logarithm of this which we define up to a multiplicative constant as $\mathcal{L}$, so that (using logarithm algebra)
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \ln \mathcal{P}( \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) + \sum_i \ln\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{x}_i | \beta, \mathbf{V}_\textrm{ext}, \mathbf{\Theta}) .
\label{eq:loglikelihood}
\end{equation}
The flow model and nuisance parameters are thus inferred by sampling \citep[using the \texttt{emcee} package;][]{emcee} assuming uniform priors on $\beta > 0$ and $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$, and a reasonably broad ($\sigma = 15$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) Gaussian prior on $\sigma_v$ centred at $150$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ \citep[the static value used by other studies; e.g.,][]{Carrick,A2}. In this Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation, we find that 256 walkers and 2000 steps (after removing 500 for ``burn in'') yields robust convergences of all parameters. We describe the results in the following section.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:method}, our method of analysis results in best-fit sets of parameters that broadly belong to two categories: (i) subcatalogue-specific nuisance parameters, and (ii) the flow model, which itself bears cosmological significance. Prior to discussing the latter and its implications, we investigate the former as derived from our DSS catalogue, and through this validation exercise, we strengthen the weight of all subsequent conclusions.
\subsection{Nuisance Parameters}
The most straightforward of all the subcatalogue-specific nuisance parameters to compare is the intrinsic scatter term, $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$, because it is present in each set. We perform such a comparison by visualising the posterior distribution for each subcatalogue's $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ term (as derived from our MCMC analysis) in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma}. As expected, we find that our SN~II subcatalogue exhibits the largest scatter at $0.30_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$\,mag (median value with 16th and 84th percentile differences; reported here and throughout), consistent\footnote{Here and henceforth, we consider two measurements to be consistent if the lesser plus its upper uncertainty bound exceeds the greater minus its lower uncertainty bound.} with the corresponding determination made with a superset of the subcatalogue in a different application \citep[$0.27_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$\,mag;][]{H0-TDJ}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/sigma_int.pdf}
\caption{Posterior distributions for each subcatalogue's $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ term. Each is normalised to unit area and as a result, distributions with lower peaks are necessarily broader. The distinct populations are visually apparent: (in order of increasing $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$) those subcatalogues with WLR-determined SN~Ia distances, SDM-derived SN~Ia distances, and SCM-derived SN~II distances. Colour-coded vertical lines are used to denote the median of each posterior.}
\label{fig:sigma}
\end{figure*}
Turning to those SN~Ia subcatalogues with distances derived via conventional WLRs (i.e., all but our SDM subcatalogue), we note that all have $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ posteriors that peak within the vicinity of $\sim 0.1$\,mag, consitent with recent analyses that have used related datasets \citep[e.g.,][]{Foundation,BurnsH0,A2}. Finally, we note that our subcatalogue of SDM-derived SN~Ia distances has a $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ posterior that falls nicely within a SN~Ia -- SN~II continuum, peaking at $0.21_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$\,mag. This represents a further $\sim 0.16$\,mag in (quadrature-added) scatter relative to the conventional WLR OSC catalogue and lies within the range found by \citet{SDM} when validating the SDM.
To compare other nuisance parameters across distinct subcatalogues is less straightforward given the differences in parameters for different subcatalogue types (e.g., $\eta$ for ``Simple Distance'' subcatalogues, and $M, \alpha, \beta_\mathrm{SN}$ for SN~Ia and SN~II Tripp Distance subcatalogues). Still, we find sensible results which we summarise by way of the following comments.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The parameters of our SN~Ia Tripp Distance subcatalogues are all consistent (within the uncertainties) with the corresponding values found by \citet{A2}.
\item Our SN~II Distance subcatalogue's $\alpha$ and $\beta_\mathrm{SN}$ values agree (within the uncertainties, albeit just barely for the former) with those found by \citet{H0-TDJ}, but $M$ does not. However, as Figure 3 from \citet{H0-TDJ} reveals a strong positive correlation between H$_0$ and $M$, a weaker (but clearly present) negative correlation with $\alpha$, and negligible correlation with $\beta_\mathrm{SN}$, our lack of consistency with $M$ is not a concern; rather, it is an expected consequence of our use of a different relative distance scale.
\item Our fitted values of $\eta$ for the three Simple Distance subcatalogues that have distances derived via the same light-curve fitter (i.e., LOSS2.0 and both OSC subcatalogues) are consistent with one another, given their uncertainties.
\end{enumerate}
The only global nuisance parameter in our analysis is $\sigma_v$, for which we find $\sigma_v = 128_{-9}^{+10}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ --- lower than 150\,km\,s$^{-1}$, but not significantly so given the scale of the prior placed on it. Regardless, the flow-model results are not particularly sensitive to the exact value owing to a degree of degeneracy between $\sigma_v$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{int}$ (i.e., increasing the former tends to lead to decreases in the latter).
\subsection{Residual Bulk-Flow Velocity}
Deferring a discussion of $\beta$ until the following section, we turn our focus to $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$, the residual, coherent bulk-flow velocity arising from the gravitational interaction between the objects in our DSS set and large-scale structure existing beyond the volume encompassed by our reconstruction. Our result, that $V_\mathrm{ext} = 195_{-23}^{+22}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ in the direction $(\ell, b) = (292_{-7}^{+7}, -6_{-4}^{+5})$\,deg, is listed in Table~\ref{tab:flow-model} along with the corresponding values for various subsets of our full DSS sample.
\begin{table}
{\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-1.5pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}
\caption[Flow model parameters]{Flow model parameters derived from the DSS and subsets of it.\label{tab:flow-model}}
\begin{tabular}{lrccrr}
\hline
\hline
Sample & $N$ & $f\sigma_{8}^{\textrm{lin}}$ & $V_{\textrm{ext}}$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $l$ (deg) & $b$ (deg) \\
\hline
SNe Ia (WLR) & 540 & $0.393_{-0.024}^{+0.024}$ & $193_{-25}^{+25}$ & $289_{-8}^{+8}$ & $-1_{-6}^{+6}$ \\
SNe Ia (SDM) & 137 & $0.450_{-0.055}^{+0.057}$ & $254_{-63}^{+67}$ & $285_{-19}^{+18}$ & $-2_{-11}^{+11}$ \\
SNe Ia (all) & 677 & $0.400_{-0.023}^{+0.023}$ & $200_{-23}^{+24}$ & $289_{-7}^{+7}$ & $-2_{-5}^{+5}$ \\
SNe II & 98 & $0.388_{-0.063}^{+0.061}$ & $184_{-59}^{+62}$ & $319_{-29}^{+29}$ & $-21_{-17}^{+16}$ \\
\hline
DSS & 775 & $0.390_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$ & $195_{-23}^{+22}$ & $292_{-7}^{+7}$ & $-6_{-4}^{+5}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
Our result is mostly in agreement with \citet{A2}, who find\footnote{In the original journal publication, \citet{A2} quoted a significantly lower $V_\mathrm{ext}$ for the A2 sample, but this was the result of a systematic redshift error. A revision is underway with the journal that reflects the value we report herein.} $V_\mathrm{ext} = 177_{-26}^{+24}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ toward $(\ell, b) = (289_{-8}^{+9}, 9_{-9}^{+9})$\,deg for the A2 compilation and similar (albeit more tightly constrained values) when they jointly fit A2 with a large sample of galaxy-derived peculiar velocities. Discrepancies between our result and theirs may stem from our use of a different dataset (both in the sense of using A2.1 instead of A2, and in the sense of including additional subcatalogues), slightly different priors (that we believe to be more valid for the domain of application), or our incorporation of SALT2-parameter uncertainties in Equations~\ref{eq:tripp-error} and~\ref{eq:tripp-SNII-error}. We note that our result is also consistent with (but again higher in magnitude than) that found by \citet{Carrick}. Our hope is that larger, homeogeneous samples of SNe~Ia and SNe~II may bring further convergence in the coming years.
\subsubsection{Bulk-Flow Velocity}
Distinct from the residual bulk-flow velocity, $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$, discussed herein, many studies measure a ``bulk flow'' from their peculiar-velocity catalogues. The difference between the two is that the former is intended to be due \emph{solely} to structure beyond the 2M++ reconstruction, while the latter (which we refer to as $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{bulk}$ for clarity) makes no such distinction. In order to facilitate a comparison between our work and the aforementioned studies, we derive an analogous bulk-flow measurement by repeating the procedures of Section~\ref{sec:method} except with the constraint that $\beta = 0$ enforced.
In effect, this ``turns off'' the peculiar-velocity reconstruction (as evidenced in Eqs.~\ref{eq:modified_perturbation}~\&~\ref{eq:zpred}), and with it being no longer able to contribute in the comparison to the observed peculiar velocities, all that remains is $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext} \to \mathbf{V}_\mathrm{bulk}$. Following this approach, we find $V_\mathrm{bulk} = 245_{-31}^{+32}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ in the direction $(\ell, b) = (294_{-7}^{+7}, 3_{-5}^{+6})$\,deg.
In comparing to other bulk-flow measurements (see Fig.~\ref{fig:vbulkcompare}), we caution that a variety of methods exist --- each with their own advantages and drawbacks \citep[see, e.g.,][for a discussion of two such methods; ours is of the \emph{maximum-likelihood estimate} variety]{A1}. Moreover (and independent of the method), each peculiar-velocity catalogue will have its own characteristic depth (e.g., ours is $\sim 30\,h^{-1}$\,Mpc), and comparisons should only be made at comparable depths. Keeping these caveats in mind, we are contented to find consistency between our result and those of other SN-based studies, as well is with the $\Lambda$CDM expectation. Though we show only bulk-flow magnitudes in Figure~\ref{fig:vbulkcompare}, we find reasonable directional consistency as well.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figures/vbulkcompare.pdf}
\caption{Our result for the bulk-flow amplitude (left-most point) compared with other SN-based results and the $\Lambda$CDM prediction (shown as the black line with 68\% confidence region). The two comparison values from the A1 compilation are derived via the \emph{minimum-variance} and \emph{maximum-likelihood} methods, respectively \citep[see][for more details]{A1}. Where results are quoted over a redshift shell instead of at a characteristic distance \citep[e.g.,][]{DaiBF,FeindtBF}, we convert the more distant end of the shell to the distance used in our comparison.}
\label{fig:vbulkcompare}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Constraint on $f\sigma_8$}
\label{ssec:fsig8}
Our result, $\beta = 0.418_{-0.020}^{+0.020}$, is best interpreted after transforming according to $f\sigma_8 = (f/b)(b\sigma_8) = \beta \sigma_8^g$. Here $\sigma_8^g = 0.99 \pm 0.04$ is the root-mean-squared fluctuation in the galaxy field as determined by \citet{Carrick}. We perform this operation directly on the $\beta$ posterior samples from our MCMC chains, resulting in $f \sigma_8 = 0.413_{-0.026}^{+0.026}$.
We must, however, note that the value of $\sigma_8$ appearing in this equation is the measured, nonlinear value of the root-mean-square density fluctuation in an 8\,$h^{-1}$ Mpc sphere at $z \approx 0$. As a result, it cannot be directly compared with other measurements in the literature which refer to the linear value of this quantity (hereafter, $\sigma_{8}^{\mathrm{lin}}$) extrapolated to $z = 0$. Thus, we need to linearise our result prior to comparing it with constraints derived at high redshifts. To do so, we adopt the prescription outlined in Equation~3.13 of \citet{jlinearize},
\begin{equation}
\left(\sigma_{8}^{\mathrm{lin}}\right)^2 = \frac{\sqrt{1 + 0.864\sigma_8^2} - 1}{0.432} ,
\label{eq:linearise}
\end{equation}
which requires that we explicitly assume a value of $\Omega_m$ (we use 0.3, as stated in Sec.~\ref{sec:intro}) to break the degeneracy in $f\sigma_8$ to constrain $\sigma_8$ directly. We do this via $f \approx \Omega_m^{0.55}$, which, as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, is valid for $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, resulting in $\sigma_8 = 0.801_{-0.050}^{+0.050}$. After linearising according to Equation~\ref{eq:linearise}, this gives $\sigma_8^\mathrm{lin} = 0.756_{-0.043}^{+0.043}$. Similar results are obtained using the \citet{MeadBriedenTroster2021} nonlinear modifications to the power spectrum (without baryonic feedback) to calculate $\sigma_8$ and $\sigma_8^\mathrm{lin}$. Hence, we find $f\sigma_{8}^{\mathrm{lin}} = 0.390_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$, representing the tightest SN-based constraint on the quantity to date. As with $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$, we summarise our DSS-derived result as well as those derived from subsets of it in Table~\ref{tab:flow-model}.
Our result is consistent with both the A2-only and A2 + galaxy constraints derived by \citet{A2}, albeit closer to the latter. We find this encouraging --- it would seem that our larger sample of SNe (including SDM-treated SNe~Ia and SNe~II) is on the path to converging with comprehensive, large-scale studies utilising thousands of galaxies. Indeed, we find this to be the case after comparing to a vast array of studies that utilise multiple methods (see Fig.~\ref{fig:S8}).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/S8.pdf}
\caption{Our result for $S_8$ (horizontal line) compared with results from the literature derived via multiple means (as delineated at the top of each distinct section). All names and values used in the RSD, Weak Lensing, Cluster Abundance (except DES-Y1 + SPT), and CMB (except ACT DR4 + WMAP) sections are as listed in Table 7 of \citet{A2}, as are Nusser2017, 6dFGRSv + RSD, and 6dFGRSv + SDSS of the Peculiar Velocity section. All others are as discussed herein. References are as follows (in order of first appearance from left to right): \citet[Pike2005;][]{fwd_lkl}, \citet[A1;][]{A1}, \citet[Supercal and/or 6dFGRSv;][]{Huterer_SN}, \citet[A2;][]{A2}, \citet[Nusser2017;][]{Nusser2017}, \citet[6dFGRSv + RSD;][]{AB20}, \citet[6dFGRSv + SDSS;][]{Said_Gal}, \citet[2MRS + CF3;][]{2MRS+CF3}, \citet[eBOSS;][]{eBOSS}, \citet[6dFGS;][]{Beutler2012}, \citet[CFHT;][]{Heymans2013}, \citet[DES-Y1;][]{DES2018}, \citet[HSC;][]{HSC}, \citet[KiDS-1000;][]{Heymans2020}, \citet[WtG;][]{WtG}, \citet[Planck-SZ;][]{Planck-SZ}, \citet[redMaPPer;][]{redMaPPer}, \citet[SPT-SZ;][]{SPT-SZ}, \citet[DES-Y1 + SPT;][]{DESSPT}, \citet[ACT DR4 + WMAP;][]{ACT+WMAP}, and \citet[Planck;][]{Planck}.}
\label{fig:S8}
\end{figure*}
Instead of $f\sigma_8$, however, we use a related quantity for this comparison: $S_8 \equiv \sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.5} \approx f\sigma_8^\mathrm{lin}/(0.3^{0.55})$, where the equivalency denotes the definition and the approximation denotes its mapping from our results. In doing so, we can easily compare our result to those derived through a variety of observations including the cosmic microwave background (CMB), cluster abundances, weak gravitational lensing, redshift-space distortions (RSDs), and of course peculiar velocities (as we have used in this work). In all but the last category (i.e., peculiar velocities) and the cases of DES-Y1 + SPT and ACT DR4 + WMAP \citep[which we take directly from the publications;][respectively]{DESSPT,ACT+WMAP}, we obtain $S_8$ values directly from Table 7 of \citet{A2}, who have already taken the requisite steps to convert and homogenise the values reported by the original studies. This remains true for the peculiar-velocity category as well, excepting the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Pike2005: \citet{fwd_lkl} report $\sigma_8 (\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.6} = 0.86 \pm 0.15$ for their SN~Ia-only sample and $\sigma_8 (\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.6} = 0.91 \pm 0.12$ for their full compilation (including SNe~Ia and galaxies). We convert both to $S_8$ by means of a multiplicative factor of $(\Omega_m/0.3)^{-0.1}$ and the linearisation procedure described above, prior to including them in Figure~\ref{fig:S8}.
\item A1: \citet{A1} derive $f\sigma_8 = 0.424 \pm 0.069$ from their A1 SN~Ia sample. We convert this to $S_8$ identically to our own result after linearisation.
\item Supercal and/or 6dFGRSv: \citet{Huterer_SN} produce three constraints on $f\sigma_8$: $0.370_{-0.053}^{+0.060}$ for the ``Supercal'' sample of SNe~Ia \citep{supercal}, $0.481_{-0.064}^{+0.067}$ for a large set of fundamental-plane distances from the 6dF galaxy survey \citep{6dF}, and $0.428_{-0.045}^{+0.048}$ for both samples combined. Our conversion of each to $S_8$ is identical to our treatment of A1 and our own result.
\item A2: Although \citet{A2} provide $S_8$ for their full compilation (which we refer to in Fig.~\ref{fig:S8} as A2 + 2MTF + SFI++), they do not provide the conversion for just the A2 sample. Thus, we convert the relevant value in order to include it in Figure~\ref{fig:S8}.
\item 2MRS + CF3: By comparing constrained realisations of the peculiar-velocity field from the Two-Micron All-Sky Redshift Survey \citep[2MRS;][]{2MRS-Huchra,2MRS-Macri} with observed peculiar velocities from the Cosmicflows-3 catalogue \citep[CF3;][]{CF3}, \citet{2MRS+CF3} derive $f\sigma_8^\mathrm{lin} = 0.363 \pm 0.070$. We convert this to $S_8$ identically to our own result.
\end{enumerate}
As Figure~\ref{fig:S8} shows, our result is highly consistent with those of other peculiar-velocity-based studies, along with those derived across multiple other methods (except for CMB-based measurements, which we discuss below). Indeed, even the most egregious disagreement \citep[6dFGRSv + SDSS;][]{Said_Gal} amounts to $< 1.9\sigma$ --- comfortably below the threshold for statistical significance --- and only two more out of a total of 25 exceed the $1\sigma$ discrepancy level, though we emphasise that the samples used in the comparison are not all mutually independent. Moreover, our result --- derived with $< 800$ SNe --- is more tightly constrained (based on its statistical-only error bars) than all but two other peculiar-velocity-based constraints, both of which use many thousands of galaxy distances (and in one case, the A2 SN~Ia sample as well). Thus, in the coming era of wide-field, relatively high-cadence surveys, the prospect for SNe (i.e., well-sampled SNe~Ia standardised with a WLR, and now SNe~II as well as sparsely observed SNe~Ia standardised with the SDM) to produce the best low-redshift constraint on $f\sigma_8$ is particularly bright.
\subsubsection{Aside: The $S_8$ Tension}
As an interesting aside, we note that the single most tightly constrained value in our comparison \citep[i.e., \textit{Planck};][]{Planck} is one of the two remaining values at $> 1\sigma$ tension with our result (and the other, ACT DR4 + WMAP, is also CMB-based). Given our result's consistency with those it is compared against, this means that the CMB results are in modest tension with \emph{most} other comparison values. In fact, the second most tightly constrained \citep[i.e., KiDS-1000;][]{Heymans2020} value we consider --- which is in full agreement (i.e., $0.2 \sigma$ difference) with our result --- differs from the \textit{Planck} value at the $\sim 3 \sigma$ level. Moreover, if we pull out the \textit{Planck} result and compare it with the inverse-variance-weighted mean of all other values (including ours), the tension reaches $4.1\sigma$ and remains $\gtrsim 3\sigma$ when we compare it to the same aggregation applied separately to the Peculiar Velocity ($4.5\sigma$), Weak Lensing ($3.3\sigma$), and Cluster Abundance ($2.8 \sigma$) categories.
Though these levels are overestimated in some cases (e.g., there is overlap in the datasets used to derive some of the comparison values, and there is no guarantee that the comparison values we have used are a truly comprehensive sample), we would be remiss not to note the parallels to the current H$_0$ tension \citep[e.g.,][]{RiessReview} --- once again, we have a cosmological parameter whose value as measured with low-redshift data is in significant disagreement with the value inferred from CMB measurements. The difference here is that, discounting the 6dFGRSv + SDSS result (which appears to be an outlier in the Peculiar Velocity category), it is only the \textit{aggregation} of multiple measurements \citep[with the marginal exception of KiDS-1000; see][for more discussion on this ``$S_8$ tension'']{S8tension} that is in tension, and thus we \emph{do not} escalate our findings in this area beyond simply noting them here. As with other parts of our analysis, we are optimistic that larger, homogeneous samples of SNe~Ia and II studied using our methodology will be able to shed more light on this issue.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we painstakingly assemble the largest-ever SN-based peculiar-velocity catalogue: the Democratic Samples of Supernovae, consisting of 775 objects. In addition to its sheer size, the DSS is novel for (i) its ``resurrection'' of otherwise unusable SN~Ia observations (owing to data sparsity) via the snapshot distance method, and (ii) its inclusion of SNe~II, which have not until now been used in such a way. Our SDM-enabled subcatalogue of 137 objects represents the final distillation of a candidate pool that started at $\sim 2,500$ objects; with future improvements to the SDM and the tools that enable it, the efficiency may well increase significantly. On this and both other fronts (SNe~II and conventional SN~Ia distances), significantly larger samples than our DSS should rapidly become feasible with the prevalence of wide-field surveys in the coming years that will discover hundreds of thousands of SNe. Our intent is for the work described herein to become the prototype for future studies that leverage such upcoming datasets.
To draw inferences from our DSS catalogue, we update and utilise a forward-likelihood framework that has been used in related works for the last $\sim 15$\,yr. In this approach, a parameter ($\beta = f/b$) related to $f\sigma_8$ and the magnitude and direction of a coherent, external bulk flow are jointly fit with subcatalogue-specific nuisance parameters that serve to cross-calibrate between distinct subcatalogues. After performing basic validity checks on the fitted nuisance parameter values (all of which are satisfactory), we report top-level results of $f\sigma_{8}^{\mathrm{lin}} = 0.390_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$ and $V_\mathrm{ext} = 195_{-23}^{+22}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ in the direction $(\ell, b) = (292_{-7}^{+7}, -6_{-4}^{+5})$\,deg --- the tightest SN-based constraints (considering statistical error bars only) ever produced on each. Moreover, we find a bulk flow (ignoring any influence from the peculiar-velocity reconstruction) of $V_\mathrm{bulk} = 245_{-31}^{+32}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ toward $(\ell, b) = (294_{-7}^{+7}, 3_{-5}^{+6})$\,deg on a scale of $\sim 30\,h^{-1}$\,Mpc.
By converting $f\sigma_8$ to $S_8$, we demonstrate that our result is consistent with that of many other studies leveraging multiple methodologies. Indeed, none deviate from ours at a level that warrants statistical significance, though we do find the \textit{Planck} value \citep{Planck} --- which differs from our result by $1.7\sigma$ --- to be significantly different from aggregations of our value with other comparisons. Our result for $\mathbf{V}_\mathrm{ext}$ is consistent in direction with prior studies \citep[e.g.,][]{A2}, but falls at the high end of magnitudes in the same studies (though still consistent with the central values). We discuss this briefly, but ultimately conclude that a larger, more homogeneous SN sample will be instrumental in clarifying the matter. Consistent with what is stated above, we believe that such samples will become available in the near future, offering an answer to this question while perhaps opening others. Indeed, the future of SN~Ia and II cosmology, particularly in the era of wide-field surveys, holds much promise.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank our referee, Dragan Huterer, for constructive feedback that meaningfully contributed to the quality of this work. B.E.S. thanks K. D. Zhang for illuminating discussions on Bayesian statistics and Marc J. Staley for providing fellowship funding.
A.V.F. has been generously supported by the TABASGO Foundation, the Christopher R. Redlich Fund, Gary \& Cynthia Bengier (T.d.J. was a Bengier Postdoctoral Fellow at U.C. Berkeley), and the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science (in which he is a Senior Miller Fellow).
This research used the Savio computational cluster resource provided by the Berkeley Research Computing program at U.C. Berkeley (supported by the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor for Research, and Chief Information Officer).
\section*{Data Availability}
The Democratic Samples of Supernovae (DSS), which mostly comprises previously published data (as documented and referenced in Sec.~\ref{sec:data}), will be provided by the authors upon request. Distances derived from the DSS are also available in the Extragalactic Distance Database\footnote{\url{https://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu/}} \citep{EDD}.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Programmable matter is a physical substance consisting of tiny, homogeneous robots (also called \emph{particles}) that is able to dynamically change its physical properties like shape or density.
Such a substance can be deployed, for example, for minimal invasive surgeries through injection into the human body (detecting cancer cells, repairing bones, closing blood vessels, etc.).
Programmable matter has been envisioned for 30 years~\cite{DBLP:journals/ijhsc/ToffoliM93} and is yet still to be realized in practice.
However, theoretical investigation on various models (such as the self-assembly model~\cite{DBLP:conf/stoc/RothemundW00}, the nubot model~\cite{10.1145/2422436.2422476} or the geometric amoebot model~\cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehDGRSS14}) has already been started and is still continuing in the distributed computing community.
Shape formation algorithms are of particular interest.
Algorithms of polylogarithmic complexity are known for the nubot model \cite{10.1145/2422436.2422476}.
However, these assume particles on the molecular scale since it requires the rotation of entire substructures.
Due to the acting forces, this would not be possible on the micro or macro scale.
In contrast, many problems for the geometric amoebot model come with a natural lower bound of $\Omega(D)$, where $D$ is the diameter of the structure formed by the amoebots.
Problems like leader election require information about the entire structure to be collected in at least one particle so that a particle can declare itself to be a unique leader without running into the situation of having multiple particles declaring leadership.
The lower bound then results from the fact that information only travels particle by particle.
The main goal of our research is to formulate a model that is able to break this lower bound while still being reasonable on the micro or even macro scale.
Many of the various models for programmable matter take their inspiration from nature.
For example, the particles of the nubot model resemble molecules, and the locomotion of the particles of the amoebot model are inspired by amoeba.
However, many more fascinating forms of locomotion can be found in nature.
Our model is motivated by the muscular system.
Muscles are composed of muscle fibers, which can be stimulated to perform coordinated contractions.
These contractions (and their counterpart relaxations) allow for fast locomotion.
The stimuli are inflicted by the nervous system.
The nervous system consists of highly connected nerves.
These are able to rapidly transmit primitive signals (the stimuli) over long distances.
Our aim is to come up with a model for programmable matter incorporating both concepts: the muscular system and the nervous system.
Instead of proposing an entirely new model, we build our model on top of the geometric amoebot model.
This model is predestined for our purpose since it already provides contractions (and expansions) on a small scale of single particles.
Inspired by the nervous system described above, in this paper, we introduce reconfigurable circuits to the geometric amoebot model.
Each particle is allowed to create a constant amount of circuits with a subset of the particle structure.
A circuit formed by particles allows for the instantaneous transmission of primitive signals to all of these.
We start our investigation of the new possibilities on forming circuits in a stationary setting, i.e., for the case that the amoebots do not move.
More precisely, we study algorithms for \emph{leader election}, \emph{consensus}, \emph{compass alignment}, \emph{chirality agreement}, and \emph{shape recognition}.
We show that we are able to achieve a significant improvement on previous results with the help of the circuits.
Leader election has turned out as a crucial primitive to break symmetries in various geometric problems, e.g., shape formation (e.g., see \cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehGR16,DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20}) and shape recognition.
Compass alignment and chirality agreement are important prerequisites for the coordinated movements of amoebots.
Therefore, this paper will lay the foundation for \emph{rapid} forms of shape transformation and object coating.
\subsection{Model}
\label{subsec:model}
We introduce an extension of the \emph{geometric amoebot model} from~\cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehDGRSS14}, which we describe in the following.
In this model, a set of $n$ uniform amoebots is placed on the infinite regular triangular grid graph $G_{eqt} = (V, E)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:G_eqt}).
The amoebots are anonymous, randomized finite state machines.
Since we are not dealing with movements in this paper, we assume that each amoebot occupies a single node\footnote{Actually, amoebots are allowed to occupy either a single node or a pair of adjacent nodes. W.l.o.g., we can assume the former for all amoebots. Otherwise, we let the latter simulate 2 individual amoebots.} and each node is occupied by at most one amoebot.
Alternatively to the triangular grid, we can consider a hexagonal tiling such that the centers of the hexagons coincide with the nodes of the grid.
We utilize this perspective to show the interior of the amoebots.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\clip (0.493,1) rectangle (5.050,3.8);
\tikzmath{
\scale = .8;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\c = 8;
for \j in {0,2,...,\c}{
for \i in {0,8}{
\x = \j*\h;
\y = \i*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h;
\y = \i*\t+2*\t;
{
\filldraw[orange]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h;
\y = \i*\t+4*\t;
{
\filldraw[red]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h;
\y = \i*\t+6*\t;
{
\filldraw[purple]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h+\h;
\y = \i*\t+\t;
{
\filldraw[red]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h+\h;
\y = \i*\t+3*\t;
{
\filldraw[purple]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h+\h;
\y = \i*\t+5*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
\x = \j*\h+\h;
\y = \i*\t+7*\t;
{
\filldraw[orange]
(\x-1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y+\t) --
(\x+2/3*\h, \y) --
(\x+1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-1/3*\h, \y-\t) --
(\x-2/3*\h, \y) --
cycle;
};
};
};
for \j in {0,2,...,\c+1}{
for \i in {0,2,...,15}{
{
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+\h, \i*\t+\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
};
for \i in {-16,-14,...,32}{
{
\draw (0*\h, \i*\t) -- (\c*\h+\h, \i*\t+\c*\t+\t);
\draw (0*\h, \i*\t) -- (\c*\h+\h, \i*\t-\c*\t-\t);
};
};
for \i in {0,1,...,\c+1}{
{
\draw (\i*\h, 0*\t) -- (\i*\h, 16*\t);
};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:G_eqt}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\clip (0.493,1) rectangle (5.050,3.8);
\tikzmath{
\scale = .8;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\c = 8;
for \i in {-16,-14,...,32}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, \i*\t) -- (\c*\h+\h, \i*\t+\c*\t+\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, \i*\t) -- (\c*\h+\h, \i*\t-\c*\t-\t);
};
};
for \i in {0,1,...,\c+1}{
{
\draw[dotted] (\i*\h, 0*\t) -- (\i*\h, 16*\t);
};
};
{
\filldraw (2*\h, 6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (3*\h, 5*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (3*\h, 7*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (4*\h, 6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (4*\h, 8*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (5*\h, 5*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (6*\h, 6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (2*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (3*\h, 5*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (5*\h, 5*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (3*\h, 5*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 6*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (3*\h, 7*\t) -- (5*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[thick,->] (2*\h, 6*\t) -- +(+\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (3*\h, 5*\t) -- +(-\h/4,+\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (3*\h, 7*\t) -- +(+\h/4,+\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (4*\h, 6*\t) -- +(0,-\t/2);
\draw[thick,->] (4*\h, 8*\t) -- +(+\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (5*\h, 5*\t) -- +(-\h/4,+\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (6*\h, 6*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:structure}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.25\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = 1;
\pins = 2;
\x = 0;
\y = 0;
\z = 0;
\fr = 235;
\fg = 235;
\fb = 235;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\tx = (\x+\z) * 3*\t;
\ty = (\y+0.5*\x-0.5*\z) * 2*\h;
{
\filldraw[color=black, fill={rgb,255:red,\fr; green,\fg; blue,\fb}, thick]
(\t + \tx,0 + \ty)
--
(3*\t + \tx,0 + \ty)
--
(4*\t + \tx,\h + \ty)
--
(3*\t + \tx,2*\h + \ty)
--
(\t + \tx,2*\h + \ty)
--
(0 + \tx,\h + \ty)
--
cycle;
};
if \pins > 0 then {
for \p in {1,...,\pins}{
integer \pinnr;
\pinnr = \p;
\q = \p / (\pins+1);
\xp = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \t + \tx;
\ypn = (1-\q) * \h + \q * 2*\h + \ty;
\yps = (1-\q) * \h + \q * 0 + \ty;
{
\filldraw (\xp, \yps) circle (0.04);
\node[below left] at (\xp, \yps) {\pinnr};
};
\xp = (1-\q) * \t + \q * 3*\t + \tx;
\ypn = 2*\h + \ty;
\yps = 0 + \ty;
{
\filldraw (\xp, \yps) circle (0.04);
\node[below] at (\xp, \yps - .1) {\pinnr};
};
\xp = (1-\q) * 3*\t + \q * 4*\t + \tx;
\ypn = (1-\q) * 2*\h + \q * \h + \ty;
\yps = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \h + \ty;
{
\filldraw (\xp, \yps) circle (0.04);
\node[below right] at (\xp, \yps) {\pinnr};
};
};
};
if \pins > 0 then {
for \p in {1,...,\pins}{
integer \pinnr;
\pinnr = \p;
\q = (\pins - \p + 1) / (\pins+1);
\xp = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \t + \tx;
\ypn = (1-\q) * \h + \q * 2*\h + \ty;
\yps = (1-\q) * \h + \q * 0 + \ty;
{
\filldraw (\xp, \ypn) circle (0.04);
\node[above left] at (\xp, \ypn) {\pinnr};
};
\xp = (1-\q) * \t + \q * 3*\t + \tx;
\ypn = 2*\h + \ty;
\yps = 0 + \ty;
{
\filldraw (\xp, \ypn) circle (0.04);
\node[above] at (\xp, \ypn + .1) {\pinnr};
};
\xp = (1-\q) * 3*\t + \q * 4*\t + \tx;
\ypn = (1-\q) * 2*\h + \q * \h + \ty;
\yps = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \h + \ty;
{
\filldraw (\xp, \ypn) circle (0.04);
\node[above right] at (\xp, \ypn) {\pinnr};
};
};
};
\q = 2 / (\pins+1);
\pax = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \t + \tx;
\pay = (1-\q) * \h + \q * 0 + \ty;
\q = 2 / (\pins+1);
\pbx = (1-\q) * \t + \q * 3*\t + \tx;
\pby = 2*\h + \ty;
{
\draw (\pax,\pay) -- (\pbx,\pby);
};
\q = 2 / (\pins+1);
\pax = (1-\q) * \t + \q * 3*\t + \tx;
\pay = 2*\h + \ty;
\q = 2 / (\pins+1);
\pbx = (1-\q) * \t + \q * 3*\t + \tx;
\pby = 0 + \ty;
{
\draw (\pax,\pay) -- (\pbx,\pby);
};
\q = 1 / (\pins+1);
\pax = (1-\q) * 3*\t + \q * 4*\t + \tx;
\pay = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \h + \ty;
\q = 1 / (\pins+1);
\pbx = (1-\q) * 0 + \q * \t + \tx;
\pby = (1-\q) * \h + \q * 2*\h + \ty;
{
\draw (\pax,\pay) -- (\pbx,\pby);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:pins}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a) shows a section of $G_{eqt}$ and the corresponding hexagonal tiling.
(b) shows a connected amoebot structure.
The nodes are amoebots.
The solid lines are bonds.
The arrows indicate the compass orientation.
We omit the underlying triangular grid in the remaining figures.
(c) shows the inner perspective of a single amoebot.
The nodes are pins.
The pin configuration is given by the edges between the pins.
Here, the pins are labeled in a counterclockwise fashion.
}
\end{figure}
A bond is formed between amoebots occupying adjacent nodes.
These amoebots are said to be neighbors.
Neighbors are able to exchange (constant sized) messages\footnote{The communication in previous work is mainly done by shared memories. However, this may lead to various write/read conflicts, which have to be resolved. Our model extension provides a nice solution for this problem, which is discussed in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}.}.
We discuss the implementation of these messages in Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}.
Furthermore, an amoebot assigns a locally unique label to each edge incident to its occupied nodes.
Amoebots do neither agree on a common chirality nor on a common compass orientation.
Let the \emph{amoebot structure}~$S \subseteq V$ be the set of nodes occupied by the amoebots (see Figure~\ref{fig:structure}).
It is connected iff~$G_S$ is connected where $G_S = G_{eqt}|_S$ is the graph induced by~$S$.
We expect that the amoebot structure is connected\footnote{Amoebots have the ability to move by expansions and contractions. Since the presented algorithms work entirely stationary, we omit further details and refer to~\cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehDGRSS14}. The amoebots have to maintain a connected structure at all times.}.
Furthermore, the amoebot structure is assumed to progress in synchronized rounds.
Each amoebot executes a \emph{look-compute-act} cycle in each round.
We explain the cycles at the end of this section.
The complexity of an algorithm is measured by the number of synchronized rounds required.
In our model extension, \emph{pins} are added to all incident edges of each amoebot (see Figure~\ref{fig:pins}).
The number of pins is equal for each edge and bounded by a constant.
The pins of neighboring amoebots coincide and are therefore viewed as a single set of pins.
The pins of each edge have a fixed order, i.e., each pin has a predecessor and a successor (except for the first and last pin of each edge).
This order is known to both incident amoebots.
However, each amoebot labels the pins according to its chirality.
As a consequence, neighboring amoebots do not agree on the labeling if they have the same chirality.
For this paper, we assume that each edge contains at least two pins (unless stated otherwise) because this allows us to solve the chirality agreement problem.
Amoebots can connect the pins of their incident edges by wires represented as undirected edges.
We call the set of these edges a \emph{pin configuration}.
We do not restrict the set in any way, e.g., by requiring a matching.
Ultimately, we are only interested in the connectivity of pins.
Thus, it does not matter whether a connected component formed by the pins is cycle-free or not.
More specifically, let $P$ be the set of all pins in the system and let $C$ be the set of all edges between pins.
Then, we define a \emph{circuit} as a connected component of graph $G_C = (P, C)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:circuits}).
An amoebot is part of a circuit iff the circuit contains at least one pin on one of its bonds.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .6*.9;
\pins = 2;
\fr = 235;
\fg = 235;
\fb = 235;
for \i in {2,3,4}{
Amoebot(0,\i,0);
};
for \i in {1,3,4}{
Amoebot(1,\i,0);
};
for \i in {0,1,2,3,4}{
Amoebot(2,\i,0);
};
for \i in {0,1,2,3}{
Amoebot(3,\i,0);
};
for \i in {0,1,2}{
Amoebot(4,\i,0);
};
\fr = 255;
\fg = 255;
\fb = 0;
Amoebot(0,2,0);
Amoebot(1,1,0);
Amoebot(2,0,0);
Amoebot(2,2,0);
Amoebot(3,1,0);
Amoebot(3,2,0);
Amoebot(4,1,0);
\fr = 255;
\fg = 200;
\fb = 0;
Amoebot(2,1,0);
\lr = 255;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(0,2,0,2,1,4,1);
Circuit(0,3,0,1,1,4,1);
Circuit(0,3,0,1,1,3,1);
Circuit(0,4,0,1,1,3,1);
Circuit(1,1,0,5,1,3,1);
Circuit(1,3,0,6,1,2,1);
Circuit(2,1,0,6,1,4,1);
Circuit(2,2,0,1,1,5,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(1,1,0,5,2,3,2);
Circuit(2,1,0,6,2,3,2);
Circuit(3,1,0,6,2,3,2);
Circuit(4,1,0,6,2,5,2);
Circuit(3,2,0,6,2,2,2);
Circuit(2,2,0,3,2,1,2);
Circuit(2,1,0,4,2,1,2);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.25\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .8*.9;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\draw[color=white] (-\t, -2.5*\t) rectangle (4*\h+\t, 9*\t);
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw[color=green] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[color=green] (3*\h, 3*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[color=green] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[color=green] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[color=green] (3*\h, 5*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[color=green] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 3*\t);
\draw[color=green] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.25\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .8*.9;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\draw[color=white] (-\t, -2.5*\t) rectangle (4*\h+\t, 9*\t);
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw[color = red] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[color = red] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[color = red] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[color = red] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[color = red] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (1*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[color = red] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (2*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[color = red] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[color = red] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (1*\h, 1*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a) shows an amoebot structure with two pins per edge.
The green and red edges are two disconnected circuits.
Note that each unconnected pin resembles another circuit.
The yellow and orange amoebots are connected to the green circuit.
Note that the orange particle does not know that its connections belong to the same circuit.
(b) and (c) show a simplified view on the green and red circuit, respectively.
}
\label{fig:circuits}
\end{figure}
Each amoebot can send a primitive signal (a \emph{beep}) through its circuits that is received by all amoebots of the same circuit in the next round.
The amoebots receive a beep if at least one amoebot sends a beep on the circuit
but the amoebots neither know the origin of the signal nor the number of origins.
We have chosen a primitive signal instead of more complex messages to keep our extension as simple as possible.
However, these are enough to send whole messages if there is only one sender (see Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}).
It remains to explain the \emph{look-compute-act} cycles.
In the look phase the amoebot gathers information.
It reads its local memory and it may receive beeps on its circuits.
In the compute phase it performs some calculations and may update its local memory.
In the act phase it may reconfigure the connections of its pins and send a signal through an arbitrary number of its circuits.
The signals are received during the next look phase.
\subsection{Why care about Circuits?}
In order to provide a concrete motivation why our proposed extension of the amoebot model via reconfigurable circuits has some benefits over the standard model, we first present a fast algorithm for the leader election problem (which is an extensively researched problem within the geometric amoebot model~\cite{DBLP:conf/sss/BazziB19, DBLP:conf/algosensors/DaymudeGRSS17, DBLP:conf/dna/DerakhshandehGS15, DBLP:conf/icalp/EmekKLM19, DBLP:conf/algosensors/GastineauAMT18, DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20}) and then describe how using circuits can be helpful in shape transformation, which may potentially lead to faster algorithms for the (extensively researched) shape formation problem~\cite{DBLP:conf/icdcn/DaymudeGHKSR20, DBLP:conf/nanocom/DerakhshandehGR15, DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehGR16, DBLP:conf/dna/DerakhshandehGS15, DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20}.
\subsubsection{Leader Election}
\label{sec:leader}
In this section we give an efficient solution for the leader election problem, where the amoebots have to agree on exactly one single amoebot, which becomes the leader.
The algorithm has already been proposed in a very similar manner for a clique of $n$ nodes in the beeping model (see the related work in Section~\ref{subsec:related_work}) by Gilbert and Newport~\cite{DBLP:conf/wdag/GilbertN15} and elects a leader in $O(\log^2 n)$ rounds w.h.p.\footnote{An event holds with high probability (w.h.p.) if it holds with probability at least $1 - 1/n^c$ where the constant $c$ can be made arbitrarily large.}
However, by carefully adjusting their termination subroutine, making it run in parallel to the election routine and executing it only a constant amount of times, we are able to improve their algorithm such that the leader is now elected after only $\Theta(\log n)$ rounds w.h.p.
Before starting the actual algorithm, the amoebots connect their all of their local pins to a clique (the algorithm only requires one pin per bond, but also works for multiple pins).
By doing so we establish a single circuit that contains all amoebots.
We call this circuit the \emph{global circuit}.
The algorithm only makes use of the global circuit and works in two phases (see Algorithm~\ref{alg:leader_election} in Appendix~\ref{app:leader} for the pseudocode and a detailed analysis).
Let $C_1 \subseteq S$ be the set of potential \emph{candidate} to be the leader.
Initially, $C_1 = S$.
In the first phase, we reduce the number of candidates from $n$ to $O(\log n)$.
The second phase then elects a leader among the remaining $O(\log n)$ candidates, w.h.p.
In the first phase we perform a \emph{tournament} on the candidates.
A single \emph{iteration} of the tournament works as follows.
Each candidate $u \in C_1$ tosses a coin that is either $\mathit{HEADS}$ or $\mathit{TAILS}$ and stores the result in a variable $u.c_1$.
Now consider two subsequent rounds $r_1, r_2$.
In round $r_1$ all candidates $u \in C_1$ with $u.c_1 = \mathit{HEADS}$ send a beep through the global circuit and in $r_2$ all candidates $u \in C_1$ with $u.c_1 = \mathit{TAILS}$ send a signal through the global circuit.
As signals are received in the next round by all particles, each particle is able to check if there is a candidate that beeped in $r_1$ and one that beeped in $r_2$.
If at least one candidate beeped in $r_1$, all candidates that beeped in $r_2$ are out of contention for being the leader (therefore, the set $C_1$ gets updated).
We continue performing iterations of the tournament until we reach an iteration where in either round $r_1$ or in $r_2$ no candidate beeped.
This finishes the first phase of our protocol and takes $\Theta(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
In the second phase we continue the tournament from the first phase on the remaining $O(\log n)$ candidates in $C_1$ until there is only one single candidate left.
Unfortunately, we cannot check efficiently when this is the case because we cannot count the number of particles that have sent a signal in a single round through the global circuit.
Therefore, we aim to continue the tournament from the first phase for another $\Theta(\log n)$ rounds.
As particles cannot count to $\Theta(\log n)$ due to their constant-sized storage, we just perform a second tournament on the set $C_2$, initially set to $S$, in parallel to the tournament on the set $C_1$.
One iteration of the second phase therefore consists of $4$ rounds ($2$ rounds for the tournament on $C_1$ and $2$ rounds for the tournament on $C_2$).
The second tournament terminates once the tournament on $C_2$ has finished.
By repeating the second tournament $\kappa$ times for a constant $\kappa \geq 3$, we can guarantee that w.h.p., only one single node remains as a candidate.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:leader_election}
There exists a protocol using the global circuit that lets the amoebots elect a leader within $\Theta(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Rapid Shape Transformation}
We strongly believe that through the usage of circuits along with additional extensions based on the muscular system, one is able to come up with faster algorithms for the shape transformation problem.
In the shape transformation problem, the amoebots have the task to arrange themselves (via movements) in a specific (2-dimensional) shape, like a parallelogram, a triangle, or any shape imaginable.
For the standard geometric amoebot model, some lower bounds are known for the shape formation problem.
Di Luna et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20} show that any universal shape formation algorithm needs $\Omega(n^2)$ moves and $\Omega(n)$ rounds.
Given that the desired shape is only a collection of triangles, the lower bound on the number of rounds reduces to $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$, as it has been shown by Derakhshandeh et al.~\cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehGR16}.
Both lower bounds can be broken with the help of circuits.
To give an (informal) description of a concrete example, consider the shape formation process depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:shape_formation}, where $n$ amoebots initially form a simple line and aim to transform into a parallelogram of side length $\sqrt n$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .35;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\xo = 0*\h;
\yo = 0.5*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 30*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 30*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0}{
for \i in {0,4,...,28}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,26}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
\xo = 3*\h;
\yo = 0*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 30*\t+\yo) --
(1*\h+\xo, 31*\t+\yo) --
(1*\h+\xo, 1*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0}{
for \i in {0,4,...,28}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,26}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
\xo = 7*\h;
\yo = 0*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 30*\t+\yo) --
(1*\h+\xo, 31*\t+\yo) --
(1*\h+\xo, 1*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0}{
for \i in {0,4,...,28}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,26}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
\xo = 11*\h;
\yo = 8*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 14*\t+\yo) --
(1*\h+\xo, 15*\t+\yo) --
(1*\h+\xo, 1*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0,1}{
for \i in {0,4,...,14}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,12}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
for \j in {0}{
for \i in {0,4,...,14}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,12}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
\xo = 15*\h;
\yo = 7*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 14*\t+\yo) --
(3*\h+\xo, 17*\t+\yo) --
(3*\h+\xo, 3*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0,2}{
for \i in {0,4,...,14}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,12}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
for \j in {1}{
for \i in {0,4,...,14}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,12}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
\xo = 21*\h;
\yo = 7*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 14*\t+\yo) --
(3*\h+\xo, 17*\t+\yo) --
(3*\h+\xo, 3*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0,2}{
for \i in {0,4,...,14}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,12}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
for \j in {1}{
for \i in {0,4,...,14}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,...,12}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
\xo = 27*\h;
\yo = 11*\t;
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h+\xo, 0*\t+\yo) --
(0*\h+\xo, 6*\t+\yo) --
(3*\h+\xo, 9*\t+\yo) --
(3*\h+\xo, 3*\t+\yo) --
cycle;
};
for \j in {0,1,2,3}{
for \i in {0,4}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) circle (0.04);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
for \j in {0,1,2}{
for \i in {0,4}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+0*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+3*\t+\yo);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+2*\t+\yo) -- (1*\h+\j*\h+\xo, \i*\t+\j*\t+1*\t+\yo);
};
};
};
{
\draw (1.5*\h, 15.5*\t) node {$\Rightarrow$};
\draw (5.5*\h, 15.5*\t) node {$\Rightarrow$};
\draw (9.5*\h, 15.5*\t) node {$\Rightarrow$};
\draw (13.5*\h, 15.5*\t) node {$\Rightarrow$};
\draw (19.5*\h, 15.5*\t) node {$\Rightarrow$};
\draw (25.5*\h, 15.5*\t) node {$\Rightarrow$};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Sequence of steps needed in order to transform a line of $n=16$ amoebots into a parallelogram of side length $\sqrt{n} = 4$.
}
\label{fig:shape_formation}
\end{figure}
The amoebots first compute a leader with the help of the global circuit.
The leader is then able to use the global circuit in order to coordinate joint movements.
For example, the leader can instruct all amoebots on the line to expand in a certain direction and perform a rotation\footnote{Note that the rotation primitive can be emulated via expansions and contractions. For more details on these movement primitives, see for example~\cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehDGRSS14}.} as seen in the first two steps in Figure~\ref{fig:shape_formation}.
By performing further joint movement operations (that only need a constant amount of rounds), one is therefore able to cut the line in half and move the lower half on top of the upper half.
Applying this procedure recursively on the lines for $O(\log n)$ iterations results in the desired parallelogram.
Note that in order to realize these synchronous movements, one has to solve additional problems like compass alignment and chirality agreement (otherwise the amoebots would move or rotate in different directions), which we describe later in this paper.
\subsection{Problem Statement and Our Contribution}
\label{subsec:problem}
In this paper we establish the new circuit model for amoebots and highlight its power by considering the following fundamental problems on a stationary connected structure $S$ of amoebots.
An overview over our results is given by Table~\ref{tab:results}.
As mentioned in the previous section, algorithms for these problems are important building blocks on the way to faster shape transformation algorithms.
First, we show that the amoebots can solve the \emph{consensus problem}, i.e., how they can agree on one out of at most $k$ input values, for some constant $k$.
Then, we study the \emph{compass alignment problem}.
Initially, the amoebots may not agree on a common orientation.
Thus, the goal of the problem is to align the compasses of all amoebots globally.
A compass alignment is essential to coordinate synchronized movements.
Our algorithm requires $O(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
The same approach can also be used to solve the \emph{chirality agreement problem}.
Note that compass alignment and chirality agreement are harder problems than consensus, since one is not able to just use a global circuit in order change the compasses/chiralities of all amoebots at once.
Finally, we look into the \emph{shape recognition problem}.
Amoebots are exposed to environmental influences, which may damage their structure.
In order to detect and repair these structural flaws, the amoebot structure has to check whether its shape matches the desired one.
Having access to simple shape recognition algorithms may be beneficial when checking whether a shape transformation algorithm has reached its desired shape.
We propose algorithms for various classes of shapes.
In particular, we present an $O(1)$-round algorithm for parallelograms with linear side ratio, an $O(\log n)$-round algorithm for parallelograms with polynomial side ratio, and an $O(1)$-round algorithm for shapes composed of triangles.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{
An overview over our algorithmic results.
}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabularx}{0.99\textwidth}{lXXlX}
\toprule
\scriptsize Problem & \scriptsize Minimum Required Pins & \scriptsize Common Chirality & \scriptsize Runtime & \scriptsize Section\\
\midrule
\scriptsize Leader election & \scriptsize 1 & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $\Theta(\log n)$ w.h.p. & \scriptsize Section~\ref{sec:leader} \\
\scriptsize Consensus & \scriptsize 1 & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $O(1)$ & \scriptsize Section~\ref{subsec:consensus} \\
\scriptsize Compass alignment & \scriptsize 2 & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize $O(\log n)$ w.h.p.\footnotemark[6] & \scriptsize Section~\ref{subsec:compass} \\
\scriptsize Chirality agreement & \scriptsize 2 & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $O(\log n)$ w.h.p. & \scriptsize Section~\ref{subsec:chirality} \\
\scriptsize Shape recognition & \scriptsize & \scriptsize & \scriptsize & \scriptsize \\
\scriptsize ~~Parallelograms & \scriptsize 1 & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $O(1)$ & \scriptsize Appendix~\ref{app:parallelogram} \\
\scriptsize ~~Parallelograms with linear side ratio & \scriptsize 1 & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $\Theta(\log n)$ w.h.p.\footnotemark[7] & \scriptsize Appendix~\ref{app:parallelogram} \\
\scriptsize ~~Parallelograms with polynomial side ratio & \scriptsize 2 & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $\Theta(\log n)$ w.h.p. & \scriptsize Appendix~\ref{app:parallelogram} \\
\scriptsize ~~Universal shape recognition & \scriptsize 2 & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize $O(1)$\footnotemark[6] & \scriptsize Section~\ref{subsec:recognition} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table}
\footnotetext[6]{
The required number of pins per bond can be reduced to 1.
However, this requires a local leader election (see Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}) in order to be able to apply the message transmission primitive (see Appendix~\ref{app:preliminaries}).
Consequently, the runtime changes to $\Theta(\log n)$, w.h.p.
}
\footnotetext[7]{
The runtime is a result of the necessary execution of the leader election algorithm,
and reduces to $O(1)$ under the assumption that a leader is initially given.
}
\subsection{Related Work}
\label{subsec:related_work}
\paragraph{Standard Amoebot Model}
The leader election problem is an extensively researched problem within the geometric amoebot model.
Table~\ref{tab:leader_election} compares various publications.
To our knowledge there are no publications regarding consensus, compass alignment and shape recognition within the standard amoebot model.
The chirality agreement problem was solved by Di Luna et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20}.
Their algorithm requires $O(n)$ rounds.
Further publications include shape formation~\cite{DBLP:conf/dna/DerakhshandehGS15, DBLP:conf/nanocom/DerakhshandehGR15, DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehGR16, DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20, DBLP:conf/icdcn/DaymudeGHKSR20}, gathering~\cite{DBLP:conf/podc/CannonDRR16}, and object coating~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/DerakhshandehGR17, DBLP:journals/nc/DaymudeDGPRSS18}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{
Related work for leader election (updated from~\cite{DBLP:conf/sss/BazziB19, DBLP:conf/icalp/EmekKLM19}).
$L_{\max}$ denotes the length of the longest boundary.
$L$ denotes the length of the outer boundary.
$r(G)$ denotes the radius of $G$.
$mtree(G)$ denotes the maximum height among all induced subtrees of $G$.
}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabularx}{0.99\textwidth}{llllllllX}
\toprule
\scriptsize Paper & \scriptsize Circuts & \scriptsize Deter- & \scriptsize Holes & \scriptsize Weak & \scriptsize Station- & \scriptsize Common & \scriptsize Multiple & \scriptsize Time \\
& & \scriptsize ministic & & \scriptsize Scheduler & \scriptsize ary & \scriptsize Chirality & \scriptsize Leaders & \\
\midrule
\scriptsize \cite{DBLP:conf/algosensors/DaymudeGRSS17} & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $O(L_{\max})$ expected \\
\scriptsize \cite{DBLP:conf/dna/DerakhshandehGS15} & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $O(L)$ w.h.p. \\
\scriptsize \cite{DBLP:journals/dc/LunaFSVY20} & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize $O(n^2)$ \\
\scriptsize \cite{DBLP:conf/algosensors/GastineauAMT18} & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $r(G) + mtree(G) + 1$ \\
\scriptsize \cite{DBLP:conf/icalp/EmekKLM19} & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $O(Ln^2)$ \\
\scriptsize \cite{DBLP:conf/sss/BazziB19} & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize $O(n^2)$ \\
\scriptsize This & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize Sync & \scriptsize Yes & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize No & \scriptsize $\Theta(\log n)$ w.h.p. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:leader_election}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Hybrid Programmable Matter}
Hybrid programmable matter is a variant of the standard amoebot model \cite{DBLP:series/lncs/DaymudeHRS19}.
It combines active and passive elements.
A set of active agents are placed on passive hexagonal tiles.
The tiles themselves are immobile and do not have any computational power.
The active agents are able to move the tiles by picking them up.
Moreover, the agents are provided with pebbles, which can be used to mark tiles.
Gmyr et al. \cite{DBLP:conf/mfcs/GmyrHKKRS18} have considered the shape recognition problem with a single agent.
In particular, parallelograms with linear, polynomial, and exponential side ratio are detected.
Unfortunately, the runtime of the algorithms was not analyzed within the paper.
However, the runtime has at least a complexity that is linear to the size of the system.
We are able to adopt and accelerate these results in our model.
Two $\Theta(\log n)$-algorithms for parallelograms with linear and polynomial side ratio are obtained.
These are discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:parallelogram}.
Aside from that, shape formation problems have been considered in \cite{DBLP:journals/nc/GmyrHKKRSS20}.
\paragraph{Reconfigurable Network Models}
Reconfigurable circuits have proven their value in various \emph{reconfigurable network models}, e.g., polymorphic-torus networks \cite{DBLP:journals/tc/LiM89, li1991reconfigurable}, meshes with reconfigurable bus \cite{miller1988meshes, li1991reconfigurable} and bus automata \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/MoshellR79, DBLP:journals/tsmc/Rothstein88}.
Further examples can be found in \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Ben-AsherLPS95, li1991reconfigurable}.
We will discuss the generalized model stated in \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Ben-AsherLPS95}.
Usually, a square mesh is utilized as network topology.
A processor with a switch is placed on each node.
For the particular model, the computational power of the processors may vary.
The switches control the connectivity of the incident edges.
The possible connections may be restricted in different variants.
A connected component is called a bus.
Each processor connected to a bus may transmit a message on the bus, which is received by all other processors of the same bus.
Contrary to our model, non-primitive messages are possible.
Depending on the specific model, collisons either are detected or go undetected if more than one processor has transmitted a message on a bus.
In the former case the massages are assumed to be destroyed.
In the latter case, for example, a logical OR may be applied to the messages.
Our model corresponds to the latter.
\paragraph{Beeping Model}
Our circuit model shares some similarities with the \emph{beeping model} \cite{DBLP:conf/wdag/CornejoK10}.
In the beeping model, communication between nodes is limited to the following rules: In a single round, a node may choose to either \emph{beep} or \emph{listen}.
A beeping node sends a beep to all of its neighboring nodes and a node that listens can either decide whether at least one of its neighbors beeped in the same round, or if no neighbor beeped.
On a more technical level, the beeping model differs from our circuit model in a sense that nodes are aware of their neighbors in the circuit model, which allows them to exchange (constant-sized) messages with each other, whereas in the beeping model, a listening node that receives a beep is not aware of the particular neighbor that beeped in that specific round.
Several problems like interval coloring~\cite{DBLP:conf/wdag/CornejoK10}, maximal independent set~\cite{DBLP:journals/dc/AfekABCHK13, DBLP:conf/podc/ScottJ013}, consensus~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/HounkanliMP20}, rendezvous of two agents~\cite{DBLP:journals/ijfcs/ElouasbiP17}, leader election~\cite{DBLP:conf/wdag/DufoulonBB18,DBLP:conf/wdag/GilbertN15} or clock synchronization~\cite{DBLP:journals/jcss/DolevHJKLRSW16, DBLP:conf/spaa/FKS20, DBLP:journals/ipl/GoudaH90, DBLP:conf/wdag/GuerraouiM15} have already been investigated in the beeping model.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
In this section, we discuss simple primitives for local leader election, agreement on the pin labeling, message transmission between neighboring amoebots, and synchronization of instructions.
First, consider the local leader election.
Our goal here is to elect a leader for each pair of neighboring amoebots.
Recall our leader election algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:leader}.
We concurrently perform a tournament on each pair of neighboring amoebots.
The amoebots utilize an \emph{empty pin configuration}, i.e., a pin configuration without any connections.
The coin tosses are sent on all pins simultaneously.
We reduce our leader election algorithm to the second phase due to the small number of candidates.
In order to ensure high probability, we still have to perform the second tournament with all amoebots, which requires a global circuit.
All local leaders are elected after $\Theta(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
Second, consider the agreement on the pin labeling.
Note that initially, neighboring amoebots only agree on the pin labeling iff they do not share a common chirality.
Certainly, the pin labeling problem can be reduced to the local leader election problem above because once a local leader has been determined for each pair of neighboring amoebots, it can dictate the pin labeling of its neighbor by simply sending a beep on its first pin.
Each pair of neighboring amoebots agrees on the pin labeling after $\Theta(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:onepin}
Observe that a common pin labeling is not necessary if the amoebots have to agree on a single pin.
We just connect all pins of each incident edge together and consider them as a single one.
\end{remark}
Third, consider the transmission of messages between neighboring amoebots.
Assume that the amoebots agree on a common chirality.
Otherwise, we perform the chirality agreement algorithm (see Section~\ref{subsec:chirality}).
Let each amoebot use the empty pin configuration.
Each amoebot can utilize its first pin to send messages and its last pin to receive messages.
Note that the first pin of each amoebot is connected to the last pin of its neighbor and vice versa.
It has to be clear to both amoebots when the transmission terminates.
This can be done either by fixing the length of the message or by encoding the end within the message.
The amoebots can use a binary encoding for the messages.
We reserve a subsequent round for each bit.
The sending amoebot beeps in the respective round iff the bit is set to 1.
Thus, the transmission of constant-sized messages between two amoebots takes $O(1)$ rounds.
We consider message transmission for a single pin per bond in Appendix~\ref{app:preliminaries}.
Finally, consider the synchronization of instructions.
Different executions of the same instructions may take different amounts of rounds, e.g., due to the randomization.
Hence, it is not obvious for single amoebots whether it is safe to proceed to its next instruction.
To circumvent this problem, we can synchronize the instructions.
In order to do so, we periodically establish the global circuit (see Section~\ref{sec:leader}).
Any amoebot that has not yet finished its current instructions beeps on the circuit.
It is safe to proceed if no amoebot has beeped.
\section{Algorithmic Results}
\label{sec:results}
In this section, we present our algorithmic results.
The definition and motivation of each problem can be found in Section~\ref{subsec:problem}.
More results are given in Appendix~\ref{app:parallelogram}.
\subsection{Consensus}
\label{subsec:consensus}
There is a trivial solution for the consensus problem.
Since the amoebots have only constant memory, we restrict the number of possible input values for the consensus problem to a constant.
W.l.o.g., let $1,\dots,k$ denote these input values.
The amoebot structure establishes a global circuit (see Section~\ref{sec:leader}), which works with an arbitrary number of pins.
Consider $k$ subsequent rounds.
An amoebot with input value $i$ beeps in the $i$-th round.
Thereupon, all amoebots agree on the value of the first round with a beep.
Hence, we obtain the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
The consensus problem can be solved within $O(1)$ rounds.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Compass Alignment}
\label{subsec:compass}
For the compass alignment problem, we assume that the amoebots share a common chirality.
However, in the next section, we show how to resolve this assumption.
Our protocol divides the amoebot structure into regions of amoebots that share the same compass orientation.
The regions are defined by the connected components of the graph $G_R = (S,A)$ where $A = \{ \{u,v\} \in E \mid u,v \text{ share the same compass orientation} \}$.
Each region $R$ maintains a non-empty set of candidates $C_R$.
Initially, each amoebot is a candidate.
The number of candidates is reduced throughout the algorithm.
Let $\mathcal R$ denote the set of all regions.
We now outline the three phases of a single iteration.
First, each region $R \in \mathcal R$ establishes a regional circuit, which connects all of its amoebots together (see Figures~\ref{fig:regional_circuit1} and~\ref{fig:regional_circuit2}).
This allows for communication within the regions.
The algorithm terminates iff there is only a single regional circuit.
Second, each candidate $u \in C_R$ tosses a coin.
The coin toss of region $R$ is successful iff all coin tosses of its candidates $C_R$ coincide.
Otherwise, the coin toss fails.
Third, each region that has tossed $\mathit{TAILS}$ fuses either with a neighboring region that has tossed $\mathit{HEADS}$ or with a neighboring region that has failed its coin toss.
A region can fuse into another region by adjusting its compass.
Amoebots on the boundary of the region are able to learn about the compass orientations and the coin tosses of neighboring regions.
The amoebots of the region agree on the orientation that requires the least number of clockwise rotations.
Note that further fusions may occur when two neighbor regions adjust their compasses to the same orientation (see Figure~\ref{fig:fusion}).
In the following, we explain the three steps in more detail.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .6*.9;
\pins = 1;%
\fr = 235;
\fg = 235;
\fb = 235;
for \i in {2,3,4}{
Amoebot(0,\i,0);
};
for \i in {1,3,4}{
Amoebot(1,\i,0);
};
for \i in {0,1,2,3,4}{
Amoebot(2,\i,0);
};
for \i in {0,1,2,3}{
Amoebot(3,\i,0);
};
for \i in {0,1,2}{
Amoebot(4,\i,0);
};
\lr = 255;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 0;
%
Circuit(0,2,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(0,2,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(0,2,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(0,2,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(0,2,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(0,2,0,6,1,1,1);
%
Circuit(0,3,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(0,3,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(0,3,0,6,1,1,1);
Circuit(0,3,0,2,1,5,1);
%
Circuit(0,4,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(0,4,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(0,4,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(0,4,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(0,4,0,2,1,6,1);
%
Circuit(1,1,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(1,1,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(1,1,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(1,1,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(1,1,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(1,1,0,6,1,1,1);
%
Circuit(1,3,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(1,3,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(1,3,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(1,3,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(1,3,0,1,1,5,1);
%
Circuit(1,4,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(1,4,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(1,4,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(1,4,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(1,4,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(1,4,0,6,1,1,1);
%
Circuit(2,0,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(2,0,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(2,0,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(2,0,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(2,0,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(2,0,0,6,1,1,1);
%
Circuit(2,1,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(2,1,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(2,1,0,6,1,1,1);
Circuit(2,1,0,2,1,5,1);
%
Circuit(2,2,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(2,2,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(2,2,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(2,2,0,3,1,6,1);
%
Circuit(2,3,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(2,3,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(2,3,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(2,3,0,6,1,1,1);
Circuit(2,3,0,2,1,4,1);
%
Circuit(2,4,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(2,4,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(2,4,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(2,4,0,6,1,1,1);
Circuit(2,4,0,1,1,3,1);
%
Circuit(3,0,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(3,0,0,5,1,6,1);
Circuit(3,0,0,6,1,1,1);
Circuit(3,0,0,2,1,5,1);
%
Circuit(3,1,0,2,1,3,1);
%
Circuit(3,2,0,5,1,6,1);
%
Circuit(3,3,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(3,3,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(3,3,0,2,1,4,1);
%
Circuit(4,0,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(4,0,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(4,0,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(4,0,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(4,0,0,1,1,5,1);
%
Circuit(4,1,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(4,1,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(4,1,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(4,1,0,6,1,1,1);
Circuit(4,1,0,4,1,6,1);
%
Circuit(4,2,0,1,1,2,1);
Circuit(4,2,0,2,1,3,1);
Circuit(4,2,0,3,1,4,1);
Circuit(4,2,0,4,1,5,1);
Circuit(4,2,0,1,1,5,1);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:regional_circuit1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.25\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .8*.9;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\draw[color=white] (-\t, -2.5*\t) rectangle (4*\h+\t, 9*\t);
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw[thick, ->] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (2*\h, 6*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (3*\h, 5*\t) -- +(\h/4,\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (3*\h, 3*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (3*\h, 7*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (4*\h, 4*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (4*\h, 6*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick, ->] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (2*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (2*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (3*\h, 3*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw (3*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (3*\h, 3*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:regional_circuit2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .7*.9;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[white] (0*\h0, -2*\t) circle (0.04);
};
\x = 0;
\y = 2;
{
\filldraw (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
};
\x = 2;
\y = 8;
{
\filldraw (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h+2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- +(-\h/4,-\t/4);
};
\x = 5;
\y = 3;
{
\filldraw (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- +(0,+\t/2);
};
\x = 7;
\y = 9;
{
\filldraw (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t);
\draw (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-0*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t-1*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-1*\h, \y*\t+1*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t-2*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+0*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
\draw[thick,->] (\x*\h-2*\h, \y*\t+2*\t) -- +(\h/4,-\t/4);
};
{
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (3*\h, 3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 8*\t) -- (5*\h, 9*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 10*\t) -- (5*\h, 11*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 5*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 8*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 10*\t) -- (5*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (0.5*\h,4*\t) node {$R_1$};
\draw (4.5*\h,1*\t) node {$R_2$};
\draw (2.5*\h,10*\t) node {$R_3$};
\draw (6.5*\h,7*\t) node {$R_4$};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:fusion}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a) and (b) show an example for regional circuits.
(a) The red edges indicate the regional circuits.
Each regional circuit connects the amoebots of a region together.
(b) shows graph $G_R = (S,A)$.
The solid edges belong to the edge set $A$.
(c) Region $R_1$ and $R_4$ have the same orientation.
Region $R_2$ adjusts its compass to region $R_1$.
Region $R_3$ adjusts its compass to region $R_4$.
All 4 regions fuse together.
}
\end{figure}
First, consider the establishment of the regional circuits.
Each pair of neighboring amoebots $u,v \in S$ has to determine whether they share the same compass orientation, i.e., whether $\{ u, v \} \in A$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:regional_circuit2}).
For that purpose, $u$ sends a message to $v$ containing its orientation with respect to the edge $\{ u,v \}$.
Recall that we assume common chirality.
Thus, $v$ is able to interpret the received message correctly.
We define $\operatorname{offset}(u,v)$ as the minimal number of clockwise rotations (by $60^\circ$) necessary to adjust the compass of $u$ to the compass of $v$.
Note that $\operatorname{offset}(u,v) \in [0, 5]$.
Each amoebot is able to compute the offset to all of its neighbors.
Each amoebot $u \in S$ connects the pins on the bonds to $\operatorname A(u) = \{ v \in \operatorname N(u) \mid \{u,v\} \in A\}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:regional_circuit1}).
It is easy to see that this connects the amoebots of each region.
Note that each amoebot is connected to exactly one regional circuit.
Consider region $R \in \mathcal R$.
Let $B_R = \{ u \in R \mid \operatorname A(u) \neq \operatorname N(u) \}$ denote the boundary amoebots.
Observe that $B_R = \emptyset$ implies that all amoebots in the amoebot structure share a common compass orientation, i.e., $|\mathcal R| = 1$.
We let each amoebot $u \in B_R$ beep on the regional circuit in a predefined round.
The algorithm terminates once a round is reached where the regional circuit has not been activated.
Next, consider the coin tosses of the regions.
We use a similar approach as for the leader election.
Each candidate $u \in C_R$ tosses a coin and stores the result in a variable $u.c$.
Consider two subsequent rounds $r_1, r_2$.
Each candidate $u \in C_R$ sends a beep through its regional circuit in round $r_1$ if $u.c = \mathit{HEADS}$, and in round $r_2$ if $u.c = \mathit{TAILS}$.
Each amoebot $v \in R$ is able to determine if there is a candidate $u \in C_R$ with $u.c = \mathit{HEADS}$ and $u.c = \mathit{TAILS}$, respectively.
It stores the result of the coin toss in a variable $v.c_R$.
If all coin tosses coincide, i.e., if there is only a beep in one of the two rounds, it sets the variable $v.c_R$ to the respective value.
Otherwise, it sets the variable $v.c_R = \mathit{FAILED}$.
Each candidate $u \in C_R$ withdraws its candidacy iff $u.c = \mathit{TAILS}$ and $v.c_R = \mathit{FAILED}$.
Note that there is still a candidate $u \in C_R$ with $u.c = \mathit{HEADS}$.
We let each amoebot $u \in S$ send a message containing $u.c_R$ to all its neighbors.
Finally, consider the fusion of regions.
Suppose that region $R$ has tossed $\mathit{TAILS}$.
The boundary amoebots $B_R$ have obtained information about the neighboring regions in the previous steps.
In particular, they have learned about the offsets and the results of the coin tosses.
Note that the offsets are equal for each amoebot $u \in R$.
We divide the boundary amoebots into 5 subsets according to this information.
Let $\forall i \in [1,5] : B_{R,i} = \{ u \in B_R \mid \exists v \in \operatorname N(u) : \operatorname{offset}(u,v) = i \land v.c_R \neq \mathit{TAILS} \}$.
$B_{R,i} \neq \emptyset$ implies that region $R$ can fuse into another region by rotating its amoebots $i$ times in clockwise direction.
Note that the subsets are not necessarily disjoint.
Consider five subsequent rounds $r_1, \dots, r_5$.
Each boundary amoebot $u \in B_{R,i}$ beeps on the regional circuit in round $r_i$.
Each amoebot $v \in R$ is able to determine if $B_{R,i} \neq \emptyset$ for all $i \in [1,5]$.
It proceeds to the next iteration if $B_{R,i} = \emptyset$ for all $i \in [1,5]$.
Otherwise, it rotates its compass according to the first received beep.
Furthermore, each candidate $c \in C_R$ withdraws each candidacy in this case.
For the purpose of analysis, we add a time stamp to the set of regions.
Let $\mathcal{R}_0$ denote the set of all regions before the execution of our algorithm and let $\mathcal{R}_t$ denote the set of all regions after the $t$-th iteration and $\mathcal{R}_0$ for $t \geq 1$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:alignment1}
For all $t \in \mathbb{N}_0$ each region $R \in \mathcal{R}_t$ contains at least one candidate, i.e., $C_R \neq \emptyset$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The statement can be proven by a simple induction.
The full proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:alignment}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:alignment2}
After $O(\log n)$ many rounds, there is only a single candidate left in total, i.e., $|\bigcup_{R \in \mathcal R} C_R| = 1$, w.h.p.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof (Sketch)]
We only outline the proof here.
The full proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:alignment}.
Let $C_t$ denote the candidates over all regions after the $t$-th iteration. For each candidate $u \in C_t$, we define
\begin{equation*}
Y_u =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } u \in C_{t+1} \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
By case analysis, we can show that $\mathbb{E}[Y_u] \leq \frac{3}{4}$ holds.
Let $X_t = |C_t| - 1$ denote the number of candidates after the $t$-th iteration (minus one).
The value for iteration $t+1$ can be expressed by $X_{t+1} = \sum_{u \in C_t}Y_u - 1$.
We obtain $\mathbb{E}[X_{t+1} \mid X_t] \leq \frac{3}{4} X_t$.
This implies for any constant $c > 1$ that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}[X_{t+c \log n} \mid X_t] \leq \left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{c\log n} X_t \leq \left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{c\log n} n \leq n^{-c'}
\end{equation*}
for some $c' = \Theta(c)$.
For the second inequality we are utilizing the fact that $X_t \leq n$.
By applying the Markov inequality, we obtain $\Pr[X_{t + c \log n} \geq 1] \leq n^{-c'}$.
Note that a single iteration requires $O(1)$ rounds.
Thus, $|\bigcup_{R \in \mathcal R} C_R| = 1$ holds after $O(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:alignment2} implies that there is only one region left containing the only remaining candidate.
Combining Lemmas~\ref{lem:alignment1} and \ref{lem:alignment2}, we obtain the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
There is a protocol that aligns the compasses of all amoebots after $O(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Note that the termination of our protocol does not imply a leader election because the remaining region may still contain several candidates.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Chirality Agreement}
\label{subsec:chirality}
In general, it is impossible for amoebots with only a single pin per bond to arrive at an agreement on the chirality without movements.
Already an amoebot structure consisting of two (adjacent) amoebots is not able to break the symmetry, if they cannot change their shape.
Therefore, we consider amoebots with at least two pins per bond.
We can apply the same approach as for the compass alignment.
The regions are redefined by the connected components of graph $G_R = (S,A)$ where $A = \{ \{u,v\} \in E \mid u,v \text{ agree on the chirality} \}$.
Each amoebot activates its first pin according to its chirality.
Neighboring amoebots beep on two distinct pins iff they share a common chirality.
We obtain the following corollary:
\begin{corollary}
There is a protocol that lets the amoebot structure agree on the chirality after $O(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Universal Shape Recognition}
\label{subsec:recognition}
In order to keep the shapes as generic as possible, we consider shapes composed of triangles.
We adopt the definition for shapes by \cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehGR16}:
A shape $\mathcal S$ is a finite set of faces on the infinite regular triangular grid graph~$G_{eqt}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:shape}).
The number of faces is assumed to be constant.
A shape $\mathcal S$ is connected iff the corresponding nodes in the induced subgraph in the dual graph of $G_{eqt}$ are connected.
Let $T(\mathcal S)$ be a transformation of a shape $\mathcal S$ defined by a translation, a rotation, and an isotropic scaling such that the vertices of the triangles forming $\mathcal S$ coincide with vertices in $G_{eqt}$.
Let $\sigma$ denote the scaling factor of $T(\mathcal S)$.
Let $V(T(\mathcal S))$ be the set of all nodes that lie on a vertex of $T(\mathcal S)$, on a edge of $T(\mathcal S)$ or inside of $T(\mathcal S)$.
We call $V(T(\mathcal S))$ a \emph{representation} of shape $\mathcal S$.
In addition to \cite{DBLP:conf/spaa/DerakhshandehGR16}, $\mathcal S$ is minimal iff $\forall \mathcal S': \exists T, T': V(T(\mathcal S))=V(T'(\mathcal S')) \Rightarrow |\mathcal S|\leq|\mathcal S'|$ (see Figures~\ref{fig:shape3} and~\ref{fig:shape4}).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 10*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(6*\h, 12*\t) --
(6*\h, 4*\t) --
(8*\h, 2*\t) --
(6*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {6,10}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,6,10}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,4,8,12}{
{
\filldraw (6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\filldraw (8*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (0*\h, 10*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 10*\t);
\draw (6*\h, 0*\t) -- (6*\h, 12*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (6*\h, 12*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (6*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (6*\h, 0*\t) -- (8*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 10*\t) -- (6*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 10*\t) -- (8*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (6*\h, 0*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:shape1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 10*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(6*\h, 12*\t) --
(6*\h, 4*\t) --
(8*\h, 2*\t) --
(6*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {6,8,10}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6,8,10}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7,9,11}{
{
\filldraw (5*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8,10,12}{
{
\filldraw (6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3}{
{
\filldraw (7*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\filldraw (8*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (0*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (1*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 3*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 1*\t) -- (5*\h, 11*\t);
\draw (6*\h, 0*\t) -- (6*\h, 12*\t);
\draw[dotted] (7*\h, 1*\t) -- (7*\h, 3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (1*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (6*\h, 12*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (6*\h, 10*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (6*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 3*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 1*\t) -- (7*\h, 3*\t);
\draw (6*\h, 0*\t) -- (8*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 11*\t) -- (6*\h, 10*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 10*\t) -- (6*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 9*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 10*\t) -- (8*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (7*\h, 1*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (6*\h, 0*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:shape2}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(0*\h, 10*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2,6,10}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 10*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 10*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 4*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:shape3}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(0*\h, 10*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2,6,10}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 10*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 10*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 4*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:shape4}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3/7*6;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\j = 0;
\i = 0;
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
\j = 7;
\i = 7;
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:shape5}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
Shapes and their representations.
The triangles of the shapes are depicted in yellow.
The solid edges indicate the edges of the triangles.
The nodes indicate amoebots.
The solid and dotted edges indicate bonds between amoebots.
(a) and (b) show different representations of the same shape for scale $\sigma = 1$ and $\sigma = 2$, respectively.
(c) and (d) show two shapes with identical representations.
By definition, the shape in (d)~is minimal.
(e) does not show a shape since the triangles are neither connected nor do they coincide with $G_{eqt}$.
However, the second phase of our algorithm detects the boundary of both triangles,
and the third phase computes a triangulation with different sized triangles for each face.
}
\label{fig:shape}
\end{figure}
We assume that all amoebots share a common chirality.
Otherwise, we perform the chirality agreement algorithm from Section~\ref{subsec:chirality}.
The basic idea of our universal shape recognition algorithm is to partition the amoebot structure into triangles of the same size, and to compare the resulting triangulation to the shape $\mathcal S$.
The algorithm consists of four phases:
(i)~the identification of representations for $\sigma < 4$,
(ii)~the detection of the boundary,
(iii)~the triangulation of the shape, and
(iv)~the identification of representations for $\sigma \geq 4$.
We first give a short description of each phase.
The details are explained afterwards.
We defer the analysis for the correctness and runtime of our algorithm to Appendix~\ref{app:recognition}.
In the first phase, we directly compare the amoebot structure to the shape.
The representations of the shape with $\sigma < 4$ can be encoded within the finite state machines of the amoebots.
Each amoebot gathers information about the positions of all amoebots up to distance $3 \cdot |\mathcal S| + 1$.
This is enough to decide whether the amoebot structure is a representation of the shape with $\sigma < 4$.
If this is the case, the algorithm terminates with a positive answer.
Otherwise, we proceed to the next phase.
In the second phase, we detect the boundary of the shape.
An edge of the shape is a boundary edge iff exactly 1 of its 2 incident triangles belongs to the shape.
A corner of the shape is a boundary corner iff either 1, 2, 4, or 5 contiguous triangles of its 6 incident triangles belong to the shape.
On any representation of the shape with $\sigma \geq 4$, the phase detects the boundary of the shape.
On any representation of the shape with $\sigma < 4$, the phase would behave arbitrarily.
However, keep in mind that we already have eliminated those in the first phase.
On any other amoebot structure, the phase either fails to detect a boundary or detects a boundary unequal to the shape.
The algorithm terminates immediately with a negative answer if the phase fails to detect a boundary.
The boundaries that are unequal to the shape will finally result in a triangulation unequal to the shape.
In the third phase, we compute the triangles of the shape.
For this purpose, we apply a triangulation algorithm (see Algorithm~\ref{alg:triangulation} for pseudocode).
In order to avoid a linear runtime, we fix the number of iterations of our triangulation algorithm.
This can be done because the runtime of the triangulation algorithm does only depend on the shape and not on its representation.
The overall recognition algorithm terminates with the negative answer if the triangulation algorithm does not terminate on time or terminates prematurely.
In the fourth phase, we compare the resulting triangulation to the shape.
Note that each amoebot knows the shape.
Each triangle corner gathers information about the positions of all triangles up to distance $|\mathcal S| + 1$.
This is enough to decide whether the amoebot structure is a representation of the shape (with $\sigma \geq 4$).
If this is the case, the algorithm terminates with a positive answer.
Otherwise, it terminates with a negative answer.
We now discuss the phases in detail.
First, consider the boundary detection (second phase).
Consider the 2-neigh\-bor\-hoods within a representation of a shape with $\sigma \geq 4$.
We can categorize the occurring 2-neigh\-bor\-hoods into three disjoint classes:
(i)~boundary corners, (ii)~boundary edges, and (iii)~interior.
Figure~\ref{fig:neighborhoods} shows the 2-neigh\-bor\-hoods for the first class.
We refrain from stating the 2-neigh\-bor\-hoods of the remaining classes.
Note that each amoebot knows its 2-neigh\-bor\-hood from the first phase such that it is able to categorize itself.
The phase fails to detect a boundary if any amoebot cannot categorize itself into one of these classes, e.g., the 2-neigh\-bor\-hood contains an isolated boundary edge.
Otherwise, each amoebot can decide which of its incident edges belong to the boundary.
Note that $\sigma \geq 4$ is crucial since this guarantees that each triangle contains at least three inner nodes.
This allows us to safely identify boundary corners and boundary edges (see Figures~\ref{fig:sigma0} and~\ref{fig:sigma1}).
For arbitrary amoebot structures, the boundary may enclose several faces, which are connected by boundary corners (see Figure~\ref{fig:shape5}).
The third phase computes a triangulation for each face.
The scale of the triangles can fall below 4 and may even differ for each single face (see Figure~\ref{fig:shape5}).
However, we detect the disconnection in the fourth phase.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.19\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3*3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(0*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 8*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 6*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 2*\t) --
(2*\h, 0*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
All possible neighborhoods of amoebots representing a boundary corner except for symmetries.
A specific shape may exclude some of these 2-neighborhoods.
The dotted lines indicate the 2-neighborhood.
Note that the triangles are only shown partially.
}
\label{fig:neighborhoods}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.30\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\j = 0;
for \i in {6,18,30}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
};
};
\j = 6;
for \i in {12,24}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
};
};
\j = 12;
for \i in {18}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
};
};
for \i in {6,30}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
};
};
\j = 18;
for \i in {12,24}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t);
};
};
{
\draw (6*\h, 12*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (6*\h, 24*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (12*\h, 18*\t) circle (0.1);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:sigma0}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.30\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3/2;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\j = 0;
for \i in {6,18,30}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
\j = 6;
for \i in {12,24}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
\j = 12;
for \i in {18}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
for \i in {6,30}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
\j = 18;
for \i in {12,24}{
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(\j*\h, \i*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) --
(\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) --
cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h, \i*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+6*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-6*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
{
\draw (10*\h, 12*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (10*\h, 24*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (4*\h, 18*\t) circle (0.1);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:sigma1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.30\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3/2*36/24;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
\j = 0;
for \i in {4,12,20}{
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
\j = 4;
for \i in {8,16}{
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
\j = 8;
for \i in {12}{
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h+0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h+3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h+4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
for \i in {4,20}{
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
\j = 12;
for \i in {8,16}{
{
\filldraw[yellow] (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\filldraw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) circle (0.04);
\filldraw (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) circle (0.04);
\draw (\j*\h-0*\h, \i*\t+0*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-4*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t-1*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t-2*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t-3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-1*\h, \i*\t+1*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-2*\h, \i*\t+2*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t-0*\t);
\draw[dotted] (\j*\h-3*\h, \i*\t+3*\t) -- (\j*\h-4*\h, \i*\t+2*\t);
};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:sigma2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a), (b) and (c) show three representations of the yellow shape with scale $\sigma = 2$, $\sigma = 3$ and $\sigma = 4$, respectively.
The empty nodes indicate unoccupied nodes in the hole.
Note that the additional bonds in the hole do not contradict the definition of a representation.
The circled amoebots in (a) cannot detect themselves as boundary corners.
The circled amoebots in (b) cannot detect themselves as part of the interior.
}
\end{figure}
Next, consider the triangulation of the shape (see Algorithm~\ref{alg:triangulation} for pseudocode).
Figure~\ref{fig:triangulation_example} shows an exemplary execution.
The triangulation is based on the following observation:
\begin{observation}
\label{obs:incident_edges}
Let a shape $\mathcal S$ and a representation $V(T(\mathcal S))$ be given.
Consider any node $u \in V(T(\mathcal S))$ representing a corner of $\mathcal S$.
For each node $v \in V(T(\mathcal S))$ adjacent to $u$, there is a line segment from $u$ over $v$ till the boundary consisting of the edges of the shape $\mathcal S$.
This follows directly from the topology of $G_{eqt}$.
\end{observation}
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Triangulation Protocol from a global perspective}
\label{alg:triangulation}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Establish circuits along the axes
\State $V \gets \emptyset$ \Comment{Set of identified corners}
\State $N \gets \{ u \in S \mid u \text{ is a boundary corner} \}$ \Comment{Set of newly identified corners}
\While{$N \neq \emptyset$}
\State $V \gets V \cup N$
\State Each amoebot $u \in V$ sends a beep on all circuits along the axes
\State $N \gets \{ u \in S \setminus V \mid u \text{ has received a beep on at least 2 circuits along the axes} \}$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 10*\t) --
(8*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 0*\t) --
(0*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 8*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6,8,10}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (5*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5}{
{
\filldraw (7*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4}{
{
\filldraw (8*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (1*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (1*\h, 9*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 1*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (6*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (7*\h, 3*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 10*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 9*\t) -- (7*\h, 3*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (6*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (5*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 10*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (8*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (2*\h, 6*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) circle (0.1);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption*{\centering$i = 1$}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 10*\t) --
(8*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 0*\t) --
(0*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 8*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6,8,10}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (5*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5}{
{
\filldraw (7*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4}{
{
\filldraw (8*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (1*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (1*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 1*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (6*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (7*\h, 3*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 10*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 9*\t) -- (7*\h, 3*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (6*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (5*\h, 1*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (4*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.1);
\draw (4*\h, 8*\t) circle (0.1);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption*{\centering$i = 2$}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 10*\t) --
(8*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 0*\t) --
(0*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 8*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6,8,10}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (5*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5}{
{
\filldraw (7*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4}{
{
\filldraw (8*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (1*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (1*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 1*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (6*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (7*\h, 3*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 10*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 9*\t) -- (7*\h, 3*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (6*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (5*\h, 1*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (6*\h, 6*\t) circle (0.1);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption*{\centering$i = 3$}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .3;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw[yellow]
(2*\h, 10*\t) --
(8*\h, 4*\t) --
(4*\h, 0*\t) --
(0*\h, 4*\t) --
(2*\h, 6*\t) --
(0*\h, 8*\t) --
cycle;
};
for \i in {4,8}{
{
\filldraw (0*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (1*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6,8,10}{
{
\filldraw (2*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7,9}{
{
\filldraw (3*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {0,2,4,6,8}{
{
\filldraw (4*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {1,3,5,7}{
{
\filldraw (5*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {2,4,6}{
{
\filldraw (6*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {3,5}{
{
\filldraw (7*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
for \i in {4}{
{
\filldraw (8*\h, \i*\t) circle (0.04);
};
};
{
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (1*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (1*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (5*\h, 1*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw (6*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (7*\h, 3*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (2*\h, 10*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (3*\h, 9*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 3*\t) -- (5*\h, 7*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 2*\t) -- (6*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (7*\h, 5*\t);
\draw (4*\h, 0*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 10*\t) -- (8*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 9*\t) -- (7*\h, 3*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 8*\t) -- (6*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 5*\t) -- (5*\h, 1*\t);
\draw (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (4*\h, 0*\t);
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption*{\centering$i = 4$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
An exemplary execution of Algorithm \ref{alg:triangulation} is shown.
For the sake of simplicity, we use an example with $\sigma = 2$.
The second phase fails to detect the boundary.
So, assume that the boundary is given.
Each figure shows the situation at the beginning of the $i$-th iteration.
The set of newly identified corners $N$ is circled.
The edges indicate the activated circuits.
}
\label{fig:triangulation_example}
\end{figure}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:triangulation} progresses iteratively.
In each iteration, we add edges originating from newly identified corners according to Observation~\ref{obs:incident_edges}.
New corners are determined by the intersections of these edges.
The first set of newly identified corners is given by the first class of the second phase. In order to compute the edges of the triangles, we establish circuits along the axes (see Figure~\ref{fig:triangulation:circuits1}).
However, we remove connections if they reach the boundary.
The algorithm results in a partition of the polygon into triangles.
The vertices of the triangles are given by $V$.
The edges of the triangles are given by the activated circuits.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .45;
\pins = 1;
\fr = 235;
\fg = 235;
\fb = 235;
for \j in {0,1}{
for \i in {-1,-2,-3,-4,-5}{
Amoebot(\j,0,\i);
};
};
for \j in {2,3,4}{
for \i in {-1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7}{
Amoebot(\j,0,\i);
};
};
\fr = 255;
\fg = 255;
\fb = 0;
Amoebot(1,0,-5);
Amoebot(2,0,-6);
for \i in {-2,-3,-4}{
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(0,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
};
for \i in {-2,-3,-4}{
\lr = 255;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(1,0,\i,1,1,4,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(1,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 255;
Circuit(1,0,\i,3,1,6,1);
};
for \i in {-2,-3,-4,-5}{
\lr = 255;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(2,0,\i,1,1,4,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(2,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 255;
Circuit(2,0,\i,3,1,6,1);
};
for \i in {-2,-3,-4,-5,-6}{
\lr = 255;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(3,0,\i,1,1,4,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(3,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 255;
Circuit(3,0,\i,3,1,6,1);
};
for \i in {-2,-3,-4,-5,-6}{
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(4,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
};
for \i in {1,2,3}{
\lr = 0;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 255;
Circuit(\i,0,-1,3,1,6,1);
};
\lr = 0;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 255;
Circuit(1,0,-5,3,1,6,1);
Circuit(3,0,-7,3,1,6,1);
\lr = 0;
\lg = 255;
\lb = 0;
Circuit(2,0,-6,2,1,5,1);
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:triangulation:circuits1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .45;
\pins = 2;
\fr = 235;
\fg = 235;
\fb = 235;
for \j in {0,1}{
for \i in {-1,-2,-3,-4,-5}{
Amoebot(\j,0,\i);
};
};
for \j in {2,3,4}{
for \i in {-1,-2,-3,-4,-5,-6,-7}{
Amoebot(\j,0,\i);
};
};
\fr = 255;
\fg = 255;
\fb = 0;
for \j in {0}{
for \i in {-1,-3,-5}{
Amoebot(\j,0,\i);
};
};
for \j in {2,4}{
for \i in {-1,-3,-5,-7}{
Amoebot(\j,0,\i);
};
};
\lr = 255;
\lg = 0;
\lb = 0;
for \j in {0}{
for \i in {-2,-4}{
Circuit(\j,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
Circuit(\j,0,\i,2,2,5,2);
};
};
for \j in {2,4}{
for \i in {-2,-4,-6}{
Circuit(\j,0,\i,2,1,5,1);
Circuit(\j,0,\i,2,2,5,2);
};
};
for \j in {1}{
for \i in {-2,-4}{
Circuit(\j,0,\i,1,1,4,1);
Circuit(\j,0,\i,1,2,4,2);
};
};
for \j in {3}{
for \i in {-2,-4,-6}{
Circuit(\j,0,\i,1,1,4,1);
Circuit(\j,0,\i,1,2,4,2);
};
};
for \j in {1}{
for \i in {-1,-3,-5}{
Circuit(\j,0,\i,3,1,6,1);
Circuit(\j,0,\i,3,2,6,2);
};
};
for \j in {3}{
for \i in {-1,-3,-5,-7}{
Circuit(\j,0,\i,3,1,6,1);
Circuit(\j,0,\i,3,2,6,2);
};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:triangulation:circuits2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a) shows the circuits along the axes.
Thereby, each amoebot connects (i)~its northern pin to its southern pin, (ii)~its north-eastern pin to its south-western pin, and (iii)~its north-western pin to its south-eastern pin.
No common orientation is required due to the symmetry of the connections.
The amoebots on the boundary have removed all connections that reach the boundary.
In particular, each yellow amoebot has removed the connection from its northern pin to its southern pin.
Note that this works with an arbitrary number of pins (see Remark~\ref{rem:onepin}).
(b) shows the circuits for each side of a triangle.
The corners are depicted in yellow.
}
\end{figure}
It remains to show how the information gathering in the first and fourth phase works.
We utilize the primitive for message transmission between neighboring amoebots in the first phase and between the endpoints of each triangle side in the fourth phase (see Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}).
In order to apply the primitive for the latter, we have to connect the first pin of one endpoint to the last pin of the other endpoint and vice versa (see Figure~\ref{fig:triangulation:circuits2}).
The information is gathered iteratively.
The messages of the $i$-th iteration contain all known positions of amoebots or known triangles with respect to the transmission direction and up to distance $i$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:message}).
The positions up to distance $i + 1$ are known afterwards.
Recall that the required distance is constant for both phases.
This bounds the number of iterations and the size of the messages.
Finally, note that we cannot assume that the triangles are connected in the fourth phase.
We therefore gather the information for each face separately.
In this way, boundary corners are able to detect whether there is more than one face (see Appendix~\ref{app:recognition}).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .9;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.06);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\filldraw (3*\h, 5*\t) circle (0.06);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[black] (0*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $12$};
\draw[black] (0*\h, 4*\t) node {\small $11$};
\draw[black] (0*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $10$};
\draw[black] (1*\h, 1*\t) node {\small $13$};
\draw[black] (1*\h, 3*\t) node {\small $3$};
\draw[black] (1*\h, 5*\t) node {\small $2$};
\draw[black] (1*\h, 7*\t) node {\small $9$};
\draw[black] (2*\h, 0*\t) node {\small $14$};
\draw[black] (2*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $4$};
\draw[black] (2*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $1$};
\draw[black] (2*\h, 8*\t) node {\small $8$};
\draw[black] (3*\h, 1*\t) node {\small $15$};
\draw[black] (3*\h, 3*\t) node {\small $5$};
\draw[black] (3*\h, 7*\t) node {\small $7$};
\draw[black] (4*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $16$};
\draw[black] (4*\h, 4*\t) node {\small $17$};
\draw[black] (4*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $6$};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:message1}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\columnwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzmath{
\scale = .9;
\t = \scale/2;
\h = sqrt(\scale^2 - (\scale/2)^2);
{
\filldraw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.06);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) circle (0.12);
\filldraw (3*\h, 5*\t) circle (0.06);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (0*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (1*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (3*\h, 1*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (4*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (2*\h, 8*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 7*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 1*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 0*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (2*\h, 8*\t) -- (4*\h, 6*\t);
\draw[dotted] (1*\h, 7*\t) -- (4*\h, 4*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 6*\t) -- (4*\h, 2*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 1*\t);
\draw[dotted] (0*\h, 2*\t) -- (2*\h, 0*\t);
\draw (2*\h, 4*\t) -- (3*\h, 5*\t);
\draw[black] (0.6*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $16$};
\draw[black] (0.4*\h, 3*\t) node {\small $15$};
\draw[black] (0.6*\h, 4*\t) node {\small $14$};
\draw[black] (0.4*\h, 5*\t) node {\small $13$};
\draw[black] (0.6*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $12$};
\draw[black] (1.6*\h, 1*\t) node {\small $18$};
\draw[black] (1.4*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $17$};
\draw[black] (1.6*\h, 3*\t) node {\small $4$};
\draw[black] (1.4*\h, 4*\t) node {\small $3$};
\draw[black] (1.6*\h, 5*\t) node {\small $2$};
\draw[black] (1.4*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $11$};
\draw[black] (1.6*\h, 7*\t) node {\small $10$};
\draw[black] (2.4*\h, 1*\t) node {\small $19$};
\draw[black] (2.6*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $20$};
\draw[black] (2.4*\h, 3*\t) node {\small $5$};
\draw[black] (2.6*\h, 4*\t) node {\small $6$};
\draw[black] (2.4*\h, 5*\t) node {\small $1$};
\draw[black] (2.6*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $8$};
\draw[black] (2.4*\h, 7*\t) node {\small $9$};
\draw[black] (3.4*\h, 2*\t) node {\small $21$};
\draw[black] (3.6*\h, 3*\t) node {\small $22$};
\draw[black] (3.4*\h, 4*\t) node {\small $23$};
\draw[black] (3.6*\h, 5*\t) node {\small $24$};
\draw[black] (3.4*\h, 6*\t) node {\small $7$};
};
}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\centering}
\label{fig:message2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a) shows an exemplary message for the first phase.
The nodes indicate two neighboring amoebots $u$ and $v$ where $u$ is the circled one.
Amoebot $u$ assigns a truth value to each possible amoebot with respect to edge $\{u,v\}$ and sends them to $v$.
(b) shows an exemplary message for the fourth phase.
The nodes indicate the the endpoint of a side $u$ and $v$ where the $u$ is the circled one.
Amoebot $u$ assigns a truth value to each possible triangle with respect to edge $\{u,v\}$ and sends them to $v$.
}
\label{fig:message}
\end{figure}
Altogether, we arrive at the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:usr}
Let shape $\mathcal S$ be connected and minimal.
The amoebot structure can detect a representation of the shape $V(T(\mathcal S))$.
It requires $O(1)$ rounds if the amoebots share a common chirality.
Otherwise, it requires $O(\log n)$ rounds, w.h.p.
\end{theorem}
\printbibliography
|
\section{Introduction}
It's well known that the Gauss-Bonnet gravity is introduced only in case
D\succ 4$ or more. In four-dimensional spacetime, the GB term does not make
contributions to the gravitational dynamics, which makes the 4-dimensional
minimally coupled GB gravity is hard to obtain. Recently, D. Glavan and C.
Lin \cite{G1} proposed a novel 4-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB)
gravity, which has attracted great attention. An intriguing idea of D.
Glavan and C. Lin is to multiply the GB term by the factor $1/(D-4)$ before
taking the limit. Offers a new 4-dimensional gravitational theory with only
two dynamical degrees of freedom by taking the $D\longrightarrow 4$ limit of
the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity in $D\succ 4$ dimensions \cite{G2}, which
is in contradiction with Lovelock theorem \cite{G3}. The four-dimensional
symmetrical static and spherical black hole solution in EGB gravity were
obtained \cite{G4}, also, solutions of a charged black hole \cite{G5}. There
has been lots of discussions about the self-consistency of the 4D EGB
gravity. It was shown in several papers that perhaps the $D\succ 4$\ limit
is not clearly defined, and several ideas have been proposed to remedy this
in-consistency \cite{G6,G7,G8}. Many researchers have studied particles in
the geometry of a black hole, precisely, the EGB black hole \cite{114,114A}.
Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind devised a theory linking two phenomena
both discovered by Einstein: \textquotedblleft Einstein-Rosen
bridges\textquotedblright\ (or wormholes) and quantum entanglement \cite{100
. According to them, if we move the two entangled particles apart would
amount to digging an ER bridge around a single particle which would manifest
its properties in several places in space-time. This theory sheds light on
the problem of the EPR paradox which highlights the non-locality of quantum
mechanics, which he opposes to the principle of the locality which is the
basis of the theory of relativity. However, this $ER=EPR$ correspondence is
only demonstrated in a very simplified universe model, where gravity is
generated in the absence of mass. The Hawking radiation of a black hole is a
scrambled cloud of radiation entangled with the black hole. The connection
between the laws of black hole mechanics with the corresponding laws of
ordinary thermodynamic systems has been one of the remarkable achievements
of theoretical physics \cite{100A}. In fact, the consideration of a black
hole as a thermodynamic system with a physical temperature and entropy
provides a deep insight to understand its microscopic structure. The study
of EGB gravity becomes very important because it provides a broader setup to
explore many conceptual questions related to gravity. This theory of gravity
similar to Einstein's gravity only benefits from the first and second order
derivatives of the metric function in field equations. there is also a great
connection between EGB gravity and the AdS / CFT demonstration
correspondence \cite{133}. \newline
Throughout the paper, we use the unit system where the speed of light $c=$
the gravitational constant $G_{N}$ $=$ \ the vacuum permittivity $4\pi
\varepsilon _{0}=1$.
\section{Charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black hole}
Consider now the charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory in D-dimensions with a
negative cosmological constant \cite{115,116}
\begin{equation}
I=\frac{1}{16\pi }\int d^{D}x\left( R-2\Lambda +\frac{\alpha }{D-4}G-F_{\mu
\nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right) \label{EG1}
\end{equation
where $\alpha $ is a finite non-vanishing dimensionless GaussBonnet coupling
have dimensions of $\left[ length\right] ^{2}$, that represent ultraviolet
(UV) corrections to Einstein theory, $F_{\mu \nu }=\partial _{\mu }A_{\nu
}-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }$ is the Maxwell tensor and $l$ is the AdS radius
an
\begin{equation}
G=R^{2}-4R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \rho
\sigma } \label{EG2}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\Lambda =-\frac{\left( D-1\right) \left( D-2\right) }{2l^{2}} \label{EG3}
\end{equation
by solving the field equation we obtain the black hole solutio
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{1}{f(r)}dr^{2}+r^{2}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin
^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) \label{EG4}
\end{equation
Taking the limit $D\longrightarrow 4$, we obtain the exact solution in
closed for
\begin{equation}
-g_{00}=f(r)\approx 1+\frac{r^{2}}{2\alpha }\left( 1-\sqrt{1+4\alpha \left(
\frac{2M}{r^{3}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{4}}-\frac{1}{l^{2}}\right) }\right)
\label{EG5}
\end{equation
this last solution solution could be obtained directly from the derivation
done in \cite{116A}. In the large $r$ limit, for two branches of solutions.
In the limit of vanishing mass and charge \cite{116B}, for ($l^{-2}\sim 0$)\
we find\newline
\begin{equation}
-g_{00}=2\frac{r^{2}-2Mr+Q^{2}+\alpha }{r^{2}+2\alpha +\sqrt{r^{4}+4\alpha
\left( 2Mr-Q^{2}\right) }} \label{EG6}
\end{equation
with $2M$ is the Schwarzschild radius. From this expression, we notice that,
in the limit $\alpha \longrightarrow 0$, the metric reduce to the
Reissner--Nordstr\"{o}m black hole solution. If $\alpha \prec 0$\ the
solution is still an AdS space, if $\alpha \succ 0$\ the solution is a de
Sitter space, \cite{116}. The event horizon in spacetime can be located by
solving the metric equation: $g_{00}=0$. To find the black hole horizon we
have to solve this equation\newline
\begin{equation}
r^{2}-2Mr+Q^{2}+\alpha =0 \label{EG7}
\end{equation
The solutions show that the event horizon is located at
\begin{equation}
r_{\pm }=M\pm \sqrt{M^{2}-Q^{2}-\alpha } \label{EG8}
\end{equation
we notice that the solution behaves like the Reissner-Norstr\"{o}m (RN)
solution. The black hole event horizon is the largest root of the equation
above, $r_{+}$ is the black hole horizon \cite{G1}. However, the radius
r_{-}$ represents a horizon, which can be a horizon mirage or virtual
horizon. Therefore, to explain the presence of two horizon $r_{\pm }$, we
assume that we can represent the horizon $r_{-}$ as a reflection symmetric
of the horizon $r_{+}$ \cite{100}. There is only one case where the horizon
r_{+}$ corresponds to the horizon $r_{-}$, this case is equivalent to the
degenerate solution into a singularity when $\left\vert Q\right\vert =\sqrt
M^{2}-\alpha }$, which corresponding to an extremal black hole, and this
type of black hole which has a very low mass. We choose the same charge to
describe particle-antiparticle pair in the EGB black hole horizons. In this
paper, we propose that the two extremal entangled black holes are particles
and antiparticles which are placed just on the horizon of the EGB black
hole. The particle located near horizon $r_{+}$. On the other hand, the
antiparticle is the reflection of the particle on the horizon $r_{-}$. If
the particle and antiparticle are connected by a bridge (by an
Einstein-Rosen bridge), then the area of the bridge smaller than the area of
the black hole horizon. First, we define two charges of a
particle-antiparticle pair in the horizon
\begin{equation}
q_{\pm }=\pm \sqrt{M^{2}-\alpha } \label{C8}
\end{equation
we will show later with a particular condition that the proposition of the
charges $q_{\pm }$ leads to an EGB entropy already obtained by other models.
Every particle on the horizon has a charge which depends directly on the
black hole mass; if the black hole mass larger, the charge of a horizon
particle will be more important. Each particle of the charge $q_{+}=+\sqrt
M^{2}-\alpha }$, is entangled with another antiparticle of the charge
q_{-}=-\sqrt{M^{2}-\alpha }$. The particle and antiparticle have opposite
electric charges $q_{+}$ and $q_{-}$, i.e. $CPT$ anticommutes with the
charges. If the number of particles $N$ on the horizon $r_{+}$ is limited,
the horizon charge will be $Q_{H}=0$. If we take that the number of horizon
particles $N\longrightarrow \infty $, the charge of the black hole is
Q_{H}\neq 0$. From Eqs.(\ref{EG8},\ref{C8}
\begin{equation}
\left( r_{\pm }-M\right) ^{2}=q_{\pm }^{2}-Q^{2} \label{C11}
\end{equation
according to this formula, the charges $q_{+}$ are located on the real
horizon, on the other hand, the charges of antiparticles $q_{-}$ are located
on a virtual horizon near the singularity. We also notice that $q_{\pm
}^{2}\succeq Q^{2}$. In the framework of the gravitational repulsion between
matter and antimatter, Eq.(\ref{C11}) behaves like virtual gravitational
dipoles \cite{118} in a black hole. If we assume that there is a complete
disappearance of an AdS black hole ($\alpha \prec 0$), we obtain the
position of the two charge
\begin{equation}
r_{\pm }=q_{\pm }=\pm \sqrt{-\alpha } \label{C13}
\end{equation
\newline
the problem of the negative radius $r_{-}$ indicates a disappearance of the
antiparticles with the disappearance of the black hole singularity, on the
other hand, the particles escape the singularity. This aspect is equivalent
to the position of the two horizons; the horizon $r_{-}$ exists on the
singularity and $r_{+}$ is the edge of the black hole. Which agrees with the
violation of CP symmetry between matter and antimatter \cite{119}. This
complete disappearance of the antiparticles looks like a scenario of the
disappearance of antimatter after the big bang. The relation (\ref{C13}) is
valid only for an AdS black hole, this may indicate that the disappearance
of the antiparticles is done on the second copy of AdS in other dimensions.
The electric potentials $\Phi _{+}$ and \ $\Phi _{-}$ arising from the
charge $q_{+}$and $q_{-}$ respectively, at a distance $r$ from the charge
given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{+}(r)=\frac{q_{+}}{\left\vert r-r_{+}\right\vert }\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \
\Phi _{-}(r)=\frac{q_{-}}{\left\vert r-r_{-}\right\vert } \label{C14}
\end{equation
$\Phi _{+}$ and $\Phi _{-}$ are the conjugate (gauge independent) potentials
for the electric (and magnetic) $U(1)$ charges. Two opposite charges $q_{\pm
}$ have a potential of the electric dipole $\Phi _{+}+\Phi _{-}$ fro
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{+}(r)=\frac{\sqrt{M^{2}-\alpha }}{\left\vert r-M-\sqrt
M^{2}-Q^{2}-\alpha }\right\vert }\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\Phi _{-}(r)=\frac{
\sqrt{M^{2}-\alpha }}{\left\vert r-M+\sqrt{M^{2}-Q^{2}-\alpha }\right\vert }
\label{C16}
\end{equation
In the extremal case $M^{2}=Q^{2}+\alpha $, we obtain $\Phi _{+}(r)=\Phi
_{-}(r)$. The two potential is canceled out for $M^{2}=\alpha $.
\section{Electric potential of EGB black hole}
Last papers proposed to study a charged particles near the Schwarzschild
black hole, or charged particle motion around magnetized Schwarzschild black
holes \cite{121,122,123,124}. We are also interested in studying the
particles (\ref{C8}) in the Schwarzschild horizon. We know that the
Schwarzschild metric is a solution for a black hole without electric charge
and angular momentum. In what follows we will use the previous results to
show that the Schwarzschild black hole is not charged ($Q=0$). \newline
we assume that the radius $r_{+}$ is equal to the Schwarzschild radius $2M$,
given by
\begin{equation}
q_{\pm }=\pm M \label{s1}
\end{equation
in this case, according to Eqs.(\ref{C11},\ref{C8}) one can obtain
\begin{equation}
r_{-}=M\pm M \label{s1a}
\end{equation
according to the two expressions (\ref{s1},\ref{s1a}), we can represent the
Schwarzschild black hole by two visions:\newline
If $r_{-}=0$, the Schwarzschild black hole consists of a negatively charged
singularity ($q_{-}=-M$) and a positively charged horizon ($q_{+}=M$),
therefore, if the number of particle and antiparticle is limited, the total
Schwarzschild black hole charge is zero, this case is similar to an
antimatter atom. If $r_{-}=2M$ (the horizon degenerates), the Schwarzschild
black hole consists of a neutral singularity and positive and negative
charges on the horizon ($q_{-}=-M$ ;$\ q_{+}=M$), therefore, for the
Schwarzschild horizon to be neutral; the number of positive charges must be
equal to the number of negative charges on the horizon. This result shows
that the Schwarzschild black hole, behaves like the neutral atom, but it
contains positive and negative charges. The Schwarzschild black hole
contains a negatively charged singularity $q_{-}$ and a positively charged
horizon $q_{+}$. We can express the electric potentials of negative and
positive charges in the Schwarzschild black hole b
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{+}(r)=\frac{M}{\left\vert r\right\vert \left\vert 1-\frac{2M}{r
\right\vert }\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\Phi _{-}(r)=-\frac{M}{\left\vert
r\right\vert } \label{s2}
\end{equation
if we take $\alpha =0$ in Eq.(\ref{C16}), we also find the same potentials
above, what was mentioned by \cite{126}. Since the study of the charged
Einstein Gauss-Bonnet black hole shows a property similar to that of RN
black hole, like Eq.(\ref{EG8}), which shows that the parameter $\alpha $
creates a passage between the Schwarzschild black hole and RN black hole. We
can rewrite the Schwarzschild metric a
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\frac{\Phi _{-}}{\Phi _{+}}dt^{2}-\frac{\Phi _{+}}{\Phi _{-}
dr^{2}+r^{2}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) \label{s3}
\end{equation
the Schwarzschild metric depends on the potentials of particles and
antiparticles. In the Schwarzschild black hole, $N$ is limited and we writ
\begin{equation}
Q_{S}=q_{+}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left( -1\right) ^{n}=0 \label{s4}
\end{equation
for these two relations above to be valid, the number $N$ must be even, i.e.
the number of particles equal to the number of antiparticles. But if $N$ is
odd, we get $Q=q_{+}$ or $Q=q_{-}$, this is at odds with an uncharged
Schwarzschild black hole. This shows that the number of particles on the
horizon is equal to the number of antiparticles in the Schwarzschild black
hole\textbf{\ }singularity, which corresponds exactly with the proposition
\ref{C8}) of entangled particles with antiparticles, one can't have on black
hole particles which are not entangled. Since the formula (\ref{EG8}) is a
generalization of the RN black hole horizons, this shows that the EGB black
hole charge is the generalization of charge of RN black hole (for $\alpha =0
) and zero charges of the Schwarzschild black hole. In the EGB black hole,
when $N$ $\longrightarrow \infty $, the analytic continuation of the Riemann
zeta function of $0$ ($\zeta (0)=1/2$) giv
\begin{equation}
Q_{EGB}=q_{\pm }\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left( -1\right) ^{n}=\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt
M^{2}-\alpha } \label{s5}
\end{equation
\ \newline
this charge corresponds exactly with a physical event horizon because
Q_{EGB}$ check the condition of existence of the event horizon:
2Q_{EGB}\prec r_{s}$. We can also describe the charge of EGB black hole in
the case of $N\neq \infty $, with $N$ being odd, i.e. $Q_{EGB}=\pm q_{+}$.
Usually, we get
\begin{table}[]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $N\neq \infty $ & $N\longrightarrow \infty $ \\ \hline\hline
$Q_{EGB}^{-}$ & $-q_{+}$ & $-q_{+}/2$ \\
$Q_{S}$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$Q_{EGB}^{+}$ & $q_{+}$ & $q_{+}/2$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular
\end{center}
\caption{The possible values of the EGB black hole charge as a function of
the charge of a particle.}
\end{table}
all values above of the black hole charge verify condition (\ref{C11}). In
the case where the charge $q_{+}=0$ is zero, the EGB black hole is
transformed into a Schwarzschild black hole. The values of the charge of
Q_{EGB}$ are quantified according to the constant values of $M$ and $\alpha
. We represent this quantification by the total charge of an Einstein
Gauss-Bonnet black hole i
\begin{equation}
Q_{EGB}=m\sqrt{M^{2}-\alpha }\text{\ \ \ \ \ }m=\left\{
-1,-1/2,0,1/2,1\right\} \label{s8}
\end{equation
Substitute Eq.(\ref{s8}) into Eq.(\ref{EG8}) and we obtain\newline
\begin{equation}
r_{\pm }=M\pm \sqrt{\left( 1-m^{2}\right) \left( M^{2}-\alpha \right) }
\label{s9}
\end{equation
the EGB black hole horizon is quantified according to the values of $m$. We
want to calculate the electric potential of the EGB black hole on the
horizon ($r=r_{+}$) from its charge (\ref{s8}) in the horizon $r_{+}$ (\re
{s9}), we obtai
\begin{equation}
\Phi _{EGB}=\frac{Q_{EGB}}{r_{+}}=\frac{m\sqrt{M^{2}-\alpha }}{\sqrt{\left(
1-m^{2}\right) \left( M^{2}-\alpha \right) }+M} \label{s13}
\end{equation
for the case where $m=0$, this potential becomes zero, which corresponds
exactly to the Schwarzschild black hole.
\section{EGB-AdS black hole thermodynamics}
\subsection{The black hole first law}
\bigskip We define the pressure \cite{127} of the cosmological constant (\re
{EG3}) for $D\longrightarrow 4
\begin{equation}
8\pi P=3l^{-2}\text{\ \ ;\ \ \ }\Lambda =-3l^{-2} \label{D0}
\end{equation
We can express the ADM mass $M$ of the black hole in terms of $r_{\pm }$ by
solving Eq.(\ref{EG7}) for $r=r_{+}$ resulting i
\begin{equation}
M=\frac{l^{-2}r_{+}^{4}+r_{+}^{2}+Q_{EGB}^{2}+\alpha }{2r_{+}} \label{D1}
\end{equation
The Hawking temperature is easy to give by calculating surface gravity at
the horizo
\begin{equation}
T^{2}=-\frac{1}{8\pi ^{2}}\nabla _{\mu }\xi _{\nu }\nabla ^{\mu }\xi ^{\nu }
\frac{1}{16\pi ^{2}}f^{\prime 2}(r_{+}) \label{D2}
\end{equation
where $\xi ^{\mu }$ is a killing vector, which for a static, spherically
symmetric case takes the form $\xi ^{\mu }=\partial _{t}^{\mu }$. $\xi _{\mu
}$ satisfies the Killing equatio
\begin{equation}
\nabla _{\mu }\xi _{\nu }+\nabla _{\nu }\xi _{\mu }=0
\end{equation
The Hawking temperature of the black hole can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
T=\frac{3l^{-2}r_{+}^{4}+r_{+}^{2}-Q_{EGB}^{2}-\alpha }{8\pi \alpha
r_{+}+4\pi r_{+}^{3}} \label{D4}
\end{equation
if we suppose that the charges $q_{+}$ and $q_{-}$ are behave like a gas on
the black hole. The black hole first law reads \cite{127}
\begin{equation}
dM=TdS+\Phi _{EGB}dQ_{EGB}+VdP+Ad\alpha \label{D5}
\end{equation
\ \ \newline
The parameters $V$ and $A$ are the conjugate quantities of the pressure $P$
and GB coupling parameter $\alpha $, respectively.\ \newline
If we fix $P$ and $\alpha $ the Hawking-Bekenstein formula is then given b
\begin{equation}
S=\int \frac{dM}{T}-\int \frac{\Phi _{EGB}}{T}dQ_{EGB} \label{D6}
\end{equation
to describe the entropy according to the charges of the particles and
antiparticles present on the black hole, we have not fixed the charge
Q_{EGB}$ of the black hole. The solution of the first part of Eq.(\ref{D6})
already computed by \cite{116,127} as
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{dM}{T}=\int_{0}^{r_{+}}\frac{1}{T}\left( \frac{\partial M}
\partial r^{\prime }}\right) dr^{\prime }=\pi r_{+}^{2}+2\pi \alpha \log
r_{+}^{2}\newline
+S_{0} \label{D7}
\end{equation
\ \newline
where $S_{0}$ is an integration constant. Next, we use (\ref{s13}) to
calculate the second term in Eq.(\ref{D6}). We write the potential $\Phi
_{EGB}$ as a function of $Q_{EGB}$ for a fixed position $r=r_{+}$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{\Phi _{EGB}}{T}dQ_{EGB}=\int \frac{Q_{EGB}}{Tr_{+}}dQ_{EGB}
\label{D12}
\end{equation
we substitute Eq.(\ref{D4}) into the last equation
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{\Phi _{EGB}}{T}dQ_{EGB}=\int \frac{\left( 8\pi \alpha +4\pi
r_{+}^{2}\right) Q_{EGB}}{\left( 3l^{-2}r_{+}^{4}+r_{+}^{2}-\alpha \right)
-Q_{EGB}^{2}}dQ_{EGB} \label{D13}
\end{equation
we consider that the expression $Q_{EGB}$ (\ref{s8}) is defined on a fixed
horizon (\ref{s9}
\begin{equation}
\int \frac{\Phi _{EGB}}{T}dQ_{EGB}=-2\left( 2\pi \alpha +\pi
r_{+}^{2}\right) \log \left\vert Q_{EGB}^{2}-\left(
3l^{-2}r_{+}^{4}+r_{+}^{2}-\alpha \right) \right\vert +S_{1} \label{D14}
\end{equation
with $S_{1}$ is an integration constant. Therefore, substitute Eqs.(\ref{D7}
\ref{D14}) into Eqs.(\ref{D6}) we obtai
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{A}{4}+2\pi \alpha \log \frac{A}{A_{0}}\ \newline
+\left( \frac{A}{2}+4\pi \alpha \right) \log \left\vert \frac{m^{2}}{A_{1}
\left( M^{2}-\alpha \right) -\frac{1}{4\pi A_{1}}\left( A-\Lambda A^{2}-4\pi
\alpha \right) \right\vert \label{D15}
\end{equation
where $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$\ are some constants with units of area, $A\equiv
4\pi r_{+}^{2}$ is the area of the event horizon of the black hole. This
equation generalizes the Hawking-Bekenstein (HB) formula by a two
supplementary logarithmic term \cite{128}, instead of just one additional
logarithmic form \cite{116,127}
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{A}{4}+2\pi \alpha \log \frac{A}{A_{0}} \label{D16}
\end{equation
If we fix the EGB black hole charge we find the entropy according to the
model \cite{116}. We remark that the second entropy correction contains the
term $m$ which describes the states of the charge $Q_{EGB}$. We also remark
that there is the presence of the cosmological constant $\Lambda $ in the
second logarithmic term. Contrary to the model \cite{116}, the entropy above
described also by the cosmological constant with the charges $Q_{EGB}$, this
comes after varying $S$ with respect to $Q_{EGB}$. We calculated the
electric potential of EGB black hole, and by using this potential we write
the entropy with two logarithmic corrections. \newline
\subsection{Pressure, volume and temperature}
It is also possible to calculate the entropy (\ref{D15}) at finite
temperature $T=\beta ^{-1}$, by the use of expression (\ref{D4})\newline
which is also written a
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{A}{4}+2\pi \alpha \log A\newline
+\frac{1}{2}\left( A+8\pi \alpha \right) \log \frac{B}{A_{1}}+S_{0}-S_{1}
\label{H01}
\end{equation
we define a new are
\begin{equation}
B=\left\vert \beta ^{-1}r_{+}\left( A+8\pi \alpha \right) \right\vert
\label{H02}
\end{equation
we show tha
\begin{equation}
S=2\pi \alpha \log A\newline
e^{\frac{A}{8\pi \alpha }}B^{\frac{A+8\pi \alpha }{4\pi \alpha }}+S_{0}-S_{1}
\label{H03}
\end{equation
we study two different types of charged EGB-AdS black holes, allow for a
first order small-black-hole/large-black-hole (SBH/LBH), we choose for SBH a
surface of the form $A\ll 8\pi \alpha $, we choose for LBH a surface of the
form $A\gg 8\pi \alpha $, because the values of $\alpha $ included in the
interval $\left[ -1,1\right] $ \cite{133}. \newline
First, we assume that $A\ll 8\pi \alpha $, i.e. a space difference of AdS
space (since $\alpha \succ 0$). The entropy can be rewritten into the
following simple for
\begin{equation}
S=2\pi \alpha \log A\newline
B^{2}+S_{0}-S_{1}\text{ \ and \ \ }B=8\pi \alpha \beta ^{-1}r_{+}
\label{H04}
\end{equation
we obtain a case where the subadditivity inequality is saturated for
S_{0}\preceq S_{1}$
\begin{equation}
S\equiv S(AB)\preceq S(A)+S(B) \label{H05}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation}
S(A)=2\pi \alpha \log A\text{ \ and\ }S(B)=4\pi \alpha \log B \label{H06}
\end{equation
Next, we assume that $A\gg 8\pi \alpha $, from Eq.(\ref{H03}) the entropy
can be rewritten into the following for
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{A}{2}\log \frac{\sqrt{e}Ar_{+}}{\beta A_{1}}+2\pi \alpha \log \frac{
}{A_{0}}\newline
\label{H09}
\end{equation
According to $AdS/CFT$ correspondence, gravitational theories on $AdS_{2+1}$
space of radius $R$ are dual to $CFT_{2}$. \newline
for $r_{+}A=\beta A_{1}$, we obtain the same entropy in the EGB black hole
framework (\ref{D16}). \ \ \newline
Next, we assume that $A\sim 8\pi \alpha
\begin{equation}
S=A\log \frac{2e^{1/4}Ar_{+}}{\beta A_{1}}+\frac{A}{4}\log \frac{A}{A_{0}
\newline
\label{H10}
\end{equation
for $2r_{+}A=\beta A_{1}$, we obtain the same entropy in the EGB black hole
framework (\ref{D16}). According to the last two cases, we can transform the
two entropies (\ref{H09},\ref{H10}) into (\ref{D16}), which shows that there
is a possibility of return entropy with two logarithmic corrections (\re
{D15}) to entropy with a single correction. Therefore, we can find the
entropy (\ref{D16}) anyway by using the hypothesis (\ref{C8}) for the
condition of $A\succeq 8\pi \alpha $. This condition is also valid for an
AdS-EGB black hole: $\alpha \precsim 0$. Let us consider an asymptotically
AdS-EGB black hole spacetime ($\Lambda \prec 0$), the cosmological constant
corresponds to thermodynamic pressure with $8\pi P=-\Lambda $, and the
conjugate variable of $P$ corresponds to thermodynamic volume \cite{130}
\begin{equation}
V=\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial P}\right) _{S,Q,\alpha }=\frac{1}{3
r_{+}A
\end{equation
this conjugate variable was interpreted geometrically as an effective volume
for the region outside the EGB-AdS black hole horizon \cite{132}. For the
static black holes, the thermodynamic volume is only a function of the event
horizon. From (\ref{H09},\ref{H10}) we can introduce this condition
\begin{equation}
A\succeq 8\pi \alpha \Longleftrightarrow \frac{1}{6}\beta A_{1}\preceq
V\preceq \frac{1}{3}\beta A_{1} \label{H11}
\end{equation
the condition concerning the temperature is
\begin{equation}
\frac{A_{1}}{3V}\preceq T\preceq \frac{A_{1}}{6V} \label{H12}
\end{equation
the volume of AdS-EGB black hole checks the above relationship. Whether the
black hole surface checks $A\succeq 8\pi \alpha $, the maximum and minimum
values of the black hole volume depend on $\beta $. Therefore, the
temperature (\ref{D4}) is expressed as a function of the pressure (\ref{D0})
and $V
\begin{equation}
T=\frac{6PV}{A+8\pi \alpha }+\frac{r_{+}^{2}-Q_{EGB}^{2}-\alpha }{\left(
A+8\pi \alpha \right) r_{+}} \label{H13}
\end{equation
we substitute Eqs.(\ref{s8},\ref{s9}) into the last equation, we get a
corresponding fluid equation of state:
\begin{equation}
PV=\frac{A+8\pi \alpha }{6}T-\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\left( 1-m^{2}\right) \left(
M^{2}-\alpha \right) } \label{H14}
\end{equation
which leads t
\begin{equation}
PV=\frac{A+8\pi \alpha }{6}T-\frac{1-m^{2}}{m^{2}}\frac{Q_{EGB}^{2}}{3\left(
r_{+}-M\right) } \label{H15}
\end{equation
this equation is in good agreement with the equation $P=f(T,V)$ found by
\cite{132} for a charged AdS black holes ($\alpha =0$). We use the specific
volume $\upsilon =2r_{+}l_{P}^{2}\equiv 2r_{+}=6V/N$, where $l_{P}=\sqrt
\hbar G/c^{3}}\equiv 1$ is the Planck length and $N=A/l_{P}^{2}$ is the
number of states associated with the horizon \cite{132}.
\begin{equation}
P=\left( 1+\frac{8\pi \alpha }{A}\right) \frac{T}{\upsilon }-\frac{1-m^{2}}
m^{2}\left( 1-\frac{2M}{\upsilon }\right) }\frac{4Q_{EGB}^{2}}{\upsilon ^{2}
} \label{H16}
\end{equation
Note that for $m=\pm 1$, we obtain the ideal gas law. We can show the Van
der Waals equation for $A\gg 8\pi \alpha $
\begin{equation}
\left( P+\frac{a}{\upsilon ^{2}}\right) \left( \upsilon -b\right) =T
\label{H17}
\end{equation
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{figure1.eps}
\caption{Curves of some values $P-V$ isotherms of the van der Waals equation
of state.}
\label{graph}
\end{figure}
These curves are interpreted as follows:
for a temperature $T\succ T_{c}$ the fluid is only stable under one phase:
the supercritical fluid;
for a temperature $T\prec T_{c}$ the fluid is stable under a single-phase,
gas or liquid, or present simultaneously in two phases in equilibrium, gas
and liquid. the formula (\ref{H17}) yield
\begin{equation}
a=\frac{4q_{+}r_{+}}{N}\sqrt{1-m^{2}}\succeq 0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\frac{
}{\upsilon }=\frac{8\pi \alpha }{A} \label{H18}
\end{equation
where the parameter $a$ measures the attraction between particles and the
parameter $b$ corresponds to the volume of fluid of particles. We notice
that $b$ is less than $\upsilon $ because $A\gg 8\pi \alpha $. When
N\longrightarrow \infty $, the attraction between particles in the fluid
will be zero $a=0$. If there is a non-minimal coupling between
particle-antiparticle pair, the attraction will be zero for
N\longrightarrow \infty $. For an\textbf{\ }EGB-AdS black hole with $N\neq
\infty $ (table 1), the parameter $a$ will be zero.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have considered charged 4D EGB-AdS black holes as a
working substance. We studied the relationship between positive and negative
charges with the black hole in 4D EGB theory based on the work of Glavan \&
Lin \cite{G1}.\ We have assumed a particular shape of the charges present on
the black hole by the degenerate solution. We calculated the electric
potentials of particles and antiparticles for the EGB black hole, then we
deduce the potentials of these charges for the Schwarzschild black hole. We
have shown that the charge of a Schwarzschild black hole is zero. We have
adopted that the EBG black hole is a generalization of the Schwarzschild
black hole. We have found in this case a simplified charge of EGB black hole
which takes district values. By using this potential we write the HB formula
with two logarithmic corrections. The second correction depends on the
discrete values of the EBG black hole charge also depends on the
cosmological constant. For $A\succeq 8\pi \alpha $, we can obtain the HB
entropy with a single correction from that with two corrections. In this
case, we studied the AdS-EGB black hole thermodynamics, this study allows
obtaining the Van der Waals equation.
|
\section*{Introduction}
By~\cite[Definition~4.1.3]{ginzburg-kapranov:DMJ94}, a classical quadratic operad
${\EuScript P}$ is Koszul if the dual dg (abbreviating differential graded) operad~${\mathbb D}({\EuScript P}^!)$ of
its Koszul dual resolves ${\EuScript P}$. The operad ${\mathbb D}({\EuScript P}^!)$
then provides, using a construction of~\cite{markl:JHRS10},
a canonical explicit $L_\infty$-algebra capturing deformations of
${\EuScript P}$-algebras via its moduli space of Maurer-Cartan elements.
Moreover, algebras for ${\mathbb D}(P^!)$ are strongly homotopy ${\EuScript P}$-algebras,
whose salient feature is the transfer property over
weak homotopy equivalences. The operad ${\mathbb D}({\EuScript P}^!)$ also leads to the canonical
(co)homology theory of ${\EuScript P}$-algebras,
cf.~\cite[Section~II.3.8]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
This explains the prominent position of
quadratic Koszul operads in the traditional operad theory. The aim of
the present article, which is a continuation of~\cite{part1}, is to implant
the theory of quadratic operads and their Koszulity worked out by Ginzburg and
Kapranov in~\cite{ginzburg-kapranov:DMJ94} into the context of operadic
categories.
An important r\^ole will be played by free operads over operadic categories,
both in the definition of
quadraticity and of the dual dg operad needed for
the formulation of the Koszul property. As we noticed
for classical operads in~\cite{markl:zebrulka}, the construction of
free operads is more structured if
one uses, instead of the standard definition, a modified one.
Let us explain what we mean by this.
Traditional operads in the spirit of May~\cite{may:1972} are
collections $\{{\EuScript P}(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ of
$\Sigma_n$-modules with composition laws
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{po 6ti dnech}
\gamma : {\EuScript P}(k) \otimes {\EuScript P}(n_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes {\EuScript P}(n_k) \to {\EuScript P}(n_1 + \cdots +
n_k),\
k, \Rada n1k \geq 1,
\end{equation}
satisfying appropriate
associativity and equivariance axioms; notice that we keep the
agreement from~\cite{part1} assuming that ${\EuScript P}(0)$ is empty.
In~{\cite[Definition~1.1]{markl:zebrulka}} we however suggested
a definition based on binary composition laws
\begin{equation}
\label{letel_jsem_ve_snehovych_prehankach}
\circ_i : {\EuScript P}(m) \otimes {\EuScript P}(n) \to {\EuScript P}(m+n-1), \ n \geq 1,\ 1 \leq i \leq m.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
It turned out that under some
quite standard assumptions, for instance in the presence of units,
augmentations or connectivity,
the two notions are equivalent, see
e.g.~\cite[Observation~1.2]{markl:zebrulka}
or~\cite[Proposition~13]{markl:handbook}, though there are
structures possessing composition laws~(\ref{po 6ti dnech})
only~\cite[Example~19]{markl:handbook}. Operad-like
structures based on `partial compositions'
in~(\ref{letel_jsem_ve_snehovych_prehankach}) were later called
Markl operads.
Operads over general operadic categories also exist in two
disguises which are, under favorable conditions, equivalent --
in the form where the compositions in all inputs are
made simultaneously; this is how they were introduced
in~\cite{duodel} -- and in Markl form whose
structure compositions are binary.
The crucial advantage of the latter is, as in the classical case,
that free Markl operads are naturally graded by the length of
the chain of compositions. The theory of Markl operads and its
relation to the original formulation of operad theory over operadic
categories given in~\cite[Section~1]{duodel} occupies a
substantial part of the present article.
In Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy} we switch to Markl
operads, and also in the rest of this introduction an operad will mean a
Markl operad, typically denoted by ${\EuScript M}$ in contrast to the generic
notation ${\EuScript P}$ for standard operads.
After having free operads turned on, we introduce quadratic
operads as those isomorphic to free operads quotiented by
quadratic relations. As in the classical setup, each quadratic operad
${\EuScript M}$ possesses its Koszul dual ${\EuScript M}^!$. Given an operad ${\EuScript M}$, we define
its dual dg operad ${\mathbb D}({\EuScript M})$ and, for
${\EuScript M}$ quadratic, construct the canonical morphism \hbox{$\can : {\mathbb D}({\EuScript M}^!) \to
{\EuScript M}$}. A~quadratic operad ${\EuScript M}$ will be called
Koszul if $\can$ induces a component-wise isomorphism of homology.
We finally prove that the most relevant operads are Koszul, by showing
that their dual dg operads are isomorphic to their minimal models described
in~\cite{BMO}. Here, as in the classical case~\cite[Proposition~2.6]{markl:zebrulka}, this
characterizes their Koszulity.
Koszulity of the semi-classical colored
operad governing modular operads was established, in the
setup of operads with colors in groupoids,
in~\cite{Ward}. We believe that the advantage of our approach is that,
after some heavy preparatory work has been done,
everything is stripped to bare bones, with details that only
complicate the picture,
such as the groupoid actions, put under carpet. We hope that the
pictures in~\eqref{dnes_jsem_objel_kanal}--\eqref{Mozna_bude_Ovara_volit_i_Jana.}
capturing the relations in a quadratic presentation of the operad
for modular operads are convincing enough.
\begin{center}
{\bf Plan of the paper}
\end{center}
In Section~\ref{4,2} we recall from~\cite{part1} some additional
axioms of operadic categories required in the present paper.
Markl operads in the context of
operadic categories are introduced in Section~\ref{section-markl}.
Section~\ref{letam_205}
then contains material needed for the definition of free Markl
operads. While the
underlying structure of a classical operad is a collection of spaces
equipped with actions of symmetric groups, for general operadic
categories the situation is subtler.
The r\^ole of underlying collections is
played by presheaves on the category ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$ of virtual isomorphisms
constructed in the first part of Section~\ref{letam_205}.
The second part of that section describes
the precise relation of Markl operads to the category ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$.
Free Markl operads are explicitly described in
Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}.
Having free operads available, we introduce, in Section~\ref{pairing},
quadratic operads and their Koszul duals.
The remaining sections are
devoted to explicit calculations.
In Section~\ref{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal} we study the constant operad
${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ whose algebras are modular
operads. We show that this operad is binary quadratic and that its Koszul
dual describes odd (aka twisted) modular operads.
In Section~\ref{Asi_pojedu_vecer.} we make similar analysis for
operads describing ordinary and cyclic operads, and pre-permutads.
In Section~\ref{Ta_moje_lenost_je_strasna.} we continue the analysis
for wheeled properads, dioperads, $\frac12$PROPs and permutads.
Section~\ref{Ceka mne nehezky vikend.} contains the cobar
construction and
Section~\ref{Prevezu Tereje?} the dual dg operad
needed for the
definition of Koszulity. Theorem~\ref{Privezu Tereje?}
then establishes Koszulity of operads governing modular,
cyclic and ordinary operads, and wheeled PROPs, respectively.
In Section~\ref{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal} we need to refer to concrete
axioms of modular and odd modular operads. Since the only source we
are aware of where these axioms are listed in a concise and itemized
form is the recent monograph~\cite{DJMS}, we decided to recall
them in the Appendix. From the same reasons we also
included itemized axioms of Markl operads so that the reader need not
consult the ancient paper~\cite{markl:zebrulka}.
To help the reader navigating through the paper, we included an index
of terminology and notation.
\noindent
{\bf Conventions.}
Operadic categories and related notions were introduced
in~\cite{duodel}; some basic concepts of that paper are recalled in
\cite[Section~1]{part1}. We will freely use the terminology and notation
from there and, when necessary, refer to concrete definitions,
diagrams, results or formulas in that sources. If not stated otherwise,
$\phi^*$ will denote the image of a morphism~$\phi$ under some presheaf.
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgment.}
We express our gratitude to Joachim Kock and the referee for
useful suggestions and comments that
led to substantial improvement of our~paper.
The second author is also indebted
to Dominik Trnka for many useful remarks and corrections.
\section{Recollections}
\label{4,2}
We are going to recall from~\cite{part1} some additional requirements
on the base operadic category~${\tt O}$,
formulated in the
form of axioms, guaranteeing that free operads admit a nice explicit
description. Intuitively, these axioms express
that ${\tt O}$ is of combinatorial nature,
close to various categories of graphs.
The first axiom involves {\em quasi\-bijection{s}\/}, i.e.\ morphisms in
${\tt O}$ all of whose fibers are
the chosen local terminal objects; in~\cite{duodel} we called them
`trivial.'
\begin{QIB}
\label{Za chvili na kozni.}
All quasi\-bijection{s} in ${\tt O}$ are invertible.
\end{QIB}
We will refer to that axiom as to {\sf QBI}. In the
next axiom, abbreviated $\WBU$, ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ \label{Zitra v 7 na koznim.}
will denote the subcategory of ${\tt O}$ with the objects of ${\tt O}$, and morphisms $f: S
\to T$ of ${\tt O}$ such that $|f| : |S| \to |T|$ is
order-preserving.
\begin{weak_blow up}
\label{wbu}
For any $f' :S' \to T$ in ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ and
morphisms $\pi_i : \inv{f'}(i) \to F''_i$ in ${\tt O}$, $i \in |T|$,
there exists a unique factorization of $f'$
\[
\xymatrix@C=2em@R=1.2em{S' \ar[rr]^\omega \ar[dr]_{f'} && S'' \ar[ld]^{f''}
\\
&T&
}
\]
such that $f'' \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ and
the maps $\omega_i$ between the fibers induced by $\omega$ satisfy
$\omega_i = \pi_i$ for all $i \in |T|$.
\end{weak_blow up}
Before we recall the strong version of the above axiom, we need to
remind the reader of the notation introduced in
a lemma of~\cite{part1}:
\begin{lemma}[Lemma~2.3 of~\cite{part1}]
\label{l3}
Consider the commutative diagram in an operadic category
\begin{equation}
\label{s1}
\xymatrix@C=4em{S' \ar[d]_{f'}\ar[dr]^{f} \ar[r]^\pi & S'' \ar[d]^{f''}
\\
T' \ar[r]^\sigma &\ T''.
}
\end{equation}
Let $j\in |T''|$ and $|\sigma|^{-1}(j) = \{i\}$ for some
$i\in |T'|$. Diagram~(\ref{s1}) determines:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
the map $f'_j: \inv{f}(j) \to
\inv{\sigma}(j)$ whose unique fiber equals $\inv{f'}(i)$, and
\item[(ii)]
{the induced map $\pi_j :
\inv{f}(j) \to
\inv{f''}(j)$.}
\end{itemize}
If $\inv{\sigma}(j)$ is
trivial, in particular, if $\sigma$ is a quasi\-bijection,~then
$\pi$ induces a map
\begin{equation}
\label{zitra_na_prohlidku_k_doktoru_Reichovi}
\pi_{(i,j)} : \inv{f'}(i) \to \inv{f''}(j)
\end{equation}
which is a quasi\-bijection\ if $\pi$ is.
\end{lemma}
In the situation of Lemma~\ref{l3} with $\sigma$ a quasi\-bijection, the {\em
derived sequence\/} is the sequence of morphisms
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
\left\{\pi_{(i,j)} :
\inv{f'}(i) \to \inv{f''}(j), j = |\sigma|(i)\right\}_{i \in |T'|}
\end{equation}
consisting of quasi\-bijection{s} if $\pi$ is a quasi\-bijection. The derived sequence features
in the following axiom abbreviated ${\sf SBU}$.
\begin{blow up}\label{bu}
Consider the corner in an operadic category
\begin{equation}
\label{c1}
\xymatrix@C=3.5em{S' \ar[d]_{f'} &
\\
T' \ar[r]^\sigma_\sim &T''
}
\end{equation}
in which $\sigma$ is a quasi\-bijection\ and $f' \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$. Assume we are given
objects $F''_j$, $j \in |T''|$ together with a collection of maps
\begin{equation}
\label{e2}
\big\{\pi_{(i,j)} : \inv{f'}(i) \to F''_j,\ j = |\sigma|(i)\big\}_{i \in |T'|}.
\end{equation}
Then the corner~(\ref{c1}) can be completed uniquely into the
commutative square
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
\xymatrix@C=3.5em{S' \ar[d]_{f'} \ar[r]^\pi & S'' \ar[d]^{f''}
\\
T' \ar[r]^\sigma_\sim &T''
}
\end{equation}
in which $f'' \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$, $\inv{f''}(j) = F''_j$ for $j \in |T''|$, and
such that
derived sequence~(\ref{e1}) induced by $f''$ coincides with~(\ref{e2}).
\end{blow up}
Axiom~(iii) of operadic categories says that the fiber of the
unique morphism $T \to U$ to the chosen local terminal object $U$ is $T$.
The following axiom, abbreviated ${\sf UFib}$, requires that this property
characterizes the chosen local terminal objects.
\begin{unique}
\label{Kveta_asi_spi.}
If the fiber of the unique morphism
$!:T\to t$ to a local terminal object is $T$, then $t$ is a
chosen local terminal object.
\end{unique}
The following axiom $\Fac$ refers, besides of ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ recalled above,
to the subcategory ${{\tt O}}_{\tt qb} \subset {\tt O}$ of quasi\-bijection{s}.\label{Internet porad nejde.}
\begin{Facto}
\label{dnes_prednaska_na_Macquarie}
An operadic category ${\tt O}$ is {\em factorizable\/}
if each morphism $f \in {\tt O}$ decomposes, not necessarily uniquely,
as $\phi \relax{} \sigma$ for some $\phi \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ and
$\sigma \in {{\tt O}}_{\tt qb}$ or, symbolically, ${\tt O} = {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}} \relax{}\, {{\tt O}}_{\tt qb}$.
\end{Facto}
By $\Rig$ we abbreviate the following axiom.
\begin{Rigid}
\label{Koleno se pomalu lepsi.}
An operadic category $\tt O$ is
{\em rigid\/} if the only isomorphism\ $\sigma$ that makes
\begin{equation}
\label{Skrabe_mne_v_krku.}
\xymatrix@C=3.5em{S \ar[d]_{\phi} \ar@{=}[r] & S \ar[d]^{\phi}
\\
T \ar[r]^\sigma_\cong &T
}
\end{equation}
with $\phi \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ commutative, is the identity $1\!\!1_T : T \to T$.
\end{Rigid}
The last axiom recalled here and abbreviated $\SGrad$ involves a {\em grading\/},
which is, by definition, a map $e :
{\rm Objects}({\tt O}) \to {\mathbb N}$ of sets with the property that\label{Za
14 dni prvni davka.}
\[
e(T) + e(F_1) + \cdots + e(F_k) = e(S)
\]
for each $f : S \to T$ with fibers $\Rada F1k$. In this situation,
the {\em grade\/} $e(f)$ of $f$ is the difference $e(f) := e(S)- e(T)$.
\begin{SG}
\label{Zadne viditelne kozni projevy nemam.}
A graded operadic category ${\tt O}$ is {\em strictly graded\/}
if a morphism $f \in {\tt O}$ is an isomorphism if and only if $e(f) =
0$.
\end{SG}
\label{Jak bude o vikendu jeste nevim.}
Finally, all operadic categories are assumed to be
{\em constant-free\/}, which by definition requires that $|f| : |T| \to |S|$ is
surjective for each morphism $f : T \to S$.
With ${\tt Fin}$ the operadic category of finite
ordinals $\bar{n} =\{1,\ldots,n\}$,
$n\in {\mathbb N}$, and their set-theoretic maps
this means that
the cardinality functor $|\hbox{-}|:{\tt O}\to {\tt Fin}$ factorizes through
the operadic category ${{\tt Fin}_{\rm semi}}$ of nonempty finite sets and
their surjections.
\section{Elementary morphisms and their chains}
While, in~\cite[Definition~1.11]{duodel}, composition laws
$\gamma_f: {\EuScript P}(f) \otimes {\EuScript P}(S)\to {\EuScript P}(T)$ of
an operad ${\EuScript P}$ over an operadic category~${\tt O}$ are associated to an
arbitrary morphism $f : T \to S$ in
${\tt O}$, composition laws of Markl operads are
associated to morphisms with only one nontrivial fiber. The precise
definition and properties of this class of morphisms are the subject
of the first part of this section. The second part contains
preparatory material for our construction of free Markl operads.
\begin{definition}
\label{plysacci_postacci}
A morphism $\phi
: T \to S \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ in a graded operadic category ${\tt O}$
is {\em elementary\/} if all its fibers
are trivial (= chosen local terminal) except precisely~one whose grade is $\geq 1$.
If~$\inv{\phi}(i)$ is, for $i \in |S|$, the unique nontrivial fiber, we will
sometimes write $\phi$ as the pair $(\phi,i)$. If we want to name
the unique nontrivial fiber $F := \inv\phi( i)$
explicitly, we will write $F \triangleright_i T
\stackrel\phi\to S$, or $F \triangleright T
\stackrel\phi\to S$ when the concrete $i \in |S|$ is not important.
\end{definition}
\noindent
{\bf Notation.}
Assume that, in the setup of Lemma~\ref{l3} with $\sigma$ a quasi\-bijection, the morphisms
$f',f''$ are elementary,
$\inv{f'}(a)$ is the only nontrivial fiber of $f'$, and $\inv{f''}(b)$
with $b:= |\sigma|(a)$ the only nontrivial fiber of $f''$. In this
situation we denote by
\begin{equation}
\label{n1}
\overline \pi : = \pi_{(a,b)} :\inv{f'}(a) \to \inv{f''}(b)
\end{equation}
the only nontrivial part of the derived sequence~(\ref{e1}).
\begin{remark}
\label{V_Srni_pred_Borovou_Ladou}
If $\pi$ is a quasi\-bijection, the only nontrivial fiber of $f''$
{\em must be\/} $\inv{f''}(b)$ with $b:= |\sigma|(a)$. Indeed, the
maps in~(\ref{zitra_na_prohlidku_k_doktoru_Reichovi}) are quasi\-bijection{s}, so
their fibers are, by definition, the chosen local terminal objects. When
$\inv{f''}(j)$ is the chosen local terminal object, then the (unique) fiber
of $\pi_{(i,j)}$ is $\inv{f'}(i)$, so it must be, by Axiom~(iii) of an
operadic category, a chosen local terminal
object, too.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}
\label{sec:sundry-facts-about-1}
Assume the strong blow-up axiom and suppose that
in~(\ref{c1}) the map $f'$ is elementary, with the
unique fiber over $a \in |T'|$. Let $b := |\sigma|(a)$ and assume we
are given a map $\overline \pi : \inv{f'}(a) \to
F$. Then~(\ref{c1}) can be uniquely completed
into~(\ref{eq:5}) in which $f''$ is elementary with the unique
nontrivial fiber $\inv{f''}(b) = F$ such that $\overline \pi$ is the
map~(\ref{n1}).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By {\sf SBU},~(\ref{eq:5}) is uniquely
determined by the maps between the fibers. The only map between nontrivial
fibers is $\overline \pi$ while
all maps between trivial ones are unique by the terminality of trivial
objects, thus there is no room for
choices of the induced maps between fibers.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{d3}
Let $T\stackrel{(\phi,j)}{\longrightarrow} S
\stackrel{(\psi,i)}{\longrightarrow} P$ be
elementary morphisms. If $|\psi|(j) = i$
we say that
the fibers of $\phi$ and $\psi$ are {\em joint\/}.
If
$|\psi|(j)\ne i$ we say that
$\phi$ and $\psi$ have {\em disjoint fibers\/} or, more
specifically, that the fibers of $\phi$ and $\psi$ are {\em
$(i,j)$-disjoint\/}, cf.~the following picture.
\end{definition}
\newgray{kgray}{.9}
\[
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-2.8)(6.24,2.8)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.01](0.31,-2.3375)(5.71,-2.3375)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.01](0.31,0.0625)(5.71,0.0625)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.01](5.71,2.4625)(5.71,2.4625)(0.31,2.4625)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03](0.71,2.4625)(1.71,0.0625)(2.71,2.4625)(2.71,2.4625)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03](1.71,0.0625)(1.71,-2.3375)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03](3.31,0.0625)(3.31,0.0625)(4.31,-2.3375)(5.31,0.0625)(5.31,2.4625)(5.31,2.4625)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03](3.31,0.0625)(3.31,2.4625)
\psellipse[fillcolor=kgray, linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03, fillstyle=solid, dimen=outer](1.71,2.4625)(1.0,0.4)
\rput(1.71,2.5){\scriptsize $\xi^{-1}(k)$}
\psellipse[fillcolor=kgray, linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03, fillstyle=solid, dimen=outer](4.31,2.4625)(1.0,0.4)
\psellipse[fillcolor=kgray, linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03, fillstyle=solid, dimen=outer](4.31,0.0625)(1.0,0.4)
\rput(4.3,2.5){\scriptsize $\xi^{-1}(i)$}
\rput(4.31,0.0625){\scriptsize $\psi^{-1}(i)$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.14](1.71,0.0625)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.14](1.71,-2.3375)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.14](4.31,-2.3375)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 5.0,arrowlength=1.4,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.51,2.4625)(0.51,0.0625)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 5.0,arrowlength=1.4,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.51,0.0625)(0.51,-2.3375)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.03, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 5.0,arrowlength=1.4,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(4.11,2.0625)(4.11,0.4625)
\rput(6.11,2.4625){$T$}
\rput(6.11,0.0625){$S$}
\rput(6.11,-2.3375){$P$}
\rput(0.11,1.4625){$\phi$}
\rput(0.11,-0.9375){$\psi$}
\rput(4.51,1.2625){$\phi_i$}
\rput(2.11,0.3){$j$}
\rput(1.71,-2.7375){$k$}
\rput(4.31,-2.7375){$i$}
\rput(3.71,1.2625){$\sim$}
\end{pspicture}
}
\]
\begin{lemma}
\label{l7}
If the
fibers of $\phi$ and $\psi$ of elementary morphisms in
Definition~\ref{d3} are
joint, then the
composite $\xi = \psi(\phi)$ is an elementary as well, with the
nontrivial fiber over $i$, and the induced morphism
$\phi_i:\xi^{-1}(i)\to \psi^{-1}(i) $ is elementary with the
nontrivial fiber over $j$ that equals $\phi^{-1}(j)$. For $l\ne i$ the
morphism $\phi_l$ equals the identity $U_c\to U_c$ of trivial objects.
If the fibers of $\phi$ and $\psi$ are { $(i,j)$-disjoint} then the morphism
$\xi = \psi(\phi)$ has exactly two nontrivial fibers and these are
fibers over $i$ and $k: =|\psi|(j)$. Moreover, there is a canonical
induced quasibijection:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{harmonika}
\phi_i:\xi^{-1}(i)\to \psi^{-1}(i) \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}
\end{equation}
and the equality
\begin{equation}
\label{pisu_opet_v_Sydney}
\xi^{-1}(k) = \phi^{-1}(j).
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Axiom~(iv) of an operadic category,
$\phi_i^{-1}(j) = \phi^{-1}(j)$, thus $e(\phi_i^{-1}(k))\geq 1$.
If $k \in |\psi|^{-1}(i)$ is such
that $k\ne j$,
$\phi_i^{-1}(k) = \phi^{-1}(k) = U_c$.
Therefore $\phi_i$ is an elementary morphism.
Let us prove that $\xi$ is elementary as well. For $i =k\in |P|$, we
have $\phi_i: \xi^{-1}(i)\to \psi^{-1}(i)$, hence the grade of
$\xi^{-1}(i)$ must be greater or equal to the grade of
$\phi_i^{-1}(j) = \phi^{-1}(j)$, which is greater or equal $1$. For
$k\ne i$, $\phi_k:\xi^{-1}(k)\to \psi^{-1}(k) = U'$ has the unique
fiber equal to $\xi^{-1}(k).$ On the other hand for the unique $l$ such that
$|\psi|(l) = k$,
\[
\phi_k^{-1}(l) = \phi^{-1}(l) = U'',
\]
hence $\xi^{-1}(k) = U''$, so $\xi$ is elementary.
Let us prove the second part of the lemma.
If $l\ne i,k$ then $\phi_l:\xi^{-1}(l)\to \psi^{-1}(l) =
U'$, where $U'$ is a trivial object. So the unique fiber of $\phi_l$
equals $\xi^{-1}(l)$. Since $|\psi|$ is surjective,
there exists $l'\in |S|$
such that $|\psi|(l') = l$ and such an $l'$ is unique because
$\psi$ is elementary. Hence $\phi_l^{-1}(l') = \phi^{-1}(l') = U'$
and so $\xi^{-1}(l) = U'$. This proves that the only nontrivial
fibers of $\xi$ can be those over $i$ and $k$. Their grades are
clearly $\geq 1$.
Let us prove that $\phi_i$ is a quasibijection. If $l\in
|\psi^{-1}(i)|$ then $\phi_i^{-1}(l) = \phi^{-1}(l).$ But $l\ne j$
since $|\psi|(l) = i \ne |\psi|(j)$ hence, $\phi^{-1}(l)$ is trivial.
To prove that $\phi_i \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$, notice that by~Axiom~(iii), $|\phi_i|$
is the map of sets $|\xi|^{-1} \to |\psi|^{-1}$ induced by the
diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=2em@R=1.2em{|T| \ar[rr]^{|\phi|}
\ar[dr]_{|\xi|} && |S| \ar[ld]^{|\psi|}
\\
&|P|&
}
\]
Regarding~(\ref{pisu_opet_v_Sydney}),
by Axiom~(iv) we have $\phi^{-1}(j) = \phi^{-1}_k(j)$. But
$\phi_k:\xi^{-1}(k)\to \psi^{-1}(k) = U''$ and hence its unique
fiber equals to $\xi^{-1}(k)$. So, $\phi^{-1}(j) = \xi^{-1}(k)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{har}
We will call the pair
$T\stackrel{(\phi,j)}{\longrightarrow} S
\stackrel{(\psi,i)}{\longrightarrow} P$ of morphisms
in Definition~\ref{d3} with disjoint fibers
{\em harmonic\/} if $\inv{\xi}(i) = \inv \psi
(i)$ and the map $\phi_i$ in~(\ref{harmonika}) is the identity.
\end{definition}
\begin{corollary}
\label{zitra_vylet_do_Sydney}
If the strong blow-up axiom is satisfied then all pairs with disjoint fibers
are harmonic.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The map $\phi_i$ in~(\ref{harmonika}) is a quasi\-bijection\ in ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$, so it is the
identity by \cite[Corollary~2.4]{part1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{move}
Assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3}
\xymatrix@R = 1em@C=4em{& {P'} \ar[dr]^{(\psi',\, i)} &
\\
T\ar[dr]^{(\phi'',\, l)} \ar[ur]^{(\phi',\, j)} && S
\\
&{P''}\ar[ur]^{(\psi'',\, k)}&
}
\end{equation}
is a commutative diagram of elementary morphisms.
Assume that $\psi''|l| = i$ and $\psi'|j| = k$.
Let $F', F'',G',G''$ be the
only nontrivial fibers of $\phi',\phi'',\psi',\psi''$, respectively.
Then one has canonical quasibijections
\begin{equation}
\label{za_tyden_poletim_do_Prahy}
\sigma': F' \longrightarrow G'' \
\mbox { and }\ \sigma'': F'' \longrightarrow G'.
\end{equation}
If both pairs in~(\ref{eq:3}) are harmonic, then $F' = G''$, $F'' =
G'$ and $\sigma',\sigma''$ are the identities.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\xi : T \to S$ be the composite $\psi'\phi' = \psi''\phi''$.
One has $G' =
\inv{\psi'}(j)$, $G'' = \inv{\psi''}(k)$ and, by Lemma~\ref{l7},
$F' = \inv{\phi'}(j) = \inv{\xi}(k)$ and $F'' = \inv{\phi''}(l) = \inv{\xi}(i)$.
We define
\[
\sigma' : F' = \inv{\xi}(k) \stackrel{\phi''_k}\longrightarrow
\inv{\psi''}(k) = G''
\ {\mbox { and }} \
\sigma'' : F'' = \inv{\xi}(i) \stackrel{\phi'_i}\longrightarrow
\inv{\psi''}(i) = G'.
\]
These maps are quasi\-bijection{s} by Lemma~\ref{l7}. The second part of the
corollary follows directly from the definition of the harmonicity.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Chains of morphisms} This subsection contains an auxiliary
material for the construction of free Markl operads in
Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{bude_pekna_zima}
Consider a diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{grand_mall}
\xymatrix@R=1.6em@C=3em{T'\ar[r]^{\sigma_T}_\sim\ar[d]_{(\phi',j')} &
T''\ar[d]^{(\phi'',j'')}
\\
P'\ar[r]^{\sigma_P}_\sim \ar[d]_{(\psi',i')} & P''\ar[d]^{(\psi'',i'')}
\\
S'\ar[r]^{\sigma_S}_\sim & S''
}
\end{equation}
whose vertical maps are elementary with disjoint fibers as indicated,
and the horizontal maps are quasi\-bijection{s}. Denoting $k' := |\psi'|(j')$,
$k'' := |\psi''|(j'')$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{zase_podleham}
|\sigma_S|(i') = i'' \ {\mbox { and }} \ |\sigma_S|(k') = k'' .
\end{equation}
Assume the strong blow-up axiom. If we are given a subdiagram
of~(\ref{grand_mall}) consisting only of the morphisms
$\phi',\phi'',\psi',\psi'',\sigma_T$ and $\sigma_S$, i.e.\
\begin{equation}
\label{Pojedu_za_Jarkou_na_chalupu?}
\xymatrix@R=1.6em@C=3em{T'\ar[r]^{\sigma_T}_\sim\ar[d]_{(\phi',j')} &
T''\ar[d]^{(\phi'',j'')}
\\
P' \ar[d]_{(\psi',i')} & P''\ar[d]^{(\psi'',i'')}
\\
S'\ar[r]^{\sigma_S}_\sim & S'',
}
\end{equation}
then the
conditions~(\ref{zase_podleham}) are also sufficient for the existence
of a unique quasi\-bijection\ $\sigma_P$ as in~(\ref{grand_mall}).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The only nontrivial fiber of $\psi'$ is $\inv{\psi'}(i')$ and
the only nontrivial fiber of $\psi''$ is $\inv{\psi''}(i'')$ so, by
Remark \ref{V_Srni_pred_Borovou_Ladou}, $|\sigma_S|(i') = i''$. By the
same argument, $|\sigma_P|(j') = j''$. Since $|-|$ is a functor, we
have
\[
k'' = |\psi''||\sigma_P|(j') = |\sigma_S| |\psi'|(j') = |\sigma_S| (k')
\]
proving the first part of the proposition.
To prove the second part, denote by $\xi'$ resp.~by $\xi''$ the
composite of the maps in the left resp.\ right column
of~(\ref{Pojedu_za_Jarkou_na_chalupu?}). Since the left column
of~(\ref{Pojedu_za_Jarkou_na_chalupu?}) is harmonic by
Corollary~\ref{zitra_vylet_do_Sydney},
we may define a map $(\sigma_P)_{(i',i'')}$ by the commutativity of the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{streda_v_Srni}
\xymatrix@C=4em{\inv{\xi'}(i') \ar[r]^{(\sigma_T)_{(i',i'')}}
\ar@{=}[d]_{\phi'_{i'} = 1\!\!1}
& \inv{\xi''}(i'')\ar[d]_{\phi''_{i''}}
\\
\inv{\psi'}(i') \ar[r]^{(\sigma_P)_{(i',i'')}} & \inv{\psi''}(i'').
}
\end{equation}
The strong blow-up axiom produces a commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=1.6em@C=3em{
P'\ar[r]^{\sigma_P}_\sim \ar[d]_{\psi'} & \tilde P''\ar[d]^{\tilde \psi''}
\\
S'\ar[r]^{\sigma_S}_\sim & S''
}
\]
in which, by construction,
$\tilde \psi''$ is elementary with the only nontrivial fiber
${\psi''}^{-1}(i'')$ over~$i''$, and the map between nontrivial fibers
induced by $\sigma_P$ is $(\sigma_P)_{(i',i'')}$. Consider now two
commutative diagrams
\begin{equation}
\label{Necham_auto_na_Rokyte.}
\xymatrix@R=1.6em@C=3em{
T'\ar[r]^{\sigma_P\relax{} \phi'}_\sim \ar[d]_{\xi'} & \tilde P''\ar[d]^{\tilde \psi''}
\\
S'\ar[r]^{\sigma_S}_\sim & S''
}
\ {\mbox { and }} \
\xymatrix@R=1.6em@C=3em{
T'\ar[r]^{\phi''\relax{} \sigma_T}_\sim \ar[d]_{\xi'} & P''\ar[d]^{\tilde \psi''}
\\
S'\ar[r]^{\sigma_S}_\sim & S''.
}
\end{equation}
In both diagrams, the right vertical map is elementary, with the only
nontrivial fiber ${\psi''}^{-1}(i'')$. We will show that both
$\sigma_P\relax{} \phi'$ and $\phi'' \relax{} \sigma_T$ induce the same map
between nontrivial fibers. One has
\[
(\sigma_P\relax{} \phi')_{(i',i'')} = (\sigma_P)_{(i',i'')} \relax{}\phi'_{i'}
\]
while
\[
(\phi''\relax{} \sigma_T)_{(i',i'')} = \phi''_{i''}\relax{} (\sigma_T)_{(i',i'')}.
\]
By the defining diagram~(\ref{streda_v_Srni}), the right-hand sides of
both equations coincide. By Corollary~\cite[Corollary~2.8]{part1},
the diagrams in~(\ref{Necham_auto_na_Rokyte.}) are the same, therefore
both squares in~(\ref{grand_mall}) with $\sigma_P$ constructed above
commute. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{lemma}
\label{spousta-prace}
Assume the strong blow-up axiom.
Let $\rho: S \to T \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ be elementary with the unique fiber $F$
over $a \in |T|$.
Suppose that we are given a chain of
elementary morphisms
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4}
F \stackrel {\varphi_1} \longrightarrow F_1 \stackrel {\varphi_2} \longrightarrow
F_2 \stackrel {\varphi_3} \longrightarrow
F_3 \stackrel {\varphi_4} \longrightarrow \cdots \stackrel
{\varphi_{l-1}} \longrightarrow F_{l-1}.
\end{equation}
Then there exists a unique factorization
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
S \stackrel {\rho_1} \longrightarrow S_1 \stackrel {\rho_2} \longrightarrow
S_2 \stackrel {\rho_3} \longrightarrow
S_3 \stackrel {\rho_4} \longrightarrow \cdots \stackrel
{\rho_{l-1}} \longrightarrow S_{l-1} \stackrel {\rho_l} \longrightarrow T
\end{equation}
of $\rho$ into elementary morphisms such that $(\rho_l \relax{} \cdots \relax{}
\rho_s)^{-1}(a) = F_{s-1}$ for each $2 \leq s \leq l$,
and $(\rho_s)_a = \varphi_s$ for
each $1 \leq s < l$.
\end{lemma}
\end{subequations}
\begin{proof}
We will inductively construct maps in the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:10}
\xymatrix{S \ar[r]^{\rho_1}\ar[d]_{\rho} &
S_1\ar[r]^{\rho_2} \ar@/^.1pc/[dl]_{\eta_1} & S_2 \ar@/^.3pc/[dll]_{\eta_2}
\ar[r]^{\rho_3} & S_3 \ar[r]^{\rho_4}\ar@/^.6pc/[dlll]_{\eta_3} &
\cdots \ar[r]^{\rho_{l-1}} & S_{l-1}. \ar@/^.9pc/[dlllll]_{\eta_l}
\\
T
}
\end{equation}
The strong blow-up axiom implies that the maps
\[
\varphi_1 : F = \inv{\rho}(a) \to F_1, \ 1\!\!1 : \inv{\rho}(i) = U_i \to U_i
\mbox { for } i \ne a,
\]
uniquely determine a decomposition $\rho = \eta_1 \relax{}
\rho_1$. Clearly, $\eta_1$ is elementary with the unique fiber $F_1$
and we may apply the same reasoning to $\eta_1$ in place of $\rho$. The
result will be a unique decomposition $\eta_1 = \eta_2 \relax{}
\rho_2$. Repeating this process $(l-1)$ times and defining $\rho_l : =
\eta_l$ finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Assume that, in~(\ref{eq:4}), the pair $(\varphi_t,\varphi_{t+1})$ has
$(i,j)$-disjoint fibers for some $1 \leq t \leq l-2$. Then the corresponding pair
$(\rho_t,\rho_{t+1})$ in~(\ref{eq:2}) has $(i+a-1,j+a-1)$-disjoint
fibers. This is an immediate consequence of Axiom~(iv) of an
operadic category.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{spousta-prace-1}
Assume the strong blow-up axiom and
suppose that, in the notation of Lemma~\ref{spousta-prace}, we
are given two chains of elementary morphisms as in~(\ref{eq:4}) of the
form
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:8}
F \stackrel {\varphi_1} \longrightarrow F_1 \stackrel{\varphi_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel{\varphi_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {F_{u-1}}
\stackrel{\varphi'_{u}}\longrightarrow F'_{u} \stackrel
{\varphi'_{u+1}}\longrightarrow F_{u+1} \stackrel{\varphi_{u+2}}
\longrightarrow \cdots \stackrel {\varphi_{l-1}} \longrightarrow
F_{l-1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:9}
F \stackrel {\varphi_1} \longrightarrow F_1 \stackrel{\varphi_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots
\stackrel{\varphi_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {F_{u-1}}
\stackrel{\varphi''_{u}}\longrightarrow F''_{u}
\stackrel {\varphi''_{u+1}}\longrightarrow F_{u+1}
\stackrel{\varphi_{u+2}} \longrightarrow \cdots
\stackrel {\varphi_{l-1}} \longrightarrow F_{l-1}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
such that the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1em{& {F'_u} \ar[dr]^{\varphi'_{u+1}} &
\\
F_{u-1}\ar[dr]^{\varphi_u''} \ar[ur]^{\varphi_u'} && F_{u+1}
\\
&{F''_u}\ar[ur]^{\varphi''_{u+1}}&
}
\]
commutes.
Then the corresponding decompositions~(\ref{eq:2}) are of the form
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:6}
S \stackrel {\rho_1} \longrightarrow S_1 \stackrel{\rho_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel{\rho_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {S_{u-1}}
\stackrel{\rho'_{u}}\longrightarrow S'_{u} \stackrel
{\rho'_{u+1}}\longrightarrow S_{u+1} \stackrel{\rho_{u+2}}
\longrightarrow \cdots \stackrel {\rho_{l-1}} \longrightarrow
S_{l-1} \stackrel {\rho_{l}} \longrightarrow T
\end{equation}
respectively
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:7}
S \stackrel {\rho_1} \longrightarrow S_1 \stackrel{\rho_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots
\stackrel{\rho_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {S_{u-1}}
\stackrel{\rho''_{u}}\longrightarrow S''_{u}
\stackrel {\rho''_{u+1}}\longrightarrow S_{u+1}
\stackrel{\rho_{u+2}} \longrightarrow \cdots
\stackrel {\rho_{l-1}} \longrightarrow S_{l-1}
\stackrel {\rho_{l}} \longrightarrow T,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
and the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:11}
\xymatrix@R = 1em{& {S'_u} \ar[dr]^{\rho'_{u+1}} &
\\
S_{u-1}\ar[dr]^{\rho_u''} \ar[ur]^{\rho_u'} && S_{u+1}
\\
&{S''_u}\ar[ur]^{\rho''_{u+1}}&
}
\end{equation}
commutes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will rely on the notation used in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{spousta-prace}. It is clear from the inductive construction
described there that the initial parts of the canonical decompositions
corresponding to~(\ref{eq:8}) resp.~(\ref{eq:9}) coincide and are equal to
\[
S \stackrel {\rho_1} \longrightarrow S_1 \stackrel{\rho_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots
\stackrel{\rho_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {S_{u-1}}.
\]
Consider the following two stages of the inductive construction in the
proof of Lemma~\ref{spousta-prace}:
\[
\xymatrix{S \ar[r]^{\rho_1}\ar[d]_{\rho} & \cdots
\ar[r]^{\rho_{u-1}} & S_{u-1} \ar[r]^{\rho'_u}\ar@/^.6pc/[dll]_{\eta_{u-1}} &
S'_u \ar@/^1.1pc/[dlll]_(.3){\eta'_u}
\ar[r]^{\rho'_{u+1}} & S'_{u+1} \ar@/^1.3pc/[dllll]_(.25){\eta'_{u+1}}
\\
T
}
\]
and
\[
\xymatrix{S \ar[r]^{\rho_1}\ar[d]_{\rho} & \cdots
\ar[r]^{\rho_{u-1}} & S_{u-1} \ar[r]^{\rho''_u}\ar@/^.6pc/[dll]_{\eta_{u-1}} &
S''_u \ar@/^1.1pc/[dlll]_(.3){\eta''_u}
\ar[r]^{\rho''_{u+1}} & S''_{u+1}. \ar@/^1.3pc/[dllll]_(.25){\eta''_{u+1}}
\\
T
}
\]
The maps $\eta_{u-1}$, $\eta'_{u+1}$ and $\eta''_{u+1}$ are
elementary, with the
nontrivial fibers $F_{u-1}$ resp.~$F_{u+1}$. By construction, the
horizontal maps in the factorizations
\[
\xymatrix@C=4em{S_{u-1} \ar[r]^{\rho'_{u+1} \relax{} \rho'_{u}} \ar[d]^{\eta_{u-1}} & S'_{u+1}
\ar[ld]^{\eta_{u+1}}
\\
T
}
\ {\mbox { and }} \
\xymatrix@C=4em{S_{u-1} \ar[r]^{\rho''_{u+1} \relax{} \rho''_{u}} \ar[d]^{\eta_{u-1}} & S''_{u+1}
\ar[ld]^{\eta_{u+1}}
\\
T
}
\]
induce the same map between these nontrivial fibers, namely
$\varphi'_{u+1} \relax{} \varphi'_{u} = \varphi''_{u+1} \relax{}
\varphi''_{u}$. By the uniqueness of the strong blow-up, the diagrams in the
above display coincide, so diagram~(\ref{eq:11})
with $S_{u+1} = S'_{u+1} = S''_{u+1}$
commutes. It is obvious that the remaining parts of~(\ref{eq:6})
resp.~(\ref{eq:7}) are the same.
\end{proof}
\section{Markl operads}
\label{section-markl}
The aim of this section is to introduce Markl operads and their
algebras in the context
of operadic categories, and formulate assumptions under which these
notions agree with the standard ones introduced in~\cite{duodel}.
We assume that ${\tt O}$ is a graded
factorizable operadic category in which all
quasi\-bijection{s} are invertible, the strong blow-up and unique fiber axioms are
fulfilled, and a
morphism $f$ is an isomorphism if and only if $e(f) =
0$; recall that by~\cite[Lemma~2.13]{part1} this happens
if and only if all fibers of $f$ are local terminal. In brief, we require
\[
\hbox{\rm \Fac\ \& {\sf SBU}\ \& {\sf QBI}\ \& {\sf UFib}\ \& \SGrad.}
\]
Denoting by ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ the subcategory of ${\tt O}$ consisting of \label{Co
zitra zjisti?}
all isomorphisms we therefore have
\[
{{\tt O}}_{\tt iso} = \{ f : S \to T;\ e(f) = 0\}
= \{ f : S \to T;\ e(F) = 0 \hbox { for each fiber $F$ of $f$} \}.
\]
Another consequence of our assumptions is that $T \in {\tt O}$ is
local terminal if and only if \hbox {$e(T) = 0$}.
Operads in this section will live in a cocomplete strict symmetric
monoidal category ${\tt V}$ with
a strict monoidal unit ${\mathbb k}$ and symmetry $\tau$.
\begin{definition}
\label{markl}
A {\em Markl ${\tt O}$-operad\/} in ${\tt V}$
is a presheaf ${\EuScript M}: {{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}^{\rm op} \to {\tt V}$ with values in ${\tt V}$ equipped, for each
elementary morphism $F\triangleright T \stackrel\phi\to S$ as in
Definition~\ref{plysacci_postacci},
with a `circle product'
\begin{equation}
\label{ten_prelet_jsem_podelal}
\circ_{\phi}: {\EuScript M}(S)\otimes {\EuScript M}(F)\to {\EuScript M}(T).
\end{equation}
These operations must satisfy the following set of axioms.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
Let
$T\stackrel{(\phi,j)}{\longrightarrow} S
\stackrel{(\psi,i)}{\longrightarrow} P$
be elementary morphisms such that $|\psi|(j) = i$ and let
$\xi: T \to P$ be the composite $\psi \relax{} \phi$. Then
the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{vymena}
\xymatrix@R = 1em{& { {\EuScript M}(P)\otimes {\EuScript M}(\xi^{-1}(i))}
\ar[dr]^(.65){\circ_\xi} &
\\
{\EuScript M}(P)\otimes {\EuScript M}(\psi^{-1}(i))\otimes {\EuScript M}(\phi^{-1}(j))
\ar[dr]_{\circ_\psi\otimes 1\!\!1} \ar[ur]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_{\phi_i}} && {\EuScript M}(T)
\\
&{ {\EuScript M}(S)\otimes {\EuScript M}(\phi^{-1}(j))}\ar[ur]_(.65){\circ_\phi}&
}
\end{equation}
commutes.
\item[(ii)]
Let us consider the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{den_pred_Silvestrem_jsem_nachlazeny}
\xymatrix@R = 1em@C=4em{& {P'} \ar[dr]^{(\psi',\, i)} &
\\
T\ar[dr]^{(\phi'',\, l)} \ar[ur]^{(\phi',\, j)} && S
\\
&{P''}\ar[ur]^{(\psi'',\, k)}&
}
\end{equation}
of elementary morphisms with disjoint fibers as in Corollary~\ref{move}.
Then the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Napadne jeste tento rok snih?}
\xymatrix@R = 2.5em@C=4em{
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(G') \otimes {\EuScript M}(F')\ar[r]^(.55){\circ_{\psi'} \otimes 1\!\!1} &
{\EuScript M}(P') \otimes {\EuScript M}(F')\ar[d]^(.5){\circ_{\phi'}}
\\
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(G'')
\ar[u]^{1\!\!1 \otimes (\sigma''^{-1})^* \otimes \sigma'^*}
& {\EuScript M}(T)
\\
\ar[u]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \tau}
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(G'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(F'')\ar[r]^(.55){\circ_{\psi''} \otimes 1\!\!1} &
{\EuScript M}(P'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(F'') \ar[u]_(.5){\circ_{\phi''}}
}
\end{equation}
in which
$
F' \triangleright T \stackrel{\phi'}\to P',\
F'' \triangleright T \stackrel{\phi''}\to P',\
G' \triangleright P' \stackrel{\psi'}\to S \hbox { and }
G'' \triangleright P'' \stackrel{\psi''}\to S,
$
and the maps $({\sigma''^{-1}})^*$ and $\sigma'^*$ are induced by
quasi\-bijection{s}~(\ref{za_tyden_poletim_do_Prahy}), commutes.
\item[(iii)]
For every commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=4em@R=1.4em{T'\ar[r]_\cong^\omega \ar[d]^{\phi'}
& T'' \ar[d]^{\phi''}
\\
S'\ar[r]^\sigma_\sim & S''
}
\]
where $\omega$ is an isomorphism, $\sigma$ a quasi\-bijection,
and
$F' \triangleright_i T' \stackrel{\phi'}\to S'$, $F'' \triangleright_j
T'' \stackrel{\phi''}\to S''$,
the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{posledni_nedele_v_Sydney}
\xymatrix@C=4em{\ar[d]_{\omega_{(i,j)}^* \otimes \sigma^*}
{\EuScript M}(F'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(S'')
\ar[r]^(.65){\circ_{\phi''}}& {\EuScript M}(T'') \ar[d]^{\omega^*}_\cong
\\
{\EuScript M}(F') \otimes
{\EuScript M}(S')\ar[r]_(.65){\circ_{\phi'}}& {\EuScript M}(T')
}
\end{equation}
in which $\omega_{(i,j)} : F' \to F''$ is the
induced map~(\ref{zitra_na_prohlidku_k_doktoru_Reichovi}) of fibers, commutes.
\end{itemize}
Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ is {\em unital\/} if one is given, for each
trivial $U$, a map $\eta_U
:{\mathbb k} \to {\EuScript M}(U)$ such that the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Holter_se_blizi.}
\xymatrix{{\EuScript M}(U) \otimes {\EuScript M}(T) \ar[r]^(.6){\circ_!} & {\EuScript M}(T)
\\
\ar[u]^{\eta_U \otimes 1\!\!1}
{\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript M}(T) \ar@{=}[r]^(.58)\cong & {\EuScript M}(T) \ar@{=}[u]
}
\end{equation}
in which $T$ is such that $e(T) \geq 1$ and
$T \triangleright T \stackrel!\to U$ the unique map, commutes.
\end{definition}
Since we assume the strong blow-up axiom, all pairs of morphisms with disjoint fibers are
harmonic by Corollary~\ref{zitra_vylet_do_Sydney}. Thus in Axiom~(ii)
the morphism $\sigma'$ and $\sigma''$ are the
identities. Denoting $F:=F' = G''$ and $G := G' = F''$,
diagram~\eqref{Napadne jeste tento rok snih?} takes the form
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1.5em@C=4em{
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(G) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F)\ar[r]^(.55){\circ_{\psi'} \otimes 1\!\!1} &
{\EuScript M}(P') \otimes {\EuScript M}(F)\ar[d]^(.5){\circ_{\phi'}}
\\
& {\EuScript M}(T)
\\
\ar[uu]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \tau}
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \otimes {\EuScript M}(G)\ar[r]^(.55){\circ_{\psi''} \otimes 1\!\!1} &
\ {\EuScript M}(P'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(G) \ar[u]_(.5){\circ_{\phi''}}\, .
}
\]
\label{Jsem znepokojen.}
Let ${{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm}$ be the operadic subcategory of ${\tt O}$ consisting of its local
terminal objects. Denote by ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt trm} : {{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm} \to {\tt V}$ the constant
functor, i.e.~the functor such that ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt trm} (u) = {\mathbb k}$
for each local terminal $u\in {\tt O}$. Since
${{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm}$ is equivalent, as a category, to the
discrete groupoid of trivial objects,
for a unital
Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$
the collection $\{\eta_U :{\mathbb k} \to {\EuScript M}(U)\}$ of unit maps
extends uniquely into a transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{2x2}
\eta : {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt trm} \to \iota^* {\EuScript M}
\end{equation}
from the constant functor $ {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt trm}$ to the
restriction of ${\EuScript M}$ along the inclusion
$\iota : {{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm} \hookrightarrow {\tt O}$. The component $\eta_u : {\mathbb k} \to
{\EuScript M}(u)$ of that extension is, for $u$ local terminal, given by
$\eta_u :=\ !^* \eta_U$, where $!: u \to U$ is the unique map to a
trivial $U$. Transformation~(\ref{2x2}) of course amounts to a family
of maps $\eta_u : {\mathbb k} \to {\EuScript M}(u)$
given for each local terminal $u \in
{\tt O}$, such that the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Je_vedro.}
\xymatrix@R=1.2em{{\EuScript M}(u) \ar[r]^(.5){!^*} & {\EuScript M}(v)
\\
{\mathbb k} \ar@{=}[r] \ar[u]^{\eta_u } &
{\mathbb k}
\ar[u]_{\eta_v}
}
\end{equation}
commutes for each (unique) map $! : v \to u$ of local terminal objects.
For each $T$ with $e(T) \geq 1$ and $F \triangleright T \stackrel!\to u$ with
$u$ a local terminal object,
one has a map $\vartheta(T,u) : {\EuScript M}(F) \to {\EuScript M}(T)$ defined by the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet}
\xymatrix@R=1em{{\EuScript M}(u) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \ar[r]^(.6){\circ_!} & {\EuScript M}(T)
\\
{\EuScript M}(U) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \ar[u]^{!^* \otimes 1\!\!1} &
\\
\ar[u]^{\eta_U \otimes 1\!\!1}
{\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \ar@{=}[r]^\cong &\ {\EuScript M}(F). \ar[uu]_{\vartheta(T,u)}
}
\end{equation}
Notice that the composite of the maps in the left column equals
$\eta_u \otimes 1\!\!1$, where $\eta_u$ is a~component of the extension~(\ref{2x2}).
The unitality offers
a generalization of Axiom~(iii) of Markl operads
which postulates for each commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{moc_se_mi_na_prochazku_nechce}
\xymatrix@C=4em{T'\ar[r]^\omega_\cong \ar[d]^{\phi'}\ar[rd]^{\phi}
& T'' \ar[d]^{\phi''}
\\
S'\ar[r]^\sigma_\cong & S''
}
\end{equation}
where the horizontal maps are isomorphisms and
the vertical
maps are elementary, with
$F' \triangleright_i T' \stackrel{\phi'}\to S'$, $F'' \triangleright_j
T'' \stackrel{\phi''}\to S''$, the commutativity of
the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{X}
\xymatrix@C=4em
{{\EuScript M}(F) \otimes {\EuScript M}(S'')&{\EuScript M}(F'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(S'') \ar[l]_{\omega^*_j \otimes 1\!\!1}^\cong
\ar[r]^(.65){\circ_{\phi''}}& {\EuScript M}(T'') \ar[d]^{\omega^*}_\cong
\\
\ar[u]^{\vartheta(F,\inv{\sigma}(j)) \otimes 1\!\!1}
{\EuScript M}(F') \otimes {\EuScript M}(S'')\ar[r]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \sigma^*}_\cong &{\EuScript M}(F') \otimes
{\EuScript M}(S')\ar[r]_(.65){\circ_{\phi'}}& {\EuScript M}(T')
}
\end{equation}
in which $F := \inv{\phi}(j)$ and $\omega_j : F \to F''$ is the
induced map of fibers. Notice that if $\sigma$ is a quasi\-bijection,
(\ref{X})
implies~(\ref{posledni_nedele_v_Sydney}).
\begin{definition}
\label{svedeni}
Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ is {\em strictly unital\/} if all the maps
$\vartheta(T,u)$ in~(\ref{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet})
are identities. It is {\em $1$-connected\/}
if~the unit maps $\eta_U : {\mathbb k} \to {\EuScript M}(U)$ are isomorphisms for each
trivial~$U$.
\end{definition}
If ${\EuScript M}$ is strictly unital, ${\EuScript M}(F) = {\EuScript M}(F')$
in~(\ref{X}), so this diagram assumes a
particularly simple form, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{Ve_ctvrtek_letim_do_Prahy.}
\xymatrix@C=4em{
{\EuScript M}(F'') \otimes {\EuScript M}(S'') \ar[d]_{\omega^*_j \otimes \sigma^*}^\cong
\ar[r]^(.65){\circ_{\phi''}}& {\EuScript M}(T'') \ar[d]^{\omega^*}_\cong
\\
{\EuScript M}(F') \otimes
{\EuScript M}(S')\ar[r]_(.65){\circ_{\phi'}}&\, {\EuScript M}(T').
}
\end{equation}
The following lemma is an easy exercise on definitions.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Zavolam mu zitra?}
A $1$-connected Markl operad is strictly unital if and only if, for each $F
\triangleright T \stackrel!\to u$ with $u$ a local terminal object, ${\EuScript M}(F) =
{\EuScript M}(T)$ and the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Zitra prijde obleva.}
\xymatrix{
{\EuScript M}(u) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \ar[r]^(.6){\circ_!} & {\EuScript M}(T)
\\
{\EuScript M}(U) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \ar[u]_{!^* \otimes 1\!\!1}\ar[r]^(.6){\circ_!}&\, {\EuScript M}(F),\ar@{=}[u]
}
\end{equation}
in which $!$ denotes unique maps between local terminal
objects, commutes.
\end{lemma}
Let us introduce similar terminology for `standard'
${\tt O}$-operads. In this framework, ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt trm}$ will denote the
constant ${\tt trm}$-operad. As for Markl operads, the collection
$\{\eta_U :{\mathbb k} \to {\EuScript P}(U)\}$ of unit maps of an ${\tt O}$-operad ${\EuScript P}$
extends uniquely into a transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{7_dni_do_odletu_ze_Sydney}
\eta : {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt trm} \to \iota^* {\EuScript P}
\end{equation}
of ${\tt trm}$-operads. One has an obvious analog
of diagram~(\ref{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet}), and the strict
unitality and $1$-connectedness for ${\tt O}$-operads is
defined analogously. The main result of this section~reads:
\begin{theorem}
\label{Mcat}
There is a natural forgetful functor from the category of
strictly unital \hbox{${\tt O}$-operads} to the category of strictly
unital Markl operads, which restricts to an isomorphism of
the subcategories of $1$-connected operads.
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
Constant-free May operads recalled in the introduction are
operads over the operadic category ${{\tt Fin}_{\rm semi}}$ of non-empty finite ordinals and their
surjections. Let us analyze the meaning of the above definitions and results in
this particular case. With respect to the
canonical grading~\cite[Section~2]{part1},
elementary morphisms in the operadic category of finite
ordinals ${{\tt Fin}_{\rm semi}}$ are precisely order-preserving
surjections
\[
\pi(m,i,n) : \overline{\rule{0em}{.7em} m+n-1} \twoheadrightarrow \overline
{\rule{0em}{.7em}m},
\ m \geq 1,\ n \geq 2,
\]
uniquely determined by the property that
\begin{equation}
\label{zitra_do_Rataj_slavit_Silvestra}
|\inv{\pi(m,i,n)}(j)|
=
\begin{cases}
\hbox{$1$ if $j \not= i$,}
\\
\hbox {$n$ if $j=i$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Since $\overline{\rule{0em}{.7em}1}$ is the only local terminal object of ${{\tt Fin}_{\rm semi}}$,
the strict unitality is the same as the ordinary one and all
isomorphism{s} are quasi\-bijection{s}. A $({{\tt Fin}_{\rm semi}})_{\tt iso}$-presheaf turns out to be a collection
$\{{\EuScript M}(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ of $\Sigma_n$-modules, and elementary
maps~(\ref{zitra_do_Rataj_slavit_Silvestra}) induce operations
\[
\circ_i := \circ_{\pi(m,i,n)} : {\EuScript M}(m) \otimes {\EuScript M}(n) \to
{\EuScript M}(m+n-1),
\ n \geq 1,\ 1 \leq i \leq m,
\]
which satisfy the standard axioms listed
e.g.~in~\cite[Definition~1.1]{markl:zebrulka} and recalled in the Appendix.
Theorem~\ref{Mcat} in this case states the well-known fact that the category of unital May
operads with ${\EuScript P}(1) = {\mathbb k}$ is isomorphic to the category of unital
Markl operads with ${\EuScript M}(1) = {\mathbb k}$.
\end{example}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Mcat}.] Let ${\EuScript P}$ be a strictly
unital ${\tt O}$-operad with composition laws~$\gamma_f$.
If $\omega : T' \to T''$ is an isomorphism, we define
$\omega^* : {\EuScript P}(T'') \to {\EuScript P}(T')$ by the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_jsem_byl_v_Eastwoodu}
\xymatrix{{\EuScript P}(T'') \otimes {\EuScript P}(\omega) \ar[r]^(.6){\gamma_\omega}
& {\EuScript P}(T')
\\
\ar[u]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_\omega}
{\EuScript P}(T'') \otimes {\mathbb k} \ar@{=}[r]^(.58)\cong& {\EuScript P}(T'') \ar[u]_{\omega^*}
}
\end{equation}
in which ${\EuScript P}(\omega)$ denotes the product ${\EuScript P}(u_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes {\EuScript P}(u_s)$ over
the fibers $\Rada u1s$ of $\omega$ and, likewise, $\eta_\omega :=
\eta_{u_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \eta_{u_s}$. It is simple to show
that this construction is functorial, making
${\EuScript P}$ an ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf in ${\tt V}$. In particular, $\omega^*$
is an isomorphism. For an
elementary $F \triangleright_i T
\stackrel\phi\to S$ we define $\circ_\phi : {\EuScript P}(S)\otimes {\EuScript P}(F) \to {\EuScript P}(T)$ by
the commutativity of the
diagram
\[
\xymatrix{{\EuScript P}(S) \otimes {\EuScript P}(U_1) \!\otimes\! \cdots \!\otimes\! {\EuScript P}(U_{i-1}) \!\otimes\! {\EuScript P}(F) \!\otimes\!
{\EuScript P}(U_{i+1}) \!\otimes\! \cdots \!\otimes\! {\EuScript P}(U_{|S|})\ar[r]^(.84){\gamma_\phi} & {\EuScript P}(T)
\\
{\EuScript P}(S) \otimes
{\mathbb k}^{\otimes (i-1)} \otimes {\EuScript P}(F) \otimes {\mathbb k}^{\otimes (|T|-i)} \ar[u] \ar@{=}[r]^(.6)\cong
&{\EuScript P}(S) \otimes {\EuScript P}(F) \ar[u]_{\circ_\phi}
}
\]
in which the left vertical map is induced by the unit morphisms
of ${\EuScript P}$ and the
identity automorphism of ${\EuScript P}(F)$.
We claim that the ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf ${\EuScript P}$
with operations $\circ_\phi$ defined above is a~Markl~operad.
It is simple to check that these $\circ_\phi$'s satisfy the associativities
(i) and (ii) of a Markl operad. To prove Axiom~(iii), consider
diagram~(\ref{moc_se_mi_na_prochazku_nechce}) and invoke Axiom~(i) of
an operad over an operadic category, see~\cite[Definition~1.11]{duodel}
or \cite[Section~1]{part1},
once for $\phi =
\sigma\phi'$ and once for $\phi = \phi''\omega$
in place of $h =fg$. We will get two commutative squares sharing the
edge $\gamma_\phi$.
Putting them side-by-side as in
\[
\xymatrix@C=4em@R=4em{
\bigotimes_k {\EuScript P}(\phi'_k) \otimes {\EuScript P}(\sigma) \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')
\ar[r]^(.6){\otimes_k \gamma_{\phi_k'} \otimes 1\!\!1}
\ar[d]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \gamma_\sigma}
& {\EuScript P}(\phi) \otimes
{\EuScript P}(S'') \ar[d]^{\gamma_{\phi}} & {\EuScript P}(\omega) \otimes {\EuScript P}(\phi'') \otimes
{\EuScript P}(S'')
\ar[l]_(.56){\bigotimes_i \gamma_{\omega_i} \otimes 1\!\!1}
\ar[d]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \gamma_{\phi''}}
\\
{\EuScript P}(\phi') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S') \ar[r]^{\gamma_{\phi'}} & {\EuScript P}(T')&
{\EuScript P}(\omega) \otimes {\EuScript P}(T'') \ar[l]_{\gamma_\omega}
}
\]
produces the central hexagon in the
diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1.41em@C=-3em{
&\boxed{{\EuScript P}(\phi'') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')} \ar@{=}[rrr] \ar[d]^\cong_{\bigotimes_k \omega_i^* \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&&&\ \ {\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript P}(\phi'') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')
\ar[d]^{\eta_\omega \otimes 1\!\!1 \otimes 1\!\!1}
&
\\
&\boxed{{\EuScript P}(\phi) \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')} \ar@{-->}[ddrrr]^{\gamma_\phi}
&&\rule{9em}{0em}&&\ar[llll]
{\EuScript P}(\omega) \otimes {\EuScript P}(\phi'') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'') \ar[d]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \gamma_{\phi''}}&
\\
&\bigotimes_k {\EuScript P}(\phi'_k) \otimes {\EuScript P}(\sigma)\ar[u]^{\bigotimes_k
\gamma_{\phi'_k} \otimes 1\!\!1}\ar[rd]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \gamma_\sigma} \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')
&&&& \boxed{{\EuScript P}(\omega) \otimes {\EuScript P}(T'')}\ar[ld]_{\gamma_\omega}&
\\
{\EuScript P}(\phi')\otimes {\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'') \ar[ur]^(.3){1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_\sigma \otimes 1\!\!1}
&& \boxed{{\EuScript P}(\phi') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S')}
\ar [rr]^{\gamma_{\phi'}} && \boxed{{\EuScript P}(T')} && {\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript P}(T'')
\ar[lu]_{\eta_\omega \otimes 1\!\!1}
\\
\ar@{=}[u]\boxed{{\EuScript P}(\phi') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')} \ar[rru]_\cong^{1\!\!1 \otimes \sigma^*} &&&&&&
\,{\EuScript P}(T'').\ar@{=}[u]\ar[llu]_{\omega^*}^\cong
}
\]
The remaining arrows of this diagram
are constructed using the ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf structure of ${\EuScript P}$ and the
extended units.
The boxed terms in the above diagram form the internal hexagon~in
\[
\xymatrix@R=1.3em@C=1em{
{\EuScript P}(F) \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')
\ar[rd]&&
{\EuScript P}(F') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')
\ar[ll]^\cong_{\omega_j^* \otimes 1\!\!1} \ar[rr]^(.55){\circ_{\phi''}}\ar[d] && \ar[ld] {\EuScript P}(T'') \ar[ddd]_\cong^{\omega^*}
\\
&{\EuScript P}(\phi) \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')&
{\EuScript P}(\phi') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')\ar[l]_\cong \ar[r]
& {\EuScript P}(\omega)\otimes {\EuScript P} (T'') \ar[d]&
\\
&{\EuScript P}(\phi') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'') \ar[r]^\cong \ar[u]&\ar[r]
{\EuScript P}(\phi') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'')
& {\EuScript P} (T')&
\\
{\EuScript P}(F') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S'') \ar[uuu]^{\vartheta(F,\inv{\sigma}(j)) \otimes 1\!\!1}
\ar[ur] \ar[rr]_\cong^{1\!\!1 \otimes \sigma^*}
&&
{\EuScript P}(F') \otimes {\EuScript P}(S') \ar[rr]^(.55){\circ_{\phi'}} \ar[u] && \, {\EuScript P}(T').\ar@{=}[lu]
}
\]
The commutativity of the outer hexagon
follows from the commutativity of the inner one. We recognize
in it diagram~(\ref{X}) with ${\EuScript P}$ in place
of ${\EuScript M}$. Since~(\ref{X})
implies~(\ref{posledni_nedele_v_Sydney}) for $\sigma$ a quasi\-bijection,
Axiom~(iii) is verified. To check that the strict extended
unit~(\ref{7_dni_do_odletu_ze_Sydney}) is also the one for ${\EuScript P}$
considered as a~Markl operad is simple.
Conversely, let ${\EuScript M}$ be a Markl operad.
We are going to define, for each $f: S \to T$
with fibers $\Rada F1s$, the composition law
\begin{equation}
\label{po_navratu_z_Prahy}
\gamma_f:
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \longrightarrow {\EuScript M}(S)
\end{equation}
where, as several times before, ${\EuScript M}(F)$ denotes ${\EuScript M}(F_1) \otimes \cdots \otimes {\EuScript M}(F_s)$.
If $f$ is an isomorphism, all its fibers are local terminal,
so ${\EuScript M}(F) \cong {\mathbb k}$ by the strict unitality and
the $1$-connectivity of ${\EuScript M}$. In this case we define
$\gamma_f$ as the composite
\begin{equation}
\label{vecer_Deminka?}
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \cong {\EuScript M}(T)
\stackrel{f^*}\longrightarrow
{\EuScript M}(S)
\end{equation}
that uses the ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf structure of ${\EuScript M}$.
Assume now that $f \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ and that all local terminal fibers of $f$ are
trivial.
If $f$ is an isomorphism\ it must be the identity
by~\cite[Corollary~2.4]{part1}. If it is not the case, at least one
fiber of $f$ has grade $\geq 1$ and we decompose $f$, using the
strong blow-up axiom, into a chain of elementary morphisms. The operation
$\gamma_f$ will then be defined as the composite of
$\circ$-operations corresponding to these elementary morphisms. Let us make this
procedure more precise.
To understand the situation better, consider two elementary morphisms
$\phi$, $\psi$ with
{$(i,j)$-disjoint} fibers as in Lemma~\ref{l7} and their composite
$\xi = \psi(\phi)$.
Notice that by ${\EuScript M}(\xi) \cong {\EuScript M}(\inv\xi(i)) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\inv\xi(k))$ by the
strict unitality and the $1$-connectivity of ${\EuScript M}$.
In this particular case we
define $\gamma_\xi$ by the commutativity of the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{{\EuScript M}(P) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\inv\xi(i)) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\inv\xi(k))
\ar[r]^(.65)\cong \ar[d]_{1\!\!1 \otimes (\phi^*_i)^{-1} \otimes 1\!\!1}
& {\EuScript M}(P) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\xi)\ar[dd]^{\gamma_\xi}
\\
\ar[d]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\psi}
{\EuScript M}(P) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\inv\psi(i)) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\inv\phi(k))&
\\
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(\inv\phi(k))\ar[r]^(.6){\circ_\phi}& {\EuScript M}(T)
}
\]
or, in shorthand, by $\gamma_\xi := \circ_\phi(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\psi)$.
Now take $f: S \to T \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ whose fibers of grade $\geq 1$ are
$\Rada F1k$ and the remaining fibers are trivial. Using the strong blow-up
axiom we factorize $f$ into a chain
\begin{equation}
\label{Z-142}
S = S_1 \stackrel{\phi_1}\longrightarrow
S_2 \stackrel{\phi_2}\longrightarrow \cdots
\stackrel{\phi_k}\longrightarrow S_k = T
\end{equation}
in which each $\phi_i$ is elementary with the unique nontrivial fiber
$F_i$, $1 \leq i \leq k$; we leave the details how to obtain such a
factorization to the reader. We then define
\[
\gamma_f := \circ_{\phi_1} ( \circ_{\phi_2} \otimes 1\!\!1) \cdots
( \circ_{\phi_k} \otimes 1\!\!1^{\otimes(k-1)}):
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F_k) \otimes \cdots \otimes {\EuScript M}(F_1) \longrightarrow {\EuScript M}(S).
\]
If $f: S \to T$ is a general morphism in ${\tt O}$, we
use~\cite[Lemma~4.5]{part1} to factorize it as
$f: S \stackrel\omega\to X \stackrel\psi\to T$ with an isomorphism $\omega$ and
$\psi \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ whose all local terminal fibers are trivial. Notice that, due to the
strict unitality and $1$-connectivity, ${\EuScript M}(\psi) \cong {\EuScript M}(f)$. We then
define $\gamma_f$ by the commutativity of the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{{\EuScript M}(\psi) \otimes {\EuScript M}(T) \ar[r]^\cong \ar[d]^{\gamma_\psi} &
{\EuScript M}(f) \otimes {\EuScript M}(T)\ar[d]_{\gamma_f}
\\
{\EuScript M}(X)\ar[r]^{\omega^*}&\ {\EuScript M}(S).&
}
\]
The extended units are given by the extended units of ${\EuScript M}$ in the
obvious way.
Our definition of the $\gamma_f$-operations
does not depend on the choices -- the commutativity
of~(\ref{X}) that holds for unital
Markl operads guarantees the independence on the factorization $f =
\psi \relax{} \omega$, while the commutativity
of~(\ref{den_pred_Silvestrem_jsem_nachlazeny}) the independence
on the choice of the decomposition~(\ref{Z-142}). We leave to the
reader the tedious
but straightforward verification that ${\EuScript M}$ with the above
composition laws forms an strictly unital ${\tt O}$-operad.
\end{proof}
We are going to adapt algebras over
operads \cite[Definition~1.20]{duodel} to the realm of
Markl operads. Recall
that the {\em $i$th source\/} $s_i(T)$ of an object $T \in
{\tt O}$ is the
$i$th fiber of the identity automorphism of $T$, i.e.\
$s_i(T) :=1\!\!1_T^{-1}(i)$ for $i \in |T|$. We denote by $s(T)$ the set of all sources of
$T$. For an object $T \in {\tt O}$ we denote by $\pi_0(T) \in
\pi_0({\tt O})$ the connected component to which $T$ belongs. Similarly,
for a subset $X$ of objects of ${\tt O}$,
\[
\pi_0(X) := \{\pi_0(T) \ | \ T \in X\} \subset \pi_0({\tt O}).
\]
Finally, $U_c$ will denote the chosen local terminal object of a component
$c \in \pi_0({\tt O})$.
\begin{definition}
\label{Zapomel_jsem_si_pocitac_v_Koline_ja_hlupak}
An {\em algebra\/} over a $1$-connected Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ in a symmetric
monoidal category ${\tt V}$ is
a collection $A = \{A_c \ | \ c \in \pi_0({\tt O})\}$ of objects of ${\tt V}$
together with structure maps
\begin{equation}
\label{Ben_Ward_in_Prague}
\big\{
\alpha_T:
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes \hskip -.5em
\bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} A_c \longrightarrow
A_{\pi_0(T)}\big\}_{T \in {\tt O}} \ .
\end{equation}
These operations are required to satisfy the following axioms.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
Unitality: for each component $c \in \pi_0({\tt O})$ the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{{\EuScript M}(U_c) \otimes A_c \ar[r]^(.65){\alpha_{U_c}} & A_c
\\
{\mathbb k} \otimes A_c\ar[r]^\cong \ar[u]^{\eta_{U_c}} & A_c \ar@{=}[u]
}
\]
commutes.
\item[(ii)]
Equivariance:
let $f : S\to T$ be an isomorphism\ with fibers $\Rada u1s$. For $1 \leq
i \leq s$ denote $c_i := \pi_0(s_i(S))$ and $d_i :=
\pi_0(s_i(T))$.
Then the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=0em{
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_s} \ar[rr]^(.45)\cong
\ar[d]_{f^* \otimes 1\!\!1^{\otimes s}} &&
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\mathbb k} \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes {\mathbb k} \otimes A_{c_s}
\ar[d]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_{u_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \eta_{u_s}}
\\
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_s}\ar[d]_{\alpha_S} &&
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(u_1) \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes {\EuScript M}(u_s) \otimes A_{c_s}
\ar[d]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \alpha_{u_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \alpha_{u_s}}
\\
A_{\pi_0(S)} \ar@{=}[r]
&A_{\pi_0(T)}& {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes A_{d_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes A_{d_s}\ar[l]_(.6){\alpha_T}
}
\]
commutes.
\item[(iii)]
Associativity:
for an elementary map $F \triangleright_i S \stackrel\phi\to T$, the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots A_{c_{i-1}} \otimes
A_{c_{i}}
\otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_{t+s-1}} \ar[r]^(.78){\alpha_S}
& A_{\pi_0(S)}\ar@{=}[ddd]
\\
\ar[u]^{\circ_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1^{\otimes t+s-1}}
\ar[d]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \tau \otimes 1\!\!1^{\otimes t-i}}
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots\otimes A_{c_{i-1}} \otimes
A_{c_{i}}
\otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_{t+s-1}} &
\\
\ar[d]_{1\!\!1 \otimes 1\!\!1^{\otimes i} \otimes \alpha_F \otimes 1\!\!1^{\otimes t-i}}
{\EuScript M}(T)\otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_{i-1}} \otimes {\EuScript M}(F) \otimes
A_{c_{i}}
\otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_{t+s-1}}
&
\\
{\EuScript M}(T)\otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots A_{c_{i-1}}\otimes
A_{\pi_0(F)}
\otimes \cdots \otimes A_{c_{t+s-1}}\ar[r]^(.78){\alpha_T}
& A_{\pi_0(T)}
}
\]
where $s = |S|$, $t = |T|$, $c_j := \pi_0(s_j)$ for $1\leq j \leq
s+t-1$ and
\[
\tau : {\EuScript M}(F) \otimes A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots\otimes A_{c_{i-1}} \longrightarrow
A_{c_1} \otimes \cdots\otimes A_{c_{i-1}} \otimes {\EuScript M}(F)
\]
the commutativity constraint in ${\tt V}$, commutes.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Notice that in the situation of item~(ii) of
Definition~\ref{Zapomel_jsem_si_pocitac_v_Koline_ja_hlupak},
$s_i(S) = s(u_i)$, $\pi_0(s_i(T)) = \pi_0(u_i)$ and $\pi_0(S) =
\pi_0(T)$. Likewise in~(iii),
\begin{equation}
\label{za_necely_tyden_do_Bari}
\pi_0(s_j(T)) =
\begin{cases}
\pi_0(s_{\inv{|\phi|}(j)}(S)) & \hbox {if $j \not= i$,}
\\
\pi_0(F) & \hbox {otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
The category of algebras of a strictly
unital $1$-connected Markl operad~${\EuScript M}$ is isomorphic to
the category of algebras of the corresponding operad ${\EuScript P}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
An exercise in the axioms of operads and their algebras.
\end{proof}
Let us close this section by an useful reformulation of
Definition~\ref{Zapomel_jsem_si_pocitac_v_Koline_ja_hlupak} for
algebras in the category of
graded vector spaces and related facts.
\begin{definition}
\label{vcera_s_Mikesem_na_Jazz_Bluffers}
An {\em algebra\/} over a $1$-connected Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ in the category
${\tt Vect}$ of graded ${\mathbb k}$-vector spaces is
a collection $A = \{A_c \ | \ c \in \pi_0({\tt O})\}$ together with
structure maps
\[
\nonumber
{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes \hskip -.5em
\bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} A_c \ni x \otimes a_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes a_s
\longmapsto x(\Rada a1s) \in A_{\pi_0(T)}
\]
given for each $T \in {\tt O}$.
These operations are required to satisfy the following axioms.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
Unitality: for a local terminal $u$, $1 \in {\mathbb k} \cong {\EuScript M}(u)$ and $a \in
A_{\pi_0(s(u))}$
denote $u a : = 1(a)$. Then $U a = a$ for $U$ a chosen
local terminal object.
\item[(ii)]
Equivariance: for an isomorphism\ $f : S\to T$ with fibers $\Rada u1s$
and $x \in {\EuScript M}(T)$,
\[
f^*(x)(\Rada a1s) = x(\rada{u_1a_1}{u_sa_s}).
\]
\item[(iii)]
Associativity:
for an elementary map $F \triangleright_i S \stackrel\phi\to T$, $x\in {\EuScript M}(T)$ and
$y \in {\EuScript M}(F)$,
\[
\circ_\phi(x,y)(\rada{a_1}{a_{i-1}},a_{i},\ldots,
{a_{t+s-1}})
=
(-1)^\varepsilon \cdot
x(\rada{a_1}{a_{i-1}},y(a_{i},\ldots),\ldots
{a_{t+s-1}}),
\]
where $\varepsilon := {|y|(|a_1| + \cdots + |a_{i-1}|)}$, $s = |S|$
and $t = |T|$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\def{\mathfrak l}{{\mathfrak l}}
\def{\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}{{\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}}
\begin{example}
\label{coboundary}
Following the terminology of~\cite{getzler-kapranov:CompM98}
we call a Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$
in ${\tt Vect}$
such that ${\EuScript M}(T)$ is for each $T$
a $1$-dimensional vector space a {\em cocycle\/}.
An important cocycle is the operad ${\sf 1}_{\tt O}$ such that ${\sf
1}_{\tt O}(T) := {\mathbb k}$ for each $T \in {\tt O}$, with all composition
laws the identities. We will call,
slightly imprecisely, ${\sf 1}_{\tt O}$ the {\em
terminal\/} ${\tt O}$-operad since it is the linearization of the terminal
${\tt O}$-operad over the Cartesian monoidal category of sets.
Less trivial cocycles can be constructed as follows. We
say that a graded vector space~$W$ is {\em invertible\/} if $W\otimes
W^{-1} \cong {\mathbb k}$ for some $W^{-1} \in {\tt Vect}$. This
clearly means that $W$ is an iterated (de)suspension of the ground
field ${\mathbb k}$.
Suppose we are given a map ${\mathfrak l} : \pi_0({\tt O}) \to {\tt Vect}$ that assigns
to each $c \in \pi_0({\tt O})$ an invertible graded vector space ${\mathfrak l}(c)$.
With the notation used in~(\ref{Ben_Ward_in_Prague}) we
introduce the cocycle ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}$ by
\[
{\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(T) := {\mathfrak l}(\pi_0(T)) \otimes \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} \inv{{\mathfrak l}}(c)
\]
with the trivial action of ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$.
To define, for $F \triangleright_i S \stackrel\phi\to T$, the composition laws
\[
\circ_\phi : {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(F) \otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(T) \to {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(S)
\]
we need to specify a map
\[
{\mathfrak l}(\pi_0(F)) \otimes \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(F))} \inv{{\mathfrak l}}(c) \otimes
{\mathfrak l}(\pi_0(T)) \otimes \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} \inv{{\mathfrak l}}(c) \longrightarrow
{\mathfrak l}(\pi_0(S)) \otimes \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(S))} \inv{{\mathfrak l}}(c).
\]
To do so, we notice that
\[
\pi_0(s(F)) \sqcup \pi_0(s(T)) = \pi_0(s(S)) \sqcup \{ \pi_0(s_i(T))
\},\
\pi_0(S) = \pi_0(T) \ \hbox { and } \ \pi_0(F) = \pi_0(s_i(T)),
\]
cf.~(\ref{za_necely_tyden_do_Bari}). Keeping this in mind, the
composition law $\circ_\phi$ is defined as the canonical
isomorphism ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(F) \otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(T) \cong {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(S)$.
Cocycles of the above form are called {\em coboundaries\/}. Notice
that ${\sf 1}_{\tt O} = {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(T)$ with ${\mathfrak l}$ the constant function such
that ${\mathfrak l}(c) := {\mathbb k}$ for each $c \in \pi_0(s(T))$.
\end{example}
Markl operads in ${\tt Vect}$ form a symmetric monoidal category,
with the monoidal structure given by the level-wise tensor product
and ${\sf 1}_{\tt O}$ the monoidal unit. As an exercise on
Definition~\ref{vcera_s_Mikesem_na_Jazz_Bluffers} we recommend to
prove the following very useful
\begin{proposition}
\label{za_chvili_zavolam_Jarusce}
The categories of $({\EuScript M} \otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l})$-algebras and of
${\EuScript M}$-algebras in ${\tt Vect}$ are isomorphic. More
precisely, there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between
\hfill\break
\noindent
-- ${\EuScript M}$-algebras
with the underlying collection $A = \{A_c \ | \ c \in \pi_0({\tt O})\}$,
and
\hfill\break
\noindent
-- $({\EuScript M}\otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l})$-algebras
with the underlying collection
$A = \{A_c \otimes \inv{{\mathfrak l}}(c) \ | \ c \in \pi_0({\tt O})\}$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition~\ref{za_chvili_zavolam_Jarusce} should be compared to
Lemma~II.5.49 of~\cite{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
In the classical operad theory, algebras can equivalently be described as
morphism to the endomorphism operad. We are going to give similar
description also in our setup. While the classical construction assigns the
endomorphism operad ${\EuScript E}nd_V$ to a vector space $V$, here we start with
a collection
\begin{equation}
\label{Jarka_hovori}
V = \{V_c \ | \ c \in \pi_0({\tt O})\}
\end{equation}
of graded vector spaces indexed by the components of ${\tt O}$. We moreover
assume that to each local terminal object $u\in {\tt O}$ we are given a linear
map (denoted $u$ again)
\begin{equation}
\label{Asi_jsem_dostal_premii!}
u: V_{\pi_0(s_1(u))} \to V_{\pi_0(u)}
\end{equation}
such that, for each map $u \to v$ of local terminal objects
with fiber $t$, the triangle
\begin{equation}
\label{Kdy_zacnu_jezdit_na_kole?}
\xymatrix{
V_{\pi_0(s_1(u))} \ar[rr]^u \ar[rd]^t &&V_{\pi_0(u)}
\\
&V_{\pi_0(t)} \ar[ru]^v &
}
\end{equation}
commutes. Since $\pi_0(s_1(u)) = \pi_0(s_1(t))$, $\pi_0(u) = \pi_0(v)$
and $\pi_0(s_1(v)) = \pi_0(t)$, the above diagram makes sense.
We moreover assume that the maps corresponding to the chosen local terminal
objects are the identities. For $T \in {\tt O}$ we put
\[
{\EuScript E}nd_V(T) := {\tt Vect}\big(\textstyle
\bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} V_c,V_{\pi_0(T)}\big).
\]
We define an action $
{\EuScript E}nd_V(T) \ni \alpha \mapsto f^*(\alpha) \in {\EuScript E}nd_V(S)$
of an isomorphism\ $f : S\to T$ with fibers
$\Rada u1s$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{Popozitri_letim_do_Bari.}
f^*(\alpha)(\Rada a1s) := \alpha(\rada{u_1a_1}{u_sa_s}), \
a_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes a_s \in \textstyle \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} V_c.
\end{equation}
This turns ${\EuScript E}nd_V$ into a functor ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}^{\rm op} \to {\tt Vect}$.
The composition law
\[
\circ_\phi: {\EuScript E}nd_V(F) \otimes {\EuScript E}nd_V(T) \to {\EuScript E}nd_V(S) .
\]
is, for an elementary morphism
$F \triangleright_i S \stackrel\phi\to T$, defined as follows.
Assume
\[
\alpha : \textstyle \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(F))} V_c \longrightarrow
V_{\pi_0(F)} \in {\EuScript E}nd_V(F),\
\beta : \textstyle \bigotimes_{c \in \pi_0(s(T))} V_c \longrightarrow
V_{\pi_0(T)}\in
{\EuScript E}nd_V(T)
\]
and notice that
\[
\pi_0(s(S)) = \pi_0(s(F)) \sqcup (\pi_0(s(T))
\setminus \{ \pi_0(s_i(T))\}) \ \hbox { and } \ \pi_0(F) = \pi_0(s_i(T)).
\]
Then
\[
\circ_\phi(\alpha \otimes \beta) : \textstyle \bigotimes_{c \in
\pi_0(s(S))} V_c \to V_{\pi_0(S)} \in {\EuScript E}nd_V(S)
\]
is the map that makes the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
\textstyle \bigotimes_{c \in
\pi_0(s(S))} V_c \ar[r]^(.3)\cong
\ar[dd]_{\circ_\phi(\alpha \otimes \beta)} & \textstyle \bigotimes_{c \in
\pi_0(s(F))} V_c
\otimes
\bigotimes_{c \in
\pi_0(s(S))\setminus \{ \pi_0(s_i(T))\}} V_c \ar[d]^{\alpha \otimes 1\!\!1}
\\
& \hskip 2em \textstyle
V_{\pi_0(s_i(T))}
\otimes
\bigotimes_{c \in
\pi_0(s(S))\setminus \{ \pi_0(s_i(T))\}} V_c\ar[d]^\cong
\\
V_{\pi_0(S)} & \textstyle
\bigotimes_{c \in
\pi_0(s(S))} V_c \ar[l]_\beta
}
\]
commuting. The result of the above construction is the Markl version
of the
{\em endomorphism operad\/}.
Notice that the components $\eta_u : {\mathbb k} \to {\EuScript E}nd_V(u)$ of
transformation~(\ref{2x2}) for ${\EuScript M}={\EuScript E}nd_V$ are given by the maps
in~(\ref{Asi_jsem_dostal_premii!}) as
\[
\eta_u(1) := u :
V_{\pi_0(s_1(u))} \to V_{\pi_0(u)}
\in {\EuScript E}nd_V(u).
\]
It is simple to verify that the commutativity of~(\ref{Je_vedro.}) is
precisely~(\ref{Kdy_zacnu_jezdit_na_kole?}). The induced maps
\[
\vartheta(T,u) : {\EuScript E}nd_V(F) \to {\EuScript E}nd_V(T)
\]
in~(\ref{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet}) are given by the
composite, $\vartheta(T,u)(\phi) := u \relax{} \phi$, with the
map~(\ref{Asi_jsem_dostal_premii!}).
\begin{remark}
The above analysis shows that the morphisms $\vartheta(T,u)$ need not
be the identities for a general ${\EuScript E}nd_V$. Endomorphism operads are
therefore examples of unital operads that need not be
{\em strictly\/} unital.
\end{remark}
We have the expected
\begin{proposition}
\label{Udelal_jsem_si_ciruvky_zelanky.}
There is a one-to-one correspondence between ${\EuScript M}$-algebras with the
underlying collection~(\ref{Jarka_hovori}) and
morphisms ${\EuScript M} \to {\EuScript E}nd_V$ of Markl operads.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Direct verification.
\end{proof}
\section{Markl operads and virtual isomorphisms}
\label{letam_205}
We introduce the category of virtual
isomorphism ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$
related to an operadic category ${\tt O}$, its extension $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$, and its
quotient ${\tt Q}\VR$ modulo virtual isomorphisms. In the presence of a
grading $e$ on ${\tt O}$ we will further consider the subgroupoid ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e)$
of objects of grade $\geq 1$, the extension $\hbox{${\VR(e)}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$
and the related quotient ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$.
Presheaves on ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$ will
then serve as the underlying collections for Markl operads.
Throughout this section, ${\tt O}$ will be a
factorizable operadic category in which all
quasi\-bijection{s} are invertible, and the blow-up and unique fiber axioms are fulfilled.
Using the abbreviations of Section~\ref{4,2} we
therefore require
\[
\hbox{\rm \Fac\ \& {\sf SBU}\ \& {\sf QBI}\ \& {\sf UFib}}.
\]
As before we denote by ${{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm}$ the groupoid of local terminal objects in ${\tt O}$
and by ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso} \subset {\tt O}$ the subcategory with the same objects as
${\tt O}$, and
morphisms the isomorphisms of ${\tt O}$.
Let $T\in {\tt O}$ and let $t\in {\tt O}$ be a local terminal object in
the connected component of $T$. We therefore have a unique morphism $T\to t$
with a unique fiber $F$, which will be expressed by the shorthand
\hbox{$F \blacktriangleright T\to t$}.
In this situation we write
$F\virt{} T$ or $F \virt t T$ if $t$ needs to be specified, and speak about
a {\it virtual morphism} from $F$ to $T$. Notice that $F\virt{} T$ does
not represent an `actual' morphism $F \to T$; there in fact may not
be any morphisms from $F$ to $T$ in ${\tt O}$, cf.~Example~\ref{Uz mam
vozik v Koline.} below.\label{Za chvili sraz s Denisem.}
The notation $F \blacktriangleright T\to t$ shall not be confused with $F \triangleright T\to
t$ used before. The map $T \to t$ need not be an elementary morphism even when
${\tt O}$ is graded, since we do not demand $e(T) \geq 1$ or any analog of this.
The following statement shows that one may define a~composition rule for virtual
morphisms so that they form a groupoid.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Za_chvili_pojedu_na_schuzi_klubu.}
Virtual morphisms in the operadic category ${\tt O}$ form a groupoid ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The virtual identity morphism for $T\in {\tt O}$ is
$T \virt U T$ associated to the unique morphism
$T \blacktriangleright T\to U$ to the chosen trivial object $U$ in the connected
component of $T$.
The composition of virtual morphisms is defined as follows.
Let $S\virt t T \virt r R$ be a chain of virtual morphisms.
This means that $S$ is the fiber of the unique morphism
$\phi:T\to t$, and $T$ is the fiber of $\psi:R\to r$,
i.e.\ $S \blacktriangleright T \stackrel\phi\to t$ and $T \blacktriangleright R \stackrel\psi\to
r$, $t \in {{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm}$.
By the blow-up axiom there exists a unique factorization of $\psi$ as in the
diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Musim_Jarce_odvezt_kramy.}
\xymatrix@R=1em@C=1em{
R \ar[rr]^\xi \ar[rd]_\psi&&s \ar[ld]^\delta
\\
&r&
}
\end{equation}
such that $\xi_1$, the induced map between the unique fibers, equals $\phi$.
From Axiom~(iv) of an operadic category,
$\xi^{-1}(1) = \xi_1^{-1}(1) = \phi^{-1}(1) =S,$ that is
$S\blacktriangleright R \stackrel{\xi}{\to} s$. We take the related
virtual morphism $S\virt s R$ as the composite of $S \virt t T$ and $T
\virt r R$.
To prove the associativity of the composition of virtual morphisms
we observe that the two possible compositions of
three virtual morphisms give two morphisms to local terminal objects: $S\blacktriangleright Q\to q'$ and
$S\blacktriangleright Q \to q''$. However, by \cite[Lemma~2.17]{part1}, $q'=q''$. The proof
of the unitality is similar.
The invertibility of morphisms in ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$ is established as follows.
Consider a virtual morphism $S\virt t
T$ given by some $S \blacktriangleright T\stackrel{\phi}{\to} t \in {\tt O}$.
The morphism $\phi$ has a unique
factorization $T\to U\stackrel{\delta}{\to} t$ through a chosen
local terminal object $U$; $\delta$ is the
inverse to the canonical isomorphism $t\to U$. Let $s$ be the unique
fiber of $\delta$, i.e.\ $s\blacktriangleright
U\stackrel{\delta}{\to} t$.
The diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=1em@C=1em{
T \ar[rr] \ar[rd]_\phi&&U \ar[ld]^\delta
\\
&t&
}
\]
induces a morphism of fibers $S\to s$ whose
fiber is $T$, giving rise to a virtual morphism $T\virt {s} S$. The
composite $(T\virt s S) \relax{} (S\virt t T)$ is a morphism $T \virt{} T$,
i.e.\ the identity by the unique fiber axiom. The equality $(S \virt t
T) \relax{} (T\virt s S) = 1\!\!1_T$ is established similarly. Thus
$T\virt s S$
is the inverse to $S\virt t T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{zitra_volam_Machovi_do_Jaromere}
For any $R\in {\tt O}$ one has an isomorphism of groupoids
${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}/R \cong (R/{{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm})^{\rm op}$.
In~particular, if there exists a morphism $S\virt{} T$ in ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$ then it is unique.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $S \blacktriangleright R \to t$. On the level of objects, the isomorphism
of the lemma
sends $S \virt t R$ to $t$. To a morphism $S \virt t T$ in ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$
over $R$ as in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{Za_chvili_pojedu_na_schuzi_klubu.}
we associate the (unique) map $\delta: s \to t$
in~(\ref{Musim_Jarce_odvezt_kramy.}). It is easy to show that
this construction gives rise
to an isomorphism of categories. Notice that the second part of the
statement also directly follows from~\cite[Lemma~2.17]{part1}.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{zitra_volam_Machovi_do_Jaromere} implies
that ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$ is equivalent as a category to a discrete set.
The notation $S \virt{} T$ will denote the unique isomorphism
from $T$ to $S$,
tacitly assuming its existence, and $S \virt{} T$ its inverse.
As the next step towards our construction of ${\tt Q}\VR$ we extend ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$ into
a category $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ which has the same objects as ${\tt O}$ but whose
morphisms $T\to R$ are sequences
\[
S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R
\]
where $\phi : S \to T \in {{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ is an isomorphism in ${\tt O}$.
To define the composition, consider a~sequence
\[
S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R\stackrel{\psi}{\to} Q\virt{} P.
\]
The virtual morphism $T\virt{} R$ is related
to a morphism $T\blacktriangleright R\to r$ with a unique $r\in {{\tt O}}_{\tt ltrm}$.
The objects $R$ and $Q$ live in the same connected component,
so we have a unique $D\blacktriangleright Q\to r$ and the associated virtual morphism
$D\virt{} Q$. The diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=1em@C=1em{
R \ar[rr]^\psi \ar[rd]&&Q \ar[ld]
\\
&r&
}
\]
induces the morphism $\xi: = \psi_1 :T\to D$ of fibers.
We then define the composite
\[
(R\stackrel{\psi}{\to} Q\virt{}
P) \relax{} (S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R)
\]
as the sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{v_patek_pak_Psenicka}
S\stackrel{\xi \relax{}\phi}{\longrightarrow}
(Q \virt{} P)(D \virt{} Q).
\end{equation}
The identity morphism of $S$ is given by
$S\stackrel{1\!\!1}{\to} S\virt{} S$.
One can easily check that the above structure makes $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ a
category.
Let us show that $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ is a groupoid.
For a morphism $\Phi: S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R$
in $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$
we consider the inverse
$R \virt{} T$ to the virtual morphism $T \virt{} R$
and the inverse
$\psi:T \to S$ of~$\phi : S \to T \in {\tt O}$.
It turns out that the composite
\[
(T \stackrel \psi\to S \virt{} S)(R \stackrel {1\!\!1}\to R \virt{} T)
\]
in $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ represents the inverse to $\Phi$.
We now consider the quotient ${\tt Q}\VR$ of $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ \label{Je streda.}
whose objects are classes of objects of $\hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ with
respect to the relation generated by virtual isomorphisms.
That is, two objects are equivalent if there is a virtual isomorphism
between them.
More precisely, ${\tt Q}\VR$ is defined by the pushout
\begin{equation}
\label{Musim_napsat_doporuceni_pro_Jovanu.}
\xymatrix@C=3.5em@R=1.2em{{{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}\ar[d]_{} \ar[r] & \hbox{${\VR}\!\int\!{\Iso}$} \ar[d]^{}
\\
\pi_0({{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}) \ar[r] &{\tt Q}\VR
}
\end{equation}
in the category of groupoids. Since
the left vertical functor is an equivalence and the top horizontal
functor a cofibration of groupoids in Joyal's folklore model
structure on the category of groupoids,
the right vertical functor is an equivalence of~groupoids, too.
It is easy to see that
morphisms between objects in ${\tt Q}\VR$ are equivalence classes of
non-virtual isomorphisms in the following sense.
Let $\phi':T'\to S'$ and $\phi'':T''\to S''$ be two isomorphisms in ${\tt O}$.
They are
equivalent if there exist a local terminal object $t$ such that
$\phi''$ is the induced fiber map
in the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Dnes_jsem_se_koupal_v_Hradistku.}
\xymatrix@R=1em@C=1em{
T' \ar[rr]^{\phi'} \ar[rd]&&\ S'. \ar[ld]
\\
&t&
}
\end{equation}
\begin{example}
\label{Budu_mit_nova_sluchatka.}
Assume that each connected component of ${\tt O}$ contains precisely one
terminal object, i.e.~all local terminal objects are the trivial (chosen)
ones. Then ${\tt Q}\VR \cong {{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$. This is the case of e.g.~the category ${\tt Fin}$ of
finite ordinals or of the operadic category ${\tt Per}$ in
Subsection~\ref{Michael_do_Prahy.} governing permutads.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{Uz mam vozik v Koline.}
In the operadic category $\Bq({\mathfrak C})$ recalled in~\cite[Example~1.5]{part1}
two bouquets are
virtually equivalent if they differ only in the last color. Notice
that an `actual' morphism \hbox{$b' \to b''$} in $\Bq({\mathfrak C})$ between virtually
equivalent bouquets exists if and only if $b' = b''$.
The groupoid ${\tt Q}\Bq({\mathfrak C})_{\tt vrt}$ is
the groupoid of strings $(i_1,\ldots,i_k)$, $k \geq 1$,
with morphisms arbitrary~bijections.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{Snad_to_projde_i_formalne.}
Two graphs in the operadic category ${\tt Gr}$ of
\cite[Definition~3.12]{part1}
are virtually equivalent if they differ only in the global orders of their
leaves. Morphisms in ${\tt Q}{\tt Gr}_{\tt vrt}$ are
isomorphisms of graphs which however need not preserve the
global orders.
\end{example}
Assume that ${\tt O}$ possesses a grading
$e : {\rm Objects}({\tt O}) \to {\mathbb N}$. In
this case we denote by ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e)\subset {{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$ the full subgroupoid with
objects $T \in {\tt O}$ such that $e(T) \geq 1$. \label{Musim to dorvat.}
We construct $\hbox{${\VR(e)}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$ out
of ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e)$ and ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ as before, and define
its quotient ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$ by replacing ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}$
by ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e)$ in~(\ref{Musim_napsat_doporuceni_pro_Jovanu.}).
In the following lemma ${\tt V}$ denotes, as in Definition~\ref{markl},
a cocomplete strict symmetric monoidal category.
\begin{lemma}
\label{zitra_Holter}
Each unital Markl ${\tt O}$-operad ${\EuScript M}$ with values in ${\tt V}$
induces a covariant functor
\hbox{${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e)\! \to\! {\tt V}$}, denoted~${\EuScript M}$ again, which acts as ${\EuScript M}$ on objects, and
on virtual morphisms is defined by
\[
{\EuScript M}(F \virt{} T) := \vartheta(T,u),
\]
where $\vartheta(T,u)$ is as
in~(\ref{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet}). Since ${{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e)$ is a groupoid,
all maps
$\vartheta(T,u)$ are invertible.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the unitality~(\ref{Holter_se_blizi.}) of ${\EuScript M}$
that ${\EuScript M}(T \virt{} T) = 1\!\!1_T$. Let us verify the functoriality
\begin{equation}
\label{pozitri_Holter}
{\EuScript M}(S \virt{} R) = {\EuScript M}(T \virt{} R) \relax{} {\EuScript M}(S \virt{} T).
\end{equation}
To this end we consider the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{dopocitat_si_zapisnik}
\xymatrix{
&{\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r) \ar[r]^(.6){\circ_!} & {\EuScript M}(R)
\\
&{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r) \ar[u]^{\vartheta(T,r) \otimes 1\!\!1}
\ar[r]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \delta^*} & \ {\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r').\ar[u]^{\circ_!}
\\
{\EuScript M}(S)\ar[r]^(.4)\cong &
\ar[u]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_r} \ar[ur]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_{r'}}
{\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\mathbb k}
}
\end{equation}
Its upper square is~(\ref{X}) applied to the
diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=3.5em@R=1.5em{
R \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_\xi \ar[dr]^\psi & R \ar[d]^\psi
\\
r' \ar[r]^\delta & r
}
\]
in place of~(\ref{moc_se_mi_na_prochazku_nechce}), in which the
symbols have the same meaning as in~(\ref{Musim_Jarce_odvezt_kramy.}).
The commutativity of the bottom triangle follows from the
commutativity of~(\ref{Je_vedro.}).
It follows from the definition of the maps $\vartheta(T,u)$ that the
composite
\[
\xymatrix@1{{\EuScript M}(S) \cong {\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\mathbb k} \ \ar[r]^(.55){1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_{r'}}
&\ {\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r') \
\ar[r]^(.63){\circ_!} & \ {\EuScript M}(R)
}
\]
in~(\ref{dopocitat_si_zapisnik}) equals the left-hand side
of~(\ref{pozitri_Holter}), while the composite
\[
\xymatrix@1{
{\EuScript M}(S) \cong {\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\mathbb k} \
\ar[r]^(.55){1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_{r}} & \ {\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r) \
\ar[rr]^{\vartheta(T,r) \otimes 1\!\!1} &&
\ {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r) \ \ar[r]^(.63){\circ_!} & \ {\EuScript M}(R)
}
\]
equals the right-hand side of~(\ref{pozitri_Holter}).
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{dnes_schuze_klubu}
The ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf structure of a Markl ${\tt O}$-operad ${\EuScript M}$ in ${\tt V}$ combined with
the functor ${\EuScript M}: {{\tt O}}_{\tt vrt}(e) \to {\tt V}$ of Lemma~\ref{zitra_Holter} makes ${\EuScript M}$ a
$\hbox{${\VR(e)}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$-presheaf via the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{Pujdu_s_Jarkou_na_demonstraci?}
{\EuScript M}\big(S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R\big)
:= \phi^* \relax{} {\EuScript M}(R \virt{} T)
\end{equation}
where, in the right-hand side, $R \virt{} T$ denotes the inverse of\/
$T \virt{} R$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since clearly
${\EuScript M}(T\stackrel1\!\!1\to T \virt{} T) = 1\!\!1_T$,
we need only to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{uz_zase_stavebni_stroje_duni}
{\EuScript M}\big(S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R\big)
\relax{} {\EuScript M}\big(R\stackrel{\psi}{\to} Q\virt{}
P\big) =
{\EuScript M}\big(S\stackrel{\xi \relax{}\phi}{\longrightarrow}
(Q \virt{} P)(D \virt{} Q)
\big)
\end{equation}
for the composite
\[
(R\stackrel{\psi}{\to} Q\virt{}
P) \relax{} (S\stackrel{\phi}{\to} T\virt{} R)
= S\stackrel{\xi \relax{}\phi}{\longrightarrow}
(Q \virt{} P)(D \virt{} Q)
\]
defined in~(\ref{v_patek_pak_Psenicka}).
Evaluating both sides of~(\ref{uz_zase_stavebni_stroje_duni})
using~\eqref{Pujdu_s_Jarkou_na_demonstraci?} gives
\[
\phi^* \relax{} {\EuScript M}(R\virt{} T) \relax{} \psi^* \relax{} {\EuScript M}(P
\virt{} Q) =
(\xi \relax{}\phi)^* \relax{}
{\EuScript M}(Q \virt{} D){\EuScript M}(P \virt{} Q).
\]
Since all the maps involved are isomorphisms, we easily see
that~(\ref{uz_zase_stavebni_stroje_duni}) is equivalent~to
\begin{equation}
\label{V_pondeli_plicni.}
{\EuScript M}(D \virt{} Q) \relax{} (\inv\xi)^* = (\inv\psi)^* \relax{} {\EuScript M}(T
\virt{} R).
\end{equation}
To prove this equality, consider the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{V_patek_pak_Psenicka.}
\xymatrix{
{\EuScript M}(T) \cong {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\mathbb k} \ar[r]^(.54){1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_r}
& {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r)\ar[d]_{\circ_!} &\ar[l]_{\xi^* \otimes 1\!\!1} {\EuScript M}(D) \otimes
{\EuScript M}(r) \ar[d]^{\circ_!}
\\
& {\EuScript M}(R)&{\EuScript M}(Q)\ar[l]_{\psi^*}
}
\end{equation}
in which the square is~(\ref{X}) associated to
\[
\xymatrix@C=3.5em@R=1.5em{\ar[dr]^{!}
R\ar[d]_{!} \ar[r]^\psi &Q\ar[d]^{!}
\\
r \ar@{=}[r] &r
}
\]
in place of~(\ref{moc_se_mi_na_prochazku_nechce}). It follows from
definitions that the composite of the maps
\[
\xymatrix@1{
{\EuScript M}(T) \cong {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\mathbb k} \ \ar[r]^(.55){1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_r} &
\ {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r) \ \ar[rr]^{\inv{(\xi^* \otimes 1\!\!1)}}&&
\ {\EuScript M}(D) \otimes
{\EuScript M}(r) \ \ar[r]^(.65){\circ_!}&\ {\EuScript M}(Q)
}
\]
in~(\ref{V_patek_pak_Psenicka.}) equals the left-hand side
of~(\ref{V_pondeli_plicni.}), while the composite
\[
\xymatrix{
{\EuScript M}(T) \cong {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\mathbb k} \ \ar[r]^(.55){1\!\!1 \otimes \eta_r} &
\ {\EuScript M}(T) \otimes {\EuScript M}(r) \ \ar[r]^(.6){\circ_!} &
\ {\EuScript M}(R) \ \ar[r]^{\inv{\psi^*}} & \ {\EuScript M}(Q)
}
\]
equals its right-hand side.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{Za_14_dni_LKDL}
If ${\EuScript M}$ is a unital Markl ${\tt O}$-operad in ${\tt V}$, then the $\hbox{${\VR(e)}\!\int\!{\Iso}$}$-presheaf
of Proposition~\ref{dnes_schuze_klubu}
associated to ${\EuScript M}$ functorially descents to a\/
${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaf ${\EuScript O}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Objects of ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$ are, by definition, the equivalence classes $[T]$
of the
objects of ${\tt O}$ modulo the relation $[T'] = [T'']$\/ if\/ $T'' \virt{}
T'$. We define ${\EuScript O}([T])$ as the colimit
\begin{equation}
\label{V_sobotu_budu_letat_vycvik_vlekare.}
{\EuScript O}([T]) : = \mathop{\rm colim}\displaylimits {\EuScript M}(S)
\end{equation}
over the groupoid of all $S \in {\tt O}$ virtually isomorphic to $T$. It
is clear that the
canonical injection $\iota_T : {\EuScript M}(T) \hookrightarrow {\EuScript O}([T])$ is an
isomorphism.
Consider a morphism $[\phi] : [T] \to [S]$ in ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$
given by an isomorphism
$\phi : T \to S$. We define $ {\EuScript O}([\phi]) :
{\EuScript O}([S]) \to {\EuScript O}([T])$ by the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=3em{
{\EuScript O}([S]) \ar[r]^{{\EuScript O}([\phi])} & {\EuScript O}([T])
\\
{\EuScript M}(S)\ar[r]^{\phi^*}
\ar@{_{(}->}[u]^{\iota_S}_\cong
& {\EuScript M}(T) \ar@{_{(}->}[u]_{\iota_T}^\cong
}
\]
in which $\phi^*$ refers to the ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf structure of ${\EuScript M}$.
We need to show that ${\EuScript O}([\phi])$ does not depend on the choice of a
representative of the map $[\phi]$ under the equivalence that identifies $\phi'$
as in~(\ref{Dnes_jsem_se_koupal_v_Hradistku.}) with the induced map $\phi''$
between the fibers over~$t$. To this end,
consider the commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Dnes_jde_Jarka_s_bouli_pod_uchem_k_doktorovi.}
\xymatrix{
{\EuScript M}(T') \ar@{=}[r] \ar[d]_{\vartheta(T',t)}
& {\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript M}(T') \ar[d]_{\eta_u \otimes 1\!\!1} & \ar[d]^{\eta_u \otimes 1\!\!1}
{\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript M}(S') \ar@{=}[r]\ar[l]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \phi'^*} &
{\EuScript M}(S')
\ar@/_2em/[lll]_{\phi'^*} \ar[d]^{\vartheta(S',t)}
\\
{\EuScript M}(T'') &\ar[l]_(.6){\circ_!} {\EuScript M}(u) \otimes {\EuScript M}(T') & {\EuScript M}(u) \otimes {\EuScript M}(S')
\ar[r]^(.63){\circ_!}\ar[l]_{1\!\!1 \otimes \phi''^*}
&
{\EuScript M}(S'')\ar@/^2em/[lll]_{\phi''^*}
}
\end{equation}
in which the extreme left and right squares are instances
of~(\ref{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet}). The commutativity of the
central square and of the upper part
is clear. Finally, the commutativity of the lower part follows from
axiom~(\ref{posledni_nedele_v_Sydney}) of Markl operads. An easy
diagram chase shows that the commutativity
of~(\ref{Dnes_jde_Jarka_s_bouli_pod_uchem_k_doktorovi.}) implies the
commutativity of the middle square in
\[
\xymatrix@C=3em{
{\EuScript O}([T']) \ar@{^{(}->}[r]^{\iota_{T'}}_\cong \ar@{=}[d]
&{\EuScript M}(T') \ar[d]_{\vartheta(T',t)} &
{\EuScript M}(S')
\ar[l]_{\phi'^*} \ar[d]^{\vartheta(S',t)}& {\EuScript O}([S'])
\ar@{_{(}->}[l]_{\iota_{S'}}^\cong \ar@{=}[d]
\\
{\EuScript O}([T''])\ar@{^{(}->}[r]^{\iota_{T''}}_\cong
&{\EuScript M}(T'')
&
{\EuScript M}(S'')\ar[l]_{\phi''^*}&\ {\EuScript O}([S'']) .
\ar@{_{(}->}[l]\ar@{_{(}->}[l]_{\iota_{S''}}^\cong
}
\]
The independence of ${\EuScript O}([\phi])$ on the choice of a
representative of $[\phi]$ is now clear.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{Zitra_mam_prednasku_na_Macquarie.}
If ${\EuScript M}$ is strictly
unital, the definition in~(\ref{V_sobotu_budu_letat_vycvik_vlekare.}) via
a colimit can be replaced by
${\EuScript O}([T]) := {\EuScript M}(T)$.
\end{remark}
\section{Free Markl operads}
\label{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}
This section is devoted to our construction of free strictly
unital $1$-connected Markl operads over ${\tt O}$ generated by
${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaves. In the light of Theorem~\ref{Mcat} this will also
provide free (standard) ${\tt O}$-operads. We require ${\tt O}$ to be
a~factorizable strictly graded operadic category in which all quasi\-bijection{s} are invertible,
and the blow-up and unique fiber axioms are fulfilled, that is
\[
\hbox{\rm \Fac\ \& {\sf SBU}\ \& {\sf QBI}\ \& {\sf UFib}\ \& \SGrad.}
\]
\begin{definition}
\label{Jarka_dnes_u_lekare}
${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaves in ${\tt V}$ will be called
{\em $1$-connected ${\tt O}$-collections\/} in ${\tt V}$. We will denote by
${\tt Coll}_1^\ttV({\tt O})$, or simply ${\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$ when ${\tt O}$ is understood,
the corresponding category.
\end{definition}
For $E \in {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$, we will often
write simply $E[T]$ instead of~$E([T])$.
Notice that a \hbox{$1$-connected} ${\tt O}$-collection can equivalently be
defined as a ${\tt Q}\VR$-presheaf $E$ such that $E(T) = 0$ if $e(T) = 0$.
It follows that a $1$-connected ${\tt O}$-collection in ${\tt V}$
is the same as an ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf ${\mathcal E}$ with values in ${\tt V}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
${\mathcal E}(T) = 0$ if $e(T) = 0$ ($1$-connectivity),
\item[(ii)]
${\mathcal E}(T) = {\mathcal E}(F)$ whenever $F \blacktriangleright T
\stackrel!\to u$, and
\item[(iii)]
$\phi'^* = \phi''^*$, where $\phi'$ is as
in~(\ref{Dnes_jsem_se_koupal_v_Hradistku.}) and $\phi''$ is the
induced map between the fibers.
\end{itemize}
\begin{example}
It follows from Example~\ref{Budu_mit_nova_sluchatka.} that the
category ${\tt Coll}_1^\ttV({\tt Fin})$
is isomorphic to the category of $1$-connected $\Sigma$-modules,
i.e.~sequences $\{E(n) \in {\tt V}\}_{n \geq 2}$, with actions of the
symmetric groups $\Sigma_n$.
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}
\label{Pomuze_vitamin_C?}
One has a forgetful functor $\Box: {\tt SUMOp}^{\tt V}_1({\tt O}) \to {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV({\tt O})$
from the
category of\/ $1$-connected strictly
unital Markl ${\tt O}$-operads to the category of $1$-connected
${\tt O}$-collections in~${\tt V}$ defined on objects~by
\begin{equation}
\Box {\EuScript M}\big([T]\big) :=
\begin{cases}
{\EuScript M}(T) &\hbox {if $e(T) \geq 1$,}
\\
0 & \hbox {otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The functor $\Box$ is the composite of the functor ${\EuScript M} \mapsto {\EuScript O}$
of Proposition~\ref{Za_14_dni_LKDL}, cf.\ Remark~\ref{Zitra_mam_prednasku_na_Macquarie.}, with the functor that replaces
the values of the presheaf ${\EuScript O}$ by $0$ on objects of grade zero.
\end{proof}
In the rest of this section we construct a left adjoint $E \mapsto
{\mathbb F}(E)$ to the forgetful functor of Proposition~\ref{Pomuze_vitamin_C?}.
Our strategy will be to construct a Markl ${\tt O}$-operad ${\tt lTw}$
with values in
the category of groupoids ${\tt Grp}$, extend $E$ to a functor $E : {\tt lTw}
\to {\tt V}$ and define ${\mathbb F}(E)$ as the colimit of this functor.
The building blocks of the operad ${\tt lTw}$ will be the towers
\begin{equation}
\label{t1-1}
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}: =
T \stackrel {\tau_1} \longrightarrow T_1 \stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
T_2\stackrel {\tau_3} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\tau_{k-1}} \longrightarrow T_{k-1}
\stackrel {\tau_{k} } \longrightarrow U_c
\end{equation}
of elementary morphisms as in Definition~\ref{plysacci_postacci},
with $\tau_k$ the unique morphism to a
chosen local terminal object~$U_c$.
Since $\tau_k$ bears no information, we will sometimes write the
tower~as
\begin{equation}
\label{t1}
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}: =
T \stackrel {\tau_1} \longrightarrow T_1 \stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
T_2\stackrel {\tau_3} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\tau_{k-1}} \longrightarrow T_{k-1}.
\end{equation}
Let $t_1,\ldots,t_{k}$ be the unique nontrivial fibers of
$\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_{k}$; notice that $t_k = T_{k-1}$.
We will call $t_1,\ldots,t_{k}$ the {\em fiber sequence\/}
of the tower ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$. The number $k$ is the {\em height\/} of the tower ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$.
We will denote by ${\it Tw}(T)$ the set of all towers with the
initial term $T$.
A~{\em~morphism\/} ${\boldsymbol \sigma} : {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}' \to {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}''$
of towers~(\ref{t1-1}) is an array ${\boldsymbol \sigma} =
(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\ldots,\sigma_{k})$ of isomorphism{s} as in
\begin{equation}
\label{f1}
\xymatrix{T' \ar[d]_{\tau'_1} \ar[r]^{\sigma_1}_\cong & T'' \ar[d]^{\tau''_1}
\\
T_1' \ar[d]_{\tau'_2} \ar[r]^{\sigma_2}_\cong & T_1'' \ar[d]^{\tau''_2}
\\
\vdots \ar[d]_{\tau'_{k-1}} & \vdots \ar[d]^{\tau''_{k-1}}
\\
T_{k-1}' \ar[r]^{\sigma_{k}}_\cong & \,T_{k-1}''.
}
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
\label{zitra_vedeni}
A {\em labelled tower\/} is a pair $(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ consisting of a
tower ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$ as in~(\ref{t1-1}) together with an isomorphism\ (the {\em labeling})
$\ell : X \to
T$. We denote by ${\it lTw}(X)$ the set of all labelled towers of this~form.
\end{definition}
We will equip ${{\it lTw}}(X)$ with the structure of a groupoid with
morphisms of two types. Each morphism ${\boldsymbol \sigma} : {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}' \to {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}''$
of towers~(\ref{t1-1}) determines a
morphism $(\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma})
:(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}') \to (\sigma_1\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ of the {\em first
type\/}. These morphisms compose as follows. Suppose that
$(\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma}'): (\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}') \to (\sigma_1'\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ and
$(\sigma_1'\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma}''): (\sigma_1'\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'') \to
(\sigma_1''\sigma_1'\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}''')$ are two such morphisms,
then
\[
(\sigma_1'\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma}'') \relax{} (\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma}') :=
(\sigma_1''\sigma_1'\ell, {\boldsymbol \sigma}''\relax{} {\boldsymbol \sigma}').
\]
To define morphisms of the second type, consider two
towers of elementary morphisms,
\[
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}':= T \stackrel {\tau_1} \longrightarrow T_1 \stackrel{\tau_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel{\tau_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {T_{u-1}}
\stackrel{\tau'_{u}}\longrightarrow T'_{u} \stackrel
{\tau'_{u+1}}\longrightarrow T_{u+1} \stackrel{\tau_{u+2}}
\longrightarrow \cdots \stackrel {\tau_{k-1}} \longrightarrow
T_{k-1}
\]
and
\[
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'':=
T \stackrel {\tau_1} \longrightarrow T_1 \stackrel{\tau_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots
\stackrel{\tau_{u-1}} \longrightarrow {T_{u-1}}
\stackrel{\tau''_{u}}\longrightarrow T''_{u}
\stackrel {\tau''_{u+1}}\longrightarrow T_{u+1}
\stackrel{\tau_{u+2}} \longrightarrow \cdots
\stackrel {\tau_{k-1}} \longrightarrow T_{k-1},
\]
as in~(\ref{t1}). Their associated fiber sequences
are clearly of the form
\[
t_1,\ldots,t_{u-1},t'_u,t'_{u+1},t_{u+2},\ldots,t_k
\ \hbox { resp. } \
t_1,\ldots,t_{u-1},t''_u,t''_{u+1},t_{u+2},\ldots,t_k.
\]
Assume that the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1em{& {T'_u} \ar[dr]^{\tau'_{u+1}} &
\\
T_{u-1}\ar[dr]^{\tau_u''} \ar[ur]^{\tau_u'} && T_{u+1}
\\
&{T''_u}\ar[ur]^{\tau''_{u+1}}&
}
\]
is as in~(\ref{eq:3}), with
$\phi' = \tau'_u$, $\phi'' = \tau''_u$,
$\psi' = \tau'_{u+1}$ and $\psi'' = \tau''_{u+1}$.
The above situation, by definition, determines an invertible morphism
$(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}') \to (\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ of the {\em second type\/}.
The composition of morphisms of the first and the second type is
subject to the obvious commutativity relations.
The resulting groupoid will be denoted ${\tt lTw}(X)$.
\begin{example}
\label{vcera_jsem_bezel_36_minut}
Since morphisms of both types preserve the height of towers, the
groupoid ${\tt lTw}(X)$ is graded,
\[
{\tt lTw}(X) = \textstyle\coprod_{h \geq 1}{\tt lTw}^h(X),
\]
where ${\tt lTw}^h(X)$ is the subgroupoid of labelled towers of height $h$.
It is clear that ${\tt lTw}^1(X)$ is the category $X/{{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ of isomorphism{s} in
${\tt O}$ under $X$.
In ${\tt lTw}^2(X)$, only morphisms of the first type exist. Therefore,
labelled towers $(\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}')$ and $(\ell'',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ are connected
by a morphism if and only if there is a commuting diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{vecer_ustrice}
\xymatrix{&X \ar[ld]_{\ell'}^\cong \ar[rd]^{\ell''}_\cong &
\\
T' \ar[d]_{\tau'} \ar[rr]^{\sigma_1}_\cong &&T'' \ar[d]^{\tau''}
\\
T'_1 \ar[rr]^{\sigma_2}_\cong &&T''_1
}
\end{equation}
with isomorphism{s} $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$.
\end{example}
For an isomorphism\ $\omega : X' {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} X''$ one has the induced map
$\omega^*: {\it lTw}(X'') \to {\it lTw}(X')$ that sends the labelled tower
$(\ell'',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'') \in {\it lTw}(X'')$ into $(\ell''\omega,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'') \in
{\it lTw}(X')$ which clearly extends to a functor (denoted by
the same symbol) $\omega^*: {\tt lTw}(X'') \to {\tt lTw}(X')$.
This makes the collection of categories ${\tt lTw}(X)$ a ${\tt Grp}$-presheaf on
${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$.
Our next move will be to construct, for each $G \triangleright W \stackrel\phi\to X$,
a functor
\begin{equation}
\label{mohl_bych_si_dat_i_12_ustric}
\circ_\phi : {\tt lTw}(X) \times {\tt lTw}(G) \to {\tt lTw}(W).
\end{equation}
As the first step in this construction we will prove that each
labelled tower $(\ell, {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ can be functorially replaced by one in
which $\ell$ is a quasibijection. To this end we prove a couple of
auxiliary lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
The factorization $\xi =\phi \relax{} \sigma$,
$\phi \in {{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$, $\sigma \in {{\tt O}}_{\tt qb}$, of an isomorphism $\xi :A \to B$
guaranteed by the factorization axiom
is unique, and
both $\phi$ and $\sigma$ are isomorphisms, too.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider two factorizations, $\phi' \relax{} \sigma'$ and $\phi''
\relax{} \sigma''$, of $\xi$. Since $\sigma'$ and $\sigma''$ are quasi\-bijection{s},
they are invertible, so one may define $u$ by the
commutativity of the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=1em{&X' \ar[rd]^{\phi'}_\cong &
\\
A\ar[ur]^{\sigma'}_\sim \ar[rd]^{\sigma''}_\sim&&\ B.
\\
&X'' \ar[ru]^{\phi''}_\cong \ar[uu]_u &
}
\]
By the left triangle, $u$ is a quasi\-bijection\ while it belongs
to ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ by the right triangle. The uniqueness follows
from~\cite[Corollary~2.6]{part1}.
The invertibility of $\phi'$ and
$\phi''$ is clear.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{zitra_na_ustrice}
Each corner
\[
\xymatrix@R=1.2em@C=2.5em{\tilde T \ar[r]^\omega_\cong & T \ar[d]^\phi
\\
&S
}
\]
in which $\omega$ is an isomorphism{s} from ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ and $\phi$ is elementary, can
be functorially completed to the square
\begin{equation}
\label{uz_se_to_krati}
\xymatrix@R=1.2em@C=2.5em{\tilde T \ar[d]_{\tilde \phi} \ar[r]^\omega_\cong & T \ar[d]^\phi
\\
\tilde S\ar[r]_{\tilde \omega}^\cong&S
}
\end{equation}
with $\tilde \omega$ an isomorphism{s} from ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$ and $\tilde \phi$ elementary.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The map $\tilde \phi := \phi \relax{} \omega$ belongs to
${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$. It has precisely
one fiber $G$ such that $e(G) \geq 1$, its other fibers
$\Rada u1{s-1}$ are local terminal. The blow-up axiom produces a unique
diagram~(\ref{uz_se_to_krati}) such that the maps of
fibers induced by $\tilde \omega$ are
\[
!: G \to U,\ ! : u_1 \to u_1, \ldots, ! : u_{s-1} \to u_{s-1},
\]
with $U$ the chosen local terminal object of ${\tt O}$. It is clear that the
maps thus constructed have the properties stated in the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{22_hodin_cesty}
Each $(\ell, {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})\in {\tt lTw}(X)$ can be functorially replaced within
its isomorphism
class by some $(\tilde\ell, \tilde{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ in which $\tilde\ell$ is a quasi\-bijection.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$ be as in~(\ref{t1-1}) and $\ell : X \to T$ be an isomorphism. We
decompose $\ell$ as $\sigma_1 \relax{} \tilde\ell$, with $\tilde\ell$ a quasi\-bijection\
and $\sigma_1$ an isomorphism\ in ${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$. Lemma~\ref{zitra_na_ustrice} gives a
canonical square
\[
\xymatrix@R=1.2em@C=2.5em{\tilde T\ar[d]_{\tilde \tau_1}
\ar[r]^{\sigma_1}_\cong & T \ar[d]^{\tau_1}
\\
\tilde T_1\ar[r]^{\sigma_2}_\cong&T_1
}
\]
in which $\tilde \tau_1$ is elementary and $\sigma_2$ an isomorphism\ in
${{\ttO_{\tt ord}}}$. Repeating this process produces a tower $\tilde {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$ labelled
by the quasi\-bijection\ $\tilde\ell : X \to \tilde T$.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{22_hodin_cesty} implies that the graded category ${\tt lTw}(X)$
contains a reflexive graded subcategory ${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}(X)$ whose objects are
towers $(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ labelled by a quasi\-bijection.
Morphisms of the first type in ${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}(X)$ are
those $(\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma})
:(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}') \to (\sigma_1\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ in which $\sigma_1$ is a quasi\-bijection.
Morphisms of the second
type are the same as those in ${\tt lTw}(X)$.
\begin{example}
\label{pisu_druhy_den_v_Srni}
Labelled towers $(\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'), (\ell'',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'') \in{\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^2(X)$ are
isomorphic if and only if there is the commuting
diagram~(\ref{vecer_ustrice}) in which the maps in the upper triangle
are quasi\-bijection{s}.
\end{example}
Let $G \triangleright W \stackrel\phi\to X$ be elementary.
Assume we are given a labelled tower $(\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}) \in
{\it lTw}(G)$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{17b}
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}: =
F \stackrel {\varphi_1} \longrightarrow F_1 \stackrel {\varphi_2} \longrightarrow
F_2\stackrel {\varphi_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\varphi_{l-1}} \longrightarrow F_{l-1}
\end{equation}
is a tower with the associated fibers $f_1,\ldots,f_l$,
with the labeling $\ell' : G \to F$. Assume we are also given a labeled
tower $(\tilde \ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in {\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}(X)$, with $\tilde\ell$ a quasi\-bijection.
The blow-up axiom gives a unique diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=3.5em@R=1.2em{W \ar[d]_{\phi} \ar[r]^{\ell''}_\cong & S \ar[d]^{\rho}
\\
X \ar[r]^{\tilde \ell}_\sim &T
}
\]
in which $F \triangleright S \stackrel\rho\to T$ is elementary and
$\ell''$ an isomorphism\ inducing the map $\ell' : G \to F$ between the unique
nontrivial fibers of $\phi$ and $\rho$, respectively.
In this situation we have the composite tower
\begin{equation}
\label{Taronaga_Zoo}
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}} \circ_\rho {\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}:=
S \stackrel {\rho_1} \longrightarrow S_1 \stackrel {\rho_2} \longrightarrow
S_2 \stackrel {\rho_3} \longrightarrow \cdots \stackrel
{\rho_{l-1}} \longrightarrow S_{l-1} \stackrel {\rho_l} \longrightarrow T
\stackrel {\tau_1}\longrightarrow T_1 \stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
T_2\stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\tau_{k-1}} \longrightarrow T_{k-1}
\end{equation}
whose initial part is~(\ref{eq:2}), and the composite labeled tower
\begin{equation}
\label{Safari_ani_ne_za_tyden.}
(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \circ_\phi (\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}) := (\ell'',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}} \circ_\rho {\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}})
\in {\it lTw}(W).
\end{equation}
The above construction clearly extends to a functor
\[
\circ_\phi : {\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}(X) \times {\tt lTw}(G) \to {\tt lTw}(W)
\]
which, precomposed with the equivalence ${\tt lTw}(X) \to {\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}(X)$ in the
first variable, gives~(\ref{mohl_bych_si_dat_i_12_ustric}).
Let $E \in {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$ be a $1$-connected collection.
For a tower~(\ref{t1}) we define
\[
E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) := E[t_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t_k]
\in {\tt V}.
\]
We will show how the rule $E(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) := E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ extends to a functor $E
: {\tt lTw}(X) \to {\tt V}$. Consider a morphism $(\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma})
:(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}') \to (\sigma_1\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ of the first
type, with ${\boldsymbol \sigma} : {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}' \to {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}''$ a map
of towers as in~\eqref{f1}. For each $0 \leq s \leq k$ one has
the commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=4em{T_s' \ar[d]_{(\tau_s',i)}\ar[dr]^{\tau_s}
\ar[r]^{\sigma_{s+1}}_\cong
& T_s'' \ar[d]^{(\tau_s'',j)}
\\
T_{s-1}' \ar[r]^{\sigma_s}_\cong &T_{s-1}''
}
\]
in which $\tau_s := \sigma_s \relax{} \tau'_s = \tau''_s \relax{}
\sigma_{s+1}$ and where $T'_s := T'$, $T''_s := T''$ if $s=0$.
Lemma~\ref{l3} provides us~with
\[
t'_s \triangleright \tau^{-1}_s(j)
\stackrel{(\tau'_s)_j}\longrightarrow \sigma_s^{-1}(j)
\ \hbox { and } \
(\sigma_{s+1})_j: \tau_s^{-1}(j) \to t''_s
\]
so we can define $\sigma_s^\star : E[t''_s] \to E[t'_s]$
as the composite
\[
\sigma_s^\star : E[t''_s] \stackrel{(\sigma_{s+1})_j^*}\longrightarrow E[
\tau_s^{-1}(j)] = E[t'_s]
\]
where the equality uses the
fact that $E$ is constant along virtual isomorphisms.
This in turn induces a map
\begin{equation}
\label{Dnes snad uvidim Tereje.}
{\boldsymbol \sigma}^\star : E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')
= E[t'_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t'_k] \longrightarrow
E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}')
= E[t''_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t''_k]
\end{equation}
by ${\boldsymbol \sigma}^\star := {\sigma}_1^\star \otimes \cdots \otimes
{\sigma}_k^\star$.
Define finally $E(\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma}) : E(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'') \to E(\sigma_1\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}')$
as $E(\ell,{\boldsymbol \sigma}):= {\boldsymbol \sigma}^\star$.
Let us discuss morphisms of the second type.
Corollary~\ref{move} gives identities
\[
t'_u = t''_{u+1} \ \mbox { and } \
t''_u = t'_{u+1}.
\]
We define the $E$-image of this map as the identification of
\[
e_1 \otimes \cdots\otimes e''_{u+1} \otimes e'_{u+1} \otimes \cdots \otimes e_k
\in E[t_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t'_u] \otimes E[t'_{u+1}] \otimes
\cdots \otimes E[t_k]
\]
in $E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}')$ with
\[
e_1 \otimes \cdots\otimes e_{u+1}'\otimes e''_{u+1} \otimes \cdots \otimes e_k
\in E[t_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t''_u] \otimes E[t''_{u+1}] \otimes
\cdots \otimes E[t_k]
\]
in $E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ given by the symmetry constraint in ${\tt V}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{popozitri_Janacek}
The diagram of functors
\[
\xymatrix{& {\tt V} &
\\
{\tt lTw}(X) \times {\tt lTw}(G) \ar[ur]^{E \otimes E} \ar[rr]^(.6){\circ_\phi} &&
{\tt lTw}(W) \ar[ul]_E
}
\]
commutes for an arbitrary elementary morphism $G \triangleright W \stackrel\phi\to X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in {\tt lTw}(X)$ and
$(\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}) \in {\tt lTw}(G)$, with ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$ as in~(\ref{t1}) and ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}$
as in~(\ref{17b}). Recall that then $(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \circ_\phi
(\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}) \in {\tt lTw}(W)$ is
given by formula~(\ref{Safari_ani_ne_za_tyden.}). The crucial fact is
that the fiber sequence of ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}} \circ_\rho {\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}$ is
\[
f_1,\ldots,f_l,t_1,\ldots,t_{k},
\]
where $f_1,\ldots,f_l$
resp.~$t_1,\ldots,t_k$ is the fiber sequence of ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}$ resp.~of ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}$.
The canonical isomorphism
\[
E(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \otimes E(\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}})
\cong E\big((\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \circ_\phi (\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}})\big)
\]
then follows immediately from the definition of the functor $E$ as
given above.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{dnes_bylo_40}
Let $E \in {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$ be a $1$-connected collection in ${\tt V}$. Then the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{Konci_Neuron?}
{\mathbb F}(E)(X) :=
\begin{cases}\displaystyle
\mathop{\rm colim}\displaylimits_{(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in{\tt lTw}(X)} E(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})&\hbox{if $e(X) \geq 1$,}
\\
{\mathbb k}&\hbox{if $e(X) = 0$,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
defines a left adjoint $E \mapsto {\mathbb F}(E)$ to the forgetful functor\/
$\Box$ of Proposition~\ref{Pomuze_vitamin_C?}. Therefore ${\mathbb F}(E)$
is the free $1$-connected strictly unital
Markl operad generated by $E$.
\end{theorem}
Adjoining the ground field
in~(\ref{Konci_Neuron?}) should be
compared to adjoining the unit to the free nonunital operad in
formula~(II.1.58) of~\cite{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{dnes_bylo_40}]
Assume that $X\in {\tt O}$ is such that $e(X) \geq 1$.
It is clear that the vector space ${\mathbb F}(E)(X)$ is
graded by the height $k$ of the
underlying towers so that it decomposes as
\begin{equation}
\label{co_udela_ta_noha_na_Safari}
{\mathbb F}(E)(X) \cong\textstyle \bigoplus_{k \geq 1} {\mathbb F}^k(E)(X).
\end{equation}
Elements of ${\mathbb F}^k(E)(X)$ are equivalence classes
$[\ell,e]$ consisting of a labeling $\ell :X {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} T$ and of an
element
$e \in E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ associated with a labeled tower $(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ as
in Definition~\ref{zitra_vedeni} of height $k$.
For an isomorphism $\omega : Y {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} X$ one puts $\omega^*[\ell,e] :=
[\ell\omega,e] \in {\mathbb F}^k(E)(Y)$. This turns ${\mathbb F}^k(E)$ into an ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf
of vector spaces.
Defining formally ${\mathbb F}^0(E)$ to be the trivial presheaf ${\mathbb k}$,
one thus has a decomposition
\[
{\mathbb F}(E) \cong\textstyle \bigoplus_{k \geq 0} {\mathbb F}^k(E)
\]
of ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaves of vector spaces.
This in
particular shows that ${\mathbb F}(E)$ is an ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf as required in
the definition of Markl operad.
The composition law
\begin{equation}
\label{Zavolam_ty_Sarce?}
\circ_\phi: {\mathbb F}^k(E)(X) \otimes {\mathbb F}^l(E)(G) \longrightarrow
{\mathbb F}^{k+l}(E)(W),\
G \triangleright W \stackrel\phi\to X,\ k,l \geq 1,
\end{equation}
is defined as
the colimit of the natural isomorphisms between the
functors
\[
E \otimes E: {\tt lTw}(X) \times {\tt lTw}(G) \to {\tt V} \hbox { and }
E : {\tt lTw}(W) \to {\tt V}
\]
described in Lemma~\ref{popozitri_Janacek}. One must also define the
composition law in~(\ref{Zavolam_ty_Sarce?}) for $k=0$, i.e.,
specify a map
\begin{equation}
\label{zavolal_jsem_ji}
\circ_\phi: {\mathbb F}^l(E)(G) \cong {\mathbb F}^0(E)(X) \otimes {\mathbb F}^l(E)(G)
\longrightarrow {\mathbb F}^{l}(E)(W).
\end{equation}
Notice first that the grade of $X$ must be zero, so by our assumptions on ${\tt O}$, $X$ is
a~local terminal object. Consider an element
$[\ell',e] \in {\mathbb F}^l(E)(G)$ with $\ell' : G {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} F$ and $e \in
E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}})$ with ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}$ as in~(\ref{17b}).
Using the blow-up axiom we include $\phi : W \to X$ into the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=1em{
W \ar[rr]^{\ell''}_\cong\ar[rd]_\phi &&S\ar[ld]^\rho
\\
&X&
}
\]
in which $\ell''$ induces the map $\ell' : G {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} F$ between the
fibers. Let ${{\boldsymbol {\EuScript S}}}$ be the tower as in~(\ref{eq:2})
with $X$ in place of $T$. Then $(\ell'',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript S}}) \in {\tt lTw}(W)$. Since by
construction the associated fiber sequence of ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript S}}$ is the same as
the associated fiber sequence of ${\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}$, one has $E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript F}}) = E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript S}})$,
thus it makes sense to define $\circ_\phi$ in~(\ref{zavolal_jsem_ji}) by
$\circ_\phi ([\ell',e]) := [\ell'',e]$.
Notice that one cannot have $l = 0$ in~(\ref{Zavolam_ty_Sarce?}),
since the fiber of an elementary map has always positive grade. We
leave to the reader to verify that the above constructions make
${\mathbb F}(E)$ a~Markl operad.
Let us describe ${\mathbb F}^1(E)$ explicitly. As noticed in
Example~\ref{vcera_jsem_bezel_36_minut},
${\tt lTw}^1(X)$ is the category $X/{{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ of isomorphism{s} in
${\tt O}$ under $X$. Elements of ${\mathbb F}^1(E)(X)$ are equivalence classes
$[\omega,e]$ of pairs $\omega : X {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} T$, $e \in E[T]$, modulo the
identification
$[\sigma\omega' ,e''] = [\omega' ,\sigma^*e'']$
for each diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=1em{
&X \ar[ld]_{\omega'}^\cong\ar[rd]^{\omega''}_\cong &
\\
T' \ar[rr]^\sigma_\cong && T''
}
\]
of isomorphisms in ${\tt O}$.
Since ${\tt lTw}^1(X)$ is connected, with a
distinguished object $1\!\!1 : X \to X$, the map
$i : E[X] \to {\mathbb F}^1(E)(X)$ given by $i(e) := [1\!\!1,e]$ for
$e \in E[X]$, is an isomorphism of vector spaces. These isomorphisms
assemble
into an isomorphism $E \cong {\mathbb F}^1(E)$ of collections.
Let us finally denote by $\iota : E \hookrightarrow \Box {\mathbb F}(E)$ the
composite
\begin{equation}
\label{Kdy bude hotovy Terej?}
\iota:
E {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} {\mathbb F}^1(E) \hookrightarrow \Box {\mathbb F}(E).
\end{equation}
To establish the freeness of Theorem~\ref{dnes_bylo_40} means
to prove that, for each $1$-connected strictly unital
Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ and a map of collections $y : E \to \Box {\EuScript M}$, there
exists precisely one map $\hat y : {\mathbb F}(E) \to {\EuScript M}$ of strictly unital
Markl operads making the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=3em{E\ \ar@{^{(}->}[r]^(.4){\iota}\ar[rd]^y &
\Box {\mathbb F}(E) \ar[d]^{\Box
\hat y}
\\
&\Box {\EuScript M}
}
\]
commutative.
Let us assume that such a map $\hat y : {\mathbb F}(E) \to {\EuScript M}$ exists and prove that
it is unique. To this end consider an arbitrary element $[\ell, e] \in
{\mathbb F}(E)(X)$ given by a pair $\ell : X {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} T$, $e \in E({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ for
a~labelled tower $(\ell, {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in {\tt lTw}(X)$ as in
Definition~\ref{zitra_vedeni}. For
\[
e = e_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes e_k \in E[t_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t_k]
\]
it immediately follows from the definition of the operad
structure of ${\mathbb F}(E)(X)$ that
\[
[\ell, e] = \ell^*\big(e_1 \circ_{\tau_1}(e_2 \circ_{\tau_2}
\cdots(e_{k-1}
\circ_{\tau_{k-1}} e_{k}) \cdots )\big)
\]
where we used the notation
\[
x \circ_{\tau_i} y := (-1)^{|x||y|} \circ_{\tau_i}(y \otimes x)
\]
for $x \in E[T_i],\ y \in E[t_i]$ and $1 \leq i \leq k-1$. We moreover
considered $\Rada e1k$ as elements of ${\mathbb F}^1(E)$ via the
isomorphism $i : E {\hbox{\,$\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow$\,}} {\mathbb F}^1(E)$. Since $\hat y$ is a
morphism of operads, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{dneska_musim_zvladnout_jeste_toho_Slovaka}
\hat y([\ell, e]) = \ell^*\big(y(e_1) \circ_{\tau_1}(y(e_2) \circ_{\tau_2}
\cdots(y(e_{k-1})
\circ_{\tau_{k-1}} y(e_{k})) \cdots )\big).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, one may verify
that~(\ref{dneska_musim_zvladnout_jeste_toho_Slovaka}) indeed defines a
morphism of operads with the required property. This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Quadratic Markl operads and duality}
\label{pairing}
The goal of this section is to introduce quadratic Markl operads over operadic
categories and define their Koszul duals. The base monoidal category
${\tt V}$ will be the category ${\tt Vect}$ of graded vector spaces
over a field ${\mathbb k}$ of characteristic $0$. All operads will be tacitly
assumed to be strictly unital. The basic operadic category
${\tt O}$ shall fulfill the same additional axioms as in
Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}, plus the rigidity. In brief,
\[
\hbox{\rm \Fac\ \& {\sf SBU}\ \& {\sf QBI}\ \& {\sf UFib}\ \& \SGrad\ \& \Rig.}
\]
\begin{definition}
An {\em ideal\/} ${\EuScript I}$ in a Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ is a
sub-${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf of ${\EuScript M}$ which is simultaneously an ideal with respect to the
circle products~(\ref{ten_prelet_jsem_podelal}), i.e.\
\[
\circ_\phi(a \otimes b) \in {\EuScript I}(T)
\hbox { if $a\in {\EuScript I}(S)$ or $b \in {\EuScript I}(F)$.}
\]
For a sub-${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf $R$
we denote by $(R)$ the component-wise intersection of all
ideals containing $R$. We call $(R)$ the ideal {\em generated\/} by $R$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{zitra_seminar}
A {\em quadratic data\/} consists of a
$1$-connected collection $E \in {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$ and
an~sub-${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$-presheaf $R$ of ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$. A $1$-connected
Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ is {\em quadratic\/} if it is of the form
\[
{\EuScript M} = {\mathbb F}(E)/(R).
\]
It is {\em binary\/} if the
generating collection $E$ is such that $E[T] \not= 0$ implies that $e(T)= 1$.
\end{definition}
Many examples of binary operads will be given in the
following sections. Let us proceed to our generalization of the
operadic Koszul duality of \cite{ginzburg-kapranov:DMJ94} for operads over general
operadic~categories.
We start by noticing that the
piece ${\tt lTw}^k(X)$ of height $k$ of the
groupoid ${\tt lTw}(X)$ constructed in Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}
decomposes into the coproduct
\[
{\tt lTw}^k(X) = \coprod_{c \in \pi_0({\tt lTw}^k(X))} {\tt lTw}^k_c(X)
\]
over the
set $ \pi_0({\tt lTw}^k(X))$ of connected components of ${\tt lTw}^k(X)$,
which is thus also true for the $k$th piece of the $X$-component of the free operad,
\begin{equation}
\label{Do_konce_Safari_zbyvaji_tri_dny.}
{\mathbb F}^k(E)(X) = \bigoplus_{c \in \pi_0({\tt lTw}^k(X))} {\mathbb F}^k_c(E)(X).
\end{equation}
Choose a labelled tower $(\ell^c,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}^c)$ in each connected component
$c$ of ${\tt lTw}^k(X)$ and assume the notation
\[
{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}^c: =
T^c \stackrel {\tau^c_1} \longrightarrow T^c_1 \stackrel
{\tau^c_2} \longrightarrow
T^c_2\stackrel {\tau^c_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\tau^c_{k-1}} \longrightarrow T^c_{k-1},
\]
with the associated fiber sequence $t^c_1,\ldots,t^c_{k}$.
Since there are no automorphisms of the first type of
$(\ell^c,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}^c)$ in ${\tt lTw}^k(X)$ by the
rigidity of ${\tt O}$,
\[
{\mathbb F}^k_c(E)(X) \cong E[t^c_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t^c_k]
\]
so we have an isomorphism of graded vector spaces
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_bude_vedro}
{\mathbb F}^k(E)(X) \cong
\bigoplus_{c \in \pi_0({\tt lTw}^k(X))} E[t^c_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t^c_k],
\end{equation}
cf.~the similar
presentation~\cite[formula (II.1.51)]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}
for `ordinary' free operads. In the light of
Proposition~\ref{22_hodin_cesty}, one may assume that the tower
$(\ell^c,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}^c)$ in~(\ref{Do_konce_Safari_zbyvaji_tri_dny.}) belongs
to ${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^k(X)$, therefore~(\ref{dnes_bude_vedro}) can be written as the
direct sum
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_bude_vedro_b}
{\mathbb F}^k(E)(X) \cong
\bigoplus_{c \in \pi_0({\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^k(X))} E[t^c_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes E[t^c_k]
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
over isomorphism classes of objects of ${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^k(X)$.
Let ${\uparrow} E^*$ be the suspension of the componentwise linear dual of
the collection $E$.
With the above preliminaries, it is easy to define a pairing
\begin{equation}
\label{jdu_si_lepit_142}
\langle - | - \rangle :
{\mathbb F}^2({\uparrow} E^*)(X) \otimes {\mathbb F}^2(E)(X) \longrightarrow
{\mathbb k},\ (\alpha,x) \longmapsto \alpha(x)
\end{equation}
as follows.
If $c' \not= c''$ we declare the subspaces ${\mathbb F}_{c'}^2({\uparrow} E^*)(X)$ and
${\mathbb F}_{c''}^2(E)(X)$ of ${\mathbb F}^2({\uparrow} E^*)(X)$ resp.~${\mathbb F}^2(E)(X)$
to be orthogonal. If $c := c' = c''$,
\[
{\mathbb F}_c^2({\uparrow} E^*)(X) \cong {\uparrow} E^*[t^c_1] \otimes {\uparrow} E^*[t^c_2]\
\hbox { and }\
{\mathbb F}_c^2(E)(X) \cong E[t^c_1] \otimes E[t^c_2]
\]
and the pairing between ${\mathbb F}_c^2({\uparrow} E^*)(X)$ and
${\mathbb F}_c^2(E)(X)$ is defined as the canonical evaluation
\[
{\uparrow} E^*[t^c_1] \otimes {\uparrow} E^*[t^c_2] \otimes E[t^c_1] \otimes E[t^c_2]
\longrightarrow {\mathbb k}.
\]
We leave as an exercise to show that this definition does not depend
on the choices of the representatives $(\ell^c,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}^c)$.
\begin{definition}
\label{vice nez 10 000 pripadu denne}
Let ${\EuScript M}$ be a quadratic Markl operad as in
Definition~\ref{zitra_seminar}.
Its {\em Koszul dual\/} ${\EuScript M}^!$ is the quadratic Markl operad defined as
\[
{\EuScript M}^! = {\mathbb F}({\uparrow} E^*)/(R^\perp),
\]
where $R^\perp$ denotes the component-wise annihilator of $R$ in
${\mathbb F}^2({\uparrow} E^*)$ under the pairing~(\ref{jdu_si_lepit_142}).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{Uz_je_o_te_medaili_zapis.}
A quadratic Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ is {\em self-dual\/} if the associated
categories of ${\EuScript M}$- and ${\EuScript M}^!$-algebras in ${\tt Vect}$ are isomorphic.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
All assumptions of this section are met by the operadic category
${{\tt Fin}_{\rm semi}}$ of finite non-empty sets and their surjections. The operads
for this category are the classical constant-free operads for which
Koszul duality is the classical
heritage~\cite{ginzburg-kapranov:DMJ94}. A similar example is the
operadic category ${\mathbb {\tt \Delta}_{\rm semi}}$ of non-empty ordered finite sets and
their order-preserving surjections. Our theory in this case recovers Koszul
duality for non-$\Sigma$ operads. The terminal category ${\tt 1}$ also
satisfies the assumptions of this section. The only $1$-connected
${\tt 1}$-operad, i.e.~an associative algebra, is however the ground
field ${\mathbb k}$.
\end{example}
\section{Modular and odd modular
operads}
\label{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal}
In this section we analyze binary quadratic operads over the operadic category
${\tt ggGrc}$ of connected genus-graded directed graphs
introduced in \cite[Example~4.18]{part1}.
Recall that ${\tt ggGrc}$ was constructed from the basic category ${\tt Gr}$ of
ordered graphs via the iterated Grothendieck construction combining a
discrete operadic fibration and an opfibration, see the
diagram in~\cite[(31)]{part1}.
Since, as we established in \cite[Section~3]{part1},
the category ${\tt Gr}$ is graded
by the number of internal edges of graphs and
satisfies \Fac, {\sf QBI}\ and {\sf SBU}, ${\tt ggGrc}$ has the same properties by the
results collected in \cite[Table~1]{part1}. Properties
${\sf UFib}$ and $\SGrad$ for ${\tt ggGrc}$ can easily be checked
directly, and therefore by \cite[Remark~4.23]{part1}, ${\tt ggGrc}$
has all the properties required for Koszul duality, namely
\[
\hbox{\rm \Fac\ \& {\sf SBU}\ \& {\sf QBI}\ \& {\sf UFib}\ \& \Rig\ \& \SGrad.}
\]
We will prove that the terminal operad ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ in the category
{\tt ggGrc}\ is binary
quadratic and describe its Koszul dual $\oddGr :={\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}^!$. We then
show that algebras for ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ are modular operads of
\cite{getzler-kapranov:CompM98} while algebras for
${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}^!$ are their suitably
twisted versions. We start by analyzing
graphs in ${\tt ggGrc}$ with small number of internal edges.
\begin{example}
\label{Snad_se_ta_Achylovka_trochu_lepsi.}
Local terminal objects of ${\tt ggGrc}$ are genus-graded corollas
$c(\sigma)^g$ for a permutation $\sigma =(\Rada\sigma1n) \in \Sigma_n$
and a genus $g \in {\mathbb N}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{Dasa_Vokata}
\raisebox{-10em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-2.6672062)(11,1.672062)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](5.275,-0.8477939)
\rput[bl](5.475,-1.2477939){$g$}
\rput(5.275,1.5){$1$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](5.275,1.1522061)(5.275,-0.8477939)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.275,0.95220613)(5.275,-0.8477939)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](4.275,0.95220613)(5.275,-0.8477939)
\rput{-227.95706}(8.177993,-5.332993){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1.2}{0.0}{220}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.875,0.3522061)(5.275,-0.8477939)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](7.275,-0.44779387)(5.275,-0.8477939)
\rput[bl](6.3,1.1){$2$}
\rput[bl](7,0.22061){$3$}
\rput[bl](7.4,-0.54779387){$4$}
\rput[bl](4.075,1.1){$n$}
\rput[bl](5.375,0.7522061){$\sigma_1$}
\rput[bl](6.275,0.422061){$\sigma_2$}
\rput[bl](6.875,-1){$\sigma_4$}
\rput[bl](6.75,-0.247793884){$\sigma_3$}
\rput[bl](4.475,0.7522061){$\sigma_n$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
The chosen local terminal objects are the genus-graded corollas
$c_n^g :=c(1\!\!1_n)^g$ with $1\!\!1_n \in \Sigma_n$
the identity permutation.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Any directed connected genus-graded graph with one internal
edge and one vertex looks like
$\xi(\Rada \lambda1k | \lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})^g$ in
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_na_Rusalku left}
\raisebox{-7.5em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.7275)(5.055,1.9275)
\rput{-227.95706}(5.3,-4.332993){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1.2}{40}{95}}
\rput[bl](2.5,-.55){$g$}
\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](4.275,0.0125){1.0}{230}{123}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.675,0.0125)(1.075,1.6125)(1.075,1.6125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.675,0.0125)(1.075,-1.3875)(1.075,-1.3875)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](5.075,0.0125)(5.475,0.0125)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.675,0.0125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.675,0.0125)(0.475,1.0125)
\rput[bl](3.075,-0.1875){$\relax$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.7,0.85)(2.675,0.0125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.675,0.0125)(3.675,-0.7875)
\rput(0.875,1.8125){$1$}
\rput(0.25,1.0125){$2$}
\rput(0.875,-1.5875){$k$}
\rput(1.675,1.6125){$\lambda_1$}
\rput(1,1.1){$\lambda_2$}
\rput(1.275,-0.7875){$\lambda_k$}
\rput(4.175,1.39){$\lambda_{k+1}$}
\rput(4.175,-0.5875){$\lambda_{k+2}$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
with half-edges labelled by a
permutation $\{\Rada \lambda1{k+2}\}$ of $\{\rada1{k+2}\}$. Its automorphism group
equals $\Sigma_2$ that interchanges the half-edges
forming the loop.
Any two graphs of this kind are isomorphic. In
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_na_Rusalku right}
\raisebox{-4.7em}{\rule{0em}{0em}}
\raisebox{-4em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(2,-1.7275)(40.055,1.9275)
\rput[bl](9,-.55){$g_u$}
\rput[bl](11.6,-.55){$g_v$}
\rput{-227.95706}(11.5779,-4.332993){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1}{40}{95}}
\rput{-227}(15.1,-4.332993){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04,
linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm,
dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1}{205}{-95}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.075,0.0125)(7.475,1.6125)(7.475,1.6125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.075,0.0125)(7.475,-1.3875)(7.475,-1.3875)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.075,0.0125)(6.875,1.0125)
\rput(7.275,1.8125){$l_1$}
\rput(6.6,1.0125){$l_2$}
\rput(7.275,-1.5875){$l_k$}
\rput(8,1.6125){$\lambda^u_1$}
\rput(7.375,1.125){$\lambda^u_2$}
\rput(7.675,-0.7875){$\lambda^u_k$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](9.075,0.0125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](13.475,-1.5875)(11.875,0.0125)(11.875,0.0125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](13.475,1.4125)(11.875,0.0125)(11.875,0.0125)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](14.075,-0.9875)(11.875,0.0125)
\rput(13.075,1.6125){$\lambda^v_l$}
\rput(13.675,-0.3875){$\lambda^v_2$}
\rput(13.475,-1.1875){$\lambda^v_1$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](11.875,0.0125)
\rput(13.975,-1.7875){$l_{k+1}$}
\rput(14.575,-0.9875){$l_{k+2}$}
\rput(13.875,1.6125){$l_{k+l}$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](10.475,0.2125)(10.475,-0.1875)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.075,0.0125)(11.875,0.0125)(11.875,0.0125)
\rput(9.875,0.4125){$\lambda^u_{k+1}$}
\rput(11.075,0.4125){$\lambda^v_{l+1}$}
\rput(9.075,0.4125){$u$}
\rput(11.875,0.4125){$v$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
we depict a general graph
$\nu(\Rada {\lambda^u}1k | \lambda^u_{k+1},\lambda^v_{l+1}|\Rada{\lambda^v}1l)^{g_u|g_v}$ with one
internal edge and two vertices labelled by $u,v \in \{1,2\}$ with
genera $g_u,g_v \in {\mathbb N}$.
Its global order is determined by a $(k,l)$-shuffle
\[
\{l_1 < \cdots < l_k, \ l_{k + 1} < \cdots < l_{k + l}\} = \{\rada 1{k+l}\}.
\]
Its
half-edges adjacent to $u$ are labelled by a permutation $\lambda^u$ of
$\{\rada 1{k+1}\}$, the half-edges adjacent to
$v$ by a permutation $\lambda^v$ of $\{\rada {1}{l+1}\}$.
Two such graphs with the same global orders and the same genera
are always isomorphic. There are no nontrivial
automorphisms except for the case $k=l=0$ and $g_u = g_v$ when
the graph is an interval with no legs. Then one has the automorphism
flipping it around its middle.
\end{example}
\def\semidirect{\makebox{\hskip .3mm$\times \hskip
-.8mm\raisebox{.2mm}
{\rule{.17mm}{1.9mm}}\hskip-.75mm$\hskip 2mm}}
\def\+{\!+\!}
\begin{example}
\label{chteji_po_mne_abych_velel_grantu}
A general graph $\xi(\Rada \lambda1k |
\lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2}|\lambda_{k+3},\lambda_{k+4})^g$ with two
internal edges and one vertex is depicted in
\begin{equation}
\label{pozitri_do_Srni}
\raisebox{-8em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(2.5,-2.1219277)(8.795,2.1219277)
\psline[linecolor=black,
linewidth=0.04](6.275,0.0030721934)(4.675,1.6030722)(4.475,1.8030722)
\rput(3.5,0){
\rput{-227.95706}(5.3,-4.332993){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1.2}{40}{95}}
\rput[bl](2.6,-.65){$g$}
}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](6.275,0.0030721934)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.275,0.0030721934)(4.075,1.2030722)
\rput[bl](6.075,-0.5969278){$\relax$}
\rput(4.275,-1.9969279){$k$}
\rput(4.275,1.9969279){$1$}
\rput(4.875,1.8030722){$\lambda_1$}
\rput(4.475,1.30722){$\lambda_2$}
\rput(4.675,-1.05){$\lambda_k$}
\rput(6.275,1.6030722){$\lambda_{k+1}$}
\rput(7.475,0.60307217){$\lambda_{k+2}$}
\rput{-1.6502923}(-0.025787057,0.21568896){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](7.475,1.0030721){0.8}{280}{170}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.275,0.0030721934)(7.675,0.20307219)
\rput(8.6,-0.3969278){$\lambda_{k+3}$}
\rput(7.475,-1.3969278){$\lambda_{k+4}$}
\rput(3.875,1.4030722){$2$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.675,1.2030722)(6.275,0.0030721934)
\rput{-87.20956}(8.106839,6.5177426){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](7.475,-0.9969278){0.8}{280}{170}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](7.675,-0.1969278)(6.275,0.0030721934)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.675,-1.1969278)(6.275,0.0030721934)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8, 1.3930722)(8.275,1.5969278)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8,-1.3969278)(8.275,-1.5969278)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.275,0.0030721934)(4.475,-1.7969278)
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
Its local order at its single vertex is determined by a permutation
$\lambda$ of $\{\rada 1 {k\+4}\}$.
Its automorphism group equals the semidirect
product $\Sigma_2 \semidirect ( \Sigma_2 \times
\Sigma_2) $. We leave the similar detailed analysis of the remaining
graphs with two internal edges as an exercise.
Our next task will be to describe free operads over ${\tt ggGrc}$ using
formula~(\ref{dnes_bude_vedro_b}).
As the first step towards this goal we
describe isomorphism classes of labelled towers
$(\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in {\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^2(X)$ for the directed graph
\[
X := \xi(\rada 1k
|{k\+1},{k\+2}|{k\+3},{k\+4})^g
\]
i.e.\ for the graph in~\eqref{pozitri_do_Srni} with $\lambda$ the identity.
As observed in Example~\ref{pisu_druhy_den_v_Srni}, it suffices to consider
diagrams~(\ref{vecer_ustrice}) in which all maps in the upper triangle
are quasi\-bijection{s}. Since the graphs $X, T'$ and $T''$ in that triangle have one
vertex only, all $\ell', \ell''$ and $\sigma_1$ belong to~${\tt \Delta}{\tt Gr}$,
therefore they are the identities by
\cite[Corollary~2.4]{part1}. Isomorphism classes in
${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^2(X)$ are thus represented by maps
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_na_Breznik}
\tau: \xi(\rada 1k
|{k\+1},{k\+2}|{k\+3},{k\+4} )^g
\longrightarrow \xi(\Rada \nu1k | \nu_{k+1},\nu_{k+2})^{g+1}
\end{equation}
modulo the equivalence that identifies
$\tau'$ with $\tau''$ if and only if there
exists an isomorphism $\sigma$ such that $\tau'' = \sigma \relax{}
\tau'$. Notice that a map as in~(\ref{dnes_na_Breznik}) is automatically
elementary, and that all elementary maps from $X$ decreasing the grade
by $1$ are of this form.
Now define the `canonical'~maps
\[
p_i:
\xi(\rada 1k |{k\+1},{k\+2}|{k\+3},{k\+4})^{g} \longrightarrow
\xi(\rada 1k |{k\+1},{k\+2})^{g+1}, \ i = 1,2,
\]
by postulating that $p_1$ (resp.~$p_2$) contracts the loop
$\{{k\+1},{k\+2}\}$ (resp.~$\{{k\+3},{k\+4}\})$ leaving the other loop
unaffected. In other words, the injection $\psi_1$ (resp.~$\psi_2$) of half-edges
defining $p_1$ (resp.~$p_2$) is the order-preserving injection
\[
(\rada 1{k\+2}) \hookrightarrow (\rada 1{k\+4})
\]
that misses the subset $\{k\+1,k\+2\}$ (resp.~$\{k\+3,k\+4\})$.
We claim that for each $\tau$
in~(\ref{dnes_na_Breznik}) there exist a unique $i \in \{1,2\}$ and a
unique isomorphism $\sigma$ making the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{lyze_mi_nejedou}
\xymatrix@R=3em@C=-6em{
&\xi(\rada 1k |{k\+1},{k\+2}|{k\+3},{k\+4})^g\ar[ld]_{p_i}\ar[dr]^\tau&
\\
\xi(\rada 1k |{k\+1},{k\+2})^{g+1}\ar[rr]^\sigma_\cong
&& \xi(\Rada \nu1k | \nu_{k\+1},\nu_{k\+2})^{g+1}
}
\end{equation}
commutative. Since, by definition, morphisms in ${\tt ggGrc}$ preserve global
orders, one has for the injections $\psi_\tau$ resp.~$\psi_\sigma$
of half-edges defining $\tau$ resp.~$\sigma$,
\[
\psi_\tau(\nu_j) = \psi_\sigma(\nu_j) = j \ \hbox { for } \ 1\leq j \leq k.
\]
Since $\psi_\tau$ must further preserve the involutions on the sets
of half-edges, there are only two
possibilities:
\noindent
{\it Case 1: $\psi_\tau\{\nu_{k+1},\nu_{k+2}\} = \{k\+3,k\+4\}$.\/}
In this case we take $i=1$ in~(\ref{lyze_mi_nejedou}) and define
\[
\psi_\sigma(\nu_{k+1}) := \psi_\tau(\nu_{k+1}) -2,\
\psi_\sigma(\nu_{k+2}) := \psi_\tau(\nu_{k+2}) -2.
\]
It is clear that with this choice the diagram
in~(\ref{lyze_mi_nejedou}) is commutative and that it is the only such
a choice.
\noindent
{\it Case 2: $\psi_\tau\{\nu_{k+1},\nu_{k+2}\} = \{k\+1,k\+2\}$.\/}
In this case we take $i=2$ and define
\[
\psi_\sigma(\nu_{k+1}) := \psi_\tau(\nu_{k+1}),\
\psi_\sigma(\nu_{k+2}) := \psi_\tau(\nu_{k+2}).
\]
Intuitively, in Case 1 the map $\tau$ contracts the loop
$\{k\+1,k\+2\}$, in Case 2 the loop $\{k\+3,k\+4\}$. The isomorphism
$\sigma$ is in both cases uniquely determined by the behavior of
$\tau$ on the non-contracted edge.
The above calculation shows that there are precisely two isomorphism
classes of objects of ${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^2(X)$, namely those of $p_1$ and
$p_2$.
Notice that
\[
p^{-1}_1(1) = \xi(\rada 1k,k\+3,k\+4 |{k\+1},{k\+2})^g
\ \hbox { and } \
p^{-1}_2(1) = \xi(\rada 1k,{k\+1},{k\+2} |{k\+3},{k\+4})^g.
\]
Let $E\in {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$ be a $1$-connected ${\tt ggGrc}$-collection as in
Definition~\ref{Jarka_dnes_u_lekare}. Formula~(\ref{dnes_bude_vedro})
gives
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb F}^2(E)(X) \cong\ &
E[\xi(\rada 1k,{k\+3},{k\+4} |{k\+1},{k\+2})^g]
\otimes E[\xi(\rada 1k |{k\+1},{k\+2})^{g+1}]
\\
\nonumber
\oplus\ & E[\xi(\rada 1k,{k\+1},{k\+2} |{k\+3},{k\+4})^g]
\otimes E[\xi(\rada 1k |{k\+1},{k\+2})^{g+1}].
\end{align*}
Analogous expressions for $X = \xi(\Rada \lambda1k |
\lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2}|\lambda_{k+3},\lambda_{k+4} )^g$ can be obtained from
the above ones by substituting $j \mapsto \lambda_j$ for $1 \leq j
\leq k+4$. The result is
\begin{align}
\label{po_navratu_ze_Srni_b}
{\mathbb F}^2(E)(X) \cong\ &
E[\xi(\Rada \lambda1k,\lambda_{k+3},\lambda_{k+4} |\lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})^g]
\otimes E[\xi(\Rada \lambda1k |\lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})^{g+1}]
\\
\nonumber
\oplus\ & E[\xi(\Rada \lambda1k,\lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2} |\lambda_{k+3},\lambda_{k+4})^g]
\otimes E[\xi(\Rada \lambda1k |\lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})^{g+1}].
\end{align}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{toho_snehu_je_moc}
The right-hand side of~(\ref{po_navratu_ze_Srni_b}) depends only on the
virtual isomorphism classes in ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$ of the graphs involved. By the
observations made in
Example~\ref{Snad_to_projde_i_formalne.}, these classes do
not depend on the global orders.
In this particular case, this means that they do not depend on
the indices $\Rada \lambda1k$; we can therefore simplify
the exposition by removing
them from notation and drawings. We also replace $\Rada
\lambda{k+1}{k+4}$ by less clumsy
symbols $a,b,c$ and $d$.
With this convention, we write the two representatives of isomorphism classes in
${\widetilde {{\tt lTw}}}^2(X)$~as:
\begin{align*}
\xi(*,c,d |a,b)^g& \triangleright \xi(*|a,b|c,d)^g
\stackrel {p_1} \longrightarrow
\xi(*|c,d)^{g+1},\ \hbox { and}
\\
\xi(*,a,b |c,d)^{g}& \triangleright \xi(*|a,b|c,d)^{g}
\stackrel {p_2} \longrightarrow
\xi(*|a,b)^{g+1},
\end{align*}
where $*$ stands for unspecified labels.
The right-hand side of~(\ref{po_navratu_ze_Srni_b}) now takes the form
\begin{align}
\label{Bude_Ovar_dalsich_pet_let prezidentem?}
\big\{
E[\xi(*,c,d |a,b)^g] \otimes E[\xi(* |c,d)^{g+1}]\big\}
\oplus\big\{ E[\xi(*,a,b |c,d)^g]\otimes E[\xi(* |a,b)^{g+1}] \big\}
\end{align}
with the first summand corresponding to the class of $p_1$ and the second
to the class of $p_2$.
We also noticed that the maps $p_1$ and $p_2$ are determined by specifying
which of the two loops of $\xi(*|a,b|c,d)^g$ they contract. The map
$p_1$ and its unique nontrivial fiber is thus depicted as
\[
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.4)(14.850119,1.4)
\rput[b](2.4,.3){$g$}
\rput[b](8,.3){$g$}
\rput[b](12.4,.3){$g\+1$}
\rput{-55.289433}(0.4305688,0.822039){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](1.0,0.0){0.8}{108.04867}{355.90524}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](0.4,0.0)(0.0,0.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.4,0.0)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](6.7916665,0.0)(1.9,1.4)
\rput[bl](0.9583333,1.0){$a$}
\rput[bl](0.89166665,-0.6){$b$}
\rput[bl](7.1583333,0.8){$a$}
\rput[bl](6.2916665,-0.6){$b$}
\rput[bl](2.825,.95){$c$}
\rput[bl](2.825,-1.0666667){$d$}
\rput[bl](13.625,1.0){$c$}
\rput[bl](9.425,1.0){$c$}
\rput[bl](9.425,-0.6666667){$d$}
\rput[bl](13.625,-0.6666667){$d$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.425,0.8)(2.425,0.0)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.425,0.0)(3.425,-0.8)
\rput[bl](11.225,0.2){$p_1$}
\rput[bl](4,-0.2){\LARGE $\triangleright$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 2.0,arrowlength=1.4,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(11.891666,0.06666667)(10.825,0.06666667)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.425,0.0)(1.225,0.8)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.425,0.0)(1.225,-0.8)
\rput{-180.46338}(24.849737,-0.082693085){\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](12.425036,0.008896015)}
\rput{-235.7528}(21.6421,-11.452748){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](13.849989,-0.002628368){0.8}{108.04867}{355.90524}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](14.449969,-0.00748074)(14.8499565,-0.010715654)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](12.425036,0.008896015)(13.618526,-0.80078256)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](12.425036,0.008896015)(13.631467,0.7991651)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](8.025,0.0)
\rput{-55.289433}(2.8417542,5.4254575){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](6.6,0.0){0.8}{108.04867}{355.90524}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.0,0.0)(5.6,0.0)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8.025,0.0)(6.825,0.8)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8.025,0.0)(6.825,-0.8)
\rput{-180.46338}(16.049881,-0.047109026){\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](8.025036,0.008896015)}
\rput{-235.7528}(14.765935,-7.815632){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](9.449989,-0.002628368){0.8}{108.04867}{355.90524}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](10.04997,-0.00748074)(10.449957,-0.010715654)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8.025036,0.008896015)(9.218527,-0.80078256)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8.025036,0.008896015)(9.231466,0.7991651)
\end{pspicture}
}
\]
where he dashed oval indicates which part of the graph is contracted by $p_1$.
The pictorial expression of $p_2$ is similar.
We will use similar pictures as a language for free operads over
${\tt ggGrc}$. As an illustration,
here is a pictorial version
of~(\ref{Bude_Ovar_dalsich_pet_let prezidentem?}):
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_jsem_objel_kanal}
\raisebox{-6em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.4019446)(12.320392,1.4019446)
\rput[b](3.2,.3){$g$}
\rput[b](9.2,.3){$g$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](5.133333,-0.0019446583)(5.5333333,-0.0019446583)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](3.1333332,-0.0019446583)
\rput{-2.439889}(0.0016315024,0.072724074){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](1.7083331,-0.0019446583){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](1.1083331,-0.0019446583)(0.70833313,-0.0019446583)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](1.8999997,-0.0019446583)(1.9,1.4)
\rput[bl](6.0,-0.13527799){$\oplus$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.1333332,-0.0019446583)(1.9333332,0.79805535)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.1333332,-0.0019446583)(1.9333332,-0.8019447)
\rput{-184.56499}(9.025159,-0.39291084){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](4.5204096,-0.01659256){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.0963898,0.03624849)(4.265899,-0.807699)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.1333332,-0.0019446583)(4.333333,0.79805535)
\rput{-179.75348}(18.374098,0.030811006){\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](9.187082,-0.0043584616)}
\rput{-182.19337}(21.216465,-0.40032578){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](10.612064,0.002911593){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](11.212056,0.0059726685)(11.612051,0.008013386)
\rput{-179.75348}(20.840694,0.048701778){\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](10.4204,0.0019337495)(1.9,1.4)}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.187082,-0.0043584616)(10.391149,-0.7982259)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.187082,-0.0043584616)(10.382985,0.8017533)
\rput{-4.318467}(0.021902805,0.5873463){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](7.799949,0.003212673){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.22422,-0.042362634)(8.050421,0.7956073)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.187082,-0.0043584616)(7.9911795,-0.8104702)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.833333,-0.0019446583)(7.133333,-0.0019446583)
\rput[bl](0.33333313,0.19805534){$E$}
\rput[bl](0,0.99805534){$E$}
\rput[bl](11.6,0.19805534){$E$}
\rput[bl](12,0.99805534){$E$}
\rput[bl](12.5,-0.03){$.$}
\rput[bl](2.1333332,0.79805535){$a$}
\rput[bl](7.5333333,0.99805534){$a$}
\rput[bl](1.5333332,-0.6019447){$b$}
\rput[bl](7.733333,-0.6019447){$b$}
\rput[bl](9.533333,0.59805536){$c$}
\rput[bl](4.733333,0.99805534){$c$}
\rput[bl](4.333333,-0.6019447){$d$}
\rput[bl](10.533333,-0.6019447){$d$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
It features {\em souls\/} of the relevant graphs, i.e.\ graphs obtained by
amputating their legs.
The $E$'s inside the dashed circles indicate the
decoration of the fiber represented by the subgraph inside
the circle, while the $E$'s outside the circles the decoration of the
images. Thus the object on the left of~\eqref{dnes_jsem_objel_kanal}
represents the first summand of~(\ref{Bude_Ovar_dalsich_pet_let
prezidentem?}) and the object on the right the second one.
This description should be compared to the description of free
`classical' operads in terms of trees with decorated vertices,
cf.~\cite[Section~II.1.9]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
Here we have graphs instead of trees and `nests' of subgraphs ordered by
inclusion in place of vertices.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{Spregner}
Using the same reasoning as in Examples
\ref{chteji_po_mne_abych_velel_grantu} and \ref{toho_snehu_je_moc}, we
can draw similar pictures describing ${\mathbb F}^2(E)(X)$ for $X$ a graph
with two internal edges and two vertices with genera $g_1$ and $g_2$.
Their souls are shown
in~\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? nahore}--\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? dole} below
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? nahore}
\raisebox{-7em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.9412143)(13.26,1.9412143)
\rput{-90.73138}(4.696944,1.3197962){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](3.0,-1.6587857){2.6}{130.21674}{230.1}}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](1.0,-0.058785707)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](5.0,-0.058785707)
\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](0.2,-2.1254523){0.26666668}{131.51372}{131.67642}
\pscustom[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm]
{
\newpath
\moveto(16.133333,-1.1254523)
}
\pscustom[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm]
{
\newpath
\moveto(12.533334,-2.4587858)
}
\pscustom[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm]
{
\newpath
\moveto(16.133333,0.607881)
}
\rput{18.595245}(-0.299674,-1.0204285){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](2.9666667,-1.4254524){1.7666667}{15.0}{121.2717}}
\rput{-229.69476}(8.168101,-4.099964){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.0333333,-0.1587857){0.6333333}{89.0}{260.0}}
\rput{-229.69476}(1.5806634,-1.0495273){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](1.0333333,-0.1587857){0.6333333}{21.63039}{204.26073}}
\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](3.0333333,-1.692119){3.1}{39.0}{143.0}
\rput{-90.0}(5.7254524,8.741215){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](7.233333,1.5078809){0.26666668}{131.51372}{131.67642}}
\rput{-270.98245}(4.489549,-1.4847707){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](3.0,1.5412143){2.6}{132.3}{230.1}}
\rput{-179.83253}(25.716059,4.203225){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](12.861101,2.0828211){0.26666668}{131.51372}{131.67642}}
\rput{-271.28363}(11.644145,-8.692223){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](10.266661,1.6078811){2.6}{130.21674}{230.1}}
\rput{-180.55226}(24.532843,-0.102453604){\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](12.266668,0.007890621)}
\rput{-180.55226}(16.533028,-0.06393689){\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](8.266668,0.007871618)}
\rput{-161.95702}(19.667742,5.8717227){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](10.299994,1.374548){1.7666667}{15.0}{121.2717}}
\rput{-50.247025}(2.8853579,6.368748){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](8.233335,0.10787146){0.6333333}{89.0}{260.0}}
\rput{-50.247025}(4.327428,9.44399){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](12.233335,0.107890464){0.6333333}{21.63039}{204.26073}}
\rput{-180.55226}(20.481997,3.1837165){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](10.233327,1.6412143){3.1}{39.0}{143.0}}
\rput{-91.53471}(12.133192,8.628233){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](10.266676,-1.5921189){2.6}{132.3}{230.1}}
\rput[bl](4.4,-1.2587857){$E$}
\rput[bl](5.2,-0.4587857){$E$}
\rput[bl](12.4,-0){$E$}
\rput[bl](13.0,0.5412143){$E$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.0,1.1412143)(3.0,0.7412143)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](10.2,-0.8587857)(10.2,-1.2587857)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](10.2,1.1412143)(10.2,0.7412143)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](3.0,-0.8587857)(3.0,-1.2587857)
\rput[bl](2.0,0.35){$a$}
\rput[bl](2.0,-0.6587857){$c$}
\rput[bl](4.2,0){$b$}
\rput[bl](3.8,-0.6587857){$d$}
\rput[bl](9.0,0.9412143){$a$}
\rput[bl](11.2,0.9412143){$b$}
\rput[bl](9.2,-0.6587857){$c$}
\rput[bl](11.0,-0.6587857){$d$}
\rput[bl](6.4,-0.2587857){$\oplus$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? dole}
\raisebox{-6em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.4000019)(12.4,1.4000019)
\rput(-.2,0){
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](4.8,-0.0038784079)(5.2,-0.0038784079)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.8,-0.0038784079)
\rput[bl](6.266667,-0.13721174){$\oplus$}
\rput{-184.56499}(8.359396,-0.3702423){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](4.1870766,-0.01852631){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.7630565,0.03431474)(3.9325662,-0.8096328)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.8,-0.0038784079)(4.0,0.7961216)
\rput{-179.75348}(18.17405,0.039097566){\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](9.087067,0.0)(1.7,1.0)}
\rput[bl](0.0,0.19612159){$E$}
\rput[bl](3.0,-1.0038784){$E$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.6,-0.0038784079)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](0.6,-0.0038784079)(2.8,-0.0038784079)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](1.8,0.19612159)(1.8,-0.2038784)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](12.0,-0.0038784079)(12.4,-0.0038784079)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](10.0,-0.0038784079)
\rput{-184.56499}(22.736555,-0.9432886){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](11.387076,-0.01852631){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.963057,0.03431474)(11.132566,-0.8096328)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](10.0,-0.0038784079)(11.2,0.7961216)
\rput[bl](8.2,-0.6038784){$E$}
\rput[bl](10.4,0.9961216){$E$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](7.8,-0.0038784079)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](7.8,-0.0038784079)(10.0,-0.0038784079)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](9.0,0.19612159)(9.0,-0.2038784)
\rput{-179.75348}(7.7740974,0.016724302){\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](3.8870666,0.0)(1.5,1.4)}
\rput[bl](1.2,0.19612159){$a$}
\rput[bl](8.4,0.19612159){$a$}
\rput[bl](2.2,0.19612159){$b$}
\rput[bl](9.4,0.19612159){$b$}
\rput[bl](4.0,0.9961216){$u$}
\rput[bl](4.2,-0.6038784){$v$}
\rput[bl](11.4,0.9961216){$u$}
\rput[bl](11.2,-0.6038784){$v$}
}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where, in order to ease the interpretation, we did not show the genera of the vertices.
The picture in~\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? nahore} represents
an analog of~(\ref{Bude_Ovar_dalsich_pet_let prezidentem?}):
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb F}^2(E)(X) \cong& \
\big\{
E[\nu(*,c|a,b|d,*)^{g_1|g_2}] \otimes E[\xi(*|c,d)^{g_1+g_2}]\big\}
\\
\oplus & \ \big\{ E[\nu(*,a|c,d|b,*)^{g_1|g_2}] \otimes
E[\xi(* |a,b)^{g_1+g_2}]\big\}
\end{align*}
in which the notation $\nu(*,c|a,b|d,*)$ resp.\ $\nu(*,a|c,d|b,*)$ refers to the
graph in~\eqref{dnes_na_Rusalku right}.
The picture in~\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? dole} symbolizes
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb F}^2(E)(X) \cong& \
\big\{
E[\xi(*,b|u,v)^{g_1}] \otimes E[\nu(*|a,b|*)^{g_1|g_2+1}]\big\}
\\
\oplus& \ \big\{ E[\nu(*|a,b|u,v,*)^{g_1|g_2}]
\otimes E[\xi(* |u,v)^{g_1+g_2}]\big\}.
\end{align*}
The last relevant case is when $X$ is a directed graph with two
internal edges and three vertices with genera $g_1,g_2$ and $g_3$.
The situation is portrayed in
\begin{equation}
\label{Mozna_bude_Ovara_volit_i_Jana.}
\raisebox{-4.5em}{\rule{0em}{1em}}
\raisebox{-4em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-.9412143)(13.052372,1)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.8,-0.058785707)
\rput[bl](1.4,-0.6587857){$E$}
\rput[bl](0.3,0.74){$E$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](3.2,-0.058785707)
\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](0.2,-2.1254523){0.26666668}{131.51372}{131.67642}
\pscustom[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm]
{
\newpath
\moveto(16.133333,-1.1254523)
}
\pscustom[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm]
{
\newpath
\moveto(12.533334,-2.4587858)
}
\pscustom[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm]
{
\newpath
\moveto(16.133333,0.607881)
}
\rput{-90.0}(5.7254524,8.741215){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](7.233333,1.5078809){0.26666668}{131.51372}{131.67642}}
\rput{-179.83253}(25.716059,4.203225){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](12.861101,2.0828211){0.26666668}{131.51372}{131.67642}}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](5.6,-0.058785707)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](0.8,-0.058785707)(5.6,-0.058785707)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](7.2,-0.058785707)
\rput[bl](12.4,0.7412143){$E$}
\rput[bl](11.0,-0.6587857){$E$}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](9.6,-0.058785707)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](12.0,-0.058785707)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](7.2,-0.058785707)(12.0,-0.058785707)
\rput[bl](6.266667,-0.2587857){$\oplus$}
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](2.0,-0.058785707)(1.48,1)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](10.8,-0.058785707)(1.48,1)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](4.4,0.1412143)(4.4,-0.2587857)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](8.4,0.1412143)(8.4,-0.2587857)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](10.8,0.1412143)(10.8,-0.2587857)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](2.0,0.1412143)(2.0,-0.2587857)
\rput[bl](7.8,0.1412143){$a$}
\rput[bl](1.4,0.1412143){$a$}
\rput[bl](2.4,0.1412143){$b$}
\rput[bl](8.8,0.1412143){$b$}
\rput[bl](3.8,0.1412143){$c$}
\rput[bl](10.2,0.1412143){$c$}
\rput[bl](5.0,0.1412143){$d$}
\rput[bl](11.4,0.1412143){$d$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
where again the genera of the vertices are not shown.
The resulting formula~is
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb F}^2(E)(X) \cong& \
\big\{
E[\nu(*|a,b|c,*)^{g_1|g_2}] \otimes E[\nu(* |c,d|*)^{g_1+g_2|g_3}]\big\}
\\
\oplus &\
\big\{ E[\nu(*,b|c,d|*)^{g_2|g_3}] \otimes E[\nu(* |a,b|*)^{g_1|g_2+g_3}]\big\}.
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\def{\rm edg}{{\rm edg}}
The observations in Examples \ref{toho_snehu_je_moc}
and~\ref{Spregner} easily generalize to descriptions of
isomorphism classes of labeled towers in ${\tt lTw}(\Gamma)$ for an
arbitrary graph $\Gamma \in {\tt ggGrc}$. Since we will be primarily
interested in free operads generated by {\em binary\/}
collections,~i.e.\ $1$-connected collections
that are trivial on graphs with more than one internal edge,
we will consider only towers whose
associated fiber sequence consists of graphs with one internal
edge. Let
\[
\Gamma \stackrel {\tau_1} \longrightarrow \Gamma_1 \stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
\Gamma_2\stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\tau_{k-1}} \longrightarrow \Gamma_{k-1}
\]
be such a tower. By the definition of graph morphisms, one has the
associated sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{ta_zruda_bude_prezident}
{\rm edg}(\Gamma) \supset {\rm edg}(\Gamma_1) \supset \cdots \supset {\rm edg}(\Gamma_{k-1})
\end{equation}
of inclusions of the sets of internal edges. Since the cardinalities
of the sets in~(\ref{ta_zruda_bude_prezident}) decrease by one, there
is an obvious
one-to-one correspondence between
sequences~(\ref{ta_zruda_bude_prezident}) and linear orders on
${\rm edg}(\Gamma)$ such that
$x > y$ if $y\in {\rm edg}(\Gamma_i)$, $x \not\in {\rm edg}(\Gamma_i)$ for some
$i$, $1 \leq i \leq k-1$. We~formulate:
\begin{proposition}
\label{uz_melo_prvni_cislo_davno_vyjit}
The isomorphism classes of labeled towers in ${\it lTw}(\Gamma)$ whose
associated fiber sequence consists of graphs with one internal edge
are in one-to-one correspondence with linear orders on
${\rm edg}(\Gamma)$ modulo the relation $\bowtie$ that
interchanges two adjacent edges without a common vertex in $\Gamma$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
One has two isomorphism classes of towers for the graph
in~\eqref{pozitri_do_Srni}. In the notation
of~\eqref{dnes_jsem_objel_kanal}, let $x$ be the edge $\{a,b\}$ and
$y$ the edge $\{c,d\}$. Then the picture on the left in that display
corresponds to the order $x > y$ ($x$ is contracted first), the one on
the right to~$y > x$.
\end{example}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{uz_melo_prvni_cislo_davno_vyjit}]
Using the same arguments as in Examples \ref{toho_snehu_je_moc}
and~\ref{Spregner} we show that each tower can be replaced
by an isomorphic one all of whose morphisms are pure
contractions of internal edges, in the sense of~\cite[Definition~3.4]{part1}.
Such towers are determined by the order in which the edges are
contracted. The relation \ $\bowtie$ \ reflects morphisms
of towers of the second type introduced in Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{v_nedeli_si_snad_zaletam_s_NOE}
The terminal ${\tt ggGrc}$-operad ${\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ having ${\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}(\Gamma) := {\mathbb k}$
for each $\Gamma \in {\tt ggGrc}$
and constant composition laws is quadratic binary.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us define a collection $E \in {\tt Coll}_1^\ttV$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{vcera}
E[\Gamma] :=
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb k} & \hbox {if $\Gamma$ has exactly one internal edge,}
\\
0 & \hbox {otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with the constant ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaf structure.
As we already noticed,
the quadratic part ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$ of the free operad may be nontrivial only
for graphs with precisely two internal edges, i.e.~those analyzed
in Examples \ref{toho_snehu_je_moc} and~\ref{Spregner}. For $X$ as in~\eqref{pozitri_do_Srni},
formula~(\ref{Bude_Ovar_dalsich_pet_let prezidentem?}) describes
${\mathbb F}^2(E)(X)$ as the two-dimensional space ${\mathbb k} \oplus {\mathbb k}$ with
the basis
\begin{equation}
\label{zni_mi_hlavou_Joe_Karafiat}
b_1^1 : =[ 1\otimes 1] \oplus [0 \otimes 0] \ \hbox { and } \
b_2^1 : = [0\otimes 0] \oplus [1 \otimes 1].
\end{equation}
For the situations portrayed
in~\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? nahore}--\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? dole}
and~\eqref{Mozna_bude_Ovara_volit_i_Jana.} we get similar
spaces, with bases $(b^t_1,b^t_2)$, $2 \leq t \leq 4$. We define
$R$ to be the subspace of ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$
spanned by
\begin{equation}
\label{Krammer}
r_1:= b_1^1 - b_2^1, \ r_2:= b_1^2 - b_2^2, \ r_3:= b_1^3 - b_2^3
\hbox { and } \
r_4:= b_1^4 - b_2^4
\end{equation}
so that \hfill\break
-- $r_1$ belongs to the direct sum in~\eqref{dnes_jsem_objel_kanal}, \hfill\break
-- $r_2$ belongs to the direct sum in~\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? nahore}, \hfill\break
-- $r_3$ belongs to the direct sum in~\eqref{Zeman_nebo_Drahos? dole}, and \hfill\break
-- $r_4$ belongs to the direct sum in~\eqref{Mozna_bude_Ovara_volit_i_Jana.}. \hfill\break
We are going to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{dnes_jsem_predsedal_vedecke_rade}
{\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc} \cong {\mathbb F}(E)/(R).
\end{equation}
By Proposition~\ref{uz_melo_prvni_cislo_davno_vyjit}
combined with formula~(\ref{dnes_bude_vedro}), the vector space
${\mathbb F}(E)(\Gamma)$ is spanned
by the set of total orders on ${\rm edg}(\Gamma)$ modulo the relation $\bowtie$ that
interchanges arbitrary two edges $x,y \in {\rm edg}(\Gamma)$ that {\em do
not\/} share a common vertex in $\Gamma$.
All possible relative configurations of edges $x,y$ that {\em do share\/} a
common vertex are in~\eqref{dnes_jsem_objel_kanal}--\eqref{Mozna_bude_Ovara_volit_i_Jana.}.
Relations in~(\ref{Krammer}) guarantee that two orders that differ by
the interchange $x \leftrightarrow y$ agree in the
quotient~(\ref{dnes_jsem_predsedal_vedecke_rade}). We conclude that
all orders on ${\rm edg}(\Gamma)$ are mutually equivalent modulo $(R)$, so
${\mathbb F}(E)/(R)(\Gamma) \cong {\mathbb k}$ as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pozitri_turnaj_v_Patku}
Algebras over the terminal ${\tt ggGrc}$-operad ${\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ are modular operads.
\end{proposition}
\def{\EuScript O}{{\mathcal M}}
\begin{proof}
The key ingredients of the proof are
presentation~(\ref{dnes_jsem_predsedal_vedecke_rade}) together with
Proposition~\ref{Udelal_jsem_si_ciruvky_zelanky.} which describes
${\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$-algebras as morphisms into the endomorphism operad.
We start by determining what the underlying
collection~(\ref{Jarka_hovori}) of the endomorphism operad is
in this case.
We noticed in
Example~\ref{Snad_se_ta_Achylovka_trochu_lepsi.} that the
local terminal objects of
${\tt ggGrc}$ are the $n$-corollas $c(\sigma)^g$ with the vertex of
genus $g$ and the local order given by a permutation~$\sigma \in \Sigma_n$. The chosen local terminal
objects are the $n$-corollas $c_n^g:=c(1\!\!1_n)^g$, $n,g \in {\mathbb N}$.
Therefore the set $\pi_0({\tt ggGrc})$ is indexed by pairs $(n;g)$ of natural
numbers consisting of an `arity' $n$ and `genus'~$g$.
The underlying collection of the endomorphism operad is thus a family
\[
{\EuScript O} = \big\{{\EuScript O}(n;g) \in {\tt Vect}\ |}\def\sign#1{{(-1)^{#1}} \ (n;g) \in {\mathbb N} \times {\mathbb N} \big\}.
\]
Actions~(\ref{Asi_jsem_dostal_premii!})
of the groupoid of local terminal objects in this particular case
give rise to actions of the symmetric group $\Sigma_n$ on each
${\EuScript O}(n;g)$. We recognize ${\EuScript O}$ as the skeletal version of a~modular
module recalled in Appendix~\ref{a1}.
Proposition~\ref{Udelal_jsem_si_ciruvky_zelanky.} now identifies
${\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$-algebras with~morphisms
\begin{equation}
\label{nevydrzim_dele_nez_tri_dny}
a: {\mathbb F}(E)/(R) \to {\EuScript E}nd_{\EuScript O},
\end{equation}
where $E$ is as in~(\ref{vcera}) and $R$ is spanned by
relations~(\ref{Krammer}).
\def\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}{\circ}
\newcommand{\ooo}[2]{\sideset{_{#1}}{_{#2}}{\mathop{\circ}}}
By Proposition~\ref{Za_14_dni_LKDL}, the unital
operad ${\EuScript E}nd_{\EuScript O}$
determines a ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaf ${\mathring \End}_{\EuScript O}$.
Although ${\EuScript E}nd_{\EuScript O}$ is not strictly unital,
morphism~(\ref{nevydrzim_dele_nez_tri_dny}) is still uniquely determined by a
map $\tilde a : E \to {\mathring \End}_{\EuScript O}$ of ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaves given by
a family
\begin{equation}
\label{slepit_vrtulku_nebude_snadne}
\tilde a_{[\Gamma]} : E[\Gamma] \to {\mathring \End}_{\EuScript O}([\Gamma]),\ [\Gamma] \in {\tt Q}\VR(e).
\end{equation}
By definition, the generating collection $E$ is
supported on graphs with one internal
edge portrayed in~\eqref{dnes_na_Rusalku left} and~\eqref{dnes_na_Rusalku right},
whose souls are shown in
\begin{equation}
\label{hluboka_deprese_z_voleb}
\raisebox{-4em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.0434394)(7.1108775,1.0434394)
\rput[b](.15,0.2){$g_1$}
\rput[b](2.3,0.2){$g_2$}
\rput[b](4.7,0.2){$g$}
\rput[b](7.3,-.18){.}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.3108778,-0.11656067)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.110877685,-0.11656067)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](0.110877685,-0.11656067)(2.3108778,-0.11656067)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](1.3108777,0.08343933)(1.3108777,-0.31656066)
\rput[bl](0.71087766,0.08343933){$a$}
\rput[bl](1.7108777,0.08343933){$b$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](6.710878,-0.11656067)(7.1108775,-0.11656067)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](4.710878,-0.11656067)
\rput{-184.56499}(12.166121,-0.7473357){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](6.0979543,-0.13120857){0.8}{55.279263}{317.44205}}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](4.6739345,-0.07836752)(5.843444,-0.92231506)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](4.710878,-0.11656067)(5.9108777,0.6834393)
\rput[bl](5.9108777,0.8834393){$u$}
\rput[bl](5.9108777,-0.71656066){$v$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
The operations $\tilde a_{[\Gamma]}$ may therefore
be nontrivial only for graphs of this form.
Let us analyze the
operation induced by the virtual isomorphism class of the graph
$\Gamma := \xi(\Rada \lambda1k | \lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})$
in~\eqref{dnes_na_Rusalku left}. One clearly has
$\pi_0(s_1(\Gamma)) = (k\+2;g)$ and $\pi_0(\Gamma) = (k;g\+1)$, therefore
$\tilde a_{[\Gamma]}$ is by~(\ref{V_sobotu_budu_letat_vycvik_vlekare.}) a~map
\[
\tilde a_{[\Gamma]} : E[\Gamma]
= {\mathbb k} \longrightarrow
\mathop{\rm colim}\displaylimits_{\sigma \in\Sigma_k}
{\tt Vect}\big({\EuScript O}(k\+2;g),{\EuScript O}(k;g\+1)_\sigma\big),
\]
where $\sigma = (\Rada \sigma1k)$ and ${\EuScript O}(k;g\+1)_\sigma$ is the copy of ${\EuScript O}(k;g\+1)$ corresponding
to the graph $\xi(\Rada \sigma 1k | \lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})$,
virtually isomorphic to $\xi(\Rada \lambda1k | \lambda_{k+1},\lambda_{k+2})$.
The map $\tilde a_{[\Gamma]}$ is determined by
\[
\tilde a_{[\Gamma]}(1) : {\EuScript O}(k\+2;g)\to \mathop{\rm colim}\displaylimits_{\sigma\in \Sigma_k} {\EuScript O}(k;g\+1)_\sigma
\]
which is the same as a collection of morphisms
\[
\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}^\sigma_{uv} :{\EuScript O}(k\+2;g)
\longrightarrow {\EuScript O}(k;g\+1),\ u : = \lambda_{k+1},\ v :=
\lambda_{k+2},\
\sigma \in \Sigma_k,
\]
satisfying
\[
\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}^{\sigma \delta}_{uv}(x) = \sigma \circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}^{\delta}_{uv}(x),\
x \in {\EuScript O}(k\+2;g), \ \sigma, \delta \in \Sigma_k.
\]
The operation $\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}_{uv} := \circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}^{1\!\!1_k}_{uv}$ is the
skeletal version
of the contraction~(\ref{Galway}).
The identity $\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}_{uv} = \circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}_{vu}$ follows from the
$\Sigma_2$-symmetry of the graph~$\Gamma$.
In exactly the same manner, the graph in~\eqref{dnes_na_Rusalku right} gives rise to the operations
in~(\ref{v_Galway1}).
The map $\tilde a$ determines a
morphism~(\ref{nevydrzim_dele_nez_tri_dny}) if and only if it sends
the generators~(\ref{Krammer}) of $R$ to $0$. The vanishing $\tilde
a(r_i) = 0$ for $1 \leq i \leq 4$ corresponds to the
remaining axiom of modular~operads:
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hbox{Axiom~(\ref{eq:38}) corresponds to relation $r_2$}, &
\hbox{Axiom~(\ref{eq:39}) corresponds to relation $r_3$},
\\
\hbox{Axiom~(\ref{Dnes_s_Jaruskou_k_Pakouskum}) corresponds to relation
$r_4$,}&
\hbox{Axiom~(\ref{eq:33}) corresponds to relation $r_1$.}\rule{0em}{1em}
\end{tabular}
\noindent
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{vcera_jsem_podlehl}
The Koszul dual of the operad ${\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ is
the operad $\oddGr$ whose algebras are odd modular operads.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The Koszul dual $\oddGr := {\sf 1}_{\tt ggGrc}^!$ is, by definition, generated by
the collection
\[
{\uparrow} E^* :=
\begin{cases}
{\uparrow}\, {\mathbb k} & \hbox {if $\Gamma$ has exactly one internal edge,}
\\
0 & \hbox {otherwise} .
\end{cases}
\]
We get the similar type of generators $d^i_1,d^i_2$, $1 \leq i \leq
4$, for ${\mathbb F}^2({\uparrow} E^*)$ as in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{v_nedeli_si_snad_zaletam_s_NOE} except that now they will be in
degree $2$. The pairing~(\ref{jdu_si_lepit_142}) in this particular
case is given by
\[
\langle \ b^i_k\ |\ d^j_l\ \rangle =
\begin{cases}
1 & \hbox {if $i=j$, $k=l$,}
\\
0 & \hbox {otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Therefore the annihilator $R^\perp$ of the relations~(\ref{Krammer})
is spanned by
\[
o_1:= d_1^1 + d_2^1, \ o_2:= d_1^2 + d_2^2, \ o_3:= d_1^3 + d_2^3
\hbox { and } \
o_4:= d_1^4 + d_2^4.
\]
Repeating the arguments in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{v_nedeli_si_snad_zaletam_s_NOE}
we identify algebras
over ${\mathbb F}({\uparrow} E^*)/(R^\perp)$ with odd modular operads whose
definition is recalled in Appendix~\ref{a1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{zitra_vycvik_vlekare}
As observed in
\cite[Example~4.18]{part1}, the category
${\tt ggGrc}$ is similar to the category of graphs of
\cite[\S 2.15]{getzler-kapranov:CompM98}. The difference is the
presence of the local orders of graphs in ${\tt ggGrc}$ manifested e.g.\ by
the fact that, while the category in
\cite[\S 2.15]{getzler-kapranov:CompM98} has only one local terminal object for each
arity $n$ and genus $g$, the local terminal objects in ${\tt ggGrc}$ are
indexed by \hbox {$n$, $g$} and by a permutation $\sigma \in \Sigma_n$,
cf.~Example~\ref{Snad_se_ta_Achylovka_trochu_lepsi.}.
The category of
operads over the operadic category ${\tt ggGrc}$ is however equivalent to
the category hyperoperads in
the sense of~\cite[\S 4.1]{getzler-kapranov:CompM98}. Moreover, there
is a canonical isomorphism between the category of algebras for a
${\tt ggGrc}$-operad and the category of algebras for the corresponding hyperoperad.
\def{\rm det}{{\rm det}}
This relation enables one to compare the operad $\oddGr$ of
Theorem~\ref{vcera_jsem_podlehl} to
a similar object considered in~\cite{getzler-kapranov:CompM98}.
Recall that the {\em determinant\/} ${\rm det}(S)$ of a finite set~$S$
is the top-dimensional piece of the exterior
(Grassmann) algebra generated by the elements of $S$ placed in
degree~$+1$. In particular, ${\rm det}(S)$ is a one-dimensional vector space
concentrated in degree $k$, with
$k$ the cardinality of $S$. Mimicking the arguments in the second
half of the proof of Theorem~\ref{v_nedeli_si_snad_zaletam_s_NOE} one
can establish that $\oddGr(\Gamma) \cong {\rm det}({\rm edg}(\Gamma))$, the
determinant of the set of internal edges of $\Gamma$. This relates
$\oddGr$ directly to the {\em dualizing cocycle\/} of
\cite[\S 4.8]{getzler-kapranov:CompM98},
cf.~also Example ~II.5.52 of \cite{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
\end{remark}
\section{Other operad-like structures}
\label{Asi_pojedu_vecer.}
In this section we analyze other operad-like structures whose pasting
schemes are obtained from the basic
operadic category ${\tt Gr}$ of graphs by means of the iterated Grothendieck
construction.
For all these categories the properties
${\sf UFib}$ and $\SGrad$ can be easily checked
`manually.' By the
reasoning of the beginning of Section~\ref{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal}
they thus fulfill all the properties required for Koszul duality
\def{\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}{{\tt Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{{\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}}}
\def\bullet{\bullet}
\def\bl{\big(} \def\br{\big)}
\def\({{\hbox{$(\!($}}}\def\){{\hbox{$)\!)$}}}
\newcommand{\twooo}[2]{\sideset{_{#1}}{_{#2}}{\mathop{\bullet}}}
\newcommand{\twoooprime}[2]{\sideset{_{#1}}{_{\hskip -.2em#2}}{\mathop{{\bullet'}}}}
\newcommand{\twoxiprime}[1]{{\bullet'}_{\hskip -.2em#1}}
\def{\redukce{$\, \stackrel\cong\lra\, $}}{{\redukce{$\, \stackrel\cong\lra\, $}}}
\newcommand{\oxitl}[1]{\underline{\hbox{\scriptsize
$\blacklozenge$}}_{\, #1}}
\newcommand{\twoootl}[2]{\sideset{_{#1}}{_{\, #2}}{\mathop{\overset{L}{\rule{0em}{.4em}\redukce{${\underline\bullet}$}}}}}
\newcommand{\twoootr}[2]{\sideset{_{#1}}{_{\, #2}}{\mathop{\overset{R}{\rule{0em}{.4em}\redukce{${\underline\bullet}$}}}}}
\newcommand{\ooo}[2]{\sideset{_{#1}}{_{#2}}{\mathop{\circ}}}
\def\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}{\circ}\def\ush{{\rm uSh}}
\def{\tt Vect}{{\tt Vect}}
\def{\mathfrak {K}}_\CGr{{\mathfrak {K}}_{\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}}
\subsection{Cyclic operads}
Cyclic operads introduced in~\cite{getzler-kapranov:CPLNGT95}
are, roughly speaking, modular operads without the
genus grading and contractions~(\ref{Galway}). Explicitly,
a~cyclic operad is a~functor ${\EuScript C} : {\tt Fin} \to
{\tt Vect}$ along with operations
\begin{equation}
\label{v_Galway_jsem_byl}
\ooo ab:{\EuScript C}\big(S_1 \sqcup \stt a \big)
\otimes {\EuScript C}\big(S_2\sqcup \stt b\big)
\longrightarrow {\EuScript C} ( S_1\sqcup S_2)
\end{equation}
defined for arbitrary disjoint finite
sets $S_1$, $S_2$ and symbols $a,b$. These operations
satisfy axioms~(\ref{piji_caj_z_Jarcina_hrnku}),~(\ref{eq:24})
and~(\ref{Dnes_s_Jaruskou_k_Pakouskum}) of modular operads (without
the genus grading).
Let ${\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}$ be the full subcategory of ${\tt Gr}$ consisting of graphs of
genus zero
whose geometric realizations are contractible, i.e.~which are~trees.
The local terminal objects of $\tt Tr$ are corollas $c(\sigma)$, $\sigma \in
\Sigma_n$, as in~\eqref{Dasa_Vokata} but without the genus
labeling the vertex.
The chosen local terminal objects are corollas $c_n := c(1\!\!1_n)$,~$n \in {\mathbb N}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Zitra_letim_do_Bari.}
The terminal ${\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}$-operad $\termCGr$ is binary quadratic. Its algebras are
cyclic operads. Its Koszul dual $\termCGr^!$ is the operad ${\mathfrak {K}}_\CGr$
governing anticyclic operads.
\end{theorem}
Anticyclic operads introduced in
\cite[\S 2.11]{getzler-kapranov:CPLNGT95} are `odd' versions of cyclic
operads, see also \cite[Definition~II.5.20]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
Due to the absence of the operadic units in our setup,
the category of anticyclic operads is however isomorphic to the category of
ordinary cyclic operads, via the isomorphism given by the suspension of
the underlying collection.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Zitra_letim_do_Bari.}]
The proof is a simplified version of calculations in
Section~\ref{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal}. The soul of the only graph in ${\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}$ with
one internal edge
is the one on the left of~\eqref{hluboka_deprese_z_voleb} (without the
genera, of course), the
corresponding operation is~(\ref{v_Galway_jsem_byl}). The souls of the
only graphs in ${\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}$ with two internal edges are portrayed
in~\eqref{Mozna_bude_Ovara_volit_i_Jana.}.
Let $E$ be the restriction of the collection~(\ref{vcera}) to the
virtual isomorphism classes of trees in ${\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}$. If $R$
denotes the subspace of ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$ spanned by $r_2$
in~(\ref{Krammer}),
then $\termCGr
\cong {\mathbb F}(E)/(R)$. The arguments are the same as in the proof of
Theorem~\ref{v_nedeli_si_snad_zaletam_s_NOE}. With the material of
Section~\ref{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal} at hand, the identification of
$\termCGr$-algebras with cyclic operads is~immediate.
Algebras over ${\mathfrak {K}}_\CGr = \termCGr^!$ can be analyzed in the same
way as
$\oddGr$-algebras in the proof of Theorem~\ref{vcera_jsem_podlehl}.
${\mathfrak {K}}_\CGr$-algebras posses degree $+1$ operations
\begin{equation}
\label{v_Galway_jsem_byl_jednou}
\twooo ab:{\EuScript C}\big(S_1 \sqcup \stt a \big)
\otimes {\EuScript C}\big(S_2\sqcup \stt b\big)
\longrightarrow {\EuScript C} ( S_1\sqcup S_2)
\end{equation}
satisfying non-genus graded variants
of~(\ref{neni}),~(\ref{kdy_zacnu_byt_rozumny})
and~(\ref{neni1}). The level-wise suspension ${\uparrow} {\EuScript C}$ with
operations
\[
\ooo ab:{\uparrow} {\EuScript C}\big(S_1 \sqcup \stt a \big)
\!\otimes\! {\uparrow} {\EuScript C}\big(S_2\sqcup \stt b\big) \longrightarrow
{\uparrow} {\EuScript C} ( S_1\sqcup S_2)
\]
defined as the composite
\[
{\uparrow} {\EuScript C}\big(S_1 \sqcup \stt a \big)
\!\otimes\! {\uparrow} {\EuScript C}\big(S_2\sqcup \stt b\big) \stackrel{{\uparrow} \otimes
{\uparrow}}\longrightarrow {\EuScript C}\big(S_1 \sqcup \stt a \big)
\!\otimes\! {\EuScript C}\big(S_2\sqcup \stt b\big) \stackrel{\twooo ab}\longrightarrow
{\EuScript C} ( S_1\sqcup S_2) \stackrel{{\uparrow}}\to {\uparrow} {\EuScript C} ( S_1\sqcup S_2)
\]
can easily be shown to be an anticyclic
operad~\cite[Definition~II.5.20]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
\end{proof}
As in Remark~\ref{zitra_vycvik_vlekare}, one may observe that
${\mathfrak {K}}_\CGr(T)$ equals the determinant of the set of internal edges
of the tree $T$. Our description of anticyclic operads as
${\mathfrak {K}}_\CGr$-algebras is therefore parallel to the definition as
${\mathbb T}_-$-algebras given
in~\cite[page~178]{getzler-kapranov:CPLNGT95}.
\def{\CGr}{{{\Tr}}\def\termCGr{{\sf 1}_{\CGr}}}
\def\RTr{{\tt RTr}}\def\PRTr{{\tt PRTr}}\def\PTr{{\tt PTr}}
\def{\RTr}{{{\tt RTr}}\def\PRTr{{\tt PRTr}}\def\PTr{{\tt PTr}}}
\subsection{Ordinary operads}
\label{Cinani_jsou_hovada.}
Let us consider a variant $\RTr$ of the operadic category ${\CGr}$
consisting of trees that are rooted in the sense explained in
\cite[Example~4.9]{part1}.
By definition, the output half-edge of each vertex is the minimal
element in the local order; we will denote this minimal element
in the context of rooted trees
by~$0$. We use the same convention also for the smallest leg in
the global order, i.e.\ for the root. Since $\RTr$ was obtained from
the basic operadic category ${\tt Gr}$ by Grothendieck construction, it is
again an operadic category sharing all nice properties of~${\tt Gr}$.
\def{\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre{{\sf 1}_{\RTr}}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_{\RTr}}
\begin{theorem}
\label{markl1}
The terminal\/ $\RTr$-operad ${\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre$ is binary quadratic.
Its algebras are nonunital Markl operads recalled in
Definition~\ref{b3} of Appendix~\ref{a1}.
The category
of algebras over its Koszul dual
$\oddRTre := {\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre^!$
is isomorphic to the category of Markl operads, via the isomorphism
given by the suspension of the underlying~collection.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The soul of graphs in $\RTr$ with one internal edge is
the oriented interval consisting of two oriented half-edges as
in
\[
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(-5,-0.32000703)(8.167188,0.32000703)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](0.083594486,-0.121504106)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](3.283593,-0.11848185)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04](1.7738773,0.08000693)(1.7741597,-0.3199929)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.08359377,-0.11999298)(3.2835937,-0.11999298)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.08359377,-0.11999298)(1.8,-0.11999298)
\rput[bl](2.4835937,0.08000702){$i$}
\rput[bl](3.4835937,-.2){.}
\rput[bl](0.8835938,0.08000702){$0$}
\end{pspicture}
}
\]
Since the label
of the out-going half-edge is always the minimal one in the local
order, we omit it from pictures and draw the internal edges as arrows
acquiring the label of the in-going half-edge, see
\begin{equation}
\label{je_patek_a_melu_z_posledniho}
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(4.75,-0.32000703)(8.167188,0.32000703)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](5.2835946,-0.121504106)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](8.083593,-0.11848185)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(5.2835937,-0.11999298)(8.083593,-0.11999298)
\rput[bl](6.6835938,0.08000702){$i$}
\rput[bl](8.3,-.2){.}
\end{pspicture}
}
\end{equation}
Let $E$ be an obvious modification of the constant
collection~(\ref{vcera}) to the category
$\RTr$. The display
\begin{equation}
\label{Noha porad boli.}
\raisebox{-7em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.7993219)(12.822262,1.7993219)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.36226174,-0.6006781)(1.5622617,0.5993219)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](1.5622624,0.59781075)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(2.5622618,-0.6006781)(1.5622617,0.5993219)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(3.7622616,-0.6006781)(4.9622617,0.5993219)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](4.9622626,0.59781075)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(5.9622617,-0.6006781)(4.9622617,0.5993219)
\rput{43.622902}(0.26521635,-0.66406024){\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](0.96226174,0.0)(1.2,0.6)}
\rput{-230.65244}(8.761535,-4.147821){\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.362262,0.0)(1.2,0.6)}
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](0.36226246,-0.60218924)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](5.9622626,-0.60218924)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](3.7622623,-0.60218924)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](2.5622625,-0.60218924)
\rput[bl](2.9622617,0.1993219){$\oplus$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(9.762261,-1.4006782)(9.762261,0.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](9.762262,1.3978108)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](9.762262,-0.0021892267)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.17041689](9.762262,-1.4021893)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(9.762261,0.0)(9.762261,1.3993219)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(11.962262,-1.4006782)(11.962262,0.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](11.962262,1.3978108)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.16963564](11.962262,-0.0021892267)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.17041689](11.962262,-1.4021893)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(11.962262,0.0)(11.962262,1.3993219)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](9.762261,-0.7006781)(0.6,1.1)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dashed, dash=0.17638889cm 0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](11.962262,0.6993219)(0.6,1.1)
\rput[bl](10.762261,0.0){$\oplus$}
\rput[bl](0.56226176,0.0){$a$}
\rput[bl](2.1622617,0.0){$b$}
\rput[bl](3.9622617,0.0){$c$}
\rput[bl](5.5622616,0.0){$d$}
\rput[bl](9.362262,0.5993219){$e$}
\rput[bl](9.362262,-0.8006781){$f$}
\rput[bl](11.562262,0.5993219){$g$}
\rput[bl](11.562262,-0.8006781){$h$}
\rput[bl](0.96226174,-0.4006781){$E$}
\rput[bl](5.2262,-0.6){$E$}
\rput[bl](5.762262,0.7993219){$E$}
\rput[bl](0.36226174,0.7993219){$E$}
\rput[bl](12.2262,-.9){$E$}
\rput[bl](10.3,-1.6006781){$E$}
\rput[bl](12.1,.3219){$E$}
\rput[bl](9.85,-1.0006781){$E$}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
features souls of rooted trees with two internal edges. It shows
that ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$ has two families of bases, $(b^1_1,b^1_2)$
corresponding to the direct sum in the left part and $(b^2_1,b^2_2)$
corresponding to the direct sum on the right of the display. Let $R$ be the subspace of
${\mathbb F}^2(E)$ spanned by the relations
\[
r_1 := b^1_1 - b^1_2 \ \hbox { and } \ r_2 := b^2_1 - b^2_2.
\]
The isomorphism ${\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre \cong {\mathbb F}(E)/(R)$ can be established
as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{v_nedeli_si_snad_zaletam_s_NOE}.
\def{\EuScript S}{{\EuScript S}}
To identify ${\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre$-algebras with Markl operads
we proceed as in the proof
of Theorem~\ref{pozitri_turnaj_v_Patku}.
We start by realizing that the local terminal
objects are rooted corollas $c^\uparrow(\sigma)$, $\sigma \in
\Sigma_n$, shown~in
\[
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.34791)(3.84,1.6534791)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.0,0.14652084)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.6,-1.0534792)(2.0,0.14652084)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.2,-1.2534791)(2.0,0.14652084)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(3.2,-1.0534792)(2.0,0.14652084)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(2.0,0.14652084)(2.0,1.465209)
\rput[bl](0.4,-.8){$\sigma_1$}
\rput[bl](.8,-1.2){$\sigma_2$}
\rput[bl](2.7,-1.2){$\sigma_n$}
\rput[bl](.3,-1.4){$1$}
\rput[bl](1.0,-1.791){$2$}
\rput[bl](3.2,-1.4792){$n$}
\rput[bl](2.2,0.6){$0$}
\rput[b](2,1.6){$0$}
\rput(-3.177993,1){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1}{-110}{-60}}
\end{pspicture}
}
\]
while the chosen local terminal objects
are $c^\uparrow_n := c^\uparrow(1\!\!1_n)$.
The set $\pi_0(\RTr)$ of connected components is therefore
identified with the natural numbers ${\mathbb N}$. Analyzing
action~(\ref{Asi_jsem_dostal_premii!}) of local terminal objects
we conclude that
the underlying collections for ${\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre$-algebras are sequences
${\EuScript S}(n)$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$, of $\Sigma_n$-modules.
As in the proof
of Theorem~\ref{pozitri_turnaj_v_Patku} we establish
that the value of the generating collection $E$ on graphs whose
soul is the arrow in~\eqref{je_patek_a_melu_z_posledniho}
produces partial compositions in~(ii) of~\cite[Definition~1.1]{markl:zebrulka}, that the
relation $r_1$ expresses the parallel associativity, i.e.\ the
first and the last cases of the relation
in~\eqref{zitra_s_Mikesem_do_Salmovske} of the Appendix, and
$r_2$ the sequential associativity, i.e.\ the middle
case of that relation.
We are sure that at this stage the reader will easily
describe the annihilator $R^\perp$ of the space $R$ of relations and
identify algebras of the Koszul dual
\[
\oddRTre := {\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre^! = {\mathbb F}({\uparrow} E^*)/(R^\perp)
\]
as structures with degree $+1$ operations
\begin{equation}
\label{Byl_jsem_se_142_v_Benesove.}
\bullet_i : {\EuScript S}(m) \otimes {\EuScript S}(n) \to {\EuScript S}(m +n -1)
\end{equation}
satisfying~(\ref{Krtecek_na_mne_kouka.}) and the
associativities~(\ref{zitra_s_Mikesem_do_Salmovske}) with the minus
sign. It can be verified
directly that the level-wise suspension of such a
structure is an ordinary Markl operad. However, a more conceptual
approach based on coboundaries introduced in
Example~\ref{coboundary} is available.
As in the cases of modular and cyclic operads we notice
that, for a rooted tree $T \in \RTr$, $\oddRTre(T) \cong {\rm det}({\rm edg}(T))$, the
determinant of the set of internal edges of $T$. On the other hand,
the correspondence that assigns to each vertex of $T$ its out-going
edge is an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{Dnes_mam_vedecke_narozeniny.}
{\rm edg}(T) \cong \{\hbox {vertices of $T$}\} \setminus \{\hbox {the root}\}
\end{equation}
which implies that ${\rm det}({\rm edg}(T))$
is isomorphic to ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(T)$, where ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}$ is the
coboundary with ${\mathfrak l}: \pi_0(\RTr) \to
{\tt Vect}$ the constant function with value the desuspension
$\hbox {$\downarrow\!{\mathbb k}$}$ of
the ground field. Therefore
\[
\oddRTre = {\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre \otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}
\]
and the identification of $\oddRTre$-algebras with
Markl operads via the suspension of the underlying collection follows from
Proposition~\ref{za_chvili_zavolam_Jarusce}.
\end{proof}
Similar statements can be proved also for the operadic categories $\PTr$ and
$\PRTr$ of planar resp.~planar rooted trees introduced
in~\cite[Example~4.10]{part1}. The corresponding
terminal operads ${\sf 1}_\PTr$ resp.~ ${\sf 1}_\PRTr$ will again be
self-dual binary quadratic, with algebras non-$\Sigma$ cyclic
operads~\cite[page~257]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}
resp.~ non-$\Sigma$ Markl
operads~\cite[Definition~II.1.14]{markl-shnider-stasheff:book}.
We leave the details to the reader.
\subsection{Pre-permutads.} Pre-permutads introduced
in~\cite{loday-ronco} form a link between non-$\Sigma$ operads and
permutads. They are
structures satisfying all axioms of Markl operads as recalled in
Definition~\ref{b3} except the parallel associativity, i.e.\ the first
and the last case of~(\ref{zitra_s_Mikesem_do_Salmovske}).
Pre-permutads are algebras over for certain operad over the category $\RTr$
of rooted trees which is very far from being Koszul self-dual:
\begin{theorem}
\label{Vcera_s_Mikesem_v_Matu.}
Pre-permutads are algebras over a binary quadratic ${\tt RTr}}\def\PRTr{{\tt PRTr}}\def\PTr{{\tt PTr}$-operad\/
${\mathfrak{pp}}$. The category of algebras
over its Koszul dual ${\mathfrak{pp}}^!$ is isomorphic to the category of
structures satisfying all
axioms of Markl operads, except the
associativity~(\ref{zitra_s_Mikesem_do_Salmovske}) which is replaced by
\[
(f \circ_j g)\circ_i h =
\begin{cases}
0& \mbox{for } 1\leq i< j,
\\
f \circ_j(g \circ_{i-j+1} h)& \mbox{for }
j\leq i~< b+j,
\\
0& \mbox{for }
j+b\leq i\leq a+b-1.
\end{cases}
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The generating collection $E$ is the same as the one for ordinary
Markl operads used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{markl1}. Referring to
the notation used in that proof, we define $R$ to be
the subspace of ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$ spanned by $r_2$ belonging to the
direct sum on the right of~\eqref{Noha porad boli.}. It is clear
that ${\mathfrak{pp}} \cong {\mathbb F}(E)/(R)$. Let $d^1_1,d^1_2$ resp.~$d^2_1,d^2_2$
be the bases of ${\mathbb F}^2({\uparrow} E^*)$ dual to $b^1_1,b^1_2$
resp.~$b^2_1,b^2_2$. Then the annihilator $R^\perp$ is clearly spanned
by
\[
o := d^2_1 + d^2_2,\ d^1_1 \hbox { and } d^1_2.
\]
As before we identify algebras over ${\mathfrak{pp}}^! =
{\mathbb F}({\uparrow}^*E)/{R^\perp}$ with structures equipped with degree~$+1$
operations~(\ref{Byl_jsem_se_142_v_Benesove.}) satisfying
\[
(f \bullet_j g)\bullet_i h =
\begin{cases}
0& \mbox{for } 1\leq i< j,
\\
- f \bullet_j(g \bullet_{i-j+1} h)& \mbox{for }
j\leq i < b+j,
\\
0& \mbox{for }
j+b\leq i\leq a+b-1,
\end{cases}
\]
whose first case corresponds to $d^1_1$, the middle to $o$ and the
last one to $d^1_2$. The level-wise suspension of this object is
the structure described in the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{PROP-like structures and permutads}
\label{Ta_moje_lenost_je_strasna.}
In this section we treat some important
variants of PROPs governed by
operadic categories that are sundry modifications
of the category ${\tt Whe}$ of connected directed oriented graphs
introduced in~\cite[Example~4.19]{part1}.
The orientation divides
the set of half-edges adjacent
to each vertex of the graphs involved
into two subsets -- inputs and outputs of that vertex.
The local terminal objects in these categories will thus be the directed corollas
$c{\sigma \choose \lambda}$, $\sigma \in \Sigma_k$, $\lambda \in
\Sigma_l$,
as in
\[
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.88)(3.64,1.88)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](1.8,-0.08)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.4,-1.28)(1.8,-0.08)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.0,-1.48)(1.8,-0.08)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(3.0,-1.28)(1.8,-0.08)
\rput(0.5,.7){$\sigma_1$}
\rput(1.05,1.1){$\sigma_2$}
\rput(2.7,1.1){$\sigma_k$}
\rput[b](0.2,1.32){$1$}
\rput[b](1.2,1.6){$2$}
\rput[b](3.3,1.3){$k$}
\rput[t](3.4,-.2){.}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.8,-0.08)(0.4,1.32)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.8,-0.08)(3.2,1.12)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.8,-0.08)(1.2,1.52)
\rput(0.5,-.7){$\lambda_1$}
\rput(.8,-1.3){$\lambda_2$}
\rput(2.5,-1.18){$\lambda_l$}
\rput[t](0.2,-1.28){$1$}
\rput[t](1.1,-1.6){$2$}
\rput[t](3.2,-1.38){$l$}
\rput(-3.4,.9){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04,
linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm,
dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1}{-110}{-60}}
\rput(-3.4,.7){\psarc[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm, dimen=outer](5.275,-0.8477939){1}{55}{105}}
\end{pspicture}
}
\]
The chosen
local terminal objects are the directed corollas $c^k_l
:= c{1\!\!1_k \choose 1\!\!1_l}$, $k,l \in {\mathbb N}$.
The underlying collections of the
corresponding algebras will be families
\begin{equation}
\label{Dnes_jsem_byl_s_NOE_v_Pribyslavi.}
D(m,n),\ m,n \in {\mathbb N},
\end{equation}
of $\Sigma_m \times \Sigma_n$-modules. We will see that the
orientation of the underlying graphs implies that the corresponding
terminal operads are self-dual.
\noindent
\subsection{Wheeled properads}
These structures were introduced in \cite{mms} as an
extension of Vallette's properads~\cite{vallette:TAMS07}
that allowed `back-in-time' edges in order to
capture traces and therefore also
master equations of mathematical physics. Surprisingly, this extended
theory is better behaved than the theory of properads
in that their composition laws are
iterated composites of elementary ones, that is, in terms of pasting
schemes, of those given by contraction of a single edge.
The guiding operadic category for wheeled properads is
the category ${\tt Whe}$ of connected oriented directed graphs.
Since ${\tt Whe}$ was
constructed in~\cite[Example~4.19]{part1}
from the basic operadic category ${\tt Gr}$ by iterating
Grothendieck construction and since it clearly satisfies the conditions
${\sf UFib}$ and $\SGrad$, we conclude as in the previous
sections that our theory of Koszul duality applies to it.
\begin{theorem}
The terminal\/ ${\tt Whe}$-operad ${\sf 1}_\Whe$ is binary quadratic.
Its algebras are wheeled properads introduced in~\cite[Definition~2.2.1]{mms}.
The operad ${\sf 1}_\Whe$
is self-dual in the sense of Definition~\ref{Uz_je_o_te_medaili_zapis.}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof goes along the same lines as the proofs of similar statements
in the previous sections, so we will be telegraphic.
As before, for a wheeled graph $\Gamma$ we put
\[
{\mathfrak {K}}_{\tt Whe} (\Gamma):={\sf 1}_\Whe^!(\Gamma) \cong
{\rm det}({\rm edg}(\Gamma)),
\]
the determinant of the set of internal edges of $\Gamma$. On the other hand,
the correspondence that assigns to each vertex $v$ of $\Gamma$ the set
${\rm out}(v)$ of its out-going
edges defines an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{Dnes_mam_vedecke_narozeniny_bis.}
\textstyle
{\rm edg}(\Gamma) \cong \bigcup_{v \in {\rm Ver}(\Gamma)} {\rm out}(v) \setminus {\rm out}(\Gamma)
\end{equation}
which implies that ${\rm det}({\rm edg}(\Gamma))$
is isomorphic to ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}(\Gamma)$, where ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}$ is the
coboundary with ${\mathfrak l}: \pi_0(\RTr) \to
{\tt Vect}$ the function defined by
\[
{\mathfrak l}(c^k_l) : = \downarrow^k {\mathbb k},
\]
the desuspension of the ground field iterated $k$ times. Therefore
\[
{\mathfrak {K}}_{\tt Whe} \cong {\sf 1}_\Whe \otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak l}
\]
which, by
Proposition~\ref{za_chvili_zavolam_Jarusce}, implies the self-duality
of $ {\sf 1}_\Whe$.
It follows from the description of the local terminal objects in
${\tt Whe}$ that the underlying structure of an ${\sf 1}_\Whe$-algebra is
a collection of bimodules as
in~(\ref{Dnes_jsem_byl_s_NOE_v_Pribyslavi.}). The composition laws
are given by wheeled graphs with one internal edge whose souls are
depicted in
\[
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-1.0554386)(2.5108774,1.0554386)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.11087738,-0.9445613)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.11087738,-0.9445613)(0.11087738,0.8554387)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.11087738,0.8554387)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](2.0108774,0.05543869)(0.5,1.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](1.5108774,0.05543869)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04,
arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm
3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.5108774,0.2554387)(1.7108774,0.8554387)
\rput[b](3,0){.}
\end{pspicture}
}
\]
We recognize them as the operations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{musim_to_dokoukat}
\circ^i_j :\ & D(m,n) \otimes D(k,l)
\longrightarrow D(m\! +\! k\! -\!1,n\!+ \!l \!-\!1),\
1 \leq i \leq n, \ 1 \leq j \leq k, \hbox { and}
\\
\label{Budu_mit_silu_to_dokoukat?}
\xi^i_j :\ & D(m,n) \longrightarrow D(m\!-\!1,n\!-\!1),\
1\leq i \leq m, \ 1 \leq j \leq n
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
in formulas~(16) and~(17) of~\cite{mms}.
As in the previous cases, the axioms that these operations satisfy are
determined by graphs with two internal edges whose souls are depicted
in the following display.
\begin{equation}
\label{Ten_film_mne_oddelal.}
\raisebox{-12em}{
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-2.9354386)(10.510878,2.9354386)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](1.7108774,0.8245613)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.9108774,2.2245612)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](7.7108774,1.4245613)(0.8,1.0)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(0.11087738,0.8245613)(0.9108774,2.2245612)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.7108774,0.8245613)(0.9108774,2.2245612)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(2.9108775,0.2245613)(2.9108775,1.6245613)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(2.9108775,1.6245613)(2.9108775,2.8245614)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.9108775,2.8245614)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.9108775,1.6245613)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](0.11087738,0.8245613)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](4.1108775,2.2245612)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](4.910877,0.8245613)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(5.7108774,2.2245612)(4.910877,0.8245613)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(4.1108775,2.2245612)(4.910877,0.8245613)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](5.7108774,2.2245612)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](2.9108775,0.2245613)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](1.3858774,-1.7754387)(0.5,1.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](1.9108773,-1.7754387)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.8858774,-1.5754387)(1.6858773,-0.9754387)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(1.8858774,-1.7754387)(1.8858774,-0.17543869)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](8.810878,-1.3754387)(0.5,1.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](8.310878,-1.3754387)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(8.310878,-1.1754386)(8.510878,-0.5754387)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](7.785877,-1.3754387)(0.5,1.0)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(8.285877,-1.1754386)(8.085877,-0.5754387)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](7.7108774,0.42456132)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](7.7108774,2.4245613)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(7.7108774,2.4245613)(7.3108773,2.2245612)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(7.7108774,2.4245613)(8.110877,2.2245612)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](9.710877,1.4245613)(0.8,1.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](9.710877,2.4245613)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(9.710877,2.4245613)(9.310878,2.2245612)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](9.710877,0.42456132)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(9.710877,0.42456132)(10.110877,0.6245613)
\psellipse[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, dimen=outer](3.5858774,-1.1754386)(0.5,1.0)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.225](4.1108775,-1.1754386)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(4.0858774,-0.9754387)(3.8858774,-0.3754387)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666668cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{->}(4.0858774,-2.7754388)(4.0858774,-1.1754386)
\rput(6.7108774,1.4245613){$1$}
\rput(8.310878,1.4245613){$2$}
\rput(3.3108773,-1.1754386){$1$}
\rput(1.1108774,-1.7754387){$1$}
\rput(9.110877,1.4245613){$1$}
\rput(7.5108776,-1.3754387){$1$}
\rput(2.1108773,-0.9754387){$2$}
\rput(4.3108773,-2.1754386){$2$}
\rput(9.110877,-1.3754387){$2$}
\rput(10.310878,1.4245613){$2$}
\rput(2.9108775,-2.7754388){lollipops}
\rput(8.310878,-2.7754388){eyes}
\rput(8.710877,0.2245613){circles}
\end{pspicture}
}
}
\end{equation}
The graphs with three vertices
induce the parallel and sequential associativity of the
$\xi$-operations, similar to that for Markl
operads~(\ref{zitra_s_Mikesem_do_Salmovske}).
They were explicitly given in the dioperadic context as axioms
(a) and (b) in \cite[page 111]{gan}.
The circles in~\eqref{Ten_film_mne_oddelal.} represent
the rules of the type
$
\circ_1 \xi_2 = \circ_2 \xi_1,
$
where $\xi_1$ resp.~$\xi_2$ is the operation corresponding to the
shrinking of the edge labelled $1$ resp.~$2$, and similarly for
$\circ_1$ and $\circ_2$. The lollipops in~\eqref{Ten_film_mne_oddelal.}
force the interchange rule $\xi_2 \circ_1 = \circ_1 \xi_2$, and the eyes
the rule $\circ_1 \circ_2 = \circ_2 \circ_1$. To
expand these remaining axioms into explicit forms similar to that on
\cite[page 111]{gan} would
not be very helpful; we thus leave it as an exercise for a
determined reader.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Dioperads} They
were introduced in \cite{gan} as tools governing structures like Lie
or infinitesimal
bialgebras (called mock bialgebras in \cite{markl:dl}).
A short definition is that a dioperad is a wheeled
properad without the $\xi^i_j$-operations~(\ref{Budu_mit_silu_to_dokoukat?}).
The underlying operadic category is the category
${\tt Dio}$ of directed simply connected oriented graphs introduced in
\cite[Example~4.20]{part1}. As before one may check that ${\tt Dio}$ meets
all requirements of our theory. One has the expected:
\begin{theorem}
Dioperads are algebras over the
terminal ${\tt Dio}$-operad ${\sf 1}_{\tt Dio}$, which is binary quadratic and
self-dual.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is a simplified version of the wheeled case. The
self-duality of ${\sf 1}_{\tt Dio}$ is established in precisely the same
way as the self-duality of the terminal ${\tt Whe}$-operad
${\sf 1}_\Whe$; the existence of the relevant coboundary is given by
isomorphism~(\ref{Dnes_mam_vedecke_narozeniny_bis.}) which clearly
holds in ${\tt Dio}$ as well.
The soul of graphs in ${\tt Dio}$ with one internal edge is the oriented
interval, with the corresponding operation as in~(\ref{musim_to_dokoukat}).
The souls of graphs in ${\tt Dio}$ with two internal edges are the three upper left
graphs in~\eqref{Ten_film_mne_oddelal.}.
The resulting axioms are the parallel and
sequential associativities which are the same as for
$\xi^i_j$-operations of wheeled
properads, see~\cite[\S1.1]{gan}.
\end{proof}
\def\jcirc#1{{\hskip 1mm {}_{#1}\circ \hskip .2mm}}
\noindent
\subsection{$\frac12$PROPs} These structures
were introduced, following a
suggestion of Kontsevich, in~\cite{mv} as a link between dioperads
and PROPs. A $\frac12$PROP is a collection of
bimodules~(\ref{Dnes_jsem_byl_s_NOE_v_Pribyslavi.}) which is {\em
stable\/} in that it fulfills
\[
D(m,n) = 0\ \hbox { if } \ m+n < 3,
\]
together with partial vertical compositions
\begin{align*}
\circ_i:\ & D(m_1,n_1) \otimes D(1,l)
\to D(m_1,n_1+l-1),\ 1 \leq i \leq n_1, \hbox { and}
\\
\jcirc j :\ & D(k,1) \otimes D(m_2,n_2)
\to D(m_2 + k -1,n_2),\ 1 \leq j \leq m_2,
\end{align*}
that satisfy the axioms of vertical compositions in PROPs.
The corresponding operadic category
${\frac12{\tt Gr}}$ is introduced in \cite[Example~4.21]{part1}.
We have the expected statement whose proof is left to the reader.
\begin{theorem}
$\frac12$PROPs are algebras over the
terminal ${\frac12{\tt Gr}}$-operad ${\sf 1}_{\frac12{\tt Gr}}$. This operad is binary quadratic and
self-dual.
\end{theorem}
The operadic categories considered so far in this section were based on
graphs. Let us give one example where this is not the case.
\subsection{Permutads}
\label{Michael_do_Prahy.}
They are structures introduced by Loday and Ronco
in~\cite{loday11:_permut}
to handle the combinatorial structure of objects like the
permutohedra. We will describe an operadic category ${\tt Per}$ such that
permutads are algebras over the terminal operad for this
category.
Let $\underline n$ denote the
finite ordered set $(\rada 1n)$, $n \geq 1$. Objects
of ${\tt Per}$ are surjections $\alpha: \underline n \twoheadrightarrow \underline k$,
$n \geq 1$, and the morphisms are diagrams
\begin{equation}
\label{nikdo_mi_nepopral_k_narozeninam}
\xymatrix@C=2em{\underline n \ar@{=}[r]
\ar@{->>}[d]_{\alpha'} & \underline n \ar@{->>}[d]^{\alpha''}
\\
\underline k' \ar[r]^\gamma & \underline k''
}
\end{equation}
in which $\gamma$ is order-preserving (and necessarily a
surjection).
The cardinality functor is defined by $|\alpha:
\underline n \twoheadrightarrow \underline k| := k$. The $i$-th fiber of the
morphism in~(\ref{nikdo_mi_nepopral_k_narozeninam}) is the surjection
$\gamma(\alpha')^{-1}(i) \twoheadrightarrow \gamma^{-1}(i)$, $i \in \underline
k$. The only local terminal objects are $\underline n \to \underline
1$, $n \geq 1$, which are also the chosen ones. The
category ${\tt Per}$ is graded by $e(\underline n \twoheadrightarrow \underline k) :=
k-1$. All quasi\-bijection{s}, and isomorphisms in general, are the identities.
\def{\sf 1}_{\Per}{{\sf 1}_{{\tt Per}}}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Treti_den_je_kriticky.}
Algebras over the terminal ${\tt Per}$-operad ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$ are the
permutads of~\cite{loday11:_permut}. The~operad ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$ is binary
quadratic. It is self-dual in the sense that the category of algebras over
${\sf 1}_{\Per}^!$ is isomorphic to the category of permutads via the functor
induced by the suspension of the underlying collection.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us give a quadratic presentation of the terminal operad
${\sf 1}_{\Per}$. As noticed in Example~\ref{Budu_mit_nova_sluchatka.}, the
category ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$ of virtual isomorphisms related to ${\tt Per}$
is isomorphic to the category ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ of isomorphisms in ${\tt Per}$. Since
all isomorphisms in ${\tt Per}$ are the identities, we infer that in
fact ${\tt Q}\VR(e) \cong {\tt Per}_{\rm disc}$, the discrete category with the same
objects as ${\tt Per}$. Therefore a ${\tt Q}\VR(e)$-presheaf is just a rule that
assigns to each $\alpha \in {\tt Per}$ a vector space $E(\alpha) \in {\tt Vect}$.
Let us define a $1$-connected ${\tt Per}$-collection, in the sense of
Definition~\ref{Jarka_dnes_u_lekare}, by
\begin{equation}
\label{po_GGP}
E(\alpha) :=
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb k} & \hbox { if $|\alpha| = 2$,}
\\
0 & \hbox {otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and describe the free operad ${\mathbb F}(E)$ generated by $E$.
The first step
is to understand the labelled towers in ${\it lTw}(\alpha)$. As all isomorphism{s}
in ${\tt Per}$
are the identities, the labeling is the identity map so
these towers are of the form
\[
{\mathbf \alpha}: =
\alpha \stackrel {\tau_1} \longrightarrow \alpha_1 \stackrel {\tau_2} \longrightarrow
\alpha_2\stackrel {\tau_3} \longrightarrow
\cdots \stackrel {\tau_{s-1}} \longrightarrow \alpha_{s-1}.
\]
Since the generating collection $E$ is such that $E(\alpha)
\not=0$ only if $|\alpha| =2$, we may consider only towers
in which each $\tau_i$, $1 \leq i \leq s-1$, decreases the cardinality by one.
For $\alpha : \underline n \twoheadrightarrow \underline k$,
such a tower is a diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{Michael_chce_do_Prahy.}
\xymatrix{
\underline n \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{->>}[d]_\alpha
& \underline n \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{->>}[d]_{\alpha_1}&
\underline n \ar@{=}[r]\ar@{->>}[d]_{\alpha_2} & \cdots \ar@{=}[r]
&\ar@{->>}[d]_{\alpha_{k-1}}
\underline n
\\
\underline k \ar@{->>}[r]^{\nu_1}& \underline {k\!-\!1} \ar@{->>}[r]^{\nu_2}
& \underline {k\!-\!2}
\ar@{->>}[r]^{\nu_3}
& \cdots \ar@{->>}[r]^{\nu_{k-2}}& \underline 2
}
\end{equation}
with $\Rada \nu1{k-2}$ order-preserving surjections.
Notice that all vertical maps are determined by $\alpha$ and $\Rada \nu1{k-2}$.
It will be convenient to represent
$\underline k$ by a linear graph with $k$ vertices:
\begin{center}
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(0,-0.3167067)(6.8168273,0.3167067)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, linestyle=dotted, dotsep=0.10583334cm](4.5,-0.2082933)(5.108413,-0.2082933)
\rput(0.10841339,0.1917067){$1$}
\rput(1.5084134,0.1917067){$2$}
\rput(2.9084134,0.1917067){$3$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(1.5084134,-0.2082933)(0.10841339,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](1.5084134,-0.2082933)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(6.7084136,-0.2082933)(5.3084135,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](0.10841339,-0.2082933)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(4.3084135,-0.2082933)(2.9084134,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](6.7084136,-0.2082933)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(2.9084134,-0.2082933)(1.5084134,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](2.9084134,-0.2082933)
\rput(6.7084136,0.1917067){$k$}
\end{pspicture}
}
\end{center}
and denote by ${\rm edg}(\underline k)$ or ${\rm edg}(\alpha)$
the set of $k\!-\!1$ edges of this
graph. In this graphical presentation, each $\Rada \nu1{k-2}$
contracts one of the edges of our linear graph; thus $\Rada \nu1{k-2}$
and therefore also the tower~(\ref{Michael_chce_do_Prahy.}) is
determined by the linear order on ${\rm edg}(\underline k)$ in which the
edges are contracted. We readily get the following analog of
Proposition~\ref{uz_melo_prvni_cislo_davno_vyjit}, which we formulate
as a separate claim so we can refer to it later in the proof.
\begin{claim}
\label{Uz_melo_prvni_cislo_davno_vyjit.}
The isomorphism classes of labeled towers~(\ref{Michael_chce_do_Prahy.})
are in one-to-one correspondence with the linear orders on
${\rm edg}(\underline k)$ modulo the relation $\bowtie$ that
interchanges two edges adjacent in this linear order
that do not share a common vertex.
\end{claim}
Let us continue the proof of
Theorem~\ref{Treti_den_je_kriticky.}. By the above claim, ${\mathbb F}(E)(\alpha)$
equals the span of the set of linear orders on ${\rm edg}(\underline k)$ modulo the
equivalence $\bowtie$. Let us inspect in detail
its component ${\mathbb F}^2(E)(\alpha)$.
It might be nonzero only for $\alpha : \underline n \to \underline k
\in {\tt Per}$
with $k=3$, for which~(\ref{Michael_chce_do_Prahy.}) takes the form
\[
\xymatrix@C=3em{
\underline n \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{->>}[d]_\alpha
& \underline n \ar@{->>}[d]_{\alpha_1}
\\
\underline 3 \ar@{->>}[r]^{\nu}& \underline 2
}
\]
and the relation $\bowtie$ is vacuous.
There are two possibilities for the map $\nu$ and therefore also for
$\alpha_1$.
The map $\nu$ may either equal
$\nu_{\{1,2\}}: \underline 3 \to \underline 2$ defined by
\[
\nu_{\{1,2\}}(1) = \nu_{\{1,2\}}(2) :=1,\ \nu_{\{1,2\}}(3) := 2
\]
which corresponds to the linear order
\begin{center}
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(-4.5,-0.3167067)(6.8168273,0.3167067)
\rput(0.8,0.14){$1$}
\rput(2.2,0.14){$2$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(1.5084134,-0.2082933)(0.10841339,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](1.5084134,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](0.10841339,-0.2082933)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(2.9084134,-0.2082933)(1.5084134,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](2.9084134,-0.2082933)
\end{pspicture}
}
\end{center}
on ${\rm edg}(3)$, or
$\nu_{\{2,3\}}: \underline 3 \to \underline 2$ defined by
\[
\nu_{\{2,3\}}(1) :=1,\ \nu_{\{2,3\}}(2) = \nu_{\{2,3\}}(3) := 2,
\]
corresponding to the order
\begin{center}
\psscalebox{1.0 1.0}
{
\begin{pspicture}(-4.5,-0.3167067)(6.8168273,0.3167067)
\rput(0.8,0.14){$2$}
\rput(2.2,0.14){$1$}
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(1.5084134,-0.2082933)(0.10841339,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](1.5084134,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](0.10841339,-0.2082933)
\psline[linecolor=black, linewidth=0.04, arrowsize=0.05291666666666667cm 3.0,arrowlength=3.0,arrowinset=0.0]{<-}(2.9084134,-0.2082933)(1.5084134,-0.2082933)
\psdots[linecolor=black, dotsize=0.22](2.9084134,-0.2082933)
\rput(3.2,-.3){.}
\end{pspicture}
}
\end{center}
The fiber sequence associated to $\nu_{\{1,2\}}$ is
$
\alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{1,2\}}, \nu_{\{1,2\}}\alpha
$, the one associated to $\nu_{\{2,3\}}$ is
$\alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{2,3\}}, \nu_{\{2,3\}}\alpha$;
therefore
\[
{\mathbb F}^2(E)(\alpha) \cong \{ E(\alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{1,2\}}) \otimes
E(\nu_{\{1,2\}}\alpha)\} \oplus \{ E(\alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{2,3\}}) \otimes
E(\nu_{\{2,3\}}\alpha)\}.
\]
Since $ E(\alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{1,2\}}) =
E(\alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{2,3\}}) = E(\nu_{\{1,2\}}\alpha) =
E(\nu_{\{2,3\}}\alpha) ={\mathbb k}$ by definition,
${\mathbb F}^2(E)(\alpha)$ has a basis formed~by
\[
b_1 : =[ 1\otimes 1] \oplus [0 \otimes 0] \ \hbox { and } \
b_2 : = [0\otimes 0] \oplus [1 \otimes 1].
\]
Let $R$ be the subspace of ${\mathbb F}^2(E)$ spanned by $b_2-b_1$.
Quotienting by the ideal $(R)$ generated by $R$ extends the relation
$\bowtie$ of Claim~\ref{Uz_melo_prvni_cislo_davno_vyjit.} by
allowing edges that do share a~common vertex, thus
${\mathbb F}(E)/(R)(\alpha) \cong {\mathbb k}$ for any $\alpha$, in other words,
\[
{\sf 1}_{\Per} \cong {\mathbb F}(E)/(R).
\]
Now we describe ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$-algebras. Since $\pi_0({\tt Per}) = \{1,2,\ldots\}$, their
underlying collections are sequences
of vector spaces $P(n)$,
$n\geq 1$. As we saw several times before, the structure operations
of ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$-algebras are parametrized by the generating collection $E$,
therefore, by~(\ref{po_GGP}), by surjections
$r : \underline n \twoheadrightarrow \underline 2 \in {\tt Per}$.
If
$n_i := |r^{-1}(i)|$, $i
=1,2$, the operation corresponding to $r$ is of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{Nevim_jestli_do_ty_Ciny_opravdu_pojedu.}
\circ_r : P(n_1) \otimes P(n_2) \to P(n_1+n_2)
\end{equation}
by~(\ref{Ben_Ward_in_Prague}).
It is easy to verify that the vanishing of the induced map
${\mathbb F}(E) \to {\EuScript E}nd_P$ on the generator $b_2-b_1$ of the ideal of
relations $(R)$
is equivalent to the associativity
\begin{equation}
\label{Oslava_premie_bude_za_14_dni.}
\circ_t(\circ_s \otimes 1\!\!1) = \circ_u(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_v)
\end{equation}
with
$s := \alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{1,2\}},\ t:= \nu_{\{1,2\}}\alpha,\
u := \alpha|_{\alpha^{-1}\{2,3\}}$ and $v:= \nu_{\{2,3\}}\alpha$. We
recognize it as the associativity
of \cite[Lemma~2.2]{loday11:_permut} featuring in the biased
definition of permutads.
It can be easily seen that ${\mathfrak{K}}_{\tt Per}(\alpha) := {\sf 1}_{\Per}^!(\alpha) \cong
{\rm det}({\rm edg}(\alpha))$.
As in \S\ref{Cinani_jsou_hovada.}
we identify
${\mathfrak{K}}_{\tt Per}$-algebras as structures with degree $+1$ operations
\[
\bullet_r : P(n_1) \otimes P(n_2) \to P(n_1+n_2)
\]
with $r$ as in~(\ref{Nevim_jestli_do_ty_Ciny_opravdu_pojedu.})
satisfying an odd version
\[
\bullet_t(\bullet_s \otimes 1\!\!1) + \bullet_u(1\!\!1 \otimes \bullet_v) =0
\]
of~(\ref{Oslava_premie_bude_za_14_dni.}). It is elementary to show
that the structure induced on the component-wise suspension of the
underlying collection is that of a permutad.
\end{proof}
In~\cite{markl:perm} we prove the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
The terminal ${\tt P}$-operad ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$ is Koszul.
\end{theorem}
Its meaning is that the canonical map $\Omega({\sf 1}_{\Per}^!) \to {\sf 1}_{\Per}$
from a suitably defined bar construction of ${\sf 1}_{\Per}^!$ to ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$ is
a component-wise homology equivalence. In other words, the dg-${\tt Per}$ operad
$\Omega({\sf 1}_{\Per}^!)$ is the minimal model of ${\sf 1}_{\Per}$; therefore,
according to the philosophy of~\cite[Section~4]{markl:zebrulka},
$\Omega({\sf 1}_{\Per}^!)$-algebras are {\em strongly homotopy\/}
permutads. An explicit description of these objects is given
in~\cite{markl:perm} as well.
\def\twr#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{
\xymatrix@R=-.3em@C=1em{
&
\\
&&\triangledown
\\
#1 \ar[rr]^{#5} &  \ar[ddddd]^{#6}
\\
\\
&
\\
\\
\\
&
}
}
\section{The cobar construction}
\label{Ceka mne nehezky vikend.}
The assumptions on the base operadic category ${\tt O}$ are the same as
in Section~\ref{zitra_letim_do_Pragy}, i.e.\
\[
\hbox{\rm \Fac\ \& {\sf SBU}\ \& {\sf QBI}\ \& {\sf UFib}\ \& \SGrad.}
\]
Notice that then $e(X) = 0$ if and only if
$X\in {\tt O}$ is local terminal. Indeed, the unique map $!: X \to u$ to a
local terminal object satisfies $e(!)=0$, thus it is an isomorphism.
All Markl operads are tacitly assumed to be strictly
unital and $1$-connected. The base monoidal category
${\tt V}$ will be the category ${\tt Vect}$ of graded vector spaces
over a field ${\mathbb k}$ of characteristic~$0$.
\subsection{Derivations, cooperads}
To simplify the notation, we will use the same symbol both for
a (co)operad and for its underlying collection when
the meaning is clear from the context.
\begin{definition}
\label{Uz mam 6,5 hodin na Tereji tento rok.}
A degree $s$ {\em derivation\/} of a Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ is defines as a degree $s$
endomorphism \hbox{$\varpi
: {\EuScript M} \to {\EuScript M}$} of the underlying collections such that, for each elementary morphism
\redukce{$F\triangleright T \stackrel\phi\to S$} and the related composition
laws $\circ_{\phi}: {\EuScript M}(S)\otimes {\EuScript M}(F)\to {\EuScript M}(T)$, one has the equality
\begin{equation}
\label{zase mi nejde aktuator}
\varpi\,\circ_\phi = \circ_\phi(1\!\!1 \otimes
\varpi) + \circ_\phi (\varpi \otimes 1\!\!1)
\end{equation}
of maps ${\EuScript M}(S)\otimes {\EuScript M}(F)\to {\EuScript M}(T)$.
\end{definition}
In the following proposition, ${\mathbb F}(E)$ is the free Markl operad
generated by a $1$-connected collection $E$, which is considered as a
subcollection of ${\mathbb F}(E)$ via the inclusion $\iota :E
\hookrightarrow {\mathbb F}(E)$ in~\eqref{Kdy bude hotovy Terej?}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{a zaskakuje pastorek}
Each degree $s$ map of collections $\zeta :E \to {\mathbb F}(E)$ uniquely
extends into a~degree $s$ derivation $\varpi$ of the free operad \,
${\mathbb F}(E)$ satisfying $\varpi|_E = \zeta$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Our proof follows the scheme of an analogous statement for
algebras. To avoid cumbersome but conceptually insignificant sign issues, we
assume that $s=0$. The modification for a general $s$ is
indicated at the end of the proof.
Given a Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$, we make the componentwise
direct sum ${\EuScript M} \oplus {\EuScript M}$ of the underlying collections an operad with the
composition laws $\circ^\oplus_\phi$ given by
\[
\circ^\oplus_\phi (a' \oplus b',a'' \oplus b'')
:= \circ_\phi(a',a'') \oplus\big (\circ_\phi(a',b'') +
(-1)^{|a''|\cdot |b'|}
\circ_\phi(a'',b') \big),
\]
for $a',a'' \in {\EuScript M}(S),\ b',b'' \in {\EuScript M}(F)$,
where $\circ_\phi$ is the composition law of ${\EuScript M}$ associated to
an elementary morphism \redukce{$F\triangleright T \stackrel\phi\to S$}. Then
clearly $\varpi : {\EuScript M} \to {\EuScript M}$ is a degree $0$ derivation if and only if
the map $1\!\!1_{\EuScript M} \oplus \varpi: {\EuScript M} \to {\EuScript M} \oplus {\EuScript M}$ is a morphism
of Markl operads.
Let $\iota:E \to {\mathbb F}(E)$ be the
inclusion~\eqref{Kdy bude hotovy Terej?}.
The map $\iota \oplus \zeta : E \to {\mathbb F}(E)
\oplus {\mathbb F}(E)$
extends into a unique operad morphism ${\mathbb F}(E) \to {\mathbb F}(E)
\oplus {\mathbb F}(E)$ by the freeness of
${\mathbb F}(E)$. This extension is of the form $1\!\!1 \oplus\varpi$, where
$\varpi$ is the wished-for derivation. If $s \not= 0$, we
replace the direct sum ${\EuScript M} \oplus {\EuScript M}$ by ${\EuScript M} \oplus {\uparrow}^s {\EuScript M}$ and
introduce the canonical Koszul signs.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{Jarca byla na chalupe sama.}
A {\em Markl ${\tt O}$-cooperad\/}
is a functor $\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}: {{\tt O}}_{\tt iso} \to {\tt V}$ equipped, for each
elementary morphism \redukce{$F\triangleright T \stackrel\phi\to S$} as in
Definition~\ref{plysacci_postacci},
with the `partial coproduct'
\begin{equation}
\label{ten_prelet_jsem_podelal1}
\delta_{\phi}: \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(T) \to \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(S)\otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F).
\end{equation}
These operations must fulfill the axioms obtained by inverting the
arrows in the diagrams in Definition~\ref{markl} of Markl operads.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{Vse roztaje.}
Assume that ${\EuScript M}$ is a Markl operad whose components ${\EuScript M}(T)$, $T
\in {\tt O}$, are either
finite-dimensional, or non-negatively, or non-positively graded
dg vector spaces of finite type. Then its component-wise
linear dual ${\EuScript M}^* := \{{\EuScript M}(T)^*\}_{T \in {\tt O}}$ is a Markl
cooperad. The partial coproducts~\eqref{ten_prelet_jsem_podelal1}
are given by dualizing the
operations~\eqref{ten_prelet_jsem_podelal}, i.e.\
\[
\delta_\psi := \circ_\psi^* : {\EuScript M}(T)^* \to ({\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F))^* \cong
{\EuScript M}(S)^* \otimes {\EuScript M}(F)^*.
\]
The finitarity assumption guarantees that the inclusion
$({\EuScript M}(S) \otimes {\EuScript M}(F))^* \hookleftarrow {\EuScript M}(S)^* \otimes
{\EuScript M}(F)^*$ is an isomorphism. Since
${\EuScript M}$ is a ${\tt V}$-presheaf on ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$, its dual is a functor ${\EuScript M}^*: {{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}
\to {\tt V}$ as required in our definition of a cooperad.
\end{example}
Markl cooperad $\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}$ is {\em counital\/} if one is given, for each
trivial $U$, a `counit' $\epsilon_U
:\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(U) \to {\mathbb k}$ such that the diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
{\EuScript M}(T) \ar[r]^(.4){\delta_!} &
{\EuScript M}(U) \otimes {\EuScript M}(T) \ar[d]^{\epsilon_U \otimes 1\!\!1}
\\
{\EuScript M}(T) \ar@{=}[u] \ar@{=}[r]^(.42)\cong & {\mathbb k} \otimes {\EuScript M}(T)
}
\]
in which $T$ is such that $e(T) \geq 1$ and
$T \triangleright T \stackrel!\to U$ the unique map, commutes.
By reversing the arrows of~\eqref{proc_ty_lidi_musej_porad_hlucet} we
obtain the map
$\vartheta(T,u) : {\EuScript M}(T) \to {\EuScript M}(F)$
for each $T$ with $e(T) \geq 1$ and \redukce{$F \triangleright T \stackrel!\to u$}, with
$u$ a local terminal object.
\begin{definition}
\label{Jak bude?}
A counital Markl operad $\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}$ is {\em strictly counital\/} if all
the maps $\vartheta(T,u)$ are the identities. It is {\em
$1$-connected\/} if $\epsilon_U
:\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(U) \to {\mathbb k}$ is an isomorphism for each trivial $U \in {\tt O}$.
\end{definition}
We leave as an exercise to formulate an analog of Lemma~\ref{Zavolam
mu zitra?} for cooperads. From this moment on, all Markl cooperads
will be tacitly assumed to be {\em strictly counital\/} and \hbox{\em
$1$-connected\/}. The main source of examples will be
component-wise linear duals of Markl strictly unital
$1$-connected operads that satisfy the finitarity assumption of
Example~\ref{Vse roztaje.}.
\subsection{The cobar construction}
The underlying collection of a Markl cooperad $\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}$ is a covariant
functor ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso} \to {\tt V}$. Since ${{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ is a groupoid, we may consider
$\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}$ also as a ${\tt V}$-presheaf with the
contravariant action of $\omega \in {{\tt O}}_{\tt iso}$ given by $\omega^* :=
(\omega^{-1})_*$. With this convention in mind, the family $\overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}} =
\{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(T)\}_{T \in {\tt O}}$ defined by
\[
\overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}(T) :=
\begin{cases}
\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(T) &\hbox {if $e(T) \geq 1$,}
\\
0 & \hbox {otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\]
and also its component-wise desuspension ${\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}$
becomes a
$1$-connected ${\tt O}$-collection in the sense of
Definition~\ref{Jarka_dnes_u_lekare}, so it make sense to form the
free operad ${\mathbb F}({\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}})$ which it generates.
We denote the restrictions of the partial coproducts $\delta_\phi$
of~\eqref{ten_prelet_jsem_podelal1}
to $\overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}$ by
\[
\overline\delta_{\phi}: \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}(T) \to \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}(S)\otimes \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}(F),\ \hbox {for }
F \triangleright T \stackrel\phi\to S.
\]
Note that $\overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}$ with the above operations is an analog of the
coaugmentation coideal of an coaugmented coalgebra featuring in the
classical cobar construction.
We finally define, for every elementary map $F \triangleright T \stackrel\phi\to
S$, degree~$-1$ operations
\[
\dusd\phi := ({\uparrow} \otimes {\uparrow}) \, \overline \delta_{\phi}\, {\downarrow}:
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \to {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F).
\]
The prominent r\^ole in the calculations below will be played by
labeled towers of height~$2$. Recall that such a tower
${\boldsymbol \tau} = (\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in {\tt lTw}^2(X)$ consists of an elementary
morphism $\tau:T \to S$ and an isomorphism $\ell : X \stackrel\cong\to
T$ which can always be replaced by a quasi\-bijection. Its
associated fiber sequence is the pair $(F,S)$, with $F$ the
unique nontrivial fiber of~$\tau$. We will denote such a tower by
\begin{equation}
\label{Zitra dopoledne zavolam co je s Terejem.}
\twr XF{\ T.}S\ell\tau{\boldsymbol \tau}
\end{equation}
In the rest of this section we also assume that the groupoid
${\tt lTw}^2(X)$ has, for each $X \in {\tt O}$, only {\em finitely many\/}
connected components.
Let us denote by ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$ the free operad ${\mathbb F}({\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}})$ generated by
the $1$-connected collection~${\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}$, with the natural grading ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})
=\bigoplus_{n \geq 0} {\mathbb \Omega}^n(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$ inherited from ${\mathbb F}({\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}})$
by ${\mathbb \Omega}^n(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}) := {\mathbb F}^n({\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}})$.
We are going to introduce a degree $-1$
derivation $\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} : {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}) \to {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$
that squares to zero,
thus making ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$ a differential graded
Markl operad. Referring to Proposition~\ref{a zaskakuje pastorek},
$\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}$~will be defined as the unique extension of its restriction
to the generators of ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$.
For $x \in {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(X) \cong {\mathbb \Omega}^1(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(X)$ and $X\in {\tt O}$, this
restriction is the finite~sum
\begin{equation}
\label{Terej bude mit elektrickou zarazku.}
\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}(x) = \sum_{[{\boldsymbol \tau}] \in \pi_0({\tt lTw}^2(X))} \partial_{\boldsymbol \tau}(x),
\end{equation}
with ${\boldsymbol \tau}$ running over representatives of the connected components
of the groupoid ${\tt lTw}^2(X)$. If ${\boldsymbol \tau} = (\ell, {\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}})$ as
in~\eqref{Zitra dopoledne zavolam co je s Terejem.} is such a
representative, we put
\begin{equation}
\label{Jarka mne chce prestavet byt.}
\partial_{\boldsymbol \tau} (x) := \ell^*\! \circ_\tau\! (\dusd\tau(\ell_* x)) \in {\mathbb \Omega}^2(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(X),
\end{equation}
where $\circ_\tau : {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(S) \otimes {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(F)\to
{\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(T)$ is the partial composition in
the operad ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$ associated to the elementary map $\tau$.
In detail, $\ell_*x \in {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T)$, thus $\dusd\tau(\ell_* x) \in
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S) \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F)$ which is canonically a subspace of $ {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(S)
\otimes {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})(F)$, so the application of $\circ_\tau$ makes sense.
We must show that $\partial_{\boldsymbol \tau} (x)$ does not depend on the choices
of the representatives of the
connected components of ${\tt lTw}^2(X)$. Suppose thus that ${\boldsymbol \tau}' = (\ell',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}')$
and ${\boldsymbol \tau}'' = (\ell'',{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ are two
isomorphic labelled towers as in
\[
\xymatrix{&X \ar[ld]_{\ell'}^\cong \ar[rd]^{\ell''}_\cong &
\\
T' \ar[d]_{\tau'} \ar[rr]^{\sigma_1}_\cong &&T'' \ar[d]^{\tau''}
\\
S' \ar[rr]^{\sigma_2}_\cong &&S''
}
\]
with the associated fiber sequences $(F',S')$
resp.~$(F'',S'')$. Denote by
$F = \inv{\phi}(j)$ the unique nontrivial fiber of the auxiliary morphism
$\phi := \sigma_2 \tau' : T' \to S''$. By the strong counitality
assumption, $\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F) = \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F'')$, so the dual
of commutative diagram~\eqref{Ve_ctvrtek_letim_do_Prahy.} leads~to
\[
\xymatrix@C=4em@R=1em{
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S'') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'')
& {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T'') \ar[l]_(.35){\dusd{\tau''}}&
\\
&& \ar[lu]_{\ell''_*} \ar[ld]^{\ell'_*} {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(X).
\\
\ar[uu]^{ {\sigma_2}_* \otimes \, {\sigma_{1j}}}_\cong {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S') \otimes
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F')& \ar[l]_(.35){\dusd{\tau'}} {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T') \ar[uu]_{{\sigma_1}_*}^\cong&
}
\]
We conclude from this diagram that $\dusd{\tau'}(\ell'_*x) \in {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}')$
and~$\dusd{\tau''}(\ell''_*x) \in {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}({\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}'')$ are related
by the isomorphism ${\boldsymbol \sigma}^*$ associated to $(\sigma_2,\sigma_1)$
as in~\eqref{Dnes snad uvidim Tereje.},
thus $\partial_{{\boldsymbol \tau}'} (x) = \ell'^*\! \circ_{\tau'}\! (\dusd{\tau'}(\ell'_* x))$
and~$\partial_{{\boldsymbol \tau}''} (x) = \ell''^*\! \circ_{\tau''}\! (\dusd{\tau''}(\ell''_*
x))$ are the same.
\begin{proposition}
The derivation $\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} : {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}) \to {\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$ introduced above squares to zero.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is simple to verify, using the defining equation~(\ref{zase mi
nejde aktuator}), that the square of an odd-degree derivation is a
derivation again. In particular, $\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}^2$ is a derivation, thus it
suffices, by Proposition~\ref{a zaskakuje pastorek}, to verify that
$\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}^2(x) = 0$ for $x \in {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(X)$, $X\in {\tt O}$, i.e.\ that
\[
\sum_{\boldsymbol \tau}
\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} \partial_{\boldsymbol \tau} (x) = \sum_{\boldsymbol \tau}
\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} \ell^* \! \circ_\tau \! (\dusd\tau(\ell_* x)) =
\sum_{\boldsymbol \tau} \ell^* \partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} \! \circ_\tau \! (\dusd\tau(\ell_* x))= 0.
\]
In the above display, as well as in the following ones, we will not
specify the summation range where it is clear from the context.
By the derivation
rule~(\ref{zase mi nejde aktuator}) we have
\[
\sum_{\boldsymbol \tau} \ell^*
\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} \! \circ_\tau \! (\dusd\tau(\ell_* x)) =\sum_{\boldsymbol \tau}
\ell^*\! \circ_\tau \! (\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} \otimes 1\!\!1) (\dusd\tau(\ell_* x) ) +
\sum_{\boldsymbol \tau} \ell^*
\! \circ_\tau \! (1\!\!1 \otimes \partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}) (\dusd\tau(\ell_* x) ),
\]
thus $\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}^2(x)$ decomposes as $\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}^2(x) = \partial^2_L(x) + \partial^2_R(x)$, where
$\partial^2_L(x)$, resp.~$\partial^2_R(x)$ is the left, resp.~right, term at the
left-hand side of the above equation.
\noindent
{\it Analyzing $\partial^2_L(x)$.}
Let us focus on $\partial^2_L(x)$ first. Expanding
further using definitions, we get
\begin{align*}
\partial^2_L(x) =& \sum_{{\boldsymbol \psi}'}
{\ell^{\, *}_{\psi'}}
\circ_{\psi'} (\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}} \otimes 1\!\!1) (\dusd{\psi'}({\ell^{\, *}_{\psi'}} x) )=
\sum_{{\boldsymbol \phi},{\boldsymbol \psi}'}
{\ell^{\, *}_{\psi'}}
\circ_{\psi'} (\partial_{{\boldsymbol \phi}} \otimes 1\!\!1) (\dusd{\psi'}({\ell_{\psi'}}_* x) )
\\
&=
\sum_{{\boldsymbol \phi},{\boldsymbol \psi}'}
{\ell^{\, *}_{\psi'}}
\circ_{\psi'} ({\ell^{\, *}_{\phi}}\circ_\phi \dusd\phi {\ell_{\phi}}_* \otimes 1\!\!1)
(\dusd{\psi'}({\ell_{\psi'}}_* x) )
\\
&= \sum_{{\boldsymbol \phi},{\boldsymbol \psi}'} {\ell^{\, *}_{\psi'}} \circ_{\psi'}
({\ell^{\, *}_{\phi}} \otimes 1\!\!1)
(\circ_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)
(\dusd\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)( {\ell_{\phi}}_* \otimes
1\!\!1)(\dusd{\psi'}({\ell_{\psi'}}_* x)),
\end{align*}
where ${\boldsymbol \psi}'$ and ${\boldsymbol \phi}$ run over the representatives of the
isomorphism classes of labelled towers of the form
\[
\twr X{F}{\ T'\ ,}{H'}{\ell_{\psi'}}{\psi'}{{\boldsymbol \psi'}}
\twr {H'}B{\ H.}S{\ell_\phi}{\phi}{{\boldsymbol \phi}}
\]
Consider now the diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@R=-.3em@C=1em{
&F \ar@{~>}[r]^1\!\!1 &F
\\
&\triangledown&\triangledown
\\
X \ar[r]^{\ell_{\psi'}} &T' \ar[ddddd]_{\psi'} \ar[r]^{\tilde
\ell_\phi} &T\ar[ddddd]^{\psi}
\\
\\ & \hskip 5em {\sf SBU}&
\\
\\
\\
\rule{0pt}{2em}&H'\ar[r]^{\ell_\phi}& H \ar[dddddd]^\phi
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
&&S
}
\end{equation*}
whose square was obtained using the strong blow-up axiom with the
condition that the prescribed maps of fibers are the identities, which is
symbolized by the wavy arrow decorated by
$1\!\!1$. From~\eqref{Ve_ctvrtek_letim_do_Prahy.} we conclude that
$\circ_{\psi'} (\ell_\phi^{\, *} \otimes 1\!\!1) = {{\tilde \ell}_\phi}^{\, *}
\circ_\psi$ and, dually,
$({\ell_{\phi}}_* \otimes 1\!\!1)\delta_{\psi'}
= \delta_\psi\hbox{${{{\tilde \ell}_\phi}}$}_*$, thus also
$({\ell_{\phi}}_* \otimes 1\!\!1)\dusd{\psi'}
= \dusd\psi\hbox{${{{\tilde \ell}_\phi}}$}_*$, therefore
\[
\partial^2_L(x) = \sum_{{\boldsymbol \phi},{\boldsymbol \psi}'}
({\hbox{${{{\tilde \ell}_\phi}}$}
{\ell_{\psi'}}})^* \circ_{\psi'} (\circ_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)
(\dusd\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)
\dusd\psi({\hbox{${{{\tilde \ell}_\phi}}$}
{\ell_{\psi'}}})_* (x).
\]
This can clearly be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{Zitra davam Zoom talk.}
\partial^2_L(x) =
\sum_{{\boldsymbol \phi},{\boldsymbol \psi}}
\ell_{*} \!
\circ_{\psi}\! (\circ_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)
(\dusd\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)\,
\dusd\psi\ell_* (x),
\end{equation}
where ${\boldsymbol \phi}$, ${\boldsymbol \psi}$ runs over the representatives of the
isomorphism classes of labelled towers as in
\begin{equation}
\label{Snehu bude az moc.}
\twr XF{\ T\ ,}H{\ell}\psi{\boldsymbol \psi}
\twr HB{\ H.}S{1\!\!1}\phi{{\boldsymbol \phi}}
\end{equation}
Let us further decompose
\[
\partial_L^2(x) = \partial_L^2(x)'+ \partial_L^2(x)'',
\]
where $\partial_L^2(x)'$ resp.~$\partial_L^2(x)''$ is the part of the sum
in~\eqref{Zitra davam Zoom talk.} running over $\phi$ and $\psi$ with
joint resp.~disjoint fibers in the sense of Definition~\ref{d3}. We
are going to show that $\partial_L^2(x)'' = 0$.
To start, let $k,i \in |S|$, $k \not= i$, and call
$(\phi,\psi)$ a $(k,i)$-pair if there is $j \in \inv\phi(k)$ such that
$\inv \psi(j)$ is the only nontrivial fiber of $\psi$,
and $\inv \phi(i)$ the only nontrivial fiber of $\phi$.
This results in the decomposition
\[
\partial_L^2(x)'' = \sum_{k \not= i} \partial_L^2(x)_{(k,i)}''
\]
where $\partial_L^2(x)_{(k,i)}''$ is the part of the sum in~\eqref{Zitra davam
Zoom talk.} taken over $(k,i)$-pairs. Out next aim will be to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{Kimci}
\partial_L^2(x)''_{(k,i)} + \partial_L^2(x)''_{(i,k)} =0,
\end{equation}
for each $k \not=i \in |S|$, using the following
\noindent
{\bf Claim.}
{\em There is a natural one-to-one correspondence $(\phi',\psi') \leftrightarrow
(\phi'',\psi'')$ between isomorphism
classes of $(k,i)$-pairs and isomorphism
classes of $(i,k)$-pairs such that $\phi'\psi' = \phi''\psi''$.}
Assume that $T \stackrel{\psi'}\to H' \stackrel{\phi'}\to S$ is a
$(k,i)$-pair. Then $\alpha := \phi\psi$ has precisely two
nontrivial fibers, say $F'$ over $k$ and $F''$ over $i$. The weak
blow-up axiom produces the commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=1em@C=1em{
T \ar[ddr]_{\alpha} \ar[rr]^{\psi''} && H''\ar[ddl]^{\phi''}
\\
&\raisebox{.5em}{\WBU}&
\\
&S&
}
\]
in which $\phi''$ is elementary, with its only nontrivial fiber $F'$
over $k$ under the condition that the prescribed fiber
maps $\psi''_s$, $s \in |S|$, are the unique maps to the chosen local terminal objects
except $\psi''_k$ which is the identity $1\!\!1 : F' \to F'$. Then $(\phi'',\psi'')$ is an
$(i,k)$-pair and the correspondence $(\phi',\psi') \mapsto
(\phi'',\psi'')$ induces an isomorphism of isomorphism
classes.
By Corollary~\ref{zitra_vylet_do_Sydney}, in the presence of the
strong blow-up axiom, all pairs with disjoint
fibers are harmonic. Therefore the commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1em@C=4em{& {H'} \ar[dr]^{(\phi',\, i)} &
\\
S\ar[dr]^{(\psi'',\, l)} \ar[ur]^{(\psi',\, j)} && T
\\
&{H''}\ar[ur]^{(\phi'',\, k)}&
}
\]
where $(\phi',\psi')$ and $(\phi'',\psi'')$ are as in the claim and $|\phi''(l)=i$
leads, with the help of the dual of~\eqref{Napadne jeste tento rok
snih?} in which $G' = F''$ and $G'' = F'$ due to the harmonicity, to
\[
\xymatrix@C=1em@R=1.3em{
\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(H') \otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F') \ar[rr]^(.42){\delta_{\phi'} \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(T) \otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F'') \otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F') \ar[dd]^{1\!\!1 \otimes {\, \it transposition}}
\\
\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(S)\ar[d]_{\delta_{\psi''}}\ar[u]^{\delta_{\psi'}} &&
\\
\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(H'') \otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F'') \ar[rr]^(.42){\delta_{\phi''} \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(T) \otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F') \otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F'')
}
\]
As a simple application of the Koszul sign rule we obtain the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=1em@R=1.5em{
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F') \ar[rr]^(.42){\dusd{\phi'} \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F') \ar[dd]^{1\!\!1 \otimes {\, \rm transposition}}
\\
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\ar[d]_{\dusd{\psi''}}\ar[u]^{\dusd{\psi'}} & \hbox{\rm commutes up
to $-1$}&
\\
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H'') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'') \ar[rr]^(.42){\dusd{\phi''} \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'')
}
\]
commuting up to the multiplication by $-1$. Combining it
with diagram~\eqref{Napadne jeste tento rok snih?} applied to the composition
laws of the free Markl operad ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$ we get
\[
\xymatrix{
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F') \ar[r]^(.42){\dusd{\phi'} \otimes 1\!\!1}
&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F')\ar[r]^(.58){\circ_{\phi'} \otimes 1\!\!1}
& {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F') \ar[d]^{\circ_{\psi'}}
\\
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\ar[d]_{\dusd{\psi''}}\ar[u]^{\dusd{\psi'}} & \hbox{\rm commutes up
to $-1$}& {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)
\\
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H'') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'') \ar[r]^(.42){\dusd{\phi''} \otimes 1\!\!1}
&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'')
\ar[r]^(.58){\circ_{\phi''} \otimes 1\!\!1} & {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H'') \otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F'')
\ar[u]_{\circ_{\psi''}}
}
\]
expressing the equation
\[
\circ_{\psi'} (\circ_{\phi'} \otimes 1\!\!1)(\dusd{\phi'} \otimes 1\!\!1)
\dusd{\psi'} +
\circ_{\psi''} (\circ_{\phi''} \otimes 1\!\!1)(\dusd{\phi''} \otimes 1\!\!1)
\dusd{\psi''} =0.
\]
Invoking~\eqref{Zitra davam Zoom talk.},
we conclude that each summand of $\partial_L^2(x)''_{(k,i)}$ has its counterterm in
$\partial_L^2(x)''_{(i,k)}$.
This establishes~(\ref{Kimci}), therefore $\partial_L^2(x)'' = 0$, so we
may assume that the sum in~\eqref{Zitra davam Zoom talk.} runs over isomorphism
classes of pairs~(\ref{Snehu bude az moc.}) with $\phi$ and $\psi$
having {\em joint fibers\/}.
\noindent
{\it Analyzing $\partial^2_R(x)$.\/}
Let us perform similar analysis of $\partial^2_R(x)$. We have
\begin{align*}
\partial^2_R(x) = &
\sum_{{\boldsymbol \alpha}'} \ell^{\, *}_{\alpha'} \circ_{\alpha'}(1\!\!1 \otimes
\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}})\dusd{\alpha'}{\ell_{\alpha'}}_*(x)
= \sum_{{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \alpha}'} \ell^{\, *}_{\alpha'} \circ_{\alpha'}(1\!\!1 \otimes
\partial_{{\boldsymbol \beta}})\dusd{\alpha'}{\ell_{\alpha'}}_*(x)
\\
&= \sum_{{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \alpha}'} \ell^{\, *}_{\alpha'} \circ_{\alpha'}(1\!\!1
\otimes
\ell_\beta^{\, *} \circ_\beta \dusd\beta {\ell_\beta}_*)
\dusd{\alpha'}{\ell_{\alpha'}}_*(x)
\\
&=
\sum_{{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \alpha}'} \ell^{\, *}_{\alpha'} \circ_{\alpha'}
(1\!\!1 \otimes \ell_\beta^{\, *})(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\beta)(1\!\!1 \otimes
\dusd\beta)(1\!\!1 \otimes {\ell_\beta}_*)\dusd{\alpha'}{\ell_{\alpha'}}_*(x),
\end{align*}
where ${\boldsymbol \alpha}'$ and ${\boldsymbol \beta}$ run over representatives of the
isomorphism classes of labelled towers as in
\[
\twr X{A'}{\ T'\ ,}S{\ell_{\alpha'}}{\alpha'}{{\boldsymbol \alpha'}}
\twr {A'}F{\ A.}B{\ell_\beta}\beta{{\boldsymbol \beta}}
\]
Let us construct, out of ${\boldsymbol \alpha}'$ and ${\boldsymbol \beta}$, the commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=-.3em@C=1em{
&&A' \ar@{~>}[rr]^{\ell_\beta} &&A
\\
&&\triangledown&&\triangledown
\\
X \ar[rr]^{\ell_{\alpha'}}& &T' \ar[dddr]_{\alpha'}
\ar[rr]^{\underline \ell_\beta}
& &T\ar[dddl]^{\alpha
\\
&&& \WBU&
\\
&&& \rule{0pt}{2em} &
\\
&&& S&
}
\]
whose triangle is given by the weak blow-up axiom under the condition
that the prescribed map between the only nontrivial fibers is $\ell_\beta$ and
the remaining maps of the fibers are the identities.
Using~\eqref{Ve_ctvrtek_letim_do_Prahy.} and its dual as before, we
rewrite $\partial^2_R(x)$ as
\[
\partial^2_R(x) = \sum_{{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \alpha}'}
(\underline \ell_\beta \ell_{\alpha'})^*\!
\circ_\alpha \!(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\beta)(1\!\!1 \otimes \dusd\beta)\dusd\alpha
(\underline \ell_\beta \ell_{\alpha'})_*(x)
\]
which is the same as
\begin{equation}
\label{2-2-3-4}
\partial^2_R(x) = \sum_{{\boldsymbol \beta},{\boldsymbol \alpha}}
\ell^{*} \!
\circ_\alpha \!(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\beta)(1\!\!1 \otimes \dusd\beta)\,\dusd\alpha
\ell_*(x),
\end{equation}
where ${\boldsymbol \alpha}$ and ${\boldsymbol \beta}$ run over representatives of the
isomorphism classes of the towers as in
\begin{equation}
\label{po dvou dnech}
\twr XA{\ T\, ,}S{\ell}\alpha{\boldsymbol \alpha}
\twr AF{\ A.}B{1\!\!1}\beta{\boldsymbol \beta}
\end{equation}
The weak blow-up axiom produces a unique factorization
$\alpha = \phi\psi$ in the diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{na lyzich do Osecka}
\xymatrix@R=-.3em@C=1em{
A \ar@{~>}[rr]^{\beta} &&B
\\
\triangledown&&\triangledown
\\
S \ar[ddr]_{\alpha}
\ar[rr]^{\psi}
& &H\ar[ddl]^{\phi}
\\
& \raisebox{.7em}{\WBU} \rule{0pt}{3em} &&
\\
& T&
}
\end{equation}
in which $\alpha$ is elementary and the map between the only
nontrivial fibers of $\alpha$ resp.~$\phi$ is $\beta: A \to B$, as
symbolized by the wavy arrow. Notice that the pair $(\phi,\psi)$ has
joint fibers.
The dual of~\eqref{vymena} gives
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1.3em@C=1em{
&\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(S)\otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(A)
\ar[rd]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \delta_\beta}
&
\\
\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(T) \ar[ur]^(.4){\delta_\alpha}\ar[dr]_(.4){\delta_\psi}
&&\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(S)\otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(B)\otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F)
\\
&\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(H)\otimes \raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}(F)
\ar[ur]_{\delta_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&
}
\]
which, combined with the Koszul sign rule, leads to
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1.3em@C=1em{
&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(A)
\ar[rd]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \dusd\beta}
&
\\
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \ar[ur]^(.4){\dusd\alpha}\ar[dr]_(.4){\dusd\psi}
&\hbox{\rm commutes up
to $-1$}&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(B)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F)
\\
&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F)
\ar[ur]_{\dusd\phi \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&
}
\]
which commutes up to the multiplication by $-1$. Combining it with
diagram~\eqref{vymena} for the composition laws of the free operad
${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}})$, we obtain the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R = 1.3em@C=.5em{
&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(A)
\ar[rd]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \dusd\beta}
&& {{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(A)}
\ar[dr]^(.65){\circ_\alpha} &
\\
{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T) \ar[ur]^(.4){\dusd\alpha}\ar[dr]_(.4){\dusd\psi}
&\hbox{\rm commutes up
to $-1$}&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(S)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(B)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F)
\ar[dr]_{\circ_\phi\otimes 1\!\!1} \ar[ur]^{1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_{\beta}} && {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(T)
\\
&{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F)
\ar[ur]_{\dusd\phi \otimes 1\!\!1}
&&{{\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(H)\otimes {\desusp \overline{\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}}}(F)}\ar[ur]_(.65){\circ_\psi}&
}
\]
which translates into the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{Jarka uz je 14 dni na chalupe.}
\circ_{\psi} (\circ_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)(\dusd\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)\dusd\psi
+ \circ_\alpha(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\beta)(1\!\!1 \otimes \dusd\beta) \dusd\beta=0.
\end{equation}
Notice that the assignment $ (\alpha,\beta) \mapsto (\phi,\psi)$
described by diagram~\eqref{na lyzich do Osecka} induces an
isomorphism between the set of isomorphism classes of towers~(\ref{po
dvou dnech}) and~(\ref{Snehu bude az moc.}) with $ (\phi,\psi)$
having joint fibers. Its inverse
$(\phi,\psi) \mapsto (\alpha,\beta)$ produces $\alpha$ as the
composite $\phi\psi$ while $\beta$ is the induced map between the
unique nontrivial fibers as in
\[
\xymatrix@R=-.3em@C=1em{
A \ar@{~>}[rr]^{\beta} &&B
\\
\triangledown&&\triangledown
\\
S \ar[ddr]_{\phi\psi}
\ar[rr]^{\psi}
& &H\ar[ddl]^{\phi}
\\
& \rule{0pt}{2em} &&
\\
& T&
}
\]
Therefore, by~(\ref{Jarka uz je 14 dni na chalupe.}), each summand
$\ell^* \!\circ_{\psi}\! (\circ_\phi \otimes 1\!\!1)(\dusd\phi \otimes
1\!\!1)\dusd\psi \ell_*(x)$
of~\eqref{Zitra davam Zoom talk.} possesses its unique counterterm $\ell^* \!\circ_\alpha \!(1\!\!1 \otimes \circ_\beta)
(1\!\!1 \otimes \dusd\beta)\dusd\beta \ell_*(x)$ in the sum~(\ref{2-2-3-4}),
which proves that
\[
\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}^2(x) = \partial^2_L(x) + \partial^2_R(x) = 0
\]
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{Za chvili zavolam Taxovi.}
We call the dg operad ${\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}) = ({\mathbb \Omega}(\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}),\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}})$ the {\em cobar
construction\/} of a~Markl strictly counital $1$-connected
cooperad $\raisebox{.7em}{\rotatebox{180}{$\Markl$}}$.
\end{definition}
\section{The dual dg operad and Koszulity}
\label{Prevezu Tereje?}
The assumptions on the base operadic category ${\tt O}$ are the same as
in Section~\ref{Ceka mne nehezky vikend.}.
Let ${\EuScript M}$ be a strictly unital $1$-connected Markl operad satisfying
the assumptions of Example~\ref{Vse roztaje.}, so that the component-wise
linear dual ${\EuScript M}^* := \{{\EuScript M}(T)^*\}_{T \in {\tt O}}$ is a strictly counital
$1$-connected Markl cooperad.
\begin{definition}
\label{Nebrzdi mi kolo.}
The {\em dual dg
operad\/} of a Markl operad ${\EuScript M}$ as above is the dg operad
\[
{\mathbb D}({\EuScript M}) = ({\mathbb D}({\EuScript M}),\partial_{\mathbb D}) := ({\mathbb \Omega}({\EuScript M}^*),\partial_{{\mathbb \Omega}}),
\]
the cobar construction of the component-wise
linear dual of ${\EuScript M}$.
\end{definition}
Assume that ${\EuScript M} = {\mathbb F}(E)/(R)$ is a quadratic Markl operad as in
Definition~\ref{zitra_seminar} and ${\EuScript M}^!$ its
Koszul dual, cf.\ Definition~\ref{vice nez 10 000 pripadu denne}.
To introduce the Koszulity, we
start from the injection ${\uparrow} E \hookrightarrow {\EuScript M}^!$ of
collections defined as the composite
\[
{\uparrow} E \hookrightarrow {\mathbb F}({\uparrow} E)
\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb F}({\uparrow} E)/(R^\perp) = {\EuScript M}^!.
\]
Its linear dual ${{\EuScript M}^!}^* \twoheadrightarrow\ {\uparrow}
E$ desuspens to a map $\pi:\ {\downarrow} {{\EuScript M}^!}^*
\twoheadrightarrow E$. The related twisting
morphism ${\downarrow} {{\EuScript M}^!}^* \to {\EuScript M}$, defined as
the composite
\[
{\downarrow} {{\EuScript M}^!}^*\stackrel\pi\twoheadrightarrow E
\hookrightarrow {\mathbb F}(E)
\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb F}(E)/(R) = {\EuScript M},
\]
extends, by the freeness of ${\mathbb F}({\downarrow}
{{\EuScript M}^!}^*)$, into a morphism
$\rho : {\mathbb F}({\downarrow} {{\EuScript M}^!}^*) \to {\EuScript M}$ of Markl ${\tt O}$-operads.
One verifies by direct calculation:
\begin{proposition}
The morphism $\rho$ induces the {\em
canonical map\/}
\begin{equation}
\label{Jarce_prijede_M1_a_bude_do_soboty.}
\can:
{\mathbb D}({\EuScript M}^!) = ({\mathbb F}({\downarrow} {{\EuScript M}^!}^*), \partial_{\mathbb D}) \longrightarrow ({\EuScript M},0)
\end{equation}
of Markl dg ${\tt O}$-operads.
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
\label{hodnoceni snad odlozeno}
A quadratic Markl ${\tt O}$-operad ${\EuScript M}$ is {\em Koszul\/} if the
canonical map~\eqref{Jarce_prijede_M1_a_bude_do_soboty.} is
a~component-wise homology isomorphism.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
In the `classical' operad theory one proves that a quadratic operad is
Koszul if and only if its Koszul dual is Koszul~\cite[Proposition~4.1.4]{ginzburg-kapranov:DMJ94}. We believe
the same is true also in our setup, but postpone the proof for future work.
\end{remark}
In the rest of this section we establish the Koszulity of some of the binary
quadratic operads introduced in
Sections~\ref{zitra_budu_pit_na_zal}--\ref{Ta_moje_lenost_je_strasna.}. Namely,
we prove the Koszulity of the operad ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ whose algebras are
modular operads, of the operad $\termCGr$ governing cyclic operads, of
the operad ${\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre$ governing ordinary Markl operads and of the operad
${\sf 1}_\Whe$ describing wheeled properads. The Koszulity of the operad
${\sf 1}_{\Per}$ for permutads was already established \hbox{in~\cite[Corollary~49]{markl:perm}.}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Privezu Tereje?}
The binary quadratic operads ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$, $\termCGr$, ${\sf 1}_\ssRTre}\def\oddRTre{{\mathfrak K}_\ssRTre$
and ${\sf 1}_\Whe$ are Koszul.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We start with the most complex case of the terminal ${\tt ggGrc}$-operad ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$.
Our strategy will be to show that its minimal model ${\mathfrak M}_{{\tt ggGrc}}$
constructed in~\cite[Section~3]{BMO} is isomorphic to the dual dg operad ${\mathbb D}(\oddGr)$ of its
Koszul dual $\oddGr = {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}^!$, via an isomorphism compatible with the
resolving maps ${\mathfrak M}_{{\tt ggGrc}} \stackrel\rho\to {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$
resp.~${\mathbb D}(\oddGr) \stackrel\can\longrightarrow
{\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$.
It is not difficult to determine, using the presentation in the proof
of Theorem~\ref{vcera_jsem_podlehl},
the operad structure of $\oddGr$. As we noticed in Remark~\ref{zitra_vycvik_vlekare}, given a genus-graded connected
graph $\Gamma \in {\tt ggGrc}$, the corresponding piece $\oddGr(\Gamma)$ can be
identified with the one-dimensional vector space
${\rm det}(\Gamma):= {\rm det}({\rm edg}(\Gamma))$, the
determinant of the set of internal edges of $\Gamma$, placed in degree
$e(\Gamma)+1$, where $e(\Gamma)$, the grade of $\Gamma$ is, by
definition, the number of internal edges.
The unit map associated to a corolla $c \in {\tt ggGrc}$ is the canonical
isomorphism
\[
{\mathbb k} = {\rm det}(\emptyset) \cong \oddGr(c).
\]
Given two finite sets $S_1 = \{e^1_1,\ldots,e^1_a\}$ and
$S_2 = \{e^2_1,\ldots,e^2_b\}$, we define the canonical isomorphism
\[
\omega_{S_1,S_2}:
{\rm det}(S_1 \sqcup S_2) \to {\rm det}(S_1) \otimes {\rm det}(S_2).
\]
by
\[
\omega_{S_1,S_2}(e^1_1 \land \cdots \land e^1_a \land
e^2_1 \land \cdots \land e^2_b) := (e^1_1 \land \cdots \land e^1_a) \otimes
(e^2_1 \land \cdots \land e^2_b).
\]
Notice that if $\Gamma \triangleright \Gamma' \stackrel\tau\to \Gamma''$ is an
elementary morphisms, there is a natural isomorphism
\[
{\rm edg}(\Gamma') \cong {\rm edg}(\Gamma'') \sqcup {\rm edg}(\Gamma)
\]
of the sets of internal edges. The partial composition related to
$\tau$ then equals
\[
\xymatrix@1@C=5em{
\circ_\tau :
\oddGr(\Gamma'') \otimes \oddGr(\Gamma) \cong {\rm det}(\Gamma'') \otimes
{\rm det}(\Gamma)
\ar[r]^(.63){ \omega^{-1}_{{\rm edg}(\Gamma''),{\rm edg}(\Gamma)}} &\
{\rm det}(\Gamma') \cong \oddGr(\Gamma').
}
\]
Our next step will be to describe the dual dg operad
${\mathbb D}(\oddGr)$ which, by definition, equals the bar construction
${\mathbb \Omega}(\oddGr^*)$ of the cooperad $\oddGr^*$.
Paying attention to the Koszul sign rule, we determine the
cooperad structure operation of $\oddGr^*$ related to $\tau$ as
\[
\delta_\tau := (-1)^{(e(\Gamma'')+1)(e(\Gamma)+1)}\cdot
\circ^*_\tau
: \oddGr^*(\Gamma') \to \oddGr^*(\Gamma'') \otimes \oddGr^*(\Gamma).
\]
The underlying collection of the reduced cooperad $\overline{\oddGr^*}$ is given by
\[
\overline{\oddGr^*}(\Gamma) :=
\begin{cases}
\oddGr^*(\Gamma)&
\hbox {if $\Gamma$ has at least one internal edge,}
\\
0& \hbox {otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
The desuspended operation
\[
\dusd\tau
:= ({\downarrow} \otimes {\downarrow}) \relax{} \overline\delta_\tau \relax{} {\uparrow}:
{\downarrow} \overline\oddGr^*(\Gamma') \to {\downarrow} \overline\oddGr^*(\Gamma'') \otimes \overline{\downarrow} \oddGr^*(\Gamma)
\]
is then, with the help of the identification $\overline{\oddGr^*}(\Gamma) \cong
{\rm det}(\Gamma)$ for $\Gamma$ with at least one internal edge,
described as
\[
\dusd\tau = (-1)^{(e(\Gamma'')+1) +(e(\Gamma'')+1)(e(\Gamma)+1)}\cdot
\omega_{{\rm edg}(\Gamma''),{\rm edg}(\Gamma)} = (-1)^{e(\Gamma)(e(\Gamma'')+1)}\cdot
\omega_{{\rm edg}(\Gamma''),{\rm edg}(\Gamma)} .
\]
The new sign $ (-1)^{(e(\Gamma'')+1)}$ is the contribution of the
commutation of the first tensor factor of the image of $\overline\delta_\tau
\relax{} {\uparrow}$ over the desuspension ${\downarrow}$\,.
Let ${\boldsymbol \tau} = (\ell,{\boldsymbol {\EuScript T}}) \in {\tt lTw}^2(X)$ be the labelled tower
\[
\twr X{\Gamma}{\ \Gamma'.}{\Gamma''}\ell\tau{\boldsymbol \tau}
\]
We may assume that $\ell$ is a quasi\-bijection\ by
Proposition~\ref{22_hodin_cesty}.
Since quasi\-bijection{s} obviously act trivially on
$\oddGr$ and thus also on ${\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*}$,
formula~\eqref{Jarka mne chce prestavet byt.} for the component $\partial_{{\boldsymbol \tau}}$ of the
differential~\eqref{Terej bude mit elektrickou zarazku.} associated to
${\boldsymbol \tau}$ reads
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{k}
\partial_{{\boldsymbol \tau}}(x) =
(-1)^{e(\Gamma)(e(\Gamma'')+1)}\cdot \circ_\tau \,
\omega_{{\rm edg}(\Gamma),{\rm edg}(\Gamma'')}(x) \in {\mathbb F}^2({\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*})(X),
\end{equation}
for $x \in {\downarrow}\overline\oddGr^*(X) =
{\downarrow}\overline\oddGr^*(\Gamma)$.
Thus ${\mathbb D}(\oddGr) = ({\mathbb F}({\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*}), \partial_{\mathbb D})$, with
$\partial_{\mathbb D}$ given by the right-hand side of~\eqref{Jarka mne chce
prestavet byt.} with $\partial_{\boldsymbol \tau}$ as in~\eqref{k}.
To describe the map $\can : {\mathbb D}(\oddGr) \to {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$
notice that, for $\Gamma \in {\tt ggGrc}$ with precisely one internal edge,
${\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*}(\Gamma)$, being the desuspension of the dual
of the determinant of a~one-point set, is {\em canonically\/} isomorphic
to ${\mathbb k}$ placed in degree $0$. The operad morphism $\can$ is the unique extension of
the map ${\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*} \to {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ of collections whose
component ${\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*}(\Gamma) \to {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}(\Gamma)$
is trivial if $\Gamma$ has at least two internal edges, and which is
the canonical isomorphism ${\downarrow}\overline{\oddGr^*}(\Gamma) \cong
{\mathbb k} \cong {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}(\Gamma)$ if $\Gamma$ has exactly one internal edge.
This finishes the description of the dual dg operad ${\mathbb D}(\oddGr)$ and
the associated canonical map.
Recall that the underlying non-dg operad of the
minimal model ${\mathfrak M}_{{\tt ggGrc}}$ of ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$
in~\cite{BMO} is the free operad ${\mathbb F}(D)$ generated by the
collection $D$ which in fact coincides with ${\downarrow} \overline{\oddGr^*}$, so
${\mathbb D}(\oddGr) = {\mathfrak M}_{{\tt ggGrc}}$ as non-dg operads. With this
identification, the resolving map \hbox{$\rho: {\mathfrak M}_{{\tt ggGrc}} \to {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$}
equals the morphism $\can: {\mathbb D}(\oddGr) \to {\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$ described
above.
The differential $\partial$ of the minimal model translated to the formalism
used in this article is given by the
sum in the right-hand side of~\eqref{Terej bude mit elektrickou
zarazku.}, but the component
$\partial_{{\boldsymbol \tau}}$ is now
\begin{equation}
\label{l}
\partial_{{\boldsymbol \tau}}(x) =
(-1)^{e(\Gamma)}\cdot \circ_\tau \,
\omega_{{\rm edg}(\Gamma),{\rm edg}(\Gamma'')}(x) \in {\mathbb F}^2(D)(X),
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
cf.\ formula~(15b) of~\cite{BMO}. We see that expressions in~\eqref{k}
resp.~\eqref{l} agree up to the sign factor
$(-1)^{e(\Gamma'')e(\Gamma)}$. To compensate this discrepancy, we define a map
$\chi : \overline\oddGr^* \to D$ of collections by
\[
\chi(x) := (-1)^{\frac{e(\Gamma)(e(\Gamma)-1)}2}\cdot x
\hbox { for } x \in {\downarrow} \overline\oddGr^*(\Gamma)
\]
and denote by the same symbol also its unique extension $\chi :
{\mathbb F}({\downarrow} \overline\oddGr^*)
\to {\mathbb F}(D)$ into the operad morphism. It is simple to verify
that $\chi$ commutes with the differentials and that the
diagram
\[
\xymatrix@R=.6em{{\mathbb D}(\oddGr) \ar[rd]^\can \ar[dd]^\cong_\chi &
\\
&{\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}
\\
{\mathfrak M}_{{\tt ggGrc}} \ar[ur]^{\rho}&
}
\]
of dg operads commutes. Since $\rho$ is a component-wise homology isomorphism
by~\cite[Theorem~27]{BMO}, so is $\can$. This establishes the
Koszulity of ${\boldsymbol 1}_{\tt ggGrc}$.
The proofs of the remaining cases are similar. One describes the dual
dg operad by an obvious modification of the method above, and compares
it with the corresponding minimal models described in Theorem~28 and
Sections~3.4 and 3.5 of~\cite{BMO}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this work, we consider the quantum statistical mechanical system for two particles in the plane subject to attractive interactions. The Hamiltonian is the delta-Bose gas formally defined by
\begin{align}\label{def:deltaBose}
-\Delta_{x_1}-\Delta_{x_2}-\Lambda\delta(x_2-x_1).
\end{align}
where $\Delta_{x_j}$ is the two-dimensional Laplacian with respect to $x_j\in {\Bbb R}^2$, $\Lambda>0$ is a coupling constant for the interaction between two particles at $x_1,x_2$, and $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function. The construction of the semigroup solution by short-range interactions has been studied extensively by $L_2$-functional analytic methods and extends to multi-particles \cite{AGHH:2D, AGHH:Solvable, DFT:Schrodinger, DR:Schrodinger, GQT}. Our interest in this model arises from the probabilistic counterparts of its projection to $x_2-x_1$. By the Feynman--Kac formula, the corresponding semigroup can be formally presented as the expected exponential functional of the local time of planar Brownian motion. Additionally, in terms of the Kardar--Parisi--Zhang equation for interface growth, the semigroup characterizes the second moment of the stochastic heat equation in two dimensions. Based on these relations, our goal in this paper is to investigate the construction of the semigroup on $\mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$ by a smooth mollification of the delta potential. The convergence holds pointwise with respect to the initial condition.
To fix ideas, we begin with the definition of the approximate Hamiltonians for \eqref{def:deltaBose} and recall the earlier results by $L_2$-methods. Fix a probability density $\phi\in {\mathscr C}_c({\Bbb R}^2)$ and a constant $\lambda\in{\Bbb R}$. Define \begin{align}
\phi_{\varepsilon}(x)= {\varepsilon}^{-2}\phi({\varepsilon}^{-1}x),\quad
\Lambda_\vep =\Lambda_\vep(\lambda)=\frac{2\pi}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}+\frac{2\pi \lambda}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}.\label{def:J+lv}
\end{align}
As an approximation of the interaction part of the delta-Bose Hamiltonian in \eqref{def:deltaBose} for $x_2-x_1$, set
\begin{align}\label{def:Deltabeta}
H_{\varepsilon}\stackrel{\rm def}{=}-\Delta_x -\Lambda_{\varepsilon} \phi_{\varepsilon}(x),
\end{align}
where $\Delta_x$ is the two-dimensional Laplacian. Then $H_{\varepsilon}^\lambda$ converges to some $H^\lambda$, as self-adjoint operators on $L^2({\Bbb R}^2)$, in the norm resolvent sense, that is,
\[
(q I-H_{\varepsilon})^{-1}\xrightarrow[{\varepsilon} \to 0]{} (q I-H)^{-1} \mbox{}, \quad \forall\; q:\Im (q)\neq 0
\]
as a convergence of the $L_2({\Bbb R}^2)$-operator norms. Hence, for the convergence of semigroups, it holds that $P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}={\rm e}^{-tH_{\varepsilon}}$ converges to $P^\beta_t={\rm e}^{-tH}$ in the operator norm \cite[pp. 284--291]{RS}.
The kernels $P^\beta_t(x,y)$ can be characterized explicitly by using the Green function $G_q(x)=\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-q t}P_{2t}(x)\d t$ associated with the probability density $P_t(x-y)=P_t(x,y)$ of planar Brownian motion and a positive constant $\beta$:
\begin{align}\label{logbeta}
\frac{\log \beta}{2}=-\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}(\log |z-z'|)\phi(z)\phi(z')\d z\d z'+(\log 2+\lambda-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}),
\end{align}
where $\log$ is the natural logarithm and $\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}=0.57721...$ is the Euler--Mascheroni constant.
We have
\begin{align}\label{def:Rlambda}
\int_0^\infty{\rm e}^{-q t}P^\beta_t(x,z)\d t=G_q(x-z)+\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}G_q(x)G_q(z),\quad \forall\;q:\Re(q)>\beta.
\end{align}
See \cite[Section~2]{AGHH:2D}, \cite[Chapter~I.5, especially pp.102--104]{AGHH:Solvable}, and \cite[(2.7) and (2.10) for $n=2$ and $\beta={\rm e}^{-\alpha}$]{ABD:Schrodinger} for this convergence result.
An important application of these convergence results considers connections between the delta-Bose gas and the Kardar--Parisi--Zhang equation \cite{KPZ} in two spatial dimensions for isotropic surface growth models \cite{BC}. By the isotropy, the Kardar--Parisi--Zhang equation can be viewed in the form of the stochastic heat equation. Moreover, by the Feynman--Kac dual relation, the semigroup solution of the multi-particle delta-Bose gas coincides with the moments of the stochastic heat equation. On the other hand, in stark contrast to the case of one dimension, the stochastic heat equation in two dimensions does not allow for construction by It\^{o}'s theory due to the singularity of paths from the noise. Recently, there have been several methods for the construction by using smooth mollifications of the noise and appropriate normalizations. Under these settings, these results prove a sharp transition that starts from Gaussian limits in the subcritical case. Convergences in the critical regime have been obtained in \cite{CSZ,Feng,GQT}. We remark that the above Hamiltonians and the multi-particle generalizations are widely considered in one spatial dimension for the repulsive case $\Lambda<0$, known
as the Lieb--Liniger model \cite{LL:Bose,L:Bose}. In this case, the model is exactly solvable by the Bethe ansatz,
\begin{thm}[Main result]\label{thm:main1}
$P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)\to P^\beta_tf(x)$ for all $t\in [0,\infty)$, $f\in\mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$ and $ x\neq 0$.
\end{thm}
The proof proceeds with the Feynman--Kac representation of the approximate semigroups as exponential functionals with positive exponents of planar Brownian motion. With the scaling of $\Lambda_\vep$ specified above, the additive functionals approximate the local time at the origin of the planar Brownian motion and are known to converge in distribution to a standard exponential random variable by the Kallianpur--Robbins law. The main character is that despite the polarity of the origin, the coupling constant is capable of inducing non-triviality of the exponential functional in in the limit.
The present methods are drastically different from the functional analytic methods for the results discussed above in the $L_2$-setting. The basic idea is motivated by Kasahara and Kotani's \cite{KK} process-level approach, which extends the Kallianpur--Robbins law for the convergence of additive functionals of planar Brownian motion \cite{KR1,KR2} and Kasahara's second-order law for the fluctuations \cite{K1,K2}. This approach goes back to \cite{PSV}. Specifically, we use the strong ergodicity of the Brownian angular process for a crucial reduction, showing that the approximate semigroups depend only on the two-dimensional Bessel process. See also \cite{PY,PY2} for extensive discussions of additive functionals of planar Brownian motion. For the approximate semigroups under consideration, the issue arises from using the coupling constants in the critical window. After all, proving the asymptotic behaviour we need is at the level of expectations. The exponential random variable from the Kallianpur--Robbins law has an exponential moment that blows up at criticality. This part of the proof relies heavily on the excursion theory of the two-dimensional Bessel process for precise representations of the exponential functionals by the Green functions of the Bessel process. In particular, these methods show that the Kallianpur--Robbins law and Kasahara's second-order law are both present in the limiting semigroup. We notice that \cite{CFH} shows a comparable result in the form of strong approximations at the process level.
As an application, we extend the mode of convergence in Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} to the multi-particle setting. The limiting semigroup is presented as an infinite series as in the recent work of \cite{GQT} under the $L_2$-weak convergence by functional analytic methods. See also \cite{DFT:Schrodinger,DR:Schrodinger}. The starting point of the present proof begins with a probabilistic counterpart of a series expansion of the approximate semigroup from \cite{GQT}
by Poisson calculus. The expansion shows that the multi-particle semigroups can be reduced to those for two particles. To pass the limit of the series term by term, we extend some methods from \cite{CSZ} for the case of three particles to the case of $N$-particles for all $N\geq 3$.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Frequently used notation.} $C(T)\in(0,\infty)$ is a constant depending only on $T$ and may change
from inequality to inequality unless otherwise indexed by labels of equations. Other constants and parameters are defined analogously. We write $A\lesssim B$ or
$B\gtrsim A$ if $A\leq CB$ for a universal constant $C\in (0,\infty)$. $A\asymp B$ means both $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$. For a process $X$, ${\mathbb E}_x={\mathbb E}^X_x$ or ${\mathbb E}_\nu={\mathbb E}^X_\nu$ stresses that the initial condition is the point $x$ or obeys the law $\nu$.
\section{Attractive interactions of two particles as excursions}\label{sec:twobody}
Our goal in this section is to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} for a construction of the critical delta-Bose gas semigroup on $\mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$ in the presence of two particles. Recall that the approximation scheme is via a smooth mollification of the delta potential. We work with the Hamiltonian in \eqref{def:Deltabeta} for the interaction part. The semigroup solution can be characterized as the following Feynman--Kac semigroup:
\begin{align}\label{def:FK}
P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} {\mathbb E}^W_{x/{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep\int_0^t \phi_{\varepsilon}(\sqrt{2}W_r)\d r\right\}f({\sqrt{2}} W_t)\right],\quad f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2),
\end{align}
for a two-dimensional standard Brownian motion $W$. Here, $\sqrt{2}W$ is identified as the difference $B^2-B^1$ of two independent planar Brownian motions $B^1$ and $B^2$ under attractive interactions.
For \eqref{def:FK}, we fix once for all ${\overline{\vep}}={\overline{\vep}}(\lambda)\in (0,{\rm e}^{-{\rm e}^{100}})$ such that $\Lambda_\vep=\Lambda_\vep(\lambda) \in (0,1)$ and $1+\lambda/\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\in (0,2]$ for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}}]$. Set
\begin{align}\label{def:varphi}
\varphi(x)=\phi({\sqrt{2}} x)\quad \&\quad \varphi_{\varepsilon}(x)=\phi_{\varepsilon}({\sqrt{2}} x)
\end{align}
to circumvent $\sqrt{2}$'s in \eqref{def:FK}, and fix $M_\varphi\in (0,\infty)$ such that ${\rm supp}(\varphi)\subseteq \{x;|x|\leq M_\varphi\}$. We write
\[
A_{\varepsilon}^{o}(t)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \phi_{\varepsilon}({\sqrt{2}} W_r)\d r=\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_r)\d r.
\]
The next proposition is the starting point of our investigation. Write $P_t(x,\d y)=P_t(x,y)\d y$. The family $(P_t)$ is also understood as a semigroup of operators on $\mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:FK}
For all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$, $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$, and $x\in {\Bbb R}^2$, it holds that
\begin{align}
{\mathbb E}_{x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}f(W_{t})]&= P_tf(x)+\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2} P_{s}(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y){\mathbb E}_{y}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t-s)}f(W_{t-s})]
\label{eq:FK1}\\
\begin{split}\label{eq:FK2}
&= P_tf(x)+\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_s(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)P_{t-s}f(y)\\
&\quad\; +\Lambda_\vep ^2\int_0^t\d s \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_{s}(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau {\mathbb E}_y\big[{\rm e}^{A^o_{{\varepsilon}}(\tau)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}( W_\tau) P_{t-s-\tau}f(W_{\tau})\big].
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To lighten notation, write $g(y)$ for $\Lambda_\vep \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)$.
The proofs of \eqref{eq:FK1} and \eqref{eq:FK2} are straightforward applications of the following rules of backward differentiation and forward differentiation:
\begin{align}
1-{\rm e}^{\int_{0}^t\d rh(r)}
&=-\int_{0}^t \d sh(s) {\rm e}^{\int_{s}^t \d rh(r)}=-\int_0^t\d s {\rm e}^{\int_0^s\d rh(r)}h(s).
\label{taylor1}
\end{align}
Indeed, the backward differentiation in \eqref{taylor1} gives
\begin{align}
{\mathbb E}_{x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}f(W_{t})]
&= {\mathbb E}_{x}[f(W_{t})]+\int_0^t\d s {\mathbb E}_{x}\left[g( W_{s})\exp\left\{\int_s^t\d rg( W_{r})\right\}f( W_{t})\right]\notag\\
\begin{split}
&={\mathbb E}_{x}[f(W_{t})]+\int_0^t\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_s(x,\d y) g( y) {\mathbb E}_{y}\left[
\exp\left\{\int_0^{t-s}\d rg( W_{r})\right\}f(W_{t-s})\right],\label{exp1}
\end{split}
\end{align}
which proves \eqref{eq:FK1}, and we obtain from the forward differentiation in \eqref{taylor1} that
\begin{align}
&\quad\;{\mathbb E}_{y}\left[\exp\left\{\int_0^{t-s}\d r g(W_{r})\right\}f( W_{t-s})\right]\notag\\
&={\mathbb E}_{y}[f( W_{t-s})]+\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau{\mathbb E}_{y}\left[\exp\left\{\int_0^{\tau}\d rg( W_{r})\right\}g(W_{\tau}) f( W_{t-s})\right]\notag\\
&={\mathbb E}_{y}[f(W_{t-s})]+\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau {\mathbb E}_{y}\left[\exp\left\{\int_0^{\tau}\d r g( W_{r})\right\}g( W_\tau) P_{t-s-\tau}f(W_{\tau})\right].\label{diff:forward}
\end{align}
Combining the last equality and \eqref{exp1} proves \eqref{eq:FK2}.
\end{proof}
Observe that for nonzero $x\in {\Bbb R}^2$, the second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:FK2} tends to zero as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. Hence, \eqref{eq:FK2} suggests an informal approximation of the density of $P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}$ defined by \eqref{def:FK}:
\begin{align}\label{resemble}
P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}(x,z)\approx P_{2t}(x,z)+
\int_0^t\d s P_{2s}(x) \int_0^{t-s}\d \tau \frac{\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_0\big[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(\tau)}|W_\tau=0\big]}{4\pi \tau} \cdot P_{2(t-s-\tau)}(z).
\end{align}
In more detail, the approximation uses the following properties: ${\mathbb E}^W_{x/{\sqrt{2}}}[f({\sqrt{2}} W_t)]={\mathbb E}^W_x[f(W_{2t})]$, $\varphi_{\varepsilon}(y)\d y\approx (1/2) \delta_0(\d y)$, and $P_\tau(0)=1/(2\pi \tau)$. The following proposition shows an identity taking a form similar to \eqref{resemble}. Recall that the limiting kernel $P_t^{\beta}(x,z)$ from the $L_2$-theory is characterized by \eqref{def:Rlambda}, and $\beta$ is a positive constant defined by \eqref{logbeta}.
\begin{prop}
Write $\Gamma(z)=\int_0^\infty t^{z-1}{\rm e}^{-t}\d t$ for the gamma function, and set
\begin{align}\label{def:Tbeta}
\mathfrak s^\beta(\tau)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} 4\pi\int_0^\infty \d u\frac{\beta^u \tau^{u-1}}{\Gamma(u)}.
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}\label{Lap:Tbeta}
\int_0^\infty \d \tau {\rm e}^{-q \tau}\mathfrak s^\beta(\tau)=\frac{4\pi }{\log (q/\beta)},\quad \forall\; q\in (\beta,\infty),
\end{align}
and for all nonzero $x$ and $z$ such that $x\neq z$,
\begin{align}
P_t^\beta (x,z)
&=P_{2t}(x,z)+ \int_0^t\d sP_{2s}(x)\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau \mathfrak s^\beta(\tau)P_{2(t-s-\tau)}(z).
\label{def:Pbeta2}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Given $a,b\in (0,\infty)$, the one-dimensional marginals of the Gamma$(a,b)$-subordinator $X^{(a,b)}$ are given by
\begin{align}\label{def:Gamma}
\P(X^{(a,b)}_u\in \d \tau)=f^{(a,b)}_u(\tau)\d \tau,\quad f^{(a,b)}_u(\tau)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}
\frac{b^{au}\tau^{au-1}}{\Gamma(au)}{\rm e}^{-b\tau},\quad u,\tau> 0
\end{align}
with the Laplace transforms
\begin{align}\label{Lap:gamma}
{\mathbb E}[{\rm e}^{-q X^{(a,b)}_u}]=b^{au}(b+q)^{-au}={\rm e}^{-u a\log (1+q/b)}
\end{align}
\cite[p.73]{Bertoin}. Hence,
$\mathfrak s^\beta(\tau)= 4\pi \int_0^\infty \d u f^{(1,\beta)}_u(\tau){\rm e}^{ \beta\tau }$,
and \eqref{Lap:gamma} proves \eqref{Lap:Tbeta}:
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty \d \tau {\rm e}^{-q \tau}\mathfrak s^\beta(\tau)
=4\pi \int_0^\infty \d u{\mathbb E}[{\rm e}^{-(q-\beta)X^{(1,\beta)}_u}]=\frac{4\pi }{\log (q/\beta)}
,\quad \forall\; q\in (\beta,\infty).
\end{align*}
The other required identity, in \eqref{def:Pbeta2}, now follows from the last equality in \eqref{Lap:Tbeta} upon inverting Laplace transforms for both sides of \eqref{def:Rlambda}.
\end{proof}
Henceforth, the methods in the rest of this section are centered around the use of Proposition~\ref{prop:FK}.
\subsection{A-priori bounds}
We begin by proving some a-priori bounds for $P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$.
Consider a general convolution-type Gr\"onwall inequality: Given $T\in (0,\infty)$ and $a_{\varepsilon}(T)\in [0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}\label{Fvep:ineq}
F_{\varepsilon}(t)\leq a_{{\varepsilon}}(T)+\int_0^t b_{\varepsilon}(s)F_{\varepsilon}(t-s)\d s,\quad \forall\;t\in [0,T],
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
b_{\varepsilon}(s)=\Lambda_\vep\sup_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_{s}({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z)\varphi(z)\d z.\label{def:abe}
\end{align}
The following proposition proves exponential growth of nonnegative solutions to \eqref{Fvep:ineq}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:gronwall}
For all $T\in (0,\infty)$, $ q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda),\infty)$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq:gronwall}}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,q,\lambda)\wedge{\overline{\vep}})$, any $[0,\infty)$-valued increasing solution $F_{\varepsilon}(t)$ to \eqref{Fvep:ineq} satisfies
\begin{align}
F_{\varepsilon}(T)\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,q,\lambda) a_{\varepsilon}(T){\rm e}^{q T}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}.
\label{ineq:gronwall}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We first prove a general bound on $F_{\varepsilon}$ which does not use the particular form of $b_{\varepsilon}(t)$ in \eqref{def:abe}:
\begin{align}\label{ineq:gronwall0}
F_{\varepsilon}(T)\leq a_{\varepsilon}(T){\rm e}^{qT}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\int_0^T {\rm e}^{-qs}b_{\varepsilon}(s)\d s\right)^n.
\end{align}
To get this inequality, let $B_{\varepsilon}(t)=\int_0^t b_{\varepsilon}(s)\d s$, $\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots$ be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables with density $\mathds 1_{[0,T]}(t)b_{\varepsilon}(t)/B_{\varepsilon}(T)$, and $S_N=\sum_{n=1}^N\xi_n$. Then by \eqref{Fvep:ineq}, for all $0\leq t\leq T$ and $N\in \Bbb N$,
\begin{align}\label{G:ineq}
\begin{split}
F_{\varepsilon}(t)&\leq a_{\varepsilon}(T)\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n\P(S_n\leq t) + B_{\varepsilon}(T)^N\P(S_N\leq t)\cdot \sup_{0\leq s\leq t}F_{\varepsilon}(s)
\end{split}
\end{align}
\cite[pp.22--24]{Dalang}. To use this bound as $N\to\infty$, note that for all $q\in (0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}\label{series:q=0}
\int_0^\infty q {\rm e}^{-q t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n\P(S_n\leq t)\d t= \sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n{\mathbb E}[{\rm e}^{-q \xi_1}]^n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\int_0^T {\rm e}^{-qs}b_{\varepsilon}(s)\d s\right)^n,
\end{align}
where the first equality follows since $\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots$ are i.i.d., and the second equality uses the definition of the distribution of $\xi_1$. For every ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$, we can find some large $q$ such that the last series in \eqref{series:q=0} is convergent. Then the leftmost side of \eqref{series:q=0} shows that $\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n\P(S_n\leq t)<\infty$ for all $t\in [0,\infty)$ by monotonicity.
We are ready to prove \eqref{ineq:gronwall}. Since $\sup_{0\leq s\leq T}F_{\varepsilon}(s)\leq F_{\varepsilon}(T)<\infty$ by the assumption on $F_{\varepsilon}$, the convergence of $\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n\P(S_n\leq t)<\infty$ implies that, by passing $N\to\infty$ for the right-hand side of \eqref{G:ineq}, $F_{\varepsilon}(t)\leq a_{\varepsilon}(T)\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n\P(S_n\leq t)$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$, which immediately yields \eqref{ineq:gronwall} for $q=0$. For $q\in (0,\infty)$, we obtain \eqref{ineq:gronwall} from the last equality in \eqref{series:q=0} and the following consequence of \eqref{ineq:gronwall} with $q=0$:
\begin{align}\label{Lap:bdd}
\begin{split}
{\rm e}^{-q T}F_{\varepsilon}(T)&= \int_T^\infty q{\rm e}^{-q t}F_{\varepsilon}(T)\d t\leq a_{\varepsilon}(T)\int_0^\infty q {\rm e}^{-q t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{\varepsilon}(T)^n\P(S_n\leq t)\d t.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now we use the particular form of $b_{\varepsilon}$ in \eqref{def:abe}.
Fix $q\in (0,\infty)$, and recall the definition of $\Lambda_\vep$ in \eqref{def:J+lv}. By changing variable in $s$,
for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$ such that ${\varepsilon}^2q<1$,
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-q s}b_{\varepsilon}(s)
\d s
&\leq \Lambda_\vep\int_0^{{\varepsilon}^2}{\rm e}^{-q {\varepsilon}^2 s}\d s\|\varphi\|_\infty +\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{2\pi }\int_{{\varepsilon}^2}^{\infty}\frac{{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q s}}{s}\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\varphi(z)\d z\notag\\
&\leq \Lambda_\vep\int_0^1{\rm e}^{-q {\varepsilon}^2 s}\d s\|\varphi\|_\infty+\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{4\pi }\left(\int_{{\varepsilon}^2q}^{1}\frac{1}{s}\d s+\int_{1}^{\infty}{\rm e}^{-s}\d s\right)\notag\\
&\leq \left(\frac{2\pi}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}+\frac{2\pi \lambda}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\right)\|\varphi\|_\infty +\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{2\pi}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}+\frac{2\pi \lambda}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\right)
[-\log (q {\varepsilon}^2)+{\rm e}^{-1}]\notag\\
\begin{split}\label{Lap:b-bdd}
&=1+\frac{1}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\left(2\pi \|\varphi\|_\infty+\frac{-\log q +{\rm e}^{-1}}{2}+\lambda\right) \\
&\quad +\frac{\lambda }{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\left(2\pi \|\varphi\|_\infty+\frac{-\log q +{\rm e}^{-1}}{2}\right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Applying the last inequality to \eqref{ineq:gronwall0} proves \eqref{ineq:gronwall}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
The growth of $b_{\varepsilon}(s)$ in \eqref{def:abe} comes from the use of ${\varepsilon} y$, rather than $y$ of order $1$. The following lemma shows that the appropriate setting for the application of Lemma~\ref{lem:gronwall} is \eqref{eq:FK2}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:bounds}
For all $T\in (0,\infty)$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda))$,
\begin{align}\label{ineq:apriori}
&\quad\; \sup_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}\int_0^{T}\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} y}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_t)]\d t\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep [1+\log^+ ({\varepsilon}^{-2}T)]{\rm e}^{q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda)T}.
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Set
\begin{align}
F_{\varepsilon}(t')&=\sup_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}\int_0^{t'}\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} y}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_t)]\d t,\quad
a_{\varepsilon}(T)=\sup_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}\int_0^T \Lambda_\vep ^2 {\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} y}[\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_t)]\d t.\label{Fa:apriori}
\end{align}
Then \eqref{Fvep:ineq} holds if we apply \eqref{eq:FK1} with $f$ replaced by $\Lambda_\vep^2\varphi_{\varepsilon} $ and integrate over $0\leq t\leq t'$.
In more detail, after the integration, the corresponding second term in \eqref{eq:FK1} can be written as
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\Lambda_\vep\int_0^{t'}\d t \int_0^{t}\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z P_{s}({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z) \varphi( z)\Lambda_\vep ^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} z}\big[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t-s)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_{t-s})\big] \\
&= \int_0^{t'} \d s \Lambda_\vep\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z P_{s}({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z) \varphi( z)\int_0^{t'-s} \d t\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} z}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_{t})].
\end{align*}
To apply Lemma~\ref{lem:gronwall}, we only need to bound $a_{\varepsilon}(T)$. Write
\begin{align}
\int_0^T \Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} y}[\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_t)]\d t&=\Lambda_\vep ^2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2} \d z\varphi(z)\int_0^{{\varepsilon}^{-2}T} \frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{|y-z|^2}{2t}\right\}\d t\notag\\
&\leq \Lambda_\vep^2\|\varphi\|_\infty+\Lambda_\vep^2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\int_1^{({\varepsilon}^{-2}T)\vee 1}\frac{\d t}{t}.\notag
\end{align}
It follows that
\begin{align}\label{bounds:03}
\begin{split}
a_{\varepsilon}(T)&\lesssim C(\|\varphi\|_\infty)\Lambda_\vep^2 [1+\log^+ ({\varepsilon}^{-2}T)].
\end{split}
\end{align}
The required bound in \eqref{ineq:apriori} now follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:gronwall}
and \eqref{bounds:03}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Laplace transforms of the approximate semigroups}\label{sec:Lap}
From this point on until the end of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}, we consider the Laplace transform in time of $P^{\beta}_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$ defined by \eqref{def:FK}. In this subsection, we give the first simplification by showing the central role of the following functional:
\begin{align}
\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} y}[{\rm e}^{A^{o}_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}( W_t)]
=\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qt}{\mathbb E}^W_{y}[{\rm e}^{A_{\varepsilon}(t)} \varphi(W_{t})],
\label{main}
\end{align}
where the second equality uses the Brownian scaling $W_t\stackrel{\rm (d)}{=}{\varepsilon}^{-1}W_{{\varepsilon}^{2}t}$ and the notation
\begin{align}
A_{\varepsilon}(t)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \varphi(W_r)\d r.\label{def:A}
\end{align}
\begin{prop}
For all $0\neq x\in {\Bbb R}^2$, $q\in (0,q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda))$, and $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$, it holds that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\Bigg\{\int_0^\infty\d t {\rm e}^{-qt }{\mathbb E}_{x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}f(W_{t})]-\int_0^\infty\d t {\rm e}^{-qt } P_tf(x)\\
&\quad\;-\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d y\varphi(y) \int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t(x,{\varepsilon} y)\times \S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)\times \int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_tf(0)\Bigg\}=0.\label{Lap:int}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here, $\sup_{{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})}\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}^W_{x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}]<\infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We work with \eqref{eq:FK2} and divide the proof into a few steps. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 1.} We claim that for all $0\neq x\in {\Bbb R}^2$ and $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$,
\begin{gather}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_s(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)P_{t-s}f(y)=0,\quad \forall\; q\in (0,\infty);\label{lim:semi2}\\
\sup_{{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})}\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}_{x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}]<\infty,\quad \forall\; q\in (0,q_{\ref{ineq:apriori}}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,\lambda)).\label{sup:semi}
\end{gather}
To see \eqref{lim:semi2}, note that
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_s(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)P_{t-s}f(y)\\
&=\Lambda_\vep \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d y\varphi(y)\left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t(x,{\varepsilon} y)\right)\left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_{t}f({\varepsilon} y)\right)\xrightarrow[{\varepsilon}\to 0]{}0
\end{align*}
by dominated convergence.
As for \eqref{sup:semi}, we use \eqref{eq:FK2} and \eqref{lim:semi2} to get
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{Lapgibbs:bdd}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}_{x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}]
&\leq \int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}+\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d y\varphi(y)
\left(\int_0^\infty\d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t(x,{\varepsilon} y)\right)\\
&\quad\;\times \int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\sup_{0<|y'|\leq M_\varphi}\int_0^t \Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} y'}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_t)],
\end{split}
\end{align}
which is finite for all $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,\lambda),\infty)$ by \eqref{ineq:apriori}. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 2.}
In this step, we show that
\begin{align}\label{lim:sup000}
\sup_{z: \varphi_{\varepsilon}( z)>0}\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|P_tf( z)-P_tf(0)|\xrightarrow[{\varepsilon}\to 0]{}0,\quad\forall\; T\in (0,\infty).
\end{align}
To see this property, write $P_{t}f(z)={\mathbb E}[f(z+\sqrt{t}Z)]$ for $Z\sim \mathcal N(0,1)$. By truncation and a standard approximation of $L_1({\Bbb R}^2,\d z)$-functions by continuous functions \cite[Theorem~1.18 on p.34]{LL:Analysis},
$(z,t)\mapsto P_tf(z)$ is jointly continuous on ${\Bbb R}^2\times {\Bbb R}_+$, which is enough to get \eqref{lim:sup000}.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 3.}
We are ready to prove \eqref{Lap:int}. By \eqref{eq:FK2} and \eqref{lim:semi2}, it remains to show that
\begin{align}\label{lim:delta1}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\Lambda_\vep ^2\int_0^t\d s \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_{s}(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau {\mathbb E}_y[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(\tau)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}( W_\tau) P_{t-s-\tau}f( W_{\tau})]\\
&\quad\;\;\;-\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\Lambda_\vep ^2\int_0^t\d s \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_s(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau {\mathbb E}_y[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(\tau)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}( W_\tau)] P_{t-s-\tau}f(0)=0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Replacing $P_{t-s-\tau}f(0)$ with $\mathds 1_{\{t-s-\tau\geq L\}}$ in the second term in \eqref{lim:delta1} yields an integral of the form
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d yh_0(y)\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\int_0^t\d s h_{1,y}(s)\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau h_{2,y}(\tau)h_3(t-s-\tau)\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d yh_0(y)\left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt} h_{1,y}(t)\d t\right)\left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt} h_{2,y}(t)\d t\right)
\left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt} h_{3}(t)\d t\right).
\end{align*}
We also note that by \eqref{ineq:apriori},
\begin{align}\label{limsup:+++1}
\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}\Lambda_\vep ^2\int_0^t\d s \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_{s}(x,\d y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y)\int_0^{t-s}\d \tau {\mathbb E}_y[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(\tau)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}( W_\tau)]<\infty
\end{align}
for all $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,\lambda),\infty)$.
By \eqref{lim:sup000} and \eqref{limsup:+++1}, \eqref{lim:delta1} holds for all $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,\lambda),\infty)$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
{\bf We only consider nonzero $y$ for $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ in the rest of this section.} This assumption is justified by the role of $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ in \eqref{Lap:int} as an integrand.
\subsection{Asymptotic radial symmetry}\label{sec:gen}
View $W$ as a complex-valued process. Under a nonzero initial condition $W_0=y$, the skew-product representation of $W$ shows a two-dimensional standard Brownian motion $(\beta_t,\gamma_t)$ such that
\begin{align}\label{def:skew}
W_t=\rho_t\exp\{\i \theta_t\}\quad \mbox{ for }\;\rho_t=|W_t|=\exp\{\beta_{S_t^{-1}}\}\;\mbox{ and }\; \theta_t=\gamma_{S_t^{-1}},
\end{align}
where $S_t=\int_0^t{\rm e}^{2\beta_r}\d r$, or equivalently, $S_t^{-1}=\int_0^t \d r/\rho_r^2$, and
$\theta_0\in {\Bbb R}$ satisfies ${\rm e}^{\i \theta_0}=y/|y|$ \cite[p.193]{RY}. Note that $S_t\to\infty$ a.s. by the occupation times formula. We denote the two-dimensional Bessel process $(\rho_t)$ by ${\rm BES}^2$.
A decomposition of $\varphi$ analogous to the skew-product representation is
\begin{align}\label{def:Jdec}
\varphi(x)=\overline{\varphi}(|x|)+\widehat{\varphi}(x),\; x\in {\Bbb R}^2\quad\mbox{ for }\;
\overline{\varphi}(b)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \varphi(b{\rm e}^{\i\theta})\d \theta,\;b\in [0,\infty).
\end{align}
A key property is $\int \varphi(x)\d x=\int \overline{\varphi}(|x|)\d x$. The rescaled functions $\overline{\varphi}_{\varepsilon}$ and $\widehat{\varphi}_{\varepsilon}$ are defined as in \eqref{def:varphi}.
In this subsection, we consider three asymptotic reductions of $P^{\beta}_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. The first two are motivated by \cite{KK} and rely crucially on \eqref{def:skew} and \eqref{def:Jdec} such that the semigroup is shown to be asymptotically radially symmetric.
\subsubsection{Radial symmetrization of initial conditions}
The first step is to approximate $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ in \eqref{main} by replacing its initial condition with the distribution
\[
\u_{|y|}(H)\,\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\,\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\mathds 1_{H}(|y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta}),\quad H\in \mathscr B({\Bbb R}^2),
\]
where $\mathbf u$ is the uniform distribution on ${\Bbb T}=[-\pi,\pi)$. Set ${\dot{\gamma}}=\gamma$ mod $2\pi$.
The one-dimensional marginals of $({\dot{\gamma}}_t)$ have densities $\P({\dot{\gamma}}_t=\theta)$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure on ${\Bbb T}$ \cite[(1.2) on p.135]{KK}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:theta}
\P({\dot{\gamma}}_t=\theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\rm e}^{-n^2t/2}\cdot 2\cos(n\theta-n\gamma_0),\quad t\in (0,\infty),\; \theta\in {\Bbb T}.
\end{align}
Hence, $\mathbf u$ is the equilibrium distribution of $({\dot{\gamma}}_t)$, and the following rate of convergence holds:
\begin{align}\label{mixing}
|\P({\dot{\gamma}}_t=\theta)-1/(2\pi)|\leq \frac{\mathbf g(t)}{2\pi},\quad\mbox{ where }
\mathbf g(t)= 2\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\rm e}^{-n^2t/2}.
\end{align}
The counterpart of $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ where the angle of the initial condition is distributed uniformly is
\begin{align}
{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}^W_{\mathbf u_{{\varepsilon} |y|}}[{\rm e}^{A^{o}_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}( W_t)]=\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qt}{\mathbb E}^W_{ \u_{|y|}}[{\rm e}^{A_{\varepsilon}(t)} \varphi(W_{t})]\d t.
\end{align}
The next lemma shows the asymptotic equivalence of $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ and ${\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)$. For the proof, recall that the scale function and the speed measure of ${\rm BES}^2$ can be chosen to be $s(x)=2\log x$ and $m(\d x)=\mathds 1_{(0,\infty)}(x)x\d x$, respectively \cite[p.446]{RY}. Then
for all $0<g<a<d<\infty$ and nonnegative $F$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:exit}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_g\wedge T_d}F(\rho_s)\d s\right]&=2\int_a^d\frac{(\log a-\log g)(\log d-\log r)}{\log d-\log g} F(r) r\d r\\
&\quad +2\int_g^a\frac{(\log r-\log g)(\log d-\log a)}{\log d-\log g} F(r) r\d r
\end{split}
\end{align}
\cite[Corollary~3.8 on p.305]{RY}. Moreover, \eqref{eq:exit} implies
\begin{align}
{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_d}F(\rho_s)\d s\right]&=2\int_a^d(\log d-\log r) F(r) r\d r+2(\log d-\log a) \int_0^aF(r) r\d r,\label{eq:Tr}\\
{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_g}F(\rho_s)\d s\right]&=2(\log a-\log g) \int_a^\infty F(r) r\d r+2\int_g^a(\log r-\log g)F(r) r\d r,\label{eq:Tl}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:Tr} also uses the polarity of $0$.
We also use the following implications of the skew-product representation \eqref{def:skew}. Set
\begin{align}\label{def:TX}
T_a=T_a(X)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \inf\{t\geq 0;X_t=a\}
\end{align}
for any real-valued continuous process $X$. Then for all $b\in (0,\infty)$, $S^{-1}_{T_b(\rho)}=T_{\log b}(\beta)$ with the notation defined in \eqref{def:TX}, and it follows from changing variables that
for any nonnegative function $g$,
\begin{align}
\int_0^{T_{b}(\rho)}g(\rho_v)\d v &=\int_0^{T_{b}(\rho)}g(\exp\{\beta_{S^{-1}_r}\})\d r
=\int_0^{S^{-1}_{T_b(\rho)}}g(\exp\{\beta_v\})\exp\{2\beta_v\}\d v\notag\\
&=\int_0^{T_{\log b}(\beta)}g(\exp\{\beta_v\})\exp\{2\beta_v\}\d v.\label{ineq:SP:g}
\end{align}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:main:c}
Given any $M\in (0,\infty)$ and $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda),\infty)$, the following two-sided uniform bounds hold
for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$:
\begin{align}\label{lem:main:c:bdd}
\begin{split}
\inf_{y:0<|y|\leq M}\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y) &\geq \left( \frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(M \sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q }t)\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1} \sqrt{2q {\varepsilon}^2 }t)\d t}-\frac{C(M,\lambda)}{(\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{1/2}}\right)\\
&\quad\;\times {\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep} (q,\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})-C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)(\log \log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})\Lambda_\vep^2,\\
\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y) &\leq\left( \frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1} \sqrt{2\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty}t)\d t} +\frac{C(M,\lambda)}{(\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{1/2}}\right)\\
&\quad\;\times {\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) +C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)(\log \log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})\Lambda_\vep^2.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In particular, since $\sup_{{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})}\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})<\infty$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:bounds}, we get
\begin{align}\label{main:b}
\begin{split}
&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}\big|\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)-{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)\big|=0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Write $\eta_{\varepsilon}=\log \log {\varepsilon}^{-1}$, and decompose $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ according to
\begin{align}\label{S:main}
\S_{\varepsilon}^\beta(q,y) &=\Lambda_\vep^2 {\mathbb E}^W_{ y}\left[\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qt}{\rm e}^{A_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi(W_t)\d t\right]
+\Lambda_\vep^2 {\mathbb E}^W_{ y}\left[\int_{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qt}{\rm e}^{A_{\varepsilon}(t)}\varphi(W_t)\d t\right]\notag\\
&={\rm I}_{\ref{S:main}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm II}_{\ref{S:main}}({\varepsilon},q,y).
\end{align}
We bound the last two terms separately in the next two steps. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 1.} To bound ${\rm I}_{\ref{S:main}}({\varepsilon},q,y)$ over $0<|y|\leq M$, we consider
\begin{align}
&\quad\;{\rm I}_{\ref{S:main}}({\varepsilon},q,y)
\leq \Lambda_\vep^2 \|\varphi\|_\infty{\mathbb E}^W_{y}\left[\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty\int_0^{t} \mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_r)\d r\right\} \mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_t)\d t\right]\notag\\
&= \Lambda_\vep^2 \|\varphi\|_\infty{\mathbb E}^\rho_{|y|}\left[\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty\int_{t}^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)} \mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_r )\d r\right\} \mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_t)\d t\right]\notag\\
&\leq \Lambda_\vep^2 \|\varphi\|_\infty{\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\left[\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_t){\mathbb E}^\beta_{ \log \rho_t}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty\int_{0}^{T_{ \log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)}{\rm e}^{2\beta_r}\d r\right\}\right] \d t\right]\notag\\
&\leq \Lambda_\vep^2 \|\varphi\|_\infty{\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\left[\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_t) \d t\right]\sup_{z:0<|z|\leq M}
{\mathbb E}^\beta_{ \log |z|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty\int_{0}^{T_{ \log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)}{\rm e}^{2\beta_r}\d r\right\}\right],\label{II:equilibrium}
\end{align}
where the first equality follows from the second equality in \eqref{taylor1}, and the first inequality follows from the Markov property of $(\rho_t)$ and \eqref{ineq:SP:g}. Note that the use of ${\mathbb E}^\beta_{\log \rho_t}$ in the first inequality is valid since $\beta_0=\log \rho_0$ by \eqref{def:skew}. In the rest of this proof, we only consider ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$ such that $M\leq \eta_{\varepsilon}<0.5\cdot j_{0,1}/\sqrt{2\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty}$ unless otherwise mentioned, where $j_{0,1}$ is the smallest positive zero of the Bessel function of the first kind.
To bound the right-hand side of \eqref{II:equilibrium}, first, note that by \eqref{eq:Tr}, for all $0<|y|\leq M$,
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\left[\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_t) \d t\right]
&\leq C(M_\varphi)\log \eta_{\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
Additionally, for all $0<|z|\leq M$, it follows from \eqref{bm:prob4} that
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb E}^\beta_{ \log |z|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty\int_{0}^{T_{ \log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)}{\rm e}^{2\beta_r}\d r\right\}\right]\leq \frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos( \eta_{\varepsilon}\sqrt{2\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty}t)\d t}\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty).
\end{align*}
Applying the last two displays to \eqref{II:equilibrium} shows that
\begin{align}
\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}{\rm I}_{\ref{main}}({\varepsilon},q,y)\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)(\log \eta_{\varepsilon})\Lambda_\vep^2.\label{lem:main:c:bdd1}
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf Step 2.}
To bound ${\rm II}_{\ref{main}}$, we use the strong Markov property of planar Brownian motion at $T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)$:
\begin{align}
{\rm II}_{\ref{main}}({\varepsilon},q,y)
&= {\mathbb E}_{ y}^W\left[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)+A_{\varepsilon}(T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho))}\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}\big(q,\eta_{\varepsilon}\exp\big\{\i {\dot{\gamma}}_{\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\d v/\rho_v^2}\big\}\big)\right]\notag\\
&\leq {\mathbb E}^W_{y}\left[\exp\left\{ \Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_r)\d r\right\}\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}\big(q,\eta_{\varepsilon}\exp\big\{\i {\dot{\gamma}}_{\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\d v/\rho_v^2}\big\}\big)\right]\notag\\
\begin{split}
&\leq {\mathbb E}^\rho_{|y|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_r)\d r\right\}\right]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})\\
& \quad\; + {\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_r)\d r\right\}\mathbf g\left(\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\frac{\d v}{\rho_v^2}\right)\right]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})
\label{eq1:main:c}
\end{split}\end{align}
by \eqref{mixing}, where the last inequality follows since $(\rho_t){\perp\!\!\!\perp} (\gamma_t)$ and $\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\d v/\rho_v^2>0$ a.s.
To bound the expectations in \eqref{eq1:main:c}, note that by \eqref{ineq:SP:g},
\begin{align*}
&\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\frac{\d v}{\rho_v^2}=T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\quad\&\quad
\int_0^{T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathds 1_{[0,M_\varphi]}(\rho_r)\d r\leq \eta_{\varepsilon}^2T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta).
\end{align*}
Hence, the bound in \eqref{eq1:main:c} shows that for all $0<|y|\leq M$,
\begin{align}
{\rm II}_{\ref{main}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&\leq
{\mathbb E}^\rho_{|y|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty\int_0^{T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)}{\rm e}^{2\beta_r}\d r\right\}\right]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})\notag\\
&\quad\; + {\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\left[\exp\left\{\eta_{\varepsilon}^2\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\right\}\mathbf g\big(T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\big)\right]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})\notag\\
\begin{split}
&\leq\frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(\eta_{\varepsilon} \sqrt{2\Lambda_\vep \|\varphi\|_\infty}t)\d t}{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})\\
&\quad\;+ {\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\big[\exp\left\{\eta_{\varepsilon}^2\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\right\}\mathbf g\big(T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\big)\big]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon}),
\label{eq1:main:cc}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the last inequality uses \eqref{bm:prob4}. Similarly, for all $0<|y|\leq M$,
\begin{align}
{\rm II}_{\ref{main}} ({\varepsilon},q,y)&\geq {\mathbb E}^\rho_{|y|}[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})- {\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\big[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q T_{\eta_{\varepsilon}}(\rho)}\mathbf g\big(T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\big)\big]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})\notag\\
\begin{split}
&\geq \frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(M \sqrt{2 {\varepsilon}^2q }t)\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(\eta_{\varepsilon} \sqrt{2 {\varepsilon}^2q }t)\d t} {\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})-
{\mathbb E}^\rho_{ |y|}\big[\mathbf g\big(T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\big)\big]{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})
\label{eq2:main:c}
\end{split}
\end{align}
by \eqref{bes:hit2}. For the expectations in \eqref{eq1:main:cc} and \eqref{eq2:main:c}, note that for any $c\in [0,\|\varphi\|]$,
\begin{align}
&\quad\;\sup_{\beta_0:\beta_0\leq \log M}{\mathbb E}^\beta_{\beta_0}\big[{\rm e}^{\eta_{\varepsilon}^2\Lambda_\vep cT_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)}\mathbf g\big(T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)\big)\big]=\sup_{\beta_0:\beta_0\leq \log M}2\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\mathbb E}^\beta_{\beta_0}\big[{\rm e}^{-(-c\eta_{\varepsilon}^2\Lambda_\vep +n^2/2)T_{\log \eta_{\varepsilon}}(\beta)}\big]\notag\\
&=\sup_{\beta_0:\beta_0\leq \log M}2\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\rm e}^{-\sqrt{-2c\eta_{\varepsilon}^2\Lambda_\vep +n^2}(\log \eta_{\varepsilon}-\beta_0)}\leq \frac{C(M,\lambda)}{\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}},
\label{eq2:main:caux}
\end{align}
where the second equality follows from \cite[Proposition~II.3.7 on p.71]{RY}, and the last inequality holds by choosing smaller ${\varepsilon}$ if necessary in a way that still depends only on $(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M,\lambda)$.
By \eqref{eq1:main:cc}--\eqref{eq2:main:caux}, we get, for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0, {\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M,\lambda))$,
\begin{align}\label{lem:main:c:bdd2}
\begin{split}
\inf_{y:0<|y|\leq M}{\rm II}_{\ref{main}} ({\varepsilon},q,y)&\geq \frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(M \sqrt{2 {\varepsilon}^2q }t)\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(\eta_{\varepsilon} \sqrt{2q {\varepsilon}^2 }t)\d t}{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})-\frac{C(M,\lambda)}{\eta^{1/2}_{\varepsilon}}{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon}),\\
\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}{\rm II}_{\ref{main}} ({\varepsilon},q,y)&\leq\frac{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\d t}{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(\eta_{\varepsilon} \sqrt{2\Lambda_\vep\|\varphi\|_\infty }t)\d t} {\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon})+ \frac{C(M,\lambda)}{\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}}{\overline{\S}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,\eta_{\varepsilon}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf Step 3.} Putting together \eqref{lem:main:c:bdd1} and \eqref{lem:main:c:bdd2} yields the bounds in \eqref{lem:main:c:bdd}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Radialization of the potential}
The next step is to reduce the potential $\varphi$ in $P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$ to a radially symmetric function.
The method considers an alternative aspect of $\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)$ by the function
\begin{align}\label{def:Fvep}
F_{\varepsilon}(y,t)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\Lambda_\vep {\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} y}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}].
\end{align}
By \eqref{diff:forward},
\begin{align}\label{def:Fvep:Lap}
\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \int_0^\infty q{\rm e}^{-qt}F_{\varepsilon}(y,t) \d t=\Lambda_\vep +\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y).
\end{align}
Let us state the required approximation. Define the {\bf logarithmic energy} of $f$ by
\begin{align}\label{def:Ef}
\mathcal E(f)(y)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\frac{1}{\pi}f(y)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}f(z)\log \frac{1}{|y-z|}\d z.
\end{align}
Since $\widehat{\varphi}$ is bounded and has a support in $0\leq |y|\leq M_\varphi$, $\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})(y)$ has a support in the same set and
\[
\|\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})\|_\infty\leq \|\varphi\|_\infty^2\cdot\sup_{y:0\leq |y|\leq M_\varphi}\int_{|z|\leq M_\varphi}\big|\log |y-z|\big|\d z=C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi).
\]
We choose the approximation to be the following exponential functional of ${\rm BES}^2$:
\begin{align}\label{def:Gvep}
G_{\varepsilon}(|y|,t)=\Lambda_\vep {\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} |y|}^\rho\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{\varepsilon} (\rho_r)\d r\right\}\right],
\end{align}
where, with the uniform distribution $\u$ on ${\Bbb T}$ and ${\Bbb R}^2$ identified as the complex plane,
\begin{align}\label{def:oovarphi}
\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{\varepsilon}(|y|)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \overline{\varphi}_{\varepsilon}(|y|)+ \Lambda_\vep\int_{{\Bbb T}}{\varepsilon}^{-2}\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})({\varepsilon}^{-1}|y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta})\u(\d \theta).
\end{align}
We also set
\begin{align}
\mathcal LG_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\int_0^\infty q{\rm e}^{-qt}G_{\varepsilon}(|y|,t)\d t,\label{Lap:FG}\\
\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|y|)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \overline{\varphi}(|y|)+ \Lambda_\vep{\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|y|),\quad \mbox{where}\quad {\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|y|)=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})(|y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta})\u(\d \theta).
\label{def:varphi0}
\end{align}
Note that by radial symmetry, we can replace ${\mathbb E}^\rho_{{\varepsilon}|y|}$ in \eqref{def:Gvep} with ${\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} y}$ or ${\mathbb E}^{W}_{\mathbf u_{{\varepsilon} |y|}}$, and we have an important positivity of $\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}$ that will be used in Section~\ref{sec:radial}: for ${\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}}={\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}\label{oovarphi:positive}
\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(y)\geq 0,\quad \forall\;y\in {\Bbb R}^2,\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}}).
\end{align}
The property in \eqref{oovarphi:positive} follows from the definition of $\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}$ upon writing out its correction term:
\[
\Lambda_\vep{\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }=\Lambda_\vep\int_{{\Bbb T}}\frac{1}{\pi}[\varphi(|y|{\rm e}^{\i\theta})-\overline{\varphi}(|y|)]\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}[\varphi(z)-\overline{\varphi}(|z|)]\log \frac{1}{|y-z|}\d z\u (\d \theta)
\]
and bounding the $\d z$-integral on the right-hand side over all $y\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:replaceangle}
For all $M\in [M_\varphi,\infty)$, $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|,\lambda),\infty)$, and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}\label{ineq:replaceangle}
\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}|\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)-\mathcal LG_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)|\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep.
\end{align}
\end{prop}
For the proof, consider the following decompositions according to \eqref{def:Jdec}:
\begin{align}
\overline{F}_{\varepsilon}(|y|,t)&=\Lambda_\vep {\mathbb E}_{\u_{{\varepsilon}|y|}}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}],\quad \widehat{F}_{\varepsilon}(y,t)=F_{\varepsilon}(y,t)-\overline{F}_{\varepsilon}(|y|,t),\label{def:varF}\\
\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)&=\int_0^\infty \d t q{\rm e}^{-qt}\overline{F}_{\varepsilon}(|y|,t),\quad
\mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)=\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)-\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q).\label{def:varFLap}
\end{align}
By \eqref{eq:FK1}, the following expansions hold:
\begin{align}
\mathcal L F_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)&=\Lambda_\vep+\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep \int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q),\label{Lap:F}\\
\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)&=\Lambda_\vep+\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta) \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q),\label{Lap:oF}\\
\mathcal LG_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)&=\Lambda_\vep+\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta) \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal LG_{{\varepsilon},|z|}(q).\label{Lap:G}
\end{align}
The goal for the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:replaceangle} is to extract an approximate integral equation for $\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)$ from \eqref{Lap:oF} that takes the same form of \eqref{Lap:G}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:hFsmall}
For all $M\in (0,\infty)$, $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|,\lambda),\infty)$, and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}\label{hF:bdd}
\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}|\mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)|\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep .
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For this proof and those of the lemmas for Proposition~\ref{prop:replaceangle} presented below, we use the condition
\begin{align}\label{ass:radvepy}
{\varepsilon}\in(0,{\overline{\vep}}):{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}(M+2M_\varphi)/2^{1/2}\leq 1\quad \&\quad y:|y|\leq M.
\end{align}
Expand the resolvent densities in \eqref{Lap:F} and \eqref{Lap:oF} by \eqref{asymp:gauss}. Then under \eqref{ass:radvepy},
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep \int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q)\\
&=\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi} \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\left(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}+\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|y-z|}-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}+\mathcal O\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^2q|y-z|^2}{2} \log\frac{2^{1/2}} {{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|y-z|} \right)\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q).
\end{align*}
Take the differences of both sides of \eqref{Lap:F} and \eqref{Lap:oF} by using the foregoing display. Hence, under \eqref{ass:radvepy}, we have
\[
|\mathcal L \widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},y}(q)|\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q)\Lambda_\vep\cdot \sup_{z:0<|z|\leq M_\varphi}|\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q)|.
\]
The required bound now follows from the foregoing inequality and Proposition~\ref{prop:bounds}.
\end{proof}
Next, we proceed with a key decomposition of $\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)$ from \eqref{Lap:oF} as follows:
\begin{align}\label{dec:F}
\begin{split}
\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)&=\Lambda_\vep +{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm II}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm III}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)\\
&\quad\; +{\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm VI}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y).
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&= \int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q),\label{rad:term1}\\
{\rm I}\I_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\Lambda_\vep,\label{rad:term2}\\
\begin{split}\label{rad:term3}
{\rm I}\I{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right) \\
&\quad\;\times\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z')\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} z,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{rad:term4}
{\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)
&= \int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right) \\
&\quad\;\times\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} z,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q),
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{rad:term5}
{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)
&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right) \\
&\quad\;\times\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\widehat{\varphi}(z')\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} z,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q).
\end{split}
\end{align}
To verify the decomposition in \eqref{dec:F}, the reader may note that according to $\varphi(z')=\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)+\widehat{\varphi}(z')$,
\begin{align*}
{\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z \widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right) \\
&\quad\;\times\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z')\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} z,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q).
\end{align*}
So according to $\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)=\mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)+\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)$,
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; {\rm III}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\\
&\quad\;\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z')\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} z,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q).
\end{align*}
By the last equality, applying \eqref{Lap:F}, with $(y,z)$ replaced by $(z,z')$ there, to $\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q)$ shows that
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; {\rm II}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm III}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)+{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},z}(q).
\end{align*}
Finally, by using $\varphi(z)=\overline{\varphi}(|z|)+\widehat{\varphi}(z)$ again, we obtain from the last equality that the right-hand side of \eqref{dec:F} coincides with the right-hand side of \eqref{Lap:oF}.
In the next three lemmas, we estimate the five terms defined in \eqref{rad:term1}--\eqref{rad:term5}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:rad1}
For all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$, $q\in (0,\infty)$, and $y\in {\Bbb R}^2$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:rad1}
{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|,{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z|}(q).
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the definition in \eqref{rad:term1} and the skew-product representation in \eqref{def:skew},
\begin{align*}
{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&= \Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}^W_{\u_{{\varepsilon} |y|}}\left[{\varepsilon}^{-2}\overline{\varphi}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t\exp\big\{\i{\dot{\gamma}}_{\int_0^t \d v/\rho_v^2}\big\}}(q)\right]\\
&= \Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} |y|}^\rho\left[{\varepsilon}^{-2}\overline{\varphi}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\int_{\Bbb T} \u(\d \theta)\mathcal LF_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t{\rm e}^{\i \theta}}(q)\right]\\
&= \Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} |y|}^\rho\left[{\varepsilon}^{-2}\overline{\varphi}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t}(q)\right],
\end{align*}
where the second equality follows from the independence between $(\rho_t)$ and $(\gamma_t)$ and the stationarity of $({\dot{\gamma}}_t)$ under the initial condition $\u$, and the last equality follows from the definitions for $\overline{F}_{\varepsilon}$ in \eqref{def:varF} and \eqref{def:varFLap}. Rewriting the last equality in terms of the Brownian transition kernels $P_t(x,y)$ gives the required identity in \eqref{eq:rad1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:rad234}
Fix $M\in (0,\infty)$ and $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|,\lambda),\infty)$. Then for $|y|\leq M$,
\begin{align}
{\rm I}\I_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&=0,\quad \forall\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}});\label{est:2}\\
|{\rm I}\I{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)|&\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep ^2,\quad\forall \;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty, M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}});\label{est:3}\\
{\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)&=0,\quad \forall\; {\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}}). \label{est:4}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Both of the proofs of \eqref{est:2} and \eqref{est:4} use the mean-zero property:
\begin{align}\label{mean-zero}
\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\widehat{\varphi}(z)H(|z|)\d z=0
\end{align}
for any radially symmetric function $H(|z|)$.
For ${\rm I}\I_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)$, choose $H(|z|)$ to be
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|,{\varepsilon} |z|{\rm e}^{-\i\theta})\right)
\end{align*}
by the translation invariance of $\u(\d \theta)$. For ${\rm IV}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)$, choose $H(|z|)$ to be
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\int_{\Bbb T} \u(\d \theta)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} z,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)\\
&=\int_{\Bbb T} \u(\d \theta)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|,{\varepsilon} |z|{\rm e}^{-\i \theta})\right)\\
&\quad\; \times \int_0^\infty \d r'r'\int_{\Bbb T} \d \theta'\overline{\varphi}(r')\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty\d t' {\rm e}^{-qt'}P_{t'}({\varepsilon} |z|,{\varepsilon} r'{\rm e}^{\i \theta'})\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},r'}(q),
\end{align*}
where we have used the translation invariance of $\d\theta'$ and then the same property of $\u (\d \theta)$.
To get \eqref{est:3}, note that under \eqref{ass:radvepy},
\eqref{asymp:gauss} gives
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;{\rm I}\I{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z) \frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi} \left(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}+\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|}+ \mathcal O\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^2q|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|^2}{2}
\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|}\right)
\right) \\
&\quad\;\times\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z')\frac{ \Lambda_\vep}{\pi} \left(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}+\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|z-z'|}+ \mathcal O\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^2q|z-z'|^2}{2}
\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|z-z'|}\right)
\right) \mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q).
\end{align*}
For the right-hand side, note that under \eqref{ass:radvepy},
\begin{align*}
&\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z) \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right) \mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)=0,\\
&\left|\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right) \mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)\right|\\
&\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep \sup_{z':0<|z'|\leq M_\varphi}|\mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)|,\\
&\left|\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z) \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\varphi(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|z-z'|}\right) \mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)\right|\\
&\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep \sup_{z':0<|z'|\leq M_\varphi}|\mathcal L\widehat{F}_{{\varepsilon},z'}(q)|.
\end{align*}
Here, the first line uses the property $\int \widehat{\varphi}=0$. The other integrals from expanding the product in the last expression for ${\rm I}\I{\rm I}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)$ can be bounded in the same way as the last two inequalities.
We have proved \eqref{est:3} by this observation, the last two displays and \eqref{hF:bdd}.
\end{proof}
The next estimate will be used together with \eqref{eq:rad1} to get the required approximate integral equality for $\mathcal L \overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:rad5}
Fix $q,M\in (0,\infty)$. Then for $|y|\leq M$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty, M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{rad5:est}
&\left|{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)-\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\big(\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)-\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\big)\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|,{\varepsilon} z)\right)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z|}(q)\right|\\
&\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep^2.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses similar arguments for proving Lemma~\ref{lem:rad234}. Again, under \eqref{ass:radvepy},
\eqref{asymp:gauss} gives
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;{\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi} \left(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}+\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|}+ \mathcal O\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^2q|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|^2}{2}
\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|}\right)
\right) \\
&\quad\;\times\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\widehat{\varphi}(z') \frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi} \left(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}+\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|z-z'|}+ \mathcal O\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}^2q|z-z'|^2}{2}
\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|z-z'|}\right)
\right) \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q).
\end{align*}
To proceed, expand the product in the right-hand side of the last equality. Any term that involves one of the $\mathcal O$'s or does not use $\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}$ can be bounded by $C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep^2$.
For the remaining terms, it follows from \eqref{mean-zero} that
\begin{align}
&\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z)\left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\widehat{\varphi}(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right) \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)=0,\label{rad:5-00}\\
&\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z) \left(\frac{ \Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|y{\rm e}^{\i \theta}-z|}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\widehat{\varphi}(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right) \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)=0,\label{rad:5-000}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\quad\; \int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z) \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\widehat{\varphi}(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|z-z'|}\right) \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)\label{rad:5-0}\\
&= \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right)\Lambda_\vep\left(\frac{1}{\pi}\widehat{\varphi}(z')\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z \widehat{\varphi}(z)\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|z-z'|}\right) \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)\notag\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z' \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right) \Lambda_\vep\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})(z') \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)\notag\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z' \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right) \big(\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z'|)-\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\big)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q).\label{rad:5-1}
\end{align}
Here, the second equality follows from the definition of $\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})$ in \eqref{def:Ef} and the mean-zero property \eqref{mean-zero}, and the last equality uses the mean-zero property to remove the non-radial part of $\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})(z') $ and then the definition of $\overline{\overline{\varphi}}$ in \eqref{def:varphi0}. On the other hand, note that \eqref{asymp:gauss} gives
\begin{align}\label{rad:5-2}
\left|\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}-\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|,{\varepsilon} z')\right|\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep
\end{align}
for all $0<|y|\leq M_\varphi$ and $|z'|\leq M_\varphi$. We obtain from \eqref{rad:5-1} and \eqref{rad:5-2} that under \eqref{ass:radvepy}, the main term for \eqref{rad:5-0} satisfies the estimate
\begin{align*}
&\Bigg| \int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\widehat{\varphi}(z) \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\right)\times \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\widehat{\varphi}(z') \left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|z-z'|}\right) \mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)\\
&-\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|,{\varepsilon} z')\right)\big(\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z'|)-\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\big)\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|z'|}(q)\Bigg|\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep^2.
\end{align*}
The required bound now follows by applying the foregoing inequality, \eqref{rad:5-00}, \eqref{rad:5-000} and the observation in the first paragraph of this proof to the expression of ${\rm V}_{\ref{dec:F}}({\varepsilon},q,y)$ there.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[End of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:replaceangle}]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:hFsmall}, it remains to show that
\begin{align}\label{Delta:goal}
\Delta_{\varepsilon}\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}|\mathcal L\overline{F}_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)-\mathcal LG_{{\varepsilon},|y|}(q)|\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep.
\end{align}
Recall \eqref{dec:F} and the estimates in Lemmas~\ref{lem:rad1}--\ref{lem:rad5}. Since $M\geq M_\varphi$, it follows from \eqref{Lap:oF}, \eqref{Lap:G}, and \eqref{asymp:gauss} that all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty, M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}
\Delta_{\varepsilon}&\leq \sup_{y:<|y|\leq M}\left(\int_{{\Bbb T}}\u (\d \theta) \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\varphi(z)\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} |y|{\rm e}^{\i \theta},{\varepsilon} z)\right)\Delta_{\varepsilon}+C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep^2\notag\\
&\leq \left(1-\frac{C'(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\right)\Delta_{\varepsilon}+C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep^2.\label{Deltavep:bdd}
\end{align}
Note that in the last inequality, we have also used the following estimate:
\[
\left| \frac{\Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\int \varphi-1\right|\leq \frac{C(\lambda)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}},\quad \forall\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\lambda)).
\]
The required bound in \eqref{Delta:goal} for $\Delta_{\varepsilon}$ now follows from \eqref{Deltavep:bdd}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Cutoffs of potentials}
The last reduction considers a cutoff of potentials, which will be used in the next section due to the use of some exponential functionals of planar Brownian motion. We continue to work with the reduction from Proposition~\ref{prop:replaceangle}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:replace1}
Let $\chi_{\varepsilon}$ be $[0,1]$-valued functions such that for all $a>0$, $\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\chi_{\varepsilon}(a)=1$.
Then for all $M\in [M_\varphi,\infty)$, $q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda),\infty)$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}\label{lim:main:a}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-q t}{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} |y|}^\rho\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d r\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{{\varepsilon}} (\rho_r)\right\}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{{\varepsilon}}(\rho_{t})\big(1-\chi_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\big)\right]\\
&\quad\;\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\left(\frac{\Lambda_\vep\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}{\pi}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z|\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}(|z|)+\Lambda_\vep\right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Write $\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}=1-\chi_{\varepsilon}$. By an analogue of \eqref{eq:FK1} and a change of variables, we get
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-q t}{\mathbb E}^\rho_{{\varepsilon} |y|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d r\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{{\varepsilon}} (\rho_r)\right\} \overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{\varepsilon}(\rho_t)\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\right]\\
&=\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-q t}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d zP_t({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z) \overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}( |z|)+ \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z\left(\Lambda_\vep\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z)\right)\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(z) \\
&\quad\;\times \Lambda_\vep ^2\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-q t}{\mathbb E}^\rho_{{\varepsilon} |z|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d r\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{{\varepsilon}} (\rho_r)\right\} \overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{\varepsilon}(\rho_t)\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\right].
\end{align*}
It follows that
\[
L_{\varepsilon}(q)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\sup_{y:0<|y|<\infty}\left| \Lambda_\vep ^2\int_0^\infty \d t {\rm e}^{-q t}{\mathbb E}^\rho_{{\varepsilon} |y|}\left[\exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d r\overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{{\varepsilon}} (\rho_r)\right\} \overline{\overline{\varphi}}_{\varepsilon}(\rho_t)\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}({\varepsilon}^{-1}\rho_t)\right]\right|
\]
satisfies the inequality
\begin{align}\label{LAB}
L_{\varepsilon}(q)\leq A_{\varepsilon}(q)+B_{\varepsilon}(q)L_{\varepsilon}(q),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
A_{\varepsilon}(q)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \sup_{y:0<|y|<\infty}\left|\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-q t}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d zP_t({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z) \overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}( |z|)\right|,\\
B_{\varepsilon}(q)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt} \Lambda_\vep \sup_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z P_t({\varepsilon} y,{\varepsilon} z)|\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|.
\end{align*}
To bound $A_{\varepsilon}(q)$, we use \eqref{asymp:gauss} under condition \eqref{ass:radvepy} as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:hFsmall}. Hence, for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(M_\varphi,M,q)\wedge {\overline{\vep}})$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{Cutoff:A}
A_{\varepsilon}(q)&\leq \frac{\Lambda_\vep^2\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}{\pi}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z|\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|\widetilde{\chi}_{\varepsilon}(|z|)+C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,M,q,\lambda)\Lambda_\vep^2.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Additionally, since $\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}|\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\varepsilon}(|z|)|\d z
\leq 1/2+\Lambda_\vep C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)$,
the proof of \eqref{Lap:b-bdd} shows that
\begin{align}\label{Cutoff:B}
\begin{split}
B_{\varepsilon}(q)&\leq 1-\frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,q,\lambda)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}},\quad \forall\; q\in (q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda),\infty),\; \forall\; {\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)\wedge {\overline{\vep}}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
An application of \eqref{Cutoff:A} and \eqref{Cutoff:B} to \eqref{LAB} as in \eqref{Deltavep:bdd} shows \eqref{lim:main:a}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Let us summarize the reductions obtained so far in Propositions~\ref{prop:main:c}, \ref{prop:replaceangle} and \ref{prop:replace1}. With $\chi_{\varepsilon}$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop:replace1}, set
\begin{align}\label{main:aa}
{\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qt}{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} |y|}^\rho[{\rm e}^{{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)} \overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(\rho_{t})\chi_{\varepsilon}(\rho_t)]\d t,\quad\mbox{where }
{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Lambda_\vep \int_0^t \overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(\rho_r)\d r.
\end{align}
Then for all $M\in [M_\varphi,\infty)$ and $q\in (q(\|\infty\|_\infty,\lambda),\infty)$, it holds that
\begin{align}\label{SS:approx}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}|\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)-{\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)|=0.
\end{align}
We specify the choice of $\chi_{\varepsilon}$ in Section~\ref{sec:radial}.
\subsection{Semigroups for radially symmetric short-range potentials}\label{sec:radial}
In this section, we complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} by proving the asymptotic behavior of ${\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)$ defined in \eqref{main:aa}. We begin by summarizing some more basic properties of ${\rm BES}^2$. Write $(Q_t)$ for the probability semigroup of ${\rm BES}^2$. The densities (with respect to the Lebesgue measure) are given by
\begin{align}\label{def:density}
Q_t(a,b)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \frac{b}{t}\exp\left(-\frac{a^2+b^2}{2t}\right)I_0\left(\frac{ab}{t}\right),\quad \;\forall\; a,b,t\in (0,\infty),
\end{align}
with an extension to $a=0$ by continuity \cite[p.446]{RY}, where $I_0$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind \eqref{def:I}.
Recall that we work with $\rho_t=|W_t|$ as a version of ${\rm BES}^2$.
Since $\rho_0\neq 0$ by assumption and $0$ is polar \cite[p.442]{RY}, It\^{o}'s formula implies
\begin{align}\label{BES:SDE}
\d \rho_t=(2\rho_t)^{-1}\d t+\d \overline{W}_t,
\end{align}
where $\overline{W}$ is a one-dimensional standard Brownian motion given by $\d \overline{W}_t=\sum_j W_t^j\rho_t^{-1}\d W^j_t$ provided that $W=(W^1,W^2)$. We write $\P_a=\P^\rho_a$ and ${\mathbb E}_a={\mathbb E}^\rho_a$ throughout this subsection.
We fix the normalization of the semimartingale local times $L^b_t=L^b_t(\rho)$ at levels $b\in (0,\infty)$ according to Tanaka's formula. The occupation times formula holds in the following form with probability one:
\begin{align}\label{otf}
\int_0^t g(\rho_s)\d s=\int_{\Bbb R} g(b) L^{b}_t\d b,\quad\forall\;g\in \mathscr B_+({\Bbb R}),\;t\geq 0.
\end{align}
Moreover, since $\rho_t$ has a probability density for all $t>0$. one can choose a jointly continuous two-parameter modification ${\Bbb R}\times {\Bbb R}_+\times (b,t)\mapsto L^b_t$. Since $|W_t|\in L^p(\P)$ for all $p\in [1,\infty)$, an application of Tanaka's formula and the Burkholder--Davis--Gundy inequality to \eqref{BES:SDE} yields
\begin{align}\label{Lt:Lp}
\sup_{b\in {\Bbb R}}{\mathbb E}_a[(L^b_t)^p]<\infty,\quad \forall\; p\in [1,\infty),\; t>0.
\end{align}
See \cite[Section~VI.1]{RY} for these properties.
On the other hand, under $\P_b$ for $b\in (0,\infty)$, the Markovian local time at $b$
exists since $b$ is instantaneous and recurrent for $(\rho_t)$
by the skew-product representation \eqref{def:skew}. To use these two notions of local times at the same time, note that \eqref{otf} and \eqref{Lt:Lp} imply ${\mathbb E}_b[L^b_t]=\int_0^tQ_s(b,b)\d s>0$. Moreover, $t\mapsto L^b_t$ is $\P_b$-a.s. supported in $\{t;\rho_t=b\}$ \cite[Proposition~1.3 on p.222]{RY}. Hence, under $\P_b$ for $b\in(0,\infty)$, the strong Markov property of $(\rho_t)$ implies that $L^b$ is also the Markovian local time \cite[Proposition~IV.5 on p.111]{Bertoin}. The recurrence of $b$ gives $L^b_\infty=\infty$ \cite[p.114]{Bertoin}.
The application of ${\rm BES}^2$ in this subsection is conducted under the time scales of the inverse local times at levels $b$:
\[
\tau^b_t=\tau^b_t(\rho)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \inf\{s\geq 0;L^b_s>t\},
\]
under $\P_a$ for $a\in(0,\infty)$.
It holds that $\tau^b_t\nearrow +\infty$ a.s. and $\tau^b_0=T_b$, where $T_b=T_b(\rho)$. Then given an additional point $\partial$ isolated from $C({\Bbb R}_+,{\Bbb R}_+)$, the excursion process $(e^b_t;t>0)$ away from $b\in (0,\infty)$
for $(\rho_t)$ under $\P_b $ is a $C({\Bbb R}_+,{\Bbb R}_+)\cup \{\partial\}$-valued point process defined as follows: for all $t>0$,
\[
e^b_t=(e^b_{t,s};s\geq 0)=\big(\rho_{\tau^b_{t-}+s\wedge (\tau^b_t-\tau^b_{t-})};s\geq 0\big),\quad \mbox{if }\tau^b_t-\tau^b_{t-}>0;\quad e^b_t=\partial\quad\mbox{ otherwise}.
\]
Whenever $e_t^b\neq \partial$, $e^b_{t,0}=b$, $e^b_{t,s}\neq b$ for all $s\in (0,\zeta)$, and $e^b_{t,s}=b$ for all $s\geq \zeta$, where $\zeta=\zeta(e^b_t)=\inf\{s\geq 0;e^b_{t,s}=b\}$ is the lifetime of the excursion $e^b_t$. We extend any function $F$ on $C({\Bbb R}_+,{\Bbb R}_+)$ to $\{\partial\}$ by $F(\partial)=0$, so $\zeta(\partial)=0$. The process $(e^b_t;t>0)$ is a Poisson point process \cite[Theorem~10 on p.118]{Bertoin}. Its characteristic measure, denoted by ${\mathbf N}_b$, is the excursion measure.
Since $\tau^b_t-\tau^b_{t-}$ is the lifetime of $e^b_t$, the Laplace exponent of the subordinator $(\tau^b_t)$ can be expressed as follows by the exponential formula for Poisson point processes \cite[p.8]{Bertoin}:
\begin{align}\label{Phib:Lap}
-\log{\mathbb E}_b[{\rm e}^{-\mu\tau^b_1}]= \Phi_b(\mu)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}{\mathbf N}_b(1-{\rm e}^{-\mu\zeta}),\quad \forall\; \mu\in (0,\infty).
\end{align}
We are ready to present the starting point to calculate ${\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)$ defined in \eqref{main:aa}. Write ${\mathbb E}[X;\Gamma]={\mathbb E}[X\mathds 1_\Gamma]$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:LT}
\noindent {\rm (1${^\circ}$)} For all $a\in (0,\infty)$ and nonnegative processes $F(t)$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:Lap_LT}
b\mapsto {\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^\infty F(t)\d L^b_t\right] =
\int_0^\infty {\mathbb E}_a[ F(\tau^b_t)]\d t
\end{align}
is the density of the measure $\mathscr B((0,\infty))\ni \Gamma\mapsto \int_0^\infty {\mathbb E}_a[F(t);\rho_t\in \Gamma]\d t$.
In particular,
\begin{align}\label{Phib:resolvent}
\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-\mu t}Q_t(b,b)\d t={\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-\mu t}\d L^b_t\right]=\Phi_b(\mu)^{-1},\quad\forall\; \mu,b\in (0,\infty).
\end{align}
\noindent {\rm (2${^\circ}$)} Given $f\in {\mathscr C}_c({\Bbb R}_+)$, set $A(t)=\int_0^t f(\rho_{s})\d s$ and
\begin{align}\label{def:Phibf}
\Phi_b(\mu,f)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} {\mathbf N}_b(1-{\rm e}^{-\mu\zeta +A(\zeta)})
\end{align}
with the extended notation $A(t)=\int_0^t f(\epsilon_r)\d r$ under ${\mathbf N}_b(\d \epsilon)$.
Assume that for a fixed interval $[g,d]\subset(0,\infty)$, we can find $\mu\in (0,\infty)$ such that the following two conditions hold for all $b\in [g,d]$:
\begin{align}\label{cond:q}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{a\in {\rm supp} (f)\setminus\{0\}}{\mathbb E}_{a}[ {\rm e}^{-\mu T_b+ A(T_b)}]<\infty\quad \&\quad \Phi_b(\mu,f)\in (0,\infty),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $T_b=T_b(\rho)$ is defined in \eqref{def:TX}.
Then for all $a\in(0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}
b\mapsto \frac{{\mathbb E}_a[ {\rm e}^{-\mu T_b+ A(T_b)}]}{\Phi_b(\mu,f)}\mbox{ is the density of }\mathscr B([g,d])\ni \Gamma\mapsto \int_0^\infty {\mathbb E}_a\big[{\rm e}^{-\mu t}{\rm e}^{A(t)};\rho_t\in \Gamma\big]\d t.\label{LT:Tb}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
{\rm (1${^\circ}$)} Since $L^b_\infty=\infty$ $\P_a$-a.s. for $a,b\in (0,\infty)$, the change of variables formula for Stieltjes integrals \cite[Proposition~4.9 on p.8]{RY} immediately shows the equality in
\eqref{eq:Lap_LT}. To see the required density property, note that by the extended occupation times formula \cite[Exercise~1.15 on p.232]{RY},
\[
\int_0^\infty F(t)g(\rho_t)\d t=
\int_{0}^\infty \left(\int_0^\infty F(t)\d L^{b}_t\right)g(b)\d b,\quad\forall\; g\in \mathscr B_+({\Bbb R}_+).
\]
Taking expectations of both sides of the foregoing equality proves the required result. \medskip
\noindent (2${^\circ}$) For all $a,b\in (0,\infty)$, it holds that $\P_a$-a.s. $\tau^b_t=T_b+\tau^b_t\circ \theta_{T_b}$ for all $t\in (0,\infty)$, where $\theta_t$ is the shift operator. Hence, by the strong Markov property, we can write the second expectation in \eqref{eq:Lap_LT} with $F(t)={\rm e}^{-\mu t+A(t)}$ as
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty {\mathbb E}_a[ {\rm e}^{-\mu \tau^b_t+A(\tau^b_t)}]\d t
&= {\mathbb E}_a[ {\rm e}^{-\mu T_b+A(T_b)}]\int_0^\infty {\mathbb E}_b[ {\rm e}^{-\mu\tau^b_t+ A(\tau^b_t)}]\d t
\label{LT:2}.
\end{align}
For the last integral, note that since $\int_0^\infty \mathds 1_{\{\rho_r=b\}}\d r=0$ a.s.,
\begin{align*}
-\mu \tau^b_t+ A(\tau^b_t)
=\sum_{r:0< r\leq t}\int_0^{\zeta(e^b_r)} [-\mu+f(e^b_{r,s})]\d s=\sum_{r:0< r\leq t}[-\mu \zeta(e^b_r)+A(e^b_r)].
\end{align*}
Now, we work with $\mu$ assumed to satisfy both conditions in \eqref{cond:q}.
The integrability ${\mathbf N}_b(|1-{\rm e}^{-\mu\zeta +A(\zeta)}|)<\infty$ for all $b\in [g,d]$ is proven later on in Proposition~\ref{prop:Phibf} by using the first condition in \eqref{cond:q}.
Hence, by the last equality and
the exponential formula for Poisson point processes \cite[p.8]{Bertoin},
\begin{align}\label{Psi:exp}
{\mathbb E}_b\big[ {\rm e}^{-\mu\tau^b_t+A(\tau^b_t)}\big]={\rm e}^{-\Phi_{b}(\mu,f)t},\quad t\geq 0,
\end{align}
where $\Phi_b(\mu,f)$ is defined by \eqref{def:Phibf}. Since $\Phi_b(\mu,f)\in (0,\infty)$ by the second assumed condition in \eqref{cond:q}, the required property in \eqref{LT:Tb} follows from (1${^\circ}$) and \eqref{Psi:exp}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
The functional defined in \eqref{def:Phibf} can be represented explicitly.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Phibf}
Given $f\in {\mathscr C}_c({\Bbb R}_+)$, define $A(t)$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop:LT} {\rm (2${^\circ}$)}, and assume only the first condition in \eqref{cond:q}. Then for all $b\in [g,d]$, ${\mathbf N}_b(|1-{\rm e}^{-\mu\zeta +A(\zeta)}|)<\infty$ and
\begin{align}\label{Phiblambda:resolvent}
\Phi_b(\mu,f)
=\Phi_b(\mu)- \Phi_b(\mu){\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-\mu r} f(\rho_r){\mathbb E}_{\rho_r}[{\rm e}^{-\mu T_b+A(T_b)}]\d r\right].
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For $f\geq 0$, we can write
\begin{align*}
\Phi_b(\mu,f)
={\mathbf N}_b(1-{\rm e}^{-\mu \zeta})+
{\mathbf N}_b({\rm e}^{-\mu \zeta}-{\rm e}^{-\mu \zeta+A(\zeta)})
=\Phi_b(\mu)-
{\mathbf N}_b\left({\rm e}^{-\mu \zeta}\int_0^\zeta f(\epsilon_r) {\rm e}^{\int_r^\zeta f(\epsilon_s)\d s}\d r\right),
\end{align*}
where the last equality follows from the definition of $\Phi_b$ and \eqref{taylor1}. The last term can be written as
\begin{align}
{\mathbf N}_b\left({\rm e}^{-\mu \zeta}\int_0^\zeta f(\epsilon_r) {\rm e}^{\int_r^\zeta f(\epsilon_s)\d s}\d r\right)
&={\mathbf N}_b\left(\int_0^\zeta {\rm e}^{-\mu r}f(\epsilon_r){\mathbb E}_{\epsilon_r}[{\rm e}^{-\mu T_b+A(T_b)}]\d r\right)\label{Psib:0}\\
&=\Phi_b(\mu) {\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-\mu r} f(\rho_r){\mathbb E}_{\rho_r}[{\rm e}^{-\mu T_b+A(T_b)}]\d r\right].\label{Psib:1}
\end{align}
Here, \eqref{Psib:0} follows from the simple Markov property at $r$ under the excursion measure \cite[Theorem~III.3.(28) in pp.102--103]{Blumenthal}, and \eqref{Psib:1} follows from the compensation formula in excursion theory \cite[Corollary~11 on p.119]{Bertoin} and the second equality in \eqref{Phib:resolvent}. Combining \eqref{Psib:1} and the display before shows that under the first condition in \eqref{cond:q}, ${\mathbf N}_b(|1-{\rm e}^{-\mu\zeta +A(\zeta)}|)<\infty$ and \eqref{Phiblambda:resolvent} holds. These properties extend to a general $f\in {\mathscr C}_c({\Bbb R}_+)$ by considering $|f|$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
We apply Propositions~\ref{prop:LT} (2${^\circ}$) to ${\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)$ in \eqref{main:aa} by taking
\begin{align}\label{setting:radial}
f=f_{\varepsilon}=\Lambda_\vep \overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}\quad \&\quad \mu={\varepsilon}^2q,\quad \forall\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}}),
\end{align}
such that the positivity property \eqref{oovarphi:positive} holds. (Recall the function $\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}$ defined in \eqref{def:varphi0}.) For $\chi_{\varepsilon}$ to be specified near the end of this subsection, let $m_{\varepsilon}\in(0,\infty)$ be such that ${\rm supp}(\chi_{\varepsilon})\subseteq \{y:|y|\geq m_{\varepsilon}\}$. Then under the assumption of \eqref{cond:q} for $[g,d]=[m_{\varepsilon},M_\varphi]$, we can write
\begin{align}
{\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)&=\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty \frac{{\mathbb E}_{|y|}[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q T_b+{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(T_b)}]}{\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q, f_{\varepsilon})}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(b)\chi_{\varepsilon}(b)\d b,\label{eq2:main}
\end{align}
where $\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q, f_{\varepsilon})$ can be expanded as in \eqref{Phiblambda:resolvent}. Observe that in terms of \eqref{cond:q}, \eqref{Phiblambda:resolvent} and \eqref{eq2:main}, the first-passage functional
\begin{align}\label{def:k}
\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(a,b)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} {\mathbb E}_{a}[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q T_b+{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(T_b)}]
\end{align}
is the main object. Henceforth, the task to complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} is to verify the two conditions in \eqref{cond:q} for the choice in \eqref{setting:radial} and $[g,d]=[m_{\varepsilon},M_\varphi]$. For the following proofs, we set
\begin{align}\label{def:nubeta}
\nu_{\varepsilon}=\|\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}\|_\infty\Lambda_\vep\quad\& \quad \beta_{\varepsilon}=(\log \log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{2},
\end{align}
and we turn to the explicit formulas of some exponential functionals of Brownian motions.
\begin{lem}[Verification of the first condition of \eqref{cond:q}]\label{lem:kappato1}
For any $q\in (0,\infty)$ and $\delta\in (0,1)$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\frac{K_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}{K_0(M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}}} \sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}\leq \kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(a,b)\leq \frac{1}{\cos(\pi\delta/2)},\\
&\hspace{4cm}\forall\; a,b:M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}}}\leq b\leq a\leq M_\varphi,\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}}),\label{ineq1:k0}
\end{split}
\end{align}
and we can find ${\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}}={\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}}(M_\varphi,q,\lambda)\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$ such that $M_\varphi\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}<\pi/4$ and
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{I_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}&\leq \kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(a,b)
\leq \frac{ \int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\d t}
{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(M_\varphi\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}t)\d t},\\
&\hspace{1.05cm} \forall\; a,b:0<a\leq b\leq M_\varphi,\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}}).\label{ineq2:k0}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Hence, under the choice of \eqref{setting:radial}, the first condition in \eqref{cond:q} holds for all $[g,d]$ such that $M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}}}\leq g< d\leq M_\varphi$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(a,b)\geq {\mathbb E}_a[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qT_b}]$, the lower bounds in \eqref{ineq1:k} and \eqref{ineq2:k} follow readily from Theorem~\ref{thm:expmom1} and the standard properties of $K_0$ and $I_0$: $K_0$ is decreasing, $I_0$ is increasing, and $I_0(0)=1$.
The restrictions on $b$ in \eqref{ineq1:k0} and ${\varepsilon}$ in \eqref{ineq1:k0} and \eqref{ineq2:k0} are required for the upper bounds.
Note that by \eqref{ineq:SP:g},
\begin{align}
\Bigg|\int_0^{T_{b}(\rho)}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(\rho_v)\d v\Bigg|
\leq \|\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}\|_\infty\int_0^{T_{\log b}(\beta)}\mathds 1_{(-\infty,\log M_\varphi]}(\beta_v){\rm e}^{2\beta_v}\d v,\label{ineq:Tb}
\end{align}
where the last equality uses the assumption ${\rm supp}(\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep})\subset [0,M_\varphi]$. Hence, by Proposition~\ref{prop:expmom2},
\begin{align}
\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(a,b)&\leq \frac{\cos\big(\log (\tfrac{M_\varphi}{a\wedge M_\varphi})\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}\,\big)}{\cos\big(\log(\tfrac{M_\varphi}{b\wedge M_\varphi})\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}\,\big)},\hspace{1.96cm}\forall\;a,b: M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}}}<b\leq a;\label{ineq1:k}\\
\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(a,b)&\leq \frac{ \int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(a\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}t)\d t}
{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(b\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}t)\d t},\hspace{.6cm}\forall\;a,b: 0<a\leq b<\frac{j_{0,1}}{\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}}.\label{ineq2:k}
\end{align}
Since $\log(\tfrac{M_\varphi}{b\wedge M_\varphi})\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}\in [0,\pi/2)$ for $b>M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}}}}$, we obtain the upper bound in \eqref{ineq1:k0} from \eqref{ineq1:k} and the monotonicity of $\theta\mapsto \cos(\theta)$ in $ [0,\pi/2)$. To get \eqref{ineq2:k0}, choose ${\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}}={\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,\lambda)\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$ such that $M_\varphi< (\pi/4)/\sqrt{2\nu_{{\varepsilon}}}$ for all ${\varepsilon}\in(0, {\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}})$. Then for all these ${\varepsilon}$, $t\in (-1,1)$, and $0<b\leq M_\varphi$, we have $b\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}} |t|\leq M_\varphi\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}} |t|<\pi/4$. By the monotonicity of $\theta\mapsto \cos(\theta)$ in $[0,\pi/4)$ and in $(-\pi/4,0]$, \eqref{ineq2:k} is enough to get \eqref{ineq2:k0}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Let us introduce some tools to be used repeatedly in the sequel. First, recall the following asymptotic behavior of the Macdonald function $K_0$ \eqref{def:K}:
\begin{align}\label{ob3:K0}
K_0(r)\sim \log r^{-1},\quad r\to 0;\quad
K_0(r)\sim\sqrt{\pi/(2r)}{\rm e}^{-r},\quad r\to \infty.
\end{align}
\cite[(5.16.4) and (5.16.5) on p.136]{Lebedev}. We also need the identity:
\begin{align}
\label{int:harmonic}
\int_{-\pi}^\pi \log |1-r{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|\d \theta=0,\quad\forall\;r\in [0,1].
\end{align}
To see \eqref{int:harmonic}, note that it holds for all $r\in [0,1)$ by the mean-value property of $\Bbb C\ni z\mapsto \log |1-z|$ in the centered open disc with radius one. The identity extends to $r=1$ by dominated convergence.
Our next goal is to validate the second condition of \eqref{cond:q} by working with \eqref{Phiblambda:resolvent}.
We start with an asymptotic expansion of $\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q)^{-1}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Phibasymp}
Given any $q\in (0,\infty)$, there exist ${\varepsilon}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus}}={\varepsilon}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus}}(M_\varphi,q)\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$ and a function $\eta_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus_bdd}}({\varepsilon})>0$ depending only on $(M_\varphi,q,{\varepsilon})$ and tending to zero as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$, such that the following properties hold for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus}})$ and $b\in (0,M_\varphi]$:
\begin{align}\label{asymp:Phibminus}
\begin{split}
&\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q)^{-1}
=2b\log {\varepsilon}^{-1} +2b\left(\frac{\log 2-\log q}{2}-\log b-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}\right)+{\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}),
\end{split}\\
\label{asymp:Phibminus_bdd}
&|{\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|\lesssim
b\cdot \eta_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus_bdd}}({\varepsilon}).
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{Phib:resolvent} and then polar coordinates with a change of variable in $t$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q)^{-1}&=\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q t}Q_t(b,b)\d t=\int_{-\pi}^\pi b\cdot \int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm e}^{- t} }{2\pi t}\exp\left(-\frac{{\varepsilon}^2qb^2|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|^2}{2t}\right)\d t\d \theta.
\end{align*}
Hence, by \eqref{ob3:K0} and \eqref{asymp:gauss}, we get
\begin{align}
\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q)^{-1}&= \int_{-\pi}^\pi b\cdot \frac{1}{\pi}\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|}
\d\theta+\int_{-\pi}^\pi b\cdot \frac{1}{\pi}\left(\frac{\log 2}{2}-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}\right)\d \theta+{\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus0}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})\label{asymp:Phibminus0}\\
\begin{split}\label{asymp:Phibminus0+1}
&=-2b\log q^{1/2}-2b\log {\varepsilon}-2b\log b-\frac{b}{\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \log |1-{\rm e}^{\i\theta}| \d \theta\\
&\quad\;+2b\left(\frac{\log 2}{2}-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}\right)+{\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus0}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
&|{\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus0}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|\lesssim \left| \int_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle -\pi\leq \theta\leq \pi}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|\geq 1}} b\cdot \frac{1}{\pi}\left(\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|}-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}\right)
\d\theta\right|\\
&\hspace{1.8cm}+ \int_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle -\pi\leq \theta\leq \pi}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|\geq 1}} b\cdot {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|}\d \theta+\int_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle -\pi\leq \theta\leq \pi}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|< 1}} b\cdot {\varepsilon}^2q b^2|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|^2\log \frac{1}{ {\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|}\d \theta.
\end{align*}
To bound the right-hand side of the foregoing $\lesssim$-inequality, notice that ${\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|\geq 1$ for some $|\theta|\leq \pi$ implies ${\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b|1-{\rm e}^{\i \pi}|\geq 1$, and $\int_{0+}\big|\log |1-{\rm e}^{\i \theta}|\big|\d \theta<\infty$ holds. Hence,
\begin{align}\label{asymp:Phibminus_bdd++}
|{\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus0}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|&\lesssim
b\mathds 1_{\{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2} b\geq 1/4\}}\left(\left|\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b}\right|+1\right)+
b\cdot {\varepsilon}^2qb^2\left(\left|\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}b}\right|+1\right).
\end{align}
Finally, \eqref{asymp:Phibminus} follows from \eqref{asymp:Phibminus0+1} and \eqref{int:harmonic} if we set ${\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})={\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus0}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$. Then \eqref{asymp:Phibminus_bdd} holds by \eqref{asymp:Phibminus_bdd++} and the monotonicity of $r^2\log r^{-1}$ over $(0,{\rm e}^{-1/2}]$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Next, we consider the following Green function that enters $\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q,f_{\varepsilon})$ via \eqref{Phiblambda:resolvent}:
\begin{align}\label{inter:1}
{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r){\mathbb E}_{\rho_r}\big[{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qT_b+{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(T_b)}\big]\d r\right]=
{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_r,b)\d r\right],
\end{align}
where we use the notation in \eqref{def:k}. The asymptotic behavior of this term calls for the main technical considerations. We expand $\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}$ in ${\varepsilon}$. To this end, note that by the first equality in \eqref{taylor1},
\begin{align}\label{eq0:Qexp}
{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qT_b+{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(T_b)}=1+\int_0^{T_b}[-{\varepsilon}^2q+f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s)]{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q(T_b-s)+\int_s^{T_b}f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\d r}\d s,
\end{align}
or equivalently,
\begin{align}\label{eq:Qexp}
{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qT_b+{\overline{\overline{A}}}_{\varepsilon}(T_b)}+\int_0^{T_b}{\varepsilon}^2q{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q(T_b-s)+\int_s^{T_b}f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\d r}\d s=1+\int_0^{T_b}f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s){\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q(T_b-s)+\int_s^{T_b}f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\d r}\d s.
\end{align}
Taking expectations of both sides of \eqref{eq:Qexp} and applying the Markov property of $(\rho_t)$ yield
\begin{align}
\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(a,b)+{\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]
&=1+ {\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_b}f_{\varepsilon} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right].\label{inter:2}
\end{align}
Applying \eqref{inter:2} to the right-hand side of \eqref{inter:1}, we get
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{exp:Green}
\quad\;{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r,b)\d r\right]+{\rm III}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})
=1-{\rm I}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})-{\rm II}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
{\rm I}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})&=1-{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\d r\right],\\
{\rm II}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})&=-{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r){\mathbb E}_{\rho_r}\left[\int_0^{T_b}f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]\d r\right],\\
{\rm III}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})&={\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r) {\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_{\rho_r}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right] \d r\right].
\end{align*}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:kappaasymp}
{\rm (1${^\circ}$)} It holds that
\begin{align}
&\quad\;\eqspace \sup_{a,b:0< a\leq b\leq M_\varphi}{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]\leq C(M_\varphi),\quad \forall\; {\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}}).\label{kappaasymp:1}
\end{align}
{\rm (2${^\circ}$)} Given any $q\in (0,\infty)$ and $\delta\in (0,1)$, we can find a function
$\eta_{\ref{kappaasymp:2}}({\varepsilon})>0$ depending only on $(M_\varphi,q,\delta,\lambda,{\varepsilon})$ and tending to zero as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$,
such that, for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\sup_{a,b:M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b< a\leq M_\varphi} \left|\frac{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot {\varepsilon}^2q}{\log a-\log b}{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]-1\right|\leq \eta_{\ref{kappaasymp:2}}({\varepsilon}),
\end{split}
\label{kappaasymp:2}
\end{align}
where $\nu_{\varepsilon}$ and $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ are defined in \eqref{def:nubeta}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1${^\circ}$) By \eqref{eq:Tr} and \eqref{ineq2:k0}, we have, for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{ineq2:k0}})$ and $0<a\leq b\leq M_\varphi$,
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]&\lesssim
2\int_a^b(\log b-\log r) r\d r+2(\log b-\log a) \int_0^a r\d r\\
&=2\log b\int_0^br \d r-2\int_a^b (\log r)r \d r-2\log a\int_0^a r\d r,
\end{align*}
which is enough for \eqref{kappaasymp:1}. \medskip
\noindent (2${^\circ}$) The proof of \eqref{kappaasymp:2} considers the following identity from \eqref{eq:Tl}: for $0<b\leq a<\infty$,
\begin{align}\label{eq1:Q20}
\begin{split}
(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})\cdot {\varepsilon}^2q\cdot {\mathbb E}_a\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]&=(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot (\log a-\log b) \int_a^\infty \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b) r\d r\\
&\quad +(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_b^a(\log r-\log b)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b) r\d r.
\end{split}
\end{align}
For all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$ and all $a,b$ such that $M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b\leq a\leq M_\varphi$, the upper bound in \eqref{ineq1:k0} shows that the last term in \eqref{eq1:Q20} satisfies
\begin{align}
(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_b^a(\log r-\log b)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b) r\d r &\leq (\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \cdot {\varepsilon}^2q\cdot C(M_\varphi,\delta)(\log a-\log b).
\label{eq1:Q200}
\end{align}
For the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq1:Q20}, it remains to estimate
\begin{align}\label{Kint+++}
(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_a^\infty \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b) r\d r.
\end{align}
Consider two-sided bounds of $\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(r,b)$ as follows.
For any ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$, we extend $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ in \eqref{def:nubeta} to a pair of H\"older conjugates $(\alpha_{\varepsilon},\beta_{\varepsilon})$ defined by
\begin{align}\label{def:alphabeta}
\alpha_{\varepsilon}=[1-(\log \log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{-2}]^{-1},\quad \beta_{\varepsilon}=(\log\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2.
\end{align}
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:kappato1}, it follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:expmom1} and Proposition~\ref{prop:expmom2}, for all $b$ such that $M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b\leq M_\varphi$, $b\leq r<\infty$, and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{K_0(r\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}{K_0(b\sqrt{2 {\varepsilon}^2q})}\leq \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b)
&\leq \left(\frac{K_0(r\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q}\,)}{K_0(b\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q}\,)}\right)^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}
\frac{1}{\cos(\pi\delta /2)^{1/\beta_{\varepsilon}}}.
\end{align*}
Here, the upper bound follows from H\"older's inequality and the argument in the proof of \eqref{ineq1:k0} (with $\nu_{\varepsilon}$ replaced by $\nu_{\varepsilon} \beta_{\varepsilon}$ in \eqref{ineq1:k}). Moreover, since $K_0$ is strictly decreasing, the foregoing display implies
\begin{align}\label{ineq2:Q}
\frac{K_0(r\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}{K_0(M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\sqrt{2 {\varepsilon}^2q})}\leq \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b)
&\leq \left(\frac{K_0(r\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q}\,)}{K_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q}\,)}\right)^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}
\frac{1}{\cos(\pi\delta /2)^{1/\beta_{\varepsilon}}}.
\end{align}
Now, consider a lower bound of the term in \eqref{Kint+++}.
By the lower bound in \eqref{ineq2:Q}, for all $a,b$ such that $M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b\leq a\leq M_\varphi$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$,
\begin{align}
(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \cdot 2 {\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_a^\infty \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b) r\d r
&\geq \log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_a^\infty \frac{K_0(r\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})r\d r}{{K_0(M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}} \notag\\
&=\log {\varepsilon}^{-1} \cdot \frac{a\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q}K_1(a\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}{{K_0(M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}}\notag\\
&\geq \log {\varepsilon}^{-1} \cdot \frac{1-\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{- s}\int_0^{M_\varphi^2(2{\varepsilon}^2q)/(4s)}{\rm e}^{-v}\d v \d s}{{K_0(M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})}},
\label{K0:int}
\end{align}
where the equality and the second inequality follow from
\begin{align}\label{asymp:K0K1}
\frac{\d}{\d r} [rK_1(r)]=-rK_0(r)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad rK_1(r)=\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{- s}\int_{r^2/(4s)}^\infty {\rm e}^{-v}\d v \d s,
\end{align}
respectively.
See \cite[(5.7.9) on p.110]{Lebedev} and \eqref{ineq:K1bdd} for the identities in \eqref{asymp:K0K1}. To use the bound in \eqref{K0:int}, note that the asymptotic expansion of $K_0(\sqrt{2}r)$ for $r\to 0$ in \eqref{asymp:gauss} gives, for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$,
\begin{align}\label{K0asymp}
K_0(M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}^2q})= \log \big({\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\sqrt{{\varepsilon}^2}\big)^{-1}+{\rm R}_{\ref{K0asymp}}
= \frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon} \beta_{\varepsilon}}}+\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}+{\rm R}_{\ref{K0asymp}},
\end{align}
where $|{\rm R}_{\ref{K0asymp}}|\lesssim C(M_\varphi,q,\delta,\lambda)$.
Hence, the right-hand side of \eqref{K0:int} depends only on $(M_\varphi,q,\delta,\lambda,{\varepsilon})$ and tends to $1$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
To get an upper bound of the term in \eqref{Kint+++}, note that the other inequality in \eqref{ineq2:Q} gives
\begin{align}
&\quad\;\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_a^\infty \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b)\d r\notag\\
&\leq \log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_a^\infty \left(\frac{K_0(r\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q}\,)}{K_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q}\,)}\right)^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}} r\d r\cdot \frac{1}{\cos(\pi\delta/2)^{1/\beta_{\varepsilon}}}\notag\\
\begin{split}
&= \frac{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}{K_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q})^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}}\cdot
\frac{1}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}}\int_{0}^\infty K_0(r)^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}r\d r\cdot \frac{1}{\cos(\pi\delta/2)^{1/\beta_{\varepsilon}}}.\label{ineq2:Quppbdd}
\end{split}
\end{align}
For the right-hand side of \eqref{ineq2:Quppbdd}, note that
$1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}=1-(\log \log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{-2}$ by \eqref{def:alphabeta}. Hence, by the asymptotic behavior of $K_0(r)$ as $r\to 0$ in \eqref{ob3:K0},
\begin{align}
\frac{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}{K_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q})^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}}=
\frac{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{1-1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}}{[K_0(M_\varphi\sqrt{2\alpha_{\varepsilon} {\varepsilon}^2q})/\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}]^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}}
\xrightarrow[{\varepsilon}\to 0]{}1.
\label{ob1:K0}
\end{align}
Additionally, by \eqref{ob3:K0}, dominated convergence, and \eqref{asymp:K0K1}, it holds that
\begin{align}\label{ob2:K0}
\frac{1}{\alpha_{\varepsilon}}\int_{0}^\infty K_0(r)^{1/\alpha_{\varepsilon}}r\d r\xrightarrow[{\varepsilon}\to 0]{}\int_{0}^\infty K_0(r)r\d r=1.
\end{align}
The right-hand side of \eqref{ineq2:Quppbdd} depends only on $(M_\varphi,q,\delta,{\varepsilon})$ and tends to $1$ by \eqref{ob1:K0} and \eqref{ob2:K0}.
Now, we obtain from the above implications of \eqref{K0:int} and \eqref{ineq2:Quppbdd} that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\sup_{a,b:M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\frac{\delta\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b< a\leq M_\varphi} \left|\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot 2{\varepsilon}^2q\cdot \int_a^\infty \kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(r,b) r\d r-1\right|\leq \eta_{\ref{kappaasymp:2000}}({\varepsilon}),\quad \forall\; {\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}}),
\end{split}
\label{kappaasymp:2000}
\end{align}
where $\eta_{\ref{kappaasymp:2000}}({\varepsilon})$ satisfies the same property of $\eta_{\ref{kappaasymp:2}}({\varepsilon})$ in the statement of the present lemma. Combining \eqref{eq1:Q20}, \eqref{eq1:Q200} and \eqref{kappaasymp:2000}, we obtain the required estimate in \eqref{kappaasymp:2}.
\end{proof}
Recall for the last time that $\nu_{\varepsilon}$ and $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ are defined in \eqref{def:nubeta}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:finalexpansion}
Let $\delta_{\varepsilon}\searrow 0$ with $\delta_{\varepsilon}/\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }\to \infty$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ and $\delta_{\varepsilon}/\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }\lesssim C(\|\varphi\|,\lambda)(\log{\varepsilon}^{-1})^{1/3}$. Then for all $q\in (0,\infty)$, ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(M_\varphi,q)\wedge {\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$, and $b\in (0,\infty)$ such that
$M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b\leq M_\varphi$, the following asymptotic expansions hold:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
{\rm I}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})&=\frac{-2}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left[\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\varphi}(|z|)+2\pi {\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)\right]\d z\\
&\quad\; +{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:1}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}),\label{Ir:1}
\end{split}\\
{\rm II}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})&=\frac{-4\pi }{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|){\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi} (\rho_s)\d s\right]\d z+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:2}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}),\label{Ir:2}\\
{\rm III}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})&= \frac{2}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\log^+ (|z|/ b)\d z+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:3}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}).\label{Ir:3}
\end{align}
(In \eqref{Ir:1}, $b$ and $z$ are identified as complex numbers.)
Here, for $\eta_{\ref{R:Ir2}}({\varepsilon})$ and $\eta_{\ref{R:Ir3}}({\varepsilon})>0$ depending only on $(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda,\delta_{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$ and tending to zero as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$, the remainders in \eqref{Ir:1}--\eqref{Ir:3} satisfy
\begin{align}
|{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:1}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|&\leq \frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{2}},\label{R:Ir1}\\
|{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:2}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|&\lesssim \frac{1}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}} \left(\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|){\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}(\rho_s)\d s\right]\d z\right)\eta_{\ref{R:Ir2}}({\varepsilon})+\frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{5/3}},\label{R:Ir2}\\
|{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:3}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|&\lesssim \frac{1}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\left(\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\log^+ (|z|/ b)\d z\right)\eta_{\ref{R:Ir3}}({\varepsilon})+ \frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{5/3}}.\label{R:Ir3}
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We start with some general asymptotic expansions. As ${\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|\to 0$, \eqref{asymp:gauss} shows
\begin{align}
&\quad\;\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2qt}}{2\pi t}\exp\left(-\frac{|b-z|^2}{2t}\right)\d t\notag\\
&=\frac{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1} }{\pi}+\frac{1}{\pi}\Bigg(\log \frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2}|b-z|}-\gamma_{\sf EM}\Bigg)+\mathcal O\left({\varepsilon}^2q|b-z|^2\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|}\right).\label{asympG:1}
\end{align}
Recall the definition of $\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}$ in \eqref{def:varphi0} and the definition of $f_{\varepsilon}$ in \eqref{setting:radial}.
By \eqref{ob3:K0} and \eqref{asympG:1}, for ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$ and bounded $h_{b,{\varepsilon}}$ to be chosen,
\begin{align}
&\quad\;{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(\rho_r)\d r\right]\notag\\
\begin{split}
&=\frac{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}) \Lambda_\vep}{\pi}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z+\frac{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1} )\Lambda_\vep^2}{\pi}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}{\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\\
&\quad\; +\frac{\Lambda_\vep }{\pi}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z+ {\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad0}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q, b,{\varepsilon})\label{remainder:rad0}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}\label{remainder:rad}
&=\left(2+\frac{2\lambda}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\right)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\\
&\quad\; +\left(2+\frac{2\lambda}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\right)\left(\frac{2\pi}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}+\frac{2\pi \lambda}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\right)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}{\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\\
&\quad\;+\left(\frac{2}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}+\frac{2\lambda}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\right)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\\
&\quad\; + {\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad0}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q,b,{\varepsilon}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Let us explain the term ${\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad0}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q,b,{\varepsilon})$. It considers the $\mathcal O$-term in \eqref{asympG:1} after integrating against $\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)$ and takes a form similar to ${\rm R}_{\ref{asymp:Phibminus0}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$ from using \eqref{ob3:K0}:
\begin{align}
|{\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad0}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q, b,{\varepsilon})|&\lesssim
\left|\frac{\Lambda_\vep }{\pi}\int_{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|\geq \tfrac{1}{2}}\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2} |b-z|}-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|\d z\right|\notag\\
&\quad\;+ \Lambda_\vep \int_{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|\geq \tfrac{1}{2}}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|{\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|}\d z\notag\\
&\quad\;+\Lambda_\vep \int_{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|< \tfrac{1}{2}}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|\cdot {\varepsilon}^2q|b-z|^2\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon} q^{1/2}|b-z|}\d z.\notag
\end{align}
Since $\overline{\varphi}$ has a support in $[0,M_\varphi]$, for all $b\in (0,M_\varphi]$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{asympG:2-1}}(M_\varphi,q)\wedge {\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$, the first two terms on the right-hand side of the foregoing inequality are zero. We get
\begin{align}
|{\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad0}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q,b,{\varepsilon})|&\leq C(M_\varphi,q)\Lambda_\vep \cdot {\varepsilon}^2\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep}(|z|)|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|\d z.
\label{asympG:2-1}
\end{align}
From now on to the end of this proof, we only consider $b\in (0,\infty)$, ${\varepsilon}\in (0, {\varepsilon}_{\ref{asympG:2-1}})$, and $z$ such that $M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b\leq M_\varphi$. A supremum taken over $b,z$ is subject to the same conditions.
To proceed, we simplify \eqref{remainder:rad} to an expansion in $1/\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}$ up to the first order:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{remainder:rad++}
&{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(\rho_r)\d r\right]=2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\\
&\quad\;+\frac{2}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left[\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\varphi}(|z|)+2\pi {\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)\right]h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\\
&\quad\; + {\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad++}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q,b,{\varepsilon}),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the last two terms in \eqref{remainder:rad++} can be bounded as follows:
\begin{align}\label{remainder:rad+++}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{b}\left|\frac{2}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left[\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\varphi}(|z|)+2\pi {\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)\right]h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)\d z\right|\\
&\quad\;\leq \frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\sup_{b,z}|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|,
\end{split}\\
&\sup_{b}|{\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad++}}(h_{b,{\varepsilon}},q, b,{\varepsilon})|\leq \frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\sup_{b,z}|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|,\label{remainder:rad++++}
\end{align}
where the last inequality uses \eqref{asympG:2-1}.
We work with \eqref{remainder:rad++}--\eqref{remainder:rad++++} in the following three steps.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 1.} For ${\rm I}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$, take $h_{b,{\varepsilon}}\equiv -1$. Since $\int \overline{\varphi}=1/2$, \eqref{remainder:rad++} gives
\begin{align}
&\quad\; {\rm I}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})\notag\\
&=-\frac{2}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left[\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\varphi}(|z|)+2\pi {\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)\right]\d z +{\rm R}_{\ref{remainder:rad++}}(-1,q,b,{\varepsilon}),\label{asymp:I1-1}
\end{align}
which proves \eqref{Ir:1} by using \eqref{remainder:rad++++}. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step~\hypertarget{ReplaceFinal}{2}.} For ${\rm II}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$, we take
\begin{align}\label{hchoice:2}
h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)=-\Lambda_\vep{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\overline{\varphi}} {}^{\,\vep} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right].
\end{align}
In this case, we only consider the leading order term on the right-hand side of \eqref{remainder:rad++}. So we need to bound $\sup_{b,z}|h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)|$ for the right-hand sides of \eqref{remainder:rad+++} and \eqref{remainder:rad++++}. These two terms are given by
\begin{align}\label{Ir:2:obj}
-2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\cdot \Lambda_\vep{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}{}^{\,\vep} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right] \d z\quad \&\quad
\sup_{b,z}\Lambda_\vep{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right].
\end{align}
On one hand, by \eqref{eq:Tl}, for $b,z$ in the range specified above with $b\leq |z|$,
\begin{align}
{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}(\rho_s)\d s\right] &\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)\left(\log M_\varphi-\log M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\right)\notag\\
&=C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)
\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon}}}.\label{h2:estimate}
\end{align}
Recall that $\delta_{\varepsilon}$ is chosen in the statement of the present lemma.
The bound in \eqref{h2:estimate} also applies in the case of $|z|\leq b$ by \eqref{kappaasymp:1}. We get
\begin{align}
\sup_{b,z}\Lambda_\vep{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]&\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi) \sup_{b,z}\Lambda_\vep{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]\notag\\
&\leq \frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{2/3}}\label{R:lr2++}
\end{align}
by the choice of $\delta_{\varepsilon}$.
On the other hand, for the first term in \eqref{Ir:2:obj}, we have the replacement:
\begin{align}
&\quad\;\left|\Lambda_\vep {\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\overline{\varphi}}{}^{\,\vep} (\rho_s)\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]-\frac{2\pi}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}} {\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}(\rho_s)\d s\right]\right|\notag\\
&\lesssim\frac{1}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}} {\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}(\rho_s)|\kappa_{{\varepsilon}}^q(\rho_s,b)-1|\d s\right] +
C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi)\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}(\rho_s)\d s\right]\notag\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}} {\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi}(\rho_s)\d s\right] \eta_{\ref{def:hrad}}({\varepsilon}),\label{def:hrad}
\end{align}
where $\eta_{\ref{def:hrad}}({\varepsilon})>0$ depends only on $(M_\varphi,q,\lambda,\delta_{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon})$ and tends to zero as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. To justify these properties of $\eta_{\ref{def:hrad}}({\varepsilon})$, we use Lemma~\ref{lem:kappato1} and \eqref{R:lr2++}. In using this lemma, recall that $\overline{\varphi}$ has a support in $[0,M_\varphi]$ and $0$ is polar under ${\rm BES}^2$. We also need the asymptotic behavior of $K_0$ as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:kappaasymp} (cf. \eqref{K0asymp}), the continuity of $I_0$ with $I_0(0)=1$, and the assumption $\delta_{\varepsilon}\to 0$.
In summary, according to \eqref{def:hrad}, we replace the first term in \eqref{Ir:2:obj} by the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{Ir:2}. Then take $\eta_{\ref{R:Ir2}}({\varepsilon})=\eta_{\ref{def:hrad}}({\varepsilon})$. The right-hand side of \eqref{def:hrad} leads to the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{R:Ir2}. The last term in \eqref{R:Ir2} follows upon applying \eqref{R:lr2++} to \eqref{remainder:rad+++} and \eqref{remainder:rad++++}. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 3.} The proof of the required asymptotic expansion of ${\rm III}_{\ref{exp:Green}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$ is similar. In this case, take
\[
h_{b,{\varepsilon}}(|z|)= {\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s,b)\d s\right].
\]
In contrast to the two terms in \eqref{Ir:2:obj} for Step~\hyperlink{ReplaceFinal}{2}, now consider
\begin{align}\label{Ir:3:obj}
2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\cdot {\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]\d z\quad \&\quad \sup_{b,z} {\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]
\end{align}
for the application of \eqref{remainder:rad++}--\eqref{remainder:rad++++}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:kappaasymp}, we have
\begin{align}\label{Ir:3:est}
\begin{split}
&\left| {\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]-\frac{\log^+ (|z|/b)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}\right|\leq\frac{\log^+ (|z|/b)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}} \eta_{\ref{kappaasymp:2}}({\varepsilon})+ {\varepsilon}^2 C(M_\varphi,q).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Hence, as in \eqref{h2:estimate}, we have
\begin{align}\label{Ir:3:est1}
\sup_{b,z}{\varepsilon}^2q{\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_s,b)\d s\right]\leq \frac{C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^{2/3}}.
\end{align}
To complete the proof of \eqref{Ir:3}, the remaining details follow similarly as in the summary of Step~\hyperlink{ReplaceFinal}{2}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
We calculate the sum of the first terms on the right-hand sides of \eqref{Ir:1}--\eqref{Ir:3}.
For all $b\in(0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}\label{def:finalI:rad}
\begin{split}
{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)
&\stackrel{\rm def}{=}-2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left[\left(\log\frac{2^{1/2}}{q^{1/2} |b-z|}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\varphi}(|z|)+2\pi {\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)\right]\d z\\
&\quad\; -4\pi \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi} (|z|){\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi} (\rho_s)\d s\right]\d z+ 2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|) \log^+ (|z|/b)\d z.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We stress that ${\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)$ does not depend on $b$. This property is a consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:exponent}
For all $q\in (0,\infty)$ and $b\in (0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}
{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)&= \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}(\log |z-z'|)\phi(z)\phi(z')\d z\d z'-\left(\log 2+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)-\frac{\log q}{2}.\label{eq:finalI:rad}
\end{align}
Hence, ${\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)=(1/2)\log (q/\beta)$, where $\beta$ is defined by \eqref{logbeta}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We start with the introduction of the central identity for this proof. Let $S_b$ denote the circle in $\Bbb C$ centered at the origin and with radius $b$, and let $g_A(z,z')$ and $h_A(z,\d z')$ be defined by
\[
{\mathbb E}_z^W\left[\int_0^{H_A}f(W_t)\d t\right]=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}f(z')g_A(z,z')\d z',\quad h_A(z,\d z')=\P^W_z(H_A<\infty, W_{H_A}\in \d z')
\]
for $H_A=\inf\{t>0;W_t\in A\}$. Then the fundamental identity for logarithmic potentials stated in \cite[p.71]{PS:BM} shows
\begin{align}\label{eq:filp}
\frac{1}{\pi}\log \frac{1}{|z-z'|}=g_{S_b}(z,z')+\int h_{S_b}(z,\d z'')\frac{1}{\pi}\log \frac{1}{|z''-z'|}-\frac{1}{\pi}\log^+(|z|/b),\quad z,z'\in {\Bbb R}^2.
\end{align}
Here, we specialize the identity to $S_b$ and state the identity by incorporating the explicit formulas in \cite[Eq. (1) on p. 70 and Proposition~4.9 on p.75]{PS:BM}.
Let us calculate some integrals in ${\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)$. Write the sum of the last two terms in \eqref{def:finalI:rad} as
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; -4\pi \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi} (|z|){\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi} (\rho_s)\d s\right]\d z +2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|) \log^+ (|z|/b)\d z\\
&=-4\pi \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)g_{S_b}(z,z') \d z'\d z +4\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\log^+ (|z|/b)\d z'\d z\\
&=-4\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|) \log \frac{1}{|z-z'|}\d z'\d z+4\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\int h_{S_b}(z,\d z'')\log \frac{1}{|z''-z'|}\d z'\d z,
\end{align*}
where the first equality uses $\int\varphi=1/2$, and the second equality follows from \eqref{eq:filp}.
By the definition of $h_{S_b}$, the last integral can be written as
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\int h_{S_b}(z,\d z'')\log \frac{1}{|z''-z'|}\d z'\d z\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|){\mathbb E}_{z}^W\Big[\log \frac{1}{|W_{H_{S_b}}-z'|}\Big]\d z'\d z\\
&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|) {\mathbb E}_{|z|}\Big[\log \frac{1}{|\rho_{H_{S_b}}-z'|}\Big]\d z'\d z
=\frac{1}{2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\log \frac{1}{|b-z'|}\d z',
\end{align*}
where the second equality uses $\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)$ to remove the angular part of $W_{H_{S_b}}$. From the last two displays,
\begin{align}
&\quad\; -4\pi \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi} (|z|){\mathbb E}_{|z|}\left[\int_0^{T_b}\overline{\varphi} (\rho_s)\d s\right]\d z +2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|) \log^+ (|z|/b)\d z\notag\\
&=4\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\overline{\varphi}(|z'|) \log |z-z'|\d z'\d z+2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d z'\overline{\varphi}(|z'|)\log \frac{1}{|b-z'|}.\label{finalid:1}
\end{align}
Additionally, for $\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})$ defined by \eqref{def:Ef},
we have
\begin{align}\label{finalid:2}
-4\pi \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}{\overline{\mathcal E(\hvarphi)} }(|z|)\d z=-4\pi \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\mathcal E(\widehat{\varphi})(z)\d z=4\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\widehat{\varphi}(z)\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\widehat{\varphi}(z')\log |z-z'|\d z'\d z.
\end{align}
We are ready to prove the required identity. Applying \eqref{int:harmonic}, \eqref{finalid:1}, and \eqref{finalid:2} to \eqref{def:finalI:rad} yields that
\begin{align*}
{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)&=4 \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\varphi(z)\varphi(z') \log |z-z'|\d z'\d z-2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\left(\frac{\log 2-\log q}{2}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\overline{\varphi}(|z|)\d z\\
&= \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\phi(z)\phi(z')\log |z/{\sqrt{2}}-z'/{\sqrt{2}}|\d z'\d z-\left(\frac{\log 2-\log q}{2}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right)\\
&= \int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\phi(z)\phi(z') \log |z-z'|\d z'\d z-\left(\frac{\log 4-\log q}{2}+\lambda-\gamma_{\sf EM}\right),
\end{align*}
as required in \eqref{eq:finalI:rad}.
\end{proof}
For the proof of the following lemma, we can choose $q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}=q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,\lambda)\in (0,\infty)$ such that the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{def:finalI:rad} is positive and ${\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}})>0$. Note that ${\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)$ is strictly increasing in $q$.
\begin{lem}[Verification of the second condition of \eqref{cond:q}] \label{lem:rad:final}
Choose $\delta_{\varepsilon}$ as in the statement of Lemma~\ref{lem:finalexpansion}.
Then for all $q\in( q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}},\infty)$, there exists ${\varepsilon}_{\ref{Ir:4}}={\varepsilon}_{\ref{Ir:4}}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)\in (0,{\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$ such that
\begin{align}\label{Ir:4}
\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q,f_{\varepsilon})\in (0,\infty)\quad \&\quad \frac{\Lambda_\vep^2}{\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q,f_{\varepsilon})}=\frac{8\pi^2b}{{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)}+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:4}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})
\end{align}
for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{Ir:4}})$ and all $b$ satisfying the following condition:
\begin{align}\label{b:final}
M_\varphi\big({\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\vee
{\rm e}^{-\eta_{\ref{R:Ir2}}({\varepsilon})^{-1/2}}\vee {\rm e}^{-\eta_{\ref{R:Ir3}}({\varepsilon})^{-1/2}}\big)\leq b\leq M_\varphi.
\end{align}
Here, the supremum of $|{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:4}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})|$ over $b$ of the range in \eqref{b:final} is bounded and tends to zero as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Hence, under the choice of \eqref{setting:radial},
the second condition in \eqref{cond:q} holds for all $[g,d]\subseteq [M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}, M_\varphi]$ and all $q\in (q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}},\infty)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Apply \eqref{Ir:1}--\eqref{Ir:3} to \eqref{exp:Green}. For all $q\in (q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}},\infty)$, $b$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_{\ref{asympG:2-1}})$ such that
$M_\varphi{\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\leq b\leq M_\varphi$, we can write
\begin{align}
&\quad\; 1-{\mathbb E}_b\left[\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-{\varepsilon}^2q r} f_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r)\kappa^q_{\varepsilon}(\rho_r,b)\d r\right]\notag\\
&=\frac{{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)}{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:1}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:2}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:3}}(q,b,{\varepsilon}).\label{Ir:4:+++1}
\end{align}
Here, for every fixed $q$, it follows from \eqref{R:Ir1}--\eqref{R:Ir3} that
\begin{align}\label{Ir:4:+++2}
\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot \sup_b \left|{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:1}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:2}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})+{\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:3}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})\right|\xrightarrow[{\varepsilon}\to 0]{}0,
\end{align}
where $b$ ranges over \eqref{b:final}. In particular, the terms ${\rm e}^{-\eta_{\ref{R:Ir2}}({\varepsilon})^{-1/2}}$ and ${\rm e}^{-\eta_{\ref{R:Ir3}}({\varepsilon})^{-1/2}}$ in \eqref{b:final} are chosen to satisfy \eqref{Ir:4:+++2} as we bound the $b$'s in the first terms in the bounds of ${\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:2}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$ and ${\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:3}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$. See also \eqref{eq:Tr} and \eqref{eq:Tl} for bounding that term of ${\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:2}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$. By the last two displays, the choice of $q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}$, and Proposition~\ref{prop:Phibf}, we obtain the strict positivity of $\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q,f_{\varepsilon})\in(0,\infty) $ for all $q\in (q_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}},\infty)$ and ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}(\|\varphi\|_\infty,M_\varphi,q,\lambda)\wedge {\ov_{\ref{oovarphi:positive}}})$.
To obtain the expansion in \eqref{Ir:4}, note that applying Lemma~\ref{lem:Phibasymp} and \eqref{Ir:4:+++1} to \eqref{Phiblambda:resolvent} gives
\[
\frac{\Lambda_\vep^2}{\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2q,f_{\varepsilon})}\sim \frac{4\pi^2}{(\log {\varepsilon}^{-1})^2}\cdot 2b\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}\cdot \frac{\log {\varepsilon}^{-1}}{{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)}=\frac{8\pi^2b}{{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}}(q)}.
\]
We still need to quantify the convergence rate for the above approximation and prove the asserted properties of ${\rm R}_{\ref{Ir:4}}(q,b,{\varepsilon})$. To this end, we use the decomposition in \eqref{Ir:4:+++1} and the rate of convergence in \eqref{Ir:4:+++2} in the elementary form of the resolvent equation $A^{-1}-(A-{\varepsilon})^{-1}=-{\varepsilon} [A(A-{\varepsilon})]^{-1}$ for the left-hand side of \eqref{Ir:4:+++1}. For this term and the term $\Phi_b({\varepsilon}^2 q)^{-1}$ by \eqref{asymp:Phibminus_bdd}, the growth of $|\log b|$ can be controlled again by restricting $b$ to the range in \eqref{b:final}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Sconv}
For all $q\in (q(\varphi,\lambda),\infty)$,
\[
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M_\varphi}\left|\S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)-\frac{4\pi }{\log(q/\beta)}\right|=0.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{SS:approx}, it remains to show that for an appropriate choice of the cutoff functions $\chi_{\varepsilon}$, we have
\begin{align}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}\left|{\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)-\frac{4\pi }{\log(q/\beta)}\right|=0.
\end{align}
Here, recall that ${\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)$ is defined in \eqref{main:aa}. We also recall that $m_{\varepsilon}$ is chosen above \eqref{eq2:main}.
We choose the cutoff functions $\chi_{\varepsilon}$ such that
\[
m_{\varepsilon}=M_\varphi\big({\rm e}^{-\delta_{\varepsilon}\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu_{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon} }}}\vee
{\rm e}^{-\eta_{\ref{R:Ir2}}({\varepsilon})^{-1/2}}\vee {\rm e}^{-\eta_{\ref{R:Ir3}}({\varepsilon})^{-1/2}}\big).
\]
Then by Lemma~\ref{lem:rad:final},
\begin{align*}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\sup_{y:0<|y|\leq M}\left|{\overline{\overline{\mathfrak S}}\mbox{}^\beta_\vep}(q,|y|)-\int_0^\infty \frac{8\pi^2b}{
{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}} (q) }\overline{\varphi}(b)\d b\right|=0.
\end{align*}
The integral in the foregoing display can be evaluated as follows: by Lemma~\ref{lem:exponent},
\[
\int_0^\infty \frac{8\pi^2b}{
{\rm I}_{\ref{def:finalI:rad}} (q) }\overline{\varphi}(b)\d b=\frac{16\pi^2}{\log (q/\beta)}\int_0^\infty \overline{\varphi}(b)b\d b=\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}
\]
by polar coordinates and the identity $\int \varphi(|z|)=1/2$. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Recall that the required limiting semigroup is characterized by \eqref{def:Rlambda}, and the approximate semigroups under consideration are defined by $P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$ in \eqref{def:FK}.
\begin{prop}
For $q\in (q(\varphi,\lambda),\infty)$ and $x\neq 0$,
\begin{align}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-qt}P^\beta_{{\varepsilon};t}f( x)\d t=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-qt}P^\beta_{t}f(x)\d t.\label{eq:main11}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{Lap:int}, it remains to calculate
\begin{align*}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d y\varphi (y) \left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t(x/{\sqrt{2}},{\varepsilon} y)\right)\times \S^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q,y)\times \left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_tF(0)\right),
\end{align*}
where $F(z)=f({\sqrt{2}} z)$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:Sconv} and dominated convergence, the limit is equal to
\begin{align}
&\quad\;
\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d y\varphi(y)\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t(x/{\sqrt{2}})\times\left(\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}\right)\times \left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_tF(0)\right)\notag\\
&=G_q( x)\times\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}\times \left(\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_tF(0)\right)\label{lim:integral}
\end{align}
since
\[
\left(\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}\d y\varphi(y)\right)
\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_t(x/{\sqrt{2}})=\int_0^\infty\d t {\rm e}^{-qt}\frac{1}{4\pi t}\exp\left(-\frac{|x|^2}{4t}\right).
\]
The last term in \eqref{lim:integral} can be written as
\[
\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}P_tF(0)=\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}^W_0[f({\sqrt{2}} W_t)]=\int_0^\infty \d t{\rm e}^{-qt}{\mathbb E}_0^W[f(W_{2t})].
\]
Hence, the density implied by \eqref{lim:integral} from ranging over $f$ is
\[
G_q( x)\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}G_q(z).
\]
We have proved that the limit in \eqref{lim:integral} coincides with the last term in \eqref{def:Rlambda}.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[End of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main1}]
It remains to translate the convergence of Laplace transforms in \eqref{eq:main11} to the required pointwise convergence. First, note that if $f,g$ are nonnegative and defined on $[0,\infty)$ and $f$ is increasing, then $f\star g$ is increasing. Hence, for the simple case $f\equiv \mathds 1$, the last term in \eqref{eq:FK2} of $P^{\beta}_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$ is increasing by the monotonicity of the $\d \tau$-integral there. Hence, the required pointwise convergence holds by \eqref{eq:main11}, an extension of L\'evy's continuity theorem and Helly's selection principle (cf. \cite[the proofs of Theorem~4.1 and Corollary~4.2]{CCC}).
For the case of general nonnegative $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^2)$, we need to consider the equicontinuity of $P^{\beta}_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x)$ in $t$. By \eqref{eq:FK1}, it is enough to show the equicontinuity of
\begin{align}\label{equicontinuity}
t\mapsto \Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2} \d yP_{t-s}(x, y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y){\mathbb E}_y[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(s)}f(W_{s})].
\end{align}
To see this property, we notice that by Leibniz's rule, the derivative of this function is
\begin{align}\label{final:derivative}
&\Lambda_\vep \varphi_{\varepsilon}(x){\mathbb E}_x[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(t)}f(W_{t})]+\Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2} \d y\frac{\partial}{\partial t}P_{t-s}(x, y) \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y){\mathbb E}_y[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(s)}f(W_{s})],
\end{align}
where
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}P_{t-s}(x,y)=\left(-\frac{1}{2\pi (t-s)^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi (t-s)}\cdot\frac{|x-y|^2}{2(t-s)^2}\right)\exp\left(-\frac{|x-y|^2}{2(t-s)}\right).
\]
Since $x\neq 0$, the first term in \eqref{final:derivative} is zero for all small ${\varepsilon}$ independent of $t$.
In this case, the derivative of the function in $\eqref{equicontinuity}$ can be bounded by the increasing function
\begin{align}\label{equicontinuity1}
t\mapsto \Lambda_\vep \int_0^t\d s\int_{{\Bbb R}^2} \d y\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial t}P_{t-s}(x, y)\right| \varphi_{\varepsilon}( y){\mathbb E}_y[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(s)}].
\end{align}
The monotonicity of \eqref{equicontinuity1} ensures that this function can be bounded by the Laplace transform on compacts; see \eqref{Lap:bdd}. On the other hand, the Laplace transform is convergent, if we recall \eqref{Lap:int} and notice that $s\mapsto \partial P_{t-s}(x,0)/\partial t$ is integrable at $t-$. The convergence holds by \eqref{def:Fvep:Lap} and Proposition~\ref{prop:Sconv}. We have proved the equicontinuity of the function in \eqref{equicontinuity}. This is enough to ensure the continuity of the limiting function. The proof is complete. Note that for a sequence of increasing functions that converges to a continuous function, the convergence is uniform on compacts, and so the convergence mode in Theorem~\ref{thm:main1} can be improved this way.
\end{proof}
\section{Application to the multi-particle delta-Bose gas}
Throughout this section, we fix an integer $N\geq 3$ and use the following notation. Write states of $N$ many particles in the plane as $x=(x^1,x^2,\cdots,x^N)$, with $x^j\in {\Bbb R}^{2}$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$. Components of other vector states are indexed by superscripts in the same way. Accordingly, ${\Bbb R}^{2m}$ is understood as $m$ products of ${\Bbb R}^2$. For the pairwise interactions, $\mathscr I_N$ denotes the set of ${\mathbf i}=(i\prime,i)\in \{1,\cdots,N\}^2$ such that $i\prime>i$, with
\[
E\stackrel{\rm def}{=} |\mathscr I_N|.
\]
We often regard ${\mathbf i}$ as a set and do not distinguish between sets or points for the use. For example, for ${\mathbf i},{\mathbf j}\in \mathscr I_N$ such that ${\mathbf i}\neq {\mathbf j}$ and ${\mathbf i}\cap{\mathbf j}\neq \varnothing$, $x^{{\mathbf i}\cap {\mathbf j}}=x^\ell$ for $\ell\in {\mathbf i}\cap {\mathbf j}$. In addition, for any ${\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N$, define a unitary linear transformation between $(x^{i\prime},x^{i})\in {\Bbb R}^4$ and $(x^{{\mathbf i}\prime},x^{{\mathbf i}})\in {\Bbb R}^4$ by
\begin{align}\label{unitary}
x^{{\mathbf i}\prime}=\frac{x^{i\prime }+x^i}{{\sqrt{2}}},\quad
x^{{\mathbf i}}=\frac{x^{i\prime }-x^i}{{\sqrt{2}}}\Longleftrightarrow x^{i\prime}=\frac{x^{{\mathbf i}\prime }+x^{{\mathbf i}}}{{\sqrt{2}}},\quad
x^{i}=\frac{x^{{\mathbf i}\prime }-x^{{\mathbf i}}}{{\sqrt{2}}}.
\end{align}
Let $B=(B^1,\cdots,B^N)$ be a $2N$-dimensional standard Brownian motion. Our goal in this section is to obtain the limit as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ of the following Feynman--Kac semigroups as approximate solutions to the $N$-body delta-Bose gas in two dimensions:
\begin{align}\label{def:Qvep}
P_{{\varepsilon},t}^{\lambda,N}f(x_0)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}
{\mathbb E}^B_{x_0}\Bigg[\exp\Bigg\{\Lambda_\vep \sum_{{\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N}\int_0^t \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}}_r)\d r\Bigg\}f(B_t)\Bigg],\quad f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^{2N}),
\end{align}
where $B^{\mathbf i}$ is a two-dimensional standard Brownian motion defined by the notation in \eqref{unitary}.
\subsection{Poissonian representations of exponential functionals}\label{sec:first}
For fixed $q\in (0,\infty)$, introduce a mean-field interacting system $\{(\Lambda_t)_{t\geq 0},(\xi_n)_{n\geq 0}\}$ such that $(\Lambda_t)$ is a Poisson process with rate $q$ and jump times $0<S_1<S_2<\cdots$, and $\xi=(\xi_n)$ is an independent Markov chain on $\mathscr I_N$ such that
$\P(\xi_1={\mathbf j}|\xi_0={\mathbf i})=(M-1)^{-1}$ for all $ {\mathbf j}\neq {\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N$.
The uniform distribution $\mu_E$ on $\mathscr I_N$ is the stationary distribution of $\xi=(\xi_n)$.
The general result in the following proposition is the starting point to reduce \eqref{def:Qvep} to the semigroups for two particles under attractive interactions. Here and in what follows, we use the convention that a product over an empty set is equal to $1$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:poisson}
For all Borel measurable functions $\varphi({\mathbf i} ,r):\mathscr I_N\times {\Bbb R}_+\to {\Bbb R}_+$, it holds that
\begin{align}\label{exp:id}
\exp\Bigg\{\int_0^t\sum_{{\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N} \varphi({\mathbf i},r)\d r\Bigg\}={\rm e}^{qt}{\mathbb E}^\xi_{\mu_E}\left[\prod_{n=1}^{\Lambda_t}\frac{\varphi(\xi_n,S_n)}{q/E_n}\exp\Bigg\{\int_{S_{n}\wedge t}^{S_{n+1}\wedge t}\varphi(\xi_n,r)\d r\Bigg\}\right],
\end{align}
where $E_1=E$ and $E_n=E-1$ for all integers $n\geq 2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By dominated convergence and monotone convergence, it is enough to assume that
$\varphi({\mathbf i},r)$ is bounded away from zero and from above. In this proof, we work with a Poisson random measure $\mathcal M$ on $\mathscr I_N\times {\Bbb R}_+$ with intensity measure
\[
\Bigg(\frac{1}{E}\sum_{{\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N} \delta_{\mathbf i}(\d {\mathbf j})\Bigg)\otimes (q\d r)=\frac{q}{E} \sum_{{\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N}\delta_{\mathbf i}(\d {\mathbf j})\otimes \d r,
\]
where $\delta_{\mathbf i}$ denotes the delta measure at ${\mathbf i}$ defined on $\mathscr I_N$.
The proof is to consider the following application of the exponential formula for Poisson random measures \cite[Proposition~XII.1.12 on p.476]{RY}:
\begin{align}
\exp\Bigg\{-q t+\int_0^t\sum_{{\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N} \varphi({\mathbf i},r)\d r\Bigg\}&=\exp\left\{\sum_{{\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N}\frac{q}{E}\int_0^t \big({\rm e}^{\log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf i},r)}{q/E}}-1\big) \d r\right\}\notag\\
&={\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_{\mathscr I_N\times (0,t]} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf j},r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r) \right\}\right].\label{poisson}
\end{align}
Write $\mathcal E(t)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \mathcal E_0(t)$ for the right-hand side of \eqref{poisson}, where
\[
\mathcal E_{s'}(s)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}{\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_{\mathscr I_N\times (0,s]} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf j},s'+r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r) \right\}\right].
\]
The rest of the proof is to show that $\mathcal E(t)$ can be written as the expectation in \eqref{exp:id} by iterating a first jump recurrence equation. The first step is the following identity:
\begin{align}
\mathcal E(t)
&={\rm e}^{-qt}+{\mathbb E}_{\mu_E}^\xi\left[\frac{\varphi(\xi_1,S_1)}{q/E_1}\mathcal E_{S_1}(t-S_1)
;S_1\leq t\right],\label{Et}
\end{align}
where $E_1=E$.
To see \eqref{Et}, note that $(\xi_1,S_1)$ under $\P^\xi_{\mu_E}$ has the same law as the atom $(\xi',S')$ of $\mathcal M$ at the first jump time of the Poisson process $t\mapsto \mathcal M(\mathscr I_N\times (0,t])$ \cite[Proposition~2 on p.7]{Bertoin}, since the law of $\xi_1$ under $\P^\xi_{\mu_E}$ is the uniform distribution by stationarity and $S_1$ is distributed as the exponential random variable with mean $q^{-1}$. Conditioning on the first jump time of $\mathcal M$ proves \eqref{Et}.
The next step is to put $\mathcal E_{s'}(s)$ in a form that allows for further iterations of \eqref{Et}. Roughly speaking, the goal is to condition appropriately such that only a sequence of non-consecutive $\mathscr I_N$-components of atoms of $\mathscr I_N$ is present under the expectation. Given any ${\mathbf i}\in \mathscr I_N$, conditioning on the first hitting time $\tau_{\mathbf i}$ of $\{{\mathbf i}\}^\complement$ of the Poisson point process associated with $\mathcal M$ leads to
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{Es's:dec}
\mathcal E_{s'}(s)&={\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_{\{{\mathbf i}\}\times (0,s]} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r) \right\};\tau_{\mathbf i}> s\right]\\
&\quad\;+{\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_{\mathscr I_N\times (0,\tau_{\mathbf i}]} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf j},s'+r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r)\right\}\mathcal E_{s'+\tau_{\mathbf i}}(s-\tau_{\mathbf i}) ;\tau_{\mathbf i}\leq s\right].
\end{split}
\end{align}
The two terms on the right-hand side of \eqref{Es's:dec} can be calculated as follows. For the first term,
note that Poisson random measures of disjoint sets are independent, and $\tau_{\mathbf i}$ depends only on $\mathcal M{\upharpoonright} (\{{\mathbf i} \}^\complement\times {\Bbb R}_+)$ and is distributed as an exponential random variable with mean $[q(E-1)/E]^{-1}$. Hence,
\begin{align}
&\quad\;{\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_{\{{\mathbf i}\}\times (0,s]} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r) \right\};\tau_{\mathbf i}> s\right]\notag\\
&=\exp\left\{\int_0^s \left(\varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)-\frac{q}{E}\right)\d r\right\}\exp\left\{-\frac{q(E-1)}{E}s\right\}\notag\\
&={\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_0^{s} \varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)\d r\right\};S_1>s\right],\label{Es's:dec1}
\end{align}
where the first equality follows from independence and the exponential formula. For the other term in \eqref{Es's:dec}, apply \cite[Proposition~2 on p.7]{Bertoin} again, and so if $\xi'$ is such that $(\xi',\tau_{\mathbf i})$ is an atom of $\mathcal M$, then $\xi'$ and $\tau_{\mathbf i}$ are independent and $\xi'$ is uniformly distributed on $\mathscr I_N\setminus\{{\mathbf i}\}$. We get
\begin{align}
&\quad\;{\mathbb E}\left[\exp\Bigg\{\int_{\mathscr I_N\times (0,\tau_{\mathbf i}]} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf j},s'+r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r)\Bigg\}\mathcal E_{s'+\tau_{\mathbf i}}(s-\tau_{\mathbf i}) ;\tau_{\mathbf i}\leq s\right]\notag\\
&={\mathbb E}\left[\exp\Bigg\{\int_{\{{\mathbf i}\}\times (0,\tau_{\mathbf i})} \log \frac{\varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)}{q/E}\mathcal M(\d {\mathbf j},\d r)\Bigg\}\frac{\varphi(\xi',s'+\tau_{\mathbf i})}{q/E}\mathcal E_{s'+\tau_{\mathbf i}}(s-\tau_{\mathbf i}) ;\tau_{\mathbf i}\leq s\right]\notag\\
&=\int_0^s \frac{q(E-1)}{E}{\rm e}^{-q(E-1)r'/E}\exp\Bigg\{\int_0^{r'} \left(\varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)-\frac{q}{E}\right)\d r\Bigg\}\frac{1}{E-1}\sum_{{\mathbf j}:{\mathbf j}\neq {\mathbf i}}\frac{\varphi({\mathbf j},s'+r')}{q/E}\mathcal E_{s'+r'}(s-r')\d r'\notag\\
&=\int_0^s q{\rm e}^{-qr'}\exp\Bigg\{\int_0^{r'} \varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)\d r\Bigg\}\frac{1}{E-1}\sum_{{\mathbf j}:{\mathbf j}\neq {\mathbf i}}\frac{\varphi({\mathbf j},s'+r')}{q/(E-1)}\mathcal E_{s'+r'}(s-r')\d r'\notag\\
&={\mathbb E}^\xi_{\mathbf i}\left[\exp\Bigg\{\int_0^{S_1} \varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)\d r\Bigg\}\frac{\varphi(\xi_1,s'+S_1)}{q/E_2}\mathcal E_{s'+S_1}(s-S_1);S_1\leq s\right],\label{Es's:dec2}
\end{align}
where $E_2=E-1$. Applying \eqref{Es's:dec1} and \eqref{Es's:dec2} to \eqref{Es's:dec} leads to the following identity for all ${\mathbf i},s,s'$:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{def:Eis}
\mathcal E_{s'}(s)&= {\mathbb E}\left[\exp\left\{\int_0^{ s} \varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)\d r\right\};S_1>s\right]\\
&\quad\; +{\mathbb E}_{\mathbf i}^\xi\left[\exp\left\{\int_0^{S_1} \varphi({\mathbf i},s'+r)\d r\right\}\frac{\varphi(\xi_1,s'+S_1)}{q/E_2}\mathcal E_{s'+S_1}(s-S_1);S_1\leq s\right].
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that although $\mathcal E_{s'}(s)$ does not depend on ${\mathbf i}$, the decomposition on the right-hand side does.
We are ready to conclude the proof. Applying \eqref{def:Eis} to \eqref{Et} gives
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal E(t)&={\rm e}^{-qt}+{\mathbb E}_{\mu_E}^\xi\left[\frac{\varphi(\xi_1,S_1)}{q/E_1}\exp\left\{\int_{S_1\wedge t}^{S_2\wedge t} \varphi(\xi_1,r)\d r\right\}
;S_1\leq t<S_2\right]\\
&\quad\;+{\mathbb E}_{\mu_E}^\xi\Bigg[\frac{\varphi(\xi_1,S_1)}{q/E_1}\exp\left\{\int_{S_1\wedge t}^{S_2\wedge t} \varphi(\xi_1,r)\d r\right\}\frac{\varphi(\xi_2,S_2)}{q/E_2}\mathcal E_{S_2}(\xi_2,t-S_2);S_2\leq t\Bigg].\label{Et:iterate}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Since $\P(S_n\leq t)=\P(\Lambda_t\geq n)\leq {\rm e}^{qt({\rm e}^c-1)-cn}$ for all $c\in (0,\infty)$ by Markov's inequality, \eqref{exp:id} follows by iterating with \eqref{def:Eis} indefinitely as in \eqref{Et:iterate}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop:poisson} allows for a series expansion of $Q^{\lambda,N}_{{\varepsilon},t}f(x_0)$ from \eqref{def:Qvep}. To state the series, write
\begin{align}\label{def:E+F}
\mathcal E^{\mathbf i}_{{\varepsilon};s,t}&= \exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep\int_s^t \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}}_r) \d r \right\}\quad\&\quad \mathcal L^{\mathbf i}_{{\varepsilon};s,t}=\int_{s}^{t}\Lambda_\vep^2 \mathcal E_{{\varepsilon};s,\tau}^{{\mathbf i}} \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}}_{\tau})\d \tau.
\end{align}
Then recall that, conditioned on the number $m$ of jumps of a Poisson process by time $t$, the jump times within $[0,t]$ are jointly distributed as the order statistics of $m$ independent uniform random variables over $[0,t]$ \cite[Theorem~2.4.6 on p.79]{Norris}. Hence, by Proposition~\ref{prop:poisson} with $\varphi({\mathbf i},r)=\Lambda_\vep \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B_r^{\mathbf i})$ and by conditioning on the number of jumps of $\Lambda_t$, we get
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
P_{{\varepsilon},t}^{\beta,N}f(x_0)&=
{\mathbb E}^B_{x_0}[f(B_t)]+\sum_{m=1}^\infty \left(\prod_{n=1}^mE_n\right)\int_{0< s_1< s_2< \cdots< s_m< t}{\mathbb E}^\xi_{\mu_E}\big[P^{\xi_1,\cdots,\xi_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\big]\d \boldsymbol s_m ,\label{P:series}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\d \boldsymbol s_m=\d s_1\cdots \d s_m$, and for all ${\mathbf i}_1\neq \cdots\neq {\mathbf i}_m$, $0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t$, and $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^{2N})$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\,&\!\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\! {\mathbb E}^B_{x_0}\big[ \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_1}_{s_1})\cdot \Lambda_\vep\mathcal E^{{\mathbf i}_1}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,s_2} \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{2}}_{s_{2}})\cdot \Lambda_\vep\mathcal E^{{\mathbf i}_2}_{{\varepsilon};s_2,s_3}\cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{3}}_{s_{3}})\\
&\quad\;\eqspace \cdots
\Lambda_\vep\mathcal E^{{\mathbf i}_{m-1}}_{{\varepsilon};s_{m-1},s_m} \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{m}}_{s_{m}})
\cdot \Lambda_\vep\mathcal E^{{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_m,t}f(B_t)\big]\notag
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
&={\mathbb E}^B_{x_0}\big[ \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_1}_{s_1})\cdot (\Lambda_\vep+\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_1}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,s_2}) \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{2}}_{s_{2}})\cdot (\Lambda_\vep+\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_2}_{{\varepsilon};s_2,s_3}) \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{3}}_{s_{3}})\\
&\quad\;\eqspace \cdots
(\Lambda_\vep+\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_{m-1}}_{{\varepsilon};s_{m-1},s_m}) \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{m}}_{s_{m}})
\cdot (\Lambda_\vep+\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_{m},t})f(B_t)\big].
\label{sgp}
\end{split}
\end{align}
In more detail, the $m$-th term on the right-hand side of \eqref{P:series} follows from conditioning on $\{\Lambda_t=m\}$,
and \eqref{sgp} follows from the forward expansion in \eqref{taylor1}. An expansion of the product in \eqref{sgp} gives
\begin{align}\label{Pell:sum}
P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)=\sum_{{\boldsymbol \sigma} \in \{0,1\}^m} P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0),
\end{align}
where, for all ${\boldsymbol \sigma}=(\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_m)\in \{0,1\}^m$, ${\mathbf i}_1\neq \cdots\neq {\mathbf i}_m$, $0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t$, and $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^{2N})$,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\quad\; \;P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\\
&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} {\mathbb E}_{x_0}^B\big[ \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_1}_{s_1})\cdot ((1-\sigma_1)\Lambda_\vep+\sigma_1\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_1}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,s_2}) \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{2}}_{s_{2}})\cdot ((1-\sigma_2)\Lambda_\vep+\sigma_2\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_2}_{{\varepsilon};s_2,s_3}) \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{3}}_{s_{3}})\\
&\quad\;\cdots
((1-\sigma_{m-1})\Lambda_\vep+\sigma_{m-1}\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_{m-1}}_{{\varepsilon};s_{m-1},s_m}) \cdot \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{{\mathbf i}_{m}}_{s_{m}})
\cdot ((1-\sigma_{m})\Lambda_\vep+\sigma_m\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_{m},t})f(B_t)\big].
\label{sgp:sigma}
\end{split}
\end{align}
To apply \eqref{sgp:sigma} to \eqref{P:series}, write $\d \tau_\ell$ for the integrator of $\mathcal L^{{\mathbf i}_\ell}_{{\varepsilon};s_\ell,s_{\ell+1}}$. By the Chapman--Kolmogorov equation, $P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ is an integral of a function of $s_1-\tau_0,\tau_1-s_1,\cdots,\tau_m-s_m,t-\tau_m$ with respect to the measure $\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=0}\delta(\tau_\ell-s_\ell) \d \tau_1\cdots \d \tau_m $, where $\delta(\tau_\ell-s_\ell)$ is the Dirac delta function. Set
\begin{align}\label{variables}
\begin{split}
&\tau_0=0, \;t=s_{m+1},\; \boldsymbol u_{m+1}=(u_1,u_2,\cdots,u_{m+1})\\
&\mbox{and }\boldsymbol v_m=(v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_m) \mbox{ such that }
u_\ell=s_\ell-\tau_{\ell-1}\mbox{ and } v_\ell=\tau_\ell-s_\ell.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Then the following integral representation holds: for some $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,{\mathbf i}_2,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$,
\begin{align}\label{rep:Pvep}
\begin{split}
\int_{0<s_1<s_2<\cdots<s_m<t} P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_m
=\int_{\Delta_m(t)} I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=0}\delta(v_\ell)\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\Delta_{m}(t)$ is the set of $u_\ell\in (0,t)$ and $v_\ell\in [0,t)$ such that $\sum_{\ell=1}^m (u_\ell+v_\ell)+u_{m+1}<t$.
\subsection{Coalescing-branching-type path ensembles}
Our goal in this subsection is to present an iterated-integral representation of $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ in \eqref{rep:Pvep} that will be used to pass the limit of the series \eqref{P:series} term by term as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
\subsubsection{Integral representations of transitions}
Let us begin with the following lemma for explicit representations of the essential transition mechanisms between $s_\ell$ and $s_{\ell+1}$ in \eqref{sgp:sigma}. Here and in what follows, we set
\begin{align}\label{def:svep}
{\mathfrak s}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(t;x,y)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} x/{\sqrt{2}}}^{W}\left[ \exp\left\{\Lambda_\vep\int_0^t \varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_r) \d r \right\}; W_\tau={\varepsilon} y\right],
\end{align}
in the sense of densities in $y$, where $W$ is a planar Brownian motion, and we use the following notation for the usual multiplications of numbers:
\begin{align}\label{def:column}
\begin{bmatrix}
a_1\\
\vdots\\
a_n
\end{bmatrix}_\times
\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\,a_1 \cdot \cdots a_n.
\end{align}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:transition}
Fix $(x^{i\prime},x^i)\in {\Bbb R}^{4}$, $0<s<\infty$, ${\mathbf i}=(i\prime,i)\in \mathscr I_N$,
and a nonnegative Borel measurable function $F:{\Bbb R}^4\to {\Bbb R}$. Write $A^{\mathbf i}_{\varepsilon}(s)=\Lambda_\vep \int_0^s \varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{\mathbf i}_r)\d r$. Then
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& {\mathbb E}_{(x^{i\prime},x^i)}^{B^{i\prime},B^i)}[\varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{\mathbf i}_s)F(B^{i\prime}_s,B^i_s)]\\
&\quad\;=\int_{{\Bbb R}^4}\d (x_1^{i\prime},x_1^i)
\begin{bmatrix}
P_s(x^{i\prime},x_1^i+{\varepsilon} (x_1^{i\prime}-x_1^i))\\
P_s(x^{i},x_1^i)
\end{bmatrix}_\times
\phi(x_1^{i\prime}-x_1^i)F\big(x^{i}_1+{\varepsilon}(x^{i\prime}_1-x^i_1),x_1^i\big),
\end{split}\label{Int:1}\\
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb E}^{(B^{i\prime},B^i)}_{(x^{i}+{\varepsilon}(x^{i\prime}-x^i),x^i)}[\Lambda_\vep^2{\rm e}^{A^{\mathbf i}_{\varepsilon}(s)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{\mathbf i}_{s})F(B^{i\prime}_{s},B^i_{s})]\\
&\quad\;=\int_{{\Bbb R}^4}\d (z',z)
\begin{bmatrix}
P_{s}({\sqrt{2}} x^{i}+{\varepsilon} x^{{\mathbf i}\prime}, z')\\
\vspace{-.3cm}\\
{\mathfrak s}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(s;x^{i\prime}-x^i,z)
\end{bmatrix}_\times \varphi(z) F\left(\frac{z'}{{\sqrt{2}}}+{\varepsilon}\frac{z}{{\sqrt{2}}},\frac{z'}{{\sqrt{2}}}-{\varepsilon}\frac{z}{{\sqrt{2}}}\right),\label{Int:2}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $x^{{\mathbf i}\prime}$ is the transformation of $x^{i\prime}$ and $x^i$ defined in \eqref{unitary}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
To see \eqref{Int:1}, recall $\varphi(z)=\phi({\sqrt{2}} z)$, and then apply the general formula
\begin{align}\label{cov:vep}
\int_{{\Bbb R}^4} \phi_{\varepsilon}(x-y)g(x,y)\d x \d y =\int_{{\Bbb R}^4}\phi(x-y')g(x,x+{\varepsilon}(y'-x))\d x \d y' ,
\end{align}
which follows from changing variables: $y'=x+{\varepsilon}^{-1}(y-x)$. The other identity \eqref{Int:2} applies the unitary transformation \eqref{unitary} to $(B^{i\prime},B^i)$ such that $(z',\widetilde{z})$ denotes the state of $(B^{{\mathbf i}\prime},B^{\mathbf i})$. Then change variables from $\widetilde{z}$ to $z$ to remove the scaling in $\varphi_{\varepsilon}$.
\end{proof}
The rule in \eqref{Int:1} for changing variables is to think of the $(i\prime)$-th particle being attracted to the $i$-th particle. Thus the state $x^i_1$ of $B^i_s$ is the major contribution under $\varphi_{\varepsilon}(B^{\mathbf i}_s)$. In \eqref{Int:2}, the second row in the $[\cdot]_\times$-column tracks the attractive interactions of the two particles in terms of the exponential local time of $B^{{\mathbf i}}$. For the remaining terms of the integrand of \eqref{Int:2}, set ${\varepsilon}$ to zero in the Gaussian kernel and the function $F$. Then the first row of the $[\cdot]_\times$-column shows the transition of $B^{{\mathbf i}\prime}$ from ${\sqrt{2}} x^{i}=(x^{i}+x^{i})/{\sqrt{2}}$ to $z'$, and under $F$, the $(i\prime)$-th and $i$-th particles have the same state $z'/{\sqrt{2}}$.
\subsubsection{Iterated-integral representations}\label{sec:integral}
In the following steps, we give the definition of the required iterated-integral representation of the function $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,{\mathbf i}_2,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ in \eqref{rep:Pvep}, which is extended from a method in \cite{CSZ}. See Figure~\ref{fig:2}. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step~\hypertarget{Integral:1}{1}.} By \eqref{Int:1}, \eqref{Int:2} and the Chapman--Kolmogorov equation, the function $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ can be written as an integral of a product of the Gaussian kernel $P_s(x)$ and the exponential local time density ${\mathfrak s}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(s;x,y)$. The integration is with respect to the product of the following measures:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{def:productmeasure}
&\quad\;\phi(x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell)\d_{{\Bbb R}^4} (x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}, x_\ell^{i_\ell}),\; \d_{{\Bbb R}^2} x_\ell^k,\; 1\leq \ell\leq m,\; k\notin {\mathbf i}_\ell;\\
&\quad\; \varphi(z_\ell)\d_{{\Bbb R}^4}(z'_\ell, z_\ell),\; \d_{{\Bbb R}^2} z_\ell^k,\; \sigma_\ell=1,\; k\notin {\mathbf i}_\ell; \\
&\quad\;\d_{{\Bbb R}^2} x_{m+1}^k,\;1\leq k\leq N,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\phi(x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell)$ arises from the mollifier at time $s_\ell$ as in \eqref{Int:1}, and $\varphi(z_\ell)$ arises from the mollifier at time $\tau_\ell$ as in \eqref{Int:2}. Note that $\boldsymbol x_{m+1}= \{x_\ell^k;1\leq \ell\leq m,\;1\leq k\leq N\}$ consists of ${\Bbb R}^2$-states at time $s_\ell$; $\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}=\{z_\ell',z_\ell\}\cup \{z_\ell^{k};k\notin \mathbf i_\ell\}$ is the set of ${\Bbb R}^2$-states at time $\tau_\ell$. The subscripts ${\Bbb R}^4$ in \eqref{def:productmeasure}, for example, stress the domain of integration. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step 2.} In this step, we define a weighted graph
$\mathcal G^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}},\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}}$
for fixed $x_0$, $\boldsymbol x_{m+1}$, $\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}$, and $0<s_1\leq \tau_1<s_2\leq \tau_2<\cdots<s_m\leq \tau_m<t$, such that the product of the edge weights is the one of which $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ is an integral with respect to the grand product measure mentioned in Step~\hyperlink{Integral:1}{1} from \eqref{def:productmeasure}. We also require that $s_\ell=\tau_\ell$ if and only if $\sigma_\ell=0$. Here, the change of variables from \eqref{variables} is in force, and the ${\Bbb R}^2$-components in $x_0$, $\boldsymbol x_{m+1}$, and $\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}$ are all distinct. In view of \eqref{def:productmeasure}, we further think of $x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}$ and $x_\ell^{i_\ell}$ as being glued to each other. The same rule applies to $z_\ell'$ and $z_\ell$.
The definition of this weighted graph is done all at once by specifying the vertices and the weighted edges according to \eqref{Int:1}, \eqref{Int:2}, and the following way of drawing edges.
\begin{defi}[Drawing of edges]
By ``$w:v_0{\;\leftrightarrow\;} v_1$'', we mean an edge of weight $w$ drawn as a straight line segment between two vertices $v_0$ and $v_1$. For $v_0{\,\leftrightsquigarrow\,} v_1$, a coiled line segment is drawn. \hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{defi}
For any $1\leq k\leq N$ and ${\mathbf i}=(i\prime,i)\in \mathscr I_N$, set $k/{\mathbf i}=i$ if $k= i\prime$ and $k/{\mathbf i}=k$ otherwise.
Now, between time $0$ and time $s_1$ and between time $s_m$ and time $t$, define the following weighted edges along with the vertices:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{weight1}
\forall\;1\leq k\leq N,\quad P_{s_1}\big(x_0^{k},x_1^{k/{\mathbf i}_1}+\mathds 1_{\{k=i_1\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_1\prime}_1-x^{i_1}_1)\big):&\; (x_0^{k},0){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x^{k}_1,s_1);\\
\forall\;1\leq k\leq N,\quad P_{t-s_m}\big(x_m^{k/ {\mathbf i}_m}+\mathds 1_{\{k=i_m\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_m\prime}_m-x^{i_m}_m),x_{m+1}^{k}\big):&\; (x_m^{k},s_m){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x_{m+1}^{k},t).
\end{split}
\end{align}
For $\sigma_\ell=0$, the weighted edges and vertices are defined between $s_\ell$ and $s_{\ell+1}$ by
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{weight2}
&\forall\;k\in {\mathbf i}_\ell,\quad \Lambda_\vep^{1/2} P_{s_{\ell+1}-s_\ell}\big(x_\ell^{k/{\mathbf i}_\ell}+\mathds 1_{\{k=i_\ell\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_\ell\prime}_\ell-x^{i_\ell}_\ell),x_{\ell+1}^{k/{\mathbf i}_{\ell+1}}+\mathds 1_{\{k=i_{\ell+1}\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_{\ell+1}\prime}_{\ell+1}-x^{i_{\ell+1}}_{\ell+1})\big)\\
&\hspace{9.87cm}:\; (x_\ell^{k},s_\ell){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x_{\ell+1}^{k},s_{\ell+1});\\
&\forall\; k\notin {\mathbf i}_\ell,\quad P_{s_{\ell+1}-s_\ell}\big(x_\ell^{k}
,x_{\ell+1}^{k/{\mathbf i}_{\ell+1}}+\mathds 1_{\{k=i_{\ell+1}\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_{\ell+1}\prime}_{\ell+1}-x^{i_{\ell+1}}_{\ell+1})\big):
(x_\ell^{k},s_\ell){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x_{\ell+1}^{k},s_{\ell+1}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
For $\sigma_\ell=1$, we consider the time interval between $s_\ell$ and $\tau_\ell$ and the time period between $\tau_\ell$ and $s_{\ell+1}$, separately. In the first case, with the transformation of $(x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime},x_\ell^{i_\ell})$ to $x_\ell^{{\mathbf i}_\ell\prime}$ defined by \eqref{unitary},
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{weight3}
\begin{bmatrix}
P_{\tau_{\ell}-s_\ell}\big({\sqrt{2}} x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}+{\varepsilon} x_\ell^{{\mathbf i}_\ell\prime},z'_\ell\big)\\
\vspace{-.3cm}\\
{\mathfrak s}_{\varepsilon}^\beta \big(\tau_\ell-s_\ell;x_\ell^{i_{\ell}\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell,z_\ell\big)
\end{bmatrix}_\times
& :\;(x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}, x_\ell^{i_\ell},s_\ell){\,\leftrightsquigarrow\,} (z_\ell',z_{\ell},\tau_{\ell});\\
\forall\;k\notin {\mathbf i}_\ell,\quad \;
P_{\tau_\ell-s_\ell}(x^k_\ell,z_{\ell}^k)&:\; (x^k_\ell,s_\ell){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (z^k_{\ell},\tau_{\ell}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Over the other time interval, only edges as straight line segments and Gaussian weights are defined:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{weight4}
P_{s_{\ell+1}-\tau_\ell}\Big(\frac{z'_\ell}{{\sqrt{2}}}+{\varepsilon} \frac{z}{{\sqrt{2}}},x_{\ell+1}^{i_\ell\prime}+\mathds 1_{\{i_\ell\prime=i_{\ell+1}\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_{\ell+1}\prime}_{\ell+1}-x^{i_{\ell+1}}_{\ell+1})\Big)&:\; (z'_\ell,\tau_\ell){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x_{\ell+1}^{i_\ell\prime},s_{\ell+1});\\
P_{s_{\ell+1}-\tau_\ell}\Big(\frac{z'_\ell}{{\sqrt{2}}}-{\varepsilon} \frac{z}{{\sqrt{2}}},x_{\ell+1}^{i_\ell}+\mathds 1_{\{i_\ell=i_{\ell+1}\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_{\ell+1}\prime}_{\ell+1}-x^{i_{\ell+1}}_{\ell+1})\Big)&:\; (z_\ell,\tau_\ell){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x_{\ell+1}^{i_\ell},s_{\ell+1});\\
\forall\;k\notin {\mathbf i}_\ell,\quad P_{s_{\ell+1}-\tau_\ell}\big(z_\ell^{k},x_{\ell+1}^{k/{\mathbf i}_{\ell+1}}+\mathds 1_{\{k=i_{\ell+1}\prime\}}{\varepsilon}(x^{i_{\ell+1}\prime}_{\ell+1}-x^{i_{\ell+1}}_{\ell+1})\big)&:\; (z_\ell^{k},\tau_\ell){\;\leftrightarrow\;} (x_{\ell+1}^{k},s_{\ell+1}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
This weighted graph $\mathcal G^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}},\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}}$, defined by \eqref{weight1}--\eqref{weight4}, depends on ${\varepsilon}$ only through the weights. (The ${\varepsilon}$-multiples in the Gaussian kernels arise from removing the scalings in mollifiers.) The unweighted graph is denoted by $\mathcal G=\mathcal G^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}},\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}}$.
In the next two steps, we define subgraphs of $\mathcal G$ by which $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ is an iterated integral. Each fold integrates over the space components of the vertices of one subgraph with respect to the corresponding measures in \eqref{def:productmeasure}. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step \hypertarget{Integral:3}{3}.} In this step, we define the following unweighted subgraphs:
\begin{align}\label{def:Gell}
\mathcal G_\ell=\mathcal G^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{\ell;x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}),\quad \ell=0,1,\cdots,m.
\end{align}
such that the edge sets are disjoint, and so are the vertex sets.
The vertex set of $\mathcal G_\ell$ consists of the vertices in $\mathcal G$ attached to all of the edges of $\mathcal G_\ell$, but we exclude the leftmost vertices, namely, the vertices $v$'s which do not have any edges in $\mathcal G_\ell$ on the left-hand sides of $v$'s.
\begin{defi}\label{def:path}
(1${^\circ}$) A {\bf path} in $\mathcal G$ is a sequence of non-repeating adjacent edges such that a vertex can be shared by at most two of these edges. It is {\bf entanglement-free} if no edges is drawn as a coiled line segment. An entanglement-free path is {\bf left-maximal} if it cannot be extended to an entanglement-free path by adding more edges drawn as straight line segments over smaller times. A {\bf usual path} begins at time $0$ and ends at time $t$ such that no edges share vertices with edges drawn as coiled line segments.\smallskip
\noindent (2${^\circ}$) The {\bf duration} of an edge with vertices of time components $\tilde{s}$ and $\hat{s}$
is $|\tilde{s}-\hat{s}|$. The sum of the durations of the edges of a path $\mathcal P$ is the duration of this path and is denoted by $|\mathcal P|$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{defi}
Now, the subgraph $\mathcal G_0$ has edges of the two entanglement-free paths whose rightmost endpoints intersect at time $s_1$.
For $\ell=1,\cdots,m-1$, $\mathcal G_\ell$ has the following edges on both sides of $s_\ell$: (1) the edge drawn as the coiled line segment between $s_{\ell}$ and $\tau_{\ell}$ if $\sigma_\ell=1$, and (2) the edges of the unique pair of left-maximal entanglement-free paths, denoted by $\mathcal P'_\ell$ and $\mathcal P_{\ell}$, such that their rightmost endpoints are given by the vertex $(x^{i_{\ell+1}\prime},x^{i_{\ell+1}},s_{\ell+1})$. Plainly, $|\mathcal P'_\ell|$ and $|\mathcal P_\ell|$ are bounded below by $s_{\ell+1}-\tau_\ell$. These two entanglement-free paths can be concatenated for an entanglement-free path, called the {\bf spine} of $\mathcal G_\ell$ and denote by $\mathcal P_\ell'\oplus \mathcal P_\ell$. Finally, $\mathcal G_m$ has the following edges: (1) the edge drawn as the unique coiled line segment between $s_m$ and $\tau_m$ if $\sigma_m=1$; (2) the edges of the two unique left-maximal entanglement-free paths between $\tau_{m-1}$ and $t$ such that their leftmost endpoints at time $\tau_{m-1}$ coincide; (3) the edges of the remaining left-maximal entanglement-free paths ending at time $t$. The union of the edge sets of these subgraphs is different from the edge set of $\mathcal G$ when usual paths are present.
The key observation we need is the following immediate consequence of the assumption ${\mathbf i}_{\ell}\neq {\mathbf i}_{\ell+1}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw[gray, thin] (0,0) -- (7.6,0);
\foreach \i in {0.0, 0.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.2, 3.7, 4.7, 6.4, 7.6} {\draw [gray] (\i,-.05) -- (\i,.05);}
\draw (0.0,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_0$};
\draw (0.5,-0.07) node[below]{$s_1$};
\draw (2.0,-0.07) node[below]{$s_2$};
\draw (2.5,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_2$};
\draw (3.2,-0.07) node[below]{$s_3$};
\draw (3.7,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_3$};
\draw (4.7,-0.07) node[below]{$s_4$};
\draw (6.4,-0.07) node[below]{$s_5$};
\draw (7.6,-0.07) node[below]{$s_6$};
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (0.0,2.30) -- (0.5,2.20);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (0.5,2.20) -- (2.0,2.20);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (2.0,2.20) -- (2.5,1.80);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (2.5,1.80)--(3.2,2.10);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (2.5,1.25)--(3.2,1.35);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.2,1.35)--(3.7,1.05);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.2,2.10)--(3.7,2.02);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.7,1.05)--(4.7,2.25);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.7,2.02)--(4.7,2.35);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=green!80!black] (0.0,0.40) -- (0.5,0.55);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=green!80!black] (0.0,1.20) -- (0.5,0.65);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (0.0,1.80) -- (0.5,1.15);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (0.5,0.65) -- (2.0,1.4);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (0.5,1.15) -- (2.0,1.5);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (0.5,0.55) -- (2.0,0.15);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.0,0.15) -- (2.5,0.45);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.0,1.46)--(2.5,1.19);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.5,0.45)--(3.2,0.8);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.5,1.15)--(3.2,0.9);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (3.7,0.45)--(4.7,1.25);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (3.7,0.55)--(4.7,1.75);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (4.7,1.25)--(6.4,0.3);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (4.7,1.75)--(6.4,0.4);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.2,0.87)--(3.7,0.49);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (4.7,2.35)--(6.4,2.40);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (4.7,2.25)--(6.4,1.15);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,0.3)--(7.6,0.45);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,0.4)--(7.6,0.85);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,1.15)--(7.6,1.55);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,2.40)--(7.6,2.15);
\node at (0.0,0.40) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.0,1.20) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.0,1.80) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.0,2.30) {$\bullet$};
\draw (0.0,0.40) node [left] {$x_0^1$};
\draw (0.0,1.20) node [left] {$x_0^2$};
\draw (0.0,1.80) node [left] {$x_0^3$};
\draw (0.0,2.30) node [left] {$x_0^4$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,0.40) -- (0.5,0.55);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,1.20) -- (0.5,0.65);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,1.80) -- (0.5,1.15);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,2.30) -- (0.5,2.20);
\node at (0.5,0.55) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,0.65) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,1.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,2.20) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.5,0.65) -- (2.0,1.4);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.5,1.15) -- (2.0,1.5);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.5,2.20) -- (2.0,2.20);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.5,0.55) -- (2.0,0.15);
\node at (2.0,0.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.0,1.4) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.0,1.5) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.0,2.20) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.0,0.15) -- (2.5,0.45);
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (2.0,1.44) -- (2.5,1.20);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.0,2.20) -- (2.5,1.80);
\node at (2.5,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,1.25) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,1.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,1.80) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,0.45)--(3.2,0.8);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,1.15)--(3.2,0.9);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,1.25)--(3.2,1.35);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,1.80)--(3.2,2.10);
\node at (3.2,0.8) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.2,0.9) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.2,1.35) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.2,2.10) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (3.2,0.85)--(3.7,0.50) ;
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.2,1.35)--(3.7,1.05);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.2,2.10)--(3.7,2.02);
\node at (3.7,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.7,0.55) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.7,1.05) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.7,2.02) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,0.45)--(4.7,1.25);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,0.55)--(4.7,1.75);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,1.05)--(4.7,2.25);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,2.02)--(4.7,2.35);
\node at (4.7,1.25) {$\bullet$};
\node at (4.7,1.75) {$\bullet$};
\node at (4.7,2.25) {$\bullet$};
\node at (4.7,2.35) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (4.7,1.25)--(6.4,0.3);
\draw [thick, color=black] (4.7,1.75)--(6.4,0.4);
\draw [thick, color=black] (4.7,2.25)--(6.4,1.15);
\draw [thick, color=black] (4.7,2.35)--(6.4,2.40);
\node at (6.4,0.3) {$\bullet$};
\node at (6.4,0.4) {$\bullet$};
\node at (6.4,1.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (6.4,2.40) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (6.4,0.3)--(7.6,0.45);
\draw [thick, color=black] (6.4,0.4)--(7.6,0.85);
\draw [thick, color=black] (6.4,1.15)--(7.6,1.55);
\draw [thick, color=black] (6.4,2.40)--(7.6,2.15);
\node at (7.6,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.6,0.85) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.6,1.55) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.6,2.15) {$\bullet$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The figure illustrates the paths of $B^1,B^2,B^3,B^4$ undergoing pairwise attractions behind $P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,{\mathbf i}_2,{\mathbf i}_3,{\mathbf i}_4}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,s_2,s_2,s_3,t}f(x_0)$, where ${\mathbf i}_1=(2,1)$, ${\mathbf i}_2=(3,2)$, ${\mathbf i}_3=(2,1)$, ${\mathbf i}_4=(4,3)$, ${\mathbf i}_5=(2,1)$, and ${\boldsymbol \sigma}=(0,1,1,0,0)$.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:path}
For all $\ell=1,2,\cdots,m-1$, at least one of the paths $\mathcal P_\ell'$ and $\mathcal P_\ell$ starts at time $\tau_{\ell-1}$ or a smaller time. Hence, $|\mathcal P_\ell'\oplus \mathcal P_\ell|$ is bounded below by $2(s_{\ell+1}-\tau_{\ell})+(s_\ell-\tau_{\ell-1})$.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\bf Step 4.}
To state the required iterated-integral representation of $I_{{\varepsilon};f,x_0}^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$, write
\begin{align}\label{def:Pell}
\Pi^{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})=\Pi^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};\ell;x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})
\end{align}
for the product of the edge weights of $\mathcal G_\ell$ from the definition of $\mathcal G^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}},\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}}$. For any function $\widetilde{F}$ of the spatial states in the vertices of a subgraph $\mathcal G_\ell$, $\int_{\mathcal G_\ell}\widetilde{F}$ denotes the integral with respect to the product of the measures in \eqref{def:productmeasure} associated with these spatial variables. Recall that $\Delta_m(t)$ is defined below \eqref{rep:Pvep}, and $\d \boldsymbol s_m=\d s_1\cdots \d s_m$. The next result follows from \eqref{rep:Pvep} and the above definitions by integrating out the usual paths with the Chapman--Kolmogorov equation.
\begin{prop}
It holds that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{graphical}
&\quad\; \int_{0<s_1<\cdots<s_m<t}P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_m\\
&=\int_{\Delta_m(t)} \left( \int_{\mathcal G_0}\Pi^{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{{\varepsilon};0}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) \cdots \int_{\mathcal G_m}\Pi^{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{{\varepsilon};m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) f\right) \prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=0}\delta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the shorthand notation in \eqref{def:Gell} and \eqref{def:Pell} is in force.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Convergences to the limit series}
In this subsection, we prove the limit of $P^{\beta;N}_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x_0)$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. By \eqref{weight1}--\eqref{weight4}, the natural candidate for the limit of $P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ is by setting ${\varepsilon}=0$ in the Gaussian weights and replacing ${\mathfrak s}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(\tau;x,y)$ with ${\mathfrak s}^\beta(\tau)$; $P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ for ${\boldsymbol \sigma}\neq \mathbf 1_m$ extends to zero by setting $\Lambda_\vep=0$. By \eqref{Pell:sum}, this description defines $P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ as an \emph{extension} of $P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ to ${\varepsilon}=0$. (We still need to prove that $P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ is also the \emph{limit} as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.) The series solution analogue to \eqref{P:series} is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
P^{\beta;N}_tf(x_0)&\stackrel{\rm def}{=} {\mathbb E}^B_{x_0}[f(B_t)]+\sum_{m=1}^\infty \left(\prod_{n=1}^mE_n\right)\int_{0< s_1< s_2< \cdots< s_m< t}{\mathbb E}^\xi_{\mu_E}\big[P^{\xi_1,\cdots,\xi_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\big]\d \boldsymbol s_m.\label{Q:serieslim}
\end{split}
\end{align}
To state an iterated-integral expansion as in \eqref{graphical}, set
\begin{align}\label{def:Pell-lim}
\Pi_{\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})=\Pi^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{\ell;x_0,\boldsymbol x_{m+1},\boldsymbol z_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}}}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})
\end{align}
as the product of the edge weights in $\Pi^{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})$ \eqref{def:Pell} extended to ${\varepsilon}=0$ as before \eqref{Q:serieslim}. With the shorthand notation in \eqref{def:Gell} and \eqref{def:Pell-lim}, we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{graphical:lim}
&\quad\; \int_{0<s_1<\cdots<s_m<t}P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_m\\
&=\int_{\Delta_m(t)} \left( \int_{\mathcal G_0}\Pi_{0}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) \cdots \int_{\mathcal G_m}\Pi_{m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) f\right) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m.
\end{split}
\end{align}
For this iterated-integral representation, the list of measures in \eqref{def:productmeasure} can be made simpler by replacing $\phi(x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell)\d_{{\Bbb R}^4} (x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}, x_\ell^{i_\ell})$ with $\d_{{\Bbb R}^2}x_\ell^{i_\ell}$, and $\varphi(z_\ell)\d_{{\Bbb R}^4}(z_\ell',z_\ell)$ with $(1/2)\d_{{\Bbb R}^2} z'_\ell$, since setting ${\varepsilon}=0$ removes the dependence on $x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}$ in the Gaussian weights and ${\mathfrak s}^\beta(\tau)$ does not depend on $z_\ell$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main2}
For all $t\in (0,\infty)$, $f\in \mathscr B_b({\Bbb R}^{2N})$, and $x_0\in {\Bbb R}^{2N}$ such that $x_0^\ell\neq x_0^{\ell'}$ for all $\ell\neq \ell'$, it holds that $P^{\beta;N}_{{\varepsilon};t}f(x_0)\to P^{\beta;N}_tf(x_0)$.
\end{thm}
The mode of convergence in this theorem is the second main result of this work.
The crucial tool is the following lemma, which restates some methods from \cite[pp.407--409]{CSZ}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:CSZ}
{\rm (1${^\circ}$)} For all integers $m\geq 1$, it holds that
\[
\int_{u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_{\ell})}}\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\leq 2{\rm e} \cdot 32^{m-1}.
\]
\noindent {\rm (2${^\circ}$)} Fix ${\boldsymbol \sigma}\in \{0,1\}^m$ for $m\geq 1$ and nonnegative functions $S_\ell(v_\ell)$ and $T_\ell(u_\ell)$. Then for all $q\in [0,\infty)$,
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; \int_{\Delta_m(t)}\Bigg(\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=1}S_\ell(v_\ell)\Bigg)\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1} \frac{T_\ell(u_\ell) }{2u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell}\Bigg) \Bigg(\prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}T_\ell(u_\ell)\Bigg)\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=0}\delta(v_\ell)\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_{m}\\
&\leq t^2 {\rm e}^{qt}\Bigg(\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=1}\int_0^t {\rm e}^{-qv}S_\ell(v)\d v\Bigg)\int_{u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,1)}
\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1}\frac{T_\ell(u_\ell/t)}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_{\ell})}}\Bigg)\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}T_\ell(u_\ell/t)\Bigg)\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1${^\circ}$) By \cite[Lemma~5.4]{CSZ}, the sequence of decreasing functions $\{\phi_k\}_{k\in \Bbb Z_+}$ on $(0,1)$ defined inductively by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:phik}
\phi_0(v) = 1 \, \quad \text{and} \quad
\phi_k(v) = \int_0^1 \frac{ 1 }{\sqrt{s(s + v)}}
\phi_{k-1}(s) \d s ,
\quad \forall\; k \in \Bbb N,
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:estphiklast}
\phi_k(v) \le
\displaystyle 32^k {\rm e}/\sqrt{v} ,
\quad \forall \;v \in (0,1),\;k\in \Bbb N.
\end{equation}
Hence,
\[
\int_{u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,1)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_{\ell})}}\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}=\int_0^1\phi_{m-1}(u_1)\d u_1\leq 2{\rm e} \cdot 32^{m-1},
\]
as required. \medskip
\noindent (2${^\circ}$) By the elementary inequality $a+b\geq \sqrt{ab}$ for nonnegative $a,b$, we have
\[
2u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell\geq \sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell)}.
\]
Hence, given $q\in [0,\infty)$, it follows from the nonnegativity of $S_\ell$ and $T_\ell$ that
\begin{align}
&\quad\; \Bigg(\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=1}S_\ell(v_\ell)\Bigg)\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1} \frac{T_\ell(u_\ell) }{2u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell}\Bigg) \Bigg(\prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}T_\ell(u_\ell)\Bigg)\notag\\
\begin{split}\label{Markov-type}
&\leq {\rm e}^{qt}\Bigg(\prod_{\ell:\sigma_\ell=1}{\rm e}^{-qv_\ell} S_\ell(v_\ell)\Bigg) \Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1} \frac{T_\ell(u_\ell)}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell)}}\Bigg)\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}
T_\ell(u_\ell)\Bigg).
\end{split}
\end{align}
The required inequality follows from integrating both sides of the last inequality, using the definition of $\Delta_m(t)$, and changing variables by replacing $u_\ell$ with $tu_\ell$.
\end{proof}
Let us proceed to the first step of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main2} by showing the convergence of the series in \eqref{Q:serieslim}. Recall that $P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ has been defined at the beginning of this subsection.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:series1}
Fix $t\in (0,\infty)$, ${\mathbf i}_1\neq \cdots\neq {\mathbf i}_m$ for $m\geq 1$, and
$x_0\in {\Bbb R}^{2N}$ with $x_0^{i_1\prime}\neq x_0^{i_1}$. Then
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& \int_{0< s_1< \cdots< s_m< t} P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}\mathds 1(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_{m}\\
&\quad\; \leq \max_{s\in (0,\infty)} P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1})\cdot 2{\rm e} t^2{\rm e}^{(m\vee 2)t} \cdot 32^{m-1}\cdot \left(\frac{4\pi}{\log [(m\vee 2)/\beta]}\right)^m.
\label{interseries}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall the notation in Step~\hyperlink{Integral:3}{3} of Section~\ref{sec:integral}. By the Chapman--Kolmogorov equation, we get
\begin{align}
\int_{\mathcal G_0}\Pi_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)&\leq \max_{s\in (0,\infty)}P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1}),\label{Pibdd1}\\
\begin{split}
\int_{\mathcal G_\ell}\Pi_\ell(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)
&\leq {\mathfrak s}^\beta(v_\ell)
\max_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}P_{|\mathcal P'_\ell\oplus \mathcal P_\ell|}(y)
\leq \frac{{\mathfrak s}^\beta(v_\ell)}{2u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell},\quad 1\leq \ell\leq m-1,\label{Pibdd2}
\end{split}\\
\int_{\mathcal G_m}\Pi_m(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)&\leq {\mathfrak s}_\beta(v_m), \label{Pibdd3}
\end{align}
where the second inequality in \eqref{Pibdd2} uses Lemma~\ref{lem:path}. Apply \eqref{Pibdd1}--\eqref{Pibdd3} to \eqref{graphical:lim}. Then \eqref{interseries} follows from \eqref{Lap:Tbeta} and Lemma~\ref{lem:CSZ} (2${^\circ}$) with ${\boldsymbol \sigma}=\mathbf 1_m$, $S_\ell={\mathfrak s}^\beta$, $T_\ell\equiv 1$, and $q=m\vee 2$.
\end{proof}
For the next step of proving Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}, we need some properties of the Gaussian kernels.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:phikbd}
{\rm (1${^\circ}$)} For all $x',x\in {\Bbb R}^2$ and $s,t,{\varepsilon}\in (0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}\label{ineq:gausstime}
\int_{{\Bbb R}^4}
\begin{bmatrix}
P_{t}(x',z+{\varepsilon}(z'-z))\\
P_s(x,z)
\end{bmatrix}_{\times}
\phi(z'-z)\d (z',z)&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_{s+t}(x-x'-{\varepsilon} \bar{z}) \phi(\bar{z})\d \bar{z}.
\end{align}
\noindent {\rm (2${^\circ}$)} For all ${\varepsilon},\eta_{\varepsilon},M\in (0,\infty)$ such that ${\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}\leq 1$, it holds that
\begin{align}\label{gauss:vep}
\sup_{t\geq \eta}\sup_{x\in {\Bbb R}^2}\sup_{|y|\leq M}|P_t(x+{\varepsilon} y)-P_t(x)|\leq C(M)({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2})P_{2t}(x).
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the change of variables for $z=(w'-{\varepsilon} w)/{\sqrt{2}}$ and $z'-z={\sqrt{2}} w$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\Bbb R}^4}
\begin{bmatrix}
P_{t}(x',z+{\varepsilon}(z'-z))\\
P_s(x,z)
\end{bmatrix}_{\times}
\phi(z'-z)\d (z',z)
&=\int_{{\Bbb R}^4}P_{t}\left(x',\frac{w'+{\varepsilon} w}{{\sqrt{2}} }\right) P_s\left(x,\frac{w'-{\varepsilon} w}{{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\varphi(w)\d (w', w)\\
&=2\int_{{\Bbb R}^2}P_{s+t}\left(x'-\frac{{\varepsilon} w}{{\sqrt{2}}} ,x+\frac{{\varepsilon} w}{{\sqrt{2}}}\right) \varphi(w)\d w,
\end{align*}
where the second equality uses the Chapman--Kolmogorov equation. The last equality implies \eqref{ineq:gausstime} upon changing variables with $\bar{z}={\sqrt{2}} w$.\medskip
\noindent (2${^\circ}$) Write
\begin{align*}
P_t(x+{\varepsilon} y)-P_t(x)&=\frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{x}{t^{1/2}}\right|^2\right\}\left[\exp\left\{\frac{x}{t^{1/2}}\cdot\frac{{\varepsilon} y}{t^{1/2}}-\frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{{\varepsilon} y}{t^{1/2}}\right|^2\right\}-1\right].
\end{align*}
By the assumption on $y$ and $t$, ${\varepsilon} |y|/t^{1/2}\leq ({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}) M$. Hence, to bound the right-hand side of the preceding equality, it is enough to consider, for $a,b\in {\Bbb R}^2$ such that $|b|\leq ({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}) M$,
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; \left|\frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{|a|^2}{2}\right\}\left[\exp\left\{a\cdot b-\frac{1}{2}|b|^2\right\}-1\right]\right|\\
&\leq \left|\frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{|a|^2}{2}+a\cdot b\right\}\left[\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}|b|^2\right\}-1\right]\right|+\left|\frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{|a|^2}{2}\right\}\left[\exp\left\{a\cdot b\right\}-1\right]\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{|a|^2}{2}+|a|({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}) M\right\}\cdot \frac{({\varepsilon}^2/\eta_{\varepsilon}) M^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{a^2}{2}+|a|({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}) M\right\}\cdot |a|({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2}) M,
\end{align*}
since $1-{\rm e}^{-x}\leq x$ and ${\rm e}^x-1\leq x{\rm e}^x$ for all $x\geq 0$.
The required bound in \eqref{gauss:vep} now follows from the last two displays.
\end{proof}
The next proposition is the central part of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}. Set
\[
\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\sup_{x\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)}\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{-q\tau}{\mathbb E}_{{\varepsilon} x}^{W}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(\tau)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_\tau)]\d \tau.
\]
Recall that $\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)$ converges to $4\pi /\log (q/\beta)$ for all large $q$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:series2}
Fix $t\in (0,\infty)$, a Borel measurable function $f$ satisfying $0\leq f\leq 1$, and $x_0\in {\Bbb R}^{2N}$ such that $x_0^{\ell'}\neq x_0^\ell$ for all $1\leq \ell'\neq \ell\leq N$. Then
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta_{\ref{interseries}}(m,t;{\varepsilon})\stackrel{\rm def}{=} \sup_{{\mathbf i}_1\neq \cdots\neq {\mathbf i}_m}\Bigg|\int_{0< s_1< \cdots< s_m< t}\big(P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)- P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\big)\d \boldsymbol s_m \Bigg| \label{interseries}
\end{split}
\end{align}
satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta_{\ref{interseries}}(m,t;{\varepsilon})&\leq \max_{s\in (0,\infty)} P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1})\times 2{\rm e} t^2{\rm e}^{qt}\times 32^{m-1}\\
&\quad\; \times \left[\big(\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q) +\Lambda_\vep\big)^m+\left(\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}\right)^m\right],\quad \forall\;q\in (\beta,\infty);\label{def:Delta1}
\end{split}\\
\Delta_{\ref{interseries}}(m,t;{\varepsilon})&\to 0\quad \mbox{as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.}\label{def:Delta2}
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove the required bound by considering
\begin{align}
&\quad\; \Big|\int_{0< s_1< \cdots< s_m< t}\big( P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0) -\ P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\big)\d \boldsymbol s_m \Big|\notag\\
\begin{split}\label{series:main}
&\leq \sum_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}:{\boldsymbol \sigma}\neq \mathbf 1_m}\int_{0<s_1< \cdots< s_m< t}P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}\mathds 1(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_m \\
&\quad\;+\Big|\int_{0< s_1< \cdots< s_m< t}\big(P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)- P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\big)\d\boldsymbol s_m\Big|.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf Step \hypertarget{PP:1}{1}.} In this step, we prove that for all ${\boldsymbol \sigma}\in \{0,1\}^m$ (not just ${\boldsymbol \sigma}\neq \boldsymbol 1_M$),
\begin{align}\label{seriesbdd:1}
\begin{split}
&\quad\;\int_{0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t} P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}\mathds 1(x_0) \d \boldsymbol s_m\\
&\leq \max_{s\in (0,\infty)} P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1})\cdot 2{\rm e} t^2{\rm e}^{qt}\cdot 32^{m-1}\cdot \Lambda_\vep^{m-\|{\boldsymbol \sigma}\|}\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)^{\| {\boldsymbol \sigma}\|},\quad\mbox{where $\|{\boldsymbol \sigma}\|\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\sum_{\ell=1}^m\sigma_\ell$.}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Then given the bound in \eqref{seriesbdd:1} and the general identity $(a+b)^m-a^m=\sum_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}:{\boldsymbol \sigma}\neq \mathbf 1_m}a^{m-\|{\boldsymbol \sigma}\|}b^{\|{\boldsymbol \sigma}\|}$,
\begin{align}\label{seriesbdd:1-1}
\begin{split}
&\quad\;\sum_{{\boldsymbol \sigma}:{\boldsymbol \sigma} \neq \mathbf 1_m}\int_{0< s_1< \cdots< s_m< t}P^{{\boldsymbol \sigma};{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}\mathds 1(x_0)\d\boldsymbol s_m \\
&\leq \max_{s\in (0,\infty)} P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1})\cdot 2{\rm e} t^2{\rm e}^{qt}\cdot 32^{m-1}\cdot \big[\big(\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q) +\Lambda_\vep\big)^m-\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)^m
\big],
\end{split}
\end{align}
which gives the bound we need for the first term in \eqref{series:main}. Moreover, by the property of $\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)$ recalled before this proposition, the right-hand side tends to zero.
The differences between the proof of \eqref{seriesbdd:1} and the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:series1} arise from the possibility of dealing with ${\boldsymbol \sigma}\neq \mathbf 1_m$. The bounds in \eqref{Pibdd2} and \eqref{Pibdd3} need to be generalized. For $\ell=1,\cdots,m-1$, the spine of $\mathcal G_\ell$ has only one vertex adjacent to an edge drawn as a coiled line segment such that the vertex is not an endpoint of the spine. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:phikbd} (1${^\circ}$), we can still use the Chapman--Kolmogorov equation and Lemma~\ref{lem:path} and get the following bounds: for all $\ell=1,\cdots,m-1$,
\begin{align}\label{Pibdd1+}
\int_{\mathcal G_\ell}\Pi^{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} (x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell)}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v_\ell)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_{v_\ell})]\cdot \frac{1}{2u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell},\quad \mbox{ if }\sigma_\ell=1;\\
\vspace{-.2cm}\\
\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda_\vep}{2u_{\ell+1}+u_\ell} ,\quad \mbox{ if }\sigma_\ell=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
Similarly,
\begin{align}\label{Pibdd2+}
\int_{\mathcal G_m}\Pi^{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{{\varepsilon};m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} (x_m^{i_m\prime}-x^{i_m}_m)}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v_m)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_{v_m})],\quad \mbox{ if }\sigma_m=1;\\
\vspace{-.2cm}\\
\displaystyle \Lambda_\vep ,\quad \mbox{ if }\sigma_m=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
To involve $\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)$, we also need a slight generalization of the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:phikbd} (2${^\circ}$) in using a Markov-type inequality for \eqref{Markov-type}. After the application of $\int_0^t\d v_\ell{\rm e}^{-qv_\ell}$ to the corresponding bound in \eqref{Pibdd1+} or \eqref{Pibdd2+} for $\sigma_\ell=1$, take the supremum over $x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}-x_\ell^{i_\ell}\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)$. We get a bound as $\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)$. This argument can be done inductively in the order of $\ell=m,\cdots,1$. We have proved \eqref{seriesbdd:1}. \medskip
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw[gray, thin] (0,0) -- (7.6,0);
\foreach \i in {0.0, 0.5, 1.2, 2.0, 2.5, 3.2, 3.7, 4.7, 5.5, 6.4, 7.0, 7.6} {\draw [gray] (\i,-.05) -- (\i,.05);}
\draw (0.0,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_0$};
\draw (0.5,-0.07) node[below]{$s_1$};
\draw (1.2,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_1$};
\draw (2.0,-0.07) node[below]{$s_2$};
\draw (2.5,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_2$};
\draw (3.2,-0.07) node[below]{$s_3$};
\draw (3.7,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_3$};
\draw (4.7,-0.07) node[below]{$s_4$};
\draw (5.5,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_4$};
\draw (6.4,-0.07) node[below]{$s_5$};
\draw (7.0,-0.07) node[below]{$\tau_5$};
\draw (7.6,-0.07) node[below]{$s_6$};
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (0.0,2.30) -- (0.5,2.20);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (0.5,2.20) -- (1.2,2.00);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (1.2,2.00) -- (2.0,2.20);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (2.0,2.20) -- (2.5,1.80);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (2.5,1.80)--(3.2,2.10);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (2.5,1.25)--(3.2,1.35);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.2,1.35)--(3.7,1.05);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.2,2.10)--(3.7,2.02);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.7,1.05)--(4.7,2.25);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.7,2.02)--(4.7,2.35);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=green!80!black] (0.0,0.40) -- (0.5,0.55);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=green!80!black] (0.0,1.20) -- (0.5,0.65);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (0.0,1.80) -- (0.5,1.15);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (0.5,0.60) -- (1.2,0.80);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (0.5,1.15) -- (1.2,1.40);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (1.2,0.85) -- (2.0,1.4);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=blue!70!white] (1.2,1.40) -- (2.0,1.5);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (1.2,0.75) -- (2.0,0.15);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.0,0.15) -- (2.5,0.45);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.0,1.46)--(2.5,1.18);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.5,0.45)--(3.2,0.8);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=purple!60!white] (2.5,1.15)--(3.2,0.9);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (3.7,0.45)--(4.7,1.25);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (3.7,0.55)--(4.7,1.75);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (4.7,1.25)--(5.5,0.45);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (4.7,1.75)--(5.5,1.20);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (5.5,0.45)--(6.4,0.3);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (5.5,1.20)--(6.4,0.4);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=red!80!white] (3.22,0.85)--(3.7,0.49);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=orange] (4.7,2.32)--(5.5,1.79);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (5.5,1.75)--(6.4,1.15);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (5.5,1.85)--(6.4,2.40);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,0.34)--(7.0,0.99);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,1.15)--(7.0,1.85);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (6.4,2.40)--(7.0,2.30);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (7.0,0.9)--(7.6,0.45);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (7.0,1.0)--(7.6,0.85);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (7.0,1.85)--(7.6,1.55);
\draw [line width=2.5pt, color=yellow!90!black] (7.0,2.30)--(7.6,2.15);
\node at (0.0,0.40) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.0,1.20) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.0,1.80) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.0,2.30) {$\bullet$};
\draw (0.0,0.40) node [left] {$x_0^1$};
\draw (0.0,1.20) node [left] {$x_0^2$};
\draw (0.0,1.80) node [left] {$x_0^3$};
\draw (0.0,2.30) node [left] {$x_0^4$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,0.40) -- (0.5,0.55);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,1.20) -- (0.5,0.65);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,1.80) -- (0.5,1.15);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.0,2.30) -- (0.5,2.20);
\node at (0.5,0.55) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,0.65) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,1.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (0.5,2.20) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (0.5,0.60) -- (1.2,0.80);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.5,1.15) -- (1.2,1.40);
\draw [thick, color=black] (0.5,2.20) -- (1.2,2.00);
\node at (1.2,0.75) {$\bullet$};
\node at (1.2,0.85) {$\bullet$};
\node at (1.2,1.40) {$\bullet$};
\node at (1.2,2.00) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (1.2,0.75) -- (2.0,0.15);
\draw [thick, color=black] (1.2,0.85) -- (2.0,1.4);
\draw [thick, color=black] (1.2,1.40) -- (2.0,1.5);
\draw [thick, color=black] (1.2,2.00) -- (2.0,2.20);
\node at (2.0,0.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.0,1.4) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.0,1.5) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.0,2.20) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.0,0.15) -- (2.5,0.45);
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (2.0,1.44) -- (2.52,1.185);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.0,2.20) -- (2.5,1.80);
\node at (2.5,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,1.25) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,1.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,1.80) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,0.45)--(3.2,0.8);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,1.15)--(3.2,0.9);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,1.25)--(3.2,1.35);
\draw [thick, color=black] (2.5,1.80)--(3.2,2.10);
\node at (3.2,0.80) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.2,0.90) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.2,1.35) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.2,2.10) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (3.2,0.85)--(3.734,0.45) ;
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.2,1.35)--(3.7,1.05);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.2,2.10)--(3.7,2.02);
\node at (3.7,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.7,0.55) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.7,1.05) {$\bullet$};
\node at (3.7,2.02) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,0.45)--(4.7,1.25);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,0.55)--(4.7,1.75);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,1.05)--(4.7,2.25);
\draw [thick, color=black] (3.7,2.02)--(4.7,2.35);
\node at (4.7,1.25) {$\bullet$};
\node at (4.7,1.75) {$\bullet$};
\node at (4.7,2.25) {$\bullet$};
\node at (4.7,2.35) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (4.7,1.25)--(5.5,0.45);
\draw [thick, color=black] (4.7,1.75)--(5.5,1.20);
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (4.7,2.30)--(5.5,1.80);
\node at (5.5,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (5.5,1.20) {$\bullet$};
\node at (5.5,1.75) {$\bullet$};
\node at (5.5,1.85) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (5.5,0.45)--(6.4,0.3);
\draw [thick, color=black] (5.5,1.20)--(6.4,0.4);
\draw [thick, color=black] (5.5,1.75)--(6.4,1.15);
\draw [thick, color=black] (5.5,1.85)--(6.4,2.40);
\node at (6.4,0.3) {$\bullet$};
\node at (6.4,0.4) {$\bullet$};
\node at (6.4,1.15) {$\bullet$};
\node at (6.4,2.40) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black, snake=coil, segment length=4pt] (6.4,0.35)--(7.0,0.95);
\draw [thick, color=black] (6.4,1.15)--(7.0,1.85);
\draw [thick, color=black] (6.4,2.40)--(7.0,2.30);
\node at (7.0,0.9) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.0,1.0) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.0,1.85) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.0,2.30) {$\bullet$};
\draw [thick, color=black] (7.0,0.9)--(7.6,0.45);
\draw [thick, color=black] (7.0,1.0)--(7.6,0.85);
\draw [thick, color=black] (7.0,1.85)--(7.6,1.55);
\draw [thick, color=black] (7.0,2.30)--(7.6,2.15);
\node at (7.6,0.45) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.6,0.85) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.6,1.55) {$\bullet$};
\node at (7.6,2.15) {$\bullet$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The figure illustrates the paths of $B^1,B^2,B^3,B^4$ undergoing pairwise attractions behind $P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,{\mathbf i}_2,{\mathbf i}_3,{\mathbf i}_4}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,s_2,s_2,s_3,t}f(x_0)$, where ${\mathbf i}_1=(2,1)$, ${\mathbf i}_2=(3,2)$, ${\mathbf i}_3=(2,1)$, ${\mathbf i}_4=(4,3)$, and ${\mathbf i}_5=(2,1)$.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\noindent {\bf Step~\hypertarget{PP:2}{2}.} Condition \eqref{def:Delta1} holds by Proposition~\ref{prop:series1} and \eqref{seriesbdd:1-1}. To prove \eqref{def:Delta2}, we already have the property mentioned below \eqref{seriesbdd:1-1}, and so it remains to show that the supremum of the last term in \eqref{series:main} over all ${\mathbf i}_1\neq \cdots{\mathbf i}_m$ tends to zero. We divide the proof into two further steps. In Step~\hyperlink{PP:21}{2.1}, we remove the ${\varepsilon}$-correction terms in the Gaussian weights. In Step~\hyperlink{PP:22}{2.2}, we use the convergence of ${\mathfrak s}_{\varepsilon}^\beta$ to ${\mathfrak s}^\beta$ to complete the proof. \medskip
\noindent {\bf Step~\hypertarget{PP:21}{2-1}.}
Choose $\eta_{\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}^2 \log{\varepsilon}^{-1} $.
For all $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b=(a_1,\cdots,a_{m+1},b_1,\cdots,b_m)\in \{0,1\}^{m+1}\times \{0,1\}^{m}$, let $\Delta_{\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}(t)$ denote the subset of $\Delta(t)$ such that $u_\ell\in [\eta_{\varepsilon} t, t),v_{\ell'} \in [\eta_{\varepsilon} t, t)$ for $\ell,\ell'$ such that $a_\ell=1,b_{\ell'}=1$, and $u_\ell\in (0,\eta_{\varepsilon} t),v_{\ell'}\in [0,\eta_{\varepsilon} t)$ otherwise. Hence, $\Delta(t)$ is a disjoint union of the sets $\Delta_{\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}(t)$ for $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b$ ranging over $\in \{0,1\}^{m+1}\times \{0,1\}^m$. We set
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{graphical:vep}
&\quad\; \int_{0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t} P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t;\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}f(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_m\\
&=\int_{\Delta_{\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}(t)} \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m \int_{\mathcal G_0}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};0}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) \int_{\mathcal G_1}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};1}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})\cdots \int_{\mathcal G_m}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) f.
\end{split}
\end{align}
By incorporating the indicator functions for $[\eta_{\varepsilon} t,t)$, $(0,\eta_{\varepsilon} t)$ and $[0,\eta_{\varepsilon} t)$ for $u_\ell$ and $v_\ell$ when appropriate, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:path} and a generalization of the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:CSZ} (2${^\circ}$) as in Step~\hyperlink{PP:1}{1} that the foregoing iterated integral can be bounded by
\begin{align}
\begin{split}\label{ensemble-est}
& \max_{s\in (0,\infty)}P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1})\times t^2 {\rm e}^{qt}\Bigg(\prod_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle \ell:\sigma_\ell=1}{b_\ell=1}}\sup_{x\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)}\int_0^{\eta_{\varepsilon} t} \Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_v)]\d v\Bigg)\\
&\times \Bigg(\prod_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle \ell:\sigma_\ell=1}{b_\ell=0}}\sup_{x\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)}\int_0^{ t}\Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_v)]\d v\Bigg)\\
&\times\int_{u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,1)}\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1}\frac{T_\ell(u_\ell/t)}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_{\ell})}}\Bigg)\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}T_\ell(u_\ell/t)\Bigg),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $T_\ell(\tilde{u}_\ell)=\mathds 1_{[\eta_{\varepsilon} t,t)}(\tilde{u}_\ell)$ if $a_\ell=1$ and $T_\ell(\tilde{u}_\ell)=\mathds 1_{(0,\eta_{\varepsilon} t)}(\tilde{u}_\ell)$ otherwise. The term in the foregoing display tends to zero by dominated convergence and the following implications of Proposition~\ref{prop:bounds}:
\begin{align}
&\sup_{x\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)}\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^{\eta_{\varepsilon} t} {\rm e}^{-qv}{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_v)]\d v\to 0,\label{lim:etavep+++}\\
&\sup_{x\in {\rm supp}(\varphi)}\Lambda_\vep^2\int_0^{ t} {\rm e}^{-qv}{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} x}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_v)]\d v\leq C(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda){\rm e}^{q(\|\varphi\|_\infty,\lambda)(t\vee 1)}.\notag
\end{align}
Note that \eqref{lim:etavep+++} uses $\eta_{\varepsilon}$ for the property $\Lambda_\vep\log ({\varepsilon}^{-2}\eta_{\varepsilon} t)\to 0$.
By \eqref{ensemble-est}, we have proved that
\begin{align}\label{approx_ab:1}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t} P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t;\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}f(x_0)\d \boldsymbol s_m=0,\quad \forall\;\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b\neq \mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m.
\end{align}
Now we focus on the case $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b=\mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m$.
Denote by $\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ the product of the Gaussian edge weights in $\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ with ${\varepsilon}=0$. We stress that the edge weights defined by \eqref{weight3} remain in use in $\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$. Then the difference between the iterated integral in \eqref{graphical:vep} for $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b=\mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m$
and the analogous integral from replacing $\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};m}$ by $\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};m}$, given by
\[
\int_{\Delta_{\boldsymbol 1_{m+1}\times \boldsymbol 1_{m}}(t)} \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m \int_{\mathcal G_0}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};0}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) \int_{\mathcal G_1}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};1}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})\cdots \int_{\mathcal G_m}\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) f,
\]
tends to zero.
To see the validity of this replacement, note that by Lemma~\ref{lem:phikbd},
\begin{align*}
&\left|\int_{\mathcal G_m}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) f-\int_{\mathcal G_m}\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};m}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) f\right| \leq \Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} (x_m^{i_m\prime}-x^{i_m}_m)}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v_m)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_{v_m})]\cdot E({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2})M_\phi,
\end{align*}
where $M_\phi$ is such that $\phi$ is supported in $|y|\leq M_\phi$.
Here, $({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2})M_\phi$ arises whenever we remove ${\varepsilon}$ from the Gaussian weight where the left endpoint of the edge is where two left-maximal entanglement-free paths are adjacent to an edge drawn as a coiled line segment. There are less than $E$ many such pairs. Note that we have integrated out the right endpoints of the Gaussian weights so that none of them appear in the above bound. Hence, the argument in Step~\hyperlink{PP:1}{1} shows the required replacement.
The differences between the above replacement and the remaining replacements are very minor. For $\ell=1,\cdots,m-1$,
removing ${\varepsilon}$ from the Gaussian weight where $\mathcal P_\ell'$ and $\mathcal P_\ell$ join shows that
\begin{align*}
&\left|\int_{\mathcal G_\ell}\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) -\int_{\mathcal G_\ell}\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m}) \right| \\
&\quad\; \leq \Lambda_\vep^2{\mathbb E}^W_{{\varepsilon} (x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell)}[{\rm e}^{A^o_{\varepsilon}(v_\ell)}\varphi_{\varepsilon}(W_{v_\ell})]\cdot ({\varepsilon}/ \eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2})M_\phi \max_{y\in {\Bbb R}^2}P_{2|\mathcal P_{\ell}'\oplus \mathcal P_\ell|}(y),
\end{align*}
again by Lemma~\ref{lem:phikbd}, where the maximum of the Gaussian kernel can be bounded by using Lemma~\ref{lem:path}. (More precisely, we use Lemma~\ref{lem:phikbd} (2${^\circ}$) at the rightmost vertex of the spine.)
The case $\ell=0$ only requires the bound of $({\varepsilon}/\eta_{\varepsilon}^{1/2})M_\phi$. We have proved that
\begin{align}\label{finalreplace:1}
&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t} \Big(P^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t;\mathbf 1_m\times \mathbf 1_{m+1}}f(x_0)-\widetilde{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\Big)\d \boldsymbol s_m=0,
\end{align}
where $\widetilde{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ is defined by \eqref{graphical:vep} with $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b=\mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m$ and with $\Pi^{\mathbf 1_m}_{{\varepsilon};1}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})$ replaced by $\overline{\Pi}_{{\varepsilon};\ell}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})$ for all $\ell=0,1,\cdots,m$. Moreover, a slight modification of the proof of \eqref{approx_ab:1} shows that for $\overline{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ defined by replacing $\Delta_{\mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m}(t)$ with $\Delta(t)$ in $\widetilde{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$,
\begin{align}\label{finalreplace:2}
&\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t} \Big(\widetilde{P}^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t;\mathbf 1_m\times \mathbf 1_{m+1}}f(x_0)-\overline{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\Big)\d \boldsymbol s_m=0.
\end{align}
By \eqref{finalreplace:1} and \eqref{finalreplace:2}, we have removed
all the ${\varepsilon}$-correction terms in the Gaussian weights.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Step~\hypertarget{PP:22}{2-2}.}
Let us begin by comparing $\overline{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ and $P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$. With respect to the simplified list of measures discussed below \eqref{graphical:lim}, $\overline{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ differs from $P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$ only by the use of
\[
\overline{{\mathfrak s}}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(t)\stackrel{\rm def}{=} 2{\int\!\!\!\int} \phi(x){\mathfrak s}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(t;x,y)\varphi(y)\d x\d y
\]
instead of ${\mathfrak s}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(t)$. To see this simplification, note that since all the Gaussian weights in \eqref{weight1}--\eqref{weight4} do not depend on $x_\ell^{i_\ell\prime}$ and $z_\ell$ after setting ${\varepsilon}=0$, these simplified measures lead to the new weight
\[
{\int\!\!\!\int} \phi(x^{i_\ell\prime}_\ell-x^{i_\ell}_\ell){\mathfrak s}_{\varepsilon}^\beta \big(\tau_\ell-s_\ell;x_\ell^{i_{\ell}\prime}-x^{i_\ell}_\ell,z_\ell\big)\d x^{i_\ell\prime}_\ell \varphi(z_\ell)\d z_\ell=\frac{1}{2}\overline{{\mathfrak s}}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(\tau_\ell-s_\ell)
\]
for \eqref{weight3}. On the other hand, in $P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$, the corresponding weight under the simplified list of measures is $\tfrac{1}{2}{\mathfrak s}_\beta(\tau_\ell-s_\ell)$.
In this step, we work with these characterizations under the simplified list of measures and show that
\begin{align}\label{final_limit!!}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{0< s_1<\cdots< s_m< t} \Big(\overline{P}^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)-P^{{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)\Big)\d \boldsymbol s_m=0.
\end{align}
Recall that for probability measures $\mu_n,\mu,\nu_n,\nu$ on ${\Bbb R}$, $\mu_n\otimes \nu_n\Rightarrow \mu\otimes \nu$ if and only if $\mu_n\Rightarrow \mu$ and $\nu_n\Rightarrow \nu$ \cite[Theorem~2.8 on p.23]{Bill}. This result extends immediately to finite measures with total masses converging in ${\Bbb R}_+$
by normalization. Recall also the discussion above \eqref{equicontinuity} for convergences of Laplace transforms.
We have $\int_0^t \overline{{\mathfrak s}}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(v)\d v\to\int_0^t {\mathfrak s}^\beta(v)\d v$ for all $t\geq 0$ from the monotonicity of these functions of $t$ and the convergence of the Laplace transform. Hence, by the Portmanteau theorem \cite[Theorem~2.1 on p.16]{Bill}, the following convergence property holds: For all bounded continuous functions $F(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ with a compact support,
\[
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{{\Bbb R}^{m+1}_+\times {\Bbb R}^m_+} F(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m\overline{{\mathfrak s}}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(v_\ell)\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m= \int_{{\Bbb R}_+^{m+1}\times {\Bbb R}_+^m} F(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m) \prod_{\ell=1}^m{\mathfrak s}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m.
\]
Recall that we write $\Delta(t)$ for the bounded set of $u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,t)$ and $v_1,\cdots,v_m\in [0,t)$ such that $\sum_{\ell=1}^m (u_\ell+v_\ell)+u_{m+1}<t$.
This set is a continuity set of the limiting product measure. Hence, for all bounded continuous functions $F(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})$ on ${\Bbb R}_+^{m+1}\times {\Bbb R}_+^m$, we have
\begin{align}\label{conv:port}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{\Delta(t)} F(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m\overline{{\mathfrak s}}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m= \int_{\Delta(t)} F(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m{\mathfrak s}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m.
\end{align}
Write $F_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ for the iterated integral in \eqref{graphical:lim} over the vertices of $\mathcal G_0,\mathcal G_1,\cdots,\mathcal G_m$ after factoring out ${\mathfrak s}_\beta(v_\ell)$ for all $\ell$. (This function $F_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ is the same as the one when the same factorization is done for the analogous iterated integral for $\overline{P}^{\mathbf 1_m;{\mathbf i}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf i}_m}_{{\varepsilon};s_1,\cdots,s_m,t}f(x_0)$.)
We close the proof of this proposition by proving that, with $F_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_{m})$ chosen above, for every $\eta\in(0,1)$, there exists ${\varepsilon}_0$ such that for all ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_0)$,
\begin{align}\label{final_claim!!}
\left|\int_{\Delta(t)} F_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m\overline{{\mathfrak s}}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m- \int_{\Delta(t)} F_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m) \prod_{\ell=1}^m{\mathfrak s}^\beta(v_\ell)\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m\right|<\eta.
\end{align}
This property leads to \eqref{final_limit!!} by the choice of $F_0$. To prove \eqref{final_claim!!}, first, we choose for every $\delta_0>0$ a $[0,1]$-valued continuous function $\chi_{\delta_0}$ defined on $[0,\infty)$ such that $\chi_{\delta_0}(v)=1$ for all $v\geq \delta_0$ and $\chi_{\delta_0}(0)=0$. For all $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b\in \{0,1\}^{m+1}\times\{0,1\}^m$, write $\tilde{\chi}=1-\chi$ and
\[
\chi_{\delta_0;\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)=\prod_{\ell:a_\ell=1}\chi_{\delta_0}(u_\ell)\prod_{\ell:a_\ell=0}\tilde{\chi}_{\delta_0}(u_\ell)\prod_{\ell:b_{\ell}=1}\chi_{\delta_0}(v_\ell)\prod_{\ell:b_{\ell}=0}\tilde{\chi}_{\delta_0}(v_\ell).
\]
The sum of $\chi_{\delta_0;\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)$ over $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b$ equals to $1$.
Then as in Step~\hyperlink{PP:21}{2-1} (see \eqref{ensemble-est}) with $q=0$,
\begin{align}
&\quad\;\int_{\Delta(t)} F_0(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\chi_{\delta_0;\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b}(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m\overline{{\mathfrak s}}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m\notag\\
\begin{split}\label{ab:bdd!!!}
&\leq \max_{s\in (0,\infty)}P_{2s}(x_0^{i_1\prime}-x_0^{i_1})\times t^2\Bigg(\prod_{\ell:b_\ell=1}\int_0^{t} \overline{{\mathfrak s}}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(v)\d v\Bigg)\times \Bigg(\prod_{ \ell:b_\ell=0}\int_0^{\delta_0}\overline{{\mathfrak s}}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(v)\d v\Bigg)\\
&\quad\;\times\int_{u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,1)}\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1}\frac{\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=1\}}\chi_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)+
\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=0\}}\tilde{\chi}_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_{\ell})}}\Bigg)\\
&\quad\;\times \prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}\big\{\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=1\}}\chi_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)+
\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=0\}}\tilde{\chi}_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)\big\}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We are ready to prove \eqref{final_claim!!}. Note that $ \int_0^t\overline{{\mathfrak s}}^{\varepsilon}_\beta(r)\d r$ converges to $\int_0^t{\mathfrak s}_\beta(r)\d r$ for all fixed $t\geq 0$, and $\lim_{t\searrow 0}\int_0^t {\mathfrak s}_\beta(r)\d r=0$. Whenever there is at least some $\ell$ such that $a_\ell=0$, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:CSZ} (1${^\circ}$) and dominated convergence that
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{\delta_0\to 0}\int_{u_1,\cdots,u_{m+1}\in (0,1)}\d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\Bigg(\prod_{\ell=1}^{m-1}\frac{\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=1\}}\chi_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)+
\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=0\}}\tilde{\chi}_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)}{\sqrt{u_{\ell+1}(u_{\ell+1}+u_{\ell})}}\Bigg)\\
&\quad\;\times \prod_{\ell=m}^{m+1}\big\{\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=1\}}\chi_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)+
\mathds 1_{\{a_\ell=0\}}\tilde{\chi}_{\delta_0}(u_\ell/t)\big\}=0.
\end{align*}
By these observations, we see that for all $\boldsymbol a\times \boldsymbol b\neq \mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m$, the bound in \eqref{ab:bdd!!!} and its analogue with $\overline{{\mathfrak s}}^\beta_{\varepsilon}$ replaced by ${\mathfrak s}^\beta$
can be made strictly smaller than $\eta/(3\cdot 2^{2m+1})$ by first choosing $\delta_0$ and then ${\varepsilon}_0$ according to $\delta_0$. On the other hand, it follows from \eqref{conv:port} that by choosing smaller ${\varepsilon}_0$ if necessary,
\begin{align}\label{final_claim!!+++}
\begin{split}
&\Bigg|\int_{\Delta(t)} (F_0\chi_{\delta_0;\mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m})(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m\overline{{\mathfrak s}}_{\varepsilon}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m\\
&\hspace{1cm}- \int_{\Delta(t)} (F_0\chi_{\delta_0;\mathbf 1_{m+1}\times \mathbf 1_m})(\boldsymbol u_{m+1},\boldsymbol v_m)\prod_{\ell=1}^m{\mathfrak s}^\beta(v_\ell) \d \boldsymbol u_{m+1}\d \boldsymbol v_m\Bigg|<\frac{\eta}{3},\quad \forall\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\overline{\vep}}).
\end{split}
\end{align}
These bounds are enough to get \eqref{final_claim!!}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[End of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}]
The proof of this theorem follows from Propositions~\ref{prop:series1} and~\ref{prop:series2} if we choose ${\varepsilon}_0\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$ such that for appropriate $q\in (\beta,\infty)$ in \eqref{def:Delta1},
\begin{align}\label{qvep:bdd}
32^{m}\left[\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)^m+\left(\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}\right)^m\right]\leq 2\cdot\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^m,\quad \forall\;m\geq 1.
\end{align}
To see this bound, note that we can choose $q$ large enough such that
\[
\frac{32\cdot 4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}<\frac{1}{2}.
\]
Additionally, since $\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)\to 4\pi/\log (q/\beta)$, we can find ${\varepsilon}_0\in (0,{\overline{\vep}})$ such that
\[
\widehat{\S}^\beta_{\varepsilon}(q)<\frac{4\pi}{\log (q/\beta)}+\frac{1}{4}<\frac{3}{4},\quad \forall\;{\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_0).
\]
We have obtained \eqref{qvep:bdd} by the last two displays. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{Some special functions and exponential functionals}\label{sec:expmom}
In this section, we collect some properties of the Bessel functions and explicit formulas of exponential functions with positive exponents for one-dimensional Brownian motion and ${\rm BES}^2$.
Let us start with properties of the Bessel functions. Recall that given an order $\nu$, $J_\nu$ denotes the Bessel function of the first kind, $I_\nu$ the modified Bessel function of the first kind, and $K_\nu$ the Macdonald function. Then the following integral representations hold:
\begin{align}
K_\nu(z)&=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^\nu \int_0^\infty t^{-\nu-1}{\rm e}^{-t-(z^2/4t)}\d t,\quad |\arg(z)|<\frac{\pi}{4};\label{def:K}\\
I_\nu(z)&=\frac{(z/2)^\nu}{\sqrt{\pi}\,\Gamma(\nu+1/2)}\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{\nu-1/2}\cosh(zt)\d t,\quad|\arg (z)|<\pi,\; \Re(\nu)>-1/2\label{def:I}
\end{align}
\cite[(5.10.25) and (5.10.22) on p.119]{Lebedev}, and $I_0(z)=J_0(\i z)$ for all $z\in \Bbb C$.
We also have the alternative expressions:
\begin{align}\label{def:JIseries}
I_0(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(z/2)^{2n}}{\Gamma(n+1)^2},\quad
J_0(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^n(z/2)^{2n}}{\Gamma(n+1)^2};
\end{align}
the two series have infinite radii of convergence \cite[(5.3.2) on p.102 and (5.7.1) on p.108]{Lebedev}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:asympgauss}
As $a\to 0+$,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\pi}K_0({\sqrt{2}} a)&=\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm e}^{- t}}{2\pi t}\exp\left\{-\frac{a^2}{t}\right\}\d t=\frac{1}{\pi}\left(\log \frac{1}{a}-\gamma_{\mathsf E\mathsf M}\right)+\mathcal O\left(a^2\log \frac{1}{a}\right),\label{asymp:gauss}\\
K_1(a)&=\frac{1}{a}\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{- s}\int_{a^2/(4s)}^\infty {\rm e}^{-v}\d v \d s\sim \frac{1}{a},\label{ineq:K1bdd}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal O(a)$ as $a\to 0$ means $|\mathcal O(a)|\lesssim |a|$ for all $0<|a|\leq 1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We only prove \eqref{ineq:K1bdd}:
\begin{align*}
K_1(a)&=\frac{a}{4}\int_0^\infty \frac{{\rm e}^{- t}}{ t^2}\exp\left\{-\frac{a^2}{4t}\right\}\d t
=\frac{a}{4}\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{- s}\int_0^s\frac{1}{ t^2}\exp\left\{-\frac{a^2}{4t}\right\}\d t \d s\\
&=\frac{1}{a}\int_0^\infty {\rm e}^{- s}\int_{a^2/(4s)}^\infty {\rm e}^{-v}\d v \d s\sim \frac{1}{a},
\end{align*}
where the third equality uses the substitution $v=a^2/(4t)$. See also \cite[(5.16.4) on p.136]{Lebedev}.
\end{proof}
Next, we turn to exponential functionals of Brownian motions.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:expmom1}
For any $\mu\geq 0$ and $M\in (0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}
&{\mathbb E}_a[{\rm e}^{-\mu T_b(\rho)}]=\frac{\int_0^\infty t^{-1}\exp\big(-t-\frac{a^2\mu }{2t}\big)\d t}{\int_0^\infty t^{-1}\exp\big(-t-\frac{b^2\mu }{2t}\big)\d t}=\frac{K_0(a\sqrt{2\mu}\,)}{K_0(b\sqrt{2\mu}\,)},
\hspace{4.3cm}\mbox{$0<b\leq a$};\label{bes:hit1}\\
&{\mathbb E}_a[{\rm e}^{-\mu T_b(\rho)}]=\frac{ \int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(a\sqrt{2\mu}t)\d t}
{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(b\sqrt{2\mu}t)\d t}=\frac{I_0(a\sqrt{2\mu}\,)}{I_0(b\sqrt{2\mu}\,)},
\hspace{3.6cm}\mbox{$0<a\leq b$};\label{bes:hit2}\\
&{\mathbb E}_{\log a}\left[\exp\left\{-\mu\int_0^{T_{\log b}(\beta)}\mathds 1_{(-\infty,\log M]}(\beta_v)\d v\right\}\right]=\frac{\cosh\big(\log (\tfrac{M}{a\wedge M})\sqrt{2\mu}\,\big)}{\cosh\big(\log(\tfrac{M}{b\wedge M})\sqrt{2\mu}\,\big)},\hspace{1.5cm} 0<b\leq a;\label{bm:prob1}\\
&{\mathbb E}_{\log a}\left[\exp\left\{-\mu\int_0^{T_{\log b}(\beta)}{\rm e}^{2\beta_v}\d v\right\}\right]=\frac{ \int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(a\sqrt{2\mu}t)\d t}
{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(b\sqrt{2\mu}t)\d t},\hspace{1.8cm}0<a\leq b\label{bm:prob2}.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
See \cite[(2.0.1) on p.513, (2.5.1) on p.207 and (2.10.3) on p.210]{BS:Handbook} for the four identities
in Theorem~\ref{thm:expmom1}. Identities \eqref{bes:hit1} and \eqref{bes:hit2} are obtained in \cite{Kent78,GS}, and we use the integral representations in \eqref{def:K} and \eqref{def:I}. For the proof of \eqref{bm:prob1} when $a\leq M$, see \cite[Example~2.1 on page 437 with $\mu=0$]{Knight}. Note that \eqref{bm:prob2} coincides with \eqref{bes:hit2} since the stopped additive functional in \eqref{bm:prob2} has the same law as the hitting time of the two-dimensional Bessel process by the skew product representation of two-dimensional Brownian motion. See also \cite{HM} for related formulas.
To extend the formulas in Theorem~\ref{thm:expmom1} to positive exponents, we first recall a basic result of analytic characteristic functions \cite[Section~2.3 starting on p.20, especially Theorem~2.3.2 on p.22]{Lukacs}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:extension}
Suppose that the characteristic function $\phi$ of a random variable $X$ admits an analytic extension in the open disc $D(0,R)$, with radius $R\leq \infty$ and center at the origin, in $\Bbb C$. Then ${\mathbb E}[\exp a|X|]<\infty$ for all $0\leq a<R$.
\end{prop}
In contrast to the rigidity of \eqref{bes:hit1} due to the use of the Macdonald function $K_0$, the other three formulas \eqref{bes:hit2}, \eqref{bm:prob1} and \eqref{bm:prob2} can be extended analytically from positive $\mu$ to negative $\mu$ by the analogous property of the hyperbolic cosine. We show the precise result after the following lemmas.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Phi}
For $0\neq w\in \Bbb C$, the entire function $\Phi_w(z)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (w/2)^{2n}z^n/\Gamma(n+1)^2$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [\rm (1${^\circ}$)] For all $z\in \Bbb C$, $\Phi_w(z)=\cosh(w\sqrt{z}\,)$. Here, $\sqrt{z}=\sqrt{|z|}{\rm e}^{\i \arg(z)/2}$, for $\arg(z)\in (-\pi,\pi]$, is well-defined on $\Bbb C$ and is analytic on $\Bbb C\setminus(-\infty,0]$ such that $(\sqrt{z}\,)^2=z$. Hence, $\Phi_w$ is an entire extension of $z\mapsto \cosh(w\sqrt{z}\,)$.
\item [\rm (2${^\circ}$)] For all $z\in {\Bbb R}_+$, $\Phi_w(-z)=\cos(w\sqrt{z}\,)$.
\item [\rm (3${^\circ}$)] The set of zeros of $\Phi_w$ is
$\{-w^{-2}(n\pi+ \pi/2)^2;n\in \Bbb Z_+\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The properties in (1${^\circ}$) follow from the Taylor expansion of the hyperbolic cosine and a use of the principal branch of logarithm. For (2${^\circ}$), we use the Taylor expansion of the cosine to write
\[
\forall\;z\in {\Bbb R}_+,\quad \cos(w \sqrt{z}\,)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n\frac{w^{2n}z^n}{(2n)!}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{w^{2n}(-z)^n}{(2n)!}=\Phi_w(-z).
\]
To see (3${^\circ}$), note that the zeros of $\cosh(\zeta)$ are given by $\i(n\pi+ \pi/2)$, for all $n\in \Bbb Z$. This property can be seen by solving ${\rm e}^\zeta+{\rm e}^{-\zeta}=0$ for ${\rm e}^\zeta$ and then for $\zeta$. Thus, by the representation of $\Phi_w$ in (1${^\circ}$), the zero set of $\Phi_w$ is $\{-w^{-2}(n\pi+ \pi/2)^2;n\in \Bbb Z\}$. Moreover, since, for $n\in \Bbb N$, $(-n\pi+\pi/2)^2=(n\pi-\pi/2)^2=((n-1)\pi+\pi/2)^2$, the zero set of $\Phi_w$ simplifies to the required one.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Psi}
For $0\neq w\in \Bbb C$, the entire function $\varphi_w(z)\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\sum_{n=0}^\infty (w/2)^{2n}z^{n}/(n!)^2$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [\rm (1${^\circ}$)] For all $z\in \Bbb C$, $I_0(w\sqrt{z}\,)=\varphi_w(z)=
J_0(w\sqrt{-z}\,)$.
\item [\rm (2${^\circ}$)] The zero set of $\varphi_w$ is
$\{- w^{-2}j_{0,n}^2;n\in \Bbb N\}$, where $0<j_{0,1}<j_{0,2}<\cdots$ are the positive zeros of $J_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The two identities in (1${^\circ}$) follow from the Taylor expansions recalled in \eqref{def:JIseries}.
To see (2${^\circ}$), recall that the positive zeros of the even function $J_0$ are $0<j_{0,1}<j_{0,2}<\cdots$ \cite[Section~9.5 p.370]{AS:Handbook}, and the zeros of $J_0$ are all real \cite[Section~9.5 p.372]{AS:Handbook}. Solving the equations $\pm j_{0,n}=w\sqrt{-z_n}$ gives the required zero set of $\varphi_w$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:expmom2}
For any $M,\nu\in (0,\infty)$, it holds that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb E}_{\log a}\left[\exp\left\{\nu\int_0^{T_{\log b}(\beta)}\mathds 1_{(-\infty,\log M]}(\beta_v)\d v\right\}\right]=\frac{\cos\big(\log (\tfrac{M}{a\wedge M})\sqrt{2\nu}\,\big)}{\cos\big(\log(\tfrac{M}{b\wedge M})\sqrt{2\nu}\,\big)},\hspace{.3cm}M{\rm e}^{-\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu}}}<b\leq a;\label{bm:prob3}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb E}_{\log a}\left[\exp\left\{\nu\int_0^{T_{\log b}(\beta)}{\rm e}^{2\beta_v}\d v\right\}\right]=\frac{ \int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(a\sqrt{2\nu}t)\d t}
{\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(b\sqrt{2\nu}t)\d t},\hspace{.6cm}0<a\leq b<\frac{j_{0,1}}{\sqrt{2\nu}},\label{bm:prob4}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $j_{0,1}=2.40483...$ is the smallest positive zero of $J_0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We start with the proof of \eqref{bm:prob3}. If we restrict attention to $0<b\leq a$, it is enough to further assume $b<M$. In this case, it follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:extension} and Lemma~\ref{lem:Psi} (3${^\circ}$) that \eqref{bm:prob1} can be extended analytically to the half-space
\begin{align}\label{def:halfspace}
\Big\{\mu\in \Bbb C\,;\,\Re(2\mu)>-\Big(\log \frac{M}{b}\Big)^{-2}\cdot \Big(\frac{\pi}{2}\Big)^2\Big\}.
\end{align}
Moreover, Lemma~\ref{lem:Phi} (3${^\circ}$) shows that the explicit form of the analytic extension to $\mu$ such that $\Re(\mu)<0$ can be obtained by replacing the hyperbolic cosine with the cosine. For real $\nu=-\mu> 0$,
\[
\cosh\big(\log (\tfrac{M}{a})\sqrt{2\mu}\,\big)=\cos\big(\log (\tfrac{M}{a})\sqrt{-2\mu}\,\big)\quad\mbox{and}\quad \cosh\big(\log (\tfrac{M}{b})\sqrt{2\mu}\,\big)=\cos\big(\log (\tfrac{M}{b})\sqrt{-2\mu}\,\big).
\]
To see the lower bound of $b$ in \eqref{bm:prob3}, note that the defining condition of the half-space \eqref{def:halfspace} requires
\[
2\nu<\Big(\log \frac{M}{b}\Big)^{-2}\cdot \Big(\frac{\pi}{2}\Big)^2\Longleftrightarrow M{\rm e}^{-\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2\nu}}}<b.
\]
We have proved all of the properties stated in \eqref{bm:prob3}.
For the proof of \eqref{bm:prob4}, Proposition~\ref{prop:extension} and Lemma~\ref{lem:Phi} again allow for analytic extensions of $\mu\mapsto I_0(a\sqrt{2\mu}\,)$ and $\mu\mapsto I_0(b\sqrt{2\mu}\,)$ to $\Re(\mu)<0$ since $\int_0^1(1-t^2)^{-1/2}\d t<\infty$ (the precise value is $\pi/2$). For real $\nu=-\mu>0$, we can write
\[
I_0(a\sqrt{2\mu}\,)=\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cosh(a\sqrt{2\mu}t)\d t=\int_{-1}^1 (1-t^2)^{-1/2}\cos(a\sqrt{2\nu}t)\d t.
\]
A similar integral representation holds for $I_0(b\sqrt{2\mu}\,)$, $\mu<0$. To get an upper bound for the eligible $b$, now we have to consider the zeros of $I_0$ instead by using Lemma~\ref{lem:Psi} (3${^\circ}$). Hence, \eqref{bm:prob2} can be extended analytically to the half-space
$\{\mu\in \Bbb C\,;\,\Re(2\mu)>-b^{-2}j_{0,1}^2\}$.
The defining condition of the foregoing half-space requires
\[
2\nu<b^{-2} j_{0,1}^2\Longleftrightarrow b<\frac{j_{0,1}}{\sqrt{2\nu}}.
\]
The formula in \eqref{bm:prob4} follows.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
The advent of optical tweezers corroborates the experimental realization of few-body ultracold atom settings~\cite{Bayha_shell_2020,Holten_Crystalls_2020,blume_few-body_2012} in a controllable manner even at the level of two~\cite{Xu_interaction_decay_2015,Sompet_microtrap_2013,Anderegg_tweezer_2019,Guan_density_2019}, and three \cite{Reynolds_triads_2020} atoms. Moreover, advances in the relevant trapping techniques provide an exquisite variability of such systems, e.g. in terms of reduced dimensionality \cite{Bayha_shell_2020,Holten_Crystalls_2020} or tunable atomic interactions through Feshbach \cite{chin_feshbach_2010} and confinement induced resonances \cite{olshanii_atomic_1998,bergeman_atom-atom_2003,haller_confinement-induced_2010,giannakeas_coupled_2012}. As such, strongly correlated few-body systems are nowadays accessible with a high fidelity in a prosaic way.
Three-particle systems in two-dimensions (2D) are of particular interest given that they yield insights into the stability properties of 2D gases in terms of their inherent three-body recombination processes \cite{Incao_recomb2D_2015,Helfrich_resonant_2011,Pricoupenko_stability_2007}, and are viewed as the fundamental building-blocks for understanding the crossover from few- to many atom systems \cite{liu_correlated2D_2010,daily_hyperspherical_2015,greene_clusters_2017,gharashi_three_2012}.
Also, they constitute the minimal settings containing both two- and three-body correlations whose characteristics are essential for engineering many-body processes \cite{daily_hyperspherical_2015,Kirk_three-body_2017,Bermudez_MB_2009}.
The reduced dimensionality plays a crucial role on the impact of correlations, namely they are more prominent in lower compared to three-dimensions (3D)~\cite{Lang_correlations_2017,Lindgren_fermionization_2014,zinner_fractional_2014}.
Conventionally, correlation effects manifest in the asymptotic expansion of the momentum distribution of the one-body reduced density~\cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014,bellotti_dimeffects_2013} and are consecutively captured by the so-called two- and three-body contacts.
The latter are experimentally probed via radio-frequency spectroscopy, time-of-flight expansion, and subsequent measurement of the structure factor with the aid of Bragg spectroscopy \cite{Fletcher_contacts_2017,wild_measurement_2012,sagi_measurement_2012,stewart_contact_2010,Kuhnle_universal_2010,Hoinka_precise_2013}. Their investigation sheds light into the microscopic properties of the system, especially the formation of two- \cite{sykes_quenching_2014,Corson_bound_2015,Bougas_analytical_2019,Bougas_stationary_2020} and three-body bound states (trimers) \cite{bellotti_dimeffects_2013,sykes_quenching_2014}. Importantly, the two-body contact satisfies universal relations regarding the energy, the two-body loss rate, and the radio-frequency spectra that hold regardless of the statistics and the dimensionality, in few- as well as in many-body settings \cite{castin_general_2012,valiente_universal_2011,Valiente_universal_2012,Werner_generalF_2012}.
Three-body correlations on the other hand, captured by the three-body contact, strongly depend on the dimensionality of the system \cite{bellotti_dimeffects_2013,Bellotti_contacts_2014}. This behavior is attributed to the presence of the Efimov effect in 3D, which significantly affects the energy spectra of three-body systems \cite{bellotti_dimeffects_2013,castin_single-particle_2011}, and in particular the trimer states \cite{greene_clusters_2017}. Interestingly, the experimental observation of the three-body contact in 2D settings remains, to the best of our knowledge, yet elusive. The important role of correlations in reduced dimensions however renders its study of immense interest, especially in trapped three-particle systems. This is further corroborated by the investigation of the two-body contact, in strongly interacting harmonically trapped two-component Fermi gases \cite{frolich_liquid_2012,bertaina_bcs_2011}, and more recently in a two-component bosonic gas confined in a 2D box potential \cite{zou_planar_Cont_2020}, revealing enhanced two-body correlations in the BEC-BCS crossover.
Particularly, 2D binary set-ups consisting of two identical bosonic or fermionic atoms interacting with a third distinguishable one are known to possess a plethora of trimer states in terms of the 2D scattering lengths among the identical particles (intraspecies) and the two different atoms (interspecies), as well as the mass ratio \cite{bellotti_mass-imbalanced_2013,bellotti_scaling_2011}. This holds in spite of the absence of the Efimov effect \cite{lim_fonseca-redish-shanley_1980,bruch_binding_1979}, which is usually manifested as the appearance of an infinite progression of trimer states. Another crucial property is that when the identical bosons or fermions become heavier than the third particle, ancillary trimer states are created \cite{bellotti_mass-imbalanced_2013,pricoupenko_planar_2010}.
Generally, studies in 3D have shown that the mass ratio can drastically affect the properties of the three-body complexes allowing, for example, more favorable experimental conditions to observe multiple successive Efimov states \cite{tung_geometric_2014, pires_PRL_2014}, or resonant effects that are absent on equal mass three-body collisions \cite{ulmanisHeteronuclearEfimovScenario2016,johansen_NP_2017,wackerUniversalThreeBodyPhysics2016, giannakeas_PRL_2018,mikkelsenThreebodyRecombinationTwocomponent2015,petrov_PRA_2015}.
Apart from that, the confinement of three-body systems in a 2D harmonic oscillator yields the presence of additional eigenstates in the energy spectrum aside from trimer ones. These consist of a dimer interacting with another trapped atom \cite{liu_correlated2D_2010}, as well as trap states characterizing three weakly interacting atoms confined in a harmonic potential.
Focusing on the problem of 2D three-particle binary settings, we unveil their emergent few-body correlation characteristics for a wide range of their intrinsic parameters such as the interspecies scattering lengths and the mass ratio, as well as for different particle statistics.
An emphasis is placed on the impact of the above-described additional eigenstates originating from the presence of the trap which has not been studied so far \cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014}.
Exploiting the utility of the adiabatic hyperspherical formalism \cite{greene_clusters_2017,naidon_efimov_2017,dincao_few-body_2017}, the corresponding few-body correlation measures are constructed and their behavior, as captured by the two- and three-body contacts, is systematically investigated over a vast parameter space which is comprised by the particles' statistics, the 2D scattering lengths and the mass ratio.
In particular, for trimer states we observe the same overall behavior of the corresponding two- and three-body correlations, as was shown in previous studies \cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014}.
However, we explicate that despite the statistics, both the two- and three-body contacts of atom-dimer and trap states display an oscillatory pattern for varying scattering length.
This behavior is attributed to the existent avoided-crossings between these two eigenstates in the energy spectra.
By considering thermal gases, the amplitude of these oscillations decreases for larger temperatures, a phenomenon that holds equally for the magnitude of two- and three-body correlations.
Interestingly, the atom-dimer states provide an upper bound for the two-body contact of all non-trimer states and a semi-analytical prediction is derived within the JWKB method, regardless of the particle exchange symmetry. Such a bound is absent in the case of three-body correlations. Binary systems with bosonic majority species exhibit overall an increased degree of correlations, due to the existence of three-body ones, being absent in their fermionic counterpart. Moreover, the spatial configuration of the eigenstates is demonstrated via the experimentally accessible one-body reduced density in position space, an observable largely unexplored in 2D three-body systems \cite{sandoval_radii2D_2016}.
This work is arranged as follows. In Sec. \ref{Sec:Hamilt}, the Hamiltonian of the considered mixtures is introduced within the hyperspherical formalism whose main aspects are presented in detail. In Sec. \ref{Sec:Spectra} we review the behavior of the adiabatic potential curves stemming from the hyperangular problem and the underlying energy spectra for different scattering lengths and mass ratios.
Subsequently, the susceptibility of the contacts is unraveled with respect to the scattering lengths [Sec. \ref{Sec:Cont2}] and the mass ratios [Sec. \ref{3b_contact}]. Furthermore, the spatial configuration of the binary 2D three-body systems is revealed via the reduced one-body density in Sec. \ref{Sec:dens}.
We conclude and discuss future perspectives in Sec. \ref{Sec:conclusions}.
Appendix \ref{Ap:Hyperangles} discusses the boundary condition of two colliding particles within the hyperspherical formalism while Appendix \ref{Ap:Asymptotic} elaborates on the derivation of the reduced one-body density and its asymptotic expansion in momentum space. Finally, in Appendix \ref{Ap:Upper_bound} an analytic bound is established for the two-body contact of atom-dimer states for all binary mixtures.
\section{Hamiltonian and hyperspherical framework} \label{Sec:Hamilt}
In the following, we focus on the three-body collisions of harmonically trapped binary mixtures in 2D.
The three-body collisional complex mainly consists of two identical particles of either bosonic or fermionic symmetry and a third distinguishable one where their pairwise interactions are modeled via $\delta-$function pseudopotentials.
This setup constitutes a straightforward generalisation of the analytically tractable trapped two-body problem ~\cite{busch_two_1998,Budewig_Quench_2019,Farrell_universality_2009,Bougas_analytical_2019}.
These particular considerations permit us to investigate the dependence of two-/three-body correlations on the scattering lengths, the mass ratio of the particles as well as the impact of particle symmetry.
In view of the broad parameter space, three-body collisions in 2D are best treated in the theoretical framework of the adiabatic hyperspherical approach.
One particular aspect of this method is that the particle symmetry can be postimposed.
Therefore, following Refs. ~\cite{rittenhouse_hyperspherical_2016,rittenhouse_greens_2010} the general scope of the hyperspherical approach is presented below whereas the particle symmetry is imposed at the end of this section.
In the laboratory (lab) frame the Hamiltonian of three-particles of mass $m_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) in a 2D isotropic trap of frequency $\omega$ reads:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}=\sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_i} \nabla_i^2 +\frac{1}{2}m_i \omega^2 \boldsymbol{r}_i^2 \right)+\sum_{i<j} V_{ij}(\boldsymbol{r}_i-\boldsymbol{r}_j),
\label{Eq:hamilt_lab}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{r}_i$ is the 2D position vector of the $i$-th particle with mass $m_i$. The regularized pseudopotential describing pairwise $s$-wave interactions in 2D~\cite{olshanii_pseudopot2D_2001}
is given by
\begin{equation}
V_{ij}(\boldsymbol{r}_{ij})= -\frac{\pi \hbar^2 \delta^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{r}_{ij})}{\mu_{ij}\ln (A \lambda a^{(k)})}\left[1-\ln (A\lambda r_{ij})r_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial r_{ij}}\right],
\label{Eq:Pseudpot}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}=\boldsymbol{r}_i-\boldsymbol{r}_j$ and the reduced two-body mass is given by $ \mu_{ij}=\frac{m_im_j}{m_i+m_j}$. The constant $A$ is $A=e^{\gamma}/2$ where $\gamma\approx0.577$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Also, $\lambda$ serves as an ultraviolet-cutoff for the zero-range pseudopotential and provides an upper bound in momentum, which, however, does not impact any observable \cite{olshanii_pseudopot2D_2001}.
$a^{(k)}\equiv a_{ij}$ refers to the 2D scattering length between the particles $i$ and $j$, labeled in the odd-man-out notation \cite{rittenhouse_greens_2010}. Note that $a^{(k)}$ is related to the 3D scattering length, $a_{3D}^{(k)}$, via the expression $a^{(k)}=2e^{-\gamma}\sqrt{\pi/0.915}l_0^{(k)}\exp\{-\sqrt{\pi/2} l_0^{(k)}/a_{3D}^{(k)}\}$ \cite{petrov_interatomic_2001}. Here, $l_0^{(k)}=\sqrt{\hbar/(\mu_{ij} \omega_z)}$ denotes the harmonic oscillator length in the $z$-direction perpendicular to the 2D plane. Experimentally, $a_{3D}^{(k)}$ can be flexibly tuned by means of Feshbach resonances \cite{chin_feshbach_2010}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Figures/Jacobi.eps}
\caption{Sketch of the three possible sets of Jacobi vectors regarding three distinguishable atoms with masses $m_1$, $m_2$ and $m_3$. $\theta_{1,2}^{(k)}$ are the polar angles corresponding to the $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{1,2}^{(k)}$ Jacobi vectors [Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jacobi})] which connect the atoms $i$ and $j$, $\boldsymbol{\rho}_1^{(k)}$, and their center-of-mass with the third atom $k$, $\boldsymbol{\rho}_2^{(k)}$.}
\label{Fig:Jacobi}
\end{figure}
The number of degrees of freedom in the Hamiltonian of \cref{Eq:hamilt_lab} can be reduced by changing from the lab- to the body-frame of reference.
This permits us to separate $\mathcal{H}$ into center-of-mass and relative Hamiltonian contributions.
This can be achieved by transforming the lab coordinates $\mathbf{r}_i$, with $i=1,2,3$, into a set of three equivalent mass-scaled Jacobi vectors \cite{greene_clusters_2017,whitten_symmetric_1968}. Namely
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\boldsymbol{r}_{\textrm{CM}}=\frac{m_1\boldsymbol{r}_1+m_2\boldsymbol{r}_2+m_3\boldsymbol{r}_3}{m_1+m_2+m_3}, \label{Eq:CM} \\
& &\boldsymbol{\rho}^{(k)}_1=\frac{\boldsymbol{r}_i-\boldsymbol{r}_j}{d_k}, \\
& & \boldsymbol{\rho}^{(k)}_2=d_k\left( \frac{m_i \boldsymbol{r}_i+m_j\boldsymbol{r}_j}{m_i+m_j}-\boldsymbol{r}_k\right),
\label{Eq:Jacobi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d_k^2=\frac{m_k(m_i+m_j)}{\mu(m_1+m_2+m_3)}$ and $\mu=\sqrt{\frac{m_1m_2m_3}{m_1+m_2+m_3}}$ is the three-body reduced mass.
The superscript $(k=1,2,3)$ labels the three sets of the relevant Jacobi vectors. The first vector, $\boldsymbol{\rho}_1^{(k)}$, links the particle pair $i-j$ whereas $\boldsymbol{\rho}_2^{(k)}$ relates the $k$-th particle with the center-of-mass of the pair~\cite{rittenhouse_greens_2010}, see also Fig. \ref{Fig:Jacobi}.
The separability of the center-of-mass and relative degrees of freedom permits us to consider that the center-of-mass part of the total wave function, namely $\Psi_{\textrm{CM}}(\boldsymbol{r}_{CM})$, resides in its ground state, i.e. $\Psi_{\textrm{CM}}(\boldsymbol{r}_{CM})=\sqrt{M\omega/\pi\hbar}e^{-M \omega \boldsymbol{r}_{\textrm{CM}}^2/2\hbar }$, where $M=m_1+m_2+m_3$ is the total mass of the system.
However, the relative part of the wave function doesn't possess a simple expression as for the center-of-mass, since the corresponding Hamiltonian, i.e. $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{rel}}$, contains all the relevant potential terms.
In order to solve the Schr\"odinger equation of $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{rel}}$ we express the corresponding relative Jacobi vectors, i.e. ${\boldsymbol{\rho}}_1^{(k)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\rho}_2^{(k)}$, in the hyperspherical coordinates that consist of the hyperradius $R=\sqrt{(\boldsymbol{\rho}_1^{(k)})^2+(\boldsymbol{\rho}_2^{(k)})^2}$ and a set of hyperangles $\Omega^{(k)}$~\cite{rittenhouse_greens_2010,greene_clusters_2017}.
The hyperradius $R$ indicates the entire system size whereas $\Omega^{(k)}$ collectively denotes the hyperangles which track the orientation of the particles on the 2D plane [Fig.~\ref{Fig:Jacobi}]. More specifically, $\Omega^{(k)}=\{\alpha^{(k)},\theta_1^{(k)},\theta_2^{(k)}\}$, where $\theta_j^{(k)}$ are the polar angles associated to the $\boldsymbol{\rho_j^{(k)}}$ Jacobi vectors, and $\alpha^{(k)}$ characterizes the length ratio between the two Jacobi vectors, i.e. $\rho_1^{(k)}=R\sin \alpha^{(k)}$ and $\rho_2^{(k)}=R \cos \alpha^{(k)}$. The resulting relative Hamiltonian in this coordinate system takes the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&~&\mathcal{H}_{\rm{rel}}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu R^{3/2}}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial R^2} R^{3/2}+\frac{3\hbar^2}{8\mu R^2} + \frac{1}{2}\mu \omega^2 R^2+\mathcal{H}_{\rm{ad}}(R;\Omega), \nonumber \\ &~&\label{Eq:Hamilt_hyper} \\
&~& \mathcal{H}_{\rm{ad}}(R;\Omega)=\frac{\hbar^2 \boldsymbol{\hat{\Lambda}}^2}{2\mu R^2}+\sum_{i<j} V_{ij}(R;\Omega^{(k)}),
\label{Eq:Hamilt_adiabat}
\end{eqnarray}
where in Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hamilt_hyper}) the first three terms depend only on the hyperradius $R$, denoting the kinetic term and the trapping potential, respectively.
In Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hamilt_adiabat}) the first term of $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{ad}}(R;\Omega)$ describes the centrifugal motion of the three particles where the hyperangular operator, $\boldsymbol{\hat{\Lambda}}^2$, contains all the hyperangles $\Omega^{(k)}$, expressed in any of the three possible configurations $k=1,2,3$ ~\cite{smirnov_method_1977,avery_hyperspherical_1989}.
The second term of Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hamilt_adiabat}) refers to the three pairwise interactions which couple the hyperradial and hyperangular degrees of freedom.
In order to solve the corresponding three-body Schr\"odinger equation of Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hamilt_hyper}) we choose the relative three-body wave function to obey the ansatz $\Psi(R,\Omega)=R^{-3/2} \sum_{\nu} F_{\nu}(R) \Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega)$, where the hyperradius $R$ is treated as an adiabatic parameter.
This is the so-called adiabatic hyperspherical representation, where $F_\nu(R)$ and $\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega)$ denote the $\nu-$th hyperradial and hyperangular part of $\Psi(R,\Omega)$, respectively.
In particular, the hyperangular $\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega)$ is obtained by diagonalizing Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hamilt_adiabat}) at fixed R.
Namely, the corresponding fixed-R hyperangular Schr\"odinger equation reads:
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{2 \mu R^2}{\hbar^2}\mathcal{H}_{\rm{ad}}(R;\Omega)-(s^2_{\nu}(R)-1) \right]\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega)=0,
\label{Eq:Hyperangular}
\end{equation}
where $s_{\nu}(R)$ indicate the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{ad}}(R;\Omega)$ for fixed $R$.
Note that, in the following, for notation simplicity we drop the $R$ dependence from the $s_{\nu}(R)\equiv s_{\nu}$ eigenvalues.
In order to tackle the hyperangular Schr\"odinger equation we exploit the fact that the two-body interactions are $\delta-$functions pseudopotentials.
This allows us to semi-analytically solve \cref{Eq:Hyperangular} by employing the Green's function method \cite{rittenhouse_greens_2010} together with the corresponding two-body boundary conditions [for details see also Appendix \ref{Ap:Hyperangles}].
Under these considerations, the hyperangular eigenfunction $\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega^{(k')})$ for the $k'-$th Jacobi tree of Eq. \eqref{Eq:Hyperangular} takes the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega^{(k')})&=& - \sum_{k=1}^{3}\sum_{l=\pm L} C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)Y_l(\theta_2^{(k)}) Y_0(\theta_1^{(k)}) \cos^{\abs{l}} \alpha^{(k)}\nonumber \\ & & \times _2F_1\left(\frac{\tilde{l}-s_{\nu}}{2},\frac{s_{\nu}+\tilde{l}}{2};\tilde{l};\cos^2(\alpha^{(k)}) \right) \nonumber \\
& & \times \frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{s_{\nu}+\tilde{l}}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{\tilde{l}-s_{\nu}}{2}\right)}{2\Gamma(\tilde{l})}, \label{Eq:Hyperangular_analytic}
\end{eqnarray}
where $_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is the Gauss hypergeometric function, $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the gamma function \cite{abramowitz_handbook_1965}, $\tilde{l}=\abs{l}+1$, $Y_l(\theta_2^{(k)})=\frac{e^{i l \theta_2^{(k)}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}$ are plane-waves and $L$ denotes the total angular momentum carried by the system. The sum is over the three possible Jacobi trees $k=1,2,3$ [see also Fig. \ref{Fig:Jacobi}], each weighted by the coefficients $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)$. The three Jacobi trees are connected to the specific $k'$ tree on the left hand side of Eq. \eqref{Eq:Hyperangular_analytic} via a set of geometric relations \cite{nielsen_three-body_2001}.
It should be noted that by interrelating the $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)$ coefficients of different $k$ the bosonic or fermionic character of the particles can be specified [see also discussion below].
By utilizing the analytic expression for $\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega^{(k)})$ and the two-body boundary conditions we obtain a matrix equation for the $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)$ coefficients [for details see also Appendix \ref{Ap:Hyperangles}], which reads
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \sum_k M^l_{k'k}C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)=0, \label{Eq:Trans} \\
& & M^l_{k'k}= \begin{cases} \ln\left(\frac{d_{k}Re^{-\gamma}}{a^{(k)}}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\psi\left(\frac{\tilde{l}-s_{\nu}}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\psi\left(\frac{\tilde{l}+s_{\nu}}{2} \right), \: k'=k \\
(-1)^l\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{s_{\nu}+\tilde{l}}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{\tilde{l}-s_{\nu}}{2}\right)}{2\Gamma(\tilde{l})}f(\beta_{k'k}), \: k'\neq k, \label{Eq:matrix_elem}
\end{cases}\\
& & f(\beta_{k'k})=\cos^{\abs{l}}(\beta_{k'k})_2F_1\left(\frac{\tilde{l}-s_{\nu}}{2},\frac{s_{\nu}+\tilde{l}}{2};\tilde{l};\cos^2\beta_{k'k} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta_{k'k}=\arctan \left[ \frac{(m_1+m_2+m_3)\mu}{m_km_{k'}} \right]$, $\tilde{l}=\abs{l}+1$, and $\psi(\cdot)$ is the digamma function.
The hyperangular eigenvalues $s_{\nu}$ are obtained by searching for zero-eigenvalues of the matrix $\boldsymbol{M^l}$ at fixed $R$ whereas the elements of the corresponding eigenvector determine the $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)$ coefficients \cite{rittenhouse_greens_2010,Incao_recomb2D_2015,nielsen_three-body_2001}.
\begin{table}
\setlength\extrarowheight{4pt}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $\textrm{ABC}$ & $C_{\nu,l}^{(1)}$ & $a^{(1)}$ & $C_{\nu,l}^{(2)}$ & $a^{(2)}$ & $C_{\nu,l}^{(3)}$ & $a^{(3)}$ \\ \hline
$\textrm{FFX}$ & $C_{\nu,\pm 1}^{FX}$ & $a_{FX}$ & $-C_{\nu,\pm 1}^{FX}$ & $a_{FX}$ & $0$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$\textrm{BBX}$ & $C_{\nu,0}^{BX}$ & $a_{BX}$ & $C_{\nu,0}^{BX}$ & $a_{BX}$ & $C_{\nu,0}^{BB}$ & $a_{BB}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The interrelation of $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}$ coefficients due to particle symmetry and the corresponding scattering lengths $a^{(k)}$ in the case of two identical spin-polarized fermions (FFX) and two bosons (BBX), together with a third distinguishable particle. The table also connects the odd-man-out and the descriptive notation.}
\label{Tab:Symmetries}
\end{table}
In Eqs. (\ref{Eq:Trans}) and (\ref{Eq:matrix_elem}) the particle symmetry is not specified and in principle refer to three-body systems where all particles are distinguishable with each other.
As we mentioned at the beginning of this section we are primarily interested in three-body systems where two particles are identical obeying either bosonic or fermionic symmetry and the third one is distinguishable.
Eqs. (\ref{Eq:Trans}) and (\ref{Eq:matrix_elem}) in order to be symmetry adapted, additional constraints on the $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}$ coefficients must be imposed.
Table \ref{Tab:Symmetries} shows the symmetry adapted $C_{\nu,l}^{(k)}(R)$ coefficients and the corresponding notation for the scattering lengths $a^{(k)}$ of two spin-polarized fermions (FF) or two identical bosons (BB) interacting with a third distinguishable atom (X).
For example, if the particles $(1)$ and $(2)$ are identical fermions, then only four coefficients are non-zero, namely $C_{\nu,\pm 1}^{(1)}=-C_{\nu, \pm 1}^{(2)}=C_{\nu, \pm 1}^{FX}$, and the third coefficient being zero due to the lack of $p$-wave interactions.
The latter also implies that the $s-$wave interaction between the two fermions is zero, thus $a_{FF}=0$, yielding thus one scattering length, $a_{FX}$, which describes the interaction between each fermion with the distinguishable atom [see also Table \ref{Tab:Symmetries}].
Using the eigenvalues $s_{\nu}$ and the eigenfunctions $\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega)$ of \cref{Eq:Hyperangular}, in the three-body Schr\"odinger equation belonging to the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\rm{rel}}$, and by integrating over all the hyperangular degrees of freedom, a system of coupled one-dimensional ordinary differential equations for the hyperradial degree-of-freedom is obtained.
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \Big\{ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\frac{d^2}{d R^2}+U_{\nu}(R) \Big\} F_{\nu}(R) \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu} \sum_{\nu'} \left[2P_{\nu \nu'}(R) \frac{d}{dR}+Q_{\nu \nu'}(R) \right] \,F_{\nu'}(R)=EF_{\nu}(R). \nonumber \\
\label{Eq:Hyperradial}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $F_{\nu}(R)$ is the hyperradial part of the relative three-body wave function, $U_{\nu}(R)$ indicates the $\nu$-th adiabatic potential that includes the trap, whereas the terms $P_{\nu \nu'}(R)$ and $Q_{\nu \nu'}(R)$ denote the non-adiabatic coupling matrix elements \cite{greene_clusters_2017}.
More specifically, $U_{\nu}(R)$, $P_{\nu \nu'}(R)$ and $Q_{\nu \nu'}(R)$ are given by the following expressions:
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{\nu}(R)&=&\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu R^2}\left(s_{\nu}^2-\frac{1}{4} \right)+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega^2 R^2, \label{Eq:Pots_adiabatic} \\
P_{\nu \nu'}(R)&=&\braket{\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega^{(k)})|\frac{\partial \Phi_{\nu'}(R;\Omega^{(k)})}{\partial R}}_{\Omega}, \label{Eq:P_coup}\\
Q_{\nu \nu'}(R)&=&\braket{\Phi_{\nu}(R;\Omega^{(k)})|\frac{\partial^2 \Phi_{\nu'}(R;\Omega^{(k)})}{\partial R^2}}_{\Omega}, \label{Eq:Q_coup}
\end{eqnarray}
where the symbol $\braket{\ldots}_{\Omega}$ indicates that the integration is over the hyperangles only.
Due to the zero-range interactions the $P_{\nu \nu'}(R)$ and $Q_{\nu \nu'}(R)$ matrix elements have semi-analytical expressions as shown in Refs. ~\cite{rittenhouse_greens_2010,kartavtsev_universal_2006,kartavtsev_universal_2007}.
This particular feature simplifies the numerical diagonalization of Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hyperradial}) where the hyperradial solutions $F_{\nu}(R)$, which are expanded in the basis of B-splines \cite{deBoor_practical_1978}, obey the vanishing boundary conditions at the origin and asymptotically.
The former is a result of the repulsive nature of the $U_\nu(R)$ potentials at short hyperradii and the latter occurs due to the 2D harmonic trap.
We should note that in the following sections and in the appendices the notation $F^j_{\nu}(R)$ and $E^j$ signifies the $j-$th eigenvector and eigenvalue of Eq. (\ref{Eq:Hyperradial}) respectively.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Pots2_gimp.eps}
\caption{Rescaled adiabatic potentials $\textrm{sgn}(U_{\nu}(R))\sqrt{|U_{\nu}(R)|}$ of (a)-(c) BBX and (d)-(f) FFX three-body mixtures for different hyperadius $R$. The LLH to HHL transition occurs from left to right as $\mathcal{M}=\frac{m_{B/F}}{m_X}$ increases taking values $m_B/m_X=0.04, 1.16, 22.16$, and $m_F/m_X=0.045, 0.86, 24.71$.
The identical particles (denoted with red circles) become heavier than the distinguishable particle (marked by blue circles). The corresponding 2D scattering lengths obey (a)-(c) $1/a_{FX}=2.7$, and (d)-(f) $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$. Harmonic oscillator units are employed.}
\label{Fig:Pots}
\end{figure*}
In the following, we will mainly focus on two different types of three-body mixture systems.
The first comprises two spin-polarized fermions interacting with a distinguishable particle.
It will be termed FFX and exhibits total angular momentum $L=1$ with an antisymmetric wave function upon exchange of the two identical fermions i.e., $L^{\pi}=1^-$, where $\pi$ is the total parity of the system, a mass ratio $\mathcal{M}=m_F/m_X$ and scattering length $a_{FX}$.
The second setup consists of two identical interacting bosons coupled with a third atom.
This setting is dubbed BBX and it is characterized by $L^{\pi}=0^+$, a mass ratio $\mathcal{M}=m_B/m_X$ as well as two scattering lengths $a_{BB}$ and $a_{BX}$ for the identical bosons and between the two different species respectively. For convenience, in the following, we will consider their ratio $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ as the relevant interaction parameter. Owing to the spherical symmetry of the interactions the total angular momentum $L$ is conserved. However, the two-body angular momenta $(l_1,l_2)$ that construct the $L-$space are also decoupled in our case because we have only considered $s$-wave interactions \cite{Volosniev_Borromean_2014}.
Hereafter, harmonic oscillator units are adopted, meaning that $\hbar=\omega=m_{B/F}=1$, where $m_{B/F}$ denotes the mass of the majority species (two identical atoms), unless it is specified otherwise.
It is also worth noting that considering a radial trapping frequency of $\omega= 2\pi \, \times \, 20 \,\textrm{Hz}$, typical in 2D experiments \cite{jochim_anomalous_2018,jochim_anomalous_2019}, then the harmonic oscillator length takes the values $a_0=4.58, 9.22$ $\mu \textrm{m}$ when $^{173}\textrm{Yb}-^{173}\textrm{Yb}-^7\textrm{Li}$ and $^6\textrm{Li}-^6\textrm{Li}-^{133}\textrm{Cs}$ FFX settings are considered. Similarly, $a_0$ takes the values $a_0=5.29, 8.53 \, \mu \textrm{m}$ for $^{133}\textrm{Cs}-^{133}\textrm{Cs}-^6\textrm{Li}$ and $^7\textrm{Li}-^7\textrm{Li}-^{173}\textrm{Yb}$ BBX systems respectively.
\section{Adiabatic hyperspherical potentials and energy spectra} \label{Sec:Spectra}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Spectra_2.eps}
\caption{Rescaled energy spectra $E^{1/3}$ of (a)-(c) BBX and (d)-(f) FFX systems for typical LLH, EM and HHL cases (see legends) characterized by mass ratio $m_B/m_X=0.04, 1.16, 22.16$ and $m_F/m_X=0.045, 0.86, 24.71$ respectively for varying scattering length. In all panels, the red dashed line indicates the atom-dimer threshold (a)-(c) $E_{BX}$ and (d)-(f) $E_{FX}$ separating the trimer from the atom-dimer and trap states.
A schematic illustration of the aforementioned energy regions in which these states occur is provided in panel (a) where the black solid horizontal line separates the trap from the atom-dimer states. Particularly, type-I mark the trap and atom-dimer states, type-II the atom-dimer and type-III indicate the trimer states. The type-I trap and atom-dimer states change character in the vicinity of avoided-crossings (see for instance the circle). The inset in panel (a) showcases in detail such an avoided crossing.
All quantities are expressed in harmonic oscillator units.}
\label{Fig:Spectra}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[t]
\setlength\extrarowheight{5pt}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $\textrm{ABC}$ & LLH & EM & HHL \\ \hline
$\textrm{BBX}$ & $^7\textrm{Li}-^7\textrm{Li}-^{173}\textrm{Yb}$ & $^7\textrm{Li}-^7\textrm{Li}-^6\textrm{Li}$ & $^{133}\textrm{Cs}-^{133}\textrm{Cs}-^6\textrm{Li}$ \\ \hline
$\textrm{FFX}$ & $^6\textrm{Li}-^6\textrm{Li}-^{133}\textrm{Cs}$ & $^6\textrm{Li}-^6\textrm{Li}-^7\textrm{Li}$ & $^{173}\textrm{Yb}-^{173}\textrm{Yb}-^7\textrm{Li}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Representative cases of identical particles with fermionic and bosonic symmetry, which are lighter (LLH), roughly equal in mass (EM) and heavier than a third distinguishable particle (X).}
\label{Tab:Systems}
\end{table}
To shed light into the eigenspectrum of three-body mixtures and their microscopically allowed processes, in the following, we investigate the potential curves and the corresponding hyperradial spectrum for the FFX and BBX systems.
More specifically, we consider three representative cases of different mass ratio, where the two identical particles, with either bosonic or fermionic symmetry, are lighter, roughly equal in mass, and heavier than the third distinguishable particle.
These three distinct scenarios are referred to as light-light-heavy (LLH), equal-massed (EM) and heavy-heavy-light (HHL), respectively~\cite{greene_clusters_2017}.
The adiabatic potential curves obtained via Eq. \eqref{Eq:Pots_adiabatic} for the above-described settings are depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Pots}.
Note that the selection of the specific mass ratio corresponds to the experimentally relevant atomic species reported in Table \ref{Tab:Systems}.
The two energetically lowest potential curves, $U_1(R)$ (blue solid line) and $U_2(R)$ (red dash-dotted line), shown in \cref{Fig:Pots} (a)-(c) represent the ones which in the absence of a trap approach asymptotically, i.e. $R \to \infty$, the BX+B and BB+X atom-dimer thresholds. The latter have energy $E_{BX}=-2e^{-2\gamma}(1+\mathcal{M})/a_{BX}^2$ and $E_{BB}=-4e^{-2\gamma}/a_{BB}^2$ respectively \cite{Incao_recomb2D_2015}.
However, here at large hyperradii the harmonic 2D trap dominates and thus these two potential curves coincide scaling as $\sim R^2$ \cite{rittenhouse_hyperspherical_2016,daily_resonances_2010}.
In the limit of small hyperradius $R$ (i.e. $R \to 0$), $U_1(R)$ and $U_2(R)$ exhibit a repulsive potential "wall" preventing in this manner the three atoms to approach together at short distances.
Another notable feature of $U_1(R)$ (blue line) is that independently of the mass ratio it possesses a classically allowed region at small $R$ where the potential is deep enough in order to support trimer states.
The remaining gray solid lines in \cref{Fig:Pots}(a)-(c) represent potential curves, with high hyperangular momentum $s_\nu$, which describe the effective centrifugal forces between the three atoms \cite{Incao_recomb2D_2015}.
For FFX systems, the corresponding potential curves [see \cref{Fig:Pots} (d)-(f)] exhibit significantly altered characteristics from the BBX setting. Indeed, there is only one atom-dimer threshold, i.e. FX+F, since the two identical fermions do not interact.
The associated potential curve is illustrated in panels (d)-(f) by the blue solid line.
We remark that in the absence of a trapping potential this potential curve asymptotically saturates at an energy $E_{FX}=-2e^{-2\gamma}(1+\mathcal{M})/a_{FX}^2$ \cite{Incao_recomb2D_2015}.
Moreover, in the classically allowed region, the lowest potential is not deep enough to maintain trimer states for all mass ratios.
Namely, only for systems with an adequately large mass ratio (HHL), the lower potential curve possesses a pronounced well [\cref{Fig:Pots} (f)] in contrast to BBX systems, where a deep well is always present [\cref{Fig:Pots} (a)-(c)].
The hyperradial spectra of the potential curves [\cref{Fig:Pots}] are provided in \cref{Fig:Spectra}.
Namely, panels in \cref{Fig:Spectra} (a)-(c) [(d)-(f)] refer to the adiabatic potential curves depicted in \cref{Fig:Pots} (a)-(c) [(d)-(f)] and corresponding to the BBX [FFX] system at three different mass ratios.
Evidently,
three types of bound states are discernible: I) trap states and atom-dimer states with energies $E >0$, II) purely atom-dimer states (black dash-dotted line) with dimer energies $E_{\sigma \sigma'}\le E<0$, where $\sigma=~B,~F,~X$ and $\sigma \neq \sigma'$, and III) trimer bound states (blue solid line) with energies $E<E_{\sigma \sigma'}$.
Note that the red dashed lines in \cref{Fig:Spectra} denote the $\sigma \sigma'$-dimer energies $E_{\sigma \sigma'}$, whereas the black solid horizontal line in panel (a) depicts $E=0$.
The trap states of type-I [Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)] correspond to three weakly interacting trapped atoms.
They emerge at $E>0$ and are virtually independent of $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ or $1/a_{FX}$ as depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a) ~\cite{rittenhouse_hyperspherical_2016}.
It is also important to mention that the energetically lowest trap state in BBX sytems takes place at energies $E>0$ whereas for FFX they emerge for $E>1$.
The type-II states are associated with the formation of an atom and a dimer, while their energy lies between the dimer energy and 0.
In the limit of $a_{BB}/a_{BX} \gg 1$ [$1/a_{FX} \gg 1$], the atom-dimer energies behave like $-a_{BB}/a_{BX}^2$ ($-1/a_{FX}^2$) for BBX [FFX], see in particular Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a) [(d)] \cite{rittenhouse_hyperspherical_2016,liu_correlated2D_2010}.
For large $1/a_{FX}$ and $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$, the energy difference of two successive eigenstates, approaches $\Delta E=2$ \cite{portegies_trap_2011}, which is affected due to the employed scaling in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra}. It is the excitation energy of the particle accompanying the dimer and stems from the harmonic trap.
Due to the coupling between different adiabatic potentials via the $P$ and $Q$ non-adiabatic elements [Eqs. \eqref{Eq:P_coup}, \eqref{Eq:Q_coup}], the trap states change character in the vicinity of avoided-crossings, alternating between type-I atom-dimer and energetically lower trap states [see the circle in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)].
The distinction between these two states in region I is more prominent in the case of sharp avoided-crossings [e.g. at $a_{BB}/a_{BX} \simeq 7$ in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)], compared to the case of broad avoided-crossings [e.g. at $a_{BB}/a_{BX} \simeq 3$ in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)].
The type-III states are related to trimers which energetically occur below the dimer energy $E_{\sigma \sigma'}$.
More specifically, for the BBX system we observe in \cref{Fig:Spectra} (a)-(c) that as the mass ratio increases the number of trimer states ranges from 2 to 4.
This is an immediate effect of the corresponding potential curve, i.e. $U_1(R)$ in \cref{Fig:Pots} (a)-(c) which deepens as we transition from a LLH scenario to a HHL one \cite{sandoval_radii2D_2016}.
On the other hand, regarding the FFX system trimer states are visible only for a HHL case [\cref{Fig:Spectra} (f)].
The aforementioned aspects of the 2D three-body collisions can be clearly inferred by inspecting \cref{Fig:Spectra_mass}.
As can be seen, for the BBX system [\cref{Fig:Spectra_mass} (a)] at fixed $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$ there is at least one trimer state at {\it any} mass ratio, whilst for the FFX system [\cref{Fig:Spectra_mass} (b)] there are no trimer states at least within the regime of light identical fermions and a heavy spectator particle \cite{pricoupenko_planar_2010}.
Indeed, a detailed calculation of the eigenvalues of Eq. \eqref{Eq:Hyperradial} explicates that for a scattering length $1/a_{FX}=2$ the first trimer state occurs at a critical mass ratio $\mathcal{M}^*=3.817$.
This value is larger than $\mathcal{M}^*=3.34$ reported in Ref. ~\cite{pricoupenko_planar_2010}, which treats the FFX system in the absence of a trap.
Note that a similar effect occurs in 3D FFX systems where the first trimer state appears at even larger mass ratio, i.e. $\mathcal{M}^*=8.17$ \cite{kartavtsev_low-energy_2007}.
The fact that trimer states emerge at larger mass ratio compared to free space can be explained via the behavior of the first adiabatic potential, $U_1(R)$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Pots} (d)]. The trapping potential contribution [second term in Eq. \eqref{Eq:Pots_adiabatic}] shifts $U_1(R)$ to more positive values, compared to the adiabatic potential term [first term in Eq.~\eqref{Eq:Pots_adiabatic}] in free space. Accordingly, $U_1(R)$ becomes shallower in the presence of a trap and therefore larger mass ratios deepen $U_1(R)$, favoring in turn the formation of trimer states.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Figures/Spectrum_FFX_BBX_A_ratio_aFX_aBX_2_log.eps}
\caption{Rescaled energy spectrum $E^{1/3}$ for (a) BBX and (b) FFX systems with respect to the mass ratio $m_B/m_X$ and $m_F/m_X$ respectively. The considered scattering length ratios are (a) $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$ and (b) $1/a_{FX}=2$. The red dashed line denotes the energy of the dimer in each case, namely $E_{\sigma X}=-8e^{-2\gamma}(1+\mathcal{M})$, where $\sigma=B/F$ and $\mathcal{M}=\frac{m_{B/F}}{m_X}$.}
\label{Fig:Spectra_mass}
\end{figure}
\section{Few-body correlations and Tan contacts} \label{Sec:Contacts}
Few-body correlations of short-range interacting atomic ensembles are embedded in the momentum distribution of the reduced one-body density in the limit of large momenta~\cite{tan_contact1_2008,tan_contact2_2008,tan_contact3_2008,castin_general_2012}.
This observable can be routinely measured in ultracold atom experiments via time-of-flight measurements ~\cite{stewart_contact_2010,sagi_measurement_2012}.
For binary three-body mixtures this asymptotic expansion is related to the relevant short-range two- and three-body correlation functions~\cite{castin_general_2012} via the so-called two- and three-body contacts ~\cite{braaten_universal_2011,Bellotti_contacts_2014}.
In particular, the two-body contact has been directly measured via radio-frequency spectroscopy \cite{wild_measurement_2012,sagi_measurement_2012}.
More specifically, in the limit of large momenta the momentum distribution of the $\sigma=B/F$ or $X$ species reduced one-body density [see also \cref{Ap:Hyperangles} and \cref{Ap:Asymptotic}] takes the form
\begin{equation}
n_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma}) \approx n^a_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})+ n^b_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma}), \label{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_1}
\end{equation}
where the single-particle momentum of the $\sigma$ species $p_{\sigma}$ is larger than all the relevant momentum scales provided by the inverse scattering lengths $1/a_{\sigma\sigma'}$. Note that $\sigma=\sigma'$ ($\sigma'\neq \sigma$) denote the intraspecies (interspecies) interactions.
\cref{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_1} shows that the momentum distribution of the one-body density possesses two main contributions, namely $n^a_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ and $n^b_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ which are attributed to the presence of two-~\cite{castin_general_2012} and three-body correlations ~\cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014,bellotti_dimeffects_2013} respectively.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Cont2_BBX_3.eps}
\caption{Two-body contact $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}}$ among the (a)-(c) BX and (d)-(f) BB species for three body settings ranging from LLH ($m_B/m_X=0.04$), EM ($m_B/m_X=1.16$) to HHL ($m_B/m_X=22.16$) as a function of $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ [see also Table \ref{Tab:Systems}]. The inset in panel (a) displays exemplarily the oscillatory behavior of $\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}$ due to the change of character of type-I atom-dimer and trap states in the vicinity of avoided-crossings. The insets in panels (d)-(f) feature $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}$ of the first trimer state. The bound stemming from the analytical expression described by Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}, is shown with the red solid line, whereas the upper bound stemming from the JWKB method is depicted by the black dashed line. The two-body contact of (non) trimer states is illustrated with the (gray solid) blue dash-dotted lines.}
\label{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX}
\end{figure*}
More specifically, $n^a_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ contains terms solely associated with intra- and interspecies two-body correlations of the $\sigma$ species atom [see also Appendix \ref{Ap:Asymptotic}].
For instance, the asymptotic expansion of the reduced density of B species involves both intra- and interspecies two-body correlations, whereas the density of X species involves only interspecies ones.
Utilizing the hyperspherical approach, $n^a_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ can be expressed in terms of the hyperradial solutions $F_{\nu}(R)$ and $C_{\nu}^{\sigma\sigma'}$ coefficients of the hyperangular part of the three-body wave function in the descriptive notation [see also \cref{Ap:Asymptotic} and \cref{Tab:Symmetries}]
\begin{eqnarray}
n^a_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})& =& \frac{4\pi}{ \mu N_{\sigma} p_{\sigma}^4}\sum_{\sigma'}\mu_{\sigma\sigma'} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{dR}{R^2} \abs{\sum_{\nu} F_{\nu}(R) \sum_{l= \pm L} C_{\nu,l}^{\sigma\sigma'}(R)}^2 \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{N_{\sigma}p_{\sigma}^4} \sum_{\sigma'} (1+\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}) \mathcal{D}^{\sigma\sigma'}_2. \label{Eq:Cont2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\mu_{\sigma\sigma'}$ is the two-body reduced mass between two atoms of the same species ($\sigma=\sigma'$) or two atoms belonging to different species ($\sigma \neq \sigma'$), while $N_{\sigma}$ is the $\sigma$ species particle number.
Importantly, $\mathcal{D}^{\sigma\sigma'}_2$ signifies the intra- ($\sigma=\sigma'$) or interspecies ($\sigma \neq \sigma'$) two-body contact~\cite{castin_general_2012}.
On the other hand, the term $n^{b}_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ is related to the product of inter- and intraspecies two-body correlations of the $\sigma$ species particle giving rise to the three-body ones.
In the hyperspherical framework $n^{b}_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
n^{b}_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})&=& \frac{4\pi}{N_{\sigma}p_{\sigma}^4} \sum_{\sigma'}\frac{\mu_{\sigma\sigma'}}{\mu} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{dR}{R^2} \,\Bigg\{ J_0\left[\frac{p_{\sigma} R \sqrt{\mu_{\sigma\sigma'}}}{\sqrt{\mu}} \right](-1)^L \nonumber \\
&~& +J_{2L}\left[\frac{p_{\sigma} R \sqrt{\mu_{\sigma\sigma'}}}{\sqrt{\mu}} \right](1-\delta_{0,L}) \Bigg \} \nonumber \\
&~& \times \sum_{\sigma'' \neq \sigma'} \sum_{l= \pm L} \left(\sum_{\nu} F_{\nu}(R) C_{\nu,l}^{\sigma\sigma'}(R) \right) \nonumber \\
&~& \times \left(\sum_{\nu'} F_{\nu'}(R) C_{\nu',l}^{\sigma' \sigma''}(R) \right)^*
\label{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_{\nu}( \cdot)$ is the $\nu$-th Bessel function of the first kind and $L$ is the total angular momentum of the three-body system.
Note that in contrast to the two-body term $n^a_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$, the single-particle momentum $p_{\sigma}$ is also involved into the integration of $n^{b}_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$.
Hence, the scaling of the latter with the momentum is different than $1/p_{\sigma}^4$, see in particular the discussion in Sec.~\ref{3b_contact}.
\subsection{Scaling behavior of two-body correlations} \label{Sec:Cont2}
The presence of two-body short-range correlations in binary mixtures, is captured by $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Cont2}], i.e. the $\sigma~\sigma'$ two-body contact.
Intuitively, the contact $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ can, in principle, exhibit an increasing tendency as the $\sigma~\sigma'$ pair of particles comes closer relatively to the third particle.
This enhancement of $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ signals that the three-body is dominated by strong two-body correlations.
Therefore, it is anticipated that $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ possesses distinctive characteristics with respect to the particular type of eigenstate of the three-body system, i.e. referring to trimer, type-I/II atom-dimer and trap states.
For instance, the two-body contacts are strongly enhanced if the three particles are bounded in a trimer state, see in particular the blue dash-dotted lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} and \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX} (c).
Concretely, the two-body correlations of these states become substantial as $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX}] and $1/a_{FX}$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX}] increase.
This holds for both inter- ($\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}$) and intraspecies ($\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}$) correlations in BBX as well for $\mathcal{D}_2^{FX}$ in FFX settings.
A general feature observed in both BBX [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX}] and FFX [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX}] systems is that the two-body contact of all the other eigenstates, that is atom-dimer and trap states showcased in gray lines, is confined within an envelope and oscillates between two values, see the red curve in the inset of Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (a) and also the discussion below for more details.
The lower value of the two-body contact is associated with highly excited trap states. This lower bound depends on the energy of the aforementioned eigenstates and eventually tends to zero as energetically higher excited trap states are taken into account.
This is due to the fact that for highly excited trap states, the overall size of the three particles, as specified by the hyperradius $R$, increases compared to the size of the system residing in lower-lying energy states, yielding thus weak two-body correlations. This lower value of the contact is attained irrespectively of the value of the scattering length $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ and $1/a_{FX}$.
On the other hand, the oscillatory behavior of the $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$, as demonstrated by the red curve in the inset of Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (a), originates from the sharp avoided-crossings of the energy levels between the type-I atom-dimer and trap eigenstates [see the circle in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)].
Indeed, in the vicinity of these narrow avoided-crossings the spatial configuration of the three particles alters significantly, e.g. from a delocalized trap state into a type-I atom-dimer, where at most two particles are close to each other.
Therefore, if the system configuration is that of an atom-dimer (trap state) it leads to an enhanced (reduced) contact due to the strong (weak) pair correlations.
By tuning the scattering lengths $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ and $1/a_{FX}$ towards the subsequent avoided-crossings this atom-dimer (trap) state becomes again a trap (atom-dimer) state, and $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ approaches once more its lower (upper) value. Notice that in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} the two-body contact of the energetically lower fifty eigenstates is presented. A larger number of energy states results in the filling of the envelope by atom-dimer and trap states (gray lines) which exhibit an oscillatory behavior. Moreover, the lower bound of $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ has a value closer to zero compared to the case with fewer considered eigenstates.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Cont2_FFX.eps}
\caption{Two-body contact $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{FX}}$ between FX species in (a) LLH ($m_F/m_X=0.045$), (b) EM ($m_F/m_X=0.86$) and (c) HHL ($m_B/m_X=24.71$) cases for different $1/a_{FX}$. The analytical expression for the upper bound [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}] is shown with the red solid line, whereas the upper bound stemming from the JWKB method is denoted by the black dashed line. The two-body contact of (non) trimer states is showcased with (gray solid) blue dash-dotted lines.}
\label{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX}
\end{figure*}
The upper value of the two-body contact is attributed to the presence of two-body correlations stemming from type-II purely atom-dimer states.
In particular, the upper value of $\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}$ [Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (a)-(c)] and $\mathcal{D}_2^{FX}$ [Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX}] becomes larger for increasing
scattering lengths, $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ and $1/a_{FX}$.
This is associated to the behavior of type-II purely atom-dimer states [see also the energy spectra in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)] whose energy increases in absolute value for larger scattering length.
As a consequence, the dimer becomes strongly bound, leading to an enhanced $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$. However, the upper value of $\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}$
[Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (d)-(f)] remains almost constant when varying $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$. This occurs since $a_{BB}=1$.
The latter implies that the second adiabatic potential $U_2(R)$ [red dash-dotted line in Fig. \ref{Fig:Pots} (a)-(c)], which is associated with the BB+X atom-dimer threshold, is insensitive to variations of $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$. Hence the upper bound of $\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}$, being determined by
the BB dimer states, is constant with respect to $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$.
However, two-body correlations between the identical bosons are substantially enhanced for increasing $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ when the BBX system resides in trimer states [blue dash-dotted lines in Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (d)-(f)]. This becomes more prominent in the HHL case [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (f)], where comparatively deeper bound trimer states are formed \cite{sandoval_radii2D_2016} [see also Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (c)].
In these deep trimer states, the overall size of both species, as captured by the hyperradius $R$ decreases for larger $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$.
Therefore, the two identical bosons approach each other
and become strongly correlated.
To address the aforementioned upper bound in the two-body correlations for non-trimer states in BBX and FFX systems, the Jeffreys-Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (JWKB) method (see also the review of Ref.~ \cite{friedrich_scattering_2013} and references therein) is employed.
Specifically, the hyperradial part of the three-body wave function [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Hyperradial}] of the atom-dimer states reads
\begin{equation}
F^{\rm{JWKB}}_{\nu}(R)=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{p(R)}}\exp \left( -\abs{\int_{R_{\rm{ctp}}}^R p(R')dR'} \right), \, E<U_{\nu}(R) \\
\frac{2}{\sqrt{p(R)}} \cos \left( \int_{R_{\rm{ctp}}}^R p(R')dR'-\phi \right), \, E>U_{\nu}(R).
\end{cases}
\label{Eq:JWKB}
\end{equation}
In the above equation, $\phi=\pi/2+\pi(s_{\nu}-\sqrt{s_{\nu}^2-1/4})$, $p(R)= \sqrt{2\mu \abs{E-U_{\nu}(R)}}$ is the local momentum of a fictitious particle with mass $\mu$ and $R_{\rm{ctp}}$ is the classical turning point, where $E=U_{\nu}(R_{\rm{ctp}})$. Moreover, we focus only on the adiabatic hyperspherical potential curves that support atom-dimer states. In this way, we neglect all the involved non-adiabatic couplings such that we can neatly attribute the upper bound of the contact to type-II atom-dimer states supported by the potentials featuring an atom-dimer threshold. Evidently, the two-body contact [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Cont2}], derived within the JWKB method [Eq. \eqref{Eq:JWKB}] both for BBX and FFX systems [black dashed lines in Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} and \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX}], accounts well for the upper bound of $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ independently of the value of the scattering length.
In order to demonstrate the physical origin of the upper bound in $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$, an approximation for the two-body contact of type-II atom-dimer states is employed in the limit of large inverse inter- and intraspecies scattering lengths $1/a_{\sigma\sigma'}$ [for details see also Appendix \ref{Ap:Upper_bound}].
More specifically, and similarly to the approximation employed within the JWKB method, we single out only the adiabatic hyperspherical potential curves supporting atom-dimer states, neglecting the corresponding non-adiabatic couplings.
Under these considerations, the two-body contact between the $\sigma\, \sigma'$ species ($\sigma\sigma'$=B, F, X) which characterize only atom-dimer eigenstates acquires the following compact form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}^{\sigma\sigma'}_2 \approx \frac{16 \pi e^{-2\gamma}}{a_{\sigma\sigma'}^2}. \label{Eq:Upper_bound}\\
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Cont2_FFX_BBX_Ratio_large.eps}
\caption{Two-body contact between (a) BX, (b), FX and (c) BB species with respect to the mass ratio, (a)-(b) $m_B/m_X$ and (c) $m_F/m_X$ respectively. The considered scattering lengths are chosen such that (a), (c) $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=10$ and (b) $1/a_{FX}=10$. The inset in panels (a), (c) present $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{B\sigma}}$ of the ground trimer state for $\sigma=$ X, B respectively. The analytical upper bound [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}] corresponds to the red solid lines and the bound stemming from the JWKB method is showcased in black dashed lines. The two-body contact of (non) trimer states is depicted with (gray solid) blue dash-dotted lines.}
\label{Fig:Cont2_mass}
\end{figure*}
The prediction of the preceding analytical expression is indeed in good agreement with the upper bound of $\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}$ and $\mathcal{D}_2^{FX}$ within $1-2\%$, except for small scattering lengths $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ [see the red solid lines in Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (a)-(c)] and $1/a_{FX}$ [red solid lines in \cref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_FX} (a)-(c)] respectively.
Deviations larger than $10\%$ occur up to $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=3$ for LLH and EM, and $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=1.5$ for HHL BBX systems. Likewise, similar deviations are found in the range $1/a_{FX}=[0.36,2]$ for LLH and EM, and $1/a_{FX}=[0.36,1.4]$ for HHL FFX mixtures.
This discrepancy originates from the fact that the analytical expression [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}] stems from a treatment of the atom-dimer state as a product of the BX (FX) dimer and the third particle. This approach becomes more accurate for large $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ ($1/a_{FX}$), where the third particle is far away from the strongly bound dimer.
However, it fails for small $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ ($1/a_{FX}$), where a product state is not adequate anymore, since the third particle approaches the bound dimer and affects the BX (FX) two-body correlations. In this regime, the JWKB method [Eq. \eqref{Eq:JWKB}] accounts well for the upper bound.
Thus, as suggested by Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}, two-body correlations between the BX and FX species depend quadratically on $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ and $1/a_{FX}$, respectively, in the limit where the latter two are large.
This is a manifestation of the universal relation connecting the energy change of an eigenstate with respect to the scattering length and the two-body contact of this state \cite{castin_general_2012,valiente_universal_2011}.
Interestingly, the analytically obtained upper bound [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}], suggests that $\mathcal{D}_2^{\sigma\sigma'}$ of the atom-dimer states does not depend on the mass ratio of the two identical particles (B,F) with respect to the distinguishable one (X) in the limit where large scattering lengths $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ and $1/a_{FX}$ are considered.
To further address this point, the two-body contact versus $\mathcal{M}=\frac{m_{B/F}}{m_X}$ between the BX, BB and FX species is unraveled for large values of the involved scattering lengths i.e., $a_{BB}/a_{BX}, 1/a_{FX}=10$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass}].
Furthermore, we investigate not only the two-body contact of the atom-dimer states but also of the trimer ones [blue dashed-dotted lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass}].
The latter are naturally included since atom-dimer states convert to trimers in the transition from LLH to HHL of BBX and FFX settings [see also Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra_mass}].
In the case of trimer states, the two-body contacts increase with $\mathcal{M}$, see the blue dash-dotted lines in \cref{Fig:Cont2_mass}. This behavior is expected since in the HHL scenario the trimer states become deeply bound for both BBX and FFX systems [Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (c), (f)] as $\mathcal{M}$ increases. Moreover, for large mass ratio additional trimer states are formed [Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra_mass}], whose two-body correlations subsequently shoot up [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass}].
Indeed, for increasing mass ratio the repulsive wall present at small $R$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Pots}], recedes to even smaller hyperradii $R$, and so the overall system size of these newly formed trimers decreases, resulting in enhanced two-body correlations.
Turning to the two-body contact of atom-dimer states between the BX and FX species, depicted with gray solid lines in Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (a), (b), we observe a good agreement between the derived analytical expression [red solid lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (a), (b)] and $\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}$, $\mathcal{D}_2^{FX}$, as well as with the two-body contact obtained via the JWKB method [black dashed lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (a), (b)].
Hence, the two-body contact of atom-dimer states in these systems is almost insensitive to a change in the mass ratio, $m_B/m_X$ and $m_F/m_X$.
Moreover, the response of the intraspecies two-body correlations of atom-dimer states in BBX systems as captured by $\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}$ is studied with respect to the mass ratio [depicted with gray solid lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (c)]. Due to the large energy separation of the first and second adiabatic potentials [blue solid and red dash-dotted lines respectively in Fig. \ref{Fig:Pots} (a)-(c)] at this large scattering length ratio $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=10$, we investigate the two-body contact of those eigenstates that lay below the BB+X atom-dimer threshold, exhibited by $U_2(R)$. In order to observe the upper bound in the BB two-body contact, $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}} \simeq 4$, derived in Eq. \eqref{Eq:Upper_bound}, a larger number of excited eigenstates is required. The intraspecies two-body contact varies mainly in the HHL scenario. At the mass ratio where new trimer states are formed, $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}$ of atom-dimer states is enhanced, and subsequently decreases [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (c)]. This behavior can be attributed to a slight energy attraction and consequent repulsion of the atom-dimer states towards the BX+B atom-dimer threshold as $m_B/m_X$ approaches and further departs from the value where new trimer states are formed. Whenever this slight attraction occurs, and the three-particle system approaches the threshold of trimer state formation, the probability cloud of both species, as captured by $R$, shrinks. Hence, the two identical bosons come closer signaling the increase of $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}$. Notice that this pattern emerges also in the interspecies two-body contact, $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (a)], being however less pronounced than in the case of the intraspecies one.
Since $a_{BB}=1$, the second adiabatic potential $U_2(R)$ with a BB+X atom-dimer threshold is shallower than the first one which possesses a BX+B threshold, and thus it is more sensitive to the mass ratio. This sensitivity is reflected to the hyperradial part of the wave function, $F_2(R)$, which in turn determines the two-body contact between the identical bosons [see also Eq. \eqref{Eq:Cont2}].
\subsection{Response of the three-body correlations}\label{3b_contact}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Cont3_BBX.eps}
\caption{Three-body contact, $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ of BBX systems for mass ratio belonging to the (a) LLH ($m_B/m_X=0.04$), (b) EM ($m_B/m_X=1.16$) and (c) HHL ($m_B/m_X=22.16$) class for varying $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$. The three-body contact of (non) trimer states is denoted by (gray solid) blue dash-dotted lines. The insets display the three-body contact of the first trimer state.}
\label{Fig:Cont3_scattering}
\end{figure*}
As argued above [see Eq.~\eqref{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_1}], in the asymptotic expansion of the $\sigma$ species reduced one-body density in momentum space there is a contribution related to three-body correlations having an explicit dependence on the single-particle momentum $p_{\sigma}$ [Eq.~\eqref{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_2}].
Indeed, as it has also been demonstrated in Refs. \cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014,bellotti_dimeffects_2013} treating the three-body problem in momentum space, the next-to-leading order term in the asymptotic expansion of the reduced one-body density in momentum space reads
\begin{equation}
n^{b}_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})=\frac{\ln^3p_{\sigma}}{p_{\sigma}^6} \mathcal{D}_3.
\label{Eq:Cont3}
\end{equation}
In this expression, $\mathcal{D}_3$ is the three-body contact which captures the three-body correlations between all particles that participate in the binary 2D mixture.
Herein, the three-body contact is derived by linear fitting to $n^{b}_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})/\ln^3p_{\sigma}$ stemming from the numerical solution of Eq. \eqref{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_2} for large $p_{\sigma}$.
For the binary mixtures that we consider, the only relevant three-body contact is the one of BBX systems, denoted hereafter by $\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}$.
For the FFX setting, the three-body correlations are predominantly suppressed due to the Pauli exclusion principle between the identical fermions \cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014}.
Three-body correlations are greatly enhanced when two identical bosons and the third distinguishable particle reside in a trimer state independently of the considered mass ratio [blue dash-dotted lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering}].
More specifically, in the transition from LLH to the HHL scenario, the first trimer state [insets of Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering}] displays a substantially enhanced three-body contact, $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$.
This is due to the fact that for heavier identical bosons than the third particle, trimer states become deeply bound as shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)-(c).
Hence, all three particles are confined within a small hyperradius which results into large valued three-body contacts. However, in the EM case, the three-body contact of the first trimer state is slightly suppressed compared to the one in the LLH setting [e.g. see the insets in Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering} (a) and (b) at $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$]. This behavior will be further addressed below arguing on the dependence of $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ with respect to the mass ratio. Even though three-body correlations are significantly pronounced for trimer states, the asymptotic expansion of the $\sigma$ species one-body density $n_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ in momentum space [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Asymptotic_expansion_1}] is mainly dominated by the first term attributed to two-body correlations [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Cont2}]. Deviations from the first term occur at $p_{\sigma} \simeq 100$, and especially by considering large scattering length ratios $a_{BB}/a_{BX}>6$, where three-body correlations of the trimer states are more pronounced [see insets of Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering}].
Furthermore, three-body correlations of highly excited trap states are greatly reduced, more than two orders of magnitude compared to the three-body contact of trimer states. The large suppression of $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ is due to the fact that the system size (captured by the hyperradius $R$) in each of these excited trap states is large.
As such, the simultaneous collisions of all three particles at small distances become very improbable. In contrast, atom-dimer states showcase prominent three-body correlations, especially by tuning $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ to large values.
In this regime, the atom-dimers [Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)] consist of a deeply bound BX dimer accompanied by the second identical bosonic particle. Due to the bosonic symmetry, the BX dimer involves both B atoms, and hence $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ increases with the ratio $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$, similarly to the two-body contact. Let us note that in the case of atom-dimer and trap states, the asymptotic expansion of $n_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{p}_{\sigma})$ for large $p_{\sigma}$ is practically dominated solely by the first term described by Eq. \eqref{Eq:Cont2} being associated with two-body correlations.
Similarly to the behavior of the two-body contact, the three-body one of type-I atom-dimer and trap states displays oscillations due to the character change of the latter at the location of the avoided-crossings taking place at specific scattering lengths in the three-body eigenspectrum [see circle in Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)]. The lower bound eventually approaches zero for higher lying excited trap eigenstates.
Recall that an equivalent behavior is observed for the two-body contact $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}$ [see Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (a)-(c)]. However, in contrast to $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}$, the type-II purely atom-dimer states do not provide a well defined upper bound for $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$. As the ratio $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ increases, three-body correlations of purely atom-dimer states exhibit a state dependent growth rate [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering}]. The latter is larger for purely atom-dimer states lying close to the BX+B dimer threshold. The three particles residing in these atom-dimer states, are confined within a smaller hyperradius $R$
when compared to excited atom-dimers, and as such they feature an enhanced three-body contact. Energetically higher atom-dimer eigenstates are more delocalized, thus possessing a smaller $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$.
The dependence of $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ with respect to the mass ratio of (non) trimer states denoted by blue dash-dotted lines (gray solid lines) is provided in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass} exemplarily for $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$.
In particular, we observe that an enhancement of three-body correlations takes place in the LLH to the HHL transition for trimer states [blue dash-dotted lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass}], as discussed previously.
For sufficiently large $m_B/m_X$, atom-dimer states [denoted by gray lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass}] change character to trimers [Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra_mass} (a)], whose three-body correlations subsequently become dominant [see for instance Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass} at $m_B/m_X \simeq 6$]. This is similar to the enhancement of two-body correlations between both BX and BB species of atom-dimer states when transitioning to trimers as manifested in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_mass} (a) and (c). In particular, the first atom-dimer state, possesses a dominant $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$, in the LLH regime ($m_B/m_X \simeq 0.04$), similarly to the second trimer state [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass}]. Later on, three-body correlations become substantial at the mass ratio where this atom-dimer state transits into a trimer [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass} at $m_B/m_X \simeq 6$]. This behavior is caused by an energy shift of both the first atom-dimer and second trimer states towards the BX+B dimer threshold when $m_B/m_X \simeq 0.04$ (LLH), leading to an increased (reduced) three-body contact.
Notice that the aforementioned energy shift towards the BX+B dimer threshold takes place also for the first trimer state in the LLH to EM transition, resulting in a slight decrease of $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ [see the insets of Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass} and Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering} (a)-(b) ]. It is also worth mentioning that $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ exhibits oscillations, due to the conversion of trap to type-I atom-dimer states [gray lines in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_mass}] and vice versa nearby the avoided-crossings.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Figures/Cont3_BBX_mass_2.eps}
\caption{Three-body contact of the BBX system, $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$, with respect to the mass ratio $m_B/m_X$. The (non) trimer states are denoted with (gray solid) blue dash-dotted lines. The inset displays three-body correlations of the first trimer state. The scattering length ratio reads $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$.}
\label{Fig:Cont3_mass}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1 \textwidth]{Figures/Temp_Cont_BBX_2.eps}
\caption{Thermally averaged (a) two-body contact between the BX species, (b) three-body contact and (c) two-body contact between the BB species for an EM BBX system with mass ratio $m_B/m_X=1.16$. The thermal average is performed by employing the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for several temperatures $\beta^{-1}=k_B T$ (see legend). Utilizing a radial frequency $\omega=2\pi \times \, 20 ~\rm{Hz}$, the provided temperatures lie in the range $T=0.48-67.2 ~\rm{nK}$. All observables are expressed in harmonic oscillator units.}
\label{Fig:Cont_thermal}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Impact of thermal effects on the correlations}
In the previous subsections, we investigated how two- and three-body correlations depend on the scattering length and mass ratio, as well as, the statistics of the atoms.
Another important issue of immense experimental relevance is the impact of the gas temperature.
Indeed, it has been experimentally and theoretically evinced that temperature effects play a crucial role on few-body correlation properties of bosonic and two-component fermionic thermal gases \cite{yan_harmonically_2013,sant'ana_scalingTan_2019,zou_planar_Cont_2020,Rakhimov_critical_2021,Hoffman_universality_2015,Capuzzi_finite_2020}.
For this reason, in the following, the temperature dependence of the two- and three-body contacts with respect to the involved scattering lengths is investigated exemplarily for BBX systems.
The temperature effect, in our system, can be taken into account by simply considering an ensemble of type-I atom-dimer and trap states which are populated according to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution \cite{yan_harmonically_2013}.
This means that states with energy $E>0$ are those which can be thermally averaged whereas type-II atom-dimer and trimer states are excluded [see also Sec. \ref{Sec:Spectra} for the classification of the participating states]. This stems from the fact that initially a binary thermal gas consists of unbound atoms with energy larger than zero \cite{Braaten_two-body-loss_2013}. Note that in the limit of a zero trapping frequency we recover the thermally averaged contacts in free space.
Under these considerations, any thermally averaged observable $\braket{\mathcal{O}}_{\rm{th}}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\braket{\mathcal{O}}_{\rm{th}}=\dfrac{\sum_j e^{- \beta E^j}\mathcal{O}^j}{\sum_j e^{-\beta E^j}}~~{\rm{with}}~~\beta^{-1}=k_B T,
\label{Eq:Thermal}
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the temperature of the gas and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann's constant.
$\mathcal{O}^j$ is the observable associated with the $j$-th eigenstate of our system having an eigenvalue $E^j$, while the summation is performed over eigenstates with $E^j>0$.
Additionally, the range of temperatures that we consider in the following is up to 70 $\rm{nK}$ referring to an experimentally relevant radial trapping frequency $\omega= 2\pi \times \, 20 \: \rm{Hz}$ \cite{jochim_anomalous_2018,jochim_anomalous_2019}. In this temperature regime $s$-wave interactions are adequate for describing thermal effects of few-body correlation observables \cite{zou_planar_Cont_2020}.
The thermally averaged two- and three-body contacts, capturing the imprint of temperature on the behavior of the two- and three-body correlations respectively, are illustrated in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont_thermal}.
We focus on a BBX system with fixed mass ratio $m_B/m_X=1.16$ (EM) and inspect different values of temperature within the interval $T=0.48-67.2~\rm{nK}$. However, we note that mass-imbalanced BBX or FFX systems display a qualitatively similar behavior.
For all $\beta^{-1}$ presented in \cref{Fig:Cont_thermal}(a), (b), there is an increasing tendency of two- ($\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$) and three-body ($\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}_{\rm{th}}}$) correlations between the BX species and the BBX atoms respectively, for a larger scattering length ratio $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$.
This overall behavior stems from the growth observed in the two- and three-body zero temperature contacts [see Figs. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (b), \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering} (b)] associated with type-I atom-dimer states, lying close to the zero energy threshold.
These eigenstates possess energy larger than zero and thus similarly to the zero temperature scenario they contribute to the growth of the thermally averaged two-body contact.
In particular, $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$ features an oscillatory behavior with respect to $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$, whose amplitude decreases as $\beta^{-1}$ becomes larger.
These oscillations originate from the undulations present in the $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}$ [see inset of Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (a)].
They are bounded above by the two-body contact of type-II atom-dimer states and below eventually by zero, in the limit where infinitely many trap states are taken into account.
In contrast, as the temperature increases, a larger number of eigenstates contributes to the thermal average [Eq. \eqref{Eq:Thermal}] resulting in an $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$ free from the oscillatory fringes.
Indeed, in \cref{Fig:Cont_thermal} (a), the $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$ at low temperature, i.e. $\beta^{-1}=0.5$ (gray solid line), exhibits prominent oscillations.
However, as the temperature increases, e.g. $\beta^{-1}=70$ (blue solid line), more type-I atom-dimer and trap states participate in the thermal average smearing out any interference feature. The same mechanism is responsible for the decay of the oscillation fringes present in $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}_{\rm{th}}}$ for larger temperatures [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont_thermal} (b)].
Moreover, we observe that the magnitude of the thermally averaged two-body contact between the BX species shown in \cref{Fig:Cont_thermal} (a) decreases as the temperature of the gas increases \cite{yan_harmonically_2013}.
For example, focusing on $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=6$, $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$ is approximately one order of magnitude smaller than the upper bound of $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}$ [\cref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (b)] at $\beta^{-1}=70$. Similarly, the amount of three-body correlations, quantified by$\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}_{\rm{th}}}$, also becomes suppressed with increasing temperature. In particular, at $\beta^{-1}=70$, the thermally averaged three-body correlations
are reduced by almost a factor of four compared to $\sqrt{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}$ of the first atom-dimer state at $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=6$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont3_scattering} (b)]. Note also that both the thermally averaged two- and three-body contacts at $\beta^{-1}=70$ are suppressed by two orders of magnitude compared to the respective correlation measures of the first trimer state.
This behavior occurs due to the fact that for increasing temperature the likelihood that the three particles occupy trap states becomes larger. These trap states possess fairly small two- and three-body correlations.
Thus, the thermal average over such states significantly decreases the magnitude of both $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$ and $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_3^{BBX}}_{\rm{th}}}$.
A similar qualitative behavior is observed for $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}_{\rm{th}}}$, where again two-body correlations are suppressed for increasing $\beta^{-1}$ [\cref{Fig:Cont_thermal} (c)]. In particular, the oscillation amplitude of $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}_{\rm{th}}}$ reduces with increasing temperature ($\beta^{-1}$).
Also, $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}_{\rm{th}}}$ remains almost constant as a function of $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ for $\beta^{-1}>10$.
This stems from the fact that the zero-temperature $\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}$ of type-I atom-dimer and trap states does not show an increasing tendency with respect to the tuning of $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ [see Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (d)-(f)], in contrast to the zero-temperature contact of the BX species. Upon increasing the temperature, $\beta^{-1}$, the oscillations of $\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}$ are smeared out [see also the relevant discussion on $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BX}}_{\rm{th}}}$], yielding thus a constant $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}_{\rm{th}}}$.
Similarly to the case of two-body correlations between the BX species, as the temperature increases the magnitude of the thermally averaged two-body correlations between the identical bosonic particles is further suppressed. In particular, at $\beta^{-1}=70$ [blue solid line in Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont_thermal} (c)], the magnitude of $\sqrt{\braket{\mathcal{D}_2^{BB}}_{\rm{th}}}$ is smaller by a factor of two than the upper bound of two-body correlations between the identical bosonic particles for $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=[1.5,6]$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Cont2_scattering_BBX} (e)].
\section{Spatial configurations of the three-body states} \label{Sec:dens}
Next, we explore the underlying spatial structure of the few-body binary systems via the corresponding $\sigma$ species one-body reduced density.
This quantity is a common experimental observable which can be measured by averaging over a sample of different single-shot realizations \cite{Bergschneider_spin_resolved_2018,Anderegg_tweezer_2019,mistakidis2018correlation}, shedding light into the static and dynamical properties of a system \cite{stewart_contact_2010,Katsimiga_bent2D_2017}.
Within the used descriptive notation [see also Table \ref{Tab:Symmetries} and Appendix \ref{Ap:Asymptotic} for details] the reduced one-body density acquires the form
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{r}_{\sigma})&=& \frac{M}{\pi} \int dR \, d\Omega^{\sigma''\sigma'}\: e^{-G(\boldsymbol{r}_{\sigma},R,\Omega^{\sigma''\sigma'})} \nonumber \\
&~& \times \abs{\sum_{\nu} F_{\nu} \Phi_{\nu} (R; \Omega^{\sigma''\sigma'})}^2, \label{Eq:dens1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma' \neq \sigma$, $\sigma''=B/F$ depending on the mixture and $(r_{\sigma},\phi)$ are the polar coordinates of the $\boldsymbol{r}_{\sigma}$ 2D vector.
Moreover the expression $G(\boldsymbol{r}_{\sigma},R,\Omega^{\sigma''\sigma'})$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
G(\boldsymbol{r}_{\sigma},R,\Omega^{\sigma''\sigma'})&=& Mr_{\sigma}^2+(m_{\sigma''}+m_{\sigma'})^2 \frac{R^2\cos^2 \alpha^{\sigma''\sigma'}\mu_{\sigma''\sigma'}}{M \mu} \nonumber \\ &~&+2\frac{(m_{\sigma''}+m_{\sigma'})\sqrt{\mu_{\sigma''\sigma'}}}{\sqrt{\mu}} r_{\sigma} R \cos \alpha^{\sigma'' \sigma'} \nonumber \\
&~& \times \cos (\theta_2^{\sigma''\sigma'}-\phi).
\label{Eq:dens2}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the $\sigma$ species one-body reduced density is normalized to unity.
Initially, we consider a BBX system with a small mass ratio $m_B/m_X$ i.e. a LLH case.
Characteristic one-body densities of trimer states are provided in \cref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (a) for two representative scattering length ratios $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$.
Since the X particle is heavier than the identical bosons, it is located close to the trap center while being insensitive to scattering length alterations as can be seen from the Gaussian profile of $n_X(r_X)$ in the inset of Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (a).
The reduced density of the bosonic species closely resembles and encloses the one of the distinguishable particle while it slightly shrinks as $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ becomes larger, compare $n_B(r_B=0)$ for $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=6$ and $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$ in Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (a). This behavior signifies that the light bosons come very close to the heavier distinguishable particle, which is a feature of the trimer state.
Similar density profiles occur for trimer states in the HHL scenario [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (b)].
Evidently, the one-body densities are wider for HHL [\cref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (b)] than LLH [\cref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (a)] settings.
Indeed, as $m_B/m_X$ increases the trapping potential becomes more shallow [see Eq. \eqref{Eq:Pots_adiabatic}] and thus it leads to a larger spatial extent of the one-body density.
Contrary to the LLH case, here the bosons are placed near the center of the trap due to their heavier mass.
Apart from this difference both $n_B(r_B)$ and $n_X(r_X)$ possess a Gaussian form being almost unaffected by $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$.
All particles reside close to each other since the system occupies deep trimer states.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5 \textwidth]{Figures/Dens_A_0p04_B_X_states_3.eps}
\caption{One-body reduced density of (a), (b) the first trimer ($j=1$) and (c), (d) the first atom-dimer states ($j=3$ and $j=5$ respectively) for different scattering length ratios $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ (see legend). The main panels refer to the density of the B species, $n_B(r_B)$, whereas the insets to the X species, $n_X(r_X)$. The mass ratio of the BBX system is (a), (c) $m_B/m_X=0.04$ (LLH) and (b), (d) $m_B/m_X=22.16$ (HHL).}
\label{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL}
\end{figure}
Turning to the first type-II atom-dimer state, see \cref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (c) and (d)], we deduce that in contrast to trimer states [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (a), (b)] the corresponding reduced one-body densities are strongly impacted by scattering length variations.
For example, in the case of a LLH BBX system [inset of \cref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (c)], $n_X(r_X)$ features a narrow Gaussian distribution which is not altered when tuning $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ due to the large mass of the X particle.
However, $n_{B}(r_{B})$ depends strongly on $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ exhibiting a large spatial extent at $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=2$, whereas at $a_{BB}/a_{BX}=6$ tends to a Gaussian of small width comparable with the one of $n_X(r_X)$
[inset of Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (c)].
This occurs since in this regime ($a_{BB}/a_{BX}=6$) the configuration of the type-II atom-dimer state consists of a strongly bound BX dimer [see also Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (a)] which results into having a boson localized at the trap center and lying close to the X particle.
An analogous behavior of the density takes place for the first type-II atom-dimer state in the HHL case [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_BBX_LLH_HHL} (d)].
Namely, for increasing scattering length ratio ($a_{BB}/a_{BX}=6$), the density profiles show a narrower spatial configuration.
The reduced one-body densities of FFX systems presented in \cref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} for small mass ratios ($m_F/m_X=0.0451$, LLH) evince a remarkable angular dependence.
This is in sharp contrast to the densities of BBX systems which are isotropic and their involved mass and scattering length ratios impact only their radial part.
This difference between the one-body densities of FFX and BBX systems mainly stems from the fact that the total angular momentum and parity of FFX systems is $L^{\pi}=1^-$ whereas for BBX is equal to $L^{\pi}=0^+$.
Paradigmatic densities of an FFX system occupying the eigenstates of the first atom-dimer [see panels (a) and (b)] and two excited trap states [see panels (c) and (d)] at two different scattering lengths $1/a_{FX}$ are showcased in \cref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited}.
We should note that \cref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} presents only the fermionic density since the one of the X particle features an angular isotropic configuration localized close to the trap center similarly to the structure illustrated in Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (b).
This angular isotropy originates from the fact that the X particle interacts with an $s$-wave zero-range pseudopotential with the identical particles and is not constrained by any symmetry as is the case with the identical fermions.
In contrast, apart from symmetric $s$-wave interactions, particle exchange antisymmetry constraints induce the angular dependence of $n_F(x_F,y_F)$ by introducing a non-zero angular momentum ~\cite{xie_analysis_1997}.
Focusing on the first atom-dimer state [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (a), (b)], $n_F(x_F,y_F)$ displays an angular dependent pattern which tends to an isotropic configuration as the interspecies scattering length $1/a_{FX}$ is tuned to a larger value [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (b)].
In particular, for $1/a_{FX}=0.36$ a small anisotropy is present in the angular direction and $n_{F}(x_{F},y_{F})$ extends to larger distances compared to $1/a_{FX}=6$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (b)].
This is caused by the smaller binding energy of this state compared to the type-II atom-dimer state considered at $1/a_{FX}=6$ [see also Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (d)].
Therefore, the densities of type-II atom-dimer states exhibit a configuration where the F particles reside in the vicinity of the trap center, at the location of the X particle, with a larger probability than the respective type-I states [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (a)].
The angular deformation of the densities $n_F(x_F,y_F)$ of trap states [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (c), (d)], becomes even more pronounced.
Specifically, for $1/a_{FX}=0.36$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (c)], the presented eigenstate ($j=15$) is a superposition of an atom-dimer and an excited trap state, since its energy lies close to an avoided-crossing [Fig. \ref{Fig:Spectra} (d)].
As can be seen this is directly reflected in the fermionic density which displays a peak close to the trap center, at the location of the distinguishable particle.
However, away from the peak ($x_F=0$, $y_F=0$) the density shows prominent undulations in the angular direction. Strikingly, by singling out a particular $\nu$ in the summation of Eq. \eqref{Eq:dens1}, one can assign the observed patterns in the reduced densities to specific states that are associated with the $\nu$-th adiabatic hyperspherical potential [Fig. \ref{Fig:Pots} (d)].
In this way, these undulations
are attributed to the specific density patterns building upon states of the higher-lying adiabatic hyperspherical potentials $U_{\nu}(R)$ [Fig. \ref{Fig:Pots} (d)] with $\nu>1$.
The configuration of the three particles associated with these potentials consist of the X particle being located between the two fermions, which are further separated by the former. Similarly, the lowest adiabatic hyperspherical potential $U_1(R)$, supporting atom-dimer states, is responsible for the density peak close to the trap center [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (c)].
A different angular pattern appears in the fermionic density of a trap eigenstate ($j=14$) [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (d)] for larger interspecies scattering lengths e.g. $1/a_{FX}=6$, whose energy lies away from avoided-crossings.
Here, the fermions are repelled from the trap center, where the heavy X particle is positioned.
Since this is a trap state, the attraction between the X particle and the fermions is not strong enough to localize both species at the trap center as is the case for atom-dimer states [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (a), (b)]. Thus, the fermions form a shell structure~\cite{papp2008tunable,maity2020parametrically} surrounding the X particle [Fig. \ref{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited} (d)], a process being reminiscent of the phase separation mechanism emerging in many-body Bose-Fermi mixtures~\cite{lous2018probing,viverit2000zero,mistakidis2019correlated}. Here, this configuration is attributed to adiabatic hyperspherical potentials with $\nu>1$ as can be deduced by focusing on specific $\nu$'s in Eq. \eqref{Eq:dens1}. Notice that this pattern characterizes also other highly excited trap states as well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/Dens_FFX_LLH_ground_trap_2.eps}
\caption{One-body reduced density, $n_F(x_F,y_F)$ of (a), (b) the first atom-dimer ($j=1$) and (c), (d) excited trap states ($j=15$ and $14$ respectively) of a LLH FFX system ($m_F/m_X=0.0451$). The considered interspecies scattering lengths $1/a_{FX}$ read (a), (c) $1/a_{FX}=0.36$ and (b), (d) $1/a_{FX}=6$.}
\label{Fig:Dens_FFX_A_28_ground_excited}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and outlook} \label{Sec:conclusions}
We have provided insights into the behavior of few-body correlations emerging in arbitrary mass-imbalanced three-body binary mixtures confined in a 2D harmonic trap. In particular, the considered mixtures consist of either two identical bosonic (BB) or fermionic (FF) atoms interacting with a third distinguishable one (X) yielding two distinct physical systems, i.e. BBX and FFX respectively.
Utilizing the hyperspherical formalism we discuss the properties of the individual energy spectra and explicate that they can be classified according to three types of energy hyperradial eigenstates.
Namely, trap states describing three weakly interacting atoms, a dimer accompanied by a spectator atom (atom-dimers), and trimer configurations.
The few-body correlation properties, as captured by the two- and three-body contacts, are studied with respect to both the 2D scattering lengths of BBX ($a_{BB}/a_{BX}$) and FFX ($1/a_{FX}$) setups as well as the mass ratio between the species. These correlation measures are investigated for all above mentioned energy eigenstates, distinguishing thus our treatment from previous works in 2D where correlation properties of only the trimer states were considered for three-body binary mixtures in free space \cite{Bellotti_contacts_2014}.
Inspecting the characteristics of two-body intra- (BB) and interspecies (BX, FX) correlations, as encapsulated in the respective two-body contacts, we exemplify a distinction between the aforementioned energy eigenstates.
Indeed, if the system lies in deep trimer states substantial two-body correlations emerge, which become stronger for increasing scattering lengths (either $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ or $1/a_{FX}$) or larger mass ratio $m_B/m_X$ and $m_F/m_X$.
Interestingly, in the case of atom-dimer and trap states the two-body correlations feature an upper and a lower bound
while exhibiting an oscillatory behavior with respect to the scattering length ratio.
This response originates from the fact that atom-dimer and trap states change character in the vicinity of avoided-crossings present in the energy spectra.
Qualitatively, these characteristics of the two-body correlations are of universal nature regardless the atomic species or particle exchange symmetry.
In particular, the lower bound is attributed to the presence of highly excited trap states and approaches zero when a larger number of them is taken into account in the two-body contacts.
On the other hand, the upper bound is associated with pure atom-dimer states. This upper bound is successfully addressed by employing the semi-classical JWKB method, tackling both BBX and FFX systems for all considered scattering length ratios.
For large scattering lengths ($a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ or $1/a_{FX}$) an analytical expression for this upper bound is derived, stemming from the approximation of the atom-dimer wave function as a product state describing a deep dimer and the remaining trapped particle.
Interestingly, the values of the upper bound depends solely on the considered scattering lengths $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ or $1/a_{FX}$.
By comparing with the semi-classical JWKB formula, it is possible to infer the effect of the third particle to the two-body correlations of the dimer, especially at small scattering lengths $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ or $1/a_{FX}$.
Moreover, the two-body contact of atom-dimer states with respect to the mass ratio for large fixed $a_{BB}/a_{BX}$ or $1/a_{FX}$, shows a saturation tendency towards the analytically predicted value.
Turning to BBX mixtures a similar oscillatory behavior of three-body correlations occurs as a function of the scattering length for atom-dimer and trap states as manifested in the three-body contact.
The corresponding lower bound is caused by the existence of energetically higher-lying trap states.
Antithetically to two-body correlations, the three-body contact of the atom-dimer states lacks an upper bound, exhibiting a state-dependent growth rate. Three-body correlations are more enhanced for atom-dimer states residing close to the trimer formation threshold, compared to states lying further away from it.
Proceeding one step further, the impact of thermal effects on the two- and three-body correlations of the 2D binary mixtures is also investigated.
Concretely, for thermal gases we observe that a thermally averaged two- or three-body contact possesses an oscillatory pattern with a reduced peak-to-peak amplitude as the temperature increases, whereas their overall magnitude is also suppressed. This behavior is attributed to a superposition of highly excited trap and atom-dimer states weighted according to the Boltzmann distribution, which destroys the oscillatory patterns present for zero temperature.
To comprehend the spatially resolved structure of the species in the different eigenstates we employ the respective reduced one-body densities, an observable that has not been extensively studied in 2D three-body binary systems \cite{sandoval_radii2D_2016}.
For trimer and atom-dimer states of BBX systems the reduced density displays an isotropic configuration in the angular direction, with a spatial extent characterized by the binding energy of the state.
On the other hand, for FFX systems patterns with an angular dependence appear in the fermionic reduced density due to the non-zero total angular momentum of the system, which is particularly more prominent for excited trap states.
However, the density of the distinguishable X particle features an isotropic configuration in the angular direction, since it is not constrained by any symmetry contrary to the case of the fermionic particles and similarly to
the distinguishable particle in
BBX systems.
Concluding, there are many interesting future perspectives that are worth being studied.
For instance, the investigation of the dynamical formation of trimer and atom-dimer states~\cite{Incao_dynamics_2018} and in particular the interplay and transfer efficiency of the involved two- and three-body correlations~\cite{Colussi_dynamics_2018} by e.g. applying interaction quenches or time-dependent pulses will yield insight into the early-time dynamics of Bose and Fermi gases in 2D.
Another aspect regards the inclusion of finite-range corrections~\cite{Incao_recomb2D_2015} that would possibly alter the upper bound of the two-body contact for atom-dimer states in the regime of large inverse scattering lengths.
Indeed, the adiabatic potential curves can exhibit higher-order corrections for finite-range two-body potentials as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Volosniev_Borromean_2014}.
For example, in the case of the EM FFX system, finite-range effects are important in the region of $1/a_{FX} \gtrsim 55$ for a trapping frequency $\omega=2\pi \times 20 \, \rm{Hz}$, and in the interval $1/a_{FX} \gtrsim 8$ for $\omega=2\pi \times 1 \, \rm{kHz}$ ~\cite{Incao_recomb2D_2015}.
An additional possibility for future studies concerns the stationary properties of fermionic mixtures featuring $p$-wave interactions~\cite{kanjilal_coupled-channel_2006,Volosniev_Borromean_2014,nishida_super_2013} which will permit the exploration of unitary Fermi gases from a few-body perspective.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors thank A. G. Volosniev for insightful comments. G. B. kindly acknowledges financial support by the State Graduate Funding Program Scholarships (Hmb-NFG).
S. I. M. gratefully acknowledges financial support in the framework of the Lenz-Ising Award of the University of Hamburg. This work is supported by the Cluster of Excellence "CUI: Advanced Imaging of Matter" of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)-EXC 2056-project ID 390715994.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
All groups in this paper will be finite. As usual, if $G$ is a group we write ${{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$ to denote the set of complex irreducible characters of $G$ and ${{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ to denote the set of irreducible characters of $p'$-degree of $G$.
A classical theorem of Broline and Garrison asserts that if $G$ is a finite group, $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$ is a complex irreducible character of $G$ and $\operatorname{Ker}\chi$ is not nilpotent, then there exists $\psi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi<\operatorname{Ker}\chi$ and $\psi(1)>\chi(1)$. This is Theorem 12.19 of \cite{isa}. (See Theorem 12.24 of \cite{isa} and \cite{ch} for variations of this result.)
The following is out main result. (Given a group $G$, we write $\operatorname{Sol}(G)$ to denote the solvable radical of $G$ and $O_{p',p}(G)$ is the largest solvable $p$-nilpotent normal subgroup of $G$.)
\begin{thmA}
Let $G$ be a finite group and let $p$ be a prime. Let $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ and set $K=\operatorname{Ker}\chi$. If $K$ is not solvable or not $p$-nilpotent then there exists $\psi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi<\operatorname{Ker}\chi$ and $\psi(1)>\chi(1)$. In particular, there exists $\mu\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\mu\leq O_{p',p}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))$.
\end{thmA}
Unlike the Broline-Garrison theorem, our proof of Theorem A relies on the classification of finite simple groups by means of a theorem of G. Navarro and P. H. Tiep \cite{nt} on the extendability of characters of a simple group. As an immediate consequence of Theorem A we have the following, which we record here.
\begin{corB}
Let $G$ be a finite group and let $p$ be a prime. If $G$ has trivial solvable radical, then there exists a faithful irreducible character of $G$ of $p'$-degree.
\end{corB}
It is possible to prove Corollary B without using Theorem A. However, we do not know a classification-free proof of Corollary B either.
There is a number of applications of the Broline-Garrison theorem to character degrees. We will present applications of Theorem A to character degrees elsewhere (see \cite{mr}). Our motivation to find Theorem A came from character codegrees. Recall that if $G$ is a group and $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$ then the codegree of $\chi$ is
$${{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)=\frac{|G:\operatorname{Ker}\chi|}{\chi(1)}.$$
The following consequence of Theorem A resembles known results on $p$-parts of character degrees.
\begin{corC}
Let $G$ be a finite group. Assume that $p^{a+1}$ does not divide ${{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)$ for every $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$. Then
$$
|G:O_{p',p}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))|_p\leq p^a.
$$
\end{corC}
When this paper was in the final stages of its preparation, we learned that related, but weaker, results were obtained in \cite{qz}. In particular, it was proved in \cite{qz} that if $G$ is a finite group then there exists $\mu\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\mu$ is $p$-nilpotent (but not solvable $p$-nilpotent, as in Theorem A). Our techniques are also different.
\section{Proof of Theorem A}
The proof of Theorem A splits into two parts: the cases when $K$ is $p$-solvable and $K$ is not $p$-solvable. First, we handle the $p$-solvable case. The proof is due to G. Navarro and is included here with his kind permission.
\begin{thm}
\label{B}
Let $p$ be a prime. Let $G$ be a finite group and let $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$. Write $K=\operatorname{Ker}\chi$. If $K$ is $p$-solvable but not $p$-nilpotent, then there exists $\psi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi<K$ and $\psi(1)>\chi(1)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q$ be a Hall $p$-complement of $K$. Since $K$ is not $p$-nilpotent, $N_K(Q)<K$. By Frattini's argument, $G=KN_G(Q)$. Notice that $|G:N_G(Q)|=|K:N_K(Q)|>1$ is a $p$-power. Let $H$ be a maximal subgroup of $G$ containing $N_G(Q)$. Set $\theta=\chi_H\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(H)$ and let $J=\operatorname{Ker}\theta=H\cap K$.
Notice that by Lemma 6.8 of \cite{nav} if $\tau\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G/K)$ lies over $\theta$, then $\tau=\chi$. Also, $[\chi,\theta^G]=[\chi_H,\theta]=1$ by Frobenius reciprocity. Hence, we may write
$$
\theta^G=\chi+\Delta
$$
where no irreducible constituent $\psi$ of $\Delta$ is such that $K\leq\operatorname{Ker}\psi$. Now,
$$
\theta^G(1)=\chi(1)+\Delta(1),
$$
and therefore, since $\theta^G(1)=|G:H|\theta(1)=|G:H|\chi(1)$, we obtain
$$
\chi(1)(|G:H|-1)=\Delta(1).
$$
Since $\chi(1)$ is a $p'$-number and $|G:H|$ is a power of $p$, we deduce that $\Delta(1)$ is not divisible by $p$. Hence, there exists an irreducible constituent of $p'$-degree $\psi$ of $\theta^G$ such that $K$ is not contained in $\operatorname{Ker}\psi=L$. In particular, $K\neq L$.
We claim that $\psi(1)>\chi(1)$. Since $\psi$ lies over $\theta$, we know that $\psi(1)\geq\theta(1)=\chi(1)$. By way of contradiction, assume that $\psi(1)=\chi(1)$. Then $\psi_H=\theta$ and it follows that $J=H\cap L\leq L$. Thus $J\leq K\cap L\leq K$ and, since $K\cap L\trianglelefteq G$, the maximality of $H$ implies that $K\cap L=J$ or $K\cap L=K$. In the first case, $J\trianglelefteq G$ and Frattini's argument implies that $G=JN_G(Q)=H$, a contradiction. In the second case, $K\leq L$ which is another contradiction. This proves the claim.
It remains to see that $L<K$. Assume first that $L\leq H$. Since $\theta$ is an irreducible constituent of $\psi_H$, we deduce that
$$L=L\cap H=\operatorname{Ker}\psi_H\leq\operatorname{Ker}\theta=J=H\cap K\leq K.$$
Since $L\neq K$, we conclude that $L<K$, as wanted.
Finally, we may assume that $L\not\leq H$. In particular, $G=HL$, using that $H$ is maximal in $G$. Thus $\psi_H=\theta$ and it follows that $\psi(1)=\theta(1)=\chi(1)$. This contradiction completes the proof.
\end{proof}
If $H\lhd G$ and $\gamma\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(H)$ we will write $G_{\gamma}$ to denote the stabilizer of $\gamma$ in $G$.
As mentioned in the Introduction, our proof of the general case depends on the classification of finite simple groups by means of the following result.
\begin{lem}
\label{minsim}
Let $M=S^n$ be a nonabelian minimal normal subgroup of a group $G$. Then there exists a non-trivial irreducible character $\gamma=\alpha\times\cdots\times\alpha\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(M)$, of $p'$-degree, such that $|G:G_{\gamma}|$ is a $p'$-number and $\gamma$ extends to $G_{\gamma}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem 2.1 of \cite{hun}, which in turn follows from work in \cite{nt}.
\end{proof}
Recall that the socle $\operatorname{Soc}(G)$ of a finite group $G$ is the product of the minimal normal subgroups of $G$. It is well-known that $\operatorname{Soc}(G)=A(G)\times T(G)$ where $A(G)$ is the direct product of \textit{some} of the elementary abelian minimal normal subgroups of $G$ and $T(G)$ is the direct product of \textit{all} the nonabelian minimal normal subgroups of $G$ (see Definition 42.6 and Lemma 42.9 of \cite{hup2}, for instance). Notice also that if $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$ then $\chi$ is faithful if and only if $\operatorname{Ker}\chi\cap\operatorname{Soc}(G)=1$.
Now we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem A. As usual, if $p$ is a prime $O_{p'}(G)$ is the largest normal $p'$-subgroup of $G$ and $O_{p',p}(G)$ is the preimage in $G$ of the largest normal $p$-subgroup of $G/O_{p'}(G)$.
\begin{thm}
\label{smaller}
Let $G$ be a finite group and $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$. Write $K=\operatorname{Ker}\chi$. If $K\not\leq O_{p',p}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))$ then there exists $\psi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi<K$ and $\psi(1)>\chi(1)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a minimal counterexample. By Theorem \ref{B} we may assume that $K$ is not solvable. Let $M\leq K$ be the solvable residual of $K$ and let $M/N$ be a chief factor of $G$. Notice that $M/N$ is not solvable and by the minimality of $G$, $N=1$ and $M$ is a minimal normal subgroup of $G$. Moreover $M$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $K$. Indeed, suppose that $M_1$ is another minimal normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $K$. Then $K/M_1$ is not solvable and we are done by the minimality of $G$ as a counterexample.
Let $\gamma\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(M)$ be the character whose existence is guaranteed by Lemma \ref{minsim}. Notice that there exists $L\trianglelefteq G$ such that $\operatorname{Soc}(G)=M\times L$. Let $\beta\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(L)$ lying under $\chi$. Notice that since $\chi$ has $p'$-degree, $\beta$ also has $p'$-degree.
Let $P\in\operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$. We know that $|G:G_{\gamma}|$ is a $p'$-number. Replacing $\gamma$ by a $G$-conjugate, if necessary, we may assume that $P\leq G_{\gamma}$. On the other hand, since $\beta$ lies under $\chi$ and $\chi$ has $p'$-degree, $|G:G_{\beta}|$ is a $p'$-number too (by Theorem 6.11 of \cite{isa}). Again, replacing $\beta$ by a $G$-conjugate if necessary, we may assume that $P\leq G_{\beta}$. Thus $$P\leq G_{\gamma}\cap G_{\beta}=G_{\gamma\times\beta}=T.$$
This implies that $|G:T|$ is a $p'$-number.
Since $\gamma$ extends to $G_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\times1_L$ also extends to $G_{\gamma}$ and there exists $\tilde{\gamma}\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(T|\gamma\times1_L)$ that extends $\gamma$. Since $M\leq\operatorname{Ker}\chi$ and $\chi$ lies over $\beta$, $\chi$ lies over $1_M\times\beta$. Let $\xi\in{\rm Irr}(G_{1_M\times\beta}|1_M\times\beta)$ such that $\xi^G=\chi$. Then $\xi$ has $p'$-degree and there exists $\varphi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(T|1_M\times\beta)$ lying under $\xi$ (and hence, under $\chi$) of $p'$-degree. Hence $\delta=\tilde{\gamma}\varphi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(T)$ by Gallagher's theorem (Corollary 6.16 of \cite{isa}). Since $\tilde{\gamma}$ lies over $\gamma\times1_L$ and $\varphi$ lies over $1_M\times\beta$, $\delta$ lies over
$\gamma\times\beta$. By Clifford's correspondence, $\psi=\delta^G\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$. Notice that
$$
\psi(1)=|G:T|\gamma(1)\varphi(1)>|G:T|\varphi(1)\geq\chi(1).
$$
In particular, $\psi$ has $p'$-degree.
Now we want to show that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap\operatorname{Soc}(G)=1$. ( As remarked before the proof, this implies that $\psi$ is faithful.) Notice that it suffices to show that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap M=1$ and $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap L=1$. Indeed, suppose that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap M=1$, $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap L=1$ and that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap\operatorname{Soc}(G)>1$, and let $N$ be a minimal normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap\operatorname{Soc}(G)$. If $N$ is abelian, then $N\leq A(G)\leq L$ and $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap L>1$, a contradiction. If $N$ is not abelian, then either $N=M$ and $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap M=1$ or, $N\leq L$ and $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap L>1$. In both cases we get a contradiction and it follows that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap\operatorname{Soc}(G)=1$.
Notice that $\psi$ lies over $\gamma$ and $\gamma$ is faithful. This implies that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap M=\operatorname{Ker} \psi_M\subseteq\operatorname{Ker}\gamma=1$.
Finally, it remains to see that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap L=1$. Recall that $\chi$ lies over $\beta$, so $\chi_L$ is a multiple of the sum of $|G:G_{\beta}|=r$ $G$-conjugates $\{\beta_1,\dots,\beta_r\}$ of $\beta$. Similarly, $\psi$ lies over $\beta$ so $\psi_L$ is also a multiple of the sum of the $G$-conjugates of $\beta$. Since $K=\operatorname{Ker}\chi$ and $K\cap L=1$ (because $M\cap L=1$ and $M$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $K$), $\chi_L$ is faithful. We conclude that $\psi_L$ is faithful. This means that $\operatorname{Ker}\psi\cap L=1$, as wanted. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Application to $p$-parts of character codegrees}
There have been many recent results on character codegrees. Most of these results are motivated by known results on character degrees. It is easy to see that for any group $G$ and any $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$, $\chi(1)\leq{{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)$ (see, for instance, Lemma 2.1 of \cite{dl}). Therefore, some of these relations between results on character degrees and results on character codegrees are not surprising. For instance, a codegrees version of Jordan's theorem on linear groups (Theorem 14.12 of \cite{isa}) follows immediately. However, if we take a prime $p$, then it is possible to have ${{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)_p=p$ and $\chi(1)_p$ arbitrarily large. For instance, let $n$ be any positive integer, let $q\equiv1\pmod{p}$ where $p$ and $q$ are primes and let $G$ be a direct product of $n$ copies of a Frobenius group with cyclic complement of order $p$ cyclic kernel of order $q$. Then it is easy to see that $G$ possesses irreducible characters of degree $p^n$ but ${{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)_p\leq p$ for all $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$. This shows that in general it is not possible to control the $p$-parts of character degrees in terms of the $p$-parts of character codegrees. Conversely, if $\chi$ is a faithful linear character of a cyclic group of order $p^n$, then ${{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)(1)=p^n$, so there is not any relation between $p$-parts of character degrees and character codegrees. Our goal in this section is to, quite surprisingly, obtain results on how $p$-parts of character codegrees restrict the structure of a group that are very similar to known results on $p$-parts of character degrees.
It was conjectured in \cite{mor03} that $|G:O_p(G)|_p$ is bounded in terms of the largest $p$-part of the character degrees of $G$. This conjecture was proved for solvable groups in Corollary B of \cite{mw} and for arbitrary groups in Theorem A of \cite{yq}. The natural question, therefore, is whether such a bound exists if we replace character degrees by character codegrees. However, the examples mentioned in the previous paragraph show that there is no hope to obtain any bound for $|G:O_p(G)|_p$ in terms of the largest $p$-part of the character codegrees. Corollary C shows that, in fact, $|O_{p',p}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))|_p$ is the only factor of $|G|_p$ that cannot be bounded in terms of the largest $p$-part of the character codegrees.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary C]
By Theorem A, there exists $\mu\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}_{p'}(G)$ such that $\operatorname{Ker}\mu\leq O_{p',p}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))$. Hence
$$
p^a\geq{{\operatorname{cod}}}(\mu)_p=\left(\frac{|G:\operatorname{Ker}\mu|}{\mu(1)}\right)_p
=|G:\operatorname{Ker}\mu|_p\geq|G: O_{p',p}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))|_p,
$$
as desired.
\end{proof}
The following consequence of Corollary C has a very similar character degree analog (see Corollary B of \cite{mw} and Theorem 3.12 of \cite{yq}). We need a lemma first.
\begin{lem}
\label{pgr}
Let $G>1$ be a $p$-group. Assume that $p^a$ is the largest character codegree of $G$. Then
$\operatorname{dl}(G)\leq\log_2a+2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma 2.4 of \cite{dl}, if $a=1$ then $G$ is abelian and the result holds.
If $a>1$, then we can apply Theorem 1.1 of \cite{dl} to deduce that the nilpotence class of $G$ is $c(G)\leq 2a-2$. Now, by III.2.12 of \cite{hup}, we have
$$
\operatorname{dl}(G)\leq\log_2c(G)+1\leq\log_2(2a-2)+1\leq\log_2(2a)+1\leq\log2a+2,
$$
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $G$ be a finite group and let $P\in\operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$. Assume that $p^{a+1}$ does not divide ${{\operatorname{cod}}}(\chi)$ for every $\chi\in{{\operatorname{Irr}}}(G)$. Then
$$
\operatorname{dl}(P)\leq2\log_2a+3.
$$
In particular, if $G$ is $p$-solvable then $l_p(G)\leq 2\log_2a+3$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $O_{p'}(\operatorname{Sol}(G))=1$. Let $P\in\operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$.
Put $K=O_p(\operatorname{Sol}(G))$. Let $d=\operatorname{dl}(PK/K)$. By Corollary C and III.2.12 of \cite{hup}, we have that $$d\leq\log_2(a)+1$$ Now, it remains to notice that by Lemma \ref{pgr} $$\operatorname{dl}(K)\leq\log_2a+2$$ to deduce that
$$
\operatorname{dl}(P)\leq d+\operatorname{dl}(K)\leq 2\log_2a+3,
$$
as desired.
In order to obtain the bound for the $p$-length it suffices to use that if $G$ is $p$-solvable then $l_p(G)\leq\operatorname{dl}(P)$ (see IX.5.4 of \cite{hb} for $p$ odd and \cite{bry} for $p=2$).
\end{proof}
We remark that
in Theorem 1.1 of \cite{ba}, it was proved that if $G$ is $p$-solvable, then $l_p(G)\leq a$. Corollary C improves this bound asymptotically and extends it to arbitrary groups by considering the derived length of a Sylow subgroup.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}[b]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |c |c |}
\hline
\thead{\\ \\ Method} & \thead{Implementation\\ (Easy/Medium/Hard)} & \thead{Speed \\(Slow/Medium/Fast)} & \thead{Accuracy \\ (Low/Medium/High)} \\ \hline
Finite Difference \cite{tassa,koena,mujoco} & Easy & Medium & Low \\ \hline
Complex-step Differentiation~\cite{complex,mcx} & Easy & Slow/Medium & High \\ \hline
Automatic Differentiation~\cite{Kudruss,robcogen,drake} & Easy/Medium & Slow/Medium & High \\ \hline
Analytical Chain-Rule Differentiation~\cite{sohl2001recursive},\cite{car}\tnote{1} & Medium/Hard & Medium & High \\ \hline
\it{Special-Purpose Analytical Method}~\normalfont \cite{garofalo,jain},\cite{car_code}\tnote{2}, [This Paper]\tnote{3} & Hard & Medium/Fast & High \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Rough summary of methods to calculate partial derivatives of rigid-body dynamics.}
\vspace{-3px}
\label{table1}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[1] Algo-2,3 of \cite{car} provides a chain-rule method for ID partial derivatives.
\item[2] Pinocchio code for ID partial derivatives accompanying~\cite{car} but different from chain-rule.
\item[3] This paper provides a {\it Special-Purpose Analytical Method} that outperforms the state-of-the-art in terms of speed.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
Rigid-body dynamics models are widely used in the development of control algorithms for quadruped and humanoid robots, with recursive dynamics algorithms at the core of many real-time controllers. Example use cases include current approaches to controller design via optimization~\cite{neunert,posa}. Likewise, robotics libraries such as Crocoddyl~\cite{crocoddyl} and Drake~\cite{drake} require the partial derivatives of rigid-body dynamics with respect to the state and control variables. The calculation of these derivatives represents the majority of the CPU time required in many optimal control applications~\cite{car}.
There are multiple general-purpose methods that can be applied to rigid-body dynamics for computing derivatives. Finite differences \cite{tassa,koena,mujoco} are simple to implement and are trivially parallelized, but suffer in accuracy (Table~\ref{table1}). The complex-step method~\cite{cstep}
is accurate to machine precision but requires all functions to be computed in the complex plane, leading to additional overhead. Cossette et al.~\cite{complex} extended this method to matrix Lie groups, providing direct applicability to rigid-body dynamics. An approach that avoids the overhead of the complex step is automatic differentiation (AD), also called algorithmic differentiation \cite{Kudruss,robcogen,drake}. AD~calculates the partials of an algorithm by automating the accumulation of chain-rule expressions through operator overloading~\cite{Kudruss} or source code transformation~\cite{drake,robcogen}. The first approach overloads basic data types to compute partials concurrently with all arithmetic. The second approach builds an expression graph from source code and augments the source directly to calculate the partial derivatives.
Without relying on AD, but similar to it, others have developed analytical methods that accumulate chain-rule expressions on top of existing algorithms. Examples include many existing descriptions of recursive algorithms for dynamics derivatives \cite{sohl2001recursive,car,lee2005newton}.
The derivation in Ref.~\cite{car} applies chain rule on the classical two-pass Recursive-Newton-Euler Algorithm (RNEA) for inverse dynamics (ID). The presented method has computational complexity $O(Nd)$ for both the forward and backward pass of the RNEA derivatives, where $N$ is the number of bodies in the system and $d$ is the depth of the kinematic connectivity tree. However, the algorithm in the C++ Pinocchio (2.6.0) code~\cite{car_code} associated with \cite{car} is distinctly different from the algorithm presented in \cite{car}. The Pinocchio code includes a more efficient $O(N)$ forward pass, coupled with an $O(Nd)$ backward pass.
Derivative algorithms that directly carry out chain-rule on an existing algorithm (using AD or by hand) may not always be the most efficient. Other special-purpose methods have been proposed to fully exploit the structure of the rigid-body equations of motion. Such approaches often analytically differentiate closed-form equations of motion and then design an algorithm to compute the result. An example is Ref.~\cite{garofalo} where partial derivatives are considered of the mass matrix $\mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q})$, the Coriolis matrix $\vC(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q})$, and the gravity vector $\rmvec{g}(\rmvec{q})$ with respect to the state variables $\rmvec{q}$ and $\dot{\q}$, leading to an $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ algorithm.
Ref.~\cite{jain} gives a recursive method for partial derivatives of inverse and forward dynamics (FD) for serial kinematic chains with single-DoF joints. Their approach includes an $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ algorithm for the partials of FD, and an $\mathcal{O}(Nd)$ algorithm for the partials of ID.
The main contribution of this paper is to extend previous analytical results on partial derivatives of ID \cite{jain} to generic multi-DoF joint robots with a fixed or floating base. We first derive closed-form expressions for the first-order partial derivatives of ID. To the best of authors' knowledge, these results represent the first of their kind for general rigid-body systems (fixed or floating base) with multi-DoF joints. The new expressions lead immediately to an algorithm of order $\mathcal{O}(Nd)$ that naturally generalizes the one shown in \cite{jain}. The method is fundamentally different than the straight chain-rule approach presented in \cite{car}. However, the distinct algorithm in the Pinocchio code~\cite{car_code} ends up being directly related to the computations required in our algorithm. Despite the similarity, our new closed-form expressions uncover a key restructuring that accelerates computations. We use the relationship between FD and ID \cite{car,jain} in an efficient manner to ultimately calculate the partial derivatives of FD with complexity $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$.
\section{ Derivatives of Rigid-Body Dynamics}
\label{sec:pd_rbd}
\noindent {\bf Rigid-Body Dynamics}:
For a rigid-body system, the state variables are the configuration $\rmvec{q}$ and the generalized velocity vector $\dot{\q}$, while the control variable is the generalized torque vector $\greekvec{\tau}$. The equation of motion, also called the Inverse Dynamics (ID), is given by
\begin{align}
\greekvec{\tau} &= \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q})\ddot{\q}+ \vC(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q})\dot{\q} + \rmvec{g}(\rmvec{q})
\label{inv_dyn} \\
&= ID(model,\rmvec{q}, \dot{\q}, \ddot{\q})
\label{inv_dyn_model}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is the mass matrix, $\vC \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is a Coriolis matrix, and $\rmvec{g} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the vector of generalized gravitational forces, and $n$ is the DoF of the system. For a fixed state, ID calculates $\greekvec{\tau}$ for a given $\ddot{\q}$ (Eq.~\ref{inv_dyn}), and Forward Dynamics (FD) computes $\ddot{\q}$ for a given $\greekvec{\tau}$:
\begin{align}
\ddot{\q} &= \mathcal{M}^{-1}(\rmvec{q})\left( \greekvec{\tau} - \vC(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q})\dot{\q} - \rmvec{g}(\rmvec{q}) \right)
\label{fwd_dyn2} \\
&= FD(model,\rmvec{q}, \dot{\q}, \greekvec{\tau})
\label{for_dyn_model}
\end{align}
Toward supporting control applications~(e.g., \red{\cite{neunert,koena}}), the objective of this work is to compute the partial derivatives of FD with respect to the state ($\rmvec{q}$,$\dot{\q}$) and control variables ($\greekvec{\tau}$). The most efficient algorithms for calculating ID and FD are the $\mathcal{O}(N)$ Recursive-Newton-Euler Algorithm (RNEA) and the Articulated-Body Algorithm (ABA) respectively~\cite{rbd}.
\vspace{1ex}
{\noindent \bf Derivatives of Inverse and Forward Dynamics:}
As presented in \cite{car}, a direct approach to compute the partial derivatives of ID is to manually differentiate the RNEA algorithm via chain-rule, denoted as RNEACR (Table~\ref{table2}).
A similar chain rule approach for the derivatives of ABA is denoted as ABACR. Because the ABA is more computationally intensive than RNEA, a more efficient approach for derivatives of FD first applies RNEACR, and then uses the relationship \cite{car,jain}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial~FD}{\partial \boldsymbol u}\biggr\rvert_{\rmvec{q}_{0}, \dot{\q}_{0}, \greekvec{\tau}_{0}} = -\mathcal{M}^{-1}(\rmvec{q}_{0}) \frac{\partial~ ID }{\partial \boldsymbol u}\biggr\rvert_{\rmvec{q}_{0}, \dot{\q}_{0}, \ddot{\q}_{0}}
\label{car_FO_eqn}
\end{equation}
where the variable $ {\boldsymbol u} \in \{ \rmvec{q}$, $\dot{\q} \}$. From Eq.~\ref{fwd_dyn2}, $\partial FD / \partial \greekvec{\tau}$
can be directly calculated as \red{ $\mathcal{M}^{-1}$}, enabling re-use in Eq.~\ref{car_FO_eqn}. This method for the partials of \underline{FD} via RNEA {\underline C}hain {\underline R}ule is abbreviated as FDCR.
The state-of-the-art numerical method for computing partial derivatives of FD is provided in the Pinocchio package \cite{car_code} (Pinocchio FD Derivs, Table~\ref{table2}). The method first computes the derivatives of ID (Pinocchio ID Derivs, Table~\ref{table2}). It then computes $\mathcal{M}^{-1}$ and uses Eq.~\ref{car_FO_eqn} to obtain the derivatives of FD.
In the following sections, Spatial Vector Algebra (SVA) is reviewed for dynamics analysis, followed by a theoretical development of analytical expressions that lead to an algorithm for partial derivatives of ID. The new expressions result in algorithm with a key difference from the state-of-the-art~\cite{car_code}, enabling a speedup over it.
\section{Spatial Vector Algebra (SVA)}
\label{iden_defn}
\input{table2.tex}
\noindent {\bf Notation:} Spatial vectors are 6D vectors that combine the linear and angular aspects of a rigid-body motion or net force~\cite{rbd}. Spatial vectors are denoted with lower-case bold letters (e.g., $\a$), while matrices are denoted with capitalized bold letters (e.g., $\boldsymbol{A}$). Motion vectors, such as velocity and acceleration, belong to a 6D vector space denoted $M^{6}$. Spatial vectors are usually expressed in either the ground coordinate frame or a body coordinate (local coordinate) frame. For example, the spatial velocity ${}^{k}\v_{k} \in M^{6}$ of a body $k$ expressed in the body frame is given by
${}^{k}\v_{k} = \begin{bmatrix}
{}^{k}\omega_{k}^T &
{}^{k}v_{k}^T
\end{bmatrix}^T$
where ${}^{k}\omega_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is the angular velocity expressed in a coordinate frame fixed to the body, while ${}^{k}v_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ is the linear velocity of the origin of the body frame. When expressed in the ground frame, the spatial velocity for body $k$ is denoted as ${}^{0}\v_{k}$. The vector is again composed of angular and linear velocity components. However, the linear velocity is associated with the body-fixed point on body $k$ that is coincident with the origin of the ground frame $0$. In this paper, when the frame used to express a spatial vector is omitted, the ground frame is assumed.
Force-like vectors, such as force and momentum, belong to another 6D vector space $F^{6}$, which is dual to $M^{6}$. A spatial cross-product between two motion vectors ($\v$,$\u$), written as $(\v \times) \u$, is given by (Eq.~\ref{cross_defn_1}). This operation can be understood as providing the time rate of change of $\u$, when $\u$ is moving with a spatial velocity $\v$.
For a Cartesian vector, the matrix $\omega \times$ is the classical 3D cross product operator. A spatial cross-product between a motion and a force vector is written as $(\v \times^*) \rmvec{f}$, as defined in Eq.~\ref{cross_f_defn_1}.
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{align}
\v \times = \begin{bmatrix}
\omega \times & \bf{0} \\
v \times & \omega \times
\end{bmatrix}
\label{cross_defn_1}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\v \times^* = \begin{bmatrix}
\omega \times & v \times \\
\bf{0} & \omega \times
\end{bmatrix}
\label{cross_f_defn_1}
\end{align}
\end{multicols}
\vspace{-1.5ex}
\noindent An operator $\,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*}$ is defined by swapping the order of the cross product, such that $(\rmvec{f} \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*}) \v = (\v \times^*) \rmvec{f}$~\cite{eche}. Further introduction to SVA is provided in \blue{Appendix~\ref{sva_intro}}.
\vspace{1ex}
\noindent {\bf Connectivity:} An open-chain kinematic tree with serial or branched connectivity (Fig.~\ref{link_fig}) is considered with $N$ links connected by joints, each with up to 6 DoF. Body $i$'s parent toward the root of the kinematic tree is denoted as $\lambda(i)$. $\nu(i)$ denotes the set of bodies in the subtree rooted at body $i$, while $\overline{\nu}(i)$ denotes the set of bodies in $\nu(i)$ excluding the body $i$ . We define $i \preceq j$ if body $i$ is in the path from body $j$ to the base.
The spatial velocities of the neighbouring bodies in the tree are related by $\v_{i} = \v_{\lambda(i)} + \boldsymbol{S}_{i} \dot{\q}_{i}$, where $\boldsymbol{S}_{i}$ is the joint motion subspace matrix for joint $i$ \cite{rbd} and $\dot{\q}_{i}$ the joint rates for joint $i$. For a single DoF revolute joint, $\boldsymbol{S}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{6}$, and $\dot{\q}_{i}$ is a scalar. For a 6-DoF free-motion joint, $\boldsymbol{S}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{6 \times 6}$, while $\dot{\q}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{6}$. The velocity $\v_{i}$ can also be written as the sum of joint velocities over predecessors as $\v_{i} = \sum_{l \preceq i} \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{l}} \dot{\q}_{l}$.
The derivative of joint motion \red{subspace matrix} due to the axis changing with respect to local coordinates (commonly denoted \red {$\mathring{\boldsymbol{S}}_{i}$}~\cite{rbd}) is assumed to be zero.
The quantity $\red{\,\dot{\!\Phibar}{}_{i}} = \v_{i} \times \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}}$ signifies the rate of change of $\boldsymbol{S}_{i}$ due to the local coordinate system moving.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85 \columnwidth]{FloatFix.eps}
\caption{Body numbering and notation examples with floating- and fixed-base systems.}
\label{link_fig}
\end{figure}
\vspace{1ex}
\noindent {\bf Dynamics:} The spatial equation of motion~\cite{rbd} is given for body $k$ as:
\begin{equation}
\rmvec{f}_{k}= \mathcal{I}_{k}\a_{k} + \v_{k} \times^*\mathcal{I}_{k} \v_{k}
\label{eq:spatial_eom}
\end{equation}
where $\rmvec{f}_{k}$ is the net spatial force on body $k$, $\mathcal{I}_{k}$ is its spatial inertia~\cite{rbd}, and $\a_{k}$ is its spatial acceleration. Instead of treating gravity as an external force, a common trick is to accelerate the base upwards opposite of the gravitational acceleration ($\a_{0} = -\a_{g}$), providing the acceleration of body $k$ as:
\begin{equation}
\a_{k} = \textstyle\sum_{l \preceq k} \red{\big(} \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{l}} \ddot{\q}_{l} + \v_{l} \times \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{l}} \dot{\q}_{l} \red{\big)}+\a_{0}\,.
\label{spatial_acc}
\end{equation}
For later use, we decompose \red{$\a_k$} into terms from joint accelerations, and terms from joint rates, according to
\[
\greekvec{\gamma}_{k} = \textstyle \sum_{l \preceq k} \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{l}} \ddot{\q}_{l}
\textrm{~~~and~~~}
\greekvec{\xi}_{k} = \textstyle \sum_{l \preceq k} \v_{l} \times \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{l}} \dot{\q}_{l}
\]
\red{($\greekvec{\gamma}, \greekvec{\xi} \in M^{6}$)}. With these definitions, \red{$\a_k = \greekvec{\gamma}_k+\greekvec{\xi}_k + \a_{0}$}.
In a similar fashion, the net spatial force on body $k$ is then decomposed as:
\begin{equation}
\rmvec{f}_{k}=\greekvec{\eta}_{k} + \greekvec{\zeta}_{k}+\mathcal{I}_{k}\a_{0}
\label{f_defn}
\end{equation}
where $\greekvec{\eta}_{k} = \mathcal{I}_{k} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}$ \red{($\greekvec{\eta} \in F^{6}$)} is the spatial force on the body caused by joint accelerations $\ddot{\q}$, and $\greekvec{\zeta}_{k} = \v_{k} \times^{*}\mathcal{I}_{k} \v_{k} + \mathcal{I}_{k} \greekvec{\xi}_{k}$ ($\greekvec{\zeta} \red{\in F^{6}}$) gives the Coriolis and centripetal forces on body $k$. From the formulation of the RNEA~\cite{rbd}, $\red{\greekvec{\tau}_{i}} = \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T}\rmvec{f}_{i}^{C} $, where $\rmvec{f}_{i}^{C}=\sum_{k \succeq i} \rmvec{f}_{k}$ is the spatial force transmitted across joint $i$.
\begin{figure*}[!b]
\hrulefill
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial [\vC\dot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{j}}} = & \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \Big[ 2 \boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}^{C} \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{j} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \v_{\lambda(j)} \times \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{j} + }
\red{\mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \greekvec{\xi}_{\lambda(j)} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j} \Big] }
\label{CFO_q_eqn_1}
\tag{26}\\
\frac{\partial [\vC\dot{\q}]_{j}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{i}}} = & \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{j}^{T} \Big[ 2 \boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}^{C} \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{i} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \v_{\lambda(i)} \times \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{i} +}
\red{\mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \greekvec{\xi}_{\lambda(i)} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{i} + \greekvec{\zeta}_{i}^{C} \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} \boldsymbol{S}_{i} \Big] , (j \neq i) }
\label{CFO_q_eqn_2}
\tag{27}
\end{align}
\end{figure*}
Proceeding to consider the system overall, for any particular joint $i$, Eq.\red{~\ref{inv_dyn}} can be written as follows.
\begin{equation}
\red{\greekvec{\tau}_{i}} = [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}+ [\vC(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q}) \dot{\q}]_{i} + \red{\rmvec{g}_{i}}(\rmvec{q})
\label{inv_dyn_expanded_eq2}
\end{equation}
Then, using $\red{\greekvec{\tau}_{i}}=\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T}\rmvec{f}_{i}^{C} $, Eq.~\red{\ref{spatial_acc}} and \red{\ref{inv_dyn_expanded_eq2}}:
\begin{align}
[\, \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q} \,]_{i} &= \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T}} \sum_{k \succeq i} [\mathcal{I}_{k} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}]
\label{mqdotdot_exp_2}\\[.5ex]
[\,\vC(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q}) \dot{\q}\,]_{i} &= \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T}} \sum_{k \succeq i}[ \v_{k} \times^* \mathcal{I}_{k} \v_{k} + \mathcal{I}_{k} \greekvec{\xi}_{k} ]
\label{cqdot_exp_2}\\[.5ex]
\red{\rmvec{g}_{i}} &=
\red{ \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \mathcal{I}_{i}^C \a_{0}}
\label{g_eqn}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{I}{}_{i}^C$ denotes the composite rigid-body inertia of the sub-tree rooted at body $i$, given by $\mathcal{I}{}_{i}^{C} = \sum_{k \succeq i} \mathcal{I}_{k}$.
\section{Analytical Partial Derivatives using SVA}
\label{sec:fdsva}
In this section, closed-form expressions are derived for the derivatives of ID.
The reader less interested in the derivation may skip to Eq.~\ref{IDFO_SVA_eq1} and Eq.~\ref{Cqdot_FO_qdot_eqn} as a summary.
\newcommand{\qjp}[2]{q_{#1,#2}}
\subsection{Building Blocks}
Several kinematic identities are given in \blue{Appendix~\ref{multi_dof_iden}} as a basis for the main derivation.
\red{We denote by $n_j$ the number of DoFs for joint $j$. The motion subspace matrix for the joint is then given as
$
\boldsymbol{S}_j = \begin{bmatrix} \boldsymbol{s}_{j,1} & \cdots \boldsymbol{s}_{j,n_j} \end{bmatrix}
$
where each spatial vector $\boldsymbol{s}_{j,p}$ gives the $p$-th free-mode of motion for joint $j$.
With a slight liberty of notation, $\partial/ \partial \qjp{j}{p}$ denotes an operator for the directional derivative along this $p$-th free mode of a joint. For example, considering the case with $j \preceq i$ gives identity J1:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \qjp{j}{p}} \boldsymbol{S}_i = \boldsymbol{s}_{j,p}\times \boldsymbol{S}_i \tag{J1}
\end{equation}
which provides the rate of change in $\boldsymbol{S}_i$ with respect to relative motion $\boldsymbol{s}_{j,p}$ at joint $j$ earlier in the chain. For revolute joints, these derivatives are just conventional derivatives with respect to joint angles. For multi-DoF joints such as a floating base, they are more formally Lie derivatives.
Considering a configuration-dependent vector $\boldsymbol{u}$, we denote by
\[
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol u}{\partial \rmvec{q}_j} = \Large \begin{bmatrix}\nicefrac{\partial \boldsymbol u}{\partial \qjp{j}{1}} & \cdots & \nicefrac{\partial \boldsymbol u}{\partial \qjp{j}{n_j}} \end{bmatrix}
\]
the matrix of derivatives associated with joint $j$. To illustrate, we derive identity J7 for later use in the section.
Considering $j \preceq i$ and using the definition of $\greekvec{\gamma}_{i}$:}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{i}}{\partial \qjp{j}{p}} = \sum_{l \preceq i} \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{S}_{l}}{\partial \qjp{j}{p}} \ddot{\q}_{l}
\label{dgamma_eq1}
\end{equation}
Using J1 and switching the order of the cross product:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{i}}{\partial \qjp{j}{p}} = - \sum_{j \preceq l \preceq i} \boldsymbol{S}_{l} \ddot{\q}_{l} \times \boldsymbol{s}_{j,p}
\label{dgamma_eq3}
\end{equation}
\noindent Collecting all DoFs of joint $j$, Eq.~\ref{dgamma_eq3} becomes:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{i}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} = - \sum_{j \preceq l \preceq i} \boldsymbol{S}_{l} \ddot{\q}_{l} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j}
\label{dgamma_eq4}
\end{equation}
\noindent Using the definition of $\greekvec{\gamma}_{l}$, and summing over $l$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{i}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} = (\greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(j)} - \greekvec{\gamma}_{i} ) \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j}
\label{dgamma_eq5}
\end{equation}
\subsection{First-order Partial Derivatives of ID w.r.t.~$\rmvec{q}$}
\label{FO_ID_adsva_sec}
The subsequent derivations employ these formulae and the identities from \blue{Appendix \ref{multi_dof_iden}} to obtain the partials of the terms in Eq.~\red{\ref{inv_dyn_expanded_eq2}}. Since the derivations are quite lengthy, the presentation focuses on explaining the methodology. A full derivation is provided in \blue{Appendix~\ref{partials_details}}.
\vspace{1ex}
{\noindent \bf Partial Derivative of Eq.\red{~\ref{mqdotdot_exp_2}}:} We derive the partial derivative of $[ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}$ with respect to \red{$\rmvec{q}_{j}$} for all $ i,j \in \{1,\ldots,N\}$. First, consider the case when $j \preceq i$. Using the product rule of differentiation in Eq.~\ref{mqdotdot_exp_2}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q})\ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} = & \frac{\partial (\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T})}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} \sum_{k \succeq i} [\mathcal{I}_{k} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}] + \\ &~~~ \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \sum_{k \succeq i} \Bigg[\frac{\partial \mathcal{I}_{k}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k} + \mathcal{I}_{k} \frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} \Bigg]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using identity J3 for the term $\frac{\partial (\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T})}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}}$, J4 for the term $\frac{\partial \mathcal{I}_{k}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}$, J7 for $\frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}}$, and cancelling terms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} = & \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \sum_{k \succeq i} \Big[
\mathcal{I}_{k} ( \greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(j)} \times ) \Big] \boldsymbol{S}_{j}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent Upon summing over the index $k$, the final expression is:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{j}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \Big[ \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(j)} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j} \Big]}
\label{partial_Mqddot_1}
\end{equation}
For the case $i \red{\prec} j$, we have that:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} = \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \sum_{k \succeq i} \Bigg[\frac{\partial \mathcal{I}_{k}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k} + \mathcal{I}_{k} \frac{\partial \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} \Bigg]
\label{partial_Mqddot_4}
\end{equation}
\noindent Using the identities \red{J3, J4 and J7} and cancelling terms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{j}} =
\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \sum_{ k \succeq j} \Big[(\mathcal{I}_{k} \greekvec{\gamma}_{k}) \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} + \mathcal{I}_{k} (\greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(j)} \times) \Big]\boldsymbol{S}_{j}
\label{partial_Mqddot_5}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Summing over the index $k$ results in:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{j}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \Big[\greekvec{\eta}_{j}^{C} \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} + \mathcal{I}_{j}^{C} (\greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(j)} \times) \Big] \boldsymbol{S}_{j}}
\label{partial_Mqddot_2}
\end{equation}
where $\greekvec{\eta}_{j}^{C}$ collects joint-acceleration-dependent forces for the subtree, calculated as $\greekvec{\eta}_{j}^{C} = \sum_{k \succeq j} \greekvec{\eta}_{k}$ .
For ease of implementation, we consider a single case where $j \preceq i$. The indices $i$ and $j$ are switched in Eq.\red{~\ref{partial_Mqddot_2}}, to get the expression for $\frac{\partial [\mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q})\ddot{\q}]_{j}}{\partial \rmvec{q}_{i}}$ for the case \red{$j \prec i$}. Therefore, Eq.\red{~\ref{Mqddot_FO_eqn}} gives the two expressions formulated for the general case $j \preceq i$.
\begin{align}
& \frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q}) \ddot{\q}]_{i}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{j}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \Big[ \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(j)} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j} \Big]} \label{Mqddot_FO_eqn} \\
& \frac{\partial [ \mathcal{M}(\rmvec{q})\ddot{\q}]_{j}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{i}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{j}^{T} \Big[\greekvec{\eta}_{i}^{C} \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \greekvec{\gamma}_{\lambda(i)} \times \Big] \boldsymbol{S}_{i}, (j \neq i)} \nonumber
\end{align}
\vspace{1ex}
{\noindent \bf
Partial Derivative of Eq.\red{~\ref{cqdot_exp_2}}:} Similarly, we use identities \red{J2-J6 (\blue{Appendix \ref{multi_dof_iden})}} to get the first-order partial derivatives of $[\vC(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q}) \dot{\q}]_{i}$ with respect to \red{$\rmvec{q}_{j}$} for the case $j \preceq i$ as shown in Eq.~\ref{CFO_q_eqn_1},~\ref{CFO_q_eqn_2}.
\stepcounter{equation}
\stepcounter{equation}
In these equations, the composite of $\greekvec{\zeta}_{i}^C$ for the subtree is defined as $\greekvec{\zeta}{}_{i}^{C} = \sum_{k \succeq i} \greekvec{\zeta}_{k}$, and the matrix $\boldsymbol{B}{}_{k}(\v_{k},\mathcal{I}_{k})$ is a body-level Coriolis matrix \cite{nei_ms,nei_slotine,eche} given by:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{B}{}_{k} = \frac{1}{2} \big[ \big(\v_{k}\times^* \big)\mathcal{I}_{k} - \mathcal{I}_{k} \big(\v_{k} \times \big) + \big(\mathcal{I}_{k} \v_{k} \big) \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} \big]
\label{bl_term_defn}
\end{equation}
with its composite $\boldsymbol{B}{}{}_i^C = \sum_{k\succeq i} \boldsymbol{B}{}_k$.
\vspace{1ex}
{\noindent \bf Partial Derivative of the Gravity Term:} \red
Using the identities J3 and J4,} for the case $j \preceq i$, the partial derivative of \red{$\rmvec{g}_{i}$} (Eq.~\ref{g_eqn}) with respect to \red{$\rmvec{q}_{j}$} is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial \red{\rmvec{g}_{i}}}{ \partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{j}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C}(\a_{0} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j})} \\
& \frac{\partial \red{\rmvec{g}_{j}}}{ \partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{i}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{j}^{T} \Big[(\mathcal{I}_{i}^{C}\a_{0})\,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C}(\a_{0} \times ) \Big]\boldsymbol{S}_{i} , (j \neq i)}
\label{gFO_q_eqn}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent {\bf Summary for Partials of ID w.r.t.~$\rmvec{q}$:} The partials of the individual components are now collected together.
\noindent Terms in Eqs.\red{~\ref{Mqddot_FO_eqn}}, \red{\ref{CFO_q_eqn_1}, \ref{CFO_q_eqn_2}}, and \red{\ref{gFO_q_eqn}} are added to get the total expressions for $\frac{\partial \greekvec{\tau}}{\partial \rmvec{q}}$ for the case $j \preceq i$. \red{The full derivation is provided in \blue{Appendix~\ref{combine_terms}}}.
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \red{\greekvec{\tau}_{i}}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{j}}} = & \red{ \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \big[ 2 \boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}^{C} \big] \,\dot{\!\Psibar}{}_{j} + \boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \,\ddot{\!\Psibar}{}_{j} } \label{IDFO_SVA_eq1} \\
\frac{\partial \red{\greekvec{\tau}_{j}}}{\partial \red{\rmvec{q}_{i}}} = & \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{j}^{T} [ 2 \boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}^{C} \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{i} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} \,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_{i}+(\rmvec{f}_{i}^{C} )\,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} \boldsymbol{S}_{i} ] (j \neq i)} \nonumber
\end{align}
\red{The spatial quantities $\,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{j}$ and $\,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_{j}$ are defined as:}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\red{\,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{j} = }& \red{\v_{\lambda(j)} \times \boldsymbol{S}_j} \\
\red{ \,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_{j} = }& \red{\a_{\lambda(j)} \times \boldsymbol{S}_{j} + \v_{\lambda(j)} \times \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{j}}
\end{split}
\label{psidot_psidotdot_defn}
\end{align}
\subsection{First-Order Partial Derivatives of ID w.r.t.~$\dot{\q}$}
The partials of $\greekvec{\tau}$ with respect to $\dot{\q}$ \red{depend only on the the Coriolis terms $\vC \dot{\q}$}. Using the identities \red{J8 and J9} leads to expressions for the case when $j \preceq i$(see \blue{Appendix~\ref{partials_qd}} for full derivation):
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial \red{\greekvec{\tau}_{i}}}{\partial \red{\dot{\rmvec{q}}_{j}}} =\frac{\partial [\vC \dot{\q}]_{i}}{ \partial \red{\dot{\rmvec{q}}_{j}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{i}^{T} \Big[2 \boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}^{C} \boldsymbol{S}_{j} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} ( \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{j} + \,\dot{\!\Phibar}_{j} ) \Big] }\\
& \frac{\partial \red{\greekvec{\tau}_{j}}}{\partial \red{\dot{\rmvec{q}}_{i}}} =\frac{\partial [\vC \dot{\q}]_{j}}{ \partial \red{\dot{\rmvec{q}}_{i}}} = \red{\boldsymbol{S}_{j}^{T} \Big[2 \boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}^{C} \boldsymbol{S}_{i} + \mathcal{I}_{i}^{C} ( \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{i} + \,\dot{\!\Phibar}_{i} ) \Big] (j \neq i)}
\label{Cqdot_FO_qdot_eqn}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Algorithm for First-Order Partials of ID}
Algorithm \ref{alg:tau_FO_v2} returns the terms in Eq.\red{~\ref{IDFO_SVA_eq1}} and Eq.\red{~\ref{Cqdot_FO_qdot_eqn}} and has computational complexity $\mathcal{O}(Nd)$. The method operates with all spatial vectors expressed in ground frame coordinates.
The first pass is in the forward direction and goes from root to leaves calculating the spatial velocity, acceleration, $\,\dot{\!\Phibar}_{i}$, $\,\dot{\!\Psibar}_{i}$, $\,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_{i}$, $\boldsymbol{B}{}_{i}$ and the spatial force $\rmvec{f}_{i}$.
When joint $i$ has a single DoF, $\,\dot{\!\Phibar}_i = \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i$ and $\ddot{\boldsymbol{S}}_i =\,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_{i}$ and the steps are the same as in \cite[Alg.~2]{jain}.
The second pass progresses in the backward direction from leaves to the root. Index $i$ takes all the values from 1 to $N$. The quantity $\frac{\partial \boldsymbol\tau}{\partial \rmvec{q}}[\nu(i), i]$ denotes the partial derivatives of $\boldsymbol\tau$ for all bodies in the sub-tree of $i$ with respect to $\rmvec{q}_{i}$, while $\frac{\partial \boldsymbol\tau}{\partial \rmvec{q}}[i, \overline{\nu}(i)]$ is the partial derivative of $\boldsymbol\tau$ for body $i$ with respect to each of the bodies in the sub-tree of $i$, excluding body $i$.
This backward pass again generalizes the one in \cite[Alg.~2]{jain}. The differences are that the third term on line 15 can be dropped in the single-DoF case (since $ {\boldsymbol{S}}_i^T (\rmvec{f}_i^C \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*}) {\boldsymbol{S}}_i =0$ in that case), while lines 17-20 restructure a second inner loop in \cite{jain} into matrix multiplies.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\small
\caption{IDSVA Algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $ \rmvec{q}, \,\dot{\q} ,\, \ddot{\q},\, model$
\STATE $ \v_0 = 0; \, \a_{{0}} = -\a_g $
\FOR{$i=1$ to $N$}
\STATE $ \v_{i} = \v_{\lambda(i)} + \red{\boldsymbol{S}_i} \dot{\q}_{i}$
\STATE $\a_{i} = \a_{\lambda(i)} + \boldsymbol{S}_i \ddot{\rmvec{q}}_{i} + \v_i \times \boldsymbol{S}_{i} \dot{\q}_i$ \\
\STATE $ \red{\,\dot{\!\Phibar}_i} = \v_{i} \times \red{\boldsymbol{S}_i} $\\[.5ex]
\red{\STATE $\,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i = \v_{\lambda(i)}\times \boldsymbol{S}_i $\\[.5ex]
\STATE $\,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_i = \a_{\lambda(i)}\times \boldsymbol{S}_i + \v_{\lambda(i)}\times \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i $ \\[.5ex]
}
\STATE $\mathcal{I}_i^C = \mathcal{I}_i$
\STATE $ \boldsymbol{B}{}_i^C = \frac{1}{2}[ ( \v_{i} \times^*) \mathcal{I}_i - \mathcal{I}_i ( \v_{i} \times ) + (\mathcal{I}_i \v_i )\,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} ] $\\[.5ex]
\STATE $ \rmvec{f}_i^C = \mathcal{I}_i \a_{i} + ( \v_{i} \times^*) \mathcal{I}_i \v_{i} $\\[.5ex]
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$i=N$ to $1$}
\STATE $ \t_1[i] = \mathcal{I}{}_{i}^C \red{{\boldsymbol{S}}_i} $\\[.5ex]
\STATE $\t_2[i] = 2\boldsymbol{B}{}{}_i^C \red{\boldsymbol{S}_i} + \mathcal{I}_i^C ( \red{\,\dot{\!\Phibar}_i + \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i } )$\\[.5ex]
\STATE $\t_3[i] = 2 \boldsymbol{B}{}{}_i^C \red{\,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i} + \mathcal{I}{}_{i}^C \red{\,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_i} + \red{\rmvec{f}_i^C \,\overline{\!\times\!}{}^{\,*} {\boldsymbol{S}}_i} $\\[.5ex]
\STATE $\t_4[i] = 2[\boldsymbol{B}{}_i^C]^\top \red{{\boldsymbol{S}}_i}$\\[.5ex]
\STATE $\frac{\partial \boldsymbol\tau}{\partial \rmvec{q}}[i, \overline{\nu}(i)] = \boldsymbol{S}_i^\top \t_3[\overline{\nu}(i)]$ \\[1ex]
\STATE $\frac{\partial \boldsymbol\tau}{\partial \dot{\q}}[i, \overline{\nu}(i)] = \boldsymbol{S}_i^\top \t_2[\overline{\nu}(i)]$ \\[1ex]
\STATE $\frac{\partial \boldsymbol\tau}{\partial \rmvec{q}}[\nu(i), i] =\t_4[\nu(i)]^\top \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i + \t_1[\nu(i)]^\top \,\ddot{\!\Psibar}_i $ \\[1ex]
\STATE $\frac{\partial \boldsymbol\tau}{\partial \dot{\q}}[ \nu(i), i] = \t_4[\nu(i)]^\top \boldsymbol{S}_i + \t_1[\nu(i)]^\top (\,\dot{\!\Phibar}_i + \,\dot{\!\Psibar}_i) $ \\[1ex]
\IF {$\lambda(i) > 0$}
\STATE $\mathcal{I}_{\lambda(i)}^C = \mathcal{I}_{\lambda(i)}^C + \mathcal{I}_i^C ; \, \boldsymbol{B}{}_{\lambda(i)}^C = \boldsymbol{B}{}_{\lambda(i)}^C + \boldsymbol{B}{}_i^C $ \\[.5ex]
\STATE $ \rmvec{f}_{\lambda(i)}^C = \rmvec{f}_{\lambda(i)}^C + \rmvec{f}_i^C $
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\frac{\partial \greekvec{\tau} }{\partial{\rmvec{q}}},\frac{\partial \greekvec{\tau} }{\partial{\dot{\q}}}$
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:tau_FO_v2}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Relating Partials of FD and ID}
\label{sec:efficient_SVA}
Equation~\ref{car_FO_eqn} gives the relation between the derivative of FD and ID, where $\frac{\partial ID }{\partial \u}$ ($\u = [\rmvec{q}, \dot{\q} ]$) is an $n \times 2n$ matrix, and $\mathcal{M}^{-1}$ is an $n \times n$ matrix. A direct multiplication of the two matrices results into an $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ operation and is named Direct Matrix Multiplication (DMM). An alternative method with reduced computational complexity ($\mathcal{O}(N^2)$)
is presented in this section.
ABA gives $\ddot{\q}$ (Eq.~\ref{fwd_dyn2}) for a given $\greekvec{\tau}$, represented as:
\begin{equation}
\ddot{\q} = ABA(\rmvec{q},\dot{\q},\greekvec{\tau},\a_g)
\label{ABA_eqn_1}
\end{equation}
From Eq.~\ref{fwd_dyn2}, for $\dot{\q}=\bf{0}$, $\a_g=\bf{0}$ and an arbitrary input vector $\greekvec{\tau}=\b$,
$
\ddot{\q} = \mathcal{M}^{-1} \b
\label{fwd_dyn3}
$.
The product of the matrix $\mathcal{M}^{-1}$ with any vector $\b$ can therefore be calculated by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}^{-1} \b = ABA(\rmvec{q},\bf{0},\b, \bf{0})
\label{ABA_eqn_2}
\end{equation}
For a product of $\mathcal{M}^{-1}$ with any given matrix (of size $n \times m$), ABA can be used $m$ times with $\dot{\q}=\bf{0}$, $\a_g=\bf{0}$ and $\b$ as the column vectors of the given matrix one at a time, resulting in an $\mathcal{O}(Nm)$ operation. Due to the repeated use of ABA for each input column vector, the kinematic variables and articulated inertias are only calculated once, and saved for re-use. To implement Eq.~\ref{car_FO_eqn}, Eq.\red{~\ref{ABA_eqn_2}} is used with $\b$ as the column vectors of $\frac{\partial ID }{\partial \u}$ one at a time. This process is defined the ``ABA-Zero-Algorithm'' (AZA), since inputs $\dot{\q}$ and $\a_g$ are $\bf{0}$.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Algorithm correctness}
The partial derivatives of FD from ABACR, FDSVA, \& FDCR are compared with derivatives calculated \red{in a Fortran implementation} using the complex-step method for accuracy. For $N=100$, the ABACR method results in a term-by-term root-mean-square (rms) relative error of $10^{-13}$, while both FDSVA and FDCR result in an rms error of approximately $10^{-12}$. The rms relative error for all methods grows linearly with DoF on a log-log scale.
\subsection{Runtime for Partials of ID/FD vs. RNEACR/FDCR as presented in \cite{car} via Fortran implementation of both}
We consider an $N$ link serial \red{or branched} kinematic tree with all revolute joints about their local $z$-axis.
RNEACR in body-coordinates\cite[Algos.~2 \& 3]{car} (Table~\ref{table2}) is used to calculate the partial derivatives of ID, and compared with the IDSVA (Table~\ref{table2}) method. \red{All the} algorithms are written in Fortran 90 and implemented using the Intel Fortran compiler on a 3.07 GHz Intel Xeon processor. To calculate the average run time, each algorithm is run 10,000 times with randomized inputs for the state and control variables. Fig.~\ref{all_plots_fortran} shows the comparison of the two methods. For $N=100$, a speedup of $15 \times$ for IDSVA over RNEACR is found.
\red{Fig.~\ref{all_plots_fortran} also shows the comparison of FDSVA with FDCR and ABACR (Table~\ref{table2}) for serial chains.} With the analytical derivative expressions developed herein, FDSVA method outperforms FDCR for all values of $N \ge 2$.
\blue{Since SVA allows for coordinate-free expressions, recursive algorithms can be formulated in either body-coordinates or ground-coordinates~\cite{rbd}. For the body-coordinate algorithms, all the intermediate quantities are transformed between body coordinates using transformation matrices $\prescript{i}{}{\boldsymbol{X}}_{\lambda(i)}$, while for the ground-coordinates algorithms, the quantities can be left in the ground frame. A major advantage for the latter comes by avoiding the repeated transformation of the quantities between local body frames in the backward pass of the algorithm. This gain is achieved at the cost of expressing kinematic quantities (velocities $\prescript{0}{}{\v}_{i}$, accelerations $\prescript{0}{}{\a}_{i}$), joint motion subspace matrices $\prescript{0}{}{\boldsymbol{S}}_{i}$, and inertia matrices $\prescript{0}{}{\mathcal{I}}_{i}$ in the ground coordinate frame during the outward pass. Fig.~\ref{idsva_bf_vs_gf} shows a comparison of IDSVA (see Table~\ref{table2}) runtime in body coordinates and ground coordinates. Speedups for ground coordinate algorithms are between 1.3 to 1.9 for $N=2$ to $N=500$.
}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{all_plots_fortran.eps}
\caption{Fortran implementation of IDSVA outperforms RNEACR, FDSVA outperforms FDCR and ABACR (Table~\ref{table2}) for serial chains ($N = n$ for revolute joints) with all $N \succeq 2$}
\label{all_plots_fortran}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{IDSVA_bf_vs_gf.eps}
\caption{\blue{Fortran implementation of IDSVA in ground vs body coordinate frame.}}
\label{idsva_bf_vs_gf}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{rneacr_vs_idsva_gcc_wo_march.eps}
\caption{a) Serial chain (solid), Branched chain (\textit{bf}=2, dashed dotted), Branched chain (\textit{bf}=5, dashed) b) \red{IDSVA C++ improves upon Pinocchio ID Derivs for all $N \geq 2$ (gcc-9.0 compiler). $N = n$ for kinematic trees with revolute joints.}}
\label{SVA_vs_RNEA_FO_fig}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparing Runtime for C++ Partials of ID/FD with Pinocchio Implementation Accompanying \cite{car}}
IDSVA in ground coordinates is implemented in C++ within the Pinochhio framework. This strategy enables direct comparison with Pinocchio's original ID partial derivatives~\cite{car_code}. \red{Fig.~\ref{SVA_vs_RNEA_FO_fig} shows the comparison of the two methods for serial and branched kinematic trees with some branching factor \textit{bf} ~\cite{rbd}}. \red{For a serial chain with $N=100$, a speedup of $2 \times$ is found using the gcc-9.0 compiler and turbo boost off.} \red{Results with implementation of IDSVA C++ to multi-DoF joint robots is shown in Fig.~\ref{pin_comparison} using the LLVM Clang-10 and gcc-9.0 compiler. For a 50 link floating-base humanoid Talos, IDSVA has a speedup of 1.4x over Pinocchio ID Derivs algorithm in Pinocchio \cite{car_code} using the gcc-9.0 compiler.
A fundamental similarity is found between the Pinocchio ID Derivs (open source, but unpublished) and IDSVA. Both the algorithms essentially calculate the same quantities, but a more efficient restructuring of the backward pass in IDSVA C++ led to the speedups shown in Fig.~\ref{pin_comparison}. In comparison to an $\mathcal{O}(d)$ innermost second backward pass over the ancestors of body $i$ in the Pinocchio ID Derivs code, IDSVA uses a matrix-matrix multiplication for the subtree of body $i$ on lines 19 and 20, leading to speed boosts.
This small change makes the state-of-the-art performance of Pinocchio even better, and has been included in more recent releases.
Fig.~\ref{fdsva_fdcr_pin} shows a comparison in the CPU runtimes for \red{FDSVA C++ (implemented in Pinocchio) with Pinocchio FD Derivs for serial and branched kinematic trees.}
An open source Pinocchio implementation of IDSVA is available at \cite{cppsource} and a MATLAB version at \cite{matlabsource}.
}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\center
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{rneacr_vs_idsva_bar_clang_gcc_ral_w_march_ral.eps}
\caption{\red{Comparison of IDSVA (in C++) with Pinocchio ID Derivs~\cite{car_code} framework for several floating base multi-dof robots ($n$)- Fixed base- UR3, Baxter. Floating base- HyQ, ATLAS, Talos using gcc-9.0 compiler (Dark red/blue), LLVM Clang-10 compiler (Light red/blue). $N \neq n$ for models with multi-DoF joints.} }
\label{pin_comparison}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fdcr_vs_fdsva_wo_march_gcc.eps}
\caption{a) CPU runtime comparison of \red{Pinocchio FD Derivs with FDSVA C++} for the first-order partial derivatives of FD for \red{serial and branched trees ($N=n$ for revolute joints). Serial chain (bold line), Branched chain (\textit{bf}=2, dashed dotted line), Branched chain (\textit{bf}=5, dashed line)} b) Speedup plots show FDSVA C++ outperforms Pinocchio FD Derivs \red{for all N.}}
\label{fdsva_fdcr_pin}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparing CPU Runtime for AZA vs. DMM in C++ with Pinocchio Implementation Accompanying \cite{car}}
AZA is implemented within the Pinocchio~\cite{car_code} framework. Pinocchio's $\mathcal{M}^{-1}$ algorithm~\cite{InverseMassMatrix} is modified to include the AZA. \blue{In Fig.~\ref{dmm_vs_aza}, the "crossover" $N$ denotes the point below which the DMM performs better than the AZA.} This point depends on the hardware and compiler optimization settings used to implement the algorithm, but for high $N$, the $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ AZA is efficient because it avoids the expensive matrix-matrix product. Table~\ref{table_ipr} gives the cross-over $N$ values (for kinematic trees) above which AZA performs better than DMM for different compiler settings. The effect of this cross-over $N$ can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fdsva_fdcr_pin} for the FDSVA curve at $N=50$, where the order of the algorithm changes from $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ to $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ due to switch from DMM to AZA to get Eq.~\ref{car_FO_eqn}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{DMM_vs_AZA_pinocchio.eps}
\caption{a) \blue{Comparison of DMM vs.~AZA runtime implemented in Pinocchio C++ framework (using gcc-9.0) shows the cross-over $N$ at 50 for serial chain (solid), branched chain (\textit{bf}=2, dashed dotted), and branched chain (\textit{bf}=5, dashed). b) Speedup of AZA to DMM on a log-log scale grows linearly with $n$. $N=n$ for kinematic trees with revolute joints.}}
\label{dmm_vs_aza}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| }
\hline
Compiler & AVX Off & AVX On \\
\hline
gcc-9.0 & 50 & 450 \\
clang-10 & 80 & 350 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross-over $N$ (DoF) using different compilers and Autovectorization (\texttt{march=native}) settings.}
\label{table_ipr}
\end{table}
\section{Implementation Considerations}
\label{sec:efficient_SVA}
\section{Conclusions}
In this work, we present \red{closed form partial derivatives of inverse dynamics, along with an efficient algorithm to calculate the inverse and forward dynamics partials for robots with multi-DoF joints and a floating base}. Several algorithmic optimizations and Spatial Vector Algebra (SVA) identities are exploited to enable an efficient implementation. \red{The method provides a $1.4 \times$ speedup for the TALOS humanoid model over the state-of-the-art Pinocchio FD derivatives using the gcc compiler and a $1.2 \times$ speedup using the Clang-10 compiler.} The reduction in runtime for partial derivatives enables faster optimization algorithms for both on-line and off-line applications. These improved timings can ultimately lead to better motion planning of legged and industrial robots.
\section{Acknowledgement}
This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation EAGER grant CMMI-1835013. The authors thank Pinocchio developers Justin Carpentier \& Nicolas Mansard for important feedback and Wolfgang Merkt for benchmarking the IDSVA algorithm.
|
\section{Introduction}
Pronunciation plays a crucial role in English learning for second-language (L2) learners.
However, a majority of L2 English learners encounter difficulties in improving their pronunciation.
On the one hand, they are prone to pronounce L2 words in the tongue of their first language,
which is called the negative influence of language transfer~\cite{strange1995speech,meng2007deriving,derwing2002esl,kartushina2014effects,cortes2005negative}. This causes multiple inconspicuous mispronunciations that can hardly be rectified by themselves.
On the other hand, professional native-speaking English teachers, who can diagnose pronunciation problems and give corrective feedback~\cite{lightbown2000they}, are in pressing demand.
According to statistics provided by the British Council, while approximately 1.5 billion English learners~\cite{council2013english} exist, only 250 thousand native speakers are qualified to serve as English teachers. It is also reported~\cite{derwing2005second} that 67\% of ESL teachers survey in Canada have no training in pronunciation instruction.
The insufficiency of native English teachers is even worse in underdeveloped areas.
Driven by the demand, quite a number of Computer-Aided Pronunciation Training (CAPT) systems have been proposed~\cite{badin2010visual,iribe2011generating,meng2012hierarchical,meng2014synthesizing,ning2015hmm,meng2010synthesizing}
with feedback from both audio and visual modalities~\cite{lu2010castle,lu2012automatic,wong2010development,leung2013development,yuen2011enunciate}. While most of them focus on synthesizing natural speech, their systems are designed to show only the pairwise differences between the correctly pronounced phonemes and the mispronounced ones.
The teaching effect of such strategy proves to be less significant due to L2 learners' weaker perceiving ability~\cite{escudero2001role}. Particularly, the difficulty for perceiving and correcting pronunciation grows along with age~\cite{khul255b,polka1994developmental}. As a result, more \textit{perceptible} and \textit{distinctive} feedback is in demand.
In offline English classes, exaggerated feedback has been a effective feedback strategy for teachers to rectify the pronunciation of learners~\cite{mora2017relationship,polka1994developmental}. Alghamdi, et al.~\cite{alghamdi2017impact} have proven that visually exaggerated speech is capable of promoting the perceptual ability of learners. %
However, this direction has rarely been explored in the field of human-computer interactions. Only Zhao et al.~\cite{zhao2013audiovisual} propose a basic pipeline for audio-visual exaggeration, but focusing more on implementing than evaluation. No practical training paradigm is constructed. %
Consequently, the problem of what compromises a good exaggeration system remains unsettled. %
In this paper, we provide systematical studies towards designing personalized exaggerated feedback in a CAPT system named Pronunciation Teacher~(\textit{PTeacher}). We focus on constructing a participatory exaggerated pronunciation corrective system that emphasizes enlarging the teaching effectiveness in a \textit{user perception} point of view. Specifically, our system evaluates learners' pronunciation with real-time mispronunciation detection and diagnosis (\textit{MDD}) algorithm~\cite{li2016mispronunciation}. Then exaggerated feedback is given in the form of audio and articulated animation. Importantly, we point out that through \textit{extensive human evaluation}, the following key issues can be thoroughly discussed: \textbf{1)} how to define the fine-grained parameters of exaggeration for both audio and visual modalities so that corrective feedback can be distinctive enough; \textbf{2)} how
personalized responses can be made to L2 learners with different degrees of proficiency; and \textbf{3)} how much the proposed designed training course can positively affect the learning efficiency of L2 learners compared with traditional CAPT system.
To this end, a total number of 100 L2 learners together with 22 professional native English teachers have participated in our studies.
Among them 30 learners and 22 teachers are responsible for determining the set of exaggeration parameters which renders the best feedback performances on three key aspects: \textit{distinguishability}, \textit{understandability} and \textit{perceptibility}.
Afterward, we leverage comprehensive user studies on 30 learners to connect different levels of exaggeration feedback with different levels of proficiency, which has never been discussed before.
We group and evaluate the learners through both objective scores reported from \textit{MDD} and subjective evaluations from native teachers.
Then the best personalized feedback level suitable for each learner can be determined.
Equipped with these necessary data and analysis, we include an interactive pronunciation training course into the \textit{PTeacher} system, aiming to improve learners' engagement. Along with the course, our system evaluates the English proficiency of each learner in a life-long manner and provides flexible exaggerated audio-visual corrective feedback. Therefore, personalized exaggeration can be given according to real-time mispronunciation detection from \textit{MDD} as well as accumulated evaluation.
User studies on the system demonstrate that our \textit{PTeacher} with the exaggerated feedback enhances the learners' pronunciation accuracy by 14.19\% and 27.55\% for learners with a higher and lower degree of proficiency respectively, within a short time of learning (1 hour).
The contributions of our work are listed as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We define and identify the most suitable set of parameters in exaggerated corrective pronunciation feedback in both audio and visual modalities from three critical aspects.
\item We propose personalized exaggerated feedback according to English proficiency of the learner
\item We design the audio-visual corrective CAPT system, \textit{PTeacher}, which includes a pronunciation training course. The course can dynamically evaluate learners' English pronunciation proficiency in a life-long manner
\item We support all of our findings and analysis with extensive user studies conducted on 100 second-language English learners and 22 professional native teachers. Comprehensive results demonstrate the advantage of our proposed exaggerated training system as well as the effectiveness of each module.
\end{itemize}
\section{Background}
\label{sec:2}
Computer-aided or assisted learning is an important research area in both human-computer interactions (HCI)~\cite{neri2008effectiveness,chalfoun2011subliminal} and language learning~\cite{golonka2014technologies,miller1990major}. We focus on design a Computer-Aided Pronunciation Training System (CAPT) with exaggerated audio-visual feedback.
In this section, we will first present the learning theories behind our audio-visual exaggerated feedback design (Section~\ref{sec:2.1}). Then we demonstrate the connections between our work and the recent advances in HCI (Section~\ref{sec:2.2}). Finally, we review and discuss the related works in the specific area of CAPT (Section~\ref{sec:2.3}).
\subsection{Learning Theories}
\label{sec:2.1}
\textbf{Theories on Audio-Visual Feedback.}
Information processing in speech and language communication is bi-modal. For example, language learners not only listen to the speaker but also observe the speaker's articulatory movements~\cite{king1985integration, chen1998audio}. In the visual modality, phoneticians have summarized that articulatory phonetics are strongly correlated with the manners and places of articulation~\cite{halle2000feature,titze1998principles,ogden2017introduction,crystal2011dictionary}, articulators~\cite{kelly2006teach} and airflow~\cite{geoghegan2012stereoscopic}. In the auditory modality, the principles of phonology and phonetics dictate and explain the ways humans make sounds~\cite{rogerson2011english,trubetzkoy1969principles,pierrehumbert1980phonology}. These theories lead to our design of providing both audio and visual information as feedback. While previous methods show improvements in L2 learners’ pronunciation abilities through training with articulatory animations~\cite{bliss2018computer,kartushina2015effect}, our user study shows that with exaggerated feedback from both modalities, the learning efficiency can be further improved compared to providing only exaggerated audio feedback, which supports the hypotheses of the theories.
\noindent\textbf{Exaggerated Feedback.}
Numerous studies have suggested that many L2 speech production (pronunciation) difficulties are rooted in perception~\cite{meng2007deriving, escudero2001role, escudero2005linguistic, ricard1986beyond, colantoni2015second}. Moreover, it has been exemplified that reinforcing the perception ability of learners can significantly contribute to the speech production ability automatically~\cite{bu2020visual,ortega1999enhancing, strange2008speech, lee2016effects, bradlow1997training, lee2020effects}. Exaggerated audiovisual feedback is a particular kind of perception reinforcement, which corrects the pronunciation by strengthening the user's visual or auditory attention. For example, by enhancing the duration of the audio of a nasal consonant, brain plasticity at the perceptual and pre-attentive neural levels can be strengthened~\cite{cheng2019temporal, cheng2019role}. Increasing the movement of the animation, the user's visual perception of graphics can be enhanced. Specifically, exaggerated movement can lead to more memorable perception than non-exaggerated movement~\cite{granqvist2018exaggeration}. Therefore, we propose the exaggerated-feedback to improve the perceptual effect of the target phonemes in both audio and visual modalities.
\subsection{Language Learning and Exaggerated Feedback in HCI}
\label{sec:2.2}
As there are rarely any studies that target exaggerated feedback in language learning specifically in HCI, we look into the studies that contribute mostly to the sub-area of language learning and exaggerated feedback.
Previous works on language learning mainly focus on the effectiveness of computer aided training and the components that matters. Ambra et al.~\cite{neri2008effectiveness} investigated whether a language learning system can help young L2 learners improve word-level pronunciation skills. They also provided a fundamental evaluation of the effectiveness of computer-assisted language learning systems. Robertson et al.~\cite{robertson2018designing}, advocated that new interactive designs supporting collaboration can be used to overcome engineering limitations. In our work, we also propose interactive courses in our system. Hailpern~\cite{hailpern2009creating} introduced Spoken Impact Project (SIP) to examine the effect of audio and visual feedback on vocalizations in ASD children. Their experimental results suggested that individual customization is in demand given the children’s varied preferences on different styles of feedback. This inspires us to provide personalized feedback. As for exaggerated feedback, Antti et al.~\cite{granqvist2018exaggeration} contributed a controlled experiment of exaggerating the teaching avatar’s flexibility in a kicking task. The experimental results demonstrate that users prefer exaggerated results over original ones. Our work shares similar insights with their design.
Based on these studies and the previous learning theories on exaggerated feedback as discussed above, we focus on constructing a participatory exaggerated computer-aided pronunciation training system that emphasizes enlarging the teaching effectiveness from a user perception perspective. Specifically, we study how to identify suitable exaggerated feedback to learners with different demands or behaviors in language learning (i.e. different pronunciation proficiencies) and how to define the best set of feedback. Our idea of involving exaggerated feedback and our system of determining the best set of exaggeration parameters can be beneficial for the general area of computer-aided language learning~\cite{garcia2018self, neri2008effectiveness, robertson2018designing, hailpern2009creating} and exaggerated feedback~\cite{granqvist2018exaggeration} systems in HCI.
\subsection{Computer-Aided Pronunciation Training Systems}
\label{sec:2.3}
\noindent\textbf{Development of CAPT.}
Computer-aided pronunciation training (CAPT) system was introduced in the 1960s. The first CAPT system was developed by Kalikow and Swets~\cite{kalikow1972experiments}. They developed a system that used visual feedback to teach English pronunciation for Spanish learners. From 2000 to 2010, most English CAPT systems utilized speech recognition technology, but few of them offered instruction or feedback to learners~\cite{kawahara2004practical}.
From 2010 to the present, researches incorporated diverse technologies into the CAPT system, including pronunciation training method ~\cite{neri2002pedagogy}, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR)~\cite{neri2006asr}, Mispronunciation Detection and Diagnosis (MDD)~\cite{leung2019cnn}, speech synthesis ~\cite{ning2015hmm, meng2010synthesizing, meng2010synthesizing}, visual-speech synthesis ~\cite{yuen2011enunciate} and application system design~\cite{yuen2011enunciate}. %
Several kinds of online pronunciation corrective feedback in the form of different modalities are proposed in CAPT~\cite{badin2010visual, wong2010development, yuen2011enunciate,liu2012menunciate,brown2020device}, such as audio feedback, text feedback, articulatory feedback~\cite{wong2010development}, etc. Yuen et al.~\cite{yuen2011enunciate} proposed a comprehensive method to produce audio-visual feedback in CAPT. In the next step, they extended their work to a distributed text-to-audio-visual-speech synthesizer (TTAVS) to design a CAPT system with the interactivity on a mobile platform~\cite{leung2013development}.
Pennington~\cite{pennington1999computer} found that phonology knowledge was not well considered in most CAPT systems. Inspired by the phonology research, our work finds a suitable adjusting range for expressive speech in audio-visual corrective feedback.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth, height=0.15\linewidth]{framwork_english.pdf}
\caption{The whole working flow of PTeacher system. It consists of two key components: \textbf{(1)} exaggerated audio-visual corrective feedback generator, and \textbf{(2)} pronunciation training courses. Notably, the system is first served as the platform for user interactions, then the users' feedback also identifies the detailed design of the system.}
\label{fig:framwork_english}
\Description{This figure contains 2 part, the first part is the design of the course content, the second part is the mechanism of the exaggerated audiovisual corrective feedback which including MDD and the exaggerated audiovisual synthesizer.}
\end{figure*}
\noindent\textbf{Exaggerated Audio-Visual Feedback in CAPT.}
The above discussed methods fail to increase awareness of learners towards their mispronunciation. Thus, identifiable and perceptible feedback is still urgently needed.
According to~\cite{ricard1986beyond}~\cite{wohlert2000lip}, in the offline English class, exaggeration is a critical feedback method for the teachers to rectify the pronunciation of learners. Typical exaggerating methods include speaking louder and slower, and showing the movements of mouth clearly to learners. Exaggerations in the form-focused instruction~\cite{wohlert2000lip} have been verified to be beneficial for inexperienced L2 learners. Alghamdi et al.~\cite{alghamdi2017impact} investigated that exaggeration of the visual speech improved the audio-visual recognition of many phoneme classes. Exaggeration methods were used in CAPT systems to assist L2 learners in perceiving stress patterns. Their work provided a fundamental theory, which discussed the effectiveness of exaggeration methods. %
For the exaggerated audio-visual feedback in CAPT,~Zhao et. al~\cite{zhao2013audiovisual} proposed an audio-visual exaggeration method to provide more perceptible corrective feedback. Both exaggerated audio and exaggerated articulatory animation were provided for learners to rectify their pronunciation. %
However, several problems of audio-visual exaggeration in CAPT remain unsolved.
In our \textit{PTeacher} system, we systematically discuss these problems and present a practicable solution through extensive user studies.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth, height=0.30\linewidth]{flow_chart.jpg}
\caption{The working flow of the exaggerated audio-visual corrective feedback.
Mispronunciation detection and diagnosis (\textit{MDD}) systems are employed to diagnose pronunciation mistakes at sentence, word, and phoneme levels.
Afterwards, personalized feedback are provided by the \textit{audio} and \textit{visual} exaggeration generators based on the MDD results.}
\label{fig:flower_chart}
\Description{This figure contains 4 part. The first part is describing the process that the user's speech will deliver to MDD. The second part is audio and visual database. The third part is audiovisual generator. The fourth part is the user interface.}
\end{figure*}
\section{PTeacher System for Pronunciation Training}
In this section, we introduce \textit{PTeacher}, a CAPT system that helps L2 learners correct their pronunciation by incorporating exaggerated audio-visual feedback into a pronunciation course.
The whole pipeline of the system is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:framwork_english}.
It consists of two key components: \textbf{(1)} exaggerated audio-visual corrective feedback generator, and \textbf{(2)} personalized pronunciation training courses.
Notably, the system is first served as the platform for user interactions, then the users' feedback also identifies the design of the system.
\subsection{Exaggerated Audio-Visual Corrective Feedback}
Exaggerated audio-visual feedback is generated through an audio and a video exaggeration generator based on the different pronunciation situations of each users, which is the key feature of our system.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:flower_chart},
Mispronunciation Detection and Diagnosis (\textit{MDD}) systems \cite{li2016mispronunciation,li2015integrating,li2015rating} are firstly employed to detect and diagnose pronunciation mistakes at sentence, word, and phoneme levels.
Afterwards, the \textit{MDD} results are taken by both the \textit{audio} and \textit{visual} exaggeration generator to generate exaggerated feedback.
\subsubsection{Accumulated Pronunciation Diagnosis}
\label{sec:3.1.1}
Different from previous systems \cite{zhao2013audiovisual}, the historical \textit{MDD} results are also considered to determine the exaggeration level. The \textit{MDD} results are exponentially decayed and accumulated using the following equation:
\begin{align}
R=(1-\alpha)^{n}R_{n}+\sum_{0\leq i\leq n-1}\alpha(1-\alpha)^{i}R_{i}
\end{align}
where $n$ is the number of all results, $R_0$ is the latest result, $R_i$ is the $i$-th historical result and $\alpha$ is the decay ratio. In our research, $\alpha$ is set to $0.9$.
After accumulated, the phoneme with the lowest score in one sentence will be selected and exaggerated by the audio and video exaggeration generators.
\subsubsection{Audio Exaggeration Generator.}
\label{sec:speech}
The framework of the audio exaggeration generator is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:audio_exaggeration}.
The exaggerations are generated by applying adjustment of proper exaggeration level to synthesized speech based on the \textit{MDD} result.
A pre-trained Text-To-Speech~(TTS)~model \cite{ren2019fastspeech} is used to synthesize high-quality, neutral speech with the given text.
Montreal Forced Alignment~(MFA)~\cite{mcauliffe2017montreal} algorithm is leveraged to locate the position of the selected phoneme in the synthesized speech.
Then pitch, duration and energy of the selected phoneme are exaggerated with the parameters of the corresponding exaggeration ratios with PyWorld \cite{hsupython}.
The exaggeration level for the selected phoneme is determined by the accumulated score as described in Section~\ref{sec:3.1.1}.
Two exaggeration ratios are used in our research.
The scores in $[0,50)$ are projected to the "Low Proficiency" exaggeration ratios
and scores in $[50,100]$ are projected to the "High Proficiency" exaggeration ratios.
The parameters for each exaggeration ratios are determined by personalized audio exaggeration experiment~\ref{sec:exp_audio}.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth, height=0.185\linewidth]{audio_exaggeration.pdf}
\caption{The working flow of the audio exaggeration generator. Text-To-Speech (TTS) model is used to synthesize neutral speech with given text.
Montreal Forced Alignment~(MFA) algorithm is leveraged to locate the position of the selected phoneme in the synthesized speech.
The exaggeration level is determined by the accumulated score in the \textit{MDD} results.
Then pitch, duration and energy of the selected phoneme are exaggerated with the parameters of the corresponding exaggeration level with PyWorld.
}
\Description{This figure describes the methods of how to generate exaggerated audio, which contain 3 part including user input, TTS and the exaggerated audio.}
\label{fig:audio_exaggeration}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth, height=0.45\linewidth]{interactive_course.pdf}
\caption{The workflow of the interactive courses and the custom course. In the interactive courses, user learn the drama courses. In the custom course, the system will generate a flexible course according to the English text which the user input.}
\label{fig:course}
\Description{This picture illustrates the interface of course design. In the interactive courses, there are a number of interactive courses for learner to communicate. In the custom course, the system will automatically generate a course according to the learner's preferences. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{visual_example_onecolum.pdf}
\caption{We exaggerate the mouth movement, the color of the key organs and add auxiliary graphics as well as multiple text descriptions.}
\label{fig:visual_example}
\Description{This picture shows the examples of how to exaggerate an articulatory animation.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Visual Exaggeration Generator.}
\label{sec:visual}
We adopt the design of articulatory animation ~\cite{lasseter1987principles,chang1993animation,ribeiro2012illusion} to provide visual exaggeration and further increase the ability of expression in the visual domain.
Our visualization plots three components: articulatory movement, tongue color, and auxiliary sign. %
For the articulatory movement, we plot the key parts of the articulatory actions~(oral cavity), while irrelevant parts (\textit{oesophagus, epiglottis, nasal, etc.}) are simplified.
Four degrees of exaggerated side-view and front-view viseme components are designed under the guidance of articulatory phonemeticians and animation designer.
Having obtained the articulatory plots of each phoneme, we leverage the Viseme Blending~\cite{ezzat2000visual} to interpolate the overall animation.
We generate the exaggerated articulatory animation using the following methods: (1) increase the amplitude of key articulatory movement. (2) We modify the color of the tongue from low purity to high purity when exaggeration is needed, to draw the attention of learners.
(3) Auxiliary graphics (\textit{e.g. arrows, airflow}) and supplemental texts (\textit{e.g. manner of articulation}), are finally added to help learners better understand the pronunciation through visualization, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:visual_example}.
It is noteworthy that we update the design in the amplitude of articulatory movements according to human interactions. Different degrees of exaggerated will also be provided to different users in a personalized manner. Details are illustrated in Section \ref{sec:exp6}. %
\subsection{Personlized Course Content Design}
\label{sec:course}
We propose to personalize the pronunciation training through our novel course design to build the connection between general CAPT systems and individual users.
As shown in figure~\ref{fig:course}, two types of courses, namely \textit{Custom Course} and \textit{Participatory Course} are designed.
The \textit{Participatory Course} is actually a particular type of Interactive Participatory Drama (IPD)~\cite{hubbard2002interactive} in language learning. In this type of course, learners play active roles~\cite{bu2018icoobook} in pre-programmed scenarios by haptic and voice interaction (such as chatting, painting, etc). The course includes multiple storylines, depending on the choice of learners in the story.
The primary purpose is to stimulate learners to do more perception~(hear) and productive training~(speak) in a participatory manner.
While in \textit{Custom Course}, learners could customize the content of the lessons based on their particular needs.
Both courses take recorded audios from users as inputs, and leverage the aforementioned exaggerated audio-visual feedback for users to recognize and rectify their mistakes. The learners' proficiencies are determined by \textit{MDD} scores. The system assesses users’ pronunciation accuracies on 14 types of phonemetic symbols and makes a comprehensive judgment according to the user's immediately performance and historical proficiency. Thus personalized feedback can be dynamically generated in a life-long manner.
We expect users to actively participate in pronunciation learning by noticing their improvements through reading the comprehensive reports from \textit{PTeacher}.
\section{User-Participated Experiments}
In general, with the users-participated experiments, we determine the optimum audio exaggeration ratios, find the most appropriate visual exaggeration level and verify the effectiveness of \textit{PTeacher}. Participant are interviewed during the experiments and grounded theory approach~\cite{corbin2014basics} is leveraged to analyze the interview data.
\begin{itemize}
\item In audio experiments, we firstly define four audio exaggeration levels and determine the exaggerations ratios for four levels (Section~\ref{sec:audio_material_preparation}).
For each audio exaggeration level, we evaluate a) Distinguishability (Section~\ref{sec:distinguishability}); b) Understandability (Section~\ref{sec:understandability}); and c) Perceptibility (Section~\ref{sec:perceptibilty}).
Based on the result of the experiments mentioned above, we apply nonlinear fitting to determine the optimum exaggeration ratios (Section~\ref{sec:optimum_ratios}).
\item In visual experiments, we first define multiple exaggeration levels for articulatory movements and tongue colors (Section~\ref{sec:visual_preparation}).
Then, we find the optimum exaggeration level with the highest user perceptibilty rate (Section~\ref{sec:visual_test}).
\item In supplementary experiments, we evaluate the effects of user engagement and user experience between participatory course and custom course which is described in the supplementary materials (Chapter 1).
\item Finally we verify the effectiveness of our system by comparing training effects of our system with other systems (Section~\ref{sec:verify}).
\end{itemize}
\subsection[Participants]{Participants}
30 L2 learners,including 15 high proficiency learners and 15 low proficiency learners are invited to participate two audio exaggeration experiments which are audio distinguishability experiment (Section~\ref{sec:distinguishability}) and understandability experiment (Section~\ref{sec:understandability}). %
The ages of 30 learners range from 20 to 32. %
Then 22 native English speakers together with 30 L2 learners in the previous experiments are invited to participate in the audio perceptibility experiment (Section~\ref{sec:perceptibilty}). %
Among 22 native speakers,
10 are from South Africa,
5 are from the United States,
4 are from the United Kingdom
and 3 are from Canada. %
The ages of the native speakers range from 24 to 42. %
All of the native speakers are certificated with TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) issued by Ascentis, which is an officially recognized TESOL certificate authority. %
The 30 L2 learners from the previous experiments are further invited to participate in the visual perceptibility experiment (Section~\ref{sec:visual_test}). %
Then, we invite 20 new L2 learners to take part in the supplementary experiments.
80 L2 learners, including 50 new L2 learners, and 30 learners in the previous experiment, are invited to participate in the \textit{PTeacher} effectiveness verifying experiment (Section~\ref{sec:verify}). %
The 80 learners contain 40 high proficiency learners and 40 low proficiency learners. %
The ages of 80 learners range from 20 to 32. %
In each experiment, 20\% of the participants are randomly selected to participate in face-to-face interviews based on the following criteria: (a) the ratio of low proficiency learners to high proficiency is 1:1; (b) the ratio of male to female is 1:1; (c) the participants are aged between 20 and 32. We choose 20 participants with an average age of 24. %
Grounded theory approach~\cite{corbin2014basics} is conducted with interview data analysis.
All interview data are recorded by Google doc and processed by MaxQDA3~\cite{oliveira2013thematic} for qualitative analysis.
Through open coding, 100 codes~\cite{liu2019bought} are produced.
We collaboratively synthesized the interview content into higher-level themes through axial coding~\cite{liu2019bought}, including learning challenges, learning experiences, learning efficiency and learning effects.
We also discussed the internal connections between these themes and generated an interviewer report.
\subsection[Experiments on Audio Exaggeration]{{Experiments on Audio Exaggeration}}
Audio exaggeration experiments are conducted to optimize the exaggeration ratios of the audio exaggeration generator in terms of distinguishability, understandability and perceptibility.
We first synthesize the experimental audios with four exaggeration levels based on exaggerated speeches from a pronunciation training expert.
Then we test distinguishability, understandability and perceptibility for learners in the low proficiency and high proficiency groups w.r.t. each exaggeration level.
Based on the results, we apply a non-linear fitting to determine the optimum exaggeration ratios for learners with low proficiency and high proficiency.
\subsubsection{Material Preparation}
\label{sec:audio_material_preparation}
\label{sec:exp_audio}
First, a pronunciation training expert is asked to read 350 representative words from the Oxford Dictionary with four exaggeration levels: \textit{zero}, \textit{slight}, \textit{medium} and \textit{strong}, respectively.
We calculate the exaggeration ratios of the pitch, duration and energy for each exaggerated phonemes.
The expert then adjusts the exaggeration ratios.
The exaggeration ratios for each exaggeration level w.r.t. different type of phonemes are shown in the supplementary material.
Finally, we synthesize 800 speeches with different exaggeration level as test materials.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth, height=0.29\linewidth]{distinguish_rate_final.pdf}
\caption{The distribution and average of the distinguishability rates are shown in figure (a) and (b), respectively. The variances of the distinguishability rates is in the brackets in figure (b). E1, E2, E3 and E4 represent \textit{zero}, \textit{slight}, \textit{medium} and \textit{strong} audio exaggeration respectively.}
\label{tab:Distinguishablility_figure}
\Description{The figure shows the distinguishability rates of different exaggeration levels for learners with different degree of proficiency.}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Experiment on Distinguishability of Exaggerated Speech}
\label{sec:distinguishability}
Distinguishability rate~\cite{liberman1957discrimination}, which indicates whether a listener can easily distinguish the exaggerated phoneme in the exaggerated audio, is a crucial evaluation index to verify the effect of exaggerated expression.
In our case, given a speech with one exaggerated phoneme, it evaluates whether the participants can discern the exaggerated phoneme from the speech.
The distinguishability rate is defined as the accuracy of whether the user can discern the exaggerated phoneme.
The distribution and average of distinguishability rates are shown in Figure~\ref{tab:Distinguishablility_figure}. %
It demonstrates that higher exaggeration level produces higher distinguishability rate. %
The average distinguishability rate increases from 87.11\% to 98.89\% for learners with high proficiency. %
The average distinguishability rate increases from 79.33\% to 93.78\% for learners with low proficiency. %
The result also indicates that learners with lower proficiency need audio with higher exaggeration level to discern the exaggerated part as easily as those with higher proficiency. %
We carry out single tail t-test between groups of the same proficiency with different exaggeration levels and different proficiency with different exaggeration levels. %
The P results mainly range from 0.0013 to 0.013, indicating significant differences. T-test result P between test groups with \textit{medium} and \textit{strong} exaggeration for low proficiency learners reaches 0.0678. The value is acceptable since it is close to 0.05. %
The user interview also demonstrates the experiment result. %
A learner with low proficiency says \emph{``Audio exaggeration helps me locate where I need to pay attention. It it was quite easy for me to locate the exaggerated part for level 3 and level 4 exaggerated audios."} %
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.86\linewidth, height=0.28\linewidth]{understand_final.pdf}
\caption{The distribution and average understandability rates are illustrated in figure (a) and (b), respectively. The variance of the understandability rates is in the brackets in figure (b).}
\label{tab:udsp}
\Description{The figure shows the understandability rates of different exaggeration levels for learners with different degree of proficiency.}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Experiment on Understandability of Exaggerated Speech}
\label{sec:understandability}
Understandability rate indicates whether the learner can still easily understand the exaggerated speech without confusion~\cite{veselovska2016teaching, munro1999canadians, cervino2010investigating, mora2017relationship}.
Given two similar phoneme and a speech with one of the phonemes being exaggerated, participants are asked to choose which phoneme appears in the word. %
Similar to distinguishability rate, understandability rate is defined as the accuracy of whether the user can still recognize the exaggerated phoneme. %
The distribution and average of the understandability rates are illustrated in Figure~\ref{tab:udsp}. Unlike the result of the experiment on distinguishability, a higher exaggeration level does not lead to the increase of understandability rates. %
For the learners with high proficiency, the optimum exaggeration level is \textit{slight}, with the highest understandability rate at 94.93\%. %
For learners with low proficiency, the optimum exaggeration level is \textit{medium}. The highest understandability rate is 90.72\%. %
With the \textit{strong} exaggeration, the average understandability rates drop to 85.07\% and 86.38\% for high and low proficiency learners, respectively. %
The reason is that \textit{strong} exaggeration can cause distortion, which impedes learners from understanding it correctly, especially for learners with higher proficiency. %
We carry out single tail t-test between groups of the same proficiency with different exaggeration levels and different proficiency with different exaggeration levels. %
Most of the P-values range from 0.0017 to 0.0086, indicating a significant difference. %
The resulted P between the group with \textit{medium} and \textit{slight} exaggeration for high proficiency learner is 0.2480, indicating almost no difference.
Also, P-value between the group with \textit{medium} and \textit{slight} exaggeration for low proficiency learner is 0.1198, indicating a minor difference. %
Based on the t-test results, we confirm that both \textit{medium} and \textit{slight} exaggeration is acceptable for learners with different proficiencies. %
The participant interview further also demonstrates part of the experiment results. %
A learner with high proficiency comments that \emph{``The voices break in some E4 exaggerated stops, and the phoneme `b' sounds like `p'. "}
Another learner with high proficiency comments that \emph{``The `r' sounds very strange in E4. I cannot tell you what it is."} %
A learner with low proficiency comments that \emph{``I cannot recognize the `th' sound in audio with level two exaggeration, because `th' and `sh' are just too similar."} %
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth, height=0.28\linewidth]{perception_rate_final.pdf}
\caption{The perceptibility rates distribution w.r.t. four exaggerations for the learner with different proficiency are depicted in figure (a). The distribution of perceptibility rates assessed by the teacher is shown in the figure (b).}
\label{tab:pds}
\Description{The figure shows the auditory perceptibility rates of different exaggeration levels for learners with different degree of proficiency.}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Experiment on Perceptibility of Exaggerated Speech}
\label{sec:perceptibilty}
Perceptibility score, which evaluates exaggerated speech's perceptual quality, is a significant indicator to check the intensity level~\cite{zeng2000auditory} of perception from the perspective of hearing.
Participants are asked to give opinion scores ranging from 0 to 5 (0 for too weak to perceive, 5 for too strong) in terms of perceptual exaggeration level. %
The perception scores are calculated with:
\begin{align}
P=2.5-|2.5-Score|,
\end{align}
where Score is the opinion score and P is the perception scores. %
The distribution of perceptibility scores for different exaggeration level is illustrated in Figure~\ref{tab:pds}. %
We find that the distribution is similar to that of the understandability rates. This result indicates that neither \textit{slight} exaggeration nor \textit{strong} exaggeration is good enough.
The participants' interview further confirms our inference. A learner with low proficiency comments that:\emph{``I felt that the 'slight' exaggerations are so slight sometimes that I have difficulties realizing them."} %
A learner with high proficiency comments that: \emph{``I don't think the slight exaggeration is good enough since it is too weak. Also, I found severe distortions in the 'strong exaggeration' version. So I don't think it is good enough, either."} %
A native speaker comments:\emph{``I think the medium exaggeration version is very cool. I must have used a similar exaggeration method in my class."} %
\subsubsection{Optimizing Exaggeration Ratios with Non-linear Fitting}
\label{sec:optimum_ratios}
The experiments on distinguishability rates, understandability rates, and perceptibility scores apply a non-linear fitting to find the optimum exaggeration ratios w.r.t. different phoneme types. The optimum exaggeration ratios can achieve the highest value defined with:
\begin{align}
V = DR + UR +\frac{PS}{2.5},
\end{align}
where $V$ is the optimizing target for non-linear fitting, $DR$, $UR$ and $PS$ are distinguishability rates, understandability rates and perceptibility scores respectively. %
The result is shown in Figure~\ref{tab:best audio rate}. %
Almost all the best exaggeration ratios fall into the range of medium exaggeration. %
We notice that the exaggeration ratios needed for high proficiency learners are lower than those low proficiency learners. %
The optimum exaggeration ratios are used in the following experiments.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth, height=0.32\linewidth]{bestratio.pdf}
\caption{The optimum audio exaggeration ratios are shown in the figure. We apply non-linear fitting to find the exaggeration ratios with the highest distinguishability rates, understandability rates and perceptibility rates.}
\Description{The figure shows the optimum audio exaggeration ratios with the highest distinguishability rates, understandability rates and perceptibility rates. For example, The exaggeration ratios of the Voiceless stops' pitch is 1.26 for the low proficiency learners.}
\label{tab:best audio rate}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth, height=0.65\linewidth]{visual_example2.pdf}
\caption{The figure illustrates examples of animations with exaggeration. M1, M2, M3 and M4 represent zero, slight, medium and strong articulatory movement exaggeration, respectively. C1, C2 and C3 represent zero, slight and strong tongue color exaggeration, respectively.}
\Description{The figure contains two part, the first part shows the amplitude of the movement of articulatory organs become more and more larger, the second part shows the purity color of tongues become more and more higher. }
\label{fig:visual_example1}
\end{figure}
\subsection[Experiments on Visual Exaggeration]{{Experiments on Visual Exaggeration}}
\label{sec:exp6}
Visual exaggeration experiments are conducted to optimize the articulatory movement exaggeration level and tongue color exaggeration level in terms of perceptibility.
We first synthesize the experiment video with different articulatory movements exaggeration level and tongue color exaggeration level.
Then we test perceptibility for learners in the low proficiency and high proficiency groups w.r.t. different exaggeration level.
Based on the results, we determine the optimum articulatory movement exaggeration level and tongue color exaggeration level for the learners with low proficiency and high proficiency.
\subsubsection{Material Preparation for Visual Exaggeration}
\label{sec:visual_preparation}
Four exaggeration levels of articulatory movement, which are named \textit{zero}, \textit{slight}, \textit{medium}, and \textit{strong}, are manually designed. %
Three exaggeration level of tongue colors, which are named \textit{zero}, \textit{medium}, and \textit{strong} respectively, are also manually designed. %
We synthesize the animations of 52 words, equally covering the 13 phoneme types, with different exaggeration levels w.r.t. articulatory movement and tongue color. %
An example of the animations is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:visual_example1}.
\begin{figure*}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth, height=0.48\linewidth]{perception_final.pdf}
\caption{The distribution and average of the perception rates for different articulatory movement exaggerations are shown in figure (a) and figure (b), respectively. The distribution and average of the perception rate for different tongue color exaggerations are shown in figure (c) and figure (d), respectively.}
\Description{The figure shows the visual perceptibility rates of different exaggeration levels for learners with different degree of proficiency.}
\label{tab:allf_v}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Experiment on Perceptibility of Exaggerated Animations}
\label{sec:visual_test}
We also conduct perceptibility experiment on animations with visual exaggeration. %
We directly take the definition of opinion score and perceptibility score in the experiment on audio exaggeration (Section~\ref{sec:perceptibilty}).
Participants are first asked to give opinion scores on animations with zero tongue color exaggeration and different articulatory movement exaggeration.
Then, we find optimum articulatory movement exaggeration with the highest perceptibility score. %
Following that, participants are asked to give opinion scores on animations with optimized articulatory movement exaggeration and different exaggeration. %
Finally, we find optimum tongue color exaggeration with the highest perceptibility score. %
The distribution and average of perceptibility scores on different articulatory movement exaggeration and tongue color exaggeration are shown in Figure~\ref{tab:allf_v}. %
We find that a higher articulatory movement exaggeration level or tongue color exaggeration level does not lead to the increase of understandability rates. %
The optimum articulatory movements exaggeration level is a \textit{slight} exaggeration for learners with high proficiency, \textit{strong} exaggeration for learners with low proficiency. %
The perceptibility scores are 2 and 1.96, respectively. %
The optimum tongue color exaggeration is \textit{slight} for learners with high proficiency. They obtain a perceptibility score of 2. %
While the optimum tongue color exaggeration for learners with low proficiency is a \textit{strong} exaggeration. The perceptibility score is 1.99. %
We carry out single tail t-test between groups of the same proficiency with different exaggeration levels and different proficiency with different exaggeration levels. %
Most of the P-values range from 0.00011 to 0.037, indicating a significant difference. %
The t-test result P between the group with \textit{medium} and \textit{strong} articulatory movement exaggeration for low proficiency learner is 0.1466, indicating almost no difference.
Also, P-value between the group with slight and strong tongue color exaggeration for high proficiency learner is 0.1378, indicating a slight difference. %
Based on the t-test result, we find that both \textit{strong} and \textit{medium} articulatory exaggeration is acceptable for learners with low proficiency. %
We also see that both \textit{slight} and \textit{strong} articulatory exaggeration is acceptable for learners with high proficiency. %
Still, we choose the optimum articulatory movement exaggeration and tongue color movement mentioned above as the visual exaggeration setting in the following experiments.
The participant interview further confirms our conclusion. A learner with low proficiency comments: \emph{``I cannot see any different with the low exaggeration level on articulatory movement. Same to the tongue color exaggeration. It is not very eye-catching."} A learner with high proficiency comments:\emph{``The high-level exaggeration may be too much for me."}
\subsection[Experiment on Effectiveness of PTeacher]{ Experiment on Effectiveness of PTeacher}
\label{sec:verify}
\label{sec:exp10}
To determine if the personalized feedback is effective, we compare our system to 3 other systems.
The first system is set with no exaggeration. %
The second system is set with no personalization, which means the exaggeration ratios are fixed to the average of the exaggeration ratios for low proficiency and high proficiency. %
The third system uses feedback from pronunciation training experts. %
Participants are equally divided into four groups and are asked to test their pronunciation accuracy before and after one-hour training with different systems. %
Their pronunciation accuracy is annotated by pronunciation training experts with percentile.
The improvement rate of learners is calculated with:
\begin{align}
I=\frac{S_{\text{after}}-S_{\text{before}}}{S_{\text{before}}}
\end{align}
where $I$ is the improvement rate, $S_{\text{before}}$ and $S_{\text{after}}$ is pronunciation accuracy of the learner before and after training respectively. %
The result is shown in Figure~\ref{tab:finalf}. %
We find that the improvement rate of learners who are trained with \textit{PTeacher} is much higher than those who are trained with the non-exaggeration system or the non-personalizing system is comparable to those who are trained with the system with human feedback. %
We carry out t-test between different groups. %
Most of the P-values range from 0.003 to 0.015, also indicates a big or enormous difference between these groups. %
The mean differences in improvement rate between learner trained with \textit{PTeacher} and human feedback system is less than 2.5\%.
The P results of the t-test between them are 0.29 and 0.42 for learners with high and low proficiency, indicating a minimal difference. %
The result confirms that the effectiveness of exaggerated audiovisual feedback and personalization mechanism. %
Participant interview is conducted during the experiments mentioned above. %
The feeling of participants about the system is asked and recorded. %
More than 85\% of the learners and 80\% of the teachers praise the audio exaggeration. A native speaker says:
\emph{``As an English teacher, I think exaggerated audio feedback is useful. It reminds me of how I teach a learner to say a word right in class."} %
A learner with high proficiency tells us:
\emph{``The audio feedback reminds me of my high school English teacher. She would rectify our mispronunciations when we made mistakes. This method is quite useful for me."} %
A learner with low proficiency also praises the mechanism:
\emph{``I am so happy with this audio exaggeration. It points out the mistake that I can hardly notice."} %
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth, height=0.28\linewidth]{improve_rate_final.pdf}
\caption{The distribution and the average of the improvement rates are illustrated in figure (a) and (b), respectively. The NO-E, NO-P, \textit{PTeacher} and Teacher represent the system (1) without exaggeration feedback (2) without personalizing (3) personalized exaggeration feedback (4) pronunciation training experts, respectively. \textit{PTeacher} is almost as efficient as teacher-aid training, far exceeding systems without personalized exaggeration feedback.}
\Description{This figure show the improvement rate of different English proficiency learners after a hour of pronunciation training with PTeacher and the other 3 system}
\label{tab:finalf}
\end{figure*}
More than 70\% of the learners mention visual exaggeration. %
A learner with low proficiency says:
\emph{``Exaggerated visual feedback is helpful to me. I can imitate the animation and rectify my pronunciation. I do hope that you can try to combine virtual reality technology with visual feedback. That will be even more helpful to me."} %
About 75\% of the learners say that the interactive course can raise their learning interest.%
~A learner with low proficiency says \emph{``The interactive course is fascinating. %
I am willing to spend more time rectify my pronunciation with it. Please design more courses in the future."} %
It is also worth noticing that about 35\% of the learners mention that our system helps deal with educational inequity. %
A learner with low proficiency tells us \emph{``Before I went to college, I had been living in a small town, where the education resource is limited. %
I didn't have any chance to get a foreign teacher to teach me. %
Thus, my English pronunciation training is relatively inadequate. %
With the \textit{PTeacher}, I can learn the pronunciation effectively anytime, anyplace. %
I can't be more willful to introduce it to the children in my town."} %
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Contributions to HCI}
Based on these studies and the previous learning theories on exaggerated feedback as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:2}, we focus on constructing a participatory exaggerated computer-aided pronunciation training system, \textit{PTeacher}. It emphasizes enlarging the teaching effectiveness from a user perception perspective with two critical aspects: 1) we study how to identify suitable exaggerated feedback to learners with different demands or behaviors in language learning (i.e. different pronunciation proficiencies), and 2) how to define the best set of feedback. Our idea of involving exaggerated feedback and our system of determining the best set of exaggeration parameters would be an important finding to the general area of computer-aided language learning~\cite{garcia2018self, neri2008effectiveness, robertson2018designing, hailpern2009creating} and exaggerated feedback~\cite{granqvist2018exaggeration} systems in HCI.
We further deepen the discussion to general educational systems. We point out that such an idea can be easily migrated to not only other language learning systems but also any imitation-learning system where certain degrees of exaggeration in educational feedback would enhance learners’ perceptibility. For example, under dancing and piano teaching scenarios, we can exaggerate the teaching effect such as increase the music’s expression for piano or the expressiveness of dance animation. The method for how to exaggerate the audio or visual modality can give us much inspiration. However, maybe it is not applicable to logical induction systems such as Math teaching.
\subsection{Limitations}
\noindent\textbf{The Limitations of MDD.}
Though the accuracy of existing \textit{MDD} is already very high according to~\cite{li2016mispronunciation,li2015integrating,li2015rating}, the feedback is still likely to contain two kinds of errors~\cite{badin2010visual}: false accepts (FA) which means that the pronunciation is accepted although it is actually incorrect; and false rejects (FR) means that the pronunciation is rejected although actually correct. As a result, the \textit{MDD} may miss detect mistakenly spoken phonemes or mark correct ones as incorrect, which will affect our system.
There are two traditional mechanisms of pronunciation feedback. One is that the system directly tells the user which sound is mispronounced based on the \textit{MDD} results. The other is to provide an \textit{MDD} score. PTeacher will not directly tell the user which sound is mispronounced but presents the mispronounced phoneme by exaggeration.
As a result, anytime the \textit{MDD} makes a mistake of FR, the learners will receive an exaggerated feedback, or the system will not exaggerate the target mistakenly pronounced word if it is a FA. So the negative impact is mostly that the learner cannot receive the exaggeration in the system’s feedback.
\noindent\textbf{The Limitations of PTeacher.}
The levels of exaggeration are defined mainly in a hand-crafted manner by consulting with English pronunciation education experts, animation designers then leveraging the theory of speech articulators~\cite{browman1992articulatory, kelly2006teach, kozhevnikov1967speech, chang1993animation, thomas1995illusion}. As a result, on the one hand, the designing procedures for exaggerations are time-consuming. On the other hand, the manually defined exaggeration levels can only be limited to a relatively small scale. Moreover, they are not continuously changeable. In the future, we can derive automatic procedures with the help of deep learning technologies~\cite{zhou2019talking,Yang:2020:MakeItTalk} from the collected data.
As for the methodology, only 2 levels of proficiency are defined at phone-level. The personalized feedback can be improved by involving more detailed modelling on the feedback levels of proficiency.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present \textit{PTeacher}, a pronunciation training system with personalized exaggerated audio-visual corrective feedback and practical training courses.
Importantly, we uncover how to define the appropriate degree of exaggerations through extensive user-participated experiments.
The optimum set of exaggerations can thus be identified for each individual learner.
Moreover, interactive training courses are proven to be efficient in improving users' English proficiency.
\begin{acks}
This work is supported by the National Key R\&D Program of China under Grant No. 2020AAA0108600 and No. 2019YFB1405700, the state key program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No.61831022) and Tiangong Institute for Intelligent Computing, Tsinghua University. We would like to thank Professor Helen Meng, Associate Research Fellow Chun Yu and Jingbei Li.
\end{acks}
\balance
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
The \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem is commonly defined as follows: Given a graph $H$ on $k$ vertices, and a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices, is there a (not necessarily induced) subgraph of G which is isomorphic to $H$?
\textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} generalizes many problems of independent interest, such as the \textsc{$k$-path} and \textsc{$k$-clique} problems. The problem is also of considerable interest when $H$ is less structured, with applications to discovering patterns in graphs that, for example, arise from biological processes such as gene transcription or food networks, from social interaction, from electronic circuits, from neural networks~\cite{milo2002network}, from chemical compounds~\cite{sussenguth1965graph} or from control flow in programs~\cite{bruschi2006detecting}. In some fields, the problem is sometimes referred to as the search for ``network motifs'', i.e. subgraphs that appear more often than would normally be expected.
In its general form, the problem is NP-hard. We are interested in solving the problem when the pattern graph $H$ is ``tree-like'' or ``path-like'', i.e. when the treewidth $\tw(H)$ or the pathwidth $\pw(H)$ of $H$ is bounded. Such pattern graphs of low treewidth or pathwidth often arise in practice when considering the structure of chemical compounds, the control flow of programs, syntactic relations in natural language, or many other graphs from practical applications (see e.g. \cite{bodlaender1994tourist, bodlaender2005discovering}). On the theoretical side, many restricted classes of graphs have bounded treewidth, see also~\cite{bodlaender1998partial}. Restricting NP-hard problems to graphs of bounded tree- and pathwidth often yields polynomial-time algorithms, and \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} is no exception. Most notably, the classic Color-Coding algorithm by Alon, Yuster and Zwick~\cite{alon1995color} solves the problem by a Las Vegas algorithm in expected time $O(n^{\tw(H)+1}g(k))$, or by a deterministic algorithm in time $\widetilde{O}(n^{\tw(H)+1}g(k))$, where $g$ is a computable function (and \(\widetilde{O}(\cdot)\) is used to suppress factors that are polylogarithmic in the input size). In other words, if the pattern graph $H$ has treewidth bounded by some constant, the problem is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by $k$. The Color-Coding algorithm is also relevant for practical purposes: Recently, it has received an efficient implementation, which tested well against state-of-the-art programs for \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}~\cite{malik2019efficient}.
Many researchers wondered whether the Color-Coding algorithm can be improved. This question has been studied in many different directions, including the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item Marx~\cite{marx2007can} showed that no algorithm solves the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem in time $O(n^{o(\tw(H) / \log(\tw(H)))}g(k))$ unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) fails, and this even holds when restricted to any class of pattern graphs of unbounded treewidth.
\item A series of work has improved the computable function $g$, see e.g.~\cite{amini2009counting,fomin2012faster,pratt2019waring}.
\item For many special pattern graphs faster algorithms have been found; the most famous example is the $k$-Clique problem, which can be solved in time $O(n^{k\omega/3}g(k))$~\cite{nevsetvril1985complexity}\footnote{This bound assumes that $k$ is divisible by 3; there are similar results for general \(k\)~\cite{eisenbrand2004complexity}.}.
\end{itemize}
In this paper, we use a different angle to approach the question whether Color-Coding can be improved. We ask whether there exist ``hard'' pattern graphs:
\begin{center}
\emph{Do there exist pattern graphs $H$ for which \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} \\ cannot be
solved in time $O(n^{\tw(H)+1-\varepsilon})$ for any constant $\varepsilon>0$?}
\end{center}
To the best of our knowledge, this question has not been previously studied.
As our main result, we (conditionally) give a positive answer to this question.
More precisely, we show that for every $t \ge 3$ there exists a pattern graph $H$ with $\tw(H)=t$ for which \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} cannot be solved in time $O(n^{\tw(H)+1-\varepsilon})$ for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, assuming the 3-uniform $k$-Hyperclique hypothesis; see Section~\ref{sec:results} for details on this hypothesis.
We also show a slightly weaker statement under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis.
This conditionally shows that the Color-Coding algorithm by Alon, Yuster and Zwick cannot be significantly improved while still working for all pattern graphs.
For the case of $\tw(H) = 2$, an algorithm of Curticapean, Dell and Marx~\cite{curticapean2017homomorphisms} can be adapted such that it solves \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} in time $\widetilde{O}(n^\omega g(k))$. We unify this with the algorithm of Alon, Yuster and Zwick by showing that both time bounds can be achieved within a simple framework. In particular, we use so-called $k$-wise matrix products, an operation which was introduced in its general form in~\cite{gnang2011spectral} and studied further in~\cite{lincoln2018tight}.
We also study the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem when the pathwidth of $H$ is bounded, and specialize our framework to show slight improvements in running time compared to the case of bounded treewidth. Here, we use rectangular matrix products, for which faster-than-naive algorithms are known~\cite{gall2018improved}.
In further results, our focus is on the weighted variant \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}, where the subgraph must also have total weight equal to zero. In this work, we consider both the node-weighted and the edge-weighted variant of this problem, for both bounded treewidth and bounded pathwidth, allowing the maximum absolute weight~$W$ to appear in the running time (i.e.\ the pseudopolynomial-time setting). We show that our algorithms for the unweighted case can be adapted to the weighted case. We also speed up the weighted algorithms by using the fact that fast convolution (or rather, sumset computation), a folklore technique that lies at the core of many fast algorithms for problems with weights (e.g.~\cite{chan2015clustered, bringmann2017near, kunnemann2017fine, koiliaris2017faster, bremner2006necklaces, bateni2018fast} and~\cite[exercise 30.1.7]{cormen2009introduction}), can easily be adapted to work with rectangular matrices and tensors. We furthermore show tight conditional lower bounds in many cases. Last but not least, we show that our algorithms can be slightly improved for the case of node-weighted instances for which either the pathwidth of $H$ is bounded, or $H$ is a tree. These algorithms also rely on fast rectangular matrix products.
\subsection{Related Work}
\label{sec:related-work}
Additional to the conditional lower bound of $O(n^{o(\tw(H) / \log(\tw(H)))}g(k))$ by Marx~\cite{marx2007can}, there is an unconditional lower bound of $O(n^{\kappa(H)})$ for the size of any $\mathrm{AC}^0$-circuit, for some graph parameter $\kappa(H) = \Omega(\tw(H)/\log(\tw(H)))$, which holds even when considering the average case~\cite{li2017ac}. Interestingly, the factor of $1/\log(\tw(H))$ does not seem to be an artefact of the proof: There is an $\mathrm{AC}^0$-circuit of size $O(n^{o(\tw(H))}g(k))$ that solves the problem on certain unbounded-treewidth classes in the average case~\cite{rosenthal2019beating}.
In a different direction, Dalirrooyfard et al.~\cite{dalirrooyfard2019graph} design various reductions from \(k\)-Clique to \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, among other results. They also present results on the detection of induced subgraphs (we focus on non-induced subgraphs).
For the weighted variant of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, lower bounds under the \textsc{$k$-Sum} hypothesis for stars, paths, cycles and some other pattern graphs
are presented in~\cite{abboud2013exact}.
Edge-weighted triangle detection has a by-now classic $O(n^{3-\varepsilon})$ lower bound under both the \textsc{3Sum} hypothesis and the \textsc{APSP} hypothesis~\cite{abboud2018matching}. On the other hand, in~\cite{abboud2014losing}, it is proven that finding node-weighted $k$-cliques can be done almost as quickly as finding unweighted $k$-cliques. We are not aware of any results on the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem when $W$ may appear in the running time (i.e.\ a pseudopolynomial-time algorithm), which is what we focus on here.
In our work, we pose no restrictions on the host graph $G$.
For an extensive classification of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} with respect to various parameters of both $G$ and $H$, see~\cite{marx2013everything}.
\subsection{Hardness Assumptions}
The most standard hypothesis from fine-grained complexity theory is the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH)~\cite{impagliazzo2001complexity}, which postulates that for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $k \geq 3$ such that $k$-\textsc{Sat} on $n$ variables cannot be solved in time $O^*(2^{(1-\varepsilon)n})$.
More recent is the Hyperclique hypothesis. In the \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem, for a given \(h\)-uniform hypergraph we want to decide whether there exist a set of \(k\) vertices such that every size-\(h\) subset of these vertices forms a hyperedge. For any $k>3$, the 3-uniform $k$-Hyperclique hypothesis postulates that this problem cannot be solved in time $O(n^{k-\varepsilon})$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. This hypothesis has also been formulated when replacing 3 with any $h < k$, getting progressively more believable with larger $h$. For a more in-depth discussion of the believability of this hypothesis we refer to~\cite[Section 7]{lincoln2018tight}.
Note that we will also use the $h$-uniform Hyperclique hypothesis for various $h$, which is simply the conjecture that the $h$-uniform $k$-Hyperclique hypothesis is true for all $k>h$.
Related to this is the $k$-Clique conjecture, which postulates that the $k$-Clique problem (which is the 2-uniform $k$-Hyperclique problem) cannot be solved in time $O(n^{\omega k /3 - \varepsilon})$ for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, where $\omega < 2.373$~\cite{le2014powers} is the exponent of matrix multiplication.
\subsection{Our Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subparagraph*{Unweighted Subgraph Isomorphism with Bounded Treewidth}
First, consider the case of the unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem for bounded-treewidth pattern graphs \(H\). As was said, and as we will re-prove with a unified algorithm later, this problem has an algorithm running in time \(\widetilde{O}(n^{\tw(H)+1})\) for \(\tw(H) \geq 3\). We show tight conditional lower bounds by proving the following obstacles to faster algorithms, which use the \(k\)-clique hypothesis and the \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-hyperclique hypothesis. Note that when we say, for some \(x\), that an algorithm has running time \(O(n^{x-\varepsilon})\), what we mean is that the algorithm runs in time \(O(n^{x-\varepsilon})\) for some constant \(\varepsilon > 0\).
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-lower-bound-detection}
The following statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each \(t\geq 3\) and each \(3\leq h \leq t\), there exists a connected, bipartite pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) unless the \(h\)-uniform \(h(t+1)\)-hyperclique hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t\geq 2\) and each \(h \geq 3\), there exists a connected, bipartite pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) in time \(O(n^{t-\varepsilon})\) unless the \(h\)-uniform \(ht\)-hyperclique hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t \geq 2\), there exists a connected, bipartite pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t}\) in time \(O(n^{(t+1)\omega/3-\varepsilon})\) unless the \((t+1)\)-\textsc{Clique} hypothesis fails.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Indeed, with the very same reduction, we also get an obstacle from SETH. However, the lower bound it provides is not as tight as the above, and in the case of the second part does not work for each target treewidth \(t\).
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-lower-bound-detection-seth}
Assuming SETH, the following two statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any \(t\geq 3\) and any \(\varepsilon > 0\) there exists a pattern graph \(\mathcal{H_{t,\varepsilon}}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving all instances of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} with pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\varepsilon}\) in time \(O(n^{t-\varepsilon})\).
\item For any \(\varepsilon > 0\) there exists a \(t\geq 3\) and a pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving all instances of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} with pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon}\) in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
On the algorithmic side, we present an algorithm that achieves matching running times (as listed in theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound} below). As was said, the results in the following theorem are not new. Part 1 was shown via Color-Coding in~\cite{alon1995color} and part 2 follows from techniques in~\cite{curticapean2017homomorphisms}. We unify these two results by providing a single, relatively simple algorithmic technique achieving both, based on $k$-wise matrix products. These techniques are later expanded to also work for the weighted version, where they then achieve new results. In the following, $\omega < 2.373$~\cite{le2014powers} is the exponent of matrix multiplication.
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-upper-bound}
There are algorithms which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G)$ of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} where $H$ has treewidth $\tw(H)$, solve $\phi$ in
\begin{enumerate}
\item time $\widetilde{O}(n^{\tw(H)+1}g(k))$ when $\tw(H)\geq 3$,
\item time $\widetilde{O}(n^\omega g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 2$, and
\item time $\widetilde{O}(n^2g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 1$,
\end{enumerate}
where $k := |V(H)|, n := |V(G)|$ and $g$ is a computable function.
\end{theorem}
\subparagraph*{Semi-Equivalence of Hyperclique and Subgraph Isomorphism}
We also discuss how our results not only show a reduction from \textsc{Hyperclique} to \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} with bounded treewidth, but also in the other direction. For this, we show that calculating the boolean \(k\)-wise matrix products, which is the bottleneck in our algorithm for bounded-treewidth \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, is actually equivalent to the \(k\)-uniform \((k+1)\)-\textsc{Hypergraph} problem. Hence we have a reduction in the second direction. This gives an interesting intuition for why the Hyperclique hypothesis is the ``correct'' conjecture to prove conditional hardness of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} for bounded treewidth.
We remark that this does not lead to a full equivalence of these problems because the uniformity (i.e.\ the size of hyperedges) of the \textsc{Hyperclique} problem we reduce from in the first reduction is much smaller than the size of the hypercliques we search for. Hence we only have a reduction from a \textsc{Hyperclique} instance with small edge uniformity to \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, and a reduction from \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} to \textsc{Hyperclique} instances with large edge uniformity.
\subparagraph*{Weighted Subgraph Isomorphism with Bounded Treewidth}
Now consider the weighted version of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} for bounded-treewidth graphs \(H\). Recall that the weighted version can be either node- or edge-weighted and is defined such that the weights in the solution subgraph must have total weight zero. A trivial dynamic programming algorithm on the tree decomposition achieves a running time of \(\widetilde{O}(n^{\tw(H)+1} \cdot W\log W)\) for \(\tw(H) \geq 3\).
Note that these results show conditional lower bounds even when the maximum weight is restricted to \(W=\Theta(n^{\gamma})\), for any constant \(\gamma > 0\).
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-lower-bound-weighted}
For both the node- and edge weighted variant of the problems, the following statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each \(t \geq 3\), each \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\) and each \(3\leq h \leq t\), there exists a connected, bipartite graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) for instances with maximum weight \(W = \Theta(n^{\gamma})\) in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon}W)\), unless the \(h\)-uniform Hyperclique hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t\geq 1\), each \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\) and each \(h \geq 3\), there exists a connected, bipartite graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) for instances with maximum weight \(W = \Theta(n^{\gamma})\) in time \(O(n^{t-\varepsilon}W)\), unless the \(h\)-uniform Hyperclique hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t\geq 1\) and each \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\), there exists a connected, bipartite graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\gamma}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\gamma}\) for instances with maximum weight \(W=\Theta(n^{\gamma})\) in time \(O(n^{(t+1)\omega/3-\varepsilon}W^{\omega/3})\), unless the \textsc{Clique} hypothesis fails.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Similar lower bounds also hold when trying to reduce the exponent of \(W\) instead of \(n\). Meaning there is also no algorithm of running time \(O(n^{t+1}W^{1-\varepsilon})\) in part 1, etc.
On the algorithmic side, we present an algorithm that achieves matching running times for \(\tw(H) \geq 3\), and almost matching running times for \(\tw(H) = 1,2\). Note that in terms of exponents, the first algorithm below is not better than the naive one with running time \(O(n^{\tw+1}W\log W)\). However, it avoids a factor of \(\log W\) in the largest term, and instead appends it to a smaller term, so in a way it presents an improvement of \(\log W\) in the running time. Specifically, we show
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-upper-bound-weighted}
There are algorithms which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,w)$ of the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem where $H$ has treewidth $\tw(H)$, solve $\phi$ in
\begin{enumerate}
\item time $\widetilde{O}((n^{\tw(H)+1}W + n^{\tw(H)}W\log W)g(k))$ when $\tw(H) \geq 3$,
\item time $\widetilde{O}((n^\omega W + n^2W\log W)g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 2$, or
\item time $\widetilde{O}((n^2W + nW \log W)g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 1$,
\end{enumerate}
where $n := |V(G)|, k := |V(H)|$, $g$ is a computable function, and $W$ is the maximum absolute weight in the image of $w$.
\end{theorem}
Comparing these upper bounds with the lower bounds from Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted}, we have a tight lower bound for the weighted case with $\tw(H) \geq 3$. For weighted $\tw(H) = 2$, we have a lower bound which is tight except for the exponent of $\omega/3$ to $W$; it is unclear whether this can be strengthened. The lower bound for weighted graphs with $\tw(H) = 1$ is obviously not tight: We have an upper bound of \(\widetilde{O}(n^2W + nW\log W)\), but our lower bounds only states that it requires time \(O(n^{1-o(1)}W^{1-o(1)})\) and \(O(n^{2\omega/3-o(1)}W^{\omega/3-o(1)})\). Tighter lower bounds for this case remain an important open problem.
\subparagraph*{Unweighted Subgraph Isomorphism with Bounded Pathwidth}
So far we have only looked at the case of bounded treewidth. However, similar results hold for the case of bounded pathwidth. Let us start with the unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem.
Note that we do not get any lower bounds for the current setting. This is because we prove all our lower bounds by showing an equivalence of the standard Subgraph Isomorphism problem to a colored variant (see also Section~\ref{sec:equivalence-statement}), and then proving a lower bound for the colored version. We do not know how to prove such an equivalence for the current setting, therefore we do not get lower bounds in this case; we leave this as an open problem.
Since a path decomposition is always also a tree decomposition, we trivially get upper bounds as in theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound} (when replacing treewidth by pathwidth). However, we can do better by using rectangular matrix multiplication to speed up the computation. For $z \in \mathbb{R}^+$, let $\omega(z)$ be the smallest real number such that multiplying a $n\times n$ matrix with a $n\times n^z$ matrix can be done in time $O(n^{\omega(z)})$, see Section~\ref{sec:algo-col-subiso-bounded-pathwidth} for discussion of this value. We prove the following upper bounds.
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}
There are algorithms which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G)$ of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} where $H$ has pathwidth $p$, solve $\phi$ in
\begin{enumerate}
\item time $\widetilde{O}(n^{\omega(p-1)}g(k))$ when $p\geq 2$, and
\item time $\widetilde{O}(n^2g(k))$ when $p=1$
\end{enumerate}
where $k := |V(H)|$ and $n := |V(G)|$.
\end{theorem}
We certainly have \(p \leq \omega(p-1) < p+1\), so these results represent only a minor improvement, which is nonetheless important because it ``beats'' the lower bound for treewidth. Hence the lower bound for pathwidth cannot be the same as for treewidth.
\subparagraph{Weighted Subgraph Isomorphism with Bounded Pathwidth}
We also analyze the bounded-pathwidth pattern graph version of \textsc{Weighted Subgraph Isomorphism}. Specifically, we get the following lower bound.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted} for pathwidth]\label{corollary-lower-bound-weighted-pathwidth}
Parts 2 and 3 of Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted} also hold when replacing the treewidth \(t\) by the pathwidth \(p\). Part 1 does not hold.
\end{theorem}
And on the algorithmic side, we can again use rectangular matrix multiplication to improve on the algorithms from the case of bounded treewidth. Specifically, we get:
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-upper-bound-weighted-pathwidth}
There are algorithms which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,w)$ of the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, solve $\phi$ in
\begin{enumerate}
\item time $\widetilde{O}((n^{\omega(\pw(H)-1)}W + n^{\pw(H)}W\log W)g(k))$ when $\pw(H) \geq 2$,
\item time $\widetilde{O}((n^2 W + nW\log W)g(k))$ when $\pw(H) = 1$
\end{enumerate}
where $n := |V(G)|, k := |V(H)|$, and $W$ is the maximum absolute weight in the image of $w$.
\end{theorem}
For $\pw(H) \geq 3$, the lower bounds are therefore obviously not tight (at least for current algorithms), unless significant advances in matrix multiplication techniques are made. For $\pw(H) = 1,2$, the situation is the same as with treewidth, see the discussion of Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted}.
\subparagraph{Improvements to Special Cases of Weighted Subgraph Isomorphism}
It is natural to think that the exponents $\frac{\omega}{3}$ to $W$ in the lower bounds of Theorems~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted} and~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted-pathwidth} are only artefacts of the reduction, and that with more advanced methods, this exponent can be improved to 1. However, the following two theorems show that this notion is false for \(\tw(H) = 1\) and \(\pw(H) = 1,2\), at least when considering the node-weighted case. Indeed, for \(\tw(H) = 1\) (or \(\pw(H) = 1\)) and \(W = n\), these bounds are tight, so further general improvements on the exponent are impossible.
Specifically, Theorems~\ref{corollary-node-weighted-algo-trees} and~\ref{corollary-node-weighted-algo-pathwidth} show the following improvements of the algorithms from Theorems~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted} and~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted-pathwidth} for small tree- or pathwidth. Let $\MM(n,n,x)$ be the time in which a $n\times n$ matrix can be multiplied with with a $n\times x$ matrix.
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-node-weighted-algo-trees}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,w)$ of the node-weighted \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem where $H$ is a tree, solves $\phi$ in time $\widetilde{O}((\MM(n,n,W) + nW\log W)g(k))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{corollary-node-weighted-algo-pathwidth}
There is an algorithms which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,w)$ of the node-weighted \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, solves $\phi$ in time $\widetilde{O}(\MM(n,n,n^{\pw(H)-1}W)g(k))$.
\end{theorem}
For $W = O(n^\gamma)$, the running time of Theorem~\ref{corollary-node-weighted-algo-trees} is $\widetilde{O}(n^{\omega(\gamma)}\poly(k))$. Using results from~\cite{gall2018improved}(discussed further in section~\ref{sec:algo-col-subiso-bounded-pathwidth}), this implies several interesting facts. First, for $\gamma < 0.31$, the node-weighted problem on trees can be solved in time $\widetilde{O}(n^2\poly(k))$, meaning it can be solved in the same running time as the unweighted case. In particular, this applies to $W = \polylog(n)$ or $W = O(\sqrt[4]{n})$.
Second, for arbitrary $\gamma$ we now have a running time of $\widetilde{O}(n^{\omega(\gamma) - \gamma}W\poly(k))$. Trivially, for any $\gamma > 0$, $\omega(\gamma) - \gamma < 2$. Indeed, for $\gamma \geq 5$ we have $\omega(\gamma) - \gamma < 1.16$ by~\cite{gall2018improved}. This shows that for node weighted trees, there cannot be a lower bound of $n^{1.16}W$, let alone $n^2W$. Indeed, it is known that $\lim_{\gamma \to \infty}\omega(\gamma) - \gamma = 1$~\cite{coppersmith1982rapid}, which implies that when restricting to instances where \(W=\Theta(n^\gamma)\), there cannot be a lower bound of $n^{1+\varepsilon}W$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$ that holds for any constant \(\gamma>0\). Similar results hold for bounded-pathwidth graphs.
\paragraph*{Structure of the Paper}
We begin by giving a simplified view of our two main proofs in Section~\ref{section-sketches}. We then give formal definitions of key concepts in Section~\ref{section-preliminaries} before diving into the full proofs. In Section~\ref{section-hardness}, we prove all lower bounds. In Section~\ref{section-algos}, we prove all upper bounds, including improved algorithms for node-weighted graphs. In Section~\ref{sec:interconnections}, we prove the semi-equivalence between \textsc{Hyperclique} and \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} on bounded treewidth graphs. Finally, in Section~\ref{section-equivalence}, we prove the equivalences between the colored and uncolored problems which we use throughout the paper. We conclude by stating several important open problems in Section~\ref{sec:open-problems}.
\section{Technical Overview of Our Main Results}\label{section-sketches}
We now give proof sketches of our two main lower bound results to present the main ideas of the proofs without giving too much detail. The full details are available in Section~\ref{section-hardness}.
\subsection{Lower Bound for Subgraph Isomorphism}
Our main result is the existence of the hard pattern graphs for bounded-treewidth \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}. We now prove their existence for treewidth at least 3 under the Hyperclique hypothesis, i.e.~part 1 of Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-detection}.
The exact statement we prove is that for each $t\geq 3$ and each $3\leq h \leq t$, there exists a pattern graph of treewidth $t$ such that \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} cannot be solved in time $O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})$ on that pattern graph unless the $h$-uniform $h(t+1)$-hyperclique hypothesis fails. Note that the proof actually shows this for the colored variant of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, after which we can use Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv} to transfer the lower bound to the uncolored problem.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{1}{
\tikzstyle{every picture}=[tikzfig]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}
\node [style=Rnodes] (1) at (-19.5, -8) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (2) at (-23.25, -8.25) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (3) at (-22.75, -9.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (4) at (-20, -10.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (5) at (-21.5, -6.75) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (6) at (-16.5, -4.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (7) at (-25.75, -3.75) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (8) at (-22, -14.75) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (9) at (-25.5, -12.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (10) at (-26.75, -8.5) {};
\node [style=none] (12) at (-22, -8.75) {\textcolor{red}{$A$}};
\node [style=none] (13) at (-26.5, -11) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,128; blue,0}{$B$}};
\node [style=none] (14) at (-26.25, -6) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,128; blue,0}{\reflectbox{$\vdots$}}};
\node [style=none] (15) at (-24, -13.75) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,128; blue,0}{$\ddots$}};
\node [style=Hollow Hnode] (18) at (-9.25, -7.25) {};
\node [style=Gnode] (19) at (-8.75, -6.5) {};
\node [style=Gnode] (20) at (-10, -6.75) {};
\node [style=Gnode] (21) at (-9.75, -8) {};
\node [style=Gnode] (22) at (-8.5, -7.5) {};
\node [style=light hollow Hnode] (23) at (-12.75, -14) {};
\node [style=Gnode R] (24) at (-13.25, -14.5) {};
\node [style=Gnode R] (25) at (-12.25, -13.25) {};
\node [style=Gnode R] (26) at (-13.25, -13.25) {};
\node [style=Gnode R] (27) at (-11.75, -14.25) {};
\node [style=text node] (28) at (-2.5, -3.25) {\Large{Corresponds to a choice of one vertex from each of the $h$ partitions}};
\node [style=text node] (29) at (-6, -15) {\Large{Corresponds to a hyperedge}};
\node [style=text node] (30) at (-12.75, -1.5) {\Large{Corresponds to $h$ vertex partitions of the hyperclique instance}};
\node [style=text node] (31) at (-6.25, -17.75) {\Large{Corresponds to the set of hyperedges between its $h$ defining vertex partitions}};
\node [style=text node] (32) at (-2.25, -10) {\Large{The edge exists if and only if the endpoints are compatible, i.e.\ if for each hyperedge partition that involves both endpoints, the vertex choice on one end agrees with the vertex of the hyperedge on the other}};
\node [style=none] (33) at (-14.25, -2.75) {};
\node [style=none] (34) at (-4.25, -4.75) {};
\node [style=none] (35) at (-9.5, -17) {};
\node [style=none] (36) at (-6.75, -14.25) {};
\node [style=none] (37) at (-10.1, -10) {};
\node [style=none] (38) at (-5.5, -10) {};
\node [style=none] (39) at (-20.25, -9.75) {};
\node [style=none] (40) at (-19.25, -10.25) {};
\node [style=none] (41) at (-21.75, -15.5) {};
\node [style=none] (42) at (-22.75, -15) {};
\node [style=none] (43) at (-6, -6) {};
\node [style=none] (44) at (-10, -4) {};
\node [style=none] (45) at (-12, -17) {};
\node [style=none] (47) at (-16, -15) {};
\node [style=none] (48) at (-16, -15) {};
\node [style=center node] (49) at (-21, -8.5) {};
\node [style=none] (50) at (-20.5, -3.25) {\textcolor{orange}{pattern graph $H$}};
\node [style=none] (51) at (-8.25, -3.25) {\textcolor{blue}{host graph $G$}};
\node [style=none] (52) at (-12.25, -8) {};
\end{pgfonlayer}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left=15] (1) to (6);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (1) to (6);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left=15] (5) to (6);
\draw [style=R-edge] (5) to (7);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right] (5) to (7);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left] (5) to (7);
\draw [style=R-edge] (4) to (8);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left=15] (5) to (8);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (3) to (8);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right] (9) to (4);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left=15] (9) to (3);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (9) to (1);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (10) to (4);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left] (10) to (1);
\draw [style=R-edge] (10) to (2);
\draw [style=Gedge] (22) to (25);
\draw [style=description, bend right] (33.center) to (18);
\draw [style=description, bend left=15] (34.center) to (22);
\draw [style=description, bend left=15, looseness=0.75] (35.center) to (23);
\draw [style=description, bend right=15] (36.center) to (25);
\draw [style=description, bend left=15] (38.center) to (37.center);
\draw (39.center) to (42.center);
\draw (41.center) to (40.center);
\draw (42.center) to (41.center);
\draw (39.center) to (40.center);
\draw (43.center) to (45.center);
\draw (45.center) to (47.center);
\draw (47.center) to (44.center);
\draw (44.center) to (43.center);
\draw [style=dashedline2] (41.center) to (45.center);
\draw [style=dashedline2] (39.center) to (44.center);
\draw [style=dashedline2] (42.center) to (48.center);
\draw [style=dashedline2] (40.center) to (52.center);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{A sketch of the reduction we use to prove part 1 of Theorem~\protect{\ref{corollary-lower-bound-detection}} where $h = 3$ and $t = 4$. Note that this is only a partial sketch of the pattern graph. We use multiedges to signify that for the endpoints $a\in A$ and $b = ((a_1, j_1), \ldots, (a_h,j_h)) \in B$ there exists more than one $\ell$ such that $a = a_\ell$.}
\label{fig:main-proof}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch] See Figure~\ref{fig:main-proof} for a sketch of the reduction. Let $t\geq 3$ and $3\leq h \leq t$ be given and assume that \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} can be solved in time $O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})$ on pattern graphs of treewidth $t$. We show that the $h$-uniform $h(t+1)$-hyperclique hypothesis fails.
\begin{description}
\item [Construction of H] We construct a pattern graph $H$ as a bipartite graph with vertex set $A \cup B$ as follows. Writing $[c] := \{1,\ldots, c\}$, we set $A := [t+1]$ and $B := {A \times [h] \choose h}$. We connect a vertex $b = ((a_1,j_1),..,(a_h,j_h))$ in $B$ to a vertex $a$ in $A$ if $a = a_\ell$ for some $\ell$. Set $k := |A|+|B|$.
We show that this pattern has a treewidth of $t$, via a well-known characterization of treewidth as a graph-theoretic game: A graph $F$ has treewidth $\leq t$ if and only if $t+1$ cops can catch\footnote{The game works as follows: The $k+1$ cops select their starting vertices in the graph. Then the robber may choose their starting vertex. The cops can always see the robber and adapt their strategy accordingly. Similarly, the robber can see the cops. The game now proceeds in steps, where in each step, one of the cops chooses an arbitrary destination vertex and takes off via helicopter in the direction of that vertex. While the cop is travelling, the robber sees where they will land and may now move arbitrarily along edges of the graph, as long as they do not pass through stationary cops. When the robber has finished moving, the cop lands. The cops win if and only if they are guaranteed to catch the robber after a finite number of moves, and lose otherwise.} a robber on $F$~\cite{seymour1993graph}. To show the bound on the treewidth of $H$, initially place a cop on each vertex of $A$. No matter on which vertex of $B$ the robber starts, they are surrounded by cops. Since every vertex in $B$ has $h \leq t < t+1$ neighbors in $A$, there must exist some cop which is not adjacent to the robber, so this cop can catch the robber in a single step. This concludes the proof that the pattern graph $H$ has treewidth $t$.
\item[Construction of G] Now given a $h(t+1)$-partite hypergraph $H'$, i.e.~an instance of the $h$-uniform $k'$-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem for $k':=h(t+1)$, we write the vertex set of $H'$ as $U_{1,1} \cup \ldots \cup U_{1,h} \cup \ldots \cup U_{t+1,1} \cup \ldots \cup U_{t+1,h}$. Let $N_H$ be the number of vertices vertices in each partition and $n_H = O(N_H)$ the number of vertices overall.
We construct a $k$-partite graph $G$ as follows. For $a$ in $A$ we set $V_a := U_{a,1} \times \ldots \times U_{a,h}$. For $b = ((a_1,j_1),..,(a_h,j_h))$ in $B$, we set $V_b := E(H') \cap (U_{a_1,j_1} \times \ldots \times U_{a_h,j_h})$. This describes the $k$ parts of the $k$-partite vertex set $V(G)$. Note that each part has size at most $N_G:= N_H^h$. Now we construct the edges. For any $a$ in $A$ and $b = ((a_1,j_1),..,(a_h,j_h))$ in $B$ with $(a,b)$ in $E(H)$, consider an arbitrary $u = (u_1,..,u_h)$ in $V_a$ and $u' = (u'_1,...,u'_h)$ in $V_b$. We say that $u$ and $u'$ are "compatible" if for every $\ell$ with $a_\ell = a$ we have $u'_\ell$ = $u_{j_\ell}$; in this case we connect $u$ and $u'$ by an edge. This finishes the construction of $G$.
\item[Correctness] Note that any colored subgraph isomorphism of $H$ in $G$ chooses vertices $v_a$ in $V_a$ for all $a$ in $A$. This corresponds to choosing vertices $u_{i,j}$ in $U_{i,j}$ for all $i$ in $[t+1]$, Moreover, the edges of a $h(t+1)$-hyperclique are in one-to-one correspondence with the set $B$. Since for each $b$ in $B$ the colored subgraph isomorphism of $H$ in $G$ needs to choose a vertex $v_b$ in $V_b$, which corresponds to an edge between certain vertices $u_{i,j}$, we indeed check that the chosen vertices $u_{i,j}$ form an $h$-uniform $h(t+1)$-hyperclique.
\item[Running Time] Trivially, the construction time and output size are $O(N_H^{2h})$ (actually, it is slightly better, but this is not important in this proof sketch), and $G$ has $n = O(N_G) = O(N_H^h)$ vertices. Now if we can solve \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} in time $O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})$, we solve the $h$-uniform $h(t+1)$-\textsc{Hyperclique} instance in time $O(N_H^{2h} + (N_H^h)^{t+1-\varepsilon}) = O(N_H^{h(t+1)-h\varepsilon}) = O(N_H^{h(t+1) - \varepsilon'}) = O(n_H^{h(t+1) - \varepsilon'})$.
\end{description}
\end{proof}
This shows part 1 of Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-detection}. Part 2 can be shown by the almost the exact same proof, except that now we choose the size of $A$ to be $t$ instead of $t+1$, and we start with an $ht$-hyperclique instead of an $h(t+1)$-hyperclique. It can be seen that in this case, the pattern graph still has treewidth $t$. The third part of the theorem can be seen by simply taking an instance of $(t+1)$-\textsc{Clique} and subdividing the edges in the obvious way to make the graph bipartite.
Let us also quickly mention how the proof of the slightly weaker bounds under SETH, i.e.~Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-detection-seth}, works. The split-and-list technique from~\cite{williams2005new} allows one to reduce the Satisfiability problem to \textsc{Hyperclique}. Using this technique, the following result was shown in~\cite[Lemma 9.1]{lincoln2018tight}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{lincoln2018tight}]\label{seth-to-hyperclique}
Assuming SETH, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $h\geq3$ such that for all $k>h$, the $h$-uniform $k$-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem is not in time $O(n^{k-\varepsilon})$.
\end{lemma}
The SETH result now follows by using essentially the same reduction as above, but we prefix it by the reduction from \textsc{SAT} to \textsc{Hyperclique}.
\subsection{Lower Bound for Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}
We also give lower bounds for the exact weight variant of the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem. In particular, we prove the existence of hard pattern graphs for the bounded-treewidth \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem for any polynomial weight bound. We give this result for any treewidth which is at least 3, and under the Hyperclique hypothesis. This is part 1 of Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted}.
The exact statement we prove is that for each $t \geq 3$, $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+$ and $3\leq h \leq t$, there exists a pattern graph of treewidth $t$ such that \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} with maximum weight $W = \Theta(n^\gamma)$ cannot be solved in time $O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon}W)$ unless the $h$-uniform Hyperclique hypothesis fails. Again, we show this statement for the colored problem and transfer the lower bound via Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}.
To do this, we will encode part of a hyperclique instance in the edges of the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, and the rest of the instance in the weights. To do the latter, we need to encode certain equality constraints only via weights. This can be done using so-called $k$-average free sets\footnote{These $k$-average-free sets are a tool which are very useful for weighted problems, especially when they have additive elements. Such problems include \textsc{$k$-sum}, \textsc{Subset Sum}, \textsc{Bin Packing}, various scheduling problems, \textsc{Tree Partitioning}, \textsc{Max-Cut}, \textsc{Maximum/Minimum Bisection}, a \textsc{Dominating Set} variant with capacities, and similar~\cite{abboud2019seth, abboud2020scheduling, abboud2014losing, an2017complexity, fomin2014almost, jansen2013bin, dudek2020all}. Other uses of $k$-average-free sets in computer science include constructions in extremal graph theory, see e.g.~\cite{abboud20174, abboud2018hierarchy, alon2002testing}.}, which we define below.
\begin{definition}[$k$-average free sets]
A set $S\subseteq \mathbb{Z}$ is called $k$-average-free if, for any $s_1, \ldots, s_{k'+1} \in S$ with $k' \leq k$, we have $s_1+ \ldots + s_{k'} = k'\cdot s_{k'+1}$ if and only if $s_1 = \ldots = s_{k'+1}$. In other words, the average of $s_1, \ldots, s_{k'}\in S$ is in $S$ if and only if all $s_i$ are equal. \end{definition}
We use the following construction for $k$-average free sets, originally proven in~\cite{behrend1946sets}, modified into a more useful version in~\cite{abboud2014losing} and formulated in this form in~\cite{abboud2019seth}.
\begin{lemma}\label{k-average-free-lemma}
There exists a universal constant $c > 0$ such that, for all constants $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$ and $k \geq 2$, a $k$-average-free set $S$ of size $n$ with $S \subseteq [0, k^{c/\varepsilon}n^{1+\varepsilon}]$ can be constructed in time $\poly(n)$.
\end{lemma}
Let us now prove the statement about \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}. We will construct an instance that is node-weighted, however this can easily be converted into an edge-weighted version by moving the weight of each vertex to all of its incident edges.
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Let $t \geq 3$, $3 \leq h \leq t$ and $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ be given and assume that \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} can be solved in time $O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon}W)$ on instances where the pattern graph has treewidth $t$ and all weights are bounded by $W = \Theta(n^\gamma)$. We show that the $h$-uniform $k$-hyperclique hypothesis fails for some large enough $k$.
\begin{description}
\item[Construction of H] We construct a pattern graph $H$ as a graph with vertex set $(A_1 \cup A_2) \cup B$ as follows. We set $A_1 := [t+1]$, $A_2 := [r]$ (for some $r$ large enough) and $B := {{(A_1 \cup A_2) \times [h]} \choose h}$. We connect a vertex $b = ((a_1, j_1), \ldots, (a_h, j_h))$ in $B$ to a vertex $a$ in $A_1$ (not in $A_2$) if $a = a_\ell$ for some $\ell$. Set $k := |A_1| + |A_2| + |B|$. By almost the same proof as in the unweighted version, it can be shown that this pattern $H$ has treewidth $t$.
\item[Grouping partitions] Now let an instance of the $h$-uniform $k'$-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem be given, and write the vertex set of $H'$ as $U_1 \cup \ldots \cup U_k$. Let $N_H$ be the number of vertices vertices in each partition and $n_H = O(N_H)$ the number of vertices overall.
We construct the $k$-partite graph $G$ with at most some number $N_G$ of vertices in each partition as follows. We will encode a $\beta$-fraction of the \textsc{Hyperclique} instance in the weights of the final \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} instance, and a $(1-\beta)$-fraction in the edges, for some $\beta$ chosen appropriately. To do this, we will choose $\beta$ such that $\frac{\beta k'}{hr}, \frac{(1-\beta) k'}{h(t+1)} \in \mathbb{N}$ and then group the sets $U_1, \ldots, U_{\beta k'}$ into $hr$ groups and the sets $U_{\beta k' +1}, \ldots, U_{k'}$ into $h(t+1)$ groups. Specifically, for each $(x,y) \in [r]\times [h]$, we create the set $U^1_{x,y} = U_{(xr + y - 1)\frac{\beta k'}{hr}+1} \times \ldots \times U_{(xr + y)\frac{\beta k'}{hr}}$, and for each $(x,y) \in [t+1]\times [h]$, we create the set $U^2_{x,y} = U_{\beta k' + (x(t+1) + y - 1)\frac{(1-\beta)k'}{h(t+1)}+1} \times \ldots \times U_{\beta k' + (x(t+1) + y)\frac{(1-\beta)k'}{h(t+1)}}$.
\item[Vertices of G] Now for each $a$ in $A_1$ we set $V_{a} := U^1_{a,1} \times \ldots \times U^1_{a, h}$ and for each $a$ in $A_2$ we set $V_{a} := U^2_{a,1} \times \ldots \times U^2_{a,h}$. Finally, for each $b = ((a_1, j_1), \ldots, (a_h, j_h))$ in $B$, where for each $\ell$ we have $a_\ell \in A_{i_\ell}$, we set $V_b := E(H') \cap (U^{i_1}_{a_1, j_1} \times \ldots \times U^{i_h}_{a_h,j_h})$. This describes the $k$ parts of the $k$-partite vertex set $V(G)$. We choose $r$ large enough so that the maximum size of each part is $N_G := N_H^{(1-\beta)k'/(t+1)}$.
\item[Edges of G] Now we construct the edges and weights of the graph. Let us start with the edges. The construction here is basically the same as the construction of the edges in the unweighted proof in the last section. For each $a$ in $A_2$ and $b = ((a_1,j_1), \ldots, (a_h, j_h))$ in $B$ with $(a,b)$ in $E(H)$, consider an arbitrary $u = (u_1, \ldots, u_h)$ in $V_a$ and $u' = (u'_1, \ldots, u'_h)$ in $V_b$. We say that $u$ and $u'$ are ``compatible'' if for every $\ell$ with $a_\ell = a$ we have $u'_\ell = u_{j_\ell}$; in this case we connect $u$ and $u'$ by an edge. This finishes the construction of the edges of $G$.
\item[Weights of G] Now we construct the weights. We want to encode the same edge constraints as we just encoded for $A_2$, but now for $A_1$, and we have to use weights instead of edges. To do this, we use $|B|$-average free sets via the construction of Lemma~\ref{k-average-free-lemma}. We simplify the usage in this shortened proof to avoid dealing with too many variables. We use the lemma to obtain in polynomial time (which we will treat as negligible here) a $|B|$-average free set $S$ of size $N_H^{\beta k' / (hr)}$ such that $S \subseteq [0, C]$, where $C \approx O(N_H^{\beta k' /(hr)})$ (up to a factor of $(1 + \varepsilon)$ in the exponent, but we will ignore this here for simplicity). From this, we can construct an arbitrary bijection $\varrho_S: [N_H^{\beta k'/(hr)}] \to S$.
To simplify our construction, we specify a target weight $T$ (instead of the default target zero). We can easily get rid of this again later by subtracting $T$ from the weights of all vertices of some set of the partition. The binary representation of $T$ consists of $hr$ blocks of $\lceil 2|B|C \rceil$ bits, indexed by pairs $(i,j) \in [r]\times [h]$, each containing the binary representation of $|B|C$. The block $(i,j)$ represents the group $U^1_{i,j}$. The size of the blocks is large enough to prevent overflow between the blocks. Note that the maximum weight $W$ now satisfies $\log_2(W) = \Theta(hr\log_2(2|B|C))$ and hence $W \approx O(N_H^{\beta k'})$.
Let us now actually specify the weights of the vertices, beginning with the vertices in $V_a$ for $a\in A_1$. For each $(i,j) \in [r]\times [h]$, we relabel the elements of each $U^1_{i,j}$ as $\{1, \ldots, N_H^{\beta k'/(hr)}\}$. Now we define the weight of the vertex $V_a \ni u = (u_1, \ldots, u_h)$ to have, for each $i \in [h]$, the value $|B|C - |N(a)|\cdot \varrho_S(u_i)$ in the block $(a,i)$ of its binary representation. Now we move on to the vertices in $V_b$ for $b = ((a_1, j_1), \ldots, (a_h, j_h))$. We define the weight of the vertex $V_b \ni u' = (u'_1, \ldots, u'_h)$ to have, for each $i \in [h]$ such that $a_i \in A_1$, the value $\varrho_S(u'_i)$ in the block $(a_i, j_i)$ of its binary representation.
All blocks and vertices which have not been assigned a weight yet are assigned a value of zero. This concludes the construction of $G$.
\item[Correctness] Note that any colored subgraph isomorphism of $H$ in $G$ chooses vertices $v_a$ in $V_a$ for all $a$ in $A_1\cup A_2$. This corresponds to choosing vertices $u_i$ in $U_i$ for each $i \in [k']$. Moreover, the edges of a $k'$-hyperclique are in one-to-one correspondence with the set $B$. We simply need to show that the choice of hyperclique vertices induced by the choice of vertices in $A_1 \cup A_2$ agrees with the choice of hyperclique edges induced by the choice of vertices in $B$. For the vertices in $A_2$, this is easily seen to be ensured by the edges. For the vertices in $A_1$, we need to prove that the weights encode the same constraint. This, however, is simply the definition of a $|B|$-average free set: Consider the block $(i,j)$ (where $(i,j) \in [r]\times [h]$) in the binary representation of the total weight of the subgraph. Suppose that for $i \in A_1$ the vertex $V_i \ni u = (u_1, \ldots, u_h)$ was selected, and that for each $B \ni b = ((a_1,j_1), \ldots, (a_h, j_h))$ with $\exists \ell: (a_\ell, j_\ell) = (i,j)$ the vertex $V_b \ni u' = (u'_1, \ldots, u'_h)$ was selected. Then by construction, the total value in the block $(i,j)$ is the value $|B|C - |N(i)|\varrho_S(u_j)$ (where $N(i)$ is the neighbourhood of $i \in A_1$), plus the value $\varrho_S(u'_\ell)$ for all $b$ as above. Note that the latter term has exactly $|N(i)|$ summands, hence in order for the value in the block to be equal to $|B|C$ as specified by the target weight, we must have that the value of $\varrho_S(u_j)$ is equal to the value of each of the $\varrho_S(u'_\ell)$ by the definition of $|B|$-average free sets. Since $\varrho_S$ is a bijection, this ensures that the choice of hyperclique vertices in the sets appearing in the Cartesian product defining $U^1_{i,j}$ -- i.e. $U_{(ir + j -1)\frac{beta k'}{hr} + 1}, \ldots, U_{(ir+j)\frac{\beta k'}{hr}}$ -- agree with the choice of hyperclique edges. This is true for all $i,j$ and hence for each $U_\ell$ for $\ell \in [k']$.
The other direction is easy to see via a similar, simpler argument. This concludes the correctness proof.
\item[Running Time] It can be seen that the running time of this reduction is $O(N_H^{2h})$, up to the running time of the algorithm for the construction of the $|B|$-average free set, which we will ignore here for sake of simplicity. Now suppose we can solve \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} in time $O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon}W)$. We use the reduction above to convert a \textsc{Hyperclique} instance with $n_H = O(N_H)$ nodes to an \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} instance where $W \approx \Theta(N_H^{\beta k'})$ and $n = O(N_H^{(1-\beta)k'/(t+1)})$. Choosing $\beta$ carefully, we get $W = \Theta(N_H^\gamma)$; note that we are ignoring some intricacies in the choice of $\beta$ that arise when you consider the running time of the algorithm that constructs the $|B|$-average free set -- the details are available in Section~\ref{section-hardness}. Now via the algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}, we can solve this instance and hence the original \textsc{Hyperclique} problem in time $O(N_H^{2h} + N_H^{((1-\beta)k'/(t+1))(t+1-\varepsilon)} \cdot N_H^{\beta k'}) = O(N_H^{k'-\varepsilon'}) = O(n_H^{k'-\varepsilon'})$.
\end{description}
\end{proof}
It is easy to see that the same proof also rules out algorithms running in time $O(n^{t+1}W^{1-\varepsilon})$. Similar as with the proof for the unweighted problem, basically the same techniques can be used to prove the other parts of Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted}.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{section-preliminaries}
\subsection{General Notation and Nomenclature}\label{notation-and-nomenclature-general}
We denote by $\mathbb{N}$ the set of positive integers. For $p \in \mathbb{N}$, we use $[p]$ to denote the set $\{1, \ldots, p\}$. For a statement or predicate \(P\), we define the Iverson bracket \([P]\) as 1 if \([P]\) is true, and zero otherwise. To declutter notation that relies heavily on the Iverson bracket, we will often use truth values and 0/1 interchangeably, where true will be indicated by 1 and false by 0.
For a function $f: \mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{B}$ and a set $S \subseteq \mathcal{A}$, we denote with $f|_S: S \to \mathcal{B}$ the function $f$ restricted to $S$. That is, $\forall s \in S: f|_S(s) = f(s)$. Furthermore, for $u \notin \mathcal{A}$ and $v \notin \mathcal{B}$ we define the function extension $(f \cup \{u \mapsto v\}): \mathcal{A} \cup \{u\} \to \mathcal{B} \cup \{v\}$ as
\begin{align*}
(f \cup \{u \mapsto v\})(c) := \begin{cases} v & \text{ if $c = u$} \\ f(c) & \text{ otherwise}\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We use standard notation for graphs. In particular, for a graph $G$, we let $V(G)$ be its set of vertices and $E(G)$ its set of edges. For a set $X \subseteq V(G)$, we denote the induced subgraph by $G[X]$. For a vertex $v \in V(G)$, we denote its neighbourhood as \(N_G(v)\), or as $N(v)$ when \(G\) is clear from context. We denote the treewidth and pathwidth (see Section~\ref{prelim-treewidth}) of $G$ as $\tw(G)$ and $\pw(G)$, respectively. All graphs are, unless otherwise stated, simple, undirected and without self-loops.
We use $\poly(n)$ to denote functions which are upper-bounded by $O(n^c)$ for some \(c \in \mathbb{N}\), and $\polylog(n)$ to denote functions upper-bounded by $O(\log^c(n))$ for some $c \in \mathbb{N}$. In running times, we use $O^*(\cdot)$ to suppress factors that are polynomial in the input size, and \(\widetilde{O}(\cdot)\) to suppress factors that are polylogarithmic in the input size.
In all weighted problems, we assume without further mention that the target weight or maximum absolute weight is at least 1. This is to avoid special cases with the running time.
\subsection{Notation and Nomenclature for Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}\label{notation-and-nomenclature-colsubiso}
We now define some nomenclature for the \textsc{(Exact Weight) Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem.
Not that instead of talking about colors, we will talk about a ``color homomorphism'' \(f\). Specifically, the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} is defined as follows: Given a pattern graph $H$ and a host graph $G$ along with a graph homomorphism $f: V(G) \to V(H)$ , is it possible to pick a set $S$ with exactly one vertex from the preimage of each $v \in V(H)$ such that the subgraph induced by $S$ is isomorphic to $H$? The homomorphism \(f\) simulates the colors, with all the vertices in a preimage of \(f\) being of equal color (which is unique over all preimages). The \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} is defined analogously\footnote{Depending on whether the instance is node-or edge weighted, we require of the solution subgraph that the sum of either its node or its edge weights is zero.}. The weight function is always be denoted by \(w\).
Fix an instance $(G,H,f)$ or $(G,H,f,w)$. $H$ is the pattern graph which is to be found in the large graph $G$ when given color homomorphism $f: V(G) \to V(H)$ and weight function $w$. For a subset $I \subseteq V(H)$, we call a function $R: I \to f^{-1}(I)$ a \textbf{configuration of $I$} if $\forall v \in I: R(v) \in f^{-1}(v)$. We define $\mathcal{Conf}(I) \subseteq (I \to f^{-1}(I))$ to be the set of configurations of $I$. A configuration of $I$ is called \textbf{valid configuration} if $\forall uv \in E(H[I]): R(u)R(v) \in E(G)$. Finally, we call a configuration $R$ of $I$ a \textbf{partial solution of $I$ in $J$}, for some $I \subseteq J \subseteq V(H)$, if there is a valid configuration $S$ of $J$ such that $S|_I = R$. We may shorten this to $R$ being a \textbf{partial solution for $J$} if $I$ is clear from context.
For a valid configuration $R$ of $I \subseteq V(H)$, we call $w(R)$ its \textbf{weight}. The exact definition of the weight $w(R)$ depends on whether $G$ is node-weighted or edge-weighted. If $G$ is node-weighted with weight function $w: V(G) \to \mathbb{Z}$, we define $w(R) := \sum_{u \in I} w(f^{-1}(u))$. If it is edge-weighted with weight function $w: E(G) \to \mathbb{Z}$, we define $w(R) := \sum_{uv \in E(H[I])}w(R(u)R(v))$, where it is guaranteed that $R(u)R(v) \in E(G)$ because $R$ is a valid configuration. Furthermore, we say that a partial solution $R$ of $I$ in $J$ \textbf{has an extension of weight $W'$} if there is a valid configuration $S$ of $J$ such that $S|_I = R$ and the nodes (respectively: the edges) of S which are not in $I$ have combined weight $W'$, i.e.\ $w_{ext}(S,R) := w(S) - w(R) = W'$.
For brevity, we further define the following predicates:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ParSol(R;I;J) =$ $R$ is a partial solution of $I$ in $J$
\item $\ParSolE(R;I;J;W) = $ $R$ is a partial solution of $I$ in $J$ with an extension of weight $W$
\item $\ValConf(R;I) =$ $R$ is a valid configuration of $I$
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Equivalence of the Colored and Uncolored Problems}
\label{sec:equivalence-statement}
All mentioned algorithms and conditional lower bounds are shown for the restricted problem of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, where the nodes of $G$ and $H$ are colored with $|V(H)|$ colors and the isomorphism must preserve colors, as also studied in~\cite{marx2007can}. In section~\ref{section-equivalence}, we prove that the standard and the colored variant of \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} can be solved in essentially the same running time in almost all cases. Specifically, we show the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-equiv} Let $\rho$ be any graph parameter.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If there is a $T(n,k,\rho(H))$ time algorithm for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a \(\widetilde{O}(T(k n,k,\rho(H))g(k))\) time algorithm for \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, where $g$ is some computable function.
\item If there is a \(T(n,k,\rho(H),W)\) time algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a \(\widetilde{O}(T(k n, k, \rho(H),W)g(k))\) time algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}, where $g$ is some computable function.
\item Let $\tw(H) \geq 2$. If there is a $T(n,k,\tw(H))$ time algorithm for \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a $O(T(\poly(k)n,\poly(k),\tw(H)) + \poly(k)n^2)$ time algorithm for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}.
\item If there is a $T(n,k,\rho(H),W)$ time algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a $O(T(2n,2k,\rho(H),2^kW) + \poly(k)n^2)$ time algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
This lemma enables us to prove results for \textsc{(Exact Weight) Subgraph Isomorphism} while only talking about the more structured colored variants of the problem.
Regarding treewidth, the only case the above lemma does not cover is how to transform an algorithm for unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} to an algorithm for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} for $\tw(H) = 1$. For our purposes, this is not a problem, since \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} for trees already has a trivial unconditional lower bound of $\Omega(n^2)$, which is tight. Note that for this unconditional lower bound, we must assume that the graph is dense, i.e.\ has \(\Theta(n^2)\) edges.
The lemma also cannot transform algorithms for unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} to algorithms for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} for bounded pathwidth. This means that we cannot show the same lower bounds for the unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem for bounded pathwidth as we can for the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem. This is a shortcoming of the lemma that we could not fix, and hence we leave it as an open problem whether the lower bounds for the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem for bounded pathwidth can even be improved.
\subsection{Treewidth and Pathwidth}\label{prelim-treewidth}
We give a very short introduction to treewidth and pathwidth, and state some auxiliary definitions and notation used throughout the paper. For an thorough introduction to treewidth, pathwidth and their many applications, we refer the reader to~\cite[Chapter 7]{cygan2015parameterized}.
\begin{definition}[Tree Decomposition]
Let $H$ be a graph. A \textbf{tree decomposition} of $H$ is a pair $\mathcal{T} = (T, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T)})$ consisting of a tree $T$ and along with a set of ``bags'' $X_t\subseteq V(H)$, one for each vertex of $T$. It must satisfy the following properties:
\begin{description}
\item[(T1)] $\bigcup_{t \in V(T)} X_t = V(H)$
\item[(T2)] $\forall uv \in E(H): \exists t \in V(T): \{u,v\} \subseteq X_t$
\item[(T3)] $\forall u \in V(H):$ The subgraph induced by $\{t\in V(T) | u \in X_t\}$ is a connected subtree
\end{description}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Treewidth]
Let $\mathcal{T} = (T,\{X_t\}_{t\in V(T)})$ be a tree decomposition of $H$. We define its \textbf{width} to be $max_{t\in V(T)}|X_t|-1$. We define the \textbf{treewidth} of $H$ to be the minimum width of all tree decompositions of $H$ and denote it as $\tw(H)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Path Decomposition]
Let $H$ be a graph. A \textbf{path decomposition} of $H$ is a tree decomposition where $T$ is a path.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Pathwidth]
The \textbf{width} of path decompositions is defined as for tree decompositions. The \textbf{pathwidth} of $H$ is defined to be the minimum width of all path decompositions of $H$, and is denoted as $\pw(H)$.
\end{definition}
A classic algorithm by Bodlaender~\cite{bodlaender1996linear} computes an optimal tree decomposition or path decomposition for an input graph $H$ in time $O(f(|\tw(H)|) |V(H)|)$ for a computable function~$f$. For our purposes, this is almost excessive: For our results, we only need an algorithm which computes an optimal tree decomposition in time $g(|V(H)|)$, for some computable function~$g$.
Clearly, the treewidth of a graph is always smaller than or equal to its pathwidth. It should also be noted that while graphs of treewidth one are exactly the class of tree graphs, graphs of pathwidth one encompass more than just paths. Rather, they are the class of graphs where each connected component is a caterpillar graph, i.e.\ consists of a single path with arbitrarily many degree-one nodes attached at any node of the path~\cite{proskurowski1999classes}. The latter is vital for our conditional lower bounds for pathwidth one.
For a tree or path decomposition with underlying tree $T$ and for $u \in V(T)$, we define $T_u$ to be the subtree rooted at $u$. The \textbf{cone} $V_u$ is then defined to be $V_u := \bigcup_{v \in V(T_u)}X_v$.
\section{Hardness Results}
\label{section-hardness}
\subsection{Twin Water Lilies}
We will obtain our lower bounds by reducing \textsc{hyperclique} instances to (un)weighted \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instances, where the pattern graph \(H\) is of a special form defined below. In other words, the pattern graphs below are the ``maximally hard'' pattern graphs for the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem. See Figure~\ref{fig:twin-water-lily} for an illustration.
\begin{definition}[Twin Water Lily]
For any \(h,s_1,s_2\), we define the graph \(\TWL(h,s_1,s_2)\) as follows and call it a \textbf{\(h\)-wide Twin Water Lily of order \((s_1, s_2)\)}. The vertex set of \(\TWL(h,s_1,s_2)\) consists of two independent sets \(S_1\) and \(S_2\) with \(r_1\) and \(r_2\) vertices, respectively. Additionally, for every size \(h\) subset \(\{(v_1,s_1), \ldots, (v_h,s_h)) \in {(S_1 \cup S_2)\times [h] \choose h}\), it has a vertex \(v\) which is connected to all vertices in \(\{v_1, \ldots, v_h\}\cap S_2\). We define \(P\) to be the set of all such \(v\) created in this way.
Note that \(S_1\) consists only of isolated vertices, and that \(H\) is bipartite.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{
\tikzstyle{every picture}=[tikzfig]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}
\node [style=center node] (0) at (-11.5, 0) {};
\node [style=center node] (1) at (5.25, 0) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (2) at (3.25, 1.25) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (3) at (5.75, 2.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (4) at (5.25, -1.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (5) at (7.5, 0) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (6) at (-13.5, 1.75) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (7) at (-10, 2) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (8) at (-13.25, 0) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (9) at (-11.5, 1.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (10) at (-12.75, -2.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes] (11) at (-9.25, -1.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (12) at (-12, 7) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (13) at (5.75, 7.25) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (14) at (13.75, 0) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (15) at (-2, 3.75) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (16) at (-2.25, -0.25) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (17) at (-17.5, 3.5) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (18) at (-2.25, -4.25) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (19) at (7.25, -6.75) {};
\node [style=Rnodes 2] (20) at (-18.75, -1) {};
\node [style=none] (21) at (5.25, 0) {\textcolor{red}{$S_2$}};
\node [style=none] (22) at (-11.5, 0) {\textcolor{red}{$S_1$}};
\node [style=none] (23) at (4.25, 7.5) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{$P$}};
\node [style=none] (24) at (-2, 5.25) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{$\vdots$}};
\node [style=none] (25) at (-2.25, -6.25) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{$\vdots$}};
\node [style=none] (26) at (11, -4.5) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{\reflectbox{$\ddots$}}};
\node [style=none] (27) at (10.75, 4.5) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{$\ddots$}};
\node [style=none] (28) at (-16, -4.25) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{$\ddots$}};
\node [style=none] (29) at (-15, 5.25) {\textcolor{rgb,255: red,255; green,179; blue,0}{\reflectbox{$\ddots$}}};
\end{pgfonlayer}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend right=15] (12) to (6);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend left=15] (12) to (7);
\draw [style=dashed Redge] (12) to (9);
\draw [style=dashed Redge] (17) to (6);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend right] (17) to (6);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend left] (17) to (6);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend left=15] (20) to (8);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend right=15] (20) to (8);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend right=15] (20) to (10);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend right=15] (11) to (16);
\draw [style=dashed Redge, bend left=15] (11) to (16);
\draw [style=R-edge] (16) to (2);
\draw [style=R-edge] (18) to (4);
\draw [style=R-edge] (18) to (2);
\draw [style=R-edge] (15) to (3);
\draw [style=dashed Redge] (15) to (7);
\draw [style=dashed Redge] (15) to (10);
\draw [style=dashed Redge] (18) to (9);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left] (13) to (3);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right] (13) to (3);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (14) to (5);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left=15] (14) to (4);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (19) to (5);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend left=15] (19) to (2);
\draw [style=R-edge] (19) to (3);
\draw [style=R-edge, bend right=15] (5) to (14);
\draw [style=R-edge] (3) to (13);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Partial sketch of the \(3\)-wide Twin Water Lily of order \((6, 4)\). The dashed edges are not actual edges, they just represent which other vertices are in the set \(\{v_1, \ldots, v_h\}\) of the vertex \(u \in P\) that they are connected to.}
\label{fig:twin-water-lily}
\end{figure}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:treewidth-of-lily}
If a graph \(H\) is a \(h\)-wide Twin Water Lily of order \((s_1,s_2)\), then its treewidth is bounded by
\begin{align*}
\tw(H) \leq \begin{cases} s_2-1 & \text{ if } s_2 > h\\ s_2 & \text{ otherwise}\end{cases}
\end{align*}
and its pathwidth is bounded by $\pw(H) \leq s_2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
There is a very useful characterization of treewidth using a graph-theoretic game: A graph \(G\) has treewidth \(\leq k\) if and only if \(k+1\) cops can catch\footnote{See the corresponding footnote in Section~\ref{section-sketches} for a description of the game.} a visible robber on \(G\)~\cite{seymour1993graph}.
To show the bound on the treewidth of \(H\), simply place the cops on all vertices of \(S_2\). No matter where the robber starts, it is surrounded by cops or is on an isolated vertex. If \(s_2 > h\), then there must exist some cop which is not adjacent to the robber, whom we can use to catch him in a single step. If \(s_2 \leq h\), it is not guaranteed that there is a non-adjacent cop. However, we have an additional cop which can start at any vertex. As soon as the robber is positioned, we use the additional cop to capture them.
A similar characterization exists for pathwidth: A graph \(G\) has pathwidth \(\leq k\) if and only if \(k+1\) cops can catch\footnote{The game can be formulated such that it is the same as the one for treewidth, but the cops simply cannot see the robber and must therefore have a universal strategy for catching him on \(G\). This is also sometimes referred to as the contamination cleansing or infection cleansing game.} an invisible robber on \(G\)~\cite{ellis1994vertex}.
For the pathwidth of \(H\), we again place all cops on the vertices of \(S_2\) and have one left over. We use this cop to go through all vertices not in \(S_2\), one in each step. The robber is always surrounded by the cops in \(S_2\) an hence cannot move, so after going through all vertices with the additional cop, we must have caught him.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Unweighted Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}\label{sec:unweighted-uncol-subiso}
\begin{lemma}[The Unweighted Lemma]\label{lem:unweighted-lemma}
For any \(h\geq 3\) and any \(r\geq 2\), if we can solve \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} with pattern graph \(\TWL(h,0,r)\) in time \(O(N^{r-\varepsilon})\), then we can solve \(h\)-uniform \(hr\)-\textsc{hyperclique} in time \(O(n^{hr-\varepsilon})\).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let an instance \(\mathcal{I}_0 = G_0\) of \(h\)-uniform \(hr\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} be given. We convert this to a \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance with a Twin Water Lily as pattern graph in three steps, each of which we explain in detail below: First, we convert it to a \textsc{Colored \(hr\)-Hyperclique} instance in a standard way. Second, we go from hypercliques to \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} by replacing each hyperedge by an intermediate vertex. Finally, we merge preimages to homogenize preimage sizes.
\begin{description}
\item[\underline{1. Converting to Colored Hyperclique:}]\label{step1-unweighted-lemma} We convert \(\mathcal{I}_0\) to a \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Colored Hyperclique} instance with \(hr\) colors. The converted instance should have a hyperclique where all vertices has different colors if and only if the old instance has a hyperclique. The new instance have the form \(\mathcal{I}_1 = (G_1, f_1)\), where the color homomorphism \(f_1: V(G_1) \to V(C_{hr})\) assigns each vertex of \(G_1\) a vertex in the \(h\)-uniform \(hr\)-hyperclique \(C_{hr}\).
Let \(V(C_{hr}) = \{1,\ldots, hr\}\). For each \(i\), the preimage \(f_1^{-1}(i)\) is a copy of \(V(G_0)\). Let \(g: V(G_1) \to V(G_0)\) be a function between sets that indicates which vertex in \(G_0\) the vertex in \(G_1\) is a copy of. Now for each set \(\{v_1, \ldots, v_h\} \in {V(C_{hr})\choose h}\), we go through all tuples \((w_1, \ldots, w_h) \in f_1^{-1}(v_1)\times \ldots \times f_1^{-1}(v_h)\) and create the edge \(\{w_1, \ldots, w_h\} \in E(G_1)\) if and only if \(\{g(w_1), \ldots, g(w_h)\} \in E(G_0)\).
The correctness of this construction is easy to see.
\item[\underline{2. Representing Hyperedges by Intermediate Vertices:}]\label{step2-unweighted-lemma} We now go from the \textsc{Colored Hyperclique} instance \(\mathcal{I_1} = (G_1, f_1)\) to a (structured) \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance \(\mathcal{I_2} = (H_2, G_2, f_2)\). The reduction is done in a standard way: We replace each hyperedge with a vertex connected to all its endpoints.
Formally, we need to construct \(H_2\) and \(G_2\). \(H_2\) has two sets of vertices \(S'_2\) and \(P\). \(S'_2\) is a copy of \(V(C_{hr})\) from the last step, including its preimages. Accordingly, we write \(S'_2 = \{1, \ldots, hr\}\). In \(P\), we have one vertex \(u\) for every subset \(\{w_1, \ldots, w_h\} \in {C_{hr} \choose h}\), and we have \(\forall \ell \in [h]: uw_\ell \in E(H_2)\). Now for every hyperedge \(\{w'_1, \ldots, w'_h\} \in E(G_1)\) with \(\forall \ell \in [h]: w'_\ell \in f_1^{-1}(G_1)\), we add a vertex \(u' \in f_2^{-1}(u)\) which is connected to all vertices \(w'_1, \ldots, w'_h\). This concludes the construction of \(\mathcal{I}_2\).
Correctness of this construction is again easy to see. As for the size, note that preimages of vertices in \(S'_2\) still have size \(n\). The preimages of vertices in \(P\), however, have at most \(n^h\) vertices.
\item[\underline{3. Merging Preimages in \(S'_2\):}]\label{step3-unweighted-lemma} Lastly, we go from \(\mathcal{I}_2 = (H_2, G_2, f_2)\) to the final instance \(\mathcal{I}_3 = (H_3, G_3, f_3)\) where \(H_3\) is a Twin Water Lily of order \((0,r)\). Note that \(\mathcal{I}_2\) is ``almost'' the instance we want, save for the fact that the preimages \(P\) are much larger (size up to \(n^h\)) than the preimages of \(S'_2\) (size \(n\)). We rectify this by merging groups of vertices within \(S'_2\). These groups have size \(h\).
We split \(S'_2\) into \(r\) groups \(X_{1}, \ldots, X_{r}\) of size \(h\). In \(H_3\), we have for every \(i \in [r]\) a vertex \(x_i\) representing \(X_i\). Each vertex \(x'_i \in f_3^{-1}(x_i)\) corresponds to a configuration \(\mathrm{conf}(x'_i) \in \mathcal{Conf}(X_i)\). In accordance with the definition of a Twin Water Lily, we define \(S_1 = \emptyset\) and \(S_2 = \{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{r}\}\).
The set \(P \subseteq V(H_3)\) remains the same as in the preceding step, including its preimages. For each \(u \in P\), we connect \(u\) to all \(x_i\) such that \(X_i \cap N_{H_2}(u) \neq \emptyset\) (recall that \(N_{H_2}(u)\) is defined to be the neighbourhood of \(u\) in \(H_2\)). Note that each \(u \in P\) is still connected to at most \(h\) other vertices, but that it can be less if multiple vertices of its neighborhood came from the same group. Finally, for an edge \(ux_i \in E(H_3)\), we connect a vertex \(u' \in f_3^{-1}(u)\) to a vertex \(x'_i \in f_3^{-1}(x_i)\) if and only if \(\forall v \in N_{H_2}(u)\cap X_i: u'(\mathrm{conf}(x'_i)(v)) \in E(G_2)\).
Correctness is easy to see. Note that \(H_3\) is an \(h\)-wide Twin Water Lily of order \((0,r)\) now, and all preimages are of size at most \(N := n^h\).
\end{description}
This completes the construction of the reduction algorithm. Each of the steps runs in \(O(n^{2h-1})\) time: In the intermediate-vertex step, each of the vertices \(u'\) in a preimage \(f^{-1}(u)\) represents a hyperedge and is hence only connected to \(h\) vertices. After the next step, it is connected to all vertices which represent compatible configurations. Each vertex of \(S_2\) that \(u\) is now connected to must represent a non-empty intersection of the neighbourhood of \(u\). Hence it has cardinality at least \(1\). Hence there are at most \(n^{h-1}\) compatible vertices in its preimage. Hence overall, there are at most \(O(n^{2h-1})\) edges, and the graph can also be constructed in this time.
Now suppose there is an algorithm solving the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem with pattern \(\TWL(h,0,r)\) in time \(O(N^{r-\varepsilon})\). Then for any \(h\)-uniform \(hr\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} instance, we run the reduction in time \(O(n^{2h-1})\) and then solve the new instance in time \(O(N^{r-\varepsilon}) = O(n^{hr-h\varepsilon})\). Since \(r \geq 2\), the algorithm hence takes total time \(O(n^{hr-h\varepsilon}) = O(n^{hr-\varepsilon'})\)
\end{proof}
We now use the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma} to prove the lower bounds for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}. In particular, we prove the following theorem, which implies Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-detection} from the Results section via the Equivalence Lemma (Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}).
\begin{theorem}\label{lower-bound-detection}
The following statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each \(t\geq 3\) and any \(3\leq h \leq t\), there exists a connected, bipartite pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) unless the \(h\)-uniform \(h(t+1)\)-\textsc{hyperclique} hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t\geq 2\) and any \(h \geq 3\), there exists a connected, bipartite pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h}\) in time \(O(n^{t-\varepsilon})\) unless the \(h\)-uniform \(ht\)-\textsc{hyperclique} hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t \geq 2\), there exists a connected, bipartite pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t}\) in time \(O(n^{(t+1)\omega/3})\) unless the \((t+1)\)-\textsc{Clique} hypothesis fails.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-detection} for pathwidth]\label{lower-bound-detection-pathwidth}
Part 2 of Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-detection} also holds when replacing the treewidth \(t\) by the pathwidth \(p\). Part 3 only holds when replacing \(t+1\) by \(p+1\), and the pattern graph is not bipartite anymore. Part 1 does not hold.
\end{theorem}
Unfortunately, Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv} cannot be applied to Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-detection-pathwidth}, and hence we have no lower bounds for the uncolored, unweighted case of bounded pathwidth. We believe it is unlikely that the techniques used to prove~\ref{lemma-equiv} generalize to pathwidth.
We now prove the theorems above.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-detection})]
For the proof of this theorem, we use the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma}.
\textbf{Part 1:} Let \(t \geq 3\) and \(3\leq h \leq t\) be given. It suffices to apply the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma} with \(h' := h\) and \(r := t+1\), and set \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h} = \TWL(h,0,t+1)\). As proven in Proposition~\ref{prop:treewidth-of-lily}, \(\TWL(h,0,t+1)\) has treewidth \(t\) since \(t+1 > h\).
\textbf{Part 2:} Let \(t \geq 3\) and \(h \geq 3\) be given. It suffices to apply the ~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma} with \(h' := h\) and \(r := t\), and set \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h} = \TWL(h,0,t+1)\). The loss of the +1 in the exponent is due to the weaker bound in in Proposition~\ref{prop:treewidth-of-lily} for \(t \leq h\).
\textbf{Part 3:} Let \(t \geq 2\) be given. We know that by the \(t+1\)-\textsc{clique} hypothesis, \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} on pattern graph \(C_{t+1}\) cannot be solved in time \(O(n^{(t+1)\omega/3})\). We can make \(C_{t+1}\) bipartite in the obvious way by subdividing the edges. This subdivided graph is \(\mathcal{H}_t\).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-detection-pathwidth})]
Completely analogous. The deviation in bounds with respect to Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-detection} is due to the difference in bounds for treewidth and pathwidth in Proposition~\ref{prop:treewidth-of-lily}.
In part 3, we cannot subdivide the edges of \(\mathcal{H}_t\) without changing the pathwidth, hence the pattern graph stays a clique and is thus not bipartite.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Indeed, the Unweighted Lemma can also be used to prove the results under SETH. SETH is beyond doubt the most widely used for conditional lower bounds for problems in P, which is why the following results are still interesting, even though they only give smaller lower bounds than the results under the \textsc{Hyperclique} hypothesis. For context on SETH and the many conditional lower bounds it enables, see e.g.~\cite{abboud2018more, abboud2014consequences, abboud2014popular, abboud2019seth, bringmann2014walking, bringmann2015quadratic, roditty2013fast}.
The following theorem implies Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-detection-seth} via the Equivalence Lemma (Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}).
\begin{theorem}
Assuming SETH, the following two statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any \(t\geq 3\) and any \(\varepsilon > 0\) there exists a pattern graph \(\mathcal{H_{t,\varepsilon}}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving all instances of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} with pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\varepsilon}\) in time \(O(n^{t-\varepsilon})\).
\item For any \(\varepsilon > 0\) there exists a \(t\geq 3\) and a pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving all instances of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} with pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon}\) in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This result also follows via Unweighted Lemma and hence via the \textsc{hyperclique} problem. Specifically, the split-and-list technique from~\cite{williams2005new} allows one to reduce the Satisfiability problem to \textsc{Hyperclique}. Along the same lines, the following result was shown in~\cite[Lemma 9.1]{lincoln2018tight}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{lincoln2018tight}]\label{seth-to-hyperclique}
Assuming SETH, for any \(\varepsilon>0\) there exists \(h\geq3\) such that for all \(k>h\), the \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem is not in time \(O(n^{k-\varepsilon})\).
\end{lemma}
Using this, we now prove parts 1 and 2 of the theorem
\textbf{Part 1:} Let \(t\geq 3\) and \(\varepsilon > 0\) be given. We use Lemma~\ref{seth-to-hyperclique} to obtain \(h \geq 3\) such that \(h\)-uniform \(ht\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} is not in time \(O(n^{ht-\varepsilon})\). W.l.o.g. assume \(h \geq t\). Now it suffices to apply the Unweighted Lemma with \(h' := h\) and \(r := t\), and set \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\varepsilon} = \TWL(h,0,t)\). Via Proposition~\ref{prop:treewidth-of-lily} and the fact that \(h \geq t\), we know that \(\TWL(h,0,t)\) has treewidth exactly \(t\).
\textbf{Part 2:} Let \(\varepsilon > 0\) be given. Lemma~\ref{seth-to-hyperclique} gives a \(h\geq 3\) such for all \(k>h\), \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} is not in time \(O(n^{k-\varepsilon})\). We choose \(t := h\) and get that \(h\)-uniform \(ht\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} is not in time \(O(n^{ht-\varepsilon})\). Now if suffices to apply the Unweighted Lemma with \(h' := h\) and \(r := t+1 = h+1\) and set \(H_{t,\varepsilon} = \TWL(h,0,h+1)\). Via Proposition~\ref{prop:treewidth-of-lily}, we know that \(\TWL(h,0,t+1)\) has treewidth exactly \(h = t\).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}
First, we state the Weighted Lemma. This result enables us to prove lower bounds for \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}.
\begin{lemma}[The Weighted Lemma]\label{lem:main-lemma}
For any \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) and any constant parameters \(h \in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{1\}, r_1 \in \mathbb{N}, r_2 \in \mathbb{N}, \beta \in (0,1)\cap \mathbb{Q}\), there exists a \(k \in \mathbb{N}\) and an algorithm \(\mathcal{A}\) which
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item accepts as input an instance \(\mathcal{I} = G\) of \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique}.
\item produces an equivalent instance \(\mathcal{I}' = (H',G',f',w')\) of \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, where \(H'\) is a \(h\)-wide Twin Water Lily of order \((r_1,r_2)\). The preimages of \(\mathcal{I}'\) have size at most \(\max\{n^{\beta k/r_1}, n^{(1-\beta)k/r_2}\}\), and the maximum weight is \(W = \Theta(n^{(1+\varepsilon)\beta k})\).
\item runs in time \(O(n^{2h-1} + (n^{\beta k/(hr_1)})^{\hat{c}})\) for some universal constant \(\hat{c}\in \mathbb{N}\).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Intuitively, the parameter \(\beta\) indicates what percentage of the instance \(\mathcal{I}\) should be encoded in which part of the Twin Water Lily. A percentage of \(\beta\) is encoded in the weights, while the remaining percentage of \((1-\beta)\) is encoded in the edges.
We now prove the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma}.
\begin{proof}
Let an instance \(\mathcal{I_0}=G_0\) of \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} be given, where \(k\) is chosen later. We convert this to an \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance with a Twin Water Lily as pattern graph in five steps, each of which we explain in detail below: First, we convert it to a \textsc{Colored \(k\)-Hyperclique} instance in a standard way. Second, we split the instance into the part that we want to encode in the weights and the part that we want to encode in the edges. In both of these parts, we merge large groups of preimages such that we are left with only \(hr_1\) in the weight part, and \(hr_2\) in the edges part. Third, we go from hypercliques to \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} in a standard way while preserving the preimages. Fourth, we convert the weight part of the instance into actually using weights by replacing edge constraints by weight constraints, using a construction known as \(k\)-average free sets. Finally, we merge preimages in both parts again to obtain the final Twin Water Lily instance.
\begin{description}
\item[\underline{1. Converting to Colored Hyperclique:}] This step works exactly like~\hyperref[step1-unweighted-lemma]{step 1} in the proof of the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma}. As described there, We convert \(\mathcal{I}_0\) to a \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Colored Hyperclique} instance. The latter has the form \(\mathcal{I}_1 = (G_1, f_1)\), where the color homomorphism \(f_1: V(G_1) \to V(C_k)\) assigns each vertex of \(G_1\) a vertex in the \(k\)-hyperclique \(C_k\).
\item[\underline{2. Merging Preimages:}] We now convert \(\mathcal{I}_1\) to a \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Colored \((hr_1+hr_2)\)-Hyperclique} instance, by condensing groups of (small) preimages into single (large) preimages. In the converted instance \(\mathcal{I}_2 = (G_2,f_2)\) with color homomorphism \(f_2: V(G_2)\to V(C_{r_1+r_2})\), we ensure that \(V(C_{hr_1+hr_2})\) can be divided into two sets \(H_1,H_2\) such that \(|H_1| = hr_1, |H_2| = hr_2\) and \(\forall v \in H_1: |f_2^{-1}(v)| = n^{\beta k/(hr_1)}, \forall v \in H_2: |f_2^{-1}(v)| = n^{(1-\beta)k/(hr_2)}\). These two sets correspond to the two water lilies constructed in later steps.
At this point, we must make our choice of \(k\). We will need that \(k_1 := \beta k\) is an integer and divisible by \(hr_1\). Furthermore, \(k_2 := (1-\beta)k\) must also be an integer and divisible by \(hr_2\). Letting \(\beta = \frac{p}{q} \in (0,1) \cap \mathbb{Q}\) where \(p,q \in \mathbb{N}\), it hence suffices to choose \(k = hr_1r_2q\).
Now, we split \(V(C_k) = \{1, \ldots, k\}\) into two groups \(V_1 = \{1, \ldots, k_1\}\) and \(V_2 = \{k_1+1, \ldots, k_2\}\). Going further, we split each of these sets again: \(V_1\) is split into \(hr_1\) disjoint groups \(V_{1}, \ldots, V_{hr_1}\) of size \(\frac{k_1}{hr_1}\) each. Analogously, we split \(V_2\) into \(hr_2\) disjoint groups \(V_{hr_1+1}, \ldots, V_{hr_1+hr_2}\) of size \(\frac{k_2}{hr_2}\) each.
Now define \(V(C_{hr_1+hr_2}) = \{v_{1},\ldots, v_{hr_1+hr_2}\}\) and furthermore let \(S'_1 = \{v_1, \ldots, v_{hr_1}\}, S'_2 = \{v_{hr_1+1}, \ldots, v_{hr_1+hr_2}\}\). The vertex \(v_{i}\) corresponds to \(V_{i}\), for every \(i\). The vertices in their preimages represent all the configurations of the sets. In particular, we let every \(v'_i \in f_2^{-1}(v_{i})\) represent a configuration \(\mathrm{conf}(v'_i) \in \mathcal{Conf}(V_{i})\). Hence, for \(v_i \in S'_1\) the preimage \(f_2^{-1}(v_{i})\) has size \(n^{k_1/(hr_1)}\), and for \(v_i \in S'_2\) the preimage \(f_2^{-1}(v_i)\) has size \(n^{k_2/(hr_2)}\).
Now for the edges. For every subset \(\{v_{i_1}, \ldots, v_{i_h}\} \in {S'_1 \cup S'_2 \choose h}\), we iterate over all \((v'_{i_1}, \ldots, v'_{i_h}) \in f_2^{-1}(v_{i_1})\times \ldots, \times f_2^{-1}(v_{i_h})\). We combine the configurations that they represent by defining \(R \in \mathcal{Conf}(V_{i_1} \cup \ldots V_{i_h})\) as \(\forall \ell \in [h]: \forall v'_{i_\ell} \in f_2^{-1}(v_{i_\ell}): R(v'_{i_\ell}) := \mathrm{conf}(v'_{i_\ell})\). Now we add \(\{w_1, \ldots, w_h\}\) as a hyperedge to \(E(G_2)\) if and only if \(R\) is a valid configuration. That is, if the image of \(R\) induces a hyperclique in \(G_1\).
Again, correctness is easy to see.
\item[\underline{3. Representing Hyperedges by Intermediate Vertices:}] We now go from the \textsc{Colored Hyperclique} instance \(\mathcal{I_2} = (G_2, f_2)\) to a (structured) \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance \(\mathcal{I_3} = (H_3, G_3, f_3)\). The reduction is essentially the same as the one in~\hyperref[step2-unweighted-lemma]{step 2} in the proof of the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma}.
We construct \(H_3\) and \(G_3\). \(H_3\) has three sets of vertices \(S'_1, S'_2\) and \(P\). \(S'_1\) and \(S'_2\) copy \(S'_1\) and \(S'_2\) from the last step, including their preimages. Accordingly, we write \(S'_1 = \{v_{1}, \ldots, v_{hr_1}\}\) and \(S'_2 = \{v_{hr_1+1}, \ldots, v_{hr_1+hr_2}\}\). In \(P\), we have one vertex \(u\) for every subset \(\{w_1, \ldots, w_h\} \in {C_{hr_1+hr_2} \choose h}\), and we have \(\forall \ell \in [h]: uw_\ell \in E(H_3)\). For every hyperedge \(\{w'_1, \ldots, w'_h\} \in E(G_2)\) with \(\forall \ell \in [h]: w'_\ell \in f_2^{-1}(G_2)\), we add a vertex \(u' \in f_3^{-1}(u)\) which is connected to all vertices \(w'_1, \ldots, w'_h\). Note here that \(u'\) is only connected to one vertex from each preimage, which is a property that will be needed in the fourth step.
Correctness of this construction is easy to see. Note that preimages of vertices in \(S'_1\) and \(S'_2\) still have size \(n^{k_1/(hr_1)}\) and \(n^{k_2/(hr_2)}\), respectively. The preimages of vertices in \(P\), have at most \((\max\{n^{k_1/(hr_1)}, n^{k_2/(hr_2)}\})^h = \max\{n^{k_1/r_1}, n^{k_2/r_2}\}\) vertices.
\item[\underline{4. Replacing Some of the Edges with Weights}] We now come to the crucial step of converting some of the edge constraints to weight constraints. We convert the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance \(\mathcal{I}_3 = (H_3, G_3, f_3)\) of the preceding step into an \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance \(\mathcal{I}_4 = (H_4, G_4, f_4, w_4)\). To do this, we will need so-called \(k\)-average free sets.
\begin{definition}[$k$-average free sets]
A set \(S\subseteq \mathbb{Z}\) is called $k$-average-free if, for any $s_1, \ldots, s_{k'+1} \in S$ with $k' \leq k$, we have $s_1+ \ldots + s_{k'} = k'\cdot s_{k'+1}$ if and only if $s_1 = \ldots = s_{k'+1}$. In other words, the average of $s_1, \ldots, s_{k'}\in S$ is in $S$ if and only if all $s_i$ are equal. \end{definition}
We use the following construction for $k$-average free sets, originally proven in~\cite{behrend1946sets}, modified into a more useful version in~\cite{abboud2014losing} and formulated in this form in~\cite{abboud2019seth}.
\begin{lemma}\label{k-average-free-lemma}
There exists a universal constant $c > 0$ such that, for all constants $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$ and $k \geq 2$, a $k$-average-free set $S$ of size $n$ with $S \subseteq [0, k^{c/\varepsilon}n^{1+\varepsilon}]$ can be constructed in time $\poly(n)$.
\end{lemma}
Specifically, we use Lemma~\ref{k-average-free-lemma} with \(\varepsilon' = \varepsilon, k' = \lambda := |P|\) and \(n' = n^{k_1/(hr_1)}\). Letting \(B := \lambda^{c/\varepsilon}n^{(1+\varepsilon)k_1/(hr_1)}\), this yields a \(\lambda\)-average free set \(S \subseteq [0,B]\) of size \(n^{k_1/(hr_1)}\). From this, we can construct an arbitrary bijection \(\varrho_S: [n^{k_1/(hr_1)}] \to S\).
Now, to construct \(\mathcal{I}_4\), we first copy \(\mathcal{I_3}\), giving each node a default weight of ``infinity'' (i.e.\ something otherwise unobtainable, e.g. \(k^2W + 1\)). Now we delete all edges in \(H_3\) which are incident to a vertex in \(S'_1\), along with the corresponding edges in \(G_3\). These are the edges that we replace by weight constraints.
Hence we now describe the weights. To make our construction easier, we specify a target value \(T\) (instead of the default target zero). We can easily get rid of this again by picking some vertex \(\hat{w} \in V(H_3)\) and subtracting \(T\) from the weights of all of its preimages. The binary representation of \(T\) consists of \(h\cdot a\) blocks of \(\lceil\log(2\lambda B)\rceil\) bits, each containing the binary representation of \(\lambda B\). The \(i\)-th block represents the vertex \(v_i \in S'_1\).
We move to the weights of the vertices, starting with vertices in the preimages of \(S'_1\). Somewhat abusing notation, we define \(\forall i \in [hr_1]: f_4^{-1}(v_i) = \{1, \ldots, n^{k_1/(hr_1)}\}\). The weight of vertex \(v'_i \in f_4^{-1}(v_i)\) has a value of \(\lambda B - |N(v_i)|\cdot \varrho_S(v'_i)\) in the \(i\)-th block, and a value of zero in all other blocks. Now for vertices in the preimages of\(P\). Let \(u \in P\) correspond to the set \(\{w_1, \ldots, w_h\} \in {C_{hr_1+hr_2} \choose h}\). As observed in the preceding step, each \(u' \in f_3^{-1}(u)\) is connected to exactly one vertex \(w'_i\) from each preimage \(f_3^{-1}(w_i)\). In the current step, for each \(i\in [h]\) with \(w_i \in S'_1\), we have deleted the edges \(u'w'_i\). To replace them, for each such \(i\), we give \(u'\) a value of \(\varrho_S(w'_i)\) in the \(i\)-th block. We have just changed the weight of \(u'\) at \(|N(u) \cap S'_1|\) blocks of its binary representation. All other blocks have a value of zero.
All vertices with so far unspecified weight have weight zero. This concludes the construction of \(\mathcal{I}_4\).
We show correctness of this construction. It suffices to show that any configuration \(R\) that is a solution for \(\mathcal{I}_3\) is also a solution for \(\mathcal{I}_4\) and vice versa. Hence, suppose \(R\) is a solution for \(\mathcal{I}_3\). Then all edge constraints of \(H_4\) are trivially fulfilled and we need only show that the total weight is \(T\). For ease of discussion, we denote by \(\alpha[i]\) the value of the \(i\)-th block of a weight \(\alpha\). Consider the blocks of the binary representation of the sum of weights \(w(R) = \sum_{v \in \mathrm{Im}(R)}w_4(v)\), and let \(i\) be fixed. The large block size prevents overflow, so \(w(R)[i] = \sum_{v \in \mathrm{Im}(R)}w_4(v)[i]\). By construction, we have \(w(R)[i] = w(R(v_i))[i] + \sum_{u \in N(v_i)} w(R(u))[i]\). However since \(R\) is a valid configuration in \(\mathcal{I}_3\), we have that for each \(u\), \(\forall v_j \in N(u): R(u)R(v_j) \in E(G_3)\). In particular, \(R(u)R(v_i) \in E(G_3)\) and hence by construction \(w(R(u))[i] = \varrho_S(v_i)\). We conclude \(w(R)[i] = \lambda B - |N(v_i)|\cdot \varrho_S(R(v_i)) + \sum_{i \in N(v_i)} \varrho_S(R(v_i)) = \lambda B = T[i]\). Hence \(w(R)\) is equal to \(T\) in each of its blocks, which was to be proven.
\todo{add stuff where the infinity was necessary (i.e.\ that you can't choose non-active vertices)}
Conversely, suppose \(R\) is a solution for \(\mathcal{I}_4\). Then all edge constraints in \(G_3[V(G_3)\setminus S'_1]\) are trivially satisfied and we need only show that \(\forall v_i \in S'_1: \forall u \in N(v_i): R(v_i)R(u) \in E(G_3)\). Fix \(v_i \in S'_1\). We have that \(\lambda B = T[i] = w(R)[i] = w(R(v_i))[i] + \sum_{u \in N(v_i)} w(R(u))[i]\). Let \(N(v_i) = \{u_1, \ldots, u_{|N(v_i)|}\}\). For each \(\ell \in |N(v_i)|\), we have that \(R(u_\ell)\) is connected to some vertex \(v_i^{(\ell)} \in f_3^{-1}(v_i)\), and hence that \(w(R(u_\ell))[i] = \varrho_S(v_i^{(\ell)})\). Hence we have that \(\lambda B = \lambda B - |N(v_i)|\cdot \varrho_S(R(v_i)) + \sum_{\ell \in |N(v_i)|}\varrho_S(v_i^{(\ell)})\). Hence \(|N(v_i)|\cdot \varrho_S(R(v_i)) = \sum_{\ell \in |N(v_i)|}\varrho_S(v_i^{(\ell)})\). But because the values in the image of the bijection \(\varrho_S\) are a \(\lambda\)-average free set and \(N(v_i)\subseteq P\) certainly has size less than \(|P|=\lambda\), we have that \(\forall \ell: v_i^{(\ell)} = R(v_i)\). Thus for all \(\ell\), \(R(u_\ell)\) is connected to \(R(v_i)\), which was to be proven.
\item[\underline{5. Merging Preimages in \(S'_1\) and \(S'_2\):}] Lastly, we go from \(\mathcal{I}_4 = (H_4, G_4, f_4, w_4)\) to the final instance \(\mathcal{I}_5 = (H_5, G_5, f_5, w_5)\) where \(H_5\) is a Twin Water Lily of order \((r_1,r_2)\). This step is similar to step~\hyperref[step3-unweighted-lemma]{step 3} of the proof of the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma}.
We merge groups of vertices within \(S'_1\) and \(S'_2\). In both sets, these groups have size \(h\).
We split \(S'_1\) into \(r_1\) groups \(X_1, \ldots, X_{r_1}\) of size \(h\), and we split \(S'_2\) into \(r_2\) groups \(X_{r_1+1}, \ldots, X_{r_1+r_2}\) of size \(h\). In \(H_5\), we have for every \(i \in [r_1+r_2]\) a vertex \(x_i\) representing \(X_i\). Each vertex \(x'_i \in f_5^{-1}(x_i)\) corresponds to a configuration \(\mathrm{conf}(x'_i) \in \mathcal{Conf}(X_i)\). The weight of \(x'_i\) is \(w(\mathrm{conf}(x'_i))\), i.e.\ the sum of the weights of the vertices in the image of the configuration. In accordance with the definition of a Twin Water Lily, we define \(S_1 = \{x_1, \ldots, x_{r_1}\}\) and \(S_2 = \{x_{r_1+1}, \ldots, x_{r_1+r_2}\}\).
The set \(P \subseteq V(H_5)\) remains the same as in the preceding step, including its preimages and the weights of the vertices in the preimages. For each \(u \in P\), we go through the vertices \(v\) in the neighbourhood of \(u\) in \(H_4\), and connect \(u\) to \(x_i\) such that \(v \in X_i\). Note that each \(u \in P\) is still connected to at most \(h\) other vertices, but that it can be less if multiple vertices of its neighborhood came from the same group. Finally, we connect a vertex \(u' \in f^{-1}(u)\) to a vertex \(x'_i \in f_5^{-1}(x_i)\) if and only if \(\forall v \in N_{H_2}(u)\cap X_i: u'(\mathrm{conf}(x'_i)(v)) \in E(G_4)\).
Correctness is easy to see. Note that \(H_5\) is a Twin Water Lily of order \((r_1,r_2)\) now. The set \(S_1\) has size \(r_1\) and \(S_2\) has size \(r_2\), with respective preimages of size \(n^{k_1/r_1}\) and \(n^{k_2/r_2}\). The preimages of \(P\) still have size \(\max\{n^{k1/r_1}, n^{k_2/r_2}\}\). Furthermore, the weights constructed in step 4 have \(hr_1\) blocks of \(\lceil\log(2\lambda B)\rceil\) bits, hence the maximum weight is \(\Theta(2^{\zeta})\) where \(\zeta = hr_1\cdot (\log(\lambda B) + O(1)) = hr_1 \cdot \log(|P|^{1+c/\varepsilon}n^{(1+\varepsilon)k_1/(hr_1)}) + O(1) = hr_1 \cdot \log(n^{(1+\varepsilon)k_1/(hr_1)}) + O(1) = (1+\varepsilon)k_1\log(n) + O(1)\), hence as promised in the statement of the lemma the maximum weight is \(\Theta(n^{(1+\varepsilon)k_1})\).
\end{description}
We have shown a reduction that has properties \((b)\) and \((c)\) from the lemma. We still have to analyze the running time. It is easy to see that steps 1, 2 and 3 run in time \(O(n^{2h-1})\), just as in the proof of the unweighted lower bound. In step 4, we need to construct the \(k\)-average free set \(S\), which is done in time \(poly(n^{k_1/(hr_1)}) = O((n^{k_1/(hr_1)})^{\hat{c}})\) for some universal constant \({\hat{c}} \in \mathbb{Z}\). The rest of step 4 as well as step 5 can again be done in time \(O(n^{2h-1})\). This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We now use this lemma to prove the lower bound for \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}. Note that it only gives node-weighted instances. But as the following lemma shows, this is enough.. It shows that we can always convert node-weighted instances to edge-weighted instances, hence showing lower bounds for node-weighted instances immediately shows lower bounds for edge-weighted instances. It can also be reused later in the algorithms, as we can then always assume that the instances are edge-weighted.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:node-to-edge-weight}
Given an instance of \textsc{Exact Node Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} where each vertex $v \in V(G)$ with $w(v) \neq 0$ has degree at least one, we can transform it into an equivalent instance of \textsc{Exact Edge Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} in such a way that only the weight function changes. Furthermore, this reduction runs in time linear in the input size.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We construct a new weight function $w': E(G) \to \mathbb{Z}$. Initially, $w'(e) = 0$ for all $e \in E(G)$. The idea is to push the weight of each vertex of non-zero weight in $G$ onto one of its edges. Hence let $v \in V(G)$ with $w(v) \neq 0$. Then there must be $u \in V(G)$ with $uv \in E(G)$. We add $w(v)$ to $w'(uv)$. This completes the reduction.
It can easily be seen that if there is a solution in the node-weighted instance with $w$, then that same solution must work with $w'$ and vice versa.
\end{proof}
This enables us to prove the following theorem. Note that it implies Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted} via Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}.
\begin{theorem}\label{lower-bound-weighted}
For both the node- and edge weighted variant of the problems, the following statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each \(t \geq 3\), each \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\) and any \(3\leq h \leq t\), there exists a connected, bipartite graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) for instances with maximum weight \(W = \Theta(n^{\gamma})\) in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon}W)\), unless the \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Hyperclique} hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t\geq 1\), each \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\) and any \(h \geq 3\), there exists a connected, bipartite graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,h,\gamma}\) for instances with maximum weight \(W = \Theta(n^{\gamma})\) in time \(O(n^{t-\varepsilon}W)\), unless the \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Hyperclique} hypothesis fails.
\item For each \(t\geq 1\) and each \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\), there exists a connected, bipartite graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\gamma}\) of treewidth \(t\) such that there cannot be an algorithm solving the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\gamma}\) for instances with maximum weight \(W=\Theta(n^{\gamma})\) in time \(O(n^{(t+1)\omega/3-\varepsilon}W^{\omega/3})\), unless the \textsc{Clique} hypothesis fails.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
The following implies Theorem~\ref{corollary-lower-bound-weighted-pathwidth} from the results section.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-weighted} for pathwidth]\label{lower-bound-weighted-pathwidth}
Parts 2 and 3 of Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-weighted} also hold when replacing the treewidth \(t\) by the pathwidth \(p\). Part 1 does not hold.
\end{theorem}
We remark that by the algorithm presented in Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}, we cannot hope to obtain a lower bound as in part 1 of Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-weighted} for the case of pathwidth.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of theorem~\ref{lower-bound-weighted})]
Note that by Proposition~\ref{prop:node-to-edge-weight}, it suffices to prove lower bounds for the node-weighted case.
We begin with \textbf{part 1} of the theorem. Let \(t \geq 3\) and \(\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+\), as well as \(3\leq h \leq t\) be given. We apply the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma} with
\begin{itemize}
\item some \(\varepsilon' > 0\) chosen later,
\item some \(\beta' \in (0,1)\cap \mathbb{Q}\) chosen later,
\item \(h' := h\),
\item \(r_2' := t+1\) and
\item some arbitrary \(r_1'\in \mathbb{N}\) with
\begin{itemize}
\item \(r_1' > \frac{\hat{c}\beta'}{h}\) (this ensures that the
running time \(O(n^{2h-1} + n^{\hat{c}\beta' k/(hr_1')})\) of the
reduction is equal to \(O(n^{k-\varepsilon})\) for
some \(\varepsilon>0\), and can hence be ignored in the
analysis) and
\item \(r_1' > \frac{\beta'(t+1)}{1-\beta'}\) (this
ensures that
\(\max\{n^{\beta' k/r_1'}, n^{(1-\beta')k/(t+1)}\} =
n^{(1-\beta')k/(t+1)}\)).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
This produces a \(k \in \mathbb{N}\) and a reduction algorithm \(\mathcal{A}\) with the properties from the lemma. In particular, the reduction algorithm produces instances where the pattern graph \(H\) is a Twin Water Lily of order \((r_1, r_2)\), which we define to be our graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\gamma}\).
Now suppose there is an algorithm for the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graph \(\mathcal{H}_{t,\gamma}\) running in time \(O(N^{t+1-\varepsilon}W)\) (the case \(O(N^{t+1}W^{1-\varepsilon})\) is analogous). We show that the \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Hyperclique} hypothesis fails by showing that there is an algorithm for \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} running in time \(O(n^{k-\varepsilon})\) for some \(\varepsilon > 0\).
Given an \(h\)-uniform \(k\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} instance, we use algorithm \(\mathcal{A}\) to obtain an equivalent instance of \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} where the pattern graph is a Twin Water Lily of order \((r_1',t+1)\), the preimages have size \(N = \max\{n^{\beta' k/r_1'}, n^{(1-\beta')k/(t+1)}\} = n^{(1-\beta')k/(t+1)}\), and the maximum weight is \(W = \Theta(n^{(1+\varepsilon')\beta' k})\).
First, we make sure that \(W = \Theta(N^{\gamma})\) by choosing \(\beta'\) and \(\varepsilon'\) accordingly. Substituting, we get \(n^{(1+\varepsilon')\beta' k} = \Theta(n^{\gamma (1-\beta')k/(t+1)})\), which is true if and only if
\begin{align*}
(1+\varepsilon')\beta'k = \frac{\gamma(1-\beta')k}{t+1} \iff \frac{\beta'}{1-\beta'} = \frac{\gamma}{(t+1)(1+\varepsilon')} \iff \varepsilon' = \frac{\gamma(1-\beta')}{(t+1)\beta'}-1
\end{align*}
Hence we choose \(\varepsilon'\) as such. However, to apply the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma}, we must have \(\varepsilon' \in (0,1)\). Hence we get the following two constraints for \(\beta'\):
\begin{align*}
\frac{\gamma(1-\beta')}{(t+1)\beta'} - 1 > 0 \ \ &\iff\ \ \beta' < \frac{\gamma}{(t+1)+\gamma}\\
\frac{\gamma(1-\beta')}{(t+1)\beta'} - 1 < 1 \ \ &\iff\ \ \beta' > \frac{\gamma}{2(t+1)+ \gamma}
\end{align*}
We incorporate these constraints later.
Now we need to ensure that the new running time we get is also small. We solve the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance in time \(O(N^{t+1-\varepsilon}W) = O(N^{ t + 1 + \gamma - \varepsilon}) = O(n^{(t + 1 + \gamma -\varepsilon)(1-\beta')k/(t+1)})\). Hence we get the following additional constraints on \(\beta'\):
\begin{align*}
\frac{(t + 1 + \gamma -\varepsilon)(1-\beta')}{t+1} < 1 \iff 1-\beta' < \frac{t+1}{t+1+\gamma-\varepsilon} \iff \beta' > \frac{\gamma - \varepsilon}{(t+1)+\gamma-\varepsilon}
\end{align*}
Combining these three constraints on \(\beta'\), we get
\begin{align*}
\max\left\{\frac{\gamma - \varepsilon}{(t+1)+\gamma-\varepsilon}\ , \ \frac{\gamma}{2(t+1)+ \gamma}\right\} < \beta' < \frac{\gamma}{(t+1)+\gamma}
\end{align*}
Clearly, it is always possible to choose a \(\beta' \in (0,1)\cap \mathbb{Q}\) such that this is true.
\textbf{Part 2} of the theorem is very much analogous. Note that the loss of the \(1\) in the exponent is due to the weaker bound in Proposition~\ref{prop:treewidth-of-lily}.
\textbf{Part 3} is completely analogous for the case \(t\geq 2\); we simply always choose \(h = 2\). The \(\omega/3\) in the bound comes from the \textsc{Clique} hypothesis.
However, a small trick has to be used for the case \(t=1\), since a \(2\)-wide Twin Water Lily of order \((r_1, 2)\) has treewidth \(2\), not \(1\). To get the better lower bound, we have to slightly modify the proof of the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma} for \(h=2\) in step 3. Instead of replacing the edges between vertices of \(S_2\) by intermediate vertices, we simply leave them as-is. Now the resulting graph is not a Twin Water Lily anymore, but does always have treewidth \(r_2\). The rest of the proof is analogous.
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove the same theorem for pathwidth.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{lower-bound-weighted-pathwidth})]
Proving part 2 is exactly analogous to part 2 of the theorem for treewidth.
Now remember that we needed a slight modification of the proof of the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma} for part 3 of the theorem for treewidth for \(t=1\). For part 3 of the theorem for pathwidth, we actually need that modification for all \(t\), i.e. we always leave $S_2$ as-is in step 3. The rest of the proof is analogous.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Subset Sum}\label{sec:subset-sum}
We remark that with basically the same technique as is used to prove the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma}, we can also prove a lower bound on the \textsc{Subset Sum} problem\footnote{Defined as: Given a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ of $n$ numbers and a target $T \in \mathbb{N}$, determine whether $\exists B \subseteq A: \sum_{b \in B} b = T$.}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-hyperclique-to-subsetsum}
For no $\varepsilon > 0$ can there be an algorithm which solves \textsc{Subset Sum} in time $O(T^{1-\varepsilon}\poly(n))$ unless the \(h\)-uniform \textsc{Hyperclique} hypothesis fails for all \(h\geq 3\).
\end{theorem}
In~\cite{abboud2019seth}, a slightly better lower bound for \textsc{Subset Sum} is proven under SETH: They prove that unless SETH fails, \textsc{Subset Sum} cannot have an algorithm running in time $O(T^{1-\varepsilon}2^{o(n)})$.
We briefly discuss other current algorithms and lower bounds for \textsc{Subset Sum}. The \textsc{Subset Sum} problem has a well-known $O(Tn)$ time algorithm using dynamic programming~\cite{richard1957dynamic}. Very recently, suprising new algorithms with running time $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{n}T)$ \cite{koiliaris2017faster,koiliaris2018subset} and $\widetilde{O}(T+n)$~\cite{bringmann2017near} have been shown, the latter matching several conditional lower bounds from SETH~\cite{abboud2019seth}, \textsc{Set Cover}~\cite{cygan2016problems}, \textsc{$k$-clique} (observed in~\cite{bringmann2017near} via techniques from~\cite{abboud2014losing}), and now from \textsc{Hyperclique}. The algorithm in~\cite{bringmann2017near} is slightly simplified in~\cite{jin2018simple}, with improvements in the log factors of the running time. The \textsc{Subset Sum} problem is closely related to the \textsc{\(k\)-Sum} problem (see also Appendix~\ref{apx:k-sum-to-subset-sum}).
There are two ways to see why Theorem~\ref{thm-hyperclique-to-subsetsum} is true, and they both more or less lead to the same reduction. Both involve first reducing a \textsc{Hyperclique} instance to a \textsc{\(k\)-Sum} instance, after wich a well-known reduction from \textsc{\(k\)-Sum} to \textsc{Subset Sum} can be used. We describe the latter reduction formally in Appendix~\ref{apx:k-sum-to-subset-sum}.
The first way to see the result is a generalization of the reduction from \textsc{\(k\)-Clique} to \textsc{\(k\)-Sum} described by~\cite{abboud2014losing}. Instead of encoding edges with only two endpoints in the weights, we encode hyperedges. The second way to see the result (as stated, they lead to the same reduction) is via a slight modification of the~\hyperref[lem:main-lemma]{Weighted Lemma} to encode everything in the weighted part. We give details for the second way in Appendix~\ref{apx:subset-sum-via-weighted-lemma}.
\section{Algorithmic Results}\label{section-algos}
\subsection{\(k\)-Wise Matrix Products}
In our algorithms, the following generalization of matrix multiplication to tensors is both a crucial building block and a bottleneck. It was defined in its general form in~\cite{gnang2011spectral} and explored further algorithmically in~\cite{lincoln2018tight}.
Given $k$ tensors $A^1, \ldots, A^k$ of order k with dimensions $\overbrace{n \times \ldots \times n}^{\text{k times}}$, we define the \textbf{\(k\)-wise matrix product} $\MP_k(A^1, \ldots, A^k)$ to be the tensor given by
\begin{equation*}
\MP_k(A^1, \ldots, A^k)[i_1, \ldots, i_k] := \sum_{\ell\in[n]}A^1[\ell,i_2,\ldots,i_k]\cdot A^2[i_1, \ell, i_3, \ldots, i_k]\cdots A^k[i_1,\ldots,i_{k-1},\ell]
\end{equation*}
Clearly, for $k=2$ this product is exactly matrix multiplication. There is also a boolean version of this generalized matrix product, just as there is a boolean version of the standard matrix product. In this boolean version, the tensors contain truth values (or equivalently 0/1 values) and the sum is replaced by an OR, while the products are replace by ANDs.
We briefly discuss the computational complexity of \(k\)-wise matrix products. They can trivially be computed in time $O(n^{k+1})$ for all $k$, and in time \(O(n^\omega)\) for \(k=2\) via techniques originating from Strassen~\cite{strassen1969gaussian} (for a history and introduction, see Bläser~\cite{blaser2013fast}). Unfortunately, as Lincoln, Williams and Williams observe in~\cite{lincoln2018tight}, it is impossible that faster Strassen-like algorithms with running time $O(n^{k+1-\varepsilon})$ with $\varepsilon > 0$ exist for $k\geq 3$: Just as the operation of $n\times n$ by $n\times n$ matrix multiplication has a corresponding order 3 tensor of dimensions $n\times \ldots \times n$, there is an order $k+1$ tensor of dimension $n\times \ldots \times n$ corresponding to the $k$-wise matrix product. For $k\geq 3$, this tensor has border rank $n^{k+1}$, i.e.\ it cannot be expressed as the limit of a sequence of tensors of rank smaller than $n^{k+1}$.
\subsection{\(k\)-Wise Tree Decompositions}
In our algorithms, we use a structured form of tree decompositions that allow us to apply \(k\)-wise matrix products very easily to solve the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problems (either weighted or unweighted) on them. Any tree decomposition can be converted to this structured form without changing its width. Its definition is very loosely based on the structured tree decompositions that~\cite{curticapean2017homomorphisms} describes for treewidth 2 graphs. See figure~\ref{fig:k-wise-tree-decomp} for a partial illustration of the structured form in the context of the algorithm for the unweighted problem.
\begin{definition}
We call a tree decomposition \(\mathcal{T} = (T, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T)})\) a \textbf{\(k\)-wise tree decomposition} if it satisfies the following requirements. \(T\) must be a rooted tree, and each of its nodes has one of three types: It is either an \textbf{intermediate-result node}, a \textbf{\(k\)-wise node}, or a \textbf{merge node}. Intermediate-result and merge nodes have bags of size \(k\), while \(k\)-wise nodes have bag size \(k+1\). We require the root to be an intermediate-result node, and all leaves to be merge nodes. Finally, the three types of nodes are defined as follows:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If \(t \in V(T)\) is an intermediate-result node, it has two children: a \(k\)-wise node and a merge node \(t'\) with \(X_t = X_{t'}\).
\item If \(t \in V(T)\) is a \(k\)-wise node, its parent \(\parent(t)\) is an intermediate-result node and its set of children \(\children(t)\) consists of exactly \(k\) merge nodes. Furthermore, we can rename the nodes in its bag to \(X_t = \{v, u_1, \ldots, u_k\}\) such that \(X_t = X_{\parent(t)} \cup \{v\}\) and \(\forall i \in [k]: \exists c(i) \in children(t): X_t = X_{c(i)} \cup \{u_i\}\).
\item If \(t \in V(T)\) is a merge node, it has arbitrarily many children which must all be intermediate-result nodes. Furthermore, for each child \(t'\) we have \(X_t = X_{t'}\).
\end{enumerate}
We call intermediate-result and merge nodes \textbf{helper nodes}, and define \(\help(T)\subseteq V(T)\) to be the set of all helper nodes.
\end{definition}
\noindent
Note that in particular, a \(k\)-wise tree decomposition has width \(k\).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:k-wise-tree-decomps}
Let \(H\) be a graph and let \(\mathcal{T} = (T, \{X_t\}_{t \in V(T)})\) be a tree decomposition of \(H\) that has width \(\width(\mathcal{T})\). Then we can convert \(\mathcal{T}\) into a \(\width(\mathcal{T})\)-wise tree decomposition \(\mathcal{T}' = (T', \{X_t\}_{t \in V(T')})\). Furthermore, \(|V(T')| = \poly(|V(T)|)\cdot \width(\mathcal{T})\) and the conversion can be done in time \(O(\poly(|V(T)|)\cdot \poly(\width(\mathcal{T})))\).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we go from the input tree decomposition \(\mathcal{T}\) to one where all bags have size \(\width(\mathcal{T})+1\), and where for any adjacent nodes \(t,t' \in V(T)\), we have \(X_t \cap X_{t'} = \width(\mathcal{T})\). To do this, we roughly follow the outline of an algorithm that~\cite{curticapean2017homomorphisms} describes for treewidth 2 graphs. First, we merge adjacent nodes \(t, t' \in V(T)\) with \(X_t = X_{t'}\). If there exists a node \(t\) with \(|X_t| \leq \width(\mathcal{T})+1\) and a neighbor \(t'\) such that \(X_{t'} \not\subseteq X_t\), then we simply add an element of \(X_{t'} \setminus X_t\) to \(X_t\). Applying this rule exhaustively, we obtain a tree decomposition where all bags have exactly \(\width(\mathcal{T})+1\). Applying this rule exhaustively, the resulting tree decomposition has the desired properties. Now we take any adjacent nodes \(t,t' \in V(T)\) with \(|X_t \cap X_{t'}| < \width(\mathcal{T})\) and, letting \(u \in X_t \setminus X_{t'}\) and \(v\in X_{t'} \setminus X_t\), insert a vertex with bag \((X_t \cup \{v\}) \setminus \{u\}\) between them.
Now we root \(T\) in an arbitrary node. For any \(t \in V(T)\) and any \(t' \in \children(t)\), we subdivide the edge \(tt'\), and give the new node the bag \(X_t \cap X_{t'}\). We call the newly inserted vertices small, and all other vertices large. The root node \(r'\) must be a large node. We give it a small parent by selecting an arbitrary subset \(X \subseteq X_{r'}\) of size \(\width(\mathcal{T})\), adding a new root \(r\) to \(T\) with bag \(X\) and making \(r'\) a child of \(r\).
We now iterate over the large nodes in \(T\) (as it is now) in depth-first search order. For each large vertex \(t\), we (temporarily) rename the vertices of its bag to \(X_t = \{v, u_1, \ldots, u_{\width(\mathcal{T})}\}\) such that its (small) parent has bag \(X_{\parent(t)} = \{u_1, \ldots, u_{\width(\mathcal{T})}\}\). Furthermore, for each \(i\), let \(C_i\subseteq \children(t)\) be the (possibly empty) set of all children \(t'\) such that \(X_{t'} = X_t \setminus \{u_i\}\). We add a node \(c(i)\) with bag \(X_t \setminus \{u_i\}\) to \(V(T)\) and connect all children \(t' \in C_i\) to \(c(i)\) instead of \(t\). Finally, we make \(c(i)\) a child of \(t\). We do something analogous for \(v\), namely letting \(C_v \subseteq \children(t)\) be the (possibly empty) set of all children \(t'\) such that \(X_{t'} = X_t \setminus \{v\}\), we add a node \(c(v)\) with bag \(X_t \setminus \{v\}\) to \(V(T)\) and connect all children \(t' \in C_v\) to \(c(v)\) instead of \(t\). However, we make \(c(v)\) a child of \(\parent(t)\), not \(t\). Now we are done: The newly added vertices \(c(i)\) (for all \(i\)) and \(c(v)\) are merge nodes, their children are intermediate-result nodes, and the large nodes \(t\) are \(k\)-wise nodes. Note also that because we allowed the sets \(C_i\) (for all \(i\)) and \(C_v\) to be empty, we now have that all leaves are merge nodes.
This concludes the construction. It is easily seen that the number of nodes of the new tree decomposition is \(\poly(|V(T)|)\cdot \width(\mathcal{T})\), and that this conversion algorithm works in time \(O(\poly(|V(T)|) \cdot \poly(\width(\mathcal{T})))\).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism for Bounded Treewidth}\label{subsection-algos-detection}
We begin by looking at the unweighted version of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}. As was previously mentioned for Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound}, these results essentially follow from~\cite{alon1995color} and~\cite{curticapean2017homomorphisms}, but are now unified via a single technique.
\begin{theorem}\label{upper-bound-detection}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,f)$ of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, solves $\phi$ in time
\begin{enumerate}
\item $O(n^{\tw(H)+1}\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\tw(H)\geq 3$,
\item $O(n^\omega \poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 2$, where $\omega$ is the exponent of matrix multiplication, and
\item $O(n^2\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 1$.
\end{enumerate}
where $k := |V(H)|$, $n$ is the size of the preimages of $f$, and $g$ is a computable function.
\end{theorem}
Obviously, a proof of this theorem suffices to prove Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound}, since we can simply plug the algorithm into Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of part 1 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection})]
We describe an algorithm which, given $G, H$ and $f: V(G) \to V(H)$, first calculates an optimal tree decomposition \(\mathcal{T}_{\text{initial}}\) of width \(\tw(H)\) for $H$ in time $g(k)$ (via the algorithm by Bodlaender~\cite{bodlaender1996linear}, see also Section~\ref{prelim-treewidth}), then finds a solution via dynamic programming over the tree decomposition. The algorithm that computes the optimal tree decomposition also ensures that its tree graph \(T_{\text{initial}}\) has size \(|T_{\text{initial}}| = \poly(k)\). By assumption, $\tw(H) \geq 3$. We shorten \(\tw(H)\) to \(\tw\) in the following. We use a slightly more complicated framework than necessary, because it generalizes nicely to a proof of part 2 and to a proof of parts 1 and 2 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted}.
To make our algorithm as easy as possible, we begin by applying Lemma~\ref{lem:k-wise-tree-decomps} to convert our tree decomposition into a \(\tw\)-wise tree decomposition $\mathcal{T} = (T, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T)})$. Since \(|T_{\text{initial}}| = \poly(k)\), the time this conversion takes is certainly negligible. Furthermore, \(|T| = \poly(|T_{\text{initial}}|)\cdot \poly(\width(\mathcal{T}_{\text{initial}})) = \poly(\poly(k))\cdot \tw = \poly(k)\).
We now do dynamic programming over the \(\tw\)-wise tree decomposition. Using notation and nomenclature from Section~\ref{notation-and-nomenclature-colsubiso}, we only store values for each configuration of the bags of helper nodes, not for \(k\)-wise nodes. In particular, for each helper node \(t \in \help(T)\) we store the following function of finite domain from configurations of $X_t$ to truth values. Remember that $\mathrm{ParSol}(S; I; J)$ is true if and only if $S$ is a partial solution of $I$ in $J$, for $I \subseteq J \subseteq V(H)$.
\begin{align*}\label{eq-dp-for-normal-subgraph-iso}
d_{t} &: \mathcal{Conf}(X_t) \to \{\mathrm{true},\mathrm{false}\}\\
d_{t}(R) &:= \ParSol(R; X_t; V_{t})\tag{1}
\end{align*}
i.e.\ we store for each configuration whether it is a partial solution of \(X_t\) in the cone \(V_{t}\). We call these functions DP functions (where DP stands for dynamic programming). Since there are $n^{\tw}$ many configurations for $X_t$, each DP function $d_{t}$ can be specified using $n^{\tw}$ many bits.
We calculate the DP functions $d_{t}$ for all $t\in\help(T)$ in a bottom-up manner. The overall picture of the algorithm is very simple: At a merge node \(t\), we take the DP functions of all children and do a pointwise AND. At an intermediate-vertex node \(t\), we first calculate a \(\tw\)-wise matrix product for its \(\tw\)-wise node child, then AND the result with the DP function of its merge node child. See figure~\ref{fig:k-wise-tree-decomp} for a conceptual illustration.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\scalebox{1.3}{
\tikzstyle{every picture}=[tikzfig]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}
\node [style=small-node] (1) at (-2.5, 8) {};
\node [style=small-node] (2) at (-8, 2) {};
\node [style=small-node] (3) at (-5, 2) {};
\node [style=small-node] (5) at (-2, 2) {};
\node [style=small-node] (6) at (2.5, 2) {};
\node [style=small-node] (7) at (0.25, -2.5) {};
\node [style=none] (8) at (-9.5, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (9) at (-8, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (10) at (-6.5, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (11) at (-3.25, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (12) at (1.5, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (13) at (3.5, -0.5) {};
\node [style=k-wise-border] (14) at (-5, 5) {};
\node [style=k-wise-node] (15) at (-5, 5) {};
\node [style=none] (16) at (-6, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (17) at (-4, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (18) at (-1.25, 2.75) {};
\node [style=none] (19) at (-2.5, 1) {};
\node [style=none] (20) at (-7.5, 1) {};
\node [style=none] (21) at (-8.75, 2.75) {};
\node [style=none] (22) at (-2.75, 7.25) {};
\node [style=none] (23) at (-2.25, 7.25) {};
\node [style=none] (24) at (1.475, 2.75) {};
\node [style=none] (25) at (-9.25, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (26) at (-7.775, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (27) at (-6.25, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (28) at (-8.1, 1.5) {};
\node [style=none] (29) at (-7.775, 1.475) {};
\node [style=none] (30) at (-7.475, 1.475) {};
\node [style=none] (31) at (-3, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (32) at (-2, 1.5) {};
\node [style=none] (33) at (-1.5, 1.5) {};
\node [style=none] (34) at (0.25, -2) {};
\node [style=none] (35) at (1.775, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (36) at (3.775, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (37) at (2.525, 1.5) {};
\node [style=none] (38) at (2.95, 1.5) {};
\node [style=none] (39) at (-4, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (40) at (-4, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (41) at (-4.1, 5.575) {};
\node [style=none] (42) at (-6, 4.25) {};
\node [style=none] (43) at (-4, 4.25) {};
\node [style=text node] (44) at (-4.75, 8) {intermediate-result};
\node [style=text node] (45) at (-6.75, 5) {tw-wise};
\node [style=text node] (46) at (-8.5, 2) {merge};
\node [style=text node] (47) at (-2, -2.5) {intermediate-result};
\node [style=text node] (48) at (-1.3, 4.575) {\textcolor{gray}{tw}};
\node [style=none] (49) at (-2.5, 9.5) {};
\node [style=none] (50) at (-0.75, -4) {};
\node [style=text node] (51) at (-5.25, -1.75) {$\vdots$};
\node [style=text node] (52) at (5.5, -1.75) {$\vdots$};
\node [style=none] (53) at (1.25, -4) {};
\node [style=text node] (54) at (-3.25, 3.25) {$\cdots$};
\node [style=text node] (55) at (-1.75, 3.25) {$\cdots$};
\node [style=none] (56) at (-14, -1.75) {};
\end{pgfonlayer}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}
\draw [style=tree-edge] (1) to (15);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (1) to (6);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (6) to (12.center);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (13.center) to (6);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (7) to (5);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (11.center) to (5);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (15) to (5);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (3) to (15);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (2) to (15);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (10.center) to (2);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (9.center) to (2);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (8.center) to (2);
\draw [style=area-border] (17.center) to (18.center);
\draw [style=area-border, in=0, out=-45, looseness=1.25] (18.center) to (19.center);
\draw [style=area-border] (20.center) to (19.center);
\draw [style=area-border] (21.center) to (16.center);
\draw [style=area-border, bend left=45, looseness=1.25] (16.center) to (17.center);
\draw [style=area-border, in=180, out=-135, looseness=1.25] (21.center) to (20.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (25.center) to (28.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (26.center) to (29.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (27.center) to (30.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (35.center) to (37.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (36.center) to (38.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (34.center) to (33.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (31.center) to (32.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 0] (24.center) to (23.center);
\draw [style=area-pointer] (41.center) to (22.center);
\draw [style=new edge style 1, bend left=60] (43.center) to (42.center);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (1) to (49.center);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (50.center) to (7);
\draw [style=tree-edge] (53.center) to (7);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Partial sketch of the tree \(T\) of the \(\tw\)-wise tree decompositions. Colored arrows represent operations of the algorithms, with red indicating that the result of the \(\tw\)-wise node is calculated via a \(\tw\)-wise matrix product, and green indicating that the result of that subtree is ANDed pointwise with the result of all other subtrees.}
\label{fig:k-wise-tree-decomp}
\end{figure}
We now describe the algorithm in detail. We begin with the leaves of \(T\), which must be merge nodes. Hence let \(t\) be a merge node with no children. Since $X_t = V_{t}$, any configuration of $X_t$ is a configuration of $V_{t}$. Thus, to calculate $d_{t}(R)$ as in equation~\ref{eq-dp-for-normal-subgraph-iso}, we simply have to check whether $R$ is a valid configuration. The latter can be done in time $\poly(k)$, which leads to a total time of $O(n^{\tw}\poly(k))$ per leaf.
Now let $t\in\help(T)$ be an inner node of $T$. There are two cases: either \(t\) is an intermediate-result node, or \(t\) is a merge node.
\begin{description}
\item[\underline{\(t\) is a merge node:}] Let \(t\) be a merge node. We continue to denote the set of children of \(t\) by \(\children(t)\). For each configuration \(R\) we have
\begin{align*}
d_t(R) &= \ParSol(R;X_t;V_t) = \ParSol\left(R; X_t; \bigcup_{c \in \children(t)} V_c\right)\\
&= \bigwedge_{c\in\children(t)}\ParSol(R;X_t;V_c) = \bigwedge_{c\in\children(t)}d_c(R)
\end{align*}
Since \(t\) has at most \(\poly(k)\) children, and since there are at most \(n^{\tw}\) many possible configurations \(R\), this can be done in time \(O(n^{\tw}poly(k))\) per merge node.
\item[\underline{\(t\) is an intermediate-result node:}] Let \(t\) be an intermediate-result node with \(\tw\)-wise child node \(t'\) and merge node \(t''\). By definition we have \(X_t = X_{t''}\). Furthermore \(|\children(t')| = \tw\), and we can rename the nodes in \(X_{t'}\) to \(X_{t'} = \{v, u_1, \ldots, u_{\tw}\}\) such that \(X_{t'} = X_t \cup \{v\}\) and \(\forall i \in [k]: \exists c(i) \in \children(t'): X_{t'} = X_{c(i)} \cup \{u_i\}\). We have that
\begin{align*}
d_t(R) &= \ParSol(R;X_t;V_t)\\
&= \ParSol(R; X_{t''}; V_{t''})\land {}\\
&\phantom{{}={}}\exists v' \in f^{-1}(v): \forall i \in [\tw]: \ParSol((R\cup \{v \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{c(i)}};X_{c(i)};V_{c(i)})\\
&= d_{t''}(R) \land \exists v' \in f^{-1}(v): \forall i \in [\tw]: d_{c(i)}((R\cup \{v \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{c(i)}}) \tag{\(\ast\)}
\end{align*}
We show how to calculate the values of \(d_t\) via a \(\tw\)-wise boolean matrix product with 0-1-tensors of dimension \(n\times \ldots \times n\). Note that we will use truth values and 0/1 interchangeably to declutter notation. True is interchangeable with 1, false with 0.
For convenience, all tensors from this point onward are indexed via configurations, where each dimension is indexed by a single vertex. Formally, we call a tensor \(A\) \textbf{indexed by configurations of} \(X = \{v_1, \ldots, v_{h}\} \subseteq V(H)\) \textbf{with ordering} \((v_{i_1}, \ldots, v_{i_h})\) (where \(\{v_{i_1}, \ldots, v_{i_h}\} = \{v_1, \ldots, v_{h}\}\)) when it is an order \(h\) tensor of dimension \(n\times \ldots \times n\). Abusing notation, we rename the vertices of \(f^{-1}(v_i)\) for each \(v_i \in X\) to \(\{1, \ldots, n\}\) and use them as if they were numbers. Now for a configuration \(R\) of \(X\) we define \(A[R] = A[R(v_{i_1}), \ldots, R(v_{i_h})]\).
For our \(\tw\)-wise matrix product, we have \(\tw\) input tensors, specifically one tensor \(p_i\) for each \(i \in [\tw]\). \(p_i\) is indexed by configurations of \(X_{c(i)} = X_{t'} \setminus \{u_i\}\) with ordering \((u_1, \ldots, u_{i-1}, v, u_{i+1}, \ldots, u_{\tw})\). Specifically, for a configuration \(R\) of \(X_{c(i)}\) we define \(p_i[R] := d_{c(i)}(R)\) (it is still a 0-1-tensor, remember that truth values and 0/1 are interchangeable).
Now we calculate the \(\tw\)-wise matrix product \(p_{\text{res}} := \MP_{\tw}(p_1, \ldots, p_{\tw})\), which we use as a tensor indexed by configurations of \(X_t\) with ordering \((u_1, \ldots, u_{\tw})\). Hence, for a configuration \(R\) of \(X_t\), we have
\begin{align*}
p_{\text{res}}[R] &= \MP_{\tw}(p_1, \ldots, p_{\tw})[R(u_1), \ldots, R(u_{\tw})]\\
&= \bigvee_{\ell \in [n]} p_1[\ell, R(u_2), \ldots, R(u_{\tw})]\land \ldots \land p_{\tw}[R(u_1), \ldots, R(u_{\tw-1}), \ell]\\
&= \exists v' \in f^{-1}(v): \forall i \in [\tw]: p_i[R(u_1), \ldots, R(u_{i-1}), v', R(u_{i+1}), \ldots, R(u_{\tw})]\\
&= \exists v' \in f^{-1}(v): \forall i \in [\tw]: d_{c(i)}((R\cup \{v \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{c(i)}})
\end{align*}
From this, we can directly calculate \(d_t(R)\) via equation (\(\ast\)): We have \(d_t(R) = d_{t''}(R) \land p_{\text{res}}[R]\). Indeed, this gives a very simple algorithm for computing \(d_t\). The \(\tw\)-wise matrix product for \(p_{\text{res}}\) can be done in time \(O(n^{\tw+1})\), and after that calculating \(d_t\) is a simple pointwise AND with \(d_{t''}\), which takes time \(O(n^{\tw})\). Hence overall we have running time \(O(n^{\tw+1})\).
\end{description}
Since the tree decomposition has \(\poly(k)\) nodes, the overall time the algorithm takes is \(O(n^{\tw+1}\poly(k))\). Now we simply have to extract the answer from DP function of the root node. Let \(r\) be the root node. We have that \(d_r(R)\) is true if and only if there is a partial solution of \(X_r\) in the cone \(V_r = V(H)\). Hence it is true only if \(R\) can be expanded to a solution. Thus, the input is a YES-instance for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} if and only if there is an \(R\) such that \(d_r(R)\) is true.
\end{proof}
So far, we have only looked at the case that $\tw(H) \geq 3$. However, this exact algorithm also achieves the second result.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of part 2 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection})]
Note that in the algorithm for part 1, all steps run in time $O(n^{\tw(H)}\poly(k))$, except for the $\tw(H)$-wise matrix product, which can be done in time $O(n^{\tw(H)+1})$. However, for $\tw(H) = 2$, $\tw(H)$-wise matrix product is exactly matrix multiplication, which runs in time $O(n^\omega)$. Thus we obtain our second result.
\end{proof}
The third result with $\tw(H)=1$ cannot be achieved by this algorithm directly. We shortly outline why. Rooting $H$ in some arbitrary node, consider the tree decomposition that takes exactly the edges of $H$ as bags, and constructs $T$ such that two nodes are connected by an edge if and only if their bags have a non-empty intersection. Now consider a graph $H$ which contains nodes $u,v,w$ such that $u$ is the parent of $v$ and $v$ is the parent of $w$. Let $t,t'\in T$ be such that $X_t = \{u,v\}$, $X_{t'} = \{v,w\}$. But now the edge $vw$ is not covered by any of the subsets $X_{t'} \setminus \{v\}$ or $X_{t'} \setminus \{w\}$ and is thus not considered in the algorithm at all. This leads to the algorithm failing. For $\tw(H) \geq 2$, this does not happen, since any pair of nodes is contained in a bag $X_t$ of size $\geq 3$, hence there is some $u$ such that the edge is covered by the subset $X_{t} \setminus \{u\}$.
Thus, to obtain our third result, we must employ a different technique. However, this part of the theorem turns out to be easy.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of part 3 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection})]
We only sketch the result, since it is easy to see. It suffices to employ the trivial dynamic programming solution on the tree $G$, which already has a running time of $O(n^2\poly(k))$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism for Bounded Treewidth}
We now move on to the weighted version of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}. Specifically, we show how to solve the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem for bounded-treewidth pattern graphs using dynamic programming. Remember that the instances we consider here may be either node- or edge-weighted.
We also remark that the restriction of the target weight \(T\) to zero in the \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} problems is simply for ease of discussion. We use this version to both simplify our algorithms and circumvent any problems that might arise from having $T$ be part of the input. Trivially, all of our results also hold for the problem where a target $T = O(W)$ is given.
\begin{theorem}\label{upper-bound-weighted}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,f,w)$ of the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, solves $\phi$ in time
\begin{enumerate}
\item $O((n^{\tw(H)+1}W + n^{\tw(H)}W\log W)\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\tw(H) \geq 3$,
\item $O((n^\omega W + n^2W\log W)\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 2$, and
\item $O((n^2W + nW \log W)\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\tw(H) = 1$.
\end{enumerate}
where $k := |H|$, $n$ is the size of the preimages of $f$, and $W$ is the maximum absolute weight in the image of $w$.
\end{theorem}
Again, note that this implies Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted} via a simple application of Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv} to the resulting algorithm.
Before we prove this, we establish an important lemma, showing that you can basically do the \(k\)-wise matrix product of tensors of polynomials faster than naively by utilizing the Fast Fourier Transform. Recall that a Laurent polynomial $p \in \mathbb{C}[X,X^{-1}]$ is simply a polynomial which may have negative powers of the $X$.
\begin{lemma}\label{tensor-fft}
Let $q \in \mathbb{N}$ tensors $A^1, \ldots, A^q$ of order $q$ be given, each of dimensions $n \times \ldots \times n$ and such that each of their entries $A^i_{j_1, \ldots, j_q} \in \mathbb{C}[Z,Z^{-1}]$ ($i \in [q]$ and $\forall \ell \in [q]: j_\ell \in [n]$) is a Laurent polynomial of degree bounded by $W$ in both the positive and negative direction. Then their $q$-wise matrix product can be computed in time
\begin{enumerate}
\item $O(n^{q+1}W + qn^qW\log W)$ for $q \geq 3$ and
\item $O(n^{\omega}W + n^2W\log W)$ for $q = 2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove the result for standard polynomials of degree bounded by \(2W\), since we can shift the exponents of the polynomials such that they only have positive exponents, do the \(q\)-wise matrix product, then shift back.
We assume for now that $q \geq 3$. Our algorithm is a generalization of the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm for standard polynomials (e.g. ~\cite{cooley1965algorithm}). Specifically, we evaluate each $A^i$ at the set $S$ of the $2W$-th roots of unity, obtaining $q\cdot |S|$ tensors with complex entries. Since each entry of $A^i$ is a polynomial, this can be done separately for each entry. Then, for each $s \in S$, we compute $\MP_{q}(A^1(s), \ldots, A^q(s))$, obtaining $|S|$ tensors with complex entries. Obviously, these are exactly the evaluations of $\MP_{q}(A^1, \ldots, A^q)$ at $S$. At this point we can use interpolation via the inverse Fast Fourier Transform separately for each entry to recover the result.
Evaluating all entries of the tensors $A^i$ at the roots of unity can be done using the classic Fast Fourier Transform algorithm. Since there are $q \cdot n^{q}$ such entries, each with polynomials of degree bounded by $W$, this runs in time $O(qn^{q}W \log W)$. Similarly, the interpolation of the result can be done by the inverse Fast Fourier Transform algorithm. Since there are $n^{q}$ entries to interpolate, each with a degree bound of $O(W)$, this runs in time $O(qn^{q}W\log W)$. Finally, computing the $q$-wise matrix products for each root of unity can be done in $|S|\cdot n^{q+1} = O(n^{q+1}W)$. Thus, our total running time is $O(n^{q+1}W + qn^{q}W\log W)$.
For the case that $q = 2$, note that in the above algorithm, all steps except for the $q$-wise matrix product run in time $O(n^qW\log W)$. For $q=2$, the $q$-wise matrix product is exactly matrix multiplication, which can be done in $O(n^{\omega})$. Thus the $O(W)$ matrix multiplications can be done in $O(n^{\omega}W)$.
\end{proof}
We use this lemma as an important tool in our proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted}. The framework of the proof is somewhat analogous to that of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, but instead of storing values for every configuration of bags of nodes in $\help(T)$, they we store the values for each configuration and each achievable weight. The computation of the dynamic programming table entries is slightly more complex, with some shifting of the entries being required.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of part 1 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted})]
Due to Proposition~\ref{prop:node-to-edge-weight}, we only need to consider the case of edge weights. We describe an algorithm which takes as inputs $G$, $H$, $f:V(G) \to V(H)$ and a weight function $w$ describing the edge weights. It calculates an optimal tree decomposition $\mathcal{T}_1 := (T_1, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T_1)})$ for $H$ in time $g(k)$ and then computes a solution via dynamic programming over the tree decomposition. By assumption, $\tw := \tw(H) \geq 3$. We continue using the notation and terminology (e.g. ``configuration'') as described in Section~\ref{notation-and-nomenclature-colsubiso}.
We apply Lemma~\ref{lem:k-wise-tree-decomps} to convert the tree decomposition into a \(\tw\)-wise tree decomposition $\mathcal{T}_2 = (T_2, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T_2)})$. Since \(|T_1| = \poly(k)\), the time this conversion takes is certainly negligible. Furthermore, \(|T_2| = \poly(k)\). To simplify our algorithm further, we also modify \(\mathcal{T}_2\) further. Specifically, we introduce a new type of helper node, a \textbf{binary-merge node}, which replaces merge nodes. It is a node that has either zero or two children, both with the same bag as itself. Those children are either binary-merge nodes or intermediate-result nodes. We convert \(\mathcal{T}_2\) into a new tree decomposition $\mathcal{T} := (T, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T)})$ that has binary-merge nodes instead of merge nodes by repeatedly taking any remaining merge node \(t\) with more than two children, splitting its set of children into two non-empty sets \(A\) and \(B\), creating two new children \(t'\) and \(t''\) of \(t\) and making the vertices from \(A\) children of \(t'\) and the vertices of \(B\) children of \(t''\). For any merge node \(t\) with only a single child, we create a new leaf with the same bag and let it be a child of \(t\). Correctness and negligibility of the conversion time is immediate, and the new tree decomposition still has size \(\poly(k)\). We now do dynamic programming over \(\mathcal{T}\).
In deviation from the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, our dynamic programming table is structured differently. Instead of having only a single function of finite domain for each helper node $t$, we have one function for each $t$ and each achievable weight. Since the instance is edge-weighted, the achievable weights must all lie in $\mathcal{W} := \{-k^2W,\ldots,k^2W\}$.
Specifically, for each helper node \(t \in \help(T)\) and each weight \(W' \in \mathcal{W}\) we store the following function of finite domain from configurations of $X_t$ to truth values. Remember that $\ParSolE(R; I; J; W)$ is true if and only if $R$ is a partial solution of $I$ in $J$ with an extension of weight $W$.
\begin{align*}
d_{t,W'} &: \mathcal{Conf}(X_t) \to \{\mathrm{true},\mathrm{false}\}\\
d_{t,W'}(R) &:= \ParSolE(R; X_t; V_t; W')
\end{align*}
i.e.\ we store for each configuration whether it is a partial solution of \(X_t\) in the cone \(V_{t}\) that has an extension of weight \(W'\). We call these functions DP functions (where DP stands for dynamic programming). Since there are $n^{\tw}$ many configurations for $X_t$, each DP function $d_{t,W'}$ can be specified using $n^{\tw}$ many bits.
We calculate the DP functions \(d_t\) for all \(t\in\help(T)\) in a bottom-up manner. The overall picture of the algorithm is as follows: At a non-leaf binary-merge node \(t\), we take the DP functions of both children and do a boolean convolution. At an intermediate-vertex node \(t\), we first convert the DP functions of the children of its \(\tw\)-wise child to tensors with Laurent polynomials as entries, calculate their \(\tw\)-wise matrix product, convert it back to a DP function and then do a boolean convolution with the DP function of its merge node child.
We now describe the algorithm in detail, beginning with the leaves of \(T\). Hence \(t\) be a merge node with no children. Since \(X_t = V_t\), we have that \(d_{t,W'}(R)\) is true if and only if \(R\) is a valid configuration and \(W' = 0\). Clearly this takes total time at most \(O(n^{\tw}W\poly(k))\).
Now let \(t \in \help(T)\) be an inner node of \(T\). There are two cases: either \(t\) is an intermediate-result node, or \(t\) is a merge node.
\begin{description}
\item[\underline{\(t\) is a binary-merge node:}] Let \(t\) be a binary-merge node with children \(t'\) and \(t''\). For each configuration \(R\) we have
\begin{align*}
d_{t,W'}(R) &= \ParSolE(R;X_t;V_t;W') = \ParSolE(R; X_t; V_{t'}\cup V_{t''}; W')\\
&= \exists W_1: \ParSolE(R; X_{t'}; V_{t'}; W_1) \land \ParSolE(R; X_{t''}; W'-W_1)\\
&= \exists W_1: d_{t', W_1}(R) \land d_{t'', W'-W_1}(R)
\end{align*}
This can be calculated using a boolean convolution for each configuration. Specifically, for each configuration \(R\) we define the finitely supported functions \(f_R, g_R: \mathbb{Z} \to \{\mathrm{true},\mathrm{false}\}\) as \(f_R(x) := d_{t',x}(R)\) if \(x \in \mathcal{W}\) and \(\mathrm{false}\) otherwise, and analogously \(g_R(x) := d_{t'',x}(R)\) if \(x \in \mathcal{W}\) and \(\mathrm{false}\) otherwise. We now use the boolean convolution of these functions, defined as \((f_R \ast g_R)(x) := \bigvee_{z=-\infty}^\infty f_R(z)\land g_R(x-z)\). We have that \((f_R\ast g_R)(W') = (\exists W_1: f_R(W_1) \land g_R(W'-W_1)) = d_{t,W'}(R)\). Since \(f_R\) and \(g_R\) only have non-zero values in a range of size \(O(W\poly(k))\), the boolean convolution \(f_R \ast g_R\) can be calculated in time \(O(W \log W\poly(k))\)\footnote{This is a standard result which can be achieved e.g. by using the Fast Fourier Transform.}.
Since there are at most \(n^{\tw}\) many possible configurations \(R\), \(d_{t,W'}\) can be calculated for all \(W'\) in time \(O(n^{\tw}W \log W\poly(k))\). Hence this is the maximum running time we need per binary-merge node.
\item[\underline{\(t\) is an intermediate-result node:}] Let \(t\) be an intermediate-result node with \(\tw\)-wise child node \(t'\) and merge node \(t''\). By definition we have \(X_t = X_{t''}\). Furthermore \(|\children(t')| = \tw\), and we can (temporarily) rename the nodes in \(X_{t'}\) to \(X_{t'} = \{v, u_1, \ldots, u_{\tw}\}\) such that \(X_{t'} = X_t \cup \{v\}\) and \(\forall i \in [k]: \exists c(i) \in \children(t'): X_{t'} = X_{c(i)} \cup \{u_i\}\).
First, we deal with calculating the weight of an extension for a configuration of the bag of the \(\tw\)-wise node. Let $R$ be a partial solution of $X_{t'}$ in $V_{t'}$ and let $S$ be an extension of $R$ (i.e.\ a compatible configuration of \(V_t\)). Notice that we get the following formula for the weight of the extension $S$:
\begin{equation*}
w_{ext}(S,R) \overset{\text{def.}}{=} w(S) - w(S|_{X_{t'}}) = \underbrace{\left(\sum_{i \in [\tw]} w_{ext}(S|_{V_{c(i)}},S|_{X_{c(i)}})\right)}_{\text{Part A}} + \underbrace{w_{ext}(S|_{X_{t'}},S|_{X_{t'}\setminus \{v\}})}_{\text{Part B}}
\end{equation*}
Part A is the combined weight of the edges which are not in $X_{t'}$. Compared to the left hand side, it is missing the weight of all edges going from $v$ to $X_{t'}\setminus\{v\}$, which is exactly what is then added in Part B. Recall that $w_{ext}(S|_{X_{t'}}, S|_{X_{t'}\setminus\{v\}}) = \sum_{u \in X_{t'} \setminus \{v\}} w(S(v)S(u))$.
Hence we can calculate the DP function for \(t\) as follows for each configuration \(R\):
\begin{align*}
d_{t,W'}(R) &= \ParSolE(R;X_t;V_t;W')\\
&= \exists W_v: \ParSolE(R; X_{t''}; V_{t''}; W_v)\land \exists W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw}:\exists v' \in f^{-1}(v):\\
&\phantom{{}={}}w_{ext}((R \cup \{v\mapsto v'\}),R) + \sum_{i=1}^{\tw}W_i = W' - W_v \land {}\\
&\phantom{{}={}}\forall i \in [\tw]: \ParSolE((R\cup \{v \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{c(i)}};X_{c(i)};V_{c(i)}; W_i)\\
&= \exists W_v: d_{t'',W_v}(R)\land \exists W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw}: \exists v' \in f^{-1}(v):\\
&\phantom{{}={}}w_{ext}((R \cup \{v\mapsto v'\}),R) + \sum_{i=1}^{\tw}W_i = W' - W_v \land {}\\
&\phantom{{}={}}\forall i \in [\tw]: d_{c(i), W_i}((R\cup \{v \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{c(i)}}) \tag{\(\dag\)}
\end{align*}
We show how to calculate the values of \(d_{t,W'}\) for all \(W'\) via a \(\tw\)-wise matrix product of Laurent polynomials. We continue using the notation and nomenclature for indexing tensors via configurations, as described in the proof of part 1 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, and continue using truth values and 0/1 interchangeably.
We now define one 0-1-tensors \(p_{i,W'}\) for each \(i \in [\tw]\) and \(W' \in \mathcal{W}\), which is indexed by configurations of \(X_{c(i)} = X_{t'} \setminus \{u_i\}\) with ordering \((u_1, \ldots, u_{i-1}, v, u_{i+1}, \ldots, u_{\tw})\). For a configuration \(R\) of \(X_{c(i)}\) we define
\begin{align*}
p_{i,W'}[R] &:= \begin{cases}
d_{c(1),W'-\sum_{i=2}^{\tw}w(R(v)R(u_i))}(R) &\text{ if $i=1$} \\
d_{c(2),W'-w(R(v)R(u_1))}(R) &\text{ if $i=2$}\\
d_{c(i),W'}(R) &\text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Note that the weight of the part B above is now encoded in these tensors, specifically in the ones for \(i=1\) and \(i=2\). In particular, we can expand equation (\(\dag\)) as
\begin{align*}
&= \exists W_v: d_{t'',W_v}(R)\land \exists W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw}: \sum_{i=1}^{\tw}W_i = W' - W_v \land{}\\
&\phantom{{}={}}\exists v' \in f^{-1}(v): \forall i \in [\tw]: p_{i, W_i}((R\cup \{v \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{c(i)}})
\end{align*}
Analogously to the computation of \(p_{\text{res}}[R]\) in the proof of part 1 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, we have
\begin{align*}
\hspace{-0.4cm}= \exists W_v: d_{t'',W_v}(R)\land \exists W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw}: \sum_{i=1}^{\tw}W_i = W' - W_v \land MP_{\tw}(p_{1, W_1}, \ldots, p_{\tw, W_{\tw}})[R]
\end{align*}
We now show how to compute tensors \(D_{W'}\) for each \(W'\in \mathcal{W}\) such that \(D_{W'}(R) = \exists W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw}: \sum_{i=1}^{\tw}W_i = W' - W_v \land MP_{\tw}(p_{1, W_1}, \ldots, p_{\tw, W_{\tw}})[R]\), which would simplify the above to
\begin{align*}
\hspace{-0.4cm}= \exists W_v: d_{t'',W_v}(R)\land D_{W' - W_v}(R)
\end{align*}
and hence make it computable via a boolean convolution in time \(O(n^{\tw}W \log W\poly(k))\) (given the tensors \(D_{W'}\)).
We want to compute $D_{\widetilde{W}}$ for each $\widetilde{W} \in \mathcal{W}$. Note how, when defining the OR of tensors to be calculated entrywise, we have
\begin{align*}
D_{W'} &= \bigvee_{\substack{W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw} \in \mathcal{W}\\W_1 + \ldots + W_{\tw} = W'}}\MP_{\tw}(p_{1,W_1}, \ldots, p_{\tw,W_{\tw(H)}})
\end{align*}
Indeed, the right-hand side can be calculated using a single $\tw$-wise matrix product of tensors with polynomials as entries. Let $T_{\tw}$ be the group of order-$\tw(H)$ tensors of dimensions $n \times \ldots \times n$ with entries from $\{\mathrm{true}, \mathrm{false}\}$. Define $T_{\tw}[X,X^{-1}]$ as the group of Laurent polynomials with elements of $T_{\tw(H)}$ as coefficients. Note how elements of $T_{\tw}[X,X^{-1}]$ may also be viewed as tensors with Laurent polynomials as entries, or as functions $f: \{0, 1\} \to T_{\tw(H)}$ when using the usual definition of scalar-tensor AND.
We define $p_{i}(X) := \sum_{j\in \mathcal{W}}\,p_{i,j}\cdot X^{j} \in T_{\tw(H)}[X,X^{-1}]$ for all $i$. Viewing them as tensors of polynomials, we may calculate their $\tw(H)$-wise matrix product. Viewing $\MP_{\tw}(p_{1}, \ldots p_{\tw})$ as polynomial again, it can be easily seen that the coefficient tensor for $X^{W'}$ is exactly
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{W_1, \ldots, W_{\tw} \in \mathcal{W}\\W_1 + \ldots + W_{\tw} = W'}}\MP_{\tw}(p_{1, W_1}, \ldots, p_{\tw, W_{\tw}})
\end{align*}
Thus, to compute $D_{W'}$ for all \(W'\), it suffices to compute $\MP_{\tw}(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{\tw})$.
Hence, we have reduced the problem of calculating the tensors $D_{\widetilde{W}}$ to computing the $\tw(H)$-wise matrix product of tensors whose entries are Laurent polynomials of degree bounded (in both directions) by $O(W\poly(k))$. By Lemma~\ref{tensor-fft}, this can be done in time $O((n^{\tw(H)+1}W + n^{\tw(H)}W\log W)poly(k))$.
Hence we have an overall running time of $O((n^{\tw(H)+1}W + n^{\tw(H)}W\log W)poly(k))$ per intermediate-result node.
\end{description}
Again, since the tree decomposition has \(\poly(k)\) nodes, the overall time the algorithm takes is $O((n^{\tw(H)+1}W + n^{\tw(H)}W\log Wpoly(k))$.
After calculating $d_{t',W'}$ for each $t' \in T, W' \in \mathcal{W}$, outputting the result is simple. We simply extract the answer from the DP function of the root node. Let \(r\) be the root of \(T\). We output YES if and only if $\exists R: d_{r,-w(R)}(R) = \mathrm{true}$. By the definition of $d_{t',-w(R)}$, this is the case if and only if $R$ is a partial solution of $X_r$ in the cone $V_{r} = V(H)$ with an extension of weight $-w(R)$. This is the case if and only if $R$ can be expanded to a configuration for all of $V(H)$ such that its total weight is $-w(R)+w(R) = 0$. Hence, $\exists R: d_{t',-w(R)}(R) = \mathrm{true}$ if and only if the instance has a solution. Checking whether such an $R$ exists can obviously be done in time $O(n^{\tw(H)}\poly(k))$.
\end{proof}
We now consider the second part of the theorem. Similarly to the weighted case, it suffices to employ the algorithm from part 1.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of part 2 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted})]
In the algorithm for part 1, all running times except for the $\tw(H)$-wise matrix product are bounded by $O(n^{\tw}W\log W \poly(k))$. For $\tw = 2$, the $\tw$-wise matrix product is simply matrix multiplication, which can be done in $O(n^\omega)$. Thus, for $\tw=2$ the running time is $O(n^\omega W \poly(k)+n^2W\log W \poly(k))$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we come to the third part of the theorem. For reasons outlined in the proof of the previous theorem, the algorithm from part 1 does not work for $\tw(H)=1$. Again, however, the result turns out to be quite simple for this case.
\begin{proof}[Proof (of part 3 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted})]
Again, we only sketch the result, since it is easy to see. A simple dynamic programming algorithm on trees can be applied, storing for each node which configurations together with which weights can be achieved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism for Bounded Pathwidth}\label{sec:algo-col-subiso-bounded-pathwidth}
Surprisingly, \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} can be solved slightly faster on graphs of bounded pathwidth. This algorithm leverages rectangular matrix multiplication.
We briefly discuss (rectangular) matrix multiplication and current algorithms solving it. Multiplication of $n \times n$ by $n\times n$ matrices is perhaps the most ubiquitous open problem in computer science, with the central question being whether it can be done in \(O(n^2)\) time. The matrix multiplication exponent $\omega$ has been slowly inching toward, but not quite reaching, a value of 2 over the last few decades. In our algorithms, however, we also multiply rectangular matrices. It turns out that the techniques used in these fast algorithms for square matrix multiplication can also be generalized to the rectangular case. In the following, let $\MM(s,r,t)$ denote the time needed to multiply a matrix of size $r\times s$ with a matrix of size $s\times t$. We are mostly interested in the case that $s=n, r=n$ and $t=n^k$ for some $k\in \mathbb{R}^+$.
A simple, well-known result is that $\MM$ is both convex and symmetrical in its arguments (see e.g.~\cite{lotti1983asymptotic,stothers2010complexity}). In particular, we have $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}^+: \MM(n,n,n^{k+x}) \leq n^x\cdot MM(n,n,n^k)$ and $\MM(n,n,n^k) = \MM(n,n^k,n)$. Letting $\omega(k) := \log_n MM(n,n,n^k)$, we immediately get $\forall k \geq 1: \omega(k) < k + 1.373$ via the current bounds of $\omega(1) = \omega < 2.373$~\cite{le2014powers}.
We can, however, do better: Le Gall~\cite{gall2018improved} has shown that there are faster algorithms based on the Coppersmith-Winograd method~\cite{coppersmith1987matrix, le2014powers} used for square matrix multiplication. Among other values, he shows $\omega(0.31) = 2$, $\omega(2) < 3.26$, $\omega(3) < 4.2$, $\omega(4) < 5.18$ and $\omega(5) < 6.16$ (see~\cite{gall2018improved} for an extensive table of such values).
We now show how rectangular matrix multiplication can be used for bounded-pathwidth pattern graphs.
\begin{theorem}\label{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,f)$ of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, solves $\phi$ in time
\begin{enumerate}
\item $O(n^{\omega(\pw(H)-1)}\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\pw(H)\geq 2$, and
\item $O(n^2\poly(k)) + g(k)$ when $\pw(H)=1$
\end{enumerate}
where $k := |H|$, $n$ is the size of the preimages of $f$, and $g$ is a computable function.
\end{theorem}
This theorem implies Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-detection-pathwidth} from the results section.
\begin{proof}
\textbf{Part 2} of the theorem is trivial, since for any graph, its treewidth is smaller than its pathwidth. Hence, by application of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, we achieve the desired running time.
\medskip
For \textbf{part 1}, let $G$, $H$ and $f: V(G) \to V(H)$ be given. The algorithm first computes an optimal path decomposition $\mathcal{P} = (P, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(T)})$ of $H$ in time $g(k)$ (see preliminaries), then does dynamic programming over $\mathcal{P}$.
To unify nomenclature and notation with the case of treewidth, we talk about a path as a tree rooted at one of its endpoints. As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, we modify the path decomposition $\mathcal{P}$ to satisfy certain properties. Specifically, we wish to obtain the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The bags of the root and leaf of the path have size $\pw(H)$, and every other bag has size $\pw(H)+1$
\item For every $t \in V(P)$ with child $t'$, we have $|X_t \cap X_{t'}| = \pw(H)$
\end{enumerate}
These properties can be obtained with similar techniques as described in the proof of part 1 of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}.
We now do dynamic programming on this modified path decomposition. We only store values for each configuration of the separators $X_t \cap X_{t'}$. In particular, let $t'$ be a node other than the root, and let $t$ be its parent. As in Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, we only store
\begin{align*}
d_{t'} &: \mathcal{Conf}(X_t \cap X_{t'}) \to \{\mathrm{true},\mathrm{false}\}\\
d_{t'}(R) &:= \ParSol(R; X_t \cap X_{t'}; V_{t'})\tag{1}
\end{align*}
We calculate these functions bottom-up. The case that $t'$ is the leaf is analogous to the corresponding case in Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, taking time $O(n^{\pw(H)}\poly(k))$.
Now let $t'$ with parent $t$ and child $t''$ be an inner node of $P$. We define \(\hat{v}\) to be the unique element with $\hat{v} \in X_{t'} \setminus X_t$ and similarly, $\hat{w} \in X_{t'} \setminus X_{t''}$ (or, if we would have \(\hat{v} = \hat{w}\), we take \(\hat{w}\) to be some vertex from \(X_{t'}\setminus \{\hat{v}\}\) instead), and finally $E := X_{t'} \setminus \{\hat{v},\hat{w}\}$. Now if \(\hat{v}\hat{w} \notin E(H)\), the calculation is easy.
\todo{details}
Hence assume \(\hat{v}\hat{w} \in E(H)\). For a configuration $R$ of $X_t \cap X_{t'}$, we get the following alternate characterization of $d_{t'}(R)$:
\begin{align*}
d_{t'}(R) = &\ValConf(R; \{\hat{w}\}\cup E) \land {}\\
&\exists v' \in f^{-1}(\hat{v}): \ParSol((R \cup \{\hat{v} \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{t'}\setminus\{\hat{w}\}}; \{\hat{v}\} \cup E; V_{t''}) \land v'R(w) \in E(G)
\end{align*}
We describe how to calculate $d_{t'}$ via rectangular matrix multiplication. Much like in Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}, the matrices are indexed by configurations. In contrast to the former, however, one of the two dimensions of the matrix might correspond to the configuration of multiple vertices. Formally, for a vertex subset $Y \subseteq V(H)$ and a vertex $x \in V(H), x \notin Y$, we call a matrix $A$ \textbf{indexed by configurations of $(x,Y)$} when it is of dimensions $n \times n^{|Y|}$. We use two arbitrary bijections $g_{\{x\}}: \mathcal{Conf}(\{x\}) \to [n]$ and $g_Y: \mathcal{Conf}(Y) \to [n^{|Y|}]$ which will help us map configurations of $x$ and $Y$ to indices of the matrix. Hence, for a configuration $R$ of $\{x\} \cup Y$, we define $A[R] := A[g_x(R|_{\{x\}}),g_Y(R|_Y)]$.
For our rectangular matrix product, we define a $n\times n^{\pw(H)-1}$ matrix $B_{t'}$ indexed by configurations of $(\hat{v},E)$. For a configuration $R'$ of $\{\hat{v}\} \cup E$, we define
\begin{align*}
B_{t'}[R'] := d_{t''}(R') = \ParSol(R'; \{\hat{v}\} \cup E;V_{t''})
\end{align*}
Now consider the adjacency matrix $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}$ of $f^{-1}(\hat{v})$ and $f^{-1}(\hat{w})$, indexed by configurations of $(\hat{w},\{\hat{v}\})$. We make sure that the indexing bijection $g_{\{\hat{v}\}}$ as defined above is the same for both $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}$ and $B_{t'}$ and then calculate the matrix product $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}\cdot B_{t'}$. Naturally, the product is indexed by configurations of $(\hat{w},E)$ and can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
&(Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}\cdot B_{t'})[R']\\
&\phantom{stuff}= \exists v' \in f^{-1}(\hat{v}): \ParSol((R' \cup \{\hat{v} \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{t'}\setminus\{\hat{w}\}}; \{\hat{v}\} \cup E;V_{t''}) \land v'R(w) \in E(G)
\end{align*}
Hence, we may write $d_{t'}(R)$ as
\begin{align}\label{dp-formula-pathwidth}
d_{t'}(R) = \ValConf(R;\{\hat{w}\} \cup E) \land (Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}\cdot B_{t'})[R]
\end{align}
The algorithm to calculate $d_{t'}$ is immediate. First, we calculate the rectangular matrix product of $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}$ and $B_{t'}$ in time $O(n^{\omega(\pw(H)-1)})$, then calculate $d_{t'}$ via formula~\ref{dp-formula-pathwidth}. Checking whether $R$ is a valid configuration of $\{\hat{w}\} \cup E$ can be done in time $\poly(\pw(H)) \leq \poly(k)$, giving us a total time of at most $O(n^{\omega(\pw(H)-1)}\poly(k))$ per inner node.
To output the answer, consider the child $r'$ of the root $r$. We have by definition that $d_{r'}(R)$ is 1 if and only if $R$ is a partial solution for $X_r$ in $V(H)$. Thus, the input is a YES-instance for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} if and only if there is an $R$ such that $d_{r'}(R)$ is 1.
Since there is only a single leaf and $\poly(k)$ inner nodes, total running time of the dynamic programming algorithm is $O(n^{\omega(\pw(H)-1)}\poly(k))$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism for Bounded Pathwidth}
The techniques of using rectangular matrix multiplication for the case of pathwidth can also be applied to the weighted case, and they lead to improvements in the expected way. Again, the instances may be either node- or edge-weighted.
\begin{theorem}\label{upper-bound-weighted-pathwidth}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,f,w)$ of the \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, solves $\phi$ in time
\begin{enumerate}
\item $O((n^{\omega(\pw(H)-1)}W + n^{\pw(H)}W\log W)\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\pw(H) \geq 2$, and
\item $O((n^2 W + nW\log W)\poly(k) + g(k))$ when $\pw(H) = 1$
\end{enumerate}
where $k := |V(H)|$, $n$ is the size of the preimages of $f$, $W$ is the maximum absolute weight in the image of $w$, and $g$ is a computable function.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
From this, Theorem~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted-pathwidth} from the results section follows directly via Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-fft-rectangular-mm}
Let two matrices $A,B$ of dimensions $r\times s$ and $s\times t$ be given, such that each of their entries $A_{i,j}, B_{j,k} \in \mathbb{C}[X, X^{-1}]$ (for all $i \in [r], j \in [s], k \in [t]$) is a Laurent polynomial of degree bounded by $W$ in both the positive and the negative direction. Then their product can be computed in time $O(MM(r,s,t)W + (rs + st)W \log W)$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Analogous to Lemma~\ref{tensor-fft}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof (of theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted-pathwidth})]
Again, we only need to prove an algorithm for the edge-weighted case due to Proposition~\ref{prop:node-to-edge-weight}.
\textbf{Part 2} is a corollary of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted}, since for any graph, its treewidth is smaller than its pathwidth.
\medskip
For \textbf{part 1}, we only sketch the proof, since it is a straightforward combination of the techniques used in the proofs of Theorems~\ref{upper-bound-weighted} and~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}. We use notation and phrasing from both of those proofs without further mention.
Given $G, H$ and $f$, we compute an optimal path decomposition $(P, \{X_t\}_{t\in V(P)})$ for $H$ and do dynamic programming on the modified path decomposition as described in the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}. For each non-root node $t' \in P$ with parent $t$, for each weight $W' \in \mathcal{W}$ and for each configuration $R$ of $X_t \cap X_{t'}$, we store
\begin{align*}
d_{t',W'} := \ParSolE(R; X_t \cap X_{t'}; V_{t'}; W')
\end{align*}
The case that $t'$ is a leaf is clear. For the case that $t'$ is an inner node with parent $t$ and child $t''$, let \(\hat{v},\hat{w}\) be the unique elements with $\hat{v} \in X_{t'} \setminus X_t, \hat{w} \in X_{t'}\setminus X_{t''}$ (or, if we would have \(\hat{v} = \hat{w}\), we take \(\hat{w}\) to be some vertex from \(X_{t'}\setminus \{\hat{v}\}\) instead) and $E = X_{t'} \setminus \{\hat{v},\hat{w}\}$. If \(\hat{v}\hat{w} \notin E(H)\), the calculation is easy, hence assume \(\hat{v}\hat{w} \in E(H)\). For each weight $W'$, we build a rectangular matrix $A_{t'}^{W'}$ indexed by $(\hat{v},E)$. The entry corresponding to a configuration $R$ of $\{\hat{v}\} \cup E$ tells us whether $R$ has an extension of weight $W' + x$, where $x$ is the weight contributed by $\hat{v}$ in $\{\hat{v}\} \cup E$. In particular $x := \sum_{\hat{u} \in E} w(R|_{\{\hat{u},\hat{v}\}})$.
We also use, for each weight $W'$, an adjacency matrix $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}^{W'}$ defined for node-weighted instances as
\begin{align*}
Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}^{W'}[v',w'] = v'w' \in E(G) \land w(v'w') = W'
\end{align*}
We then create two Laurent polynomials of degree $|\mathcal{W}|$, one with the matrices $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}^{W'}$ as coefficients, one with the matrices $A_{t'}^{W'}$. These can also be seen as matrices with Laurent polynomials as entries. Using Lemma~\ref{lemma-fft-rectangular-mm}, we then calculate their matrix product, which tells us for each weight $W'$ and each configuration $R$ of $\{\hat{w}\} \cup E$ if $R$ is a potential solution of $\{\hat{w}\} \cup E$ in $V_{t'}$ with an extension of weight $W'$, potentially missing edges between the preimage of $w$ and the preimages of $E$. The latter can be checked for each entry. This leads to the desired running time.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Improvements for the Node-Weighted Case}
In the case of node weights instead of edge weights, some of the algorithms can be slightly improved using rectangular matrix multiplication. However, these improvements only work for the case that that the treewidth of $H$ is 1 and for the case of bounded pathwidth.
Specifically, we show the following two results, which imply Theorems~\ref{corollary-node-weighted-algo-trees} and~\ref{corollary-node-weighted-algo-pathwidth} from the results section.
\begin{theorem}\label{node-weighted-algo-trees}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,f,w)$ of the node-weighted \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem where $H$ is a tree, solves $\phi$ in time $O(\MM(n,n,W)\poly(k) + nW\log W\poly(k))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{node-weighted-algo-pathwidth}
There is an algorithm which, given an arbitrary instance $\phi = (H,G,f,w)$ of the node-weighted \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, solves $\phi$ in time $O(MM(n,n,n^{\pw(H)-1}W)\poly(k) + g(k))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{node-weighted-algo-trees})]
Let $G,f: V(G) \to V(H)$ and $w: V(G) \to \mathbb{Z}$ be given. All achievable total weights must lie in $\mathcal{W} := \{-kW, \ldots, kW\}$.
We do dynamic programming on the tree $H$. Rooting $H$ in an arbitrary vertex, we define $T_u$ to be the subtree rooted at a node $u \in H$. For each weight $W \in \mathcal{W}$, each node $v \in H$, we store the following function of finite domain:
\begin{align*}
d_{v,W}&: \mathcal{Conf}(\{v\}) \to \{\mathrm{true},\mathrm{false}\}\\
d_{v,W}(R) &:= \ParSolE(R; \{v\}; T_v; W)
\end{align*}
We calculate the entries of these functions bottom-up, starting at the leaves of $H$. If $v$ is a leaf, $d_{v,W}(R)$ is 1 if and only if $W = 0$. Now suppose $v$ is a non-leaf node of $H$ with set of children $C_v$. For each child $u \in C_v$, we construct a rectangular matrix $p_{v}^u$. This matrix is indexed by $w$ and $\mathcal{W}$. Formally, we call a matrix $A$ \textbf{indexed by $w$ and $\mathcal{W}$} if it has dimensions $n\times |\mathcal{W}|$. We use two arbitrary bijections $g_{\{v\}}: \mathcal{Conf}(\{v\}) \to [n]$ and $g_{\mathcal{W}}: \mathcal{W} \to [|\mathcal{W}|]$ to help us map weights from $\mathcal{W}$ and configurations of $v$ to indices of $A$. Correspondingly, we define $A[R,W] := A[g_v(R),g_W(W)]$.
We define $p_{v}^u$ as
\begin{align*}
p_{v}^u[R,W] := \ParSolE(R;\{v\};\{v\} \cup T_u;W)
\end{align*}
We may calculate this as follows. Let $Adj_{\{v,u\}}$ be the adjacency matrix of $f^{-1}(v)$ and $f^{-1}(u)$ indexed by $(v,\{u\})$ (as defined in the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}), and let $\widetilde{d}_u$ be the rectangular matrix indexed by $u$ and $\mathcal{W}$ and defined as $\widetilde{d}_u[R,W] := d_{u,W-w(R)}(R)$. We make sure that the indexing bijection $g_{\{u\}}$ as defined above is the same for both $Adj_{v,u}$ and $\widetilde{d}_u$ and then calculate the matrix product $Adj_{v,u}\cdot \widetilde{d}_u$. The product is indexed by configurations of $v$ and $\mathcal{W}$ and can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
(Adj_{v,u}\cdot \widetilde{d}_u)[R,W] &= \exists u' \in f^{-1}(u): R(v)u' \in E(G) \land \ParSolE(R;\{u\}; T_u; W-w(u'))\\
&= \ParSolE(R;\{v\};\{v\} \cup T_u; W)\\
&= p_v^u[R,W]\\
\intertext{Writing $C_v = \{u_1, \ldots, u_c\}$ with $c = |C_v|$, the function $d_{v,W}$ may then be expressed as}
d_{v,W}(R) &= \exists W_1, \ldots, W_c: \sum_{i=1}^c W_i = W \land \forall i: p_v^{u_i}[R,W_i]
\end{align*}
Similarly to the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-weighted}, this may be calculated using a boolean convolution. Accordingly, we define for each configuration $R$ of $v$ the finitely supported functions $f_{v,R}^1, \ldots, f_{v,R}^c: \mathbb{Z} \to \{\mathrm{true}, \mathrm{false}\}$ as $f_{v,R}^i(x) := p_v^{u_i}(R)$ if $x \in \mathcal{W}$, and 0 otherwise. By a simple calculation, we get $d_{v,W}(R) = (f_{v,R}^1\ast \ldots \ast f_{v,R}^c)(W)$.
Finally, after having calculated all values of $d_{t',W}(R)$ for all $t',W$ and $R$, we wish to output the result. Let $r$ be the root of $H$. By definition of $d_{r,W}$, there is some configuration $R$ of $r$ such that $d_{r,-w(R)}(R) = \mathrm{true}$ if and only if the instance has a solution.
It remains to analyze the running time. For the leaves of $H$, the calculation takes time $O(nW)$. For inner nodes, the calculation of the matrix product $Adj_{\{v,u\}} \cdot \widetilde{d}_u$ takes time $\MM(n,n,W)$. Finally, calculating the discrete convolutions takes time $O(nW\log W)$, since any vertex of $v$ is involved as a child in at most one discrete convolution. Hence, we arrive at the running time from the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof (of Theorem~\ref{node-weighted-algo-pathwidth})]
The proof uses a combination of the techniques from the proofs of Theorem~\ref{node-weighted-algo-trees} and Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}.
Let $G, H, f:V(G) \to V(H)$ and $w: V(G) \to \mathbb{Z}$ be given. We compute an optimal path decomposition in time $g(k)$, modify it as described in Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}, obtaining a modified path decomposition $\mathcal{P} = (P, \{X_t\}_{t \in P})$, and then do dynamic programming on $\mathcal{P}$. Note that all achievable weights must lie in $\mathcal{W} := \{-kW, \ldots, kW\}$.
We store, for each non-root node $t'$ with parent $t$ of $P$, the following function of finite domain:
\begin{align*}
d_{t',W}(R) := \ParSolE(R;X_t \cap X_{t'}; V_{t'};W)
\end{align*}
For $t'$ a leaf, the calculations is clear. Let $t'$ be an inner node with parent $t$ and child $t''$ and define \(\hat{v}\) to be the unique element with $\hat{v} \in X_{t'} \setminus X_t$ and similarly $\hat{w} \in X_{t'} \setminus X_{t''}$ (or, if we would have \(\hat{v} = \hat{w}\), we take \(\hat{w}\) to be some arbitrary vertex from \(X_{t'}\setminus \{v\}\) instead) and finally $E := X_{t'} \setminus \{\hat{v},\hat{w}\}$. If \(\hat{v}\hat{w} \notin E(H)\), the calculation is easy, hence assume \(\hat{v}\hat{w} \in E(H)\). For a configuration $R$ of $X_t \cap X_{t'}$, we get the following alternate characterization of $d_{t',W}(R)$:
\begin{align*}
d_{t',W}(R) =& \ValConf(R; \{\hat{w}\} \cup E) \land \exists v' \in f^{-1}(\hat{v}): v'R(\hat{w}) \in E(G)\ \land {} \\
&\ParSolE((R \cup \{\hat{v} \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{t'}\setminus \{\hat{w}\}}; \{\hat{v}\} \cup E; V_{t''}; W-w(v'))
\end{align*}
We now set up our rectangular matrix product. For a vertex $x \in V(H), x \notin E$, we call a matrix $A$ indexed by $x,E$ and $\mathcal{W}$ if it has dimensions $n\times n^{|E|} |\mathcal{W}|$. We use two arbitrary bijections $g_{\{x\}}: \mathcal{Conf}(\{x\}) \to [n]$ and $g_{E,\mathcal{W}}: \mathcal{Conf}(E) \times \mathcal{W}) \to [n^{|E|}|\mathcal{W}|]$ to help index the matrix and define, for a configuration $R$ of $\{x\} \cup E$, $A[R,W] := A[g_x(R|_{x}),g_{E,\mathcal{W}}(R|_E,W)]$.
We define the $n\times n^{\pw(H)-1}|\mathcal{W}|$ matrix $B_{t'}$, which is to be indexed by $\hat{v},E$ and $\mathcal{W}$, as follows:
\begin{align*}
B_{t'}[R',W'] := d_{t',W'-w(R'|_{\hat{v}})}(R')
\end{align*}
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection-pathwidth}, we also use the adjacency matrix $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}$ indexed by configurations of $(\hat{w},\{\hat{v}\})$. Ensuring that the indexing bijections $g_{\{\hat{v}\}}$ are the same for both $B_{t'}$ and $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}$, we calculate $Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}\cdot B_{t'}$ and obtain a matrix indexed by $\hat{w},E$ and $\mathcal{W}$. Its entries can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
(Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}\cdot B_{t'})[R',W'] = &\exists v' \in f^{-1}(\hat{v}): v'R'(w) \in E(G)\land {}\\
&\ParSolE((R' \cup \{\hat{v} \mapsto v'\})|_{X_{t'}\setminus \{\hat{w}\}}; \{\hat{v}\} \cup E; V_{t''}; W'-w(v'))
\end{align*}
Thus, $d_{t'}(R)$ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
d_{t',W}(R) = \ValConf(R;\{\hat{w}\} \cup E) \land (Adj_{\hat{v},\hat{w}}\cdot B_{t'})[R,W]
\end{align*}
This concludes the description of the computation of $d_{t',W}$. For the computation of the answer, consider the child $r'$ of the root $r$. By definition of $d_{r',W}(R)$, we have that there exists a configuration $R$ such that $d_{t',-w(R|_{X_{r}}}(R) = \mathrm{true}$ if and only if the instance has a solution.
By a simple argument, this dynamic programming algorithm has a running time of $O(MM(n,n,n^{\pw(H)-1}W)\poly(k))$.
\end{proof}
\section{Interconnections Between Subgraph Isomorphism, Boolean \(k\)-Wise Matrix Products and Hyperclique}\label{sec:interconnections}
We have seen in the proof of the conditional lower bound for the unweighted \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem that for any \(t\in\mathbb{N}\) there is a polynomial-time reduction from \(h\)-uniform \(h(t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} with \(n\) nodes to \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} on pattern graphs of treewidth \(t\) with \(n^h\) nodes. Hence we have the following corollary, which follows directly from the~\hyperref[lem:unweighted-lemma]{Unweighted Lemma}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:col-subiso-to-hyperclique}
If there is a \(t\geq 3\) such that the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem for pattern graphs of treewidth \(t\) can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) (for some \(\varepsilon > 0\)), then for any \(3\leq h\leq t\) the \(h\)-uniform \(h(t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem can be solved in time \(O(n^{h(t+1)-\varepsilon'})\) (for some \(\varepsilon' > 0\)).
\end{corollary}
But what about the other direction? Can we also provide a conditional lower bound for \textsc{Hyperclique} under the hypothesis that \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} cannot be solved faster, hence proving an equivalence? Indeed we can! However, the ``equivalence'' we get is not as strong as one might hope.
Specifically, it turns out that the algorithm we described for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} already gives a Turing reduction from \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} with treewidth \(t\) to the \textsc{Boolean \(t\)-wise Matrix Product} problem\footnote{Defined as: Given \(t\) tensors \(A^1, \ldots, A^t\) of order \(t\) with dimensions \(n\times \ldots \times n\), calculate their boolean \(t\)-wise matrix product \(\MP_t(A^1, \ldots, A^t)\).}. Indeed, it can also be seen that the \textsc{Boolean \(t\)-wise Matrix Product} problem is equivalent to the \(t\)-uniform \((t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem. More formally, we have the following two lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
For any \(t\geq 3\), if the \textsc{Boolean \(t\)-wise Matrix Product} problem can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\), then \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graphs of treewidth \(t\) can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As was already mentioned in the algorithms for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} (see the proof of Theorem~\ref{upper-bound-detection}), the boolean \(\tw(H)\)-wise matrix product is the bottleneck for the running time. All other operations run in time \(O(n^{\tw(H)}\poly(|V(H)|))\). Hence a \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) algorithm for \textsc{Boolean \(t\)-wise Matrix Product} translates directly to a \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) algorithm for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} with \(\tw(H) = t\).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:hyperclique-to-k-wise-mp}
If the \(t\)-uniform \((t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) (for some \(\varepsilon > 0\)), then the \textsc{Boolean \(t\)-wise Matrix Product} problem can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon'})\) (for some \(\varepsilon' > 0\)).
\end{lemma}
We defer the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:hyperclique-to-k-wise-mp} to Appendix~\ref{apx:boolean-to-hyperclique}. Indeed, in appendix~\ref{apx:hyperclique-equiv-boolean}, we also show the other direction, i.e.\ we show that the existence of fast algorithms for these two problems is actually equivalent. This is a natural generalization of methods from~\cite{williams2010subcubic}, where this result is proven for combinatorial algorithms for the case \(t=2\).
\noindent
Composing these two lemmas, we get the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hyperclique-to-col-subiso}
If the \(t\)-uniform \((t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon})\) (for some \(\varepsilon > 0\)), then the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem on pattern graphs of treewidth \(t\) can be solved in time \(O(n^{t+1-\varepsilon'})\) (for some \(\varepsilon' > 0\)).
\end{theorem}
Looking at Corollary~\ref{cor:col-subiso-to-hyperclique} and Theorem~\ref{thm:hyperclique-to-col-subiso}, we have reductions in both directions, but they do not give a full equivalence. This is because the reduction from Corollary~\ref{cor:col-subiso-to-hyperclique} only gives an algorithm for \(h\)-uniform \(h(t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} (for any \(h\geq 3\)), but Theorem~\ref{thm:hyperclique-to-col-subiso} needs an algorithm for the much ``denser'' \(t\)-uniform \((t+1)\)-\textsc{Hyperclique} problem.
\todo{maybe stuff about \(\exists r,s,t\)-equivalence and why this doesn't work due to input size problems}
\todo{maybe stuff about weighted equivalence}
\todo{if not weighted equivalence, remove from title of this section -- done}
\section{The Colored Problems are Equivalent to the Uncolored Problems}\label{section-equivalence}
We now show Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv} from the preliminaries (restated in a modified form below), which shows that the \textsc{(Exact Weight) Subgraph Isomorphism} and \textsc{(Exact Weight) Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problems are essentially equivalent with respect to running times. Hence, for most of our purposes, we can treat them as equal, which simplifies both the proofs of the algorithms and the lower bounds since the colored version is much more structured.
The reductions from \textsc{(Exact Weight) Subgraph Isomorphism} to \textsc{(Exact Weight) Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} and the reduction from \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} to \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} leaves $H$ unmodified. The reduction from \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} to \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, however, modifies $H$ in such a way that preserves treewidth, but may modify pathwidth.
We say that \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} or \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} have a $T(n,k,\rho(H))$ algorithm (for some graph parameter $\rho$) if there is an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ which decides a given instance $\phi = (H,G,f)$ of either problem in time \(T(n,k,\rho(H))\). Analogously, we define the phrase that \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} or \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} has a $T(n,k,\rho(H),W)$ algorithm, the only difference being that $\phi = (H,G,f,w)$. $W$ denotes the maximum absolute value of the weight function $w$.
Parts 1 and 2 of the lemma follows directly from the Color Coding technique~\cite{alon1995color}.
\begin{lemma}[reformulation of Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv}]
Let $\rho$ be any graph parameter.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If there is a $T(n,k,\rho(H))$ time deterministic algorithm for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a $O(T(k n,k,\rho(H))g(k))$ expected time algorithm and furthermore a \(\widetilde{O}(T(k n,k,\rho(H))g(k))\) time deterministic algorithm for \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, for some computable function $g$.
\item If there is a \(T(n,k,\rho(H),W)\) time deterministic algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a \(O(T(k n, k, \rho(H),W)g(k))\) expected time algorithm and furthermore a \(\widetilde{O}(T(k n, k, \rho(H),W)g(k))\) time deterministic algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}, for some computable function \(g\).
\item Let $\tw(H) \geq 2$. If there is a $T(n,k,\tw(H))$ time algorithm for \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a $O(T(\poly(k)n,\poly(k),\tw(H)) + \poly(k)n^2)$ time algorithm for \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}.
\item If there is a $T(n,k,\rho(H),W)$ time algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism}, then there is a $O(T(2n,2k,\rho(H),2^kW) + \poly(k)n^2)$ time algorithm for \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof (of Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv})]
We start by showing \textbf{part 1} and \textbf{part 2}. As mentioned, this follows directly from a standard application of the Color Coding technique~\cite{alon1995color}. Briefly speaking, they use random colorings of the vertices of $G$ to make the potential solution subgraph multicolored with some probability depending only on $k$. In our case, we may then try all $k!$ mappings from colors to vertices of $H$ to obtain the randomized algorithm; we delete any monochromatic edges to make sure that $f$ is a homomorphism. The authors of~\cite{alon1995color} also explain how to derandomize the algorithm using $k$-perfect hash functions, which results in the deterministic algorithm with an additional factor of $2^{O(k)}\log(n)$.
The factor of $k$ in front of $n$ in $T(k n,k,\tw(H))$ comes from the fact that in the \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, we consider $n$ to be the size of the preimages of $f$, while in the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem, we consider it to be the size of $V(G)$.
\medskip
Now we show \textbf{part 3}. Given an instance $\phi$ of \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism}, where $H$ has $k$ vertices, with preimages in $G$ of $n$ vertices each, we construct an equivalent \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} instance $\phi'$. This is done in two steps. First, we modify $\phi$ into an equivalent, but more structured \textsc{Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} instance $\widetilde{\phi}$, which we then reduce to $\phi'$. See Figure~\ref{sketch-equiv} for an example of this reduction.
\begin{description}
\item[\underline{Subdividing all edges:}] In the first step, we construct $\widetilde{H}$, which consists of a subdivided copy of $H$, where each vertex has a unique ``signature'' structure attached to it. These signatures have a triangle as a key component. Abusing notation, we write $V(H) = \{1,\ldots, k\}$ and use the vertices as numbers. First, for each $i \in V(H)$, we add a vertex $\widetilde{i}$ to $\widetilde{H}$. Then, for each edge $ij \in E(H)$ with $i<j$, we add a vertex $\widetilde{x}_{ij}$ and create two edges $\widetilde{i}\widetilde{x_{ij}}$ and $\widetilde{x}_{ij}\widetilde{j}$, hence subdividing the edge $ij$. This ensures that for now, the new graph has no triangles. In $\widetilde{G}$, we populate the preimages as follows: For each $i \in V(H)$, let $f^{-1}(i) = \{a_i^1, \ldots, a_i^n\}$ and add $n$ vertices $\{\widetilde{a}_i^1, \ldots, \widetilde{a}_i^n\}$ to $f^{-1}(\widetilde{i})$. For each $\ell$, the vertex $\widetilde{a}_i^\ell$ corresponds to $a_i^\ell$. The preimages of $\widetilde{x}_{ij}$ are populated with $n$ vertices $\{b_{ij}^1, \ldots, b_{ij}^n\}$ via $\widetilde{f}$. For each edge $ij \in E(H)$ with $i<j$, we add an edge $a_i^\ell b_{ij}^\ell$ for every $\ell \in [n]$. We also go through each edge $a_i^\ell a_j^m \in E(G)$ and add a corresponding edge $b_{ij}^\ell \widetilde{a}_j^m$ to $E(\widetilde{G})$.
\item[\underline{Signatures:}] We now add the signatures. For each $i \in [k]$, we add a new vertex $\widetilde{t}_i$ and a new triangle $\widetilde{u}_i\widetilde{v}_i\widetilde{w}_i$ to $\widetilde{H}$, and connect $\widetilde{t}_i$ to both $\widetilde{u}_i$ and $\widetilde{i}$ from $V(\widetilde{H})$. Furthermore, we connect $\widetilde{v}_i$ to $i+1$ other newly created vertices $\widetilde{y}_i^1, \ldots \widetilde{y}_i^{i+1}$. Let the set of all newly created vertices $\widetilde{t}_i, \widetilde{u}_i, \widetilde{v}_i, \widetilde{w}_i, \widetilde{y}_i^\ell$ ($i \in [n], \ell \in [i+1]$) be named $X$. In $\widetilde{G}$, we populate the preimages of these new vertices by adding $n$ vertices $\{z_1, \ldots, z_n\}$ to $V(\widetilde{G})$ for each vertex $v \in X$, with $\forall i \in [n]: \widetilde{f}(z_i) = v$. Now, for each $u \in X$, we pick an arbitrary node from $f^{-1}(u)$ and call it active. Furthermore, for all $\widetilde{i} \in V(\widetilde{H})$, we call all vertices of $f^{-1}(i)$ active. Now for each $v \in X$, we connect its active vertex in $f^{-1}(v)$ to all active vertices from the neighbourhood $f^{-1}(N(v))$. Note that of the vertices in $f^{-1}(X)$, only the active ones have edges at all. Indeed, for each $i \in [k]$, $\widetilde{G}$ contains exactly one triangle such that one of its vertices has degree $i+3$.
\end{description}
\begin{sidewaysfigure}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\tikzstyle{every picture}=[tikzfig]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}
\node [style=H-node] (0) at (-13.25, 9.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (3) at (-7.25, 9.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (4) at (-10.25, 14.5) {};
\node [style=none] (6) at (-14.25, 8) {};
\node [style=none] (7) at (-14.25, 11) {};
\node [style=none] (8) at (-6.25, 11) {};
\node [style=none] (9) at (-6.25, 8) {};
\node [style=none] (10) at (-19.25, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (11) at (-19.25, -0.5) {};
\node [style=none] (14) at (-7.25, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (15) at (-7.25, -0.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (17) at (-10.25, 2.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (18) at (-16.25, 2.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (19) at (-16, 3.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (20) at (-17, 2.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (21) at (-15.25, 2) {};
\node [style=G-node] (22) at (-16.5, 1.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (23) at (-10, 3.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (24) at (-11, 2.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (25) at (-9.25, 2) {};
\node [style=G-node] (26) at (-10.5, 1.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (27) at (12, 11) {};
\node [style=H-node] (28) at (15, 11) {};
\node [style=H-node] (29) at (18, 11) {};
\node [style=H-node] (30) at (15, 16) {};
\node [style=H-node] (31) at (16.5, 13.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (32) at (13.5, 13.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (33) at (16, 17) {};
\node [style=H-node] (34) at (17, 18) {};
\node [style=H-node] (35) at (17, 19.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (36) at (18.5, 18) {};
\node [style=H-node] (37) at (15.75, 20.25) {};
\node [style=H-node] (38) at (16.5, 21) {};
\node [style=H-node] (39) at (17.5, 21) {};
\node [style=H-node] (40) at (16, 17) {};
\node [style=H-node] (41) at (18.25, 20.25) {};
\node [style=H-node] (42) at (19, 12) {};
\node [style=H-node] (43) at (20, 13) {};
\node [style=H-node] (44) at (20, 14.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (45) at (21.5, 13) {};
\node [style=H-node] (46) at (22.5, 14) {};
\node [style=H-node] (47) at (23, 13) {};
\node [style=H-node] (48) at (22.5, 12) {};
\node [style=H-node] (49) at (11, 12) {};
\node [style=H-node] (50) at (10, 13) {};
\node [style=H-node] (51) at (10, 14.5) {};
\node [style=H-node] (52) at (8.5, 13) {};
\node [style=H-node] (53) at (9.25, 15.75) {};
\node [style=H-node] (54) at (10.75, 15.75) {};
\node [style=none] (55) at (11.5, 12.25) {};
\node [style=none] (56) at (11.5, 9.75) {};
\node [style=none] (57) at (24, 9.75) {};
\node [style=none] (58) at (24, 15.5) {};
\node [style=none] (59) at (18, 15.5) {};
\node [style=none] (60) at (18, 12.25) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (61) at (2, -7.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (62) at (9, -7.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (63) at (16, -7.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (64) at (19, -4.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (65) at (22, -1.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (66) at (22, 3.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (67) at (27, -1.5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (68) at (29.5, 2) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (69) at (29.5, -5) {};
\node [style=Hollow H] (70) at (31.5, -1.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (72) at (31.75, -0.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (73) at (31, -1.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (74) at (31.25, -2.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (75) at (32.25, -1.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (76) at (29.75, 3) {};
\node [style=G-node] (77) at (28.5, 2) {};
\node [style=G-node] (78) at (30.5, 2) {};
\node [style=G-node] (79) at (28.75, 3) {};
\node [style=G-node] (80) at (26.25, -1.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (81) at (27.5, -2) {};
\node [style=G-node] (82) at (27.25, -0.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (83) at (26.75, -2.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (84) at (29, -6) {};
\node [style=G-node] (85) at (28.75, -4.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (86) at (30, -4.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (87) at (30, -5.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (88) at (22, -0.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (89) at (21.25, -1.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (90) at (23, -1.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (91) at (21.5, -2.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (92) at (16.25, -6.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (93) at (15.25, -7.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (94) at (17, -8) {};
\node [style=G-node] (95) at (15.75, -8.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (96) at (2.25, -6.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (97) at (1.25, -7.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (98) at (3, -8) {};
\node [style=G-node] (99) at (1.75, -8.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (100) at (19.25, -3.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (101) at (18.5, -3.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (102) at (19.5, -5.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (103) at (18.25, -4.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (108) at (22, 4.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (109) at (21.25, 3.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (110) at (23, 3.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (111) at (21.75, 2.75) {};
\node [style=G-node] (112) at (9.25, -6.5) {};
\node [style=G-node] (113) at (8.25, -7.25) {};
\node [style=G-node] (114) at (10, -8) {};
\node [style=G-node] (115) at (8.75, -8.5) {};
\node [style=none] (116) at (-0.25, -4) {};
\node [style=none] (117) at (-0.25, -10) {};
\node [style=none] (118) at (33.75, -10) {};
\node [style=none] (119) at (33.75, 5.75) {};
\node [style=none] (120) at (16, 5.75) {};
\node [style=none] (121) at (16, -4) {};
\node [style=none] (122) at (-15.75, 5.5) {};
\node [style=none] (123) at (3, -4) {};
\node [style=none] (124) at (18, 9.75) {};
\node [style=none] (125) at (16, -10) {};
\node [style=none] (126) at (17.6, 5.75) {};
\node [style=none] (127) at (26, 5.75) {};
\node [style=none] (128) at (-13.25, 0.75) {};
\node [style=none] (129) at (12.5, -5.75) {};
\node [style=none] (130) at (-1, -3) {};
\node [style=big invisible] (131) at (-15.5, 13.5) {};
\node [style=big invisible] (132) at (-15.5, 13.5) {\textcolor{red}{$H$}};
\node [style=big invisible] (133) at (-15.75, -2) {\textcolor{blue}{$G$}};
\node [style=big invisible] (134) at (22, 17.5) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{H}$}};
\node [style=big invisible] (135) at (24, -6.5) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{G}$}};
\node [style=none] (136) at (-16.5, 4.75) {\textcolor{blue}{$f^{-1}(1)$}};
\node [style=none] (137) at (-9.25, 4.75) {\textcolor{blue}{$f^{-1}(2)$}};
\node [style=none] (138) at (-13.5, 8.75) {\textcolor{red}{$1$}};
\node [style=none] (139) at (-7.5, 8.75) {\textcolor{red}{$2$}};
\node [style=none] (140) at (-9.25, 14.75) {\textcolor{red}{$3$}};
\node [style=none] (141) at (12.25, 10.25) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{1}$}};
\node [style=none] (142) at (15.25, 10.25) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{x_{12}}$}};
\node [style=none] (143) at (18.25, 10.25) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{2}$}};
\node [style=none] (144) at (14.5, 16.5) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{3}$}};
\node [style=none] (145) at (19.5, 11.25) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{t_2}$}};
\node [style=none] (146) at (20.5, 12.25) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{u_2}$}};
\node [style=none] (147) at (19.25, 14.75) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{w_2}$}};
\node [style=none] (148) at (21.5, 13.75) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{v_2}$}};
\node [style=none] (149) at (23, 14.75) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{y_2^1}$}};
\node [style=none] (150) at (23.5, 12.25) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{y_2^2}$}};
\node [style=none] (151) at (22.75, 11) {\textcolor{red}{$\widetilde{y_2^3}$}};
\node [style=none] (152) at (1.25, -5) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{1})$}};
\node [style=none] (153) at (8.5, -5) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{x_{12}})$}};
\node [style=none] (154) at (14.75, -5) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{2})$}};
\node [style=none] (155) at (17.75, -2.25) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{t_2})$}};
\node [style=none] (156) at (20, 0.5) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{u_2})$}};
\node [style=none] (157) at (24.75, 5) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{w_2})$}};
\node [style=none] (158) at (31.25, 4.25) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{y_2^1})$}};
\node [style=none] (160) at (31, -7.25) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{y_2^3})$}};
\node [style=none] (161) at (32.5, 0.75) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{y_2^2})$}};
\node [style=none] (162) at (25.25, -3.75) {\textcolor{blue}{$\widetilde{f}^{-1}(\widetilde{v_2})$}};
\node [style=none] (163) at (-1, 7) {};
\node [style=none] (164) at (1, 7) {};
\end{pgfonlayer}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}
\draw [style=H-edge] (4) to (3);
\draw [style=H-edge] (0) to (3);
\draw [style=H-edge] (0) to (4);
\draw (7.center) to (6.center);
\draw (9.center) to (6.center);
\draw (7.center) to (8.center);
\draw (8.center) to (9.center);
\draw (14.center) to (15.center);
\draw (15.center) to (11.center);
\draw (11.center) to (10.center);
\draw (10.center) to (14.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (7.center) to (10.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (14.center) to (8.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (15.center) to (9.center);
\draw [style=G-edge] (19) to (24);
\draw [style=G-edge] (20) to (25);
\draw [style=G-edge] (21) to (26);
\draw [style=G-edge] (21) to (24);
\draw [style=H-edge] (27) to (32);
\draw [style=H-edge] (32) to (30);
\draw [style=H-edge] (30) to (31);
\draw [style=H-edge] (31) to (29);
\draw [style=H-edge] (29) to (28);
\draw [style=H-edge] (28) to (27);
\draw [style=H-edge] (30) to (40);
\draw [style=H-edge] (40) to (34);
\draw [style=H-edge] (34) to (35);
\draw [style=H-edge] (35) to (36);
\draw [style=H-edge] (36) to (34);
\draw [style=H-edge] (37) to (35);
\draw [style=H-edge] (35) to (38);
\draw [style=H-edge] (35) to (39);
\draw [style=H-edge] (35) to (41);
\draw [style=H-edge] (29) to (42);
\draw [style=H-edge] (42) to (43);
\draw [style=H-edge] (43) to (44);
\draw [style=H-edge] (44) to (45);
\draw [style=H-edge] (45) to (43);
\draw [style=H-edge] (45) to (46);
\draw [style=H-edge] (45) to (47);
\draw [style=H-edge] (45) to (48);
\draw [style=H-edge] (53) to (51);
\draw [style=H-edge] (51) to (54);
\draw [style=H-edge] (51) to (50);
\draw [style=H-edge] (50) to (52);
\draw [style=H-edge] (52) to (51);
\draw [style=H-edge] (50) to (49);
\draw [style=H-edge] (49) to (27);
\draw (55.center) to (60.center);
\draw (60.center) to (59.center);
\draw (59.center) to (58.center);
\draw (58.center) to (57.center);
\draw (57.center) to (56.center);
\draw (56.center) to (55.center);
\draw [style=G-edge] (112) to (93);
\draw [style=G-edge] (113) to (94);
\draw [style=G-edge] (114) to (95);
\draw [style=G-edge] (114) to (93);
\draw [style=G-edge] (96) to (112);
\draw [style=G-edge] (97) to (113);
\draw [style=G-edge] (98) to (114);
\draw [style=G-edge] (99) to (115);
\draw [style=G-edge] (92) to (102);
\draw [style=G-edge] (93) to (102);
\draw [style=G-edge] (94) to (102);
\draw [style=G-edge] (95) to (102);
\draw [style=G-edge] (102) to (90);
\draw [style=G-edge] (90) to (110);
\draw [style=G-edge] (90) to (82);
\draw [style=G-edge] (82) to (78);
\draw [style=G-edge] (82) to (74);
\draw [style=G-edge] (82) to (86);
\draw [style=G-edge] (110) to (82);
\draw (116.center) to (121.center);
\draw (121.center) to (120.center);
\draw (120.center) to (119.center);
\draw (119.center) to (118.center);
\draw (118.center) to (117.center);
\draw (117.center) to (116.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (122.center) to (6.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (55.center) to (116.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (123.center) to (56.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (59.center) to (120.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (126.center) to (124.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (58.center) to (119.center);
\draw [style=dashedline] (57.center) to (127.center);
\draw [style=pointed, in=105, out=30, looseness=1.25] (130.center) to (129.center);
\draw [style=thick edge, in=-150, out=-60, looseness=1.25] (128.center) to (130.center);
\draw [style=implies] (163.center) to (164.center);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{An example of the construction of the instance $\widetilde{\phi}$ from $\phi = (H,G,f)$ where $H$ is a triangle\label{sketch-equiv}}
\end{sidewaysfigure}
\noindent
We set $\widetilde{\phi}$ to be the instance $(\widetilde{H},\widetilde{G},\widetilde{f})$. This concludes the construction of $\widetilde{\phi}$.
Clearly, the new instance $\widetilde{\phi}$ has a solution if and only if $\phi$ has one, and the size of the new instance is only a $\poly(k)$ factor larger than the size of $\phi$. We must also show that the reduction preserves treewidth. Note that $\widetilde{H}$ is obtained from $H$ via two operations: Subdividing edges and connecting a graph of smaller or equal treewidth via a single edge. It is easy to see that both operations do not change the treewidth.
Now, to construct $\phi'$, we simply get rid of the mapping $\widetilde{f}$. In other words, $\phi' = (\widetilde{H}, \widetilde{G})$. Obviously, if $\widetilde{\phi}$ has a solution, then $\phi'$ has one. For the other direction, suppose $\phi'$ has a solution, i.e.\ a subgraph $S'$ of $\widetilde{G}$ along with an isomorphism $h: V(\widetilde{H}) \to V(G[S'])$ of $\widetilde{G}$. Since both $\widetilde{H}$ and $\widetilde{G}$ have, for each $i$, exactly one triangle with a vertex of degree $i$, $h$ must map these triangles to their respective counterparts in $\widetilde{G}$. In particular, each of the vertices in $X$ is mapped to the active vertex in its preimage. Since the active node in $f^{-1}(\widetilde{t}_i)$ is connected only to nodes of $f^{-1}(\widetilde{i})$ (apart from the active node of $f^{-1}(\widetilde{u}_i)$, which is already in the image of $h(\widetilde{u}_i)$), we know that $h(\widetilde{i}) \in f^{-1}(\widetilde{i})$. Analogously, $h(\widetilde{x}_{ij}) \in f^{-1}(x_{ij})$. Hence, $S'$ takes exactly one vertex from each preimage of vertices from $\widetilde{H}$. Thus, $\widetilde{\phi}$ also has a solution.
We thus obtain a way to reduce $\phi$ to $\phi'$ with a size factor of only $\poly(k)$. The reduction obviously runs in $O(\poly(k)n^2)$ time. This shows part 3.
\medskip
Finally, we show \textbf{part 4}. We begin with the node-weighted version. Given an instance $\phi$ of \textsc{Exact Weight Colored Subgraph Isomorphism} where the pattern graph $H$ has $k$ vertices, we create an instance $\phi'$ of \textsc{Exact Weight Subgraph Isomorphism} by simply dropping $f$ and modifying the weights. We have to ensure that a solution of $\phi'$ takes exactly one node from each preimage of $H$. To do this, we encode a checklist in the weights of the nodes. Again, let $V(H) = \{1,\ldots, k\}$. Let $u \in f^{-1}(i)$ for $i \in V(H)$, and consider its weight $w(u)$. We modify it by multiplying it with $2^k$ and adding $2^i$. We call the added weight its ``signature''. Now, since any solution must pick exactly $k$ vertices, the only way that the signatures of the solution vertices sum up to $2^k-1$ is to pick vertices which have a sum of weight 0 according to the original weight function and furthermore have exactly one vertex with added weight $2^i$ for each $i=1,\ldots, k$. To complete our reduction, we pick an arbitrary vertex $v \in V(G)$ and subtract $2^k-1$ from all vertices in $f^{-1}(v)$, making the new target zero. This reduction does not alter $G$ or $H$, and instead only modifies the weight function, resulting in the stated time bounds.
For the edge-weighted version, we can use essentially the same construction as for the node-weighted version. Again, all weights are multiplied by $2^k$, and each vertex of $H$ has a unique ``signature''. However, this time, we have to add the signatures to the edge weights. Consequently, for each $i \in V(H) = \{1, \ldots, k\}$, we pick an arbitrary incident edge $e \in E(H)$. Let $e = \{i,j\}$. We add the signature $2^i$ to every edge in the preimage of $e$. That is, to every edge $\{e' \in E(G)\ |\ e' = \{u,v\} \text{ and } f(u) = i \text{ and } f(v) = j\}$. This way, we must still pick a node from each preimage to ensure that the signatures sum to $T := 2^k-1$. Again, we pick an arbitrary edge $e \in E(H)$ and subtract $T$ from all edges in its preimage. This almost completes the proof. However, we still have to handle nodes of degree 0 in $H$, since we cannot pick an incident edge for them. However, an isolated vertex $i$ in $H$ may be mapped to any vertex in $G$. Hence, we may simply skip the signature of $i$. We also have to modify the target $T$ to be $T-2^i$.
\end{proof}
\section{Open Problems}\label{sec:open-problems}
In this paper we discussed many different variants of the \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} problem.
For some of these variants we leave gaps, which gives rise to several open problems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Can the algorithms for weighted trees be improved? We have shown that some improvements can be made for node-weighted trees (see Theorem~\ref{corollary-node-weighted-algo-trees}), but are these optimal? What about edge-weighted trees?
\item Are there fast algorithms for unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} on graphs of bounded pathwidth that do not use rectangular matrix multiplication? Can the gap between exponent $\omega(p-1)$ and exponent $p$ be closed? Similar questions apply to the weighted case; see Theorems~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-detection-pathwidth} and~\ref{corollary-upper-bound-weighted-pathwidth}.
\item Relatedly, are there good lower bounds for unweighted \textsc{Subgraph Isomorphism} on graphs of bounded pathwidth? These could be attained via a modification of the proof of part 2 of Lemma~\ref{lemma-equiv} for pathwidth (though we see no way to do this), or with completely new techniques.
\end{enumerate}
We conclude with some more general open problems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Do our algorithms and lower bounds also work for other types of graph homomorphisms, and for counting the number of solutions? It seems like techniques from~\cite{curticapean2017homomorphisms} should apply.
\item In this work we demonstrated the existence of maximally hard patterns for which Subgraph Isomorphism requires time $n^{\tw(H)+1-o(1)}$. Can we classify which (classes of) patterns are maximally hard?
\item Changing our focus from hard patterns to easy patterns, we can ask: do classes of patterns of unbounded treewidth exist for which Subgraph Isomorphism can be solved in time $n^{o(\tw(H))}$? Recall that a conditional lower bound rules out $n^{o(\tw(H)/\log \tw(H))}$~\cite{marx2007can}.
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}
Many robotics applications require planning and decision making based on what the robot observes in order to complete a task. In this article we use the problem of truck robotic unloading as a motivating application, which is also a good representative of the class of problems that involves decision making for manipulation with highly-complex multi-body interactions. \autoref{fig:motivating-problem} shows an industrial truck unloading robot and cardboard boxes inside the truck that needs to be unloaded. The robot has two end effectors, one is fixed to the base of the robot and can sweep boxes from the floor, and another suspended with an arm and can pick boxes using a plunger mechanism. The terms ``planning'' and ``decision-making'' can carry wide range of meanings. To clarify, in this context, we use ``decision-making'' refers to deciding high-level tasks such as whether the robot decides to sweep boxes from the floor or pick boxes using the arm, and also to decide the pick location. Further, we use ``planning'' to mean determination of the sequence of actions that the robot actuator should take in order to perform a task decided by the high-level strategy. For example, given a specific pick location, a planner provides a sequence of actions for the robot's arm such that it attempts to pick boxes from that specified location while maintaining constraints such as actuator limits, obstacle avoidance etc. This application has also been studied in our prior work \cite{islam2020planning,kim2019pomhdp}, and in this work we present an alternate approach to high-level decision making to solve the problem, and generalize the proposed algorithm to the class of problems it belongs to.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\hfill%
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{truck-unload}\hfill%
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{tu-trailer}\hfill%
\hfill%
\caption{\small \textbf{Left}: The industrial truck unloading robot. \textbf{Right}: Cardboard boxes inside a truck with the robot facing them.}
\label{fig:motivating-problem}
\end{figure}
\section{Preliminaries}
We extend our prior work \cite{islam2020planning}. First we present a comparison between this and our prior work, and then discuss other related literature. The truck-unloading problem we study here shares the same challenges faced by \cite{islam2020planning}. The first challenge is attributed to partial-observability of the box states as it is impractical to know the exact pose of each box in the trailer using sensors onboard the robot. Our prior work assumed that the ground-truth pose of each box was available, whereas in the proposed method, we do not make such an assumption, and the high-level decision making is purely based on what a robot c an practically observe with its onboard sensors. Like the previous work, we also assume that the mass and size of the boxes are not known, however in this work we make a reasonable assumption that they belong to same distribution which is used both during training and during operation.
The second challenge is related to optimal decision making in the class of problems we consider here. The truck unloading problem involves complex multi-body interaction between the boxes, the robot and the truck walls. Even a slight change in interaction may lead to a very different state for the boxes after the action finishes. For any decision-maker, in order to determine a optimal sequence of high-level tasks such as pick or sweep, that would unload the truck, an accurate knowledge of the transition model is required. A transition model specifies the resulting state of the boxes when a high-level task is performed by the robot on an initial state. The resulting state can also be a distribution of states, in which case a common approach is to plan in the belief space \cite{platt2010belief}. Also, some problems that belong to the described class of problems, might require sequential decision making, which means that for optimal performance, the decisions made in the past affects the decisions to be taken in the future. Thus an optimal algorithm would attempt to maximize the \textbf{cumulative reward}. Even with the Markov assumption that the optimal decision only depend on the current observation, the action that is taken now determines the observation for the next iteration, and hence affects the optimal decision for that iteration. For such sequential decision making problem with partial-observability and model uncertainty, a common approach is to frame the problem as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) \cite{kaelbling1998planning,kochenderfer2015decision}. The truck unloading problem is also a sequential decision making problem, and due to complex interaction between the robot and the boxes, the transition model specifies a distribution over the states. Now, such complex multi-body interactions are hard to model using analytical functions, and thus, a common approach is to use a simulator to perform the action multiple times to capture the distribution of resulting states. \cite{kim2019pomhdp} presents an algorithm named as Partially Observable Multi-Heuristic Dynamic Programming (POMHDP) that solves the POMDP problem in belief space, and utilizes a simulator to estimate the distribution of states. Our prior work was based on this algorithm. While in theory \cite{kim2019pomhdp} presents a principled solution to the class of problems we are interested in by accounting for partial-observability, model uncertainty and sequential decision making, however in our prior work \cite{islam2020planning}, we observed that due to computational limitations, an implementation of the algorithm suffers to utilize the benefits of the principled approach in practice. For example, the truck unloading problem requires a high-fidelity simulator to simulate the complex dynamics of the robot and boxes, and thus each simulator run takes approximately 10 minutes (more details in \autoref{experiments}). Since an explicit transition model is not available, \cite{kim2019pomhdp} uses a particle representation of the belief space, and hence requires many particles (simulator runs) for a reasonably accurate representation. In practice, due to computational limitations, only a few particles are used which leads to inaccurate transition model, and which further leads to a sub-optimal plan. Further, due to \textit{curse of history} and \textit{curse of dimentionality}, in practice a POMDP is solved only up to a certain horizon, making the plan only locally optimal up to that horizon. In summary, due to practical limitations, regardless of POMHDP being asymptotically optimal, the sequence of high-level tasks may be far from global optimality, and without a method to evaluate how sub-optimal the sequence is.
In this work, we therefore propose an algorithm which maximizes the \textbf{immediate reward} as opposed to the cumulative reward, but allows a feasible implementation even under practical limitations. We present this as an alternative to an algorithm that attempts to maximize the cumulative reward and make a case for practical feasibility. Given that the problem involves sequential decision making, maximizing the immediate reward does not guarantee global optimality w.r.t.\ cumulative reward unless the problem has a submodular structure \cite{corah2019distributed,jaleel2018real}. Now to maximize for immediate reward, the decision making problem reduces to a classification problem. Given what the robot has observed, it needs to specify a high-level action among a set of discrete actions, that the robot should take in order to maximize the immediate-reward. To train a classifier, one approach is to first collect a large dataset. However, we one major limiting factor is the cost associated with collecting a single data point. As described in \autoref{problem-formulation}, collecting one data point means running multiple high-level tasks on the robot either in simulation or in real-world, thus there is a large cost associated with collecting a data point. Our main contributions are two fold: 1) a rejection sampling based algorithm that relies on statistical guarantees to minimize the number of data points required to learn an optimal decision tree, and 2) a case study of the algorithm applied to the truck unloading problem.
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{problem-formulation}
\section{Algorithmic Framework}
\subsection{Optimal Decision Tree}
\subsection{Action Elimination}
\subsection{Feature Selection}
\section{Experiments and Results}
\label{experiments}
\section{Introduction}
Many robotics applications require planning and decision making based on what the robot observes in order to complete a task. In this article we study the problem of robotic truck unloading, where the task is to empty the truck by unloading all the boxes. \autoref{fig:motivating-problem} shows an industrial truck unloading robot and cardboard boxes inside the truck that needs to be unloaded. The robot has two end effectors, one is fixed to the base of the robot and can sweep boxes from the floor, and another suspended with an arm and can pick boxes using a plunger mechanism. The task of emptying the truck can be broken down into small sub-tasks like picking boxes from a certain location or sweeping boxes from the floor. This problem involves both task planning and motion planning{\tiny }. We exploit the fact that our problem allows us to perform task planning and motion planning independently, and hence in this paper, we focus only on the task planning.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{truck-unload}%
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{tu-trailer}
\caption{\small \textbf{Left}: The industrial truck unloading robot. \textbf{Right}: Boxes inside a truck with the robot facing them.}
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{fig:motivating-problem}
\end{figure}
\section{Related Works}
\label{related-works}
The truck unloading problem has also been studied in our previous work \cite{islam2020planning,kim2019pomhdp}, and by Doliotis et.al.\ in \cite{doliotis20163d}. Our previous work looked at this problem as a sequential decision making problem. Whereas in this work, we formulate it as an immediate reward maximization problem. Precisely, given a certain configuration of boxes (scenarios), our problem is to determine the best task among a discrete set of tasks (such as picking from certain locations and sweeping at a certain depth) to unload the maximum number of boxes (along with other objectives such as minimizing the number of boxes damaged). The number of boxes can be in the order of hundreds, and their physical properties such as shape, weight and surface material are unknown and can vary widely. Thus, standard Task and Motion Planning (TAMP) approaches \cite{TAMP}, as well as Model Predictive Control \cite{mpc} which uses Lagrangian state representation (position of each box) to solve this problem would be impractical. The major reasons being that analytical models to forward simulate such complex interactions would be computationally very expensive, and obtaining the ``full-state'' of each box in the pile along with their physical properties is not realistically possible. Therefore, the task needs to be solved usually with compressed state representation of the whole pile of boxes as realistically perceivable by standard sensors. This introduces partial observability of the complete state and singularities where the inverse map from compressed state to a full state state is not unique. As shown in our previous work \cite{islam2020planning}, to handle uncertainty, a standard approach would be to compute a probabilistic distribution of the compressed state (belief-state), and formulate the planning problem as solving a Belief Markov Decision Process \cite{kaelbling1998planning}. However, we observed that the amount of data required for credit assignment and sequential reasoning is relatively very large. Also due to \textit{curse of dimensionality} and \textit{curse of history}, it is practically infeasible to determine an optimal sequence of actions which will empty the truck.
In this paper, we therefore focus on the immediate reward maximization objective and ensure that it is practically feasible to find the optimal decision at each step. However, this assumes that the goal (empty trailer) is reachable from every state. We also assume that it is possible to reset the simulator to a box configuration such that we can record how each action performs on the configuration. These are the only two assumptions made by the proposed approach. With these assumptions, the na\"ive method to solve this problem is to simulate all tasks for a wide variety of scenarios in order to observe the best action for each scenario, and to train a classifier based on this data. However, the simulation time and computation required to collect such an extensive dataset would make the na\"ive method unfeasible, as each high-fidelity simulation run needs to model all the physical interactions between the boxes (which can go up to 1000 in number) and the robot. Thus, we are limited by the maximum number of simulations we can perform feasibly. Under these limitations, a data-efficient approach to train the classifier is required.
In \autoref{sec:main-algo} we present our main contribution which is an online-algorithm that iteratively trains a classifier while building a dataset by selectively running the simulator. The key idea behind this work is that we can reject running the simulator for (easy) scenarios where the robot is already confident about it's decision. This can help focus the resources on more difficult scenarios. In contrast to Active Learning \cite{settles2012active} methods, new scenarios are only being given to us by a transition function (see \autoref{alg:ITRS}), and it is not possible to actively setup a physically valid scenario. Our problem setup might look similar to the Contextual version of the Multi-Armed Bandit problem \cite{katehakis1987multi}, where you only get to observe the result of one single action for a scene. However, they are not similar, because in our setup, it is possible to reset the simulator and observe the result of multiple actions for any scene. Setups such as ours are common in the robotics domain involving a simulator.
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{sec:problem-formulation}
Let an arrangement of boxes inside a trailer be represented as a state $s\in S$, where let $S$ denote a set of all such box arrangements (box states) and $d_S$ denote the distribution over these states. The perception system on the robot would generate a 3D voxel grid $v_s \in \mathcal{V}$ for that state $s$. Now, suppose there exists a method $\Phi: \mathcal{V} \rightarrow X$ to generate fixed size features from such voxel grids (more details in \autoref{sec:bin-features}). The robot can only use these features, derived from perception data of the world to make its decisions. Thus, for decision making, we need a policy $\pi \in \Pi, \pi : \mathcal{V} \rightarrow A$, which gives us the high-level action the robot should execute for the a feature representation of the state. The action space $A$ can be continuous, but in this work, we are interested in a finite action space due to two reasons: 1) a finite action space makes it easier to derive theoretical guntees of the form we discuss in \autoref{sec:bandits}, 2) in practice one may find a reasonable discretization of a bounded continuous space. Further, $\pi$ can be considered as a classifier where $A$ is the set of all classes. In the proposed method we use Optimal Sparse Decision Trees (OSDT) \cite{hu2019optimal}. Thus, $\Pi$ is the class of decision trees considered in OSDT. Finally, the goal is to find a policy $\pi^*\in \Pi$ which maximizes immediate reward using minimal execution of the resource consuming simulator. For context, our simulation environment on CoppeliaSim \cite{rohmer2013coppeliasim}, uses all 6 vCPUs, 2.5 GHz processors on an AWS cloud machine and takes around 10 minutes to simulate one action in any state. Note that, we train the classifier on data that we obtain from the simulator and we evaluate it in simulation itself. Bridging the sim-to-real gap is out of the scope of this paper.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelims}
A decision tree is characterized by its partition of the feature space and the decision taken by the leaves of the tree for each of these partitions. Let $\Pi_\text{s}$ denote the class of decision trees with the same structure / partition of feature space but with different decisions at its leaves.
Consider a leaf node $l$ of a decision tree. As, described earlier, the decision tree partitions the feature space and a leaf corresponds to one such partition. Further, let $S_l$ and $d_{S_l}$ denote the set and distribution respectively of world states whose feature representation lies in the partition corresponding to the node $l$. Let $R(s,a_i) \in [0,1]$ denote a random variable for the reward received on applying action $a_i \in A$ on state $s$. In the truck-unloading problem, consider this reward to be a combination of interest variables such as the unload rate achieved, boxes dropped or boxes damaged upon executing an action $a_i$ on the state $s$. For simplicity of notation, let $R_l(a_i) = \mathbb{E}_{s \sim d_{S_l}}[ R(s,a_i) ]$ denote the \textbf{true expected reward} for action $a_i$ on the states that fall in node $l$. Note that $R_l(a_i)$ is unknown, and is still a random variable since we assume randomness in the rewards obtained from executing an action. Now, for each leaf node, where a decision is taken, if we somehow had a way to know these true expected rewards, we would have picked the action that has maximum true expected reward, and hence would have found the optimal policy in $\Pi_\text{s}$. However, we can only get empirical estimate for these true expected rewards, and it might require infinitely huge dataset to determine the truly best optimal action. Instead, in practice it would be sufficient to find an $\epsilon$-optimal action for each leaf of the decision tree. An $\epsilon$-optimal action $a'$, for any node $l$, is an action for which the condition $\{\mathbb{E}[R_l(a')] > \mathbb{E}[R_l(a^*)] - \epsilon\}$ holds true with a high probability, where $a^* = \arg\max_{a_i\in A} \mathbb{E}[R_l(a_i)]$. Note that we discuss the bounds only in a Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) setting as described in the following sections.
Given a decision tree structure as in $\Pi_\text{s}$, in~\autoref{sec:bandits}, we will discuss how to determine if we have found an $\epsilon$-optimal action for each of the leaf nodes $l$. We do this by eliminating all actions that under the PAC setting, cannot be the $\epsilon$-optimal action. We would then have a systematic way of running the simulator to obtain more data to resolve among the non-eliminated actions.
\section{Re-visiting Multi-Armed Bandits}
\label{sec:bandits}
We will now discuss algorithms that will help us determine the $\epsilon$-optimal action in a PAC setting for any leaf node $l$. The class of decision trees $\Pi$ we consider are deterministic, in that, given a world state $s$, its feature representation would deterministically fall into a partition / leaf node. Thus, given a decision tree structure $\Pi_\text{s}$, the set $S_l$ is fixed. So, the decision at each leaf $l$ is affected by only the states $S_l$, and the rewards $R_l(a_i)$ received at that leaf for each action $a_i$. In other words, the random variable $\mathbb{E}[R_l(a_i)]$ that is independent across all the leaf nodes $l$. Thus, we consider the decision making problem at each leaf as a independent multi-armed bandit problem (MABPs), and we derive an algorithm that can be used while training the decision tree to eliminate actions (prevent executing of simulation for those actions).
Without loss of generality, let us consider a leaf node $l$, and drop the subscript `$l$' for
notational simplicity. Let $\hat{r}_i = \frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{j=1}^{\tau}R(s_j,a_i)$ be the \textbf{average empirical reward} for action $a_i$ for the states $s_j, j=1,\ldots,\tau$ in training data that fall into the feature partition corresponding to the leaf node. Similarly, let $r_i = R_l(a_i)$. Here executing an ``action'' in the simulator corresponds to sampling an ``arm'' in the MABP literature. Thus, the problem is to choose the best action $a'\in A$ out of $n=|A|$
total action. First, we discuss a Naive Algorithm (\texttt{NV}) (\autoref{alg:naive}) as presented in \cite{even2002pac}, which gives the sample complexity required to determine with a probability of ($1-\delta$) an $\epsilon$-optimal arm. Such algorithms are termed as ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithms.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Naive ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithm
\label{alg:naive}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{Number of arms $n$, suboptimality $\epsilon$, probability $\delta$}
\State For every arm $a_i\in A$: Sample it $\tau = \frac{4}{\epsilon^2}\log\left(\frac{2n}{\delta}\right)$ times
\State Let $\hat{r}_i$ be the empirical average reward of arm $a_i$ from the samples collected
\State \Return{The ($\epsilon,\delta$)-best arm $a' = \arg\max_{a_i \in A}\{\hat{r}_i\}$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
According to this algorithm, we can find an ($\epsilon,\delta$)-action for a leaf, only after running the simulator for $\frac{4n}{\epsilon^2}\log\left(\frac{2n}{\delta}\right)$ times on states that are partitioned into this leaf.
\autoref{alg:naive} is very wasteful as it waits until the required sample complexity is reached. For example, if $n=7, \epsilon=0.1, \delta=0.05$, the number of simulations required per leaf is 15778 ($\sim547.8$ days of simulation for a tree with 5 leaves). A key insight for our domain is that, evaluating whether we have found an ($\epsilon,\delta$)-action is computationally negligible compared to executing expensive simulation. Successive Elimination Algorithm (\texttt{SE}) (\autoref{alg:successive-elimination}) \cite{even2002pac}, an iterative algorithm, exploits this idea and executes each non-eliminated action one additional time per iteration before evaluating which actions can be eliminated. It is a ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithm as it runs until the ($0,\delta$)-action is found. A ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithm can be modified to a ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithm by stopping early when $\tau_t = \frac{4}{\epsilon^2}\log\left(\frac{2n}{\delta}\right)$ (based on \autoref{alg:naive}) and returning the arm $a' = \arg\max_{a_i \in \chi_t}\{\hat{r}_{i,t}\}$.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} Successive Elimination
\label{alg:successive-elimination}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{$n$, $\delta$, existing count of samples $\tau$ for each arm}
\Let{$\chi_\tau$}{$\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\}$}
\State Compute $\hat{r}_{i, \tau}$ for all arms based on $\tau$ samples
\While{$|\chi_\tau| > 1$}
\Let{$\epsilon_\tau$}{$\sqrt{ \frac{2}{\tau}\log(\frac{4\tau^2n}{\delta}) } $}
\Let{$\chi_{\tau+1}$}{$\chi_\tau \backslash \{a_i \in \chi_\tau \: | \: \max_{j\in \chi_\tau} \hat{r}_{j,\tau} - \hat{r}_{i,\tau} > 2\epsilon_\tau\}$}
\State Sample each arm in $\chi_{\tau+1}$, and compute $\hat{r}_{i,\tau+1}$
\Let{$\tau$}{$\tau+1$}
\EndWhile
\State \Return{The only arm left in $\chi_\tau$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In \autoref{alg:successive-elimination}, note the average empirical reward $\hat{r}_{i,\tau}$ is evaluated at each iteration $\tau$, and the algorithm can be started even with existing data. The most important thing to note here is that at every iteration $\tau$, the actions that are left in the set $\chi_\tau$ are all sampled equal number of times $\tau+1$, and elimination is based on this fact. Actions which were eliminated were executed $\leq\tau$ times. If we have an action which is clearly better than all of the rest, ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{SE} has the potential to eliminate all that actions except the best one using lesser samples than ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NV}. ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{SE} might require even lesser samples as it needs to eliminate only those actions which cannot form an $\epsilon$-optimal action (with high probability). Thus, depending upon the structure of the problem, it may be possible to exploit the fact that we can clearly identify some actions which are worse.
\section{Successive Elimination with Decision Trees}
In \autoref{sec:bandits}, we discussed the ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{SE} algorithm in a setting where $\Pi_\text{s}$ was fixed. However, as we will discuss in \autoref{sec:main-algo}, we will iteratively update $\Pi_\text{s}$ by training a new decision tree when new simulation data is available. Suppose some actions were eliminated, and the rest were sampled for a given $\Pi_\text{s}$. Now, when $\Pi_\text{s}$ is updated, the feature partitions will change and would no longer capture the same states. Note that, now for some state-action pair, we might not have rewards, as that action might have been eliminated in some previous version of $\Pi_\text{s}$. As a result, each leaf might have actions which are sampled different number of times, and elimination as performed in ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{SE} (\autoref{alg:successive-elimination}) can no longer be applied here. To this end, we present a modified version of \texttt{SE}, which can handle non-uniform sampling (\autoref{alg:nu-successive-elimination}). Further, eliminations are no longer persistent. In other words, with variable $\Pi_\text{s}$, we can no longer assume that an action eliminated for one leaf cannot become the ($\epsilon,\delta$)-action in some other leaf, before and after updating $\Pi_\text{s}$. Therefore, let us no longer think about eliminating actions until the best action is found, rather think about executing simulation for only those actions which may be the best action (with high probability), and reject executing simulation for the rest of the actions. We therefore, define a sub-routine \textsc{SelectActions} used by the Non-Uniform Successive Elimination (\texttt{NUSE}) (\autoref{alg:nu-successive-elimination}). Let us now consider a iteration $t$, where the decision tree structure is defined by $\Pi_{\text{s},t}$. Consider any leaf $l$, and let $\tau_{i,t}$ denote the number of data samples for action $i$, captured by $l$ in that iteration $t$. Therefore, let $\hat{r}_{i,t}$ denote the average empirical reward based on $\tau_{i,t}$ samples. \autoref{alg:nu-successive-elimination} is a ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithm and we present the proof in \nameref{sec:appendix}. Additionally, stopping early when $\tau_{i,t} \geq \frac{4}{\epsilon^2}\log\left(\frac{2n}{\delta}\right)$ for all $a_i \in \chi_t$, gives us ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE} version of the algorithm (proof in \nameref{sec:appendix}).
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Non-Uniform Successive Elimination
\label{alg:nu-successive-elimination}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{$n$, $\delta$, \{$\tau_{i,t}\}, t$}
\Function{Main}{$n$, $\delta$, \{$\tau_{i,t}\}, t$}
\Let{$\chi$}{$\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\}$}
\State Compute $\hat{r}_{i, t}$ based on $\tau_{i,t}$ samples for all arms $i$
\While{true}
\Let{$\chi_{t}$}{\textsc{SelectActions}($\{\tau_{i,t}\}, \{\hat{r}_{i,t}\}$)}
\If{$|\chi_t| = 1$}
\State \Return{The only arm left in $\chi_t$}
\Else
\State Sample any arm in $\chi_{t}$, any number of times
\State Update $\tau_{i,t+1}$ and compute $\hat{r}_{i,t+1}$ for all $i$
\Let{$t$}{$t+1$}
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\EndFunction
\Function{SelectActions}{$\{\tau_{i,t}\}, \{\hat{r}_{i,t}\}$}
\Let{$\epsilon_{i,t}$}{$\sqrt{ \frac{2}{\tau_{i,t}}\log(\frac{4t^2n}{\delta}) } $ for all $i$}
\Let{$\chi^c$}{$\{a_i \in \chi \: | \: \max_{j\in \chi} \hat{r}_{j,t} - \hat{r}_{i,t} > 2\max_i\epsilon_{i,t}\}$}
\Let{$\chi_{t}$}{$\chi \backslash \chi^c$}
\State \Return $\chi_{t}$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\caption{Iterative Training With Rejection Sampling
\label{alg:ITRS}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{$n$, $\delta$, sub-optimality $\epsilon$, initial dataset $\mathcal{D}_t$}
\Function{Main}{}
\Let{$\chi$}{$\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\}$} \Comment{Set of all actions}
\Let{$t$}{$|\mathcal{D}_t|/n$}
\Let{$s_t$}{Initial state in the Simulator}
\Let{$L_t$}{1} \Comment{An initial value $>0$}
\While{$L_t > 0$ and $t < T$} \Comment{$T$ is the max iteration}
\Let{$E_{t}$}{Train Encoder network using $\mathcal{D}_{t}$}
\Let{$\hat{X}_{t}$}{$E_{t}(X_{t}\in \mathcal{D}_{t})$}
\Let{$\pi_{t}$}{Train OSDT using $\mathcal{D}_{t}$ and $\hat{X}_{t}$}
\Let{$v_t$}{3D voxel of $s_t$ from perception}
\State $x_t\gets \Phi(v_t) \qquad \hat{x}_t \gets E_t(x_t)$
\Let{$l$}{leaf node in $\pi_t$ that captures $\hat{x}_t$}
\Let{$\{\tau_{i,t}\}, \{\hat{r}_{i,t}\}$}{\textsc{LeafInformation}($\pi_t,l,\mathcal{D}_t$)}
\Let{$\chi_t$}{\textsc{SelectActions}($\{\tau_{i,t}\}, \{\hat{r}_{i,t}\}$)}
\Let{$\mathcal{D}_{t+1}$}{$\mathcal{D}_t$}
\Let{$\hat{S}, \chi_t$}{$\emptyset, \emptyset$}
\If{$\min\{\tau_{i,t}\} < \frac{4}{\epsilon^2}\log\left(\frac{2n}{\delta}\right)$ and $|\chi_t|>1$}
\ForAll{$a_i \in \chi_t$}
\Let{$R(s_t,a_i),s_{i,t+1}$}{\textsc{Simulate}($s_t,a_i$)}
\Let{$d$}{$(x_t, a_i, R(s_t, a_i))$}
\Let{$\mathcal{D}_{t+1}$}{$\mathcal{D}_{t+1} \cup d$}\Comment{Extend Dataset}
\Let{$\hat{S}$}{$\hat{S}\cup\{s_{i,t+1}\}$}
\EndFor
\EndIf
\Let{$s_{t+1}, a_r, r_r$}{\textsc{TransitionState}($\hat{S}, \chi_t, s_t$)}
\Let{$d$}{$(x_t, a_r, r_r)$}
\Let{$\mathcal{D}_{t+1}$}{$\mathcal{D}_{t+1} \cup d$}\Comment{Extend Dataset}
\Let{$L_{t+1}$}{\textsc{RemainingLeaves}($\pi_t$)}
\Let{$t$}{$t+1$}
\EndWhile
\State \Return{$\pi_t$ as $\pi^*$}
\EndFunction
\Function{RemainingLeaves}{$\pi$}
\State \Return{Number of leaves in $\pi$ where an ($\epsilon,\delta$)-action is yet to be found}
\EndFunction
\Function{LeafInformation}{$\pi_t,l,\mathcal{D}_t$}
\State \Return{sample count and avg. expected rewards for each action based on the data captured by leaf $l$ in $\pi_t$}
\EndFunction
\Function{TransitionState}{$\hat{S}, \chi_t, s_t$}
\State{Any function that can choose an action $a_r$ to be applied on $s_t$, and to obtain new state $s_{r,t+1}$ with the associated reward $R(s_t,a_r)$ }
\State \Return{$s_{r,t+1}, a_r, R(s_t,a_r)$}
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{0.1cm}
\section{Iterative Training with Rejection Sampling}
\label{sec:main-algo}
\autoref{alg:ITRS} presents the proposed algorithm. It trains an optimal decision tree $\pi^*$, starting from an initial dataset $\mathcal{D}_t$ (at least $|A|$ reward samples for each action in a state), and extending this dataset by collecting more simulation data only when required according to ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE}. However, we first discuss the features and how we train with a sparse dataset.
\subsection{Task-Relevant Binary Features}
\label{sec:bin-features}
In \autoref{sec:problem-formulation}, we described $\Phi : \mathcal{V} \rightarrow X$, a function that generates fixed size features from 3D voxel grid $v \in \mathcal{V}$. The feature space $X$ can be continuous, and can be of any dimension. However, the OSDT \cite{hu2019optimal} algorithm works only with binary features. Thus to train OSDT for an arbitrary feature space $X$, first we have to come up with a map $\Psi:X\rightarrow \hat{X}$ (feature engineering), where $\hat{X}=\{0,1\}^m$ is a $m$-dimensional binary space, and then train OSDT using the binary features. The inconvenience of finding $\Psi$ is a price we have to pay to obtain some guarantees on optimality. Searching for a globally optimal classifier in continuous feature space $X$ is NP-Hard. We argue that breaking the problem down into two parts 1) finding the optimal map $\Psi$, 2) searching for optimal decision tree in binary space $\hat{X}$ makes the problem more manageable, as regardless of the former also being NP-Hard, one can often hand-engineer very good map $\Psi$ for the task. The later problem too is NP-Hard, but \cite{hu2019optimal} provides an efficient method to search for the optimal tree. A na\"ive map from $X=[0,1]^k$ continuous space would be to first discretize each of the dimensions to say $j$ categories. Now this categorical space can be represented using a minimum of $m = \log_2(j^k)$ binary variables. The proposed method, also supports the use of Neural Networks Encoders (EncoderNet) to learn a dynamic map simultaneously with OSDT after every dataset extension. The EncoderNet can be used for compression to keep only the information required to make correct classification (task-relevant), and hence use far less than binary variables than that of naive ($\log_2(j^k)$). \autoref{sec:experiments} contains details on the EncoderNet and $\Phi$ we use for the truck unloading problem.
\subsection{Training with Sparse Dataset}
\label{sec:training_with_sparse}
After executing an action $a_i$ on state $s$ we can compute the reward $R(s,a_i)$ for that action. Let $x = \Phi(v)$ be the feature representation of the perception data $v$ corresponding to the state $s$. We can form a tuple $(x,a_i,R(s,a_i))$. Our dataset $\mathcal{D}$ corresponds to the set of these tuples from multiple simulation runs on various states and with various actions. Note that for training a classifier with supervised-learning, for each data point, one needs a class label corresponding to the best action for the given state. Since our problem contains rewards, all misclassification are not equal and a reward(cost)-sensitive classification is a better approach. However with rejection sampling, the dataset may not contain rewards for all actions of all states, and thus generate a sparse dataset. We want the OSDT algorithm to 1) perform reward-sensitive classification, and 2) support sparse dataset. The OSDT algorithm is based on the Branch and Bound algorithm \cite{BnB}. It iterates through potential partitions of the binary feature space in search of the optimal partition. While evaluating a partition, for each leaf, it computes the empirically best action and the loss, which now have to be calculated differently to support the above two goals. Skipping details for brevity, instead of using misclassification error as a metric, we instead use the average empirical rewards. The action elimination in ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE}) under the PAC-setting ensures that the dataset contains the reward for the best action of each state.
\subsection{Comments on the Algorithm}
First, we emphasize on Rejection Sampling. Note that in \autoref{alg:ITRS} (18-23), we reject simulation on a state $s_t$ if that leaf that captures the state has either found an $(\epsilon,\delta)$-action or eliminated all bad actions. Even when simulation is executed, it is only done for the actions which can be the optimal (selected by ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE}). Next, note that the algorithm requires at-least $|A|$ data points in the initial dataset. It can easily be obtained by executing all actions at any state. Finally, note that new states are generated based on successor states given by the simulator (\textsc{TransitionState}). This is in line with the fact that in most robotic domains, the states are result of a process and often cannot be generated otherwise. This is one reason why we perform rejection sampling instead of Active Learning \cite{settles2012active}.
\section{Experiments and Results}
\label{sec:experiments}
Our experimental setup is as follows. Our simulator is based on the CoppeliaSim robot simulation platform. \autoref{fig:simulator} shows a simulation scene. The dimensions, masses and arrangement of the boxes we use during simulation closely resemble that in real-world operation. We use $\epsilon=0.45$ and $\delta=0.45$ in all our experiments.
\noindent\textbf{Pick vs Sweep problem:} As discussed in the sections above, in this paper, we look at the high-level decision making of the robot. Specifically, we look at the scenario where the robot has to decide 1) whether it should perform a ``Pick'' action, where it used the plungers at the end of its arm to grab boxes and pick them off from the truck, or 2) whether it should use the rollers at the base of the robot to ``Sweep'' up boxes from the floor of the robot. Once the high-level decision is made, we use other heuristic to determine the exact pick location or the sweep distance. We refer to our previous work \cite{islam2020planning} for details on how a high-level decision is executed for this Truck Unloading problem.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{simulator}
\caption{\small CoppeliaSim VREP simulator. The walls of the truck are made transparent for better visibility of the boxes inside.}
\label{fig:simulator}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{perception}
\caption{\small 3D occupancy grid $v$ (right) as provided by the perception system from the simulator state $s$ (left). The color of the voxel represent the height of the voxel.}
\label{fig:perception}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{voxel-depth}
\caption{\small Depth Map generated by projecting the 3D occupancy grid}
\label{fig:voxel-depth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{ehcpbu}
\caption{\small Visualizing the voxels that might be affected based on a Pick location.}
\label{fig:ehcpbu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{encoder-net}
\caption{\small The Encoder Network Architecture.}
\label{fig:encoder-net}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{\small Classifier accuracy on standard test dataset with limited budget in training dataset}
\label{table:accuracy}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \multicolumn{9}{c|}{\textbf{Simulation Call Budget}} \\ \hline
& 200 & 300 & 400 & 500 & 600 & 700 & 800 & 900 & 1044 \\ \hline
Naive & 69.7 & 70.6 & 70.3 & 71.8 & \textbf{72.4} & 72.3 & 70.8 & 70.8 & 72.0 \\ \hline
Random Rejector & 67.6 & 54.8 & 55.5 & 55.8 & 45.9 & 51.6 & 33.8 & 31.7 & 30.7 \\ \hline
ITRS & \textbf{70.8} & \textbf{71.2} & \textbf{70.6} & \textbf{72.1} & 71.8 & \textbf{72.9} & \textbf{71.5} & \textbf{73.0} & \textbf{74.1} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\noindent\textbf{Input Features}: We simulate perception sensors such that the high-level decision is based only based on simulated perception data and not ground-truth information from the simulator. This ensure that the model we use in simulation can also be used on the real robot. The perception system provides a 3D occupancy grid for the voxels \autoref{fig:perception}. To convert this voxel representation to a fixed size feature, we project the voxels on the plane perpendicular to the robot ($(x,z)$-plane as shown in \autoref{fig:perception}) and generate a gray-scale depth map of fixed size (54x54 pixels) \autoref{fig:voxel-depth}. We finally, down-sample the depth map to a size (8x8 pixels) to generate a small sized feature matrix. We arrive upon the down-sampled size empirically to determine the minimum size which can provide enough information required for decision making. Next we also extract what we call as EHCPBU features. Recall, that we use a hard-coded heuristic to determine the exact pick location once the robot decides to execute the ``Pick'' action. This information is available even before the decision is made, thus, we utilize it to enable more informed decision making. To that end, we compute the 3D volume of occupied voxels that might be affected based on the pick location and the plunger dimensions (\autoref{fig:ehcpbu}). Based on this 3D volume and a normalized box volume, we compute the estimated boxes that the Pick action might unload. Our observe a correlation of 0.525 between the EHCPBU estimate and the true number of boxes picked.
Hence, the method $\Phi$ in our case converts 3D voxels into depth-map and EHCPBU features. As described in \autoref{sec:bin-features}, we need binary features for the OSDT algorithm. \autoref{fig:encoder-net} shows the structure of the encoder network, which we use to convert the depth map and EHCPBU features to task-relevant binary features. Once trained, the output of the \texttt{FC Layer 1} after binary thresholding serves as the binary features for OSDT.
\textbf{Baselines}: As discussed in \autoref{related-works}, we do not compare our method against methods that fall into the category of Active Learning \cite{settles2012active} and Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits \cite{katehakis1987multi} which may look similar but do not share the same setup as ours. Moreover, while we use the immediate reward optimization problem formulation, it is not within the scope of this paper to compare against a sequential decision making problem formulation. Therefore, we only look at immediate-reward optimization baselines. In this regard, one of the most standard approach is to first generate data from the simulator and then train a classifier in an off-line manner. We call this the ``Na\"ive'' method. As compared to the ``Na\"ive'' method, the proposed ITRS \autoref{alg:ITRS} is an online-algorithm where we train the classifier while generating the dataset, by following an informed rejection scheme. We compare our method with another baseline which we call as ``Random Rejector'' which rejects running random $50\%$ of the actions for every state. We hope to capture the difference between a random rejection and an informed rejection using this baseline.
We run the following experiments:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Performance of the classifier with limited budget on simulator calls
\item Reduction in simulation time achieved
\item Ablation study for the cost-sensitive classification
\item In-depth analysis of ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Performance of the classifier with limited budget on simulator calls}
\label{sec:limited-sims}
In this experiment, we analyze the case, when we fix the maximum number of simulation we can run. We evaluate the performance of the decision tree trained after the limit is reached. The ITRS and Random Rejector methods as they skip simulation runs, are allow to transition to new states independently. However, all three of the methods observe the same states and the same rewards for the actions in those states with the maximum overlap possible. OSDT algorithm with cost-sensitive loss function as described in \autoref{sec:training_with_sparse} is trained for all the three methods. \autoref{table:accuracy} shows the performance in terms of the accuracy with varying simulator limit. We observe that dataset collected with the ITRS method results in a more accurate classifier as compared to the ``Naive'' method in almost all of the cases. Interestingly, in the case of the Random Rejector method, we observe that the performance of the classifier decreased drastically as the dataset budget is increased. This may be contributed to the fact that, a random rejection would prevent the rewards for the true best action to be observed, in which case, the classifier would only have access to rewards for the worse actions during training. This effect gets compounded as the mistakes keep growing.
\subsection{Reduction in simulation time achieved}
\label{sec:reduction-in-sim}
In this experiment, we count the number of simulator calls required by ITRS and the Na\"ive method to reach a certain testing accuracy of making the right decision in the Pick vs Sweep problem. In this experiment, we start initially with $4$ states, and we run the simulator for each action in those states to build an initial training dataset. Next, for the ``Na\"ive'' method, we keep on growing our dense dataset one state at a time while training and evaluating the decision tree every time, until the desired test accuracy is reached. For the ITRS method, we follow the same approach except we perform the rejection sampling. If ITRS rejects running the simulation for an action, it is not counted towards the dataset size. The results would be noisy if we stop when the desired test accuracy is reached the first time, as test accuracy is a random variable. Therefore, we wait until the desired accuracy is consistently achieved for at least 10 subsequent iterations, at which point, we record the dataset size. Recall that in our case, the simulator takes around 10 minutes for one run, therefore, the re-training, which takes around 1 minute, can easily be done while the simulator is being run for next data-point. \autoref{fig:performance} presents the dataset size required for various accuracy values. We observe that as the accuracy grows, the difference in the dataset size required by the two methods increase significantly in this case. For instance, in-order to reach an accuracy of $74\%$, the proposed method required only on average around 650 simulation runs, while the ``Naive'' method required on average around 2400 runs. Thus, we observed a reduction of around 68-74\% in training data, which amounts to the saving of around 265-300 hours of simulation time.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{acc_v_size}
\caption{\small Size of the dataset required to achieve a certain classifier accuracy in the test dataset.}
\label{fig:performance}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation study for the cost-sensitive classification}
We observe that for a certain box configuration, both sweep and pick actions might result in similar rewards, while the opposite is also true. Therefore, as discussed in \autoref{sec:training_with_sparse}, we used empirical rewards (1-cost) during the training of
the OSDT decision tree to penalize the mistakes made by the classifier based on the cost (cost-sensitive classifier). In this experiment we wanted to observe the effect of this choice. We train the decision trees using ITRS but once with a loss function that uses the empirical rewards and once with a loss function which uses misclassification as the loss function. Let us refer to the later as a ``baseline classifier''. For evaluation, we look at the percentage of average empirical rewards achieved by both the classifiers as compared to the maximum reward achievable by an oracle on the test set. As expected, we observe that the cost-sensitive classifier resulted in a reward percentage of $83.78\%$ per action on average, while the baseline classifier resulted in a lower reward percentage of $81.74\%$ per action on average.
\subsection{In-depth analysis of ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE}}
In this experiment, we empirically evaluate the elimination criteria for ($\epsilon,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} \texttt{NUSE}. We run the ITRS algorithm on a synthetic dataset containing 50 binary features, 3 actions, and with $\delta=0.05$, $\epsilon=0.35$. The synthetic dataset always had $0.9$ as the reward for the best action in each feature-space partition. \autoref{fig:nuse} shows that the true mean of $0.9$ is always captured by the empirical bounds.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{nuse}
\caption{\small \textbf{Blue} curve shows what the algorithm believes the true reward for the best action is $\max_{j\in \chi} \hat{r}_{j,t}$, and the \textbf{light blue} region shows the confidence interval $[\max_{j\in \chi} \hat{r}_{j,t}-\max_i\epsilon_{i,t}, \max_{j\in \chi} \hat{r}_{j,t}+\max_i\epsilon_{i,t}]$. The \textbf{red} curve plots the true best reward.}
\label{fig:nuse}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we present Iterative Training with Rejection Sampling (ITRS) algorithm which iteratively trains an Optimal Decision Tree for Truck Unloading, a robotic Decision Making Problem while collecting additional data from simulation only when the new data would help train a better Decision Tree. We observe that with this method, we require around 68-74\% less simulator runs for the truck unloading problem, which amounts to saving about 265-300 hours of simulation time. The proposed method, provides better decision trees with lesser amount of data and hence increases the data efficiency which is crucial in cases like ours where it is very time consuming to obtain data.
Future work includes extending this algorithm to more general robotic decision making problems and reasoning about the sim-to-real gap when updating the decision tree, learned on simulation data, for a real-robot.
\section*{Appendix}
\label{sec:appendix}
\noindent \textbf{Proof:} \autoref{alg:nu-successive-elimination} is a ($0,\delta$)-\texttt{PAC} algorithm.\\
For an action $i$, let us define the event $\xi_{i,t} = \{ | \hat{r}_{i,t} - r_{i} | \leq \epsilon_t \}$. Using Hoeffding's inequality
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(\xi_{i,t}^c) & \leq 2\text{exp}(-\tau_{i,t} \epsilon_{i,t}^2/2)
\end{align}
Taking $\epsilon_t = \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\tau_t}\log(\frac{4t^2n}{\delta}) } $, we get
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}(\xi_{i,t}^c) \leq \frac{\delta}{2t^2n}
\end{equation}
Thus, the new event $\xi$ where the event $\xi_{i,t}$ holds for all arms and at all times is $\xi = \bigcap\limits_{i=1}^{n} \bigcap\limits_{t=1}^{\infty} \xi_{i,t} $
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}(\xi^c) & \leq \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} \sum\limits_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{\delta}{2t^2n}\\
& \leq \delta
\end{align}
Thus, $\mathbb{P}(\xi) \geq 1-\delta$. Now without loss of generality, let the actions be indexed in the decreasing order of their true expected rewards $r_1\geq r_2 \geq \ldots \geq r_n$. Thus, $a_1$ is the true best action. Let $\Delta_i = r_1 - r_{i}$ denote the gap, which is a non-negative quantity. Now, if event $\xi$ holds, the difference in the emperical mean rewards between any action $a_i \in \chi_t$ compared to the action $a_1$ is
\begin{align}
\hat{r}_{i,t} - \hat{r}_{1,t} & = (\hat{r}_{i,t} - r_i) - (\hat{r}_{1,t} - r_1) - \Delta_i \nonumber\\
& \leq \epsilon_{i,t} + \epsilon_{1,t} - \Delta_i\nonumber\\
& \leq \epsilon_{i,t} + \epsilon_{1,t}\nonumber\\
\hat{r}_{i,t} - \hat{r}_{1,t} & \leq \epsilon_{i,t} + \sideset{}{_j}{\max}\epsilon_{j,t}\label{eq:elim-crit}
\end{align}
In the last step we upper bound $\epsilon_{1,t}$ with $\sideset{}{_j}{\max}\epsilon_{j,t}$, as among all the actions, we don't know which one is the truly best. Further, the upper bound in \autoref{eq:elim-crit} holds true for all actions $a_i$ and for all time $t$ when $\xi$ holds. To be on the safest side and to not eliminate the best action (with high probability), we arrive at the following elimination rule:
\begin{equation}
\sideset{}{_{j\in \chi}}{\max} \hat{r}_{j,t} - \hat{r}_{i,t} > 2\sideset{}{_j}{\max}\epsilon_{j,t}
\end{equation}
Thus, if we follow the above elimination rule, the best action will never (with high probability) be not included in $\chi_t$.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Yb-based compounds exhibit a number of interesting properties that include mixed valence, heavy fermion behavior, Kondo effect, magnetic ordering, and superconductivity~\cite{subbarao_new_2013}.
The compound considered in this work, YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}, belongs to the ThMn$_{12}$ family of intermetalic compounds with the general formula XT$_4$Al$_8$, where X is the rare-earth or actinide element and T is the transition-metal element~\cite{buschow_note_1976, van_der_kraan_magnetic_1977, suski_chapter_1996}.
Other examples of Yb-based compounds in the XT$_4$Al$_8$ family are YbCr$_4$Al$_8$, YbMn$_4$Al$_8$, and YbCu$_4$Al$_8$~\cite{buschow_note_1976}, while the isostructural configuration with Co has not been confirmed.
In this section we will introduce the issue of valency of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} in comparison with other Yb compounds, we will also discuss the issues related to the complex magnetic configuration of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} and present a model of the crystallographic structure of the considered compound.
\subsection{Valence of Yb-based compounds}
One motivation for studying YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ is to determine its valence.
Most lanthanides in the metallic state are trivalent, except for Eu and Yb, which are divalent~\cite{strange_understanding_1999, johansson_energy_1979}.
Since Yb has sixteen electrons outside the core, a 4$f$ orbital filled with fourteen electrons is usually stable, and two electrons can participate in the bond.
And indeed, a divalent state is observed for metallic Yb~\cite{lang_study_1981}.
However, the small energy difference observed between the divalent and trivalent states means that Yb in compounds often occurs in the trivalent state or states with valence between two and three.
The set of valence values estimated from measurements for a series of Yb compounds takes on a wide range from two to three~\cite{klaasse_systematics_1981}.
Examples of valence estimates made from measurements are
2.38 for YbFe$_2$Al$_{10}$~\cite{khuntia_contiguous_2014},
2.68 for Yb$_2$Si$_2$Al~\cite{gannon_intermediate_2018}, and
2.93 for YbRh$_2$Si$_2$~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011}.
Yb compounds with mean valence are usually classified as fluctuating (mixed) or intermediate valence compounds.
While fluctuating valence implies dynamic transition processes between two valence states, intermediate valence implies the simultaneous presence of two valence states with specific ratios.
It is not uncommon to put the same material into both categories based on similar experimental results, where a well-known example is YbAl$_3$~\cite{buschow_intermediate_1977, kumar_pressure-induced_2008, chatterjee_lifshitz_2017}.
A valence band, similar to the one observed for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}~\cite{tolinski_magnetic_2006}, consisting of contributions from Yb$^{2+}$ and Yb$^{3+}$
has been seen previously for both materials classified as valence fluctuating, such as
YbCu$_2$Si$_2$~\cite{matsunami_combining_2008},
YbAl$_2$~\cite{matsunami_photoemission_2012, matsunami_strongly_2013},
YbB$_{12}$~\cite{rousuli_hard_2017},
Yb$_2$Pt$_6$Ga$_{15}$ and Yb$_2$Pt$_6$Al$_{15}$~\cite{rousuli_photoemission_2017},
as well as for materials of intermediate valence, such as
YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$~\cite{anno_electronic_2002},
YbInCu$_4$~\cite{schmidt_x-ray_2005},
YbNi$_{0.8}$Al$_{4.2}$~\cite{tran_intermediate_2006},
YbRh$_2$Si$_2$~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011},
Yb$_4$Ga$_{24}$Pt$_9$~\cite{sichevych_intermediate-valence_2017}, and
Yb$_2$Si$_2$Al~\cite{gannon_intermediate_2018}.
Since our experimental analysis is based solely on XPS measurements, we cannot unambiguously resolve the membership of the compound under consideration, YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}, in the class of fluctuating or intermediate valence materials.
However, previous studies remain consistent that the valence of the considered compound is close to three~\cite{buschow_note_1976,suski_chapter_1996, tolinski_magnetic_2006}.
Suski cites hard-to-find results of Shcherba~$et~al.$ indicating for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} a valence of 3.00(5)~\cite{suski_chapter_1996},
which is consistent with the observed slight positive volume deviation of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} from the trend for a series of mostly trivalent RFe$_4$Al$_{8}$ compounds.
As noted by Kummer~$et~al.$~\cite{kummer_similar_2018} compounds in which the deviation from trivalency is small are among the most interesting, since in this regime there is a transition from a magnetically ordered ground state to a paramagnetic one.
\subsection{Magnetic properties of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$}
Although the YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} compound has been known since at least 1976~\cite{buschow_note_1976}, it attracted the most interest in the first decade of the 21st century~
\cite{
drulis_magnetic_2002,
suski_magnetic_2002,
gaczynski_magnetic_2004,
andrzejewski_unusual_2006,
andrzejewski_negative_2006,
tolinski_magnetic_2006,
szymanski_advantages_2008}.
This was probably due to its misassignment~\cite{gurevich_impedance_2001,drulis_magnetic_2002} to the group of RFe$_4$Al$_8$ superconducting compounds, like for example ScFe$_4$Al$_8$ ($T_c$~=~6~K), YFe$_4$Al$_8$ ($T_c$~=~6~K), and YCr$_4$Al$_8$ ($T_c$~=~4.5~K)~\cite{gurevich_impedance_2001, dmitriev_superconductivity_2003}.
However, a later study denied YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ membership in the superconducting group~\cite{andrzejewski_unusual_2006, andrzejewski_negative_2006}.
A critical analysis of the presence of a superconductive phase in YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ has led to an explanation of the phenomenon of thermally driven magnetization reversal, sometimes also called negative magnetization~\cite{andrzejewski_unusual_2006, andrzejewski_negative_2006}.
The Néel point of the Fe antiferromagnetic sublattice of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} is about 140~K~\cite{
shcherba_peculiarities_1996}.
As the temperature decreases, a decrease in magnetization in the external field is observed, and a change in the sign of magnetization occurs when the compensation temperature exceeds 34~K~\cite{andrzejewski_unusual_2006, andrzejewski_negative_2006}.
Andrzejewski~${et~al.}$ concluded that the negative magnetization comes from antiferromagnetic interactions between the magnetic moments on Yb and the canted effective magnetic moments on Fe.
The above results for YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ are compared by Andrzejewski~${et~al.}$ with the results for isostructural LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ for which the magnetization observed as a function of temperature is always positive, which the authors relate to the absence of magnetic moments on the Lu sublattice~\cite{andrzejewski_negative_2006}.
However, the above explanation of the negative magnetization in YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ is somewhat controversial due to the assumption of the presence of a magnetic moment on Yb atoms, which has not yet been explicitly confirmed,
while Suski~$et~al.$ indicated the absence of a magnetic moment on Yb in the considered compound~\cite{suski_magnetic_2002}.
Although the magnetic ordering for the Yb sublattice below 8~K was detected with the $^{170}$Yb Mössbauer effect~\cite{felner_magnetism_1979,suski_magnetic_2002}
and the effective magnetic moment on Yb ion equal to 4.1~$\mu_B$ was indirectly deduced from the magnetic susceptibility measurements~\cite{shcherba_peculiarities_1996},
Suski~$et~al.$ have shown that at temperatures above 200~K the Yb$_{1-x}$Sc$_x$Fe$_4$Al$_8$ alloys follow the Curie-Weiss law with effective magnetic moments of about 7-8 $\mu_B$/f.u. which do not depend on the composition, indicating that all magnetism in this compound is determined by the Fe sublattice~\cite{suski_magnetic_2002}.
In a subsequent paper, Suski showed that the magnetic susceptibility of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ is strongly field-dependent, even at temperatures clearly above the antiferromagnetic phase transition, suggesting the existence of a ferromagnetic correlation of unknown origin~\cite{suski_about_2007}.
Suski, therefore, suggests that ferromagnetic clusters of Fe impurities are responsible for the appearance of negative magnetization in YbFe$_4$Al$_8$, which may mimic the presence of a second magnetic sublattice~\cite{suski_about_2007}.
This seems likely, given that about 5\% of the Fe atoms in the YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ sample may be located at 8$i$ or 8$j$ sites, as shown by Mössbauer effect measurements~\cite{szymanski_advantages_2008}.
Gaczyński~$et~al.$ suggest that partial disorder leads to interacting antiferromagnetic and spin-fluctuating subsystems~\cite{gaczynski_magnetic_2004}.
The thermally driven reversal magnetization observed in YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ is also related to the phenomenon of negative magnetoresistivity detected at low magnetic fields in RM$_4$Al$_8$ compounds (including YbFe$_4$Al$_8$)~\cite{dmitriev_negative_2008}.
A proposed explanation for this phenomenon is a combination of the Kondo effect with spin-glass state resulting from crystallographic disturbance~\cite{dmitriev_negative_2008}.
The occurrence of a similar effect, which was the inverse magnetocaloric effect observed in Y$_{1-x}$Gd$_x$Co$_2$ alloys, has been associated with antiferromagnetic or cluster glass behavior~\cite{pierunek_normal_2017}.
\subsection{Crystal structure of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{5mm}
\includegraphics[clip, width = 0.95 \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8_struct.eps}
\caption{\label{fig_struct}
A model of the crystal structure of the YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} compound that crystallizes in a tetragonal structure of the CeMn$_4$Al$_8$ type (space group $I$4/$mmm$, lattice parameters $a$~=~8.712 and $c$~=~5.044~\AA) and is a superstructure of the ThMn$_{12}$ type.
}
\end{figure}
YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ crystallizes in a tetragonal structure of CeMn$_4$Al$_8$ type ($I$4/$mmm$ space group, lattice parameters $a$~=~8.712 and $c$~=~5.044~\AA~\cite{tolinski_magnetic_2006}) that is a superstructure of ThMn$_{12}$ type, see Fig.~\ref{fig_struct}.
Lanthanide contraction is the reason that the unit cell volume of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ is one of the smallest among the RFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds~\cite{buschow_note_1976}.
YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ unit cell consists of 26 atoms (two formula units)~\cite{moze_preferential_1990, schobinger-papamantellos_magnetic_1998}.
Yb and Fe atoms occupy the 2$a$ and 8$f$ site, respectively, while Al atoms occupy the 8$i$ and 8$j$ positions.
As shown in the example of YbCu$_4$Ga$_8$, it is also possible to create more complex superstructures in \textit{1-4-8} systems, which require eight non-equivalent atomic positions for a complete description~\cite{subbarao_new_2013}.
\section{\label{exp} Methods}
\subsection{Experimental details}
A polycrystalline YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ sample was obtained by induction melting of stoichiometric amounts of elements in an argon atmosphere.
Details of the preparation are given in earlier work ~\cite{tolinski_magnetic_2006,andrzejewski_unusual_2006,andrzejewski_negative_2006}.
X-ray photoelectron spectra were obtained with an Al-K$_\alpha$ source at room temperature using a PHI 5700/660 Physical Electronics Spectrometer.
The electron energy spectra were analyzed using a hemispherical mirror analyzer with an energy resolution of approximately 0.3~eV.
The Fermi level $E_{\textrm{F}} = 0$ was related to a binding energy of Au~4$f$ at 84~eV.
All emission spectra were measured immediately after breaking up the sample in a vacuum of 10$^{-9}$~Torr.
High vacuum breaking produced clean surfaces free of oxygen and carbon contamination.
\subsection{Computational details}
The second part of this paper will present the results of computations performed under density functional theory (DFT).
The YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} model was investigated using the full-potential local-orbital scheme (FPLO version 18.00-52)~\cite{koepernik_full-potential_1999,eschrig_2._2004}.
The use of the full potential approach is particularly important for 4$f$-electron compounds, for which the results are strongly dependent on the quality of the potential~\cite{koepernik_full-potential_1999}.
The second important element of our method is the treatment of relativistic effects in the full 4-component formalism.
The use of a fully relativistic method (accounting for spin-orbit coupling) significantly improves the description of 4$f$ electrons characterized by a large spin-orbit coupling.
For the exchange-correlation potential, we chose the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) parametrization~\cite{perdew_generalized_1996}.
For elements containing 4$f$ electrons, it is worth investigating how the results might be affected by the inclusion of an additional Coulomb U term of intra-atomic repulsion to the energy functional, described by the GGA~+~U method~\cite{ylvisaker_anisotropy_2009}.
In the present work, we used the fully-localized limit of the LSDA+U (GGA+U) proposed
by Czy{\.z}yk and Sawatzky~\cite{czyzyk_local-density_1994}, which is also known as the atomic limit
The effect of the value of the parameter U on the obtained results in the range from 0 to 10 eV has been investigated.
Previously, a similar LDA~+~U(4$f$) approach was adopted for YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$~\cite{schnelle_itinerant_2005,sichelschmidt_optical_2006}.
Furthermore, our previous experience with modeling alloys containing 3$d$ elements shows that including the LDA+U correction for 3$d$ atoms has very little effect on the position of the 3$d$ band~\cite{morkowski_x-ray_2011,skoryna_xps_2016}, so to simplify the model we have not included this correction.
The calculations were performed on a 20$\times$20$\times$20 k-mesh with a density accuracy of 10$^{-6}$.
The site geometry optimization was performed with a force accuracy of 10$^{-3}$~eV\,\AA{}$^{-1}$.
Details of the geometry optimization will be presented in the next section.
Drawings of the crystalline and antiferromagnetic structures were made using the VESTA code~\cite{momma_vesta_2008}.
\section{Results and discussion}
The properties of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}, such as the thermally driven magnetization reversal, magnetism of Yb ions, non-trivial valence and antiferromagnetic configuration motivated us to perform studies that we hope will resolve some of the ambiguities.
In our previous work on YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ we investigated its magnetic and transport properties~\cite{tolinski_magnetic_2006,andrzejewski_unusual_2006,andrzejewski_negative_2006}.
Here we will extend the analysis of X-ray photoelectron spectra presented before~\cite{tolinski_magnetic_2006}.
The analysis of the valence band will be followed by the interpretation of selected core-level spectra.
In the second part of the work, we will present the results of first-principles calculations focusing on the structural and magnetic properties of the system.
\subsection{X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy \label{xpsexp}}
\subsubsection{Valence band spectrum}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[clip, width = 1.0 \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8_xps_valence_band.eps}
\caption{
Valence band of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy at room temperature using Al~K$_{\alpha}$ source with photon energy 1487.6~eV.
The experimental result is compared with the multiplet structure of the 4$f^{13}$ $\rightarrow$ 4$f^{12}$ transition calculated by Gerken~\cite{gerken_calculated_1983}.
}
\label{fig-XPS-ybfe4al8-valence}
\end{figure}
While for divalent metallic Yb we observe a rather simple valence band with a 2F spin-orbit doublet~\cite{lang_study_1981}, Yb compounds with a mean valence, between two and three, reveal a valence band composed of two parts associated with different states before photoemission~\cite{eggenhoffner_advances_1993}.
Such binary valence band spectra have been observed before for YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$~\cite{anno_electronic_2002} and
YbInCu$_4$~\cite{schmidt_x-ray_2005}, for example.
As we see in Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-ybfe4al8-valence}, the valence band of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$
also consists of two contributions, from divalent (Yb$^{2+}$) and trivalent (Yb$^{3+}$) configurations.
The divalent part (Yb$^{2+}$) is characterized by a doublet derived from the final state 4$f^{13}$, while the trivalent part (Yb$^{3+}$) is characterized by a multiplet derived from the final state 4$f^{12}$.
The distance separating the two parts, which in this case is just under 6~eV, is interpreted as the intra-atomic correlation energy~\cite{eggenhoffner_advances_1993}.
However, we see that the divalent part does not resemble a doublet.
This is because XPS measurements using a source with an energy of about 1.5~keV are sensitive to surface effects, resulting in the appearance of a second doublet shifted by about 1~eV toward higher binding energies~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011}.
Depending on the mutual shift of the doublets, a structure of four or three peaks may appear.
A structure similar to the triple one seen in Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-ybfe4al8-valence} has been observed, for example, for Yb$_2$Pt$_6$Al$_{15}$~\cite{rousuli_photoemission_2017}.
A one way to discard the signal from the surface would be to use hard X-rays with photon energy on the order of a few keVs~\cite{rousuli_photoemission_2017}.
Alternatively, also reducing the energy of the source allows to determine the impact of the surface~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011}.
Since at a binding energy of about 1~eV there is a maximum in the signal coming from the Fe~3$d$ states, it can be suspected that they may significantly affect the valence band in the vicinity of the Fermi level~\cite{tolinski_magnetic_2006}.
Nevertheless, a comparison of photoionization cross-sections for Yb~4$f$ (0.0820) and Fe~3$d$ (0.0022) orbitals contradicts this speculations~\cite{yeh_atomic_1985}.
The almost forty-fold difference in favor of Yb~4$f$ states, combined with their much larger localization leads to the conclusion that the contribution from Fe is not significant in the considered range of a few eV from the Fermi level.
Similarly, also the contributions from Yb~5$d$~6$s$ and Al~3$s$~3$p$ states can be neglected~\cite{eggenhoffner_advances_1993}.
Empirical confirmation of the above predictions is provided by comparing the XPS valence bands of YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and LaFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, showing an absolutely dominant contribution from the Yb~4$f$ states~\cite{okane_photoemission_2003}.
Now we turn to the trivalent multiplet.
In Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-ybfe4al8-valence} we compared the experimental result with the multiplet structure of the 4$f^{13}$ $\rightarrow$ 4$f^{12}$ transition calculated by Gerken~\cite{gerken_calculated_1983}.
However, we shifted the transition diagram by 5.6~eV towards higher binding energies.
We determined the value of the 4$f$ level shift relative to the Fermi level from the energy difference of the trivalent and tetravalent metallic Yb calculated by Johansson~\cite{johansson_energy_1979}.
The observed surface contribution in the divalent part of the valence band provokes the question of an analogous contribution in the trivalent part.
Although our result obtained for a photon energy of 1486.6~eV is not conclusive on this question, a series of measurements made for YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ at beam energies of 600, 350, and 115~eV revealed that also the multiplet of trivalent Yb consists of contributions from the bulk and surface~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011}.
However, the small difference in their mutual position (on the order of 0.2~eV) does not allow us to distinguish them as easily as in the case of the divalent part of the valence band.
In addition to the beam energy, the observed valence band spectrum is also affected by the temperature.
For example, XPS valence bands measured for YbInCu$_4$ at temperatures of 10 and 150~K showed that at a lower temperature the trivalent contribution decreases and the divalent contribution increases, which is naturally due to the decrease in mean valence (of 0.1 in this case)~\cite{schmidt_x-ray_2005}.
The measured valence band spectra can be used to determine valence.
For this purpose, the relative intensity $\eta$ is determined from the formula:
\begin{equation}
\eta = \frac{I^{(2+)}}{I^{(2+)}+I^{(3+)}},
\end{equation}
where $I^{(2+)}$ and $I^{(3+)}$ are the integral intensities~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011}.
The determined value of $\eta$ is affected by the choice of background correction~\cite{schmidt_x-ray_2005} and the difficulty in separating the surface and volume contributions.
Assuming that surface and the volume components of the divalent contribution are equal, we obtain $\eta$ equal to 0.315.
Although the relationship $v = 3 - \eta$ is usually used to determine the valence ($v$) from the relative intensities in Yb compounds, Kummer~$et~al.$ have shown that a more accurate result can be obtained using the cubic function
\begin{equation}
v(\eta) = 3 - 0.55\eta - 0.01\eta^2 - 0.44\eta^3.
\end{equation}
Thus, for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} at room temperature, the determined valence value is 2.81.
The effect of surface contributions on the result can be minimized in the future by performing the hard x-ray photoemission spectroscopy (HAXPES)
measurements~\cite{rousuli_photoemission_2017}.
Using the example of YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$, Okane~$et~al.$ have shown that low-temperature soft-x-ray synchrotron radiation photoemission spectroscopy (SRPES) can also be very helpful in the valence band analysis of Yb compounds~\cite{okane_photoemission_2003}.
\subsubsection{Core level spectra Yb~4d, Fe~2p, and Al~2p}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[clip, width = 0.95 \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8_xps_yb_4d.eps}
\caption{
X-ray photoelectron spectrum of Yb~4$d$ for YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ measured at room temperature using Al~K$_{\alpha}$ source with photon energy 1486.6~eV.
The experimental result is compared with the multiplet structures of Yb$^{2+}$ and Yb$^{3+}$ computed by Ogasawara~$et~al.$~\cite{ogasawara_lifetime_1994}.
}
\label{fig-XPS-yb-4d}
\end{figure}
The mean valence of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ also affects its core-level states.
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-yb-4d}, the core-level spectrum of the Yb~4$d$ orbital is relatively complex and consists of parts derived from the Yb$^{3+}$ and Yb$^{2+}$ configurations.
The Yb~4$d$ spectrum can be interpreted based on theoretically predicted multiplets calculated for Yb$^{3+}$ and Yb$^{2+}$ by Ogasawara~$et~al.$~\cite{ogasawara_lifetime_1994}.
The divalent doublet consists of spin-orbit split levels, while the trivalent multiplet arises from more complex 4$d$-4$f$ Coulomb-exchange interactions resulting from incomplete 4$f$ shell occupancy.
The measured spectrum reveals that the contributions from the divalent doublet are rather small, confirming that the valence of the compound is closer to three.
This also agrees with the result deduced for the valence band.
The presented Yb~4$d$ spectrum can also be compared with the results for Yb metal~\cite{hagstrom_electron_1970} and other Yb compounds~\cite{szytula_electronic_2003,schmidt_x-ray_2005,rai_intermediate_2015}.
This comparison confirms the nature of the spectrum similar to the trivalent state of Yb with a smaller divalent contribution.
For mixed-valence compound YbInCu$_4$~\cite{schmidt_x-ray_2005}, it has been observed that the intensity of the 4$d_{5/2}$ divalent peak around 182~eV strongly decreases with decreasing temperature, which was associated with an increase in valence.
Whereas for the mixed-valence alloy (Lu$_{1-x}$Yb$_x$)$_3$Rh$_4$Ge$_{13}$~\cite{rai_intermediate_2015} it has been shown that the peak associated with the Yb$^{3+}$ state located around 185~eV increases significantly with increasing Yb concentration.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[clip, width = 1.0 \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8_xps_fe_2p_al_2p.eps}
\caption{The XPS spectra of Fe~2$p$ (a) and Al~2$p$ (b) states for YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ measured at room temperature using Al~K$_{\alpha}$ source with photon energy 1486.6~eV.}
\label{fig-XPS-fe-2p-al-2p}
\end{figure}
The spin-orbit split doublet of asymmetric Fe~2$p$ lines having Doniach-Sunjic shape resembles the corresponding result for pure iron~\cite{graat_simultaneous_1996} and also shows none of the chemical shifts and charge-transfer satellites characteristic of iron oxides~\cite{yamashita_analysis_2008}, see Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-fe-2p-al-2p}(a).
The determined spin-orbit coupling of Fe~2$p$ doublet (about 13~eV) is similar to the value observed in pure Fe.
The position of the Al~2$p$ peak (-72.6 eV) observed in Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-fe-2p-al-2p}(b) is similar to that of pure metal Al (-72.7~eV).
The observed spectral line broadening we ascribe to spin-orbit splitting and differences in level positions for the two non-equivalent Al positions present in the compound.
Relativistic atomic calculations, to be presented later, show that the spin-orbit splitting between the Al~2$p_{1/2}$ and Al~2$p_{3/2}$ states is equal to 0.44~eV.
\subsection{\label{abi}First-principles calculations}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, width = \textwidth]{ybfe4al8_afm_structures.eps}
\caption{\label{fig_afm_stucts}
Considered antiferromagnetic configurations of spin magnetic moments on Fe sites for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}: AFM-A (a), AFM-C (b), and AFM-G (c).
}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Theoretical models for Yb and \\
DFT results for XFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds}
Although DFT-based models perform quite well in predicting a range of properties of many rare-earth compounds~\cite{svane_ab_2000}, the single-electron nature of local density approximation (LDA), which does not adequately take correlation into account, severely limits the quality of results obtained for mixed-valence Yb-based compounds~\cite{ylvisaker_charge_2009}.
As a result, the LDA (LDA~+~U) framework yields to a single divalent-type Yb~4$f$ valence band~\cite{jeong_first-principles_2006, yasui_observation_2013}, instead of a complex two-part divalent/trivalent band as observed from spectroscopy.
The successful step toward overcoming this barrier was made in a paper analyzing the effect of pressure on Yb properties, which used LDA-based Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods to determine the valence and to model the valence band of Yb~\cite{ylvisaker_charge_2009}.
An alternative approach to modeling the valence band of Yb compounds is the single-impurity Anderson model (SIAM)~\cite{kummer_intermediate_2011}.
This method, although it leads to a two-part 2+/3+ valence band, is based on the approximation of Yb as an impurity, so it is also not applicable to modeling Yb compounds from first-principles.
Earlier DFT results for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} were presented in 2019 by Wang~$et~al.$ in a review paper on RFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds~\cite{wang_phase_2019}, in which, among other things, the authors calculate lattice parameters of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} (8.703 and 5.049~\AA{}), spin magnetic moment on Fe (1.559~$\mu_B$), elastic constants, phonon spectra, bulk, shear, and Young's modulus.
Their calculations are based on the full potential (FP) projector augmented wave (PAW) approach with Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) approximation.
In this work, we will improve their model by using a fully relativistic approach and considering an antiferromagnetic configuration.
Previously, the antiferromagnetic configuration of Fe sublattices was also considered in the works of Grechnev~$et~al.$ on RFe$_4$Al$_8$ superconductors (R~=~Sc, Y, Lu)~\cite{grechnev_electronic_2014, logosha_features_2014, zhuravleva_electronic_2016}.
\subsubsection{Antiferromagnetic configurations,\\
geometry optimization, and site preferences}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{\label{tab:optimized_structures}
Crystallographic data for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} as optimized with the FPLO code.
The lattice parameters for antiferromagnetic configuration AFM-C are $a$~=~12.306~\AA{} and $c$~=~5.019~\AA{}, see Fig.~\ref{fig_afm_stucts}(b),
whereas for basic non-magnetic configuration (NM) lattice parameters are $a$~=~8.702~\AA{} and $c$~=~5.019~\AA{}.
}
\begin{tabular}{cccc|cccc}
\hline \hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{AFM-C sg. $Fmmm$ (69)} & \multicolumn{4}{|c}{NM sg. $I$4/$mmm$ (139)} \\
\hline
Yb & 0 & 0 & 0 & Yb~2$a$ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
Fe$_{up}$& -1/4 & 0 & -1/4 & Fe~8$f$ & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 \\
Fe$_{dn}$& 0 & -1/4 & -1/4 & Al~8$i$ & 0.3307 & 0 & 0 \\
Al$_1$ & 0.1693 & 0.1693 & 0 & Al~8$j$ & 0.2784 & 1/2 & 0 \\
Al$_2$ & 0.3896 & -0.1104 & 0 & & & & \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Although it is confirmed that there are two magnetic Fe sublattices in the YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}, the exact type of antiferromagnetic configuration is not known.
The powder neutron diffraction at 4~K for the isostructural compound CaFe$_4$Al$_8$ has shown that the magnetic moments on the Fe atoms form antiparallel chains oriented along the $c$-direction and slightly canted from the axis~\cite{gvozdetskyi_crystal_2018},
which can be described as a canted AFM-C configuration.
Since the FPLO code only allows the calculation of collinear magnetic configurations, we consider for the YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} simplified collinear AFM-C model.
As the initial lattice parameters, we take the values 8.714 and 5.026~\AA{} measured for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}~\cite{buschow_note_1976}.
Since the literature does not provide atomic positions for the studied compound, we take initial positions from the isostructural CaFe$_4$Al$_8$ (neutron powder data, $T$~=~4~K)~\cite{gvozdetskyi_crystal_2018}.
As a result of optimizing the lattice parameters and atomic positions, we obtain the AFM-C structure presented in Table~\ref{tab:optimized_structures}.
AFM-C structure can be further reduced to a form with only one Fe sublattice, which results we also present in Table~\ref{tab:optimized_structures}.
We see that the optimized lattice parameters (8.702 and 5.019~\AA{}) are in very good agreement with the experimental results (8.714 and 5.026~\AA{})~\cite{buschow_note_1976}.
In addition, we have prepared two more models of antiferromagnetic configurations, AFM-A and AFM-G, and compared them in terms of the total energy in order to identify the most favorable and hence the most stable structure at the lowest temperature, see Fig.~\ref{fig_afm_stucts}.
The AFM-A configuration proven to be unstable, difficult to converge, and its total energy was considerably higher than for the other two.
In contrast, the AFM-C configuration is 0.7~eV\,f.u.$^{-1}$ more stable than AFM-G,
so results presented from now on will be based on the AFM-C configuration unless otherwise noted.
On the sidelines of the work to prepare structural models, we decided to answer the question of the preference of Fe atoms to occupy particular sites in crystal structure.
For this purpose, we prepared three YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ structures in which Fe atoms occupied the 8$f$, 8$i$, or 8$j$ sites.
In agreement with the experiment~\cite{moze_preferential_1990, schobinger-papamantellos_magnetic_1998},
our calculations show that Fe atoms prefer to occupy the 8$f$ sites and
that the structures with Fe occupying the 8$j$ and 8$i$ sites are higher in energy by 0.58 and 0.97 eV/Fe atom, respectively.
The calculated values are relatively high~\cite{fu_site_1996}, indicating a rather strong preference for Fe to occupy sites 8$f$.
\subsubsection{Effect of on-site Coulomb repulsion U on Yb~4f orbital}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, width = \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8_dos_vs_u.eps}
\caption{\label{fig_dos_vs_u}
The densities of states of Yb~4$f$ orbitals as a function of on-site repulsion U$_{4f}$ calculated for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} with an antiparallel configuration of magnetic moments on Fe sites (AFM-C).
Calculations are performed with FPLO18 in a fully relativistic approach, using PBE~+~U, and for the [001] quantization axis.
}
\end{figure}
LDA+U calculations for YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ showed that the on-site Coulomb repulsion U significantly affects the position of the Yb~4$f$ states in the valence band~\cite{schnelle_itinerant_2005,sichelschmidt_optical_2006}.
In the following, we would like to determine whether the effect that the correction induces is beneficial, against the previously presented valence band measurements.
For this purpose we examine how the properties of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} change as U applied to 4$f$ orbitals increases from 0 to 10~eV.
In Fig.~\ref{fig_dos_vs_u} we see that the valence band region of the densities of states (DOS) is dominated by two spin-orbit split peaks of Yb~4$f$ states.
As a result of the aforementioned limitations of the GGA/GGA~+~U method, we observe only a single 4$f$ doublet rather than a complex 2+/3+ binary spectrum as in the XPS measurement presented earlier.
We observe, that as U increases the Yb~4$f$ states shift toward lower energies.
Also as U increases, the occupancy of orbital Yb~4$f$ increases, while the occupancy of orbital Yb~5$d$ decreases, see Fig.~\ref{fig_occupancy_vs_u}, which shows the close relationship these two orbitals.
The occupancy of the 4$f$ orbital for \textit{bare} GGA is equal to 13.53, which is closest to the experimental value equal about 13.2 at 300~K.
Given the above, we conclude that the most appropriate approximation for the description of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} is the GGA model without the on-site Coulomb repulsion U.
Therefore, the detailed results presented below will be based specifically on GGA (PBE).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, width = \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8_4f_5d_vs_U.eps}
\caption{\label{fig_occupancy_vs_u}
Occupancy of Yb~4$f$ and 5$d$ orbitals as a function of on-site repulsion U$_{4f}$ calculated for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} with an antiparallel configuration of magnetic moments on Fe sites (AFM-C).
Calculations were performed with the FPLO18 in a fully relativistic approach, using PBE~+~U, and for the [001] quantization axis.
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Relativistic atomic energies}
Figure~\ref{fig_ene} shows the calculated relativistic atomic energies, which represent the broadest picture of the electronic structure covering all energy levels of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}.
Since these are obtained before the self-consistent cycle, they may change after the calculations converge.
The results are presented in three consecutive ranges and where readability is maintained, energy levels are assigned to individual orbitals.
The levels shown in the top graph do not appear in the results of XPS measurement using a standard X-ray source such as Al-K$_{\alpha}$ with a photon energy of 1486.6~eV.
The lowest level at -61~keV belongs the most strongly bound electron Yb~1$s$.
The middle panel shows the binding energy range typical of an Al-K$_{\alpha}$ source such as the one used in the experimental part of this work, while the bottom panel covers the energy range from -120~eV to the Fermi level.
The calculated levels for Yb~4$d$ (-183.1 and -173.9~eV), Fe~2$p$ (-706.5 and -694.0~eV), and Al~2$p$ (-69.9 and -69.5~eV) are in good agreement with the measured XPS spectra showed before.
The differences are due to
Coulomb exchange interactions with the valence band levels,
effect of spin polarization, and in case of Al nonequivalent atomic positions in the unit cell.
Finally, the part of the XPS spectrum, which covers the area of a few eV around the Fermi level can be interpreted more accurately on the self-consistently calculated valence band structure.
For all-electron methods, like FPLO, accurate positions of the core-electrons energy levels in the range up to about 200 eV of binding energy can be also obtained from self-consistent calculations.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, width = \columnwidth]{energy_levels.eps}
\caption{\label{fig_ene}
The relativistic atomic energies for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}
as calculated using FPLO18 in a fully relativistic approach.
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Densities of states}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip, width = \columnwidth]{ybfe4al8.dos.afmc.u0.optimized.eps}
\caption{\label{fig_dos_afm}
The densities of states (DOS) of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}.
The model is based on the AFM-C configuration of magnetic moments on Fe sublattices (Fe$_{\uparrow}$ and Fe$_{\downarrow}$).
The total DOS is shown with contributions from selected orbitals (Yb~4$f$ and Fe~3$d$).
Calculations were performed with FPLO18 in a fully-relativistic approach and using PBE functional.
}
\end{figure}
We will start the valence band analysis by presenting the density of states in the range of a few eV around the Fermi level, see Fig.~\ref{fig_dos_afm}.
In this region, the most important contributions come from the Yb~4$f$ and Fe~3$d$ orbitals.
13.53 4$f$ electrons, as determined by Mulliken electron population analysis, uniformly fill the two spin channels.
However, as a result of spin-orbit splitting, the 4$f$ states split into two narrow bands with energies of about -0.2 and -1.6~eV.
The observed spin-orbit doublet resembles the divalent part of the XPS spectrum, compare Fig.~\ref{fig-XPS-ybfe4al8-valence}.
However, in the PBE picture we do not observe the second trivalent Yb~4$f$ component present in the XPS spectrum below -5~eV.
Since we are considering a model with the antiferromagnetic ordering of moments on Fe atoms,
red and blue colors are used to draw 3$d$ contributions from Fe sublattices with opposite spin polarizations.
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig_dos_afm}, the DOSs of the two Fe sublattices are polarized in opposite directions and their resulting spin magnetic moment is fully compensated.
In the occupied region, the characteristic maxima of the Fe~3$d$ orbitals are located at about -0.8~eV, just between the split Yb~4$f$ bands.
For clarity, the figure does not show contributions from the less occupied valence orbitals, e.g., Yb~5$d$ or Al~3$s$ and 3$p$, a more complete list of which can be found in the next section of this paper on Mulliken analysis.
\subsubsection{Density of states at the Fermi level and\\
electronic specific heat coefficient $\gamma$}
The density of states at the Fermi level [$\textrm{DOS}(E_{\textrm{F}})$] is 9.4~states\,eV$^{-1}$\,f.u.$^{-1}$ and consists mainly of contributions from Yb~4$f$ (2.5~states\,eV$^{-1}$\,f.u.$^{-1}$) and Fe~3$d$ (3.0~states\,eV$^{-1}$\,f.u.$^{-1}$).
The DOS($E_{\textrm{F}}$) calculated here is relatively close to the values calculated earlier for the anitferromagnetic phases ScFe$_4$Al$_8$, LuFe$_4$Al$_8$, and YFe$_4$Al$_8$ equal to about 14.5~states\,eV$^{-1}$\,cell$^{-1}$~\cite{grechnev_electronic_2014} and to a calculated DOS(E$_{\textrm{F}}$) value for YbFe$_4$Sb$_{12}$ equal to 31~states\,eV$^{-1}$\,f.u.$^{-1}$~\cite{schnelle_itinerant_2005}.
In the Sommerfeld model, the electronic specific heat coefficient $\gamma$ is determined from $\textrm{DOS}(E_{\textrm{F}})$ according to the equation $\gamma = \frac{1}{3} \pi^2 \textrm{k$_{\textrm{B}}^2$} \textrm{DOS}(E_{\textrm{F}})$~\cite{gopal_specific_2012}, where $\textrm{k$_{\textrm{B}}$}$ is Boltzmann constant.
For YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} this leads to $\gamma$ equal to 22.2~mJ\,mol$^{-1}$\,K$^{-2}$, which is much lower than experimental $\gamma$ values for isostructural compounds YFe$_4$Al$_8$ (60~mJ\,mol$^{-1}$\,K$^{-2}$) and LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ (75~mJ\,mol$^{-1}$\,K$^{-2}$)~\cite{hagmusa_magnetic_1998, gurevich_impedance_2001}.
However, the underestimation of $\gamma$ is a recognized weakness of the DFT method, resulting from the neglect of spin fluctuations and many-body effects in low-energy excitations~\cite{tanaka_mass_1998}.
Moreover, the $\gamma$ value of 22.2~mJ\,mol$^{-1}$\,K$^{-2}$ calculated for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} is more than twice the value of 9.1~mJ\,mol$^{-1}$\,K$^{-2}$ that we obtained for another compound containing lanthanides and 3$d$-metal (Y$_{0.9}$Ti$_{0.1}$Co$_2$)~\cite{sniadecki_induced_2014}.
The difference is due to the absence of the 4$f$ contribution in the latter case and the slightly higher filling of the 3$d$ shell in Co than in Fe.
\subsubsection{Mulliken electronic population analysis}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab_charge}
Excess electron number for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} and LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds calculated using FPLO18 in a fully-relativistic approach.
\vspace{2mm}
}
\def\arraystretch{1.5}%
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\hline
formula$\backslash$site & Yb/Lu & Fe & Al1 & Al2 \\
\hline
YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ & -0.65 & -0.10 & 0.12 & 0.14 \\
LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ & -0.88 & -0.08 & 0.14 & 0.17 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\label{tab_mulliken}
The Mulliken electronic population analysis for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} and LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds calculated using FPLO18 in a fully-relativistic approach. Notation of lattice sites of AFM-C structure according to Table~\ref{tab:optimized_structures}.
\vspace{2mm}
}
\def\arraystretch{1.5}%
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
\hline
& site & 6$s$ & 5$d$ & 6$p$ & 4$f$\\
\hline
YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} & Yb & 0.36 & 1.17 & 0.32 & 13.53 \\
LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ & Lu & 0.43 & 1.33 & 0.39 & 13.96 \\
\hline
& site & 4$s$ & 3$d$ & 4$d$ & 4$p$\\
\hline
YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} & Fe & 0.65 & 6.73 & 0.11 & 0.42\\
LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ & Fe & 0.64 & 6.74 & 0.11 & 0.42 \\
\hline
& site & 3$s$ & 3$p$ & 3$d$\\
\hline
YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} & Al$_1$ & 1.16 & 1.73 & 0.28\\
LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ & Al$_1$ & 1.15 & 1.75 & 0.28\\
\hline
& site & 3$s$ & 3$p$ & 3$d$\\
\hline
YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} & Al$_2$ & 1.12 & 1.75 & 0.30\\
LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ & Al$_2$ & 1.12 & 1.77 & 0.31\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In YbX$_4$Al$_8$ compounds, the valence of Yb ions is strongly dependent on the transition metal.
For example, the Yb ion is divalent in YbMn$_4$Al$_8$ and possibly in a mixed state in YbCr$_4$Al$_8$ and YbCu$_4$Al$_8$~\cite{felner_magnetism_1979}.
The previous results suggest that Yb ion in YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ is close to trivalent ~\cite{felner_crystal_1978, felner_magnetism_1979}.
However, the valence determined for YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ from the relative intensity of divalent and trivalent peaks in XPS valence band is 2.81 at room temperature, suggesting occupancy of Yb~4$f$ orbitals close to 13.2.
As shown by the measurements~\cite{schmidt_x-ray_2005},
mean valence of the Yb compound may decrease with temperature, suggesting that the Yb~4$f$ occupancy in YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ may be above 13.2 close to 0~K.
Tables~\ref{tab_charge} and \ref{tab_mulliken} show the results of the Mulliken electronic population analysis~\cite{mulliken_electronic_1955}.
The application of Mulliken's approach is possible because the basis of the FPLO code is the method of linear combination of atomic orbitals.
For YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}, we observe that the charge taken from the Yb and Fe sites (-0.65 and -0.10) is transferred to the Al sites (+0.12 and +0.14).
The excess electron number for Yb (-0.65) is very different from -2 or -3, values one would expect for a divalent or trivalent configurations.
This is due, among other things, to the fact that first-principles calculations involve a much larger basis than assumed by the conventional valence model (e.g. polarization orbitals Yb~6$s$ and 6$p$) and also allow fractional occupancy of individual orbitals.
Similarly large differences between nominal valence and the calculated occupancy are typically observed in DFT calculations.
For Yb in YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} we observe
fractional occupation of orbital 4$f$ (13.53) and
low occupations of orbitals 5$d$ (1.17) and polarization orbitals 6$s$ and 6$p$ (0.36 and 0.32).
For Fe sites, with regard to the ground state electronic configuration of a neutral Fe atom (3$d^6$ 4$s^2$), we observe an increase in the occupation of the 3$d$ orbital while depopulating the 4$s$ orbital.
For comparative analysis, we chose LuFe$_4$Al$_8$, a compound containing a filled 4$f$ shell with a much more stable and simpler to predict electronic structure.
The calculated occupancy of the 4$f$ orbital for LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ is 13.96, which is almost the maximum.
For LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ we observe a similar picture of charge transfer as for YbFe$_4$Al$_8$, but with a significant difference at the position of the 4$f$ element (charge transfer -0.88 for Lu \textit{versus} -0.65 for Yb).
Comparing in more details the occupation of Yb and Lu, we see that at the cost of over-occupation of Yb~4$f$ orbital (above 13.0), the other three Yb orbitals under consideration (5$d$, 6$s$, and 6$p$) are depopulated compared to LuFe$_4$Al$_8$.
Of particular importance is the underoccupancy of the Yb~5$d$ orbital, which leads to a positive deviation of volume from the trend observed for trivalent RFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds.
While experiments have shown that the type of transition metal affects the valence of Yb in YbM$_4$Al$_8$ compounds~\cite{felner_magnetism_1979}, the change of the 4$f$ element between YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ and LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ compounds shows no significant effect on the occupancy of Fe and Al orbitals.
However, the greatest changes in electron structure occur on the 4$f$ elements themselves, see Table~\ref{tab_mulliken}.
\subsubsection{Spin and orbital magnetic moments}
In the last section we will focus on the detailed analysis of magnetic moments.
For YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}, the calculated spin magnetic moments on antiferromagnetically oriented Fe sublattices are equal to 1.523~$\mu_B$ and compensate each other.
The additional orbital contributions occurring on the Fe atoms are 0.037~$\mu_B$/Fe~atom.
Since no magnetic moments have been measured for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} so far, our result can at best be compared with moments experimentally obtained for LuFe$_4$Al$_8$.
Neutron diffraction studies at 1.5 K have shown that for LuFe$_4$Al$_8$ the magnetic moments on the Fe atoms are 1.8(2)~$\mu_B$~\cite{schobinger-papamantellos_magnetic_1998}.
We can see that the value of the total magnetic moment (spin plus orbital) on the Fe atom for YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} equal to about 1.6~$\mu_B$
is within the range of accuracy of the measurement for LuFe$_4$Al$_8$~\cite{schobinger-papamantellos_magnetic_1998}.
The calculated spin magnetic moments on Fe in YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} (1.523~$\mu_B$) are significantly lower than the corresponding values for bcc Fe (2.16~$\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$) calculated under the same theoretical model, as well as compared to the experimental value for bcc Fe (1.98~$\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$~\cite{chen_experimental_1995}).
The calculated orbital magnetic moments on Fe in YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} (0.037~$\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$/Fe atom) and in bcc Fe (0.045~$\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$/Fe atom) are comparable.
However, both of these values are reduced from the experimental value for bcc Fe (0.086~$\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$)~\cite{chen_experimental_1995}.
Underestimation of the orbital magnetic moment for transition metals is considered as one of the weaknesses of GGA and LDA.
For YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} we do not observe any magnetic moments on the Yb and Al sites.
Since the calculations based on the AFM-C model with a single Yb position cannot account for a possible antiferromagnetic ordering on Yb atoms, we prepared an alternative structural model with two non-equivalent Yb positions in addition to two non-equivalent Fe positions.
The calculations for this model, however, led to identical results as presented for a simpler model with a single Yb position, showing no magnetic moments on the Yb atoms.
However, it is worth noting the limitations of our DFT model, which lead to a description of the Yb~4$f$ valence states that is inconsistent with the results observed in XPS and thus can affect the obtained magnetic state of Yb ions.
In conclusion, although the results of our calculations indicate the absence of a magnetic moment on Yb ions, calculations within a more advanced theoretical model than the one used in this work are needed to unambiguously resolve the question of the magnetic state of Yb ions in YbFe$_4$Al$_8${}.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
We have investigated the valence state of YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and first-principles calculations.
We interpreted XPS measurements of the valence band and selected core-levels based on previously predicted theoretical energy level multiplets.
We have identified that the XPS valence band of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} consists of two contributions coming from divalent (Yb$^{2+}$) and trivalent (Yb$^{3+}$) configuration.
The YbFe$_4$Al$_8$ valence is determined from the relative intensity of divalent and trivalent peaks is 2.81 at room temperature.
The second part of the paper consisted of first-principles calculations performed using a full-potential local-orbital scheme (FPLO).
Since atomic positions of YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} are not available in the literature, we performed full structure optimization and presented the resultant complete structural model.
Due to the antiferromagnetic arrangement of magnetic moments revealed in the YbFe$_4$Al$_8${} compound, we considered several collinear antiferromagnetic configurations (AFM-A, AFM-C, and AFM-G), of which AFM-C was found to be the most stable.
The AFM-C configuration is characterized by the arrangement of magnetic moments on Fe in the form of antiparallel chains.
The calculations predicted no magnetic moments at the Yb and Al sites and showed that the antiparallel moments at the Fe chains completely compensate.
Mulliken analysis showed that the charge taken from the Yb and Fe sites is transferred to Al and that the fractional occupation of the 4$f$ orbital is about 13.5 (at 0~K), although the valence deduced from the XPS spectra suggests an occupation closer to 13.2 (at 300~K).
The calculated valence band densities of states presenting a spin-orbit split Yb~4$f$ doublet stand in opposition to the complex XPS spectrum consisting of a divalent doublet and a trivalent multiplet of Yb 4$f$ states.
In order to more accurately describe the valence band and resolve the magnetism of Yb ions, calculations beyond the GGA must be performed.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge the financial support of the National Science Centre Poland under the decision DEC-2018/30/E/ST3/00267.
Part of the computations was performed on the resources provided by the Pozna{\'n} Supercomputing and Networking Center (PSNC).
We thank Paweł Leśniak and Daniel Depcik for compiling the scientific software and administration of the computing cluster at
the Institute of Molecular Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences.
We thank Justyna Rychły and Justyn Snarski-Adamski for reading the manuscript and useful comments.
\end{sloppypar}
|
\section{Introduction}
The arithmetic codes asymptotically achieve the minimal expected length for lossless source coding.
The problem with this method is that it cannot be used unless the probabilistic structure of the source is known in advance.
Therefore, universal codes, which can be used when the probability distribution of the source is unknown, have been studied.
The context tree source is one of the major source models for universal coding, and the CTW (Context Tree Weighting)\cite{ctw} is known as an efficient universal code for context tree sources.
The CTW method can be interpreted as a special case of the Bayes code proposed by Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm}.
The CTW method encodes the entire source sequence at once, which is not an efficient use of memory and causes underflow problem in calculation, whereas the Bayes code of Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm} can be encoded sequentially and is free from these problems.
It is known that the Bayes code has equal codeword length when encoded sequentially and when the entire sequence is encoded at once\cite{matsu_bayes}.
However, in the Bayes code, the computational complexity of weighting by the posterior probability of the context tree models increases exponentially according to the maximum depth of the context tree models.
Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm} developed the efficient Bayes coding algorithm by assuming an appropriate class of prior probability distributions for the context tree models, which reduces the computational complexity from the exponential order to the polynomial order.
Now, a source model for source coding should be able to describe in a concise mathematical manner, but also should be better reflects the probability structure of the real data sequence to be compressed.
For example, the context tree source includes {\textrm{i}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} source and Markov source inherent in itself.
It is a broader class of sources, and has been applied to text data, for example.
On the other hand, there are cases where it is appropriate to think of symbols as being generated according to a different context tree source for each interval, rather than modeling the entire data series as being generated according to a single context tree source.
For example, in the case of the human genome, the DNA sequence consists of about $3$ billion base pairs, and it is described as a pair of series of about $30$ billion in length with four different alphabets: A, G, T, and C.
Although Markov source is sometimes assumed in DNA sequence compression algorithms\cite{cao}, it is known that there are genetic and non-genetic regions in the human genome, which have different structural characteristics.
Therefore, in this paper, we present a non-stationary source that context tree source changes from interval to interval.
An example of a non-stationary source where the source changes from interval to interval is an {\textrm{i}.\textrm{p}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} (independently piecewise identically distributed) source\cite{ipid1,ipid2}.
An {\textrm{i}.\textrm{p}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} source is a source consisting of an {\textrm{i}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} sequences of parameters that are different for each interval.
It can be regarded as a special case of the proposed source in this paper.
An efficient Bayes code for {\textrm{i}.\textrm{p}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} sources has already been proposed by Suso {\textit{et}\,\textit{al}.}\cite{suko_ipid}.
Assuming the source model that symbols are generated by different context tree sources in each interval, we present an efficient Bayes coding algorithm for it.
In this algorithm, we use the prior probability of context tree models by Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm} and that of parameter change patterns by Suko {\textit{et}\,\textit{al}.}\cite{suko_ipid}.
The proposed algorithm achieves a reduction in computational complexity from the exponential order to the polynomial order.
\section{Non-stationary source that context tree model changes from interval to interval}
In this section, we present a non-stationary source that context tree model changes from interval to interval.
The symbols are generated from different context tree models depending on the interval, as shown in Figure \ref{model_overview}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, bb=0 0 641 276]{model_overview.png}
\caption{Diagram of a non-stationary source with a context tree model that changes from interval to interval}
\label{model_overview}
\end{figure}
Now we define the change pattern of context tree models as follows.
\begin{definition}
The change pattern $c$ is defined to indicate when the context tree model has changed. That is,
%
\begin{align} \label{pattern2}
& c\overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=}\left( w_1^{(c)}, \ldots, w_t^{(c)}, \ldots, w_N^{(c)} \right)
\in\mathcal{C}_N \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=} {\{0,1\}^N}, \\ \nonumber
& w_t^{(c)} \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=}
\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if the context tree model changes at time $t$}, \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
Now, for convenience, let $w_1^{(C)}=1$.
The length $N$ of a source sequence is fixed.
The set of all change patterns $\mathcal{C}_N$ is abbreviated as $\mathcal{C}$ from now on.
Next, we define the set of points in the context tree model where changes occur.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{T}_c$ denote the set of points at which the parameter changes in the change pattern $c$. That is,
%
\begin{gather} \label{time_set2}
\mathcal{T}_c\overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=}\left\{t\,\middle|\,w_t^{(c)}=1\right\} =
\left\{ t_0^{(c)}, t_1^{(c)}, \ldots,
t_{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1}^{(c)} \right\}.
\end{gather}
where $t_j^{(c)}$ is the $j$-th changing point in the change pattern $c$.
\end{definition}
In other words, there are $\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1$ parameter changes in $c$.
For convenience, let $t_0^{(c)}=1$, $t_{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}}^{(c)}=N+1$.
If the change pattern $c$ is specified in advance, $t_j^{(c)}$ is abbreviated as $t_j$.
From the $j$-th changing point $t_j$ to the $j+1$-th changing point $t_{j+1}$, symbols are generated according to a single context tree model $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$.
The parameter $\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}^{(c)}}$ for this $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$ is defined as in Definition \ref{parameter_def} and an example is shown in Figure \ref{parameter_setting}.
\begin{definition} \label{parameter_def}
In the change pattern $c$,
for the context tree model $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$ in the interval $\left[t_j,t_{j+1}\right)$,
we denote the set of its leaf nodes as $L_{m_{t_j}}^{(c)}$.
The parameter $\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}^{(c)}}$ for $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$ is defined as follows:
%
\begin{align}
\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}^{(c)}} \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=} \left\{
\bm{\theta}_s \in (0,1)^{\abs{\mathcal{X}}} \,\middle|\,
s\in L_{m_{t_j}}^{(c)} \right\},
\end{align}
%
where
%
\begin{align}
& \ \bm{\theta}_s \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=} {}^\mathsf{T} \hspace{-1mm}
\left( {\theta_{0|s}}, {\theta_{1|s}}, \ldots,
\theta_{\abs{\mathcal{X}}-1|s} \right), \\ &
\sum_{a\in\mathcal{X}} \theta_{a|s} = 1,~~
\theta_{a|s}\in (0,1)~~\mbox{for each symbol $a$.}
\end{align}
%
Note that $\theta_{a|s}$ is the occurrence probability of $a\in\mathcal{X}$ under the state corresponding to node $s$, where $\mathcal{X}$ denotes a source alphabet.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth, bb=0 0 597 315]{parameter_setting.png}
\caption{Example of occurrence probability based on context tree model}
\label{parameter_setting}
\end{figure}
In the case where the change pattern $c$ is specified in advance, $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$ is abbreviated as $m_{t_j}$.
Furthermore, the parameters for the change pattern $c$ are defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
The parameter $\bm{\Theta}^c$ for the change pattern $c$ is defined as follows.
%
\begin{align} \label{parameter_def2}
&\bm{\Theta}^c \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=}
\left\{ \bm{\theta}^{m_t^{(c)}}\,\middle|\,t\in\mathcal{T}_c \right\} =
\left\{ {\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_0}^{(c)}}},
{\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_1}^{(c)}}}, \ldots,
\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1}}^{(c)}} \right\}.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
From Definition \ref{parameter_def},
using the state $S_m(x^{t-1})$ corresponding to the source sequence (past context) $x^{t-1}$ in a certain context tree model $m$, the probability of occurrence at time $t\in\left[t_j,t_{j+1}\right)$ is expressed as follows:
\begin{align} \nonumber
p\left( x_t \middle|
x^{t-1},\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}^{(c)}},m_{t_j}^{(c)},c \right) = &
\,p\left( x_t \middle|
x_{t_j}^{t-1},\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}},m_{t_j} \right) \\ \label{parameter2} = &
\,\theta_{ x_t | S_{m_{t_j}} ( x_{t_j}^{t-1} ) }.
\end{align}
Therefore, the probability distribution of $X^N=X_1\cdots X_N$ in the change pattern $c\in\mathcal{C}$ is expressed by the following equation.
\begin{align} \nonumber
p\left( x^N\middle|\bm{\Theta}^c,c\right) =&
\prod_{j=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1}
p\left( x_{t_j}^{t_{j+1}-1} \middle| \bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}}, m_{t_j} \right) \\ \nonumber =&
\prod_{j=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1} \prod_{t=t_j}^{t_{j+1}-1}
p\left( x_t \middle| x_{t_j}^{t-1},\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}},m_{t_j} \right) \\ =&
\prod_{j=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1} \prod_{t=t_j}^{t_{j+1}-1}
{\theta_{ x_t | S_{m_{t_j}} ( x_{t_j}^{t-1} ) }}.
\end{align}
Regarding a change pattern $c$, a context tree model $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$, and the parameter $\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}^{(c)}}$ for $m_{t_j}^{(c)}$,
we assume prior probability distributions $\pi(c)$, $P(m_{t_j}^{(c)}|c)$,
and $w(\bm{\theta}^{m_{t_j}^{(c)}}|m_{t_j}^{(c)},c)$ respectively.
\section{Bayes Code for the Proposed Source} \label{ベイズ符号化}
In this section, we present the coding probability of the Bayes code for the proposed source.
\begin{theorem} \label{bayes_theorem}
The coding probability of the sequential Bayes code for the proposed source is
%
\begin{align} \nonumber
& \mathrm{AP}^\ast(x_t|x^{t-1}) =
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \pi(c|x^{t-1}) \left[
\sum_{m^{(c)}\in\mathcal{M}} P(m^{(c)}|x^{t-1}, c) \right. \\ \label{bayes_optimal} & ~
\!\int\! p\!\left( x_t \middle| x^{t-1}\!,\!\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}\!,\!m^{(c)}\!,\!c \right)
\!\left.\! w\!\left( \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \middle| x^{t-1}\!,\! m^{(c)}\!,\! c \right)
\!d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \!\right],
\end{align}
%
where $\pi(c|x^{t-1})$ is the posterior probability distribution of the change pattern $c$,
$P(m^{(c)}|x^{t-1}, c)$ is that of the context tree model $m^{(c)}$,
$\mathcal{M}$ is the set of all context tree models\footnote{To be more precise, the size of $\mathcal{M}$ (the total number of context tree models) depends on the maximum depth of the context tree $d$.
However, in this paper, $d$ is fixed.} (see Example \ref{example1}), and
$w(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}|x^{t-1},m^{(c)},c)$ is the posterior probability distribution of the parameter $\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof outline of Theorem \ref{bayes_theorem} is the same as that of Theorem 2 in \cite{matsu_bayes}.
Now, let $\mathrm{AP}_p(x_t|x^{t-1})$ be an arbitrary sequential coding probability.
Taking the logarithmic loss of the coding probability, the loss function is as follows:
%
\begin{align} \nonumber
& V\left( \mathrm{AP}_p, x^N, \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c \right) \\ & =
\log p\left( x^N \middle| \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c \right) -
\log \prod_{t=1}^N \mathrm{AP}_p(x_t|x^{t-1}).
\end{align}
%
We take the expectation with respect to the probability distribution of the source sequences, and obtain the risk function as follows:
%
\begin{align} \nonumber
& R\left( \mathrm{AP}_p, \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c \right) \\ & =
\sum_{x^N} p\left( x^N \middle| \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c \right)
\log \frac{ p\left( x^N \middle| \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c \right) }
{ \prod_{t=1}^N \mathrm{AP}_p(x_t|x^{t-1}) }.
\end{align}
%
The Bayes risk is then obtained by taking the expectation with respect to the probability distribution of each parameter.
%
\begin{align} \nonumber
& \mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{AP}_p) =
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \pi(c) \left[
\sum_{m^{(c)}\in\mathcal{M}} P(m^{(c)}|c) \right. \\ & \hspace{3mm} \left.
\int R\left( \mathrm{AP}_p, \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c \right)
w(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} | m^{(c)}, c) d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \right].
\end{align}
%
On the other hand, we have
%
\begin{align} \nonumber
& p(x^N) \\ & = \nonumber
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \sum_{m^{(c)}\in\mathcal{M}} \int
p(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c)
p(x^N | \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}, m^{(c)}, c) d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \\ & =
\prod_{t=1}^N \frac{ \sum_{c} \sum_{m^{(c)}} \! \int \!
p(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
p(x^t | \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} }
{ \sum_{c} \sum_{m^{(c)}} \! \int \!
p(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
p(x^{t-1} \! | \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} }.
\end{align}
%
Hence, $\mathrm{AP}^\ast(x_t|x^{t-1})$ given as follows minimizes the Bayes risk.
%
\begin{align*}
& \mathrm{AP}^\ast(x_t|x^{t-1}) \\ & =
\frac{ \sum_{c} \sum_{m^{(c)}} \int
p(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
p(x^t \! | \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} }
{ \sum_{c} \sum_{m^{(c)}} \int
p(\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
p(x^{t-1} \! | \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c)
d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} } \\ & = \nonumber
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \pi(c|x^{t-1}) \left[
\sum_{m^{(c)}\in\mathcal{M}} P(m^{(c)}|x^{t-1}, c) \right.
\end{align*}
%
\vspace{-5mm}
%
\begin{align}
~ \int p\!\left( x_t \middle| x^{t-1} \! , \! \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c \right)
\left. \!
w\!\left( \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! \middle| x^{t-1} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c \right)
\! d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! \right].
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{example} \label{example1}
When considering the case where $\mathcal{X}=\{ 0,1\}$ and the depth of a context tree model is at most two, there are five context tree models as shown in Figure \ref{models} and $\mathcal{M} = \{m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4,m_5\}$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, bb=0 0 519 415]{models.png}
\caption{Overall view of the context tree models of $0$-$1$ sequence in the maximum depth $d=2$}
\label{models}
\end{figure}
\section{Efficient algorithm for calculating coding probability of the Bayes code} \label{algorithm}
The coding probability of the Bayes code shown in Theorem \ref{bayes_theorem} is given by weighting the Bayes optimal coding probability of each change pattern $c$ by the posterior probability distribution of the change pattern $\pi(c|x^{t-1})$.
That is, \eqref{bayes_optimal} is expressed as follows:
\begin{align} \label{bayes_optimal2}
\mathrm{AP}^\ast(x_t|x^{t-1}) =
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \pi(c|x^{t-1}) \mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \nonumber
& \mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c) =
\sum_{m^{(c)}\in\mathcal{M}} P\left(m^{(c)}\middle|x^{t-1}, c\right) \\ & ~
\int p\!\left( x_t \middle| x^{t-1} \! , \! \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c \right)
w\!\left( \bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}} \! \middle| x^{t-1} \! , \! m^{(c)} \! , \! c \right)
\! d\bm{\theta}^{m^{(c)}}.
\end{align}
For this $\mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c)$, Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm} have already shown an algorithm that can calculate it analytically while reducing the amount of computation.
This algorithm is explained in the next subsection.
\subsection{Efficient Bayes Coding Algorithm for Fixed Change Pattern}
First, the prior probability distribution for the context tree model is assumed to be as follows.
\begin{assumption} \label{g_s prior}
For the set of leaf nodes $L_m$ in each context tree model $m\in\mathcal{M}$, let $I_m$ be the set of internal nodes.
Assume that each node $s$ has a hyper-parameter $g_s\in[0,1]$ and that the prior distribution of each model $m$ is
%
\begin{align} \label{note2}
P(m) = \prod_{\bar{s}\in I_m} g_{\bar{s}}
\prod_{s\in L_m} (1-g_s),
\end{align}
%
where $g_s=0$ for the leaf node $s$ at the maximum depth of a context tree model. An example is shown in Figure~\ref{hyper_parameter}.
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
$P(m)$ is a probability distribution, \textrm{i}.\textrm{e}.\ \eqref{note2} satisfies
\begin{align}
\sum_{m\in\mathcal{M}} P(m) = 1.
\end{align}
The proof of this fact is given by Nakahara and Matsushima\cite{nakahara}.
\end{remark}
For example, the prior probability for Figure \ref{hyper_parameter} (corresponding to model $m_4$ in Figure \ref{models}) is
\begin{align} \nonumber
P(m_4) = & g_{s_\lambda}(1-g_{s_0})g_{s_1}
(1-\underbrace{g_{s_{01}}}_{0})
(1-\underbrace{g_{s_{11}}}_{0}) \\ = &
g_{s_\lambda}(1-g_{s_0})g_{s_1},
\end{align}
where $s_\lambda$ represents the root node.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth, bb=0 0 430 311]{hyper_parameter.png}
\caption{Example of a context tree model. The $s_\lambda$ represents the root node, and the internal nodes are $s_\lambda$ and $s_1$. The leaf nodes are $s_0,s_{01},s_{11}$, but the hyper-parameters of $s_{01},s_{11}$ are $0$ because they exist at the maximum depth.}
\label{hyper_parameter}
\end{figure}
Second, we assume the prior probability distribution of the parameter $\bm{\theta}^m$ for each context tree model $m\in\mathcal{M}$ as follows.
\begin{assumption} \label{parameter_prior}
For each leaf node $s\in L_m$, we assume the prior probability distribution of its parameter $w(\bm{\theta}_s)$ is a Dirichlet distribution
\begin{align}
w(\bm{\theta}_s) = \frac{ \Gamma\left(
\sum_{i=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{X}}-1} \beta(i|s)\right) }
{ \prod_{i=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{X}}-1} \Gamma\left(\beta(i|s)\right) }
\prod_{i=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{X}}-1} \theta_{i|s}^{\beta(i|s)-1},
\end{align}
where $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is a Gamma function, $\mathcal{X}$ denotes a source alphabet, and $\beta(i|s)$ denotes the parameter of the Dirichlet distribution.
In addition, the prior probability distribution of $\bm{\theta}^m$ is assume to be the product of all $w(\bm{\theta}_s)$. That is,
\begin{align}
w\left( \bm{\theta}^m \middle| m \right) = \prod_{s\in L_m}
w(\bm{\theta}_s).
\end{align}
\end{assumption}
Then, Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm} recursively compute the Bayes coding probability for context tree sources as follows.
First, let $\mathcal{L}$ denote the set of all leaf nodes in the \textit{superposed context tree}.
The term ``superposed context tree'' refers to the tree structure that represents the superposition of the entire possible context tree models.
For example, a superposed context tree for the entire context tree model shown in Figure \ref{models} is as shown in Figure \ref{superposed}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth, bb=0 0 315 268]{superposed.png}
\caption{A superposed context tree for the entire context tree model in Figure \ref{models}}
\label{superposed}
\end{figure}
Now, we denote $\tau_t$ as the last change point of context tree model when the time is $t$.
If $\tau_t$ is the $j$-th changing point in the sequence $x^{t-1}$, $x_t$ is generated according to the context tree model $m_{t_j}$.
In other words, since the context tree models before $\tau_t$ is irrelevant to $x_t$.
Next, a recursive function that calculates coding probability is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
\begin{align} \nonumber
& \tilde{q}_s(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) \\ \label{recur} & \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=}
\begin{cases}
q_s(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) & \mbox{if}~~s\in \mathcal{L}, \\
( 1-g_{s|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}} ) q_s(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) \\ +~
g_{s|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}} \tilde{q}_{s_{\mbox{\tiny{child}}}}(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) &
\mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
q_s(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=} \frac{ \beta(x_t|s) + N(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1},s) }
{ \sum_{i=0}^{\abs{\mathcal{X}}-1}
\left\{ \beta(i|s)+N(i|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1},s) \right\} }.
\end{align}
Note that $N(\mathrm{a}|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1},s)$ denotes the number of occurrences of the symbol $\mathrm{a}\in\mathcal{X}$ under the state $s$ in the subsequence $x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}$,
and $s_{\mbox{\tiny{child}}}$ is the child node of $s$ in the superposed context tree with the context $x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}$.
The posterior hyper-parameter $g_{s|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}}$ is calculated as follows:
\begin{align} \label{child}
g_{s|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t}} \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=}
\begin{cases}
g_s & \mbox{if $t=0$,} \\
\frac{ g_{s|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}}
\tilde{q}_{s_{\mbox{\tiny{child}}}}(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) }
{ \tilde{q}_s(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) } & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
In this case, the Bayes coding probability $\mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c)$ for the context tree source can be calculated as follows.
\begin{theorem}[Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm}]
\begin{align}
\mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c) = \tilde{q}_{s_\lambda}(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Efficient Bayes Coding Algorithm for the Proposed Source}
In the previous subsection, we described that the algorithm by Matsushima and Hirasawa\cite{matsu1_ctm} reduces the computational complexity of calculating $\mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c)$ for each change pattern $c$ from $\mathcal{O}(2^{\abs{\mathcal{X}}^{d-1}})$ to $\mathcal{O}(d)$.
However, \eqref{bayes_optimal2} for the proposed source requires a computational effort of $\mathcal{O}(d\cdot2^N)$ because the total number of change patterns is $\abs{\mathcal{C}}=2^N$ for the length $N$ of the source sequence.
In this subsection, we propose an algorithm to reduce the computational complexity to $\mathcal{O}(d\cdot N^2)$ using a class of prior probability distributions of change patterns by Suko {\textit{et}\,\textit{al}.}\cite{suko_ipid}.
In their proposal of efficient Bayes coding for {\textrm{i}.\textrm{p}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} sources, they assumed a class that follows a Bernoulli distribution for the pattern of parameter changes.
In this paper, we assume a similar class for the change pattern $c$.
\begin{definition} \label{bernoulli}
For the change pattern $c=( w_1^{(c)},\ldots,w_t^{(c)},\ldots,w_N^{(c)} )$, we assume that each $w_t^{(c)}$ (except $t=1$) independently follows Bernoulli distribution $\mathrm{Ber}(\alpha)$ for each $w_t^{(c)}$ (except $t=1$). That is,
\begin{align}
\pi(c) \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=} \alpha^{\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}-1}
{ (1-\alpha)^{N-\abs{\mathcal{T}_c}} }.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
In addition, Suko {\textit{et}\,\textit{al}.}\cite{suko_ipid} introduced a prior probability distribution of $\tau_t$, and proposed an efficient Bayes code for {\textrm{i}.\textrm{p}.\textrm{i}.\textrm{d}.} sources.
In the same way, we define the prior probability distribution of the last change point $v(\tau_t)$ as follows:
\begin{align}
v(\tau_t) \overset{\mbox{\tiny{\textit{def}}}}{=} \sum_{c:\tau_t\in\mathcal{T}_c} \pi(c), ~
\mbox{where} ~ \tau_t = 1,2,\ldots,t.
\end{align}
Finally, the efficient Bayes coding algorithm for the proposed model in this paper is shown below.
\begin{screen}
\begin{enumerate}[Step i.]
\item Load $x_t$. \label{step1}
\item The coding probability is calculated as follows:
\begin{align*} \label{calculation} \hspace{-1.2cm}
\tilde{p}(x_t|x^{t-1}) = \sum_{\tau_t=1}^t
\tilde{q}_{s_\lambda}(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1}) v(\tau_t|x^{t-1}).
\end{align*}
\item $v(\tau_{t+1}|x^t)$ is calculated as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\leftskip}{-1.2cm}
\item If $\tau_{t+1}=1,2,\ldots,t$,
\begin{align*} \hspace{-1.2cm}
v(\tau_{t+1}|x^t) = (1-\alpha)
\frac{\tilde{q}_{s_\lambda}(x_t|x_{\tau_t}\cdots x_{t-1})v(\tau_t|x^{t-1})}
{\tilde{p}(x_t|x^{t-1})}.
\end{align*}
\item If $\tau_{t+1}=t+1$, $v(\tau_{t+1}|x^t)=\alpha$.
\end{itemize}
\item Back to Step \ref{step1}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{screen}
We show that the above algorithm correctly computes the Bayes coding probability for the proposed source.
\begin{proof}
(Outline only.)
\begin{align} \nonumber
\mathrm{AP}^\ast(x_t|x^{t-1}) = &
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \pi(c|x^{t-1}) \mathrm{AP}_c(x_t|x^{t-1}, c) \\ \nonumber = &
\sum_{c\in\mathcal{C}} \pi(c|x^{t-1}) \tilde{q}_{s_\lambda}(x_t|\tau_t, x^{t-1}) \\ \nonumber = &
\sum_{\tau_t=1}^t \left\{ \tilde{q}_{s_\lambda}(x_t|\tau_t, x^{t-1})
\sum_{c:\tau_t\in\mathcal{T}_c} \pi(c|x^{t-1}) \right\} \\ \nonumber = &
\sum_{\tau_t=1}^t \tilde{q}_{s_\lambda}(x_t|\tau_t, x^{t-1}) v(\tau_t|x^{t-1}) \\ = &
\ \tilde{p}(x_t|x^{t-1}).
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\section{Experiment} \label{experiment}
We performed an experiment of running the proposed algorithm on an artificially generated source sequence.
The purpose of this experiment is to check the compression performance of the proposed algorithm for several settings of hyper-parameter $\alpha$ (see Definition \ref{bernoulli}).
First, we describe the source sequence we used in the experiment.
The length of the sequence is $300$, and as shown in Figure \ref{source}, each of the $100$ consecutive symbols is generated from a different context tree model.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth, bb=0 0 1017 279]{source.png}
\caption{Context tree models that generate the source sequence we used in the experiment. Note that $\theta_{x=1|s_\lambda}$ is given by
$1-\theta_{x=0|s_\lambda}$.}
\label{source}
\end{figure}
Since the context tree model of the source sequence changes every $100$ symbols,
the appropriate hyper-parameter (the parameter of the Bernoulli distribution in Definition \ref{bernoulli}) $\alpha$ is $0.01$.
Therefore, in order to confirm the compression performance for the values of $\alpha$, we conducted the following Experiment A.
\hspace{-5mm} \underline{Experiment A} \vspace{1mm}
In Experiment A, we observe the redundancy
\begin{align}
\log_2 \frac{1}{\tilde{p}(x_t|x^{t-1})} - H\left(X_{\tau_t}^{t}\right)
\end{align}
of the proposed algorithm, where $H(\cdot)$ denotes entropy rate.
We set the hyper-parameter $\alpha$ with three values: $\alpha=0.1$, $0.01$, and $0.001$.
We ran the algorithm $10000$ times with each value of $\alpha$.
In the algorithm, we set $g_s=0.5$ (see Assumption \ref{g_s prior}) and $\beta(0|s)=\beta(1|s)=0.5$ (see Assumption \ref{parameter_prior}).
The average redundancy of the $10000$ times is taken and the result is shown in Figure \ref{redundancy}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, bb=0 0 499 416]{result1.pdf}
\caption{Average redundancy in the $10000$ times trial}
\label{redundancy}
\end{figure}
The redundancy jumps up instantly at each changing point ($t=101, 201$), but decreases gradually in any values of $\alpha$.
\begin{description}
\item[($\alpha=0.1$ vs. $\alpha=0.01$)]\mbox{}\\
When $\alpha=0.1$ the redundancy decreases more rapidly.
However, it converges to a smaller value when $\alpha=0.01$ at the end of each interval.
\item[($\alpha=0.01$ vs. $\alpha=0.001$)]\mbox{}\\
When $\alpha=0.01$, the redundancy decreases more rapidly.
Moreover, there is no slight difference of the convergence value at the end of each interval.
\end{description}
Therefore, it can be concluded that $\alpha=0.01$ seems the best for compression performance.
In the Bayes code, we can observe the posterior probability of parameters.
For example, the posterior probability of $\tau_t$ indicates the characteristics of context tree model changes.
Next, we conducted the following Experiment B.
\hspace{-5mm} \underline{Experiment B} \vspace{1mm}
The $\tau_t$ with the largest posterior probability $v(\tau_t|x^{t-1})$ is regarded as the estimate of the last change point from $t$, and we observe the transition of the estimate.
As same as Experiment A, we set the three hyper-parameter $\alpha=0.1$, $0.01$, and $0.001$. We ran the algorithm $10000$ times with each hyper-parameter.
The average of the estimate of the $10000$ times is taken and the result is shown in Figure \ref{estimation}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, bb=0 0 499 416]{result2.pdf}
\caption{Average of the estimates of the last change point in the $10000$ times trial}
\label{estimation}
\end{figure}
When $\alpha=0.01$ and $0.001$, it seems that the transition of $\mathop{\rm arg\,max\,}\limits_{\tau_t} v(\tau_t|x^{t-1})$ corresponds to the change of context tree model.
When $\alpha=0.1$, however, $\mathop{\rm arg\,max\,}\limits_{\tau_t} v(\tau_t|x^{t-1}) \simeq t$, so it does not correspond to the change of context tree model.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP17K06446, JP19K04914, and JP19K14989.
|
\section{\label{sec:level1} Introduction \protect}
Heavy fermion compounds are comprised of a lattice of strongly correlated \textit{f}-electrons coupled to a sea of conduction electrons. At high temperatures, these systems behave as an ensemble of weakly interacting fermions with modest masses and localized \textit{f}-electrons. At low temperatures, Kondo hybridization between these subsystems can give a metallic state with charge carriers whose masses can be a thousand times the free electron mass~\cite{Stewart1984}. The high temperature state is reminiscent of the situation for isolated magnetic impurities, where the Kondo interaction causes spin scattering of conduction electrons. However, at low temperatures, this interaction causes the conduction electrons to collectively and coherently screen the local magnetic moments of the \textit{f}-electrons of the lattice to form a Kondo singlet. This effect leads to the formation of narrow resonance at the Fermi level, which is often referred to as the Abrikosov-Suhl or Kondo resonance~\cite{Stewart1984,degiorgi1999,scheffler2013, bosse2012}. Such systems frequently host other novel states of matter including various magnetic orders and unconventional superconductivity~\cite{Stewart1984}.
Uranium-based $5f$ heavy fermion compounds such as UPt$_3$, UGe$_2$, URhGe, and UCoGe~\cite{Stewart1984,Saxena2000,Aoki2001,Huy2007} have been found to host unconventional superconductivity. The coexistence of (or proximity to) ferromagnetism makes them strong candidates to realize odd-parity superconductivity~\cite{Jiao2019}. Odd-parity superconductors are of fundamental interest for use in quantum computation due to their capacity to host topologically protected excitations~\cite{Sato2017, Beenakker2013, Sarma2015, Alicea2012}. UTe$_2$ with a transition temperature (T$_{sc}$) of 1.6 K, has attracted immense scientific interest due to observations that suggests odd-parity pairing: its $b$ direction critical field (H$_{c2}$) exceeds the Pauli limit by more than an order of magnitude~\cite{ran2019nearly, Aoki2019}; two re-entrant SC phases are observed in high magnetic field~\cite{ran2019extreme}; there are strong nearly critical ferromagnetic fluctuations~\cite{ran2019extreme, Tokunaga2019,Sundar2019}; the Knight shift is anomalously constant through the superconducting transition~\cite{ran2019nearly, Tokunaga2019, nakamine2019}. Additionally, thermal transport, heat capacity, and magnetic penetration depth measurements suggest point-like nodal structures~\cite{Metz2019}, scanning tunneling microscopy suggests unconventional Cooper pairing~\cite{Jiao2019} and microwave experiments suggest a large normal fluid response~\cite{Bae2019}.
In contrast to the extensive experiments in the superconducting state, there is less known about UTe$_2$'s normal state. Its resistivity is weakly increasing with decreasing temperature until approximately 40 K (Fig.\ref{fig1}(a)), where it then falls dramatically~\cite{Shlyk1999, ran2019nearly,eo2021}.
This is typical for many heavy fermion systems, where conduction electrons scatter incoherently from localized moments at higher temperature, but coherently hybridize with localized spins below a lattice coherence scale T$_{KL}$~\cite{Stewart1984,degiorgi1999}. In UTe$_2$, a Curie-Weiss susceptibility is found above 150 K with an effective moment close to the 5\textit{f$_2$} or 5\textit{f$_3$} free-ion value and a Weiss constant that is -80 to -130K (depending on the direction). Despite the large Weiss constant, no magnetic order is found down to low temperature~\cite{Ikeda2006}. At low temperature the susceptibility is anisotropic~\cite{Ikeda2006} with either a 40 K maxima for $H || [010] $ or increasing behavior for $H || [100]$ or $[001]$. The maximum for $H || [010] $ at 40K can be taken as a signature of heavy fermion formation and a low temperature crossover to itinerant 5$f$ electrons. A Sommerfeld coefficient of $\gamma \approx $100-120 mJ/mol$\cdot$K$^2$ is likely indicative of heavy fermions~\cite{Metz2019,Aoki2019}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figure1.jpg}
\caption{ (a) 4-probe dc resistivity of UTe$_2$ single crystals with (100) current, plotted alongside the extracted narrowest Drude scattering rate. (b) Reflectivity of UTe$_2$ for the investigated temperatures. The inset shows the low-frequency temperature dependent reflectivity measurements. (c) Reflectivity data at 290 K along with fit from RefFit.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
However, while the formation of a heavy fermion normal state seems reasonable, details of the electronic structure remains unclear. UTe$_2$ crystallizes in the orthorhombic, centrosymmetric structure (space group 71 \textit{Immm}). The U atoms compose chains oriented along the [100] \textit{a} axis. The Te(2) atoms form a chain in the [010] direction. These quasi-1D structures are expected to be reflected in the electronic structure. The most straightforward band calculations predict that UTe$_2$ should be a narrow gap semiconductor~\cite{Aoki2019}. To understand the actual electronic structure of UTe$_2$, it is illuminating to calculate the bands for ThTe$_2$~\cite{harima2020obtain} as thorium favors a unfilled quadrivalent thorium 5$f_0$ state and has no 5$f$ electrons near the Fermi level. ThTe$_2$ is predicted to be a metal with conduction bands of Th 6$d$ and Te 5$p$ character. Therefore the predicted insulating character of UTe$_2$ originates in mixing between the conduction and U 5$f$ electrons~\cite{harima2020obtain}. UTe$_2$ can be made metallic in such calculations by adding a local Coulomb $U$ term for the 5$f$ electrons or by ad hoc shifting the 5$f$ levels by 0.1 - 0.2 Ry~\cite{harima2020obtain}. In either case, it indicates that band calculations treat the 5$f$ electrons improperly. Soft X-ray photoemission measurements suggested that U 5$f$ states of UTe$_2$ have an itinerant but strongly-correlated nature with enhanced hybridization of the Te 5$p$ states~\cite{Fujimori2019}. A study with high resolution ARPES reveal two light quasi-1d bands at the Fermi level, which are attributed to U and Te(2) chains. This study found good correspondence with density functional calculations combined with DFT + DMFT calculations~\cite{Miao2020}. However, signatures of the 5$f$ bands at E$_F$ were only tentatively attributed, and the related feature had little visibility. Such experiments may be hampered by poor surface quality that is inherent to cleaving reasonably isotropic materials. Thus, there is a need for probes with bulk sensitivity.
We have measured optical reflectance on the (100) shiny as-grown surface ($\approx2$ mm $\times$ $2$ mm $\times$ $2$ mm) of a high quality UTe$_2$ crystal using FTIR spectroscopy with unpolarized light. The reflectivity of single crystal UTe$_2$ was measured using a commercial FTIR spectrometer (Bruker, Vertex 80V, Source: Hg Arc Lamp/Globar, Detectors: Bolometer/DLaTGS/MCT) across the far and mid infrared spectral ranges spanning from 40 cm$^{-1}$ to 16,000 cm$^{-1}$ (i.e. $1.2$-$480$ THz) for temperatures between $5$ K to $300$ K. To extend the measurement across a broader spectral range, the infrared spectra was supplemented by near infrared spectrum between 8500 cm$^{-1}$ and 16000 cm$^{-1}$ measured at room temperature, using the Bruker VIS I spectral range extension. The reflected signals at each temperature were referenced to a gold film that was deposited on the sample \textit{in situ} and then corrected by the known reflection coefficient of gold over the full spectral range\cite{Chaudhuri2017}. In addition to the optical measurements, conventional 4-probe dc resistivity was measured. Single crystal UTe$_2$ was grown by chemical transport using iodine as a transport agent. For further details see Ref.~\cite{Hutanu2019}.
In Fig. \ref{fig1}(b) we show the measured reflectivity from 40 to 7500 cm$^{-1}$. Consistent with the metallic nature of these systems, the reflectivity approaches unity at low frequencies and has a sharp plasma edge-like feature around $2500$ cm$^{-1}$. With decreasing temperature, the reflectivity first increases for all frequencies until 50K, and then decreases. A prominent broad peak with a slightly temperature dependent maximum is found in the reflectivity $\approx$ 5500 cm$^{-1}$. These subtle temperature dependent changes can be contrasted to the dc resistivity that shows a dramatic drop below 40K. We extracted the complex optical conductivity by fitting the reflectivity and dc resistivity simultaneously to a complex multi-oscillator model
\begin{equation}
\centering
\sigma(\omega) = i \epsilon_0 \omega \Big[\sum_i \frac{\omega_{pi}^2}{\omega^2 - \omega_{0i}^2 + i \omega \Gamma_i } - \epsilon_\infty + 1 \Big],
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{pi}$ is the plasma frequency of the $i$th component, $\omega_{0i}$ is its oscillation frequency, and $\Gamma_{i}$ is its scattering rate. This is particularly useful procedure in dealing with data sets where different quantities are obtained in different frequency ranges. Here we fit with nine finite frequency Lorentzian oscillators and two zero frequency "Drude" (e.g. $\omega_{0i} = 0$) oscillators, a narrow one and a wide one. The primary purpose of this fitting and parameterization is the extraction of the \textit{complex} conductivity in a Kramers-Kronig consistent fashion and except for the Drude components, the particular values of the fit parameters do not necessarily have any physical significance. Any Kramers-Kronig consistent set of complex functional forms would suffice to generate the conductivity. In Fig. \ref{fig1}(c) we show the 290 K reflectivity along with the output of complex fitting. The fits to the reflectivity (constrained by the dc measurement) is excellent over the entire frequency range.
In Fig. \ref{fig2}, we show the extracted real optical conductivity from the simultaneous complex fitting of the reflectivity and dc resistivity for different temperatures. The conductivity is characterized by a strongly temperature dependent zero-frequency Drude-like peak and a weakly temperature dependent maximum at $\approx$ 4000 cm$^{-1}$ (0.49 eV). As temperature decreases from 290 K, the maximum first gains spectral weight and shift to slightly higher frequency, then looses spectral weight below 40 K.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figure2}
\caption{Real part of conductivity. The square markers represent the dc conductivity ($\omega$ = 0) calculated from Fig. \ref{fig1}(a). In the inset the dc point for 5K is shown and has a value of 40500 $\Omega^{-1}$cm$^{-1}$. It is too a high value to be displayed on the linear scale plot.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Figure3}
\caption{(a) Integrated spectral weight (in units of the plasma frequency squared) as a function of temperature using different cut-off frequencies. (b) Spectral weight of narrow Drude peak.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.9 \columnwidth]{dmft-optics}
\caption{Optical conductivities along $xx$, $yy$, and in-plane (averaged) polarizations computed within DFT+DMFT at different temperatures. The solid black line indicates the peak position of the interband optical transition.}
\label{dmft-optics}
\end{figure}
The prominent zero frequency peak sharpens dramatically at low temperatures (Fig. \ref{fig2} inset). We captured its dependencies via plotting the Drude parameters of the narrowest Drude. The wider Drude had a width of $\approx$ 2400 cm$^{-1}$, which gives a weakly temperature dependent feature with little frequency dependence up to the range of the interband transitions. In contrast, the narrow Drude has a very temperature dependent width and spectral weight. We plot its width and spectral weight in Figs.~\ref{fig1}(a) and \ref{fig3}(b). At low temperatures the narrow Drude peak becomes extremely narrow and loses some spectral weight below 50 K. The former behavior can be attributed to the formation of heavy quasiparticles due to the formation of a 5$f$ Kondo resonance. Note that this behavior is uncommon for other heavy fermions where the heavy fermion state usually manifests as the emergence of a narrow peak out of a wider background \cite{bosse2012,degiorgi1999,donovan1997observation}. Here, the principal effect appears to be a dramatic sharpening of this peak. The origin of the spectral weight decrease below 50K is unclear, but could be associated with a precursor to a hybridization gap~\cite{dordevic2001hybridization}.
The ratio of the total low frequency intraband spectral weight $( \omega_{p \; Total}^2)$ (which represents the uncorrelated band) to the narrow Drude's spectral weight $( \omega_{p \; Narrow}^2)$ can be taken as a rough measure of the heavy fermion mass renormalization~\cite{bosse2012}. In Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a), we plot the total spectral weight (in units of cm$^{-2}$) as a function of temperature for different cut-off frequencies. We somewhat arbitrarily take the maximum cut-off frequency for the total intraband spectral weight to be 2000 cm$^{-1}$ as this is below the interband transitions, but well above the narrow Drude regime. Using the value for the maximum total intraband spectral weight and the low temperature narrow Drude spectral weight, we find $\omega_{p \; Total}^2 / \omega_{p \; Narrow}^2 = m^*/m_b \approx 25$, where $m_b$ is the band mass. If one takes as measure of the uncorrelated spectral weight the computed angular averaged spectral weight of ThTe$_2$ is 1.23$\times10^9$cm$^{-2}$~\cite{Kim21a}, and computes the same average one finds a mass renormalization (again with respect to the band mass) of 65. These estimates are of order the mass renormalizations found in the heat capacity~\cite{Metz2019,Aoki2019}, but note that they are lower bounds on the mass renormalization as there could still be the formation of even narrower Drude-like features with less spectral weight that would lead to larger masses. To resolve these, careful microwave studies of the normal state conductivity must be done. Finally, note that the temperature dependence of the narrow Drude scattering rate, $\Gamma_D$ scales as the resistivity with a notable 40 K drop (Fig. \ref{fig1}(a)). The similarity in temperature dependence of resistivity and $\Gamma_D$ points to the coherent nature of the propagating quasiparticles.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{band}
\caption{Momentum-resolved spectral functions $A(k,\omega)$ at several temperatures computed within DFT+DMFT. Two optical transitions are presented with blue arrows.}
\label{dmft-band}
\end{figure*}
To get further insight into this data, we performed fully charge self-consistent DFT+DMFT calculations~\cite{Georges1996, Kotliar2006, Held2007,Haule2010} implemented in the Wien2k package~\cite{Blaha2020} with experimentally determined lattice. Continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo (CTQMC)~\cite{Werner2006, Haule2007} was implemented with a local impurity solver. We choose a wide hybridization energy window from -10 eV to 10 eV with respect to the Fermi level E$_{F}$. The fully rotationally invariant form was applied for a local Coulomb interaction Hamiltonian with on-site Coulomb repulsion U = 6 eV and Hund's coupling J$_{H}$ = 0.57 eV, where the U and J$_{H}$ values reproduce aspects of the recent ARPES data~\cite{Miao2020}. The maximum entropy method~\cite{Jarrell1996} was used for analytical continuation to obtain the self-energy on the real frequency axis. Unfortunately in multi-orbital systems the CTQMC develops increasing statistical noise in the calculation as temperature is lowered, which prevents accurate numerical results below the 77 K displayed.
The DFT+DMFT optical conductivity is computed as shown in Fig.~\ref{dmft-optics} (We show even higher frequencies in the Supplementary Materials). Three different polarization configurations are presented. The optical conductivities $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{yy}$ and their average are shown in panels Fig.~\ref{dmft-optics} a,b, and c respectively. $xx$ and $yy$ polarizations give peaks at $\approx$2000 and $\approx$2500 cm$^{-1}$ respectively. These peaks increase spectral weight and sharpen as temperature is lowered. In addition, a sharp Drude peak develops upon cooling, which is related to the formation of coherent U $5f$ bands near the Fermi level at low temperature (see Fig.~\ref{dmft-band}). There is a close correspondence with the experiment. The averaged in-plane optical conductivity, which is obtained from $(\sigma_{xx}+\sigma_{yy})/2$, is provided in Fig.~\ref{dmft-optics}(c) for comparison with the experiment. Since the optical spectral weight along $yy$ is larger than along $xx$, the inter-band optical peak of the in-plane optical conductivity mainly arises from the $yy$ polarization. The origin of the two optical transitions could be assigned from inspection of the DFT+DMFT electronic structure in Fig.~\ref{dmft-band}. The optical peak realized with $xx$ polarization originates from U $5f$ to U $6d$ transition as shown, whereas the peak in the $yy$ channel arises from the Te $5p$ to U $5f$ transition. The polarization dichotomy arises from the presence of the U and Te chains that run along $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively. This is strong evidence that the Kondo hybridization yields coherent electronic bands 5$f$ band near the Fermi energy. Note that the recent ARPES experiments did not observe the U $5f$ bands~\cite{Miao2020}, however the present optical conductivity experiment does.
Despite close correspondence of the experiment with theory, there are still notable differences e.g. the numerical disagreement in the position of the MIR peak. Attempts to change model parameters down to $U=4$ eV, resulted in only modest increases of the peak position, but unacceptably large disagreements with the photoemission. Increasing the Coulomb repulsion to $U=8$ eV resulted in decreases of the MIR peak by approximately 0.2 eV, e.g. the wrong directions. It may be that LDA calculation are not sufficiently accurate to describe the underlying uncorrelated band structure and going to a `GW' method + DMFT would improve agreement. Alternatively, a better treatment of longer range interactions that are outside the DMFT could be important.
The presence of the sharp optical transition and the narrow Drude peak is evidence for formation of a 5$f$ derived Kondo resonance. At low temperature and low energies, the narrow Drude becomes much sharper due to the formation of heavy fermion quasiparticles with contribution of $5f$ electrons. There is a small decrease in the total Drude spectral weight below 40K. One other interesting and unexplained aspect to the data (both experiment and numerical) is the dichotomy between the relatively weaker temperature dependence of the MIR peak than the narrow Drude peak. This is presumably related to the fact that spectral weight of the narrow Drude peak has only a comparatively weak temperature dependence. Therefore the formation of the coherent state below 40K seems to be primarily associated with a collapse of the scattering rate and not a redistribution of spectral weight. This is different than many other heavy fermion compounds where there is a growth of very low frequency spectral feature with cooling. A comparison of the data to DFT + DMFT calculations shows that the MIR peak arises from interband transitions to or from the 5$f$ states. Our data gives spectroscopic evidence for the formation of a narrow low energy Kondo resonance at temperature just above the onset of superconductivity. This data is then the first spectroscopic observation that the superconductivity in this materials comes from well-formed 5$f$ derived heavy fermion quasiparticles.
Work at JHU was supported by NSF DMR-1905519 and an AGEP supplement. CJK and GK were supported by NSF DMR-1733071. Work at UMD was supported by NIST. Identification of commercial equipment does not imply endorsement by NIST. We would like to thank S. Anlage, S. Bae, and A. Wray for helpful conversations.
\section{Supplementary Material: An optical investigation of the heavy fermion normal state in superconducting UTe$_2$ }
In Fig. \ref{S1}, we show the extracted real optical conductivities from the simultaneous complex fitting of the reflectivity and dc resistivity as well as DFT + DMFT optical conductivities at low and high temperatures up to the high frequency of 16,000 cm$^{-2}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{Figure5.jpg}
\caption { (a) Real part of the experimental optical conductivity calculated and measured as discussed in main text, but up to 16,000 cm$^{-2}$. (b) In-plane polarization optical conductivities computed within DFT+DMFT at different temperatures up to 16,000 cm$^{-2}$.}
\label{S1}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{#1}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{assumption}[theorem]{Assumption}
\newcommand{{\int\hspace*{-4.3mm}\diagup}}{{\int\hspace*{-4.3mm}\diagup}}
\makeatletter
\def\dashint{\operatorname%
{\,\,\text{\bf--}\kern-.98em\DOTSI\intop\ilimits@\!\!}}
\makeatother
\newcommand{\WO}[2]{\overset{\scriptscriptstyle0}{W}\,\!^{#1}_{#2}}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\def\textit{\textbf{u}}{\textit{\textbf{u}}}
\def\textit{\textbf{v}}{\textit{\textbf{v}}}
\def\textit{\textbf{w}}{\textit{\textbf{w}}}
\def\textit{\textbf{f}}{\textit{\textbf{f}}}
\def\textit{\textbf{g}}{\textit{\textbf{g}}}
\def\textit{\textbf{h}}{\textit{\textbf{h}}}
\def\textit{\textbf{P}}{\textit{\textbf{P}}}
\defa{a}
\defb{b}
\defc{c}
\def{\sf M}{{\sf M}}
\def{\sf S}{{\sf S}}
\def\mathbf{A}{\mathbf{A}}
\def\mathbb{R}{\mathbb{R}}
\def\mathbb{N}{\mathbb{N}}
\def\mathbb{Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
\def\mathbb{E}{\mathbb{E}}
\def\mathbb{H}{\mathbb{H}}
\def\mathbb{Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\def\mathbb{C}{\mathbb{C}}
\def\mathbb{L}{\mathbb{L}}
\def\mathbb{W}{\mathbb{W}}
\def\textsl{\textbf{a}}{\textsl{\textbf{a}}}
\def\textsl{\textbf{x}}{\textsl{\textbf{x}}}
\def\textsl{\textbf{y}}{\textsl{\textbf{y}}}
\def\textsl{\textbf{z}}{\textsl{\textbf{z}}}
\def\textsl{\textbf{w}}{\textsl{\textbf{w}}}
\def\mathfrak{A}{\mathfrak{A}}
\def\mathfrak{H}{\mathfrak{H}}
\def\mathfrak{L}{\mathfrak{L}}
\def\mathfrak{O}{\mathfrak{O}}
\def\mathfrak{P}{\mathfrak{P}}
\def\mathfrak{p}{\mathfrak{p}}
\def\mathfrak{Q}{\mathfrak{Q}}
\def\mathfrak{q}{\mathfrak{q}}
\def\mathfrak{R}{\mathfrak{R}}
\def\mathfrak{S}{\mathfrak{S}}
\def\mathfrak{T}{\mathfrak{T}}
\def\mathcal{A}{\mathcal{A}}
\def\mathcal{B}{\mathcal{B}}
\def\mathcal{C}{\mathcal{C}}
\def\mathcal{D}{\mathcal{D}}
\def\mathcal{E}{\mathcal{E}}
\def\mathcal{F}{\mathcal{F}}
\def\mathcal{G}{\mathcal{G}}
\def\mathcal{H}{\mathcal{H}}
\def\mathcal{P}{\mathcal{P}}
\def\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{M}}
\def\mathcal{O}{\mathcal{O}}
\def\mathcal{Q}{\mathcal{Q}}
\def\mathcal{R}{\mathcal{R}}
\def\mathcal{S}{\mathcal{S}}
\def\mathcal{T}{\mathcal{T}}
\def\mathcal{L}{\mathcal{L}}
\def\mathcal{U}{\mathcal{U}}
\def\mathcal{V}{\mathcal{V}}
\def\mathcal{I}{\mathcal{I}}
\def\bar{P}{\bar{P}}
\newcommand\rV{\mathring{V}}
\newcommand{\ip}[1]{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}
\newcommand{\set}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert#1\rVert}
\newcommand{\Norm}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\providecommand{\tri}[1]{\lvert\lVert#1\rvert\rVert}
\newcommand{\operatorname{div}}{\operatorname{div}}
\newcommand{\text{dist}}{\text{dist}}
\newcommand{\textit{\textbf{i\,}}}{\textit{\textbf{i\,}}}
\renewcommand{\subjclassname}{
\textup{2020} Mathematics Subject Classification}
\begin{document}
\title[Trace theorem and BVP in weighted Sobolev spaces]{Trace theorem and non-zero boundary value problem for parabolic equations in weighted Sobolev spaces}
\author[D. Kim]{Doyoon Kim}
\address[D. Kim]{Department of Mathematics, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea}
\email{doyoon\_kim@korea.ac.kr}
\thanks{D. Kim and K. Woo were supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2019R1A2C1084683).}
\author[K.-H. Kim]{Kyeong-Hun Kim}
\address[K.-H. Kim]{Department of Mathematics, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\thanks{K.-H. Kim was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (NRF-2020R1A2C1A01003354)}
\author[K. Woo]{Kwan Woo}
\address[K. Woo]{Department of Mathematics, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\subjclass[2020]{46E35, 35K20.}
\keywords{Weighted Sobolev spaces, Traces, Parabolic equations, Non-zero boundary value conditions}
\begin{abstract}
We present weighted Sobolev spaces $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$ and prove a trace theorem for the spaces.
As an application, we discuss non-zero boundary value problems for parabolic equations.
The weighted parabolic Sobolev spaces we consider are designed, in particular, for the regularity theory of stochastic partial differential equations on bounded domains.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
We introduce appropriate Sobolev type spaces along with trace and extension results for the weighted Sobolev spaces $H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}\left( \Omega \right)$.
One needs such results when dealing with non-zero (lateral) boundary value problems for parabolic equations in the framework of weighted Sobolev spaces. Krylov first introduced the weighted Sobolev spaces $H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}\left( \Omega \right)$ in \cite{MR1708104} for $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+ = \{ x = (x_1, x'): x_1 > 0, x' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \}$ and $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ in order to establish an $L_p$-theory for stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs). See, for instance, \cite{MR1720129}.
(Later in the introduction comes an explanation about why one needs $H^{\gamma}_{p,\theta}(\Omega)$-type spaces in the theory of PDEs and SPDEs.)
Note that if $\gamma$ is a non-negative integer, $H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}$ can be characterized as
\[
H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega) = \{ u: \rho(x)^{|\alpha|}D^{\alpha}u \in L_{p, \theta}(\Omega), \quad 0 \le |\alpha| \le \gamma \},
\]
where $\rho(x)=\text{dist}(x,\partial \Omega)$ and $L_{p, \theta}(\Omega)$ is the $L_p$ space with the measure $\rho^{\theta - n} \, dx$, and $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ is the parabolic counterpart of $H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$.
See Section \ref{setting} for precise definitions of these spaces.
In particular, as is shown in \cite{MR1708104, MR1796011}, the class of infinitely differentiable functions with compact support in $\Omega$ is a dense subset of $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$.
This means that every function in $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ has a zero boundary value whenever the trace (the restriction of a function on the boundary) makes sense.
Thus, one can say that in \cite{MR1708104} and related papers \cite{MR2111792, MR2990037, MR2354494, MR3147235, MR3318165, arXiv:1809.01325}, the authors deal with parabolic PDEs with the zero boundary condition.
To the best of the authors' knowledge, parabolic equations with non-zero boundary conditions in the above $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma$-type spaces have not been considered.
To cover this, we need to identify not only appropriate classes of functions for boundary values, but also new solution spaces in which functions have nontrivial boundary values, so that the traces of functions in the new solution spaces belong to the aforementioned function spaces on the boundary.
For elliptic problems, the corresponding weighted Sobolev spaces and their properties are presented in \cite{MR1708104, MR1760536, MR1796011, MR2111792, MR2386392}.
In particular, in \cite{MR2386392} one can find a trace theorem for weighted Sobolev spaces and a solvability result for elliptic equations with non-zero boundary conditions.
In this paper, as solution spaces for non-zero parabolic boundary value problems, we present weighted Sobolev spaces $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$ (see Definition \ref{sol_space}).
Then, we prove that the parabolic Slobodeckij spaces $W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ (see Definition \ref{trace_space}) are the function spaces for the boundary values.
More precisely, we prove a trace theorem (Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}) for $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$, $\gamma \geq 1$, when $\theta \in (n-1, n-1+p)$ and $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ or $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain, i.e., $\partial \Omega \in C^{0,1}$, so that the restriction of $u$ on $(S,T) \times \partial\Omega$ belongs to $W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ for $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$ and each $g \in W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ can be extended to a function in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$ along with the boundedness of the trace (restriction) and extension operators. As also noticed in \cite{MR2386392}, due to the characteristic of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$, the parameter $\mathsf{s}$ in $W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}$ is independent of $\gamma$.
Regarding the boundedness of the trace operator, the main difficulty is due to the fact that $u_t$ has low regularity when $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ ($\gamma = 1$). See Remark \ref{rem0426_1}.
To overcome this, we take an appropriate integral representation of $u$ based on the argument in \cite{MR0152793}. Also see \cite{MR1257932}.
In our case, we use mollifications instead of kernels in the integral form used in \cite{MR0152793} and \cite{MR1257932}.
We remark that using mollifications turns out to be very convenient when dealing with not only traces of functions, but also embeddings. See, for instance, \cite{arXiv:2103.03410}. For the boundedness of extension operator, we obtain weighted Sobolev norm estimates for solutions to the heat equation with non-homogeneous boundary values.
As a direct application of our trace and extension results, we establish the unique solvability of second-order parabolic equations in divergence form with non-zero lateral boundary conditions in the weighted Sobolev spaces $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ under the zero initial condition. As one can expect, the unique solvability is established by combining the trace theorem in this paper with the known result for parabolic equations with the homogeneous boundary condition, that is, as mentioned earlier, the equations with solutions in $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$.
We also obtain the corresponding result for non-divergence form equations in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^2(S, T)$. In a forthcoming paper, we will extend the present results to initial traces and non-zero initial value problems.
Trace theorems for Sobolev type spaces have been studied in many papers.
See \cite{MR0241822, MR1257932, MR1945779, MR2318575, MR2401510, MR3273638} and references therein. For recent results, we refer the reader to \cite{MR4072650}, which contains trace theorems for anisotropic mixed-norm Sobolev, Bessel potential, Triebel-Lizorkin, and Besov type spaces with space-time power weights.
Nevertheless, our results are not covered by those, for instance, in \cite{MR4072650} in that the spaces considered there are different from ours.
In \cite{MR4072650}, the author considers function spaces for equations of non-divergence type, while our results contain trace and extension results for $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$, which is an appropriate function space for divergence type parabolic equations in weighted Sobolev spaces such as $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$.
Another notable difference is that the proofs in \cite{MR2318575}, which is one of the main references in \cite{MR4072650}, are based on an interpolation theory of vector-valued function spaces with a semigroup approach, whereas our proofs are more elementary and self-contained. However, as mentioned above, the function spaces considered in \cite{MR4072650} are very general and the non-zero initial traces are also considered.
Among many weighted Sobolev spaces for various purposes in the theory of PDEs, $H^{\gamma}_{p,\theta}$-type spaces were necessitated by, mainly, the theory of SPDEs.
As explained in \cite{MR1262972}, the Sobolev spaces without weights turn out to be trivially inadequate for SPDEs. This is because, unless certain compatibility condition is fulfilled, the second and higher derivatives of solutions to SPDEs blow up substantially fast near the boundary, and this blow-up is inevitable even on $C^{\infty}$ domains. On the other hand, it turns out that such blow-up behavior can be described very accurately by a weight system based on appropriate powers of the distance to the boundary, that is, by $H^{\gamma}_{p,\theta}$-type spaces. For SPDEs in weighted Sobolev spaces, we refer the reader to \cite{MR1720129, MR2519358, MR2102888, MR2073414, MR3034605}.
Another necessity of $H^{\gamma}_{p,\theta}$-type spaces lies in regularity theory of (deterministic) PDEs defined on non-smooth domains, say $C^1$ domains (see Remark \ref{regularity}). Since the boundary is not supposed be regular enough, we have to look for solutions in functions spaces with weights allowing the derivatives of solutions to blow up near the boundary. In the framework of H\"older spaces such a setting leads to investigating so-called intermediate Schauder estimates. Thus, even for deterministic problems, we require appropriate weights near the boundary to estimate the derivatives of solutions of PDEs. Then, it is natural that the coefficients of lower order terms are allowed to blow up near the boundary. See Assumptions \ref{assumption_div} and \ref{assumption_nondiv}.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{setting}, we introduce spaces $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$, $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$, and state the main theorem.
In Section \ref{pre} we introduce and prove elementary properties of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$. In Sections \ref{trace} and \ref{exten}, by using integral representations we prove Propositions \ref{prop0712_01} and \ref{prop0715_01}, which are key ingredients in the proof of the main theorem.
Then we prove the main theorem in Section \ref{main}. Finally in Section \ref{app}, as an application of the main theorem, we solve divergence and non-divergence type parabolic equations with non-zero boundary value conditions in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ and $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^2(S, T)$, respectively.
In this paper, $\mathbb{R}^n$ stands for the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space and $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ denotes a point in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We use the following standard notation
\[
\mathbb{R}^{n}_+ = \{ (x_1, x'): x_1 > 0, x' = (x_2, \ldots, x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \},
\]
\[
D_i = \partial / \partial x_i, \quad Du = u_x = (D_1u, \ldots, D_n u).
\]
For a multi-index $\alpha = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n)$ where $\alpha_i$'s are non-negative integers, we denote
\[
D^{\alpha} = D_1^{\alpha_1} \ldots D_n^{\alpha_n}, \quad |\alpha| = \alpha_1 + \ldots + \alpha_n.
\]
For a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, by $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$ we mean the space of all distributions on $\Omega$.
\section{Function spaces and Main result}
\label{setting}
Let $\Omega$ be a domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with non-empty boundary $\partial\Omega$.
We first recall the definition of $H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$ introduced in \cite{MR1708104} and \cite{MR1796011}.
For $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and a fixed integer $k_0 > 0$,
define subsets $\Omega_k$ of $\Omega$ by
$$
\Omega_k = \{ x \in \Omega : e^{-k-k_0} < \rho(x) < e^{-k+k_0} \},
$$
where $ \rho(x) = \rho_{\Omega}(x) = \text{dist}(x, \partial \Omega)$.
Let $\{ \zeta_k, k \in \mathbb{Z} \}$ be a collection of non-negative functions with the following properties:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0323_03}
\zeta_k \in C_0^{\infty}(\Omega_k),
\quad
| D^m \zeta_k (x) | \le N(m) e^{mk},
\quad
\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \zeta_k(x) = 1 \quad \textrm{on} \,\, \Omega.
\end{equation}
If $\Omega_k$ is an empty set, then the corresponding $\zeta_k$ is identically zero.
\begin{definition}
\label{def0109_1}
Let $\theta$, $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ and $1 < p < \infty$.
We set
$$
H_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)
:= \left\{ u \in \mathcal{D}'(\Omega) :
\| u \|_{H_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)}^p
:= \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{k \theta} \| \zeta_{-k}(e^k \cdot) u(e^k \cdot) \|_{H_{p}^{\gamma}}^p < \infty \right\}
$$
and
$$
\widetilde{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega) := \left\{ u \in \mathcal{D}'(\Omega) : \|u\|_{\widetilde{H}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)}^p := \| u \|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(\Omega)}^p + \|Du\|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(\Omega)}^p < \infty \right\},
$$
where $\| \cdot \|_{H^{\gamma}_p}$ is the norm of
Bessel potential space $H_{p}^{\gamma}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ ($= H_{p}^{\gamma}$) and $L_{p, \theta}(\Omega)$ ($= H_{p, \theta}^{0}(\Omega)$) is the space of functions summable to the power $p$ with respect to the measure $\rho(x)^{\theta - n} \, dx$, that is,
\[
f \in L_{p,\theta}(\Omega) \quad \iff \quad \int_\Omega |f(x)|^p \rho(x)^{\theta-n} \, dx < \infty.
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
If $\gamma \geq 1$ and $\Omega$ is bounded, then the norm of $\widetilde{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$ is equivalent to $\| u \|_{L_{p, \theta}(\Omega)} + \|Du\|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(\Omega)}$.
Indeed, if $\gamma = 1$, the equivalence is clear even if $\Omega$ is not bounded.
If $\gamma \in (k,k+1]$, where $k$ is a positive integer, then by using Proposition \ref{propertyweighted} (5) sufficiently many times, we get
\[
\|u\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma-1}(\Omega)} \simeq \|u\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma-(k+1)}(\Omega)} + \sum_{j=2}^{k+1}\|Du\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{\gamma-j}(\Omega)},
\]
where $\gamma - (k+1) \leq 0$ and $\gamma - j \leq \gamma - 2$ for $j=2,\ldots,k+1$.
Then, by Proposition \ref{propertyweighted} (2) and (6), the right-hand side of the above equivalence is bounded by a constant times $\| u \|_{L_{p, \theta}(\Omega)} + \|Du\|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 2}(\Omega)}$.
This implies that
\[
\|u\|_{\widetilde{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)} \leq N \| u \|_{L_{p, \theta}(\Omega)} + N \|Du\|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(\Omega)}.
\]
The opposite inequality is clear by again Proposition \ref{propertyweighted} (2) because $\gamma \geq 1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem0108_1}
As in \cite{MR2111792}, one can find $\zeta_k$ as follows.
Let $\xi \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}_{+})$ be a function satisfying
$$
\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} \xi(e^{m+t}) > 0
$$
for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$. Then, for $x \in \Omega$ and $k \in \mathbb{Z} = \{ 0, \pm 1, \dots \}$,
define
$$
\zeta_k(x) = \left(\sum_{\ell =-\infty}^{\infty}\xi \left(e^\ell \psi(x) \right)\right)^{-1}\xi \left(e^k \psi(x) \right),
$$
where $\psi$ is a regularized distance introduced in \cite{MR0290095}.
In particular, $\psi$ satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$N_1 \rho(x) \le \psi(x) \le N_2(n) \rho(x)$,
$x \in \Omega$
\item
$\psi(x)$ is $C^{\infty}$ in $\Omega$ and
$$
\left| D^{\alpha} \psi(x) \right| \le N(\alpha) \, \rho(x)^{1-|\alpha|},
$$
where $N_1$, $N_2(n)$, and $N(\alpha)$ are appropriate constants.
\end{enumerate}
If $\Omega$ is a bounded $C^1$ domain, then the definition of $H_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\Omega)$ in Definition \ref{def0109_1} is equivalent to that given in \cite{MR2111792}.
\end{remark}
We have the following properties of weighted Sobolev spaces $H_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$.
For details, see \cite{MR1796011}.
Note that $\psi^\nu \mathcal{H}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\Omega)$ means the collection of $u$ such that $u = \psi^\nu v$ for some $v \in \mathcal{H}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\Omega)$, where $\nu \in \mathbb{R}$ and $ 0 < \psi \in C^\infty(\Omega)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{propertyweighted}
Let $\theta$, $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ and $1 < p < \infty$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ is dense in $H_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$.
\item
If $\gamma_1 > \gamma_2$, then
$H_{p,\theta}^{\gamma_1}(\Omega) \subset
H_{p,\theta}^{\gamma_2}(\Omega)$.
\item
If $\psi$ is a $C^{\infty}(\Omega)$ function so that
$N_1 \rho(x) \le \psi(x) \le N_2 \rho(x)$, then
$\psi H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega) = H_{p, \theta - p}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$.
\item
If $\gamma$ is a non-negative integer, then
$$
H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)
= \{ u : \rho(x)^{|\alpha|} D^{\alpha}u \in L_{p, \theta}(\Omega), 0 \le |\alpha| \le \gamma \}.
$$
\item
$u \in H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$ iff
$u \in H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma-1}(\Omega)$ and
$Du \in H_{p, \theta+p}^{\gamma-1}(\Omega)$.
In addition,
the norm $\| u \|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(\Omega)}$ is equivalent to
$ \| u \|_{H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma-1}(\Omega)} + \| u_x \|_{H_{p, \theta+p}^{\gamma-1}(\Omega)}$.
\item
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain.
Then for $\theta_1 < \theta_2$, we have
$$
H_{p, \theta_1}^{\gamma}(\Omega) \subset H_{p, \theta_2}^{\gamma}(\Omega)
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\| u \|_{H_{p, \theta_2}^{\gamma}(\Omega)}
\le N \| u \|_{H_{p, \theta_1}^{\gamma}(\Omega)},
$$
where $N$ is independent of $ u \in H_{p, \theta_1}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
For $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$, denote
$$
\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T) = L_p \left( (S,T), H_{p,\theta}^\gamma\left( \Omega \right) \right),
\quad
\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T) = L_p \left( (S,T), L_{p,\theta} \left( \Omega \right) \right)
$$
with the norms
\[
\|u\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)}^p = \int_S^T \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{H_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\Omega)}^p \, dt, \,\,
\|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)}^p = \int_S^T \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L_{p,\theta}(\Omega)}^p \, dt.
\]
\begin{definition}
\label{sol_space}
Let $\gamma, \theta \in \mathbb{R}$, and $1 < p < \infty$. We write $u \in \mathfrak{H}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ if
$$
u \in \mathbb{H}_{p,\theta - p}^{\gamma}(S,T),
\quad
u_t \in \mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{\gamma-2}(S,T),
$$
and write $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ if
$$
u \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(S,T),
\quad
Du \in \mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma-1}(S,T),
\quad
u_t \in \mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{\gamma-2}(S,T),
$$
where $u_t \in \mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$ is defined by
$$
\left(u(t,\cdot), \phi \right) = \left(u(s,\cdot), \phi \right) + \int_{s}^t \left( u_t(r,\cdot), \phi \right) \, d r
$$
for almost every $s,t \in [S,T]$.
The notation $(w, \phi)$ is to be interpreted as applying a test function $\phi \in C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ to a distribution $w$ in $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$.
For a non-negative integer $k$, we write $ u \in \mathcal{W}_{p, \theta}^{k+1}\left( S,T \right)$ if
\[
D^{\alpha}u, D^{\beta}u_t \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(S,T)
\]
for any multi-indices (with respect to the spatial variables) $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $|\alpha| \le k+1$ and $|\beta| \le k-1$.
We set the norms of the these spaces as
\[
\begin{aligned}
&\|u\|_{\mathfrak{H}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)} := \|u\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta - p}^{\gamma}(S,T)} + \|u_t\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{\gamma-2}(S,T)},
\\
&\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)} := \| u \|_{\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(S, T)} + \|Du\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma-1}(S,T)} + \|u_t\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{\gamma-2}(S,T)},
\\
&\left\| u \right\|_{\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta}^{k+1}\left( (S, T) \times \Omega \right)} := \sum_{|\alpha| \le k+1}\left\| D^{\alpha}u \right\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}\left( S, T \right)} + \sum_{|\beta| \le k-1} \left\| D^{\beta}u_t \right\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}\left( S, T \right)}.
\end{aligned}
\]
\end{definition}
The fact that $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(S,T)$ is a Banach space is proved in Lemma \ref{lem0728_1}.
In particular, if $\gamma=1$ and $(S, T) = \mathbb{R}$, we have
$$
\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R}) = \{ u : u, Du \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}), u_t \in \mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{-1}(\mathbb{R}) \}.
$$
For the remainder of this section, we assume that $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ or $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain, i.e. $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
Note that if $v \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(S,T)$, there exist $g_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(S,T)$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, such that $v = \sum_i D_ig_i$ in $(S,T) \times \Omega$.
Also note that $\| v \|_{\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(S, T)}$ is equivalent to $\sum_i \| g_i \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(S, T)}$.
Thus, if $u_t \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(S, T)$, there exist $g_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(S,T)$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, such that
$$
\int_{(S, T) \times \Omega} u \phi_t \,dx\,dt = \int_{(S, T) \times \Omega} g_i D_i\phi \,dx\,dt
$$
for all $\phi \in C_0^{\infty}((S, T) \times \Omega)$.
For details about the statements regarding $\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(S,T)$ and the norm equivalence, see \cite[Remark 5.3]{MR1708104} for $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and \cite[Theorem 3.2]{MR1796011} (with a diffeomorphism introduced in \cite{MR2352844}) for $\partial \Omega \in C^{0, 1}$. \label{page_ref0302_1}
To discuss boundary values of functions defined on $(S,T) \times \Omega$, we introduce function spaces defined on the lateral boundaries of cylindrical domains.
For $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$, $1 \le p<\infty$, $0<\mathsf{s}<1$, and a function $g(t,x')$ defined on $(S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}=(S,T) \times \partial \Omega$, we write $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\right)$ if
$$
\|g\|_{W^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}_p\left((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\right)}=\|g\|_{L_p}+[g]_{W^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}_p}+[g]_{W^{0,\mathsf{s}}_p} < \infty,
$$
where
$$
[g]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}}^p = [g]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}\left((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\right)}^p = \int_{S}^T \int_{S}^T \frac{\|g(r,\cdot) - g(t,\cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p}{|t-s|^{1+\mathsf{s}p/2}} \, ds \, dt,
$$
$$
[g]_{W^{0,\mathsf{s}}_p}^p = [g]_{W^{0,\mathsf{s}}_p\left((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\right)}^p = \int_{S}^T \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \frac{|g(t,x') - g(t,y')|^p}{|x'-y'|^{n-1+\mathsf{s}p}} \, dx' \, dy'\,dt.
$$
In particular, if $(S, T) = \mathbb{R}$, we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0401_04}
\begin{aligned}
\left[g\right]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p &= \int_\mathbb{R} |\tau|^{-(1+\mathsf{s}p/2)} \| g(\cdot + \tau, \cdot) - g(\cdot,\cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p \, d\tau
\\
&= 2 \int_0^\infty \tau^{-(1+\mathsf{s}p/2)} \| g(\cdot + \tau, \cdot) - g(\cdot,\cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p \, d\tau.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
When $n=1$, $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}\left( \left(S, T \right) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \right)$ obviously means that $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2}\left(S, T \right)$ with
$$
\left\| g \right\|_{L_p\left( \left(S, T \right) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \right)}^p = \int_S^T \left| g \right|^p \,dt,
$$
$$
\left[ g \right]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}} \left( \left(S, T \right) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \right)}^p = \left[ g \right]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, 0} \left(S, T \right) }^p = \int_S^T \int_S^T \frac{|g(t) - g(s)|^p}{|t - r|^{1+\mathsf{s}p/2}} \, ds \,dt .
$$
For a bounded Lipschitz domain $\Omega$, we use a partition of unity to define $W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\left(S, T\right) \times \partial \Omega)$.
Note that the boundary of a Lipschitz domain is locally the graph of a Lipschitz continuous function.
Thus there exist a finite number of balls $B_{j}$, $j = 1, \cdots, M$, in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with radius $R$ and Lipschitz continuous functions $h_j$
defined on $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ such that
$$
\bigcup_{j = 1}^{M} B_{j} \supset \partial\Omega
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
\Omega \cap B_j = U_j \cap B_j,
$$
where, after relabeling and re-orienting the coordinate axes if necessary,
$U_j = \{(x_1, x'): x_1 > h_j(x')\}$.
There also exist one-to-one functions
$\Psi_j$ from $U_j$ onto $\mathbb{R}^n_+$ satisfying
$\Psi_j^{-1}(0,y') = \partial U_j$ for $y' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
Then we find infinitely differentiable functions
$\varphi_{j}(x)$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^n$
such that $\text{supp}\varphi_{j} \subset B_{j}$
and $\sum_{j = 1}^{M}\varphi_{j}(x) = 1$ on $\partial \Omega$.
Fix a $K > 0$ such that $\| \Psi_j \|_{C^{0, 1}} \le K$ for $j = 1, \ldots, M$.
\begin{definition}\label{trace_space}
Let $1 \le p < \infty$, $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$, $\partial \Omega \in C^{0,1}$ and $ 0 < \mathsf{s} < 1$.
We set
\begin{multline*}
W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\left( S, T \right) \times \partial \Omega)
= \{ f \in L_p(\left( S, T \right) \times \partial \Omega) :
\\
(\varphi_j f)(t, \Psi_j^{-1}(0, y')) \in
W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\left( S, T \right) \times \mathbb{R}^{d-1}), \, j = 1, \cdots, M \},
\end{multline*}
$$
\| f \|_{W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\left( S, T \right) \times \partial \Omega)} = \sum_{j=1}^{M}
\| (\varphi_j f)(\cdot, \Psi_j^{-1}(0, \cdot)) \|_{W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\left( S, T \right) \times \mathbb{R}^{d-1})}.
$$
\end{definition}
For given $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$, we write $g \in W_{p, 0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ if there exists a sequence
\[
\{g_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \subset W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((-\infty, T) \times \partial\Omega) \cap C(\overline{(-\infty, T) \times \partial\Omega})
\]
such that $g_k \to g$ in $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ as $k \to \infty$ and $g_k=0$ for $t \le S$.
\begin{remark}
The norm defined above for $W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\left( S, T \right) \times \partial \Omega)$
is independent of the choice of the balls $B_j$ as well as of
the choice of the functions $\Psi_j$ and $\varphi_j$.
For details regarding this, see \cite[Lemma 3.6.1]{MR503903}.
\end{remark}
If a function $u$ is continuous up to the boundary of the domain, $\mathcal{T} u$, the lateral trace operator $\mathcal{T}$ applied to $u$, is simply the restriction of $u$ on the lateral boundary of the domain, i.e., $\mathcal{T} u = u|_{(S,T) \times \partial \Omega}$.
Then, as usual, we define the trace operator
$$
\mathcal{T}: \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T) \to W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (S,T) \times \partial \Omega \right)
$$
using the denseness of $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ (see Lemma \ref{lem0603_1}),
provided that the operator is bounded.
Throughout the paper, by $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$, we mean the collection of infinitely differentiable functions defined on $\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega}$ having support in an intersection of a ball in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with $\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega}$.
In particular, $u$ may not be zero on the boundary of $(S,T) \times \Omega$ if $u \in C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$, whereas, as usual, $u$ is zero on the boundary if $u \in C_0^\infty((S,T) \times \Omega)$.
As the main result of this paper, we prove that the trace operator $\mathcal{T}$ is bounded and has a right inverse, which can be called an extension operator.
Here is the statement, proved in Section \ref{main}.
\begin{theorem}[Trace theorem]
\label{thm0716_01}
Let $\gamma \ge 1$, $1 < p < \infty$, $ T \in (-\infty, \infty]$, $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ or $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$, and $n-1< \theta < n-1+p$ with $\mathsf{s} = (p-\theta+n-1)/p$.
Then the operator
$$
\mathcal{T}: \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma( -\infty, T) \to W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (-\infty,T) \times \partial\Omega \right)
$$
with $\mathcal{T} u = u|_{(-\infty,T) \times \partial\Omega}$ for $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(-\infty,T) \cap C(\overline{(-\infty,T) \times \Omega})$ is bounded and satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_trace}
\| \mathcal{T} u \|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (-\infty,T) \times \partial\Omega \right)} \le N \|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(-\infty,T)},
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n,p,\theta)$ for $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and $N = N(n,p,\theta, M, K, R)$ for $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
Moreover, $\mathcal{T}$ has a right inverse (an extension operator)
$$
\mathcal{S}: W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (-\infty,T) \times \partial\Omega \right) \to \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(-\infty,T)
$$
such that
$\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{S} g) = g$ for $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (-\infty,T) \times \partial\Omega \right)$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{extension}
\|\mathcal{S} g\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(-\infty,T)}
\le N \|g\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (-\infty,T) \times \partial\Omega \right)},
\end{equation}
where $N=N(n,p,\theta,\gamma)$ for $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and $N = N(n,p,\theta, \gamma, M, K, R)$ for $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{finite_time}
By using an extension with respect to the $t$ variable and then multiplying a cut-off function, one can check that Theorem \ref{thm0716_01} holds for $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$ and $g \in W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ when $-\infty < S < T < \infty$.
In this case, the constants $N$ of \eqref{eq_trace} and \eqref{extension} depend also on $T-S$.
Indeed, by scaling we may assume that $S=0$ and $T=1$.
For the trace part, it suffices to prove
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0302_01}
\| \mathcal{T} u \|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( (0,1) \times \partial\Omega \right)} \le N \|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(0,1)}
\end{equation}
because $\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(0,1)} \le \| u \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^{\gamma}(0,1)}$ for any $\gamma \ge 1$.
To prove this inequality, we first consider $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
Let $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(0,1)$.
Then, thanks to Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}, the inequality \eqref{eq0302_01} follows if there exists $v \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(\mathbb{R})$ such that
$\mathcal{T} u = \mathcal{T} v$ on $(0,1) \times \partial \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0302_02}
\| v \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(\mathbb{R})} \le N \| u \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(0, 1)},
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n, p, \theta)$.
We here note that $u_t = D_i g_i$ in $(0,1) \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ for some $g_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(0,1)$.
For the existence of such $g_i\in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(0,1)$, see the explanation about $\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}$ on page \pageref{page_ref0302_1}.
To come up with $v$ satisfying the aforementioned properties, we take smooth functions $\zeta: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}_+$, $\eta: \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ such that $\zeta = 1$ on $(0, 1)$, $\operatorname{supp}\zeta \subset (-1, 2)$, and $\eta = 1$ on $(0, 1)$, $\eta = 0$ on $(2, \infty)$.
Then we extend $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(0, 1)$ to $\overline{u} \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(-1, 2)$ by using even extensions with respect to the time variable at $t = 0$ and $1$.
Observe that $\overline{u}_t = D_i\overline{g}_i$ in $(-1, 2) \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ where $\overline{g}_i$ is the odd extension of $g_i$ with respect to the time variable at $t=0$ and $t=1$ so that $\| \overline{g}_i \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(-1, 2)}$ is comparable with $\| g_i \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(0, 1)}$.
Then set
\[
v(t, x) := \overline{u}(t, x)\zeta(t)\eta(x_1).
\]
We see that $v, Dv \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R})$ and $\||v|+|Dv|\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R})}$ is comparable with $\||u|+|Du|\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(0,1)}$.
We also see that
\[
v_t = D_i G_i
\]
in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$, where
$$
G_1(t, x) = \int_{x_1}^{\infty} \left[\overline{g}_1\left(t, y_1, x' \right) \zeta \left(t \right) \eta'\left(y_1\right) + \overline{u}\left(t, y_1, x'\right) \zeta'\left(t\right) \eta\left(y_1\right) \right] \,dy_1
$$
$$
+ \overline{g}_1(t, x)\zeta(t) \eta(x_1)
$$
and
$$
G_i(t, x) = \overline{g}_i(t, x)\zeta(t) \eta(x_1)\quad \textrm{for} \quad i = 2, \ldots, n,
$$
with the inequalities
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0302_03}
\|G_1\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R} )} \le N(n, p, \theta) \left( \|g_1\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(0, 1) } + \|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(0, 1)} \right),
\end{equation}
$$
\|G_i\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R} )} \le N(n, p, \theta) \|g_i\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(0, 1) } \quad \textrm{for} \quad i = 2, \ldots , n.
$$
In particular, the inequality \eqref{eq0302_03} follows from the observation that
$$
\int_0^{\infty} \left| \int_{x_1}^{\infty} \overline{g}_1(t, y_1, x') \zeta(t) \eta'(y_1) + \overline{u}(t, y_1, x') \zeta'(t) \eta(y_1) \,dy_1 \right|^p x_1^{\theta - n} \,dx_1
$$
$$
\le N \int_0^{\infty} \left| \overline{g}_1(t,x) \zeta(t) \eta'(x_1) + \overline{u}(t,x) \zeta'(t) \eta(x_1) \right|^p x_1^{p+\theta - n}\,dx_1
$$
$$
\le N2^p \int_0^{\infty} \left| \overline{g}_1(t,x) \zeta(t) + \overline{u}(t,x) \zeta'(t) \right|^p x_1^{\theta - n}\,dx_1,
$$
where we used Hardy's inequality with $n-1 < \theta$ in the first inequality, and the fact that $\eta(x_1) = 0$ for $x_1 \geq 2$ in the second inequality.
Upon recalling the equivalence norm of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R})$ on page \pageref{page_ref0302_1}, we conclude that $v \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(\mathbb{R})$ and the inequality \eqref{eq0302_02} holds.
By the construction of $v$, it is clear that $\mathcal{T} u = \mathcal{T} v$ on $(0,1) \times \partial \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
Therefore, the inequality \eqref{eq0302_01} is proved.
When $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$, we repeat the same argument with an extension $v(t, x) := \overline{u}(t, x) \zeta(t)$. Observe that there is no $\eta(x_1)$ since $\Omega$ is bounded.
For the extension part, we extend $g \in W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ to $h \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega)$ similarly as we extend $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ to $v \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(\mathbb{R})$ so that $\| h \|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega)}$ is comparable with $\| g\|_{W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{pre}
In this section, we present some properties of the functions spaces in Section \ref{setting}, which are needed in the proofs of our main results.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0728_1}
Let $1 < p < \infty$ and $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$.
For any $\gamma, \theta \in \mathbb{R}$, $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ is a Banach space.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note that, since $H_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\Omega)$ is a Banach space for any $\gamma, \theta \in \mathbb{R}$ (see \cite[Remark 1.2]{MR1708104}), $\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T) = L_p\left( (S, T), H_{p, \theta}^\gamma \left( \Omega \right) \right)$ is also a Banach space for any $\gamma, \theta \in \mathbb{R}$.
To prove the lemma, we only show the completeness.
Let $\{u^m\}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$. From the definition of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ and the fact that $\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ is a Banach space, there exist $u, v \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma - 1}(S, T)$ and $w \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{\gamma - 2}(S, T)$ such that
$$
u^m \to u, \quad Du^m \to v, \quad \textrm{and} \quad u^m_t \to w
$$
in the corresponding spaces as $m \to \infty$.
Thus, it suffices to show
\[
v = Du \quad \textrm{and} \quad w = u_t.
\]
To prove this, we first find a subsequence, again denoted by $\{u^m\}$, satisfying the following for a.e. $t, s \in (S,T)$.
\[
u^m(t, \cdot) \to u(t, \cdot), \quad Du^m(t, \cdot) \to v(t, \cdot) \quad \textrm{in} \quad H_{p, \theta}^{\gamma-1}(\Omega),
\]
\[ u^m_t(t, \cdot) \to w(t,\cdot) \quad \textrm{in} \quad H_{p, \theta + p}^{\gamma - 2}(\Omega)
\]
as $m \to \infty$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0322_01}
\left( u^m \left(t, \cdot \right), \phi \right) = \left( u^m \left(s, \cdot \right), \phi \right) + \int_s^t\left( u^m_t \left(r, \cdot \right), \phi \right) \,dr
\end{equation}
for $\phi \in C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$.
Then, by the properties of $H_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\Omega)$ (in particular, see \cite[Proposition 2.4]{MR1796011}), we have
\[
(u^m(t,\cdot), \phi) \to (u(t,\cdot), \phi), \quad (Du^m(t,\cdot), \phi) \to (v(t,\cdot), \phi)
\]
\[
(u_t^m(t,\cdot),\phi) \to (w(t,\cdot), \phi)
\]
as $m \to \infty$ for almost every $t \in (S,T)$ and $\phi \in C_0^\infty(\Omega)$.
We also have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0323_02}
|\left(u^m_t(r,\cdot) - w(r,\cdot), \phi\right)| \leq N \|u^m_t(r,\cdot)-w(r,\cdot)\|_{H_{p,\theta+p}^{\gamma-2}(\Omega)}
\end{equation}
for almost every $r \in (S,T)$, where $N$ depends on $\phi$.
We then see that $v = Du$ and $w = u_t$.
In particular, for the latter equality, the inequality \eqref{eq0323_02} with the fact that $u_t^m$ converges to $w$ in $\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{\gamma - 2}(S, T)$ shows that
\[
\int_s^t \left(u_t^m(r,\cdot)-w(t,\cdot), \phi\right) \, dr \to 0,
\]
which along with \eqref{eq0322_01} implies
\[
\left( u \left(t, \cdot \right), \phi \right) = \left( u \left(s, \cdot \right), \phi \right) + \int_s^t\left( w \left(r, \cdot \right), \phi \right) \,dr
\]
for almost every $s, t \in (S,T)$ and $\phi \in C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0901}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $T \in (-\infty, \infty]$, $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ or $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$, and $n-1 < \theta <n-1+p$.
Then
$C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ is dense in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As noted in Remark \ref{finite_time}, it is enough to assume $(S, T) = \mathbb{R}$. Moreover, using cut-off functions with respect to $(t,x)$, we may assume that $u$ vanishes for large $|t|+|x|$ when $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
Case 1: $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
We have $u, Du \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})$ and $u_t = D_ig_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ with $g = \left( g_1, \ldots, g_n \right) \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})^n$.
For a function $\eta \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n+1})$ such that $\eta \ge 0$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}} \eta \,dx \,dt = 1$, and
\[
\operatorname{supp} \eta \subset \{(t,x): -1<t<1, |x| < 1, x_1 < 0\},
\]
take
\[
u^{(\varepsilon)}(t,x) = \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+} \eta_\varepsilon(t-s,x-y) u(s,y) \, ds \, dy,
\]
where $\eta_\varepsilon(t,x) = \varepsilon^{-n-2}\eta(t/\varepsilon^2,x/\varepsilon)$ and $\varepsilon > 0$.
Then, by the standard properties of mollifications together with the fact that $\eta(t,x) = 0$ for $x_1 \geq0$, one can see that $u^{(\varepsilon)} \in C_0^{\infty}(\overline{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+})$, $Du^{(\varepsilon)} = \left( Du \right)^{(\varepsilon)}$, and $u^{\left( \varepsilon \right)}_t = D_i g_i^{\left( \varepsilon \right)}$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ for each $\varepsilon > 0$.
Now observe that for any $f \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R}) = L_p(\mathbb{R}, L_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}^n_+))$,
$$
\left| f^{\left( \varepsilon \right)} - f \right| \le N(n) \left( \mathcal{M}\tilde{f} + \left| f \right| \right)
$$
and $\mathcal{M}\tilde{f} + \left| f \right| \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})$ by Hardy-Littlewood theorem for $A_p$-weight ($x_1^{\theta - n}$ is an $A_p$-weight), where $\tilde{f}$ is the zero extension of $f$ to the whole space $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathcal{M} \tilde{f}$ is the maximal function of $\tilde{f}$ based on the standard parabolic cubes.
Then by Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, it follows that $\| f^{\left( \varepsilon \right)} - f \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})} \to 0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. Thus $\|u - u^{\left( \varepsilon \right)}\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(\mathbb{R})} \to 0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
Case 2: $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain, i.e. $\partial\Omega \in C^{0,1}$.
In this case, we use a partition of unity argument.
Since $\partial\Omega$ satisfies the uniform exterior cone condition, we use this property to take a proper mollification for $u \varphi_i \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(\mathbb{R})$ where $\{\varphi_i\}_{i=1}^M$ is a partition of unity.
The remainder is the same as the case for $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
\end{proof}
The following lemmas will be used to prove the denseness of smooth functions in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)$($\gamma \ge 1$). See Lemma \ref{lem0603_1}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0905_1}
Let $p \in [1,\infty)$, $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$, $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ or $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$, $-1 < \theta - n$, and $k$ be a positive integer.
Then $\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}\left(S, T\right)$ is a Banach space and $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S, T)\times \Omega})$ is dense in $\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}\left(S, T\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easily seen that $\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}\left(S, T\right)$ is a Banach space.
To prove the second assertion, note that the weight is $\rho(x)^{\theta - n + kp}$, where $\theta - n + kp \ge 0$ for any positive integer $k$.
Thus, one can prove the assertion by following the proof of \cite[Theorem 7.2]{MR802206}.
Indeed, for instance, if $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and $u \in \mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}\left( S, T \right)$, we set
$$
u^{\lambda}(t, x) := u(t, x_1 + \lambda, x') \in \mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}\left( S, T \right)
$$
for $\lambda > 0$. Since
$D^{\alpha}u^{\lambda}(t, x) = (D^{\alpha}u) \left( t, x_1 + \lambda, x' \right)$ and $D^{\beta}u^{\lambda}_t(t, x) = (D^{\beta}u_t) \left( t, x_1 + \lambda, x' \right)$ in $(S, T) \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ for any multi-indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $|\alpha| \le k+1$ and $|\beta| \le k-1$, by following the proof of \cite[Theorem 7.2]{MR802206} word for word, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0910_01}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$, and $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ or $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
Assume that $n - 1 < \theta$ and $k$ is a positive integer. Then
$$
\mathcal{W}_{\theta + kp}^{k+1}(S, T ) \subset \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^k(S, T).
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^k(S, T)$ means $u \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^{k-1}(S, T)$, $Du \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta}^{k - 1}(S, T)$, and $u_t \in\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{k - 2}(S, T)$.
Case 1: $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
By Hardy's inequality with the denseness of $C_0^{\infty}(\overline{(S, T) \times \Omega})$ in $\mathcal{W}_{\theta + kp}^{k+1}(S, T)$, we have
$$
\int_{S}^T \int_{\Omega} |D^{\alpha}u|^p x_1^{\theta - n + |\alpha|p} \,dx\,dt \le N \int_{S}^T \int_{\Omega} |D^{k}u|^p x_1^{\theta - n + kp} \,dx\,dt,
$$
$$
\int_{S}^T \int_{\Omega} |D^{\alpha}Du|^p x_1^{\theta - n + | \alpha |p} \,dx\,dt \le N \int_{S}^T \int_{\Omega} |D^{k+1}u|^p x_1^{\theta - n + kp} \,dx\,dt
$$
for any multi-index $\alpha$ such that $0 \le | \alpha | \le k$, and if $k \ge 2$,
$$
\int_{S}^T \int_{\Omega} |D^{ \beta} u_t |^p x_1^{\theta - n + \left(| \beta | + 1 \right)p} \,dx\,dt \le N \int_{S}^T \int_{\Omega} |D^{k - 1}u_t |^p x_1^{\theta - n + kp} \,dx\,dt
$$
for any multi-index $\beta$ such that $0 \le |\beta| \le k-2$.
The case $k=1$ directly follows from the inequality
\[
\| u_t \|_{\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(S, T)} \le \| u_t\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta + p}(S, T)}.
\]
Case 2: $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain, i.e. $\partial \Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
Note that
\[
u(t,\cdot) \in W_{p,\theta+kp}^{k+1}(\Omega), \quad u_t(t, \cdot) \in W_{p, \theta + kp}^{k-1}(\Omega)
\]
for a.e. $t \in (S,T)$, where
\[
W_{p, \vartheta}^\ell(\Omega) := \{ v \in \mathcal{D}'(\Omega) : D^{\alpha}v \in L_{p, \vartheta}(\Omega), 0 \le |\alpha| \le \ell \}.
\]
Then by the (Hardy type inequality) embedding theorem in \cite[Theorem 8.4 and Remark 8.8]{MR802206}, we again have the above three inequalities.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
By following the proof of \cite[Lemma 2.17]{MR2386392}, we obtain following result.
Indeed, the lemma holds for $\gamma = 1$ by Lemma \ref{lem0901}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0911}
Let $\gamma, \theta \in \mathbb{R}$, $1 < p < \infty$, $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$, and $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
For any $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$, there is a sequence $\{ u_k \}$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ such that $u_k = 0$ for large values of $x_1$ and $u_k \to u$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ as $k \to \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Trace operator}
\label{trace}
In this section, except Corollary \ref{trace_optimal}, we consider $u(t,x_1,x')$ defined on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$, that is, $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop0712_01}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $\theta \in (n-1,n-1+p)$, and $\mathsf{s} =(n-1+p-\theta)/p$.
Then the trace operator $\mathcal{T}$ from
$$
\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R}) = \{ u \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}): Du \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}), u_t \in \mathbb{H}_{p,\theta+p}^{-1}(\mathbb{R}) \}
$$
to $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$
is bounded.
Precisely,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1001}
\| u(\cdot, 0,\cdot)\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}
\le N \|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R})},
\end{equation}
provided that $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R}) \cap C( \overline{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}} )$, where $N=N(n, p, \theta)$.
\end{proposition}
The proof of Proposition \ref{prop0712_01} is given at the end of this section.
Using Proposition \ref{prop0712_01} (also see Lemma \ref{lem0901}) and a flattening argument for weighted Sobolev spaces on Lipschitz domains, one can prove the following corollary.
See \cite[Lemma 2.14 and 2.15]{MR2352844} for details.
\begin{corollary}
\label{trace_optimal}
Let $p$, $\theta$, and $\mathsf{s}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop0712_01} and $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
Then the operator
$$
\mathcal{T}: \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(\mathbb{R}) \to W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( \mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega \right)
$$
with $\mathcal{T} u = u|_{\mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega}$ for $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap C(\overline{ \mathbb{R} \times \Omega})$ is bounded and satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1002}
\| \mathcal{T} u \|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}\left( \mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega \right)} \le N \|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(\mathbb{R})},
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n,p,\theta, M, K, R)$.
\end{corollary}
To prove Proposition \ref{prop0712_01}, we start with the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0603_2}
Let $p$, $\theta$, and $\mathsf{s}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop0712_01}.
For $u$ satisfying $u, D_i u \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, we have
\begin{multline}
\label{eq0222_01}
\|u(\cdot, 0, \cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}
+ [u(\cdot,0,\cdot)]_{W_p^{0,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}
\\
\le N \left(\|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})} + \|Du\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})}\right),
\end{multline}
where $N = N(n, p, \theta)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In fact, one can obtain the lemma immediately by applying the trace theorem \cite[Theorem 2.8]{MR2386392} to $u(t,x)$ for each $t \in \mathbb{R}$.
Since the trace theorem in \cite{MR2386392} is based on the interpolation theory on Banach spaces (see, for instance, \cite{MR503903}), for the reader's convenience, we here give an elementary and self-contained proof.
It is sufficient to prove the estimate \eqref{eq0222_01} for $u \in C_0^{\infty}(\overline{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+})$.
We first consider $n \ge 2$.
For $h > 0$ and $i = 2, \ldots, n$, we set
$$
\Delta_i^h u := u(t, x + he_i) - u(t, x),
$$
where $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
Observe that for each $t \in \mathbb{R}$ and $i = 2, \ldots, n$,
\begin{align*}
| \Delta_i^h & u(t, 0, x') | \le \left| \Delta_i^h u(t, x_1, x') \right| + \left| \Delta_i^h u(t, x_1, x') - \Delta_i^h u(t, 0, x') \right|
\\
&\le \left| \Delta_i^h u(t, x_1, x') \right| + \left| u(t, x_1, x' + he_i) - u(t, 0, x' + he_i) \right|
\\
&+ \left| u(t, x_1, x') - u(t, 0, x') \right|.
\end{align*}
By integrating both sides with respect to $x_1 \in (0, h)$ and dividing by $h$, we have
\begin{align*}
\left| \Delta_i^h u(t, 0, x') \right| &\le \frac{1}{h} \int_0^h \int_0^h \left| D_iu(t, x_1, x' + \ell e_i) \right| \,d\ell \,dx_1
\\
&+ \int_0^h \left| D_1u(t, x_1, x' + he_i ) \right| + \left| D_1u(t, x_1, x') \right| \,dx_1.
\end{align*}
Take $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ so that $1-\mathsf{s}-1/p < \alpha < 1 - 1/p$. Then by Minkowski's inequality and H\"{o}lder's inequality, we have
$$
\left\| \Delta_i^h u(t, 0, \cdot) \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})} \le N \int_0^h \left\| Du(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})} \,dx_1
$$
$$
\le N \left( \int_0^h \left\| Du(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p x_1^{p\alpha} \,dx_1 \right)^{1/p} \left( \int_0^h x_1^{-q\alpha} \,dx_1\right)^{1/q},
$$
where $\alpha < 1/q := 1-1/p$.
This gives that
$$
\left\| \Delta_i^h u(t, 0, \cdot) \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p \le N h^{p-1-p\alpha} \int_0^h \left\| Du(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p x_1^{p\alpha} \,dx_1.
$$
Therefore, with the fact that $1-\mathsf{s}-1/p < \alpha$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0325_01}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^{\infty} \left\| \Delta_i^h u(t, 0, \cdot) \right\|_p^p h^{-1 - \mathsf{s}p}\,dh
\\
&\le N \int_0^{\infty} \int_0^h \left\| Du(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_p^p x_1^{p\alpha} \,dx_1 h^{-p\alpha + p -\mathsf{s}p -2} \,dh
\\
&= N \int_0^{\infty} \int_{x_1}^{\infty} h^{-p\alpha + p -\mathsf{s}p -2} \, dh \left\| Du(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_p^p x_1^{p\alpha} \,dx_1
\\
&\le N \int_0^{\infty} \left\| Du(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_p^p x_1^{p -\mathsf{s}p -1} \,dx_1 = N \|Du(t, \cdot)\|_{L_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R}^n_+)}^p
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for $i = 2, \ldots, n$, where $N=N(n, p, \theta)$ and $\|\cdot\|_p = \|\cdot\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$.
For the estimate of $\| u(t, 0, \cdot ) \|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$, note that
$$
\left| u(t, 0, x') \right| \le \left| u(t, x_1, x') - u(t, 0, x') \right| + \left| u(t, x_1, x') \right|
$$
and by integrating both sides with respect to $x_1 \in (0, 1)$,
\begin{align*}
&\left| u(t, 0, x') \right|
\\
&\le \int_0^1 \int_0^{x_1} \left| D_1u(t, y_1, x') \right|\,dy_1 \,dx_1 + \int_0^1 \left| u(t, x_1, x') \right| \,dx_1
\\
&\le \int_0^1 \left| D_1u(t, x_1, x') \right| \,dx_1 + \int_0^1 \left| u(t, x_1, x') \right| \,dx_1.
\end{align*}
Then, as above, by Minkowski's inequality and H\"older's inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0325_02}
\begin{aligned}
&\left\| u(t, 0, \cdot) \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})} \le \int_0^1 \left\| u(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_{W_p^
} x_1^{1 - \mathsf{s} - 1/p}x_1^{-1 + \mathsf{s} + 1/p} \,dx_1
\\
&\le \left( \int_0^1 \left\| u(t, x_1, \cdot) \right\|_{W_p^
}^p x_1^{p - \mathsf{s}p - 1} \,dx_1 \right)^{1/p} \left( \int_0^1 x_1^{-1 + q\mathsf{s}} \, dx_1\right)^{1/q}
\\
&\le N \||u(t,\cdot)| + |Du(t,\cdot)|\|_{L_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}^n_+)},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n, p, \theta)$ and $W_p^1 = W_p^1(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})$.
Hence, by the estimates \eqref{eq0325_01} and \eqref{eq0325_02} as well as by the equivalence of the two semi-norms $[g]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$ and $[g]_{B_{p,p}^{\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$, where
\[
\left[ g \right]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \right)}^p = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \frac{\left| g(x') - g(y') \right|^p }{ \left| x' - y' \right|^{d-1 + \mathsf{s}p}} \,dx' \,dy'
\]
and
\[
\left[ g \right]_{B_{p, p}^{\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p = \sum_{i = 1}^{n-1}\int_0^{\infty} \left\| \Delta_i^h g \right\|_{L_p\left( \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \right)}^p |h|^{-1 - \mathsf{s}p} \,dh,
\]
for each $t \in \mathbb{R}$, we have
$$
\| u(t,\cdot)\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})} \le N \left(\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}^n_+)} + \|Du(t,\cdot)\|_{L_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}^n_+)}\right),
$$
where $N=N(n, p, \theta)$. It only remains to integrate the $p$-power of both sides of the above inequality with respect to $t$ from $-\infty$ to $\infty$.
Finally, when $n=1$, the inequality \eqref{eq0222_01} directly follows from
$$
\left| u(t, 0) \right| \le \int_0^1 \left| Du(t,x) \right| \,d x + \int_0^1 \left| u(t,x) \right| \,d x
$$
because the semi-norm on the right-hand side of the inequality disappears.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
In the lemma below we estimate the trace of a function by expressing the function as an integral form.
This type of argument is used in \cite{MR1257932}, where kernels are used for integral representations (see \cite{MR0152793}), to prove the boundedness of trace operators for functions in Sobolev spaces without weights.
Here we use mollifications instead of kernels in the integral form.
\\
To estimate the seminorm $\left[ u\left( \cdot, 0, \cdot \right) \right]_{W_p^{s/2, 0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$, we start from an integral representation of $u \in C_0^{\infty}(\overline{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+})$ with $u_t = D_i g_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
Take $\phi(t, x) := \eta(x_1) \zeta(t, x')$ where $\eta$ and $\zeta$ are non-negative smooth functions such that
$$
\operatorname{supp}\eta \subset (-1, -1/2), \quad \operatorname{supp}\zeta \subset (0, 1) \times B_1^\prime(0) \subset \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1},
$$
and $\|\phi\|_{L_1(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n)} = 1$.
Fix an $\varepsilon > 0$ and $ \phi_{\varepsilon}(t, x) := \varepsilon^{-n-2} \phi(t\varepsilon^{-2}, x\varepsilon^{-1})$.
Then for
\[
u^{(\varepsilon)}(t,x) = \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+} \phi_\varepsilon(t-s,x-y) u(s,y)\, dy \, ds,
\]
we write
$$
u(t, x) = u^{(\varepsilon)}(t, x) - \left( u^{(\varepsilon)}(t, x) - u(t, x) \right)
$$
$$
= u^{(\varepsilon)}(t, x) - \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} \left( u(s, y) - u(t, x)\right) \phi_{\varepsilon}(t-s, x-y) dy\,ds
$$
$$
:= u^{(\varepsilon)}(t, x) - v(t, x; \varepsilon).
$$
Let $\gamma(\lambda)$ be a path from $(t, x) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ to $(s, y) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ defined by
$$
\gamma(\lambda) = \left( (1-\lambda)t + \lambda s, (1-\lambda^{1/2})x + \lambda^{1/2}y \right), \quad \lambda \in [0,1].
$$
Since
$$
u(s, y) - u(t, x) = \int_0^1 (\nabla_{t, x} u)(\gamma(\lambda)) \cdot \gamma'(\lambda) \, d\lambda,
$$
we see that
\[
v(t, x;\varepsilon) := v(t, x)
\]
$$
=\int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+}\int_0^1 \frac{1}{2} \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, \nabla u(\gamma(\lambda)) \cdot (y - x) \, d\lambda \, \phi_{\varepsilon}(t-s, x-y) \,dy\,ds
$$
$$
+ \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+}\int_0^1 u_t(\gamma(\lambda)) (s-t) \, d\lambda \, \phi_{\varepsilon}(t-s, x-y) \,dy\,ds =:J_1 + J_2,
$$
where, by the change of variables $\gamma(\lambda) \to (l,z)$ and $\varepsilon^2 \lambda \to \lambda$,
\[
J_1 = \int_0^{\varepsilon^2} \frac{\lambda^{-\frac{n}{2} - \frac{3}{2}}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} \nabla u(l, z) \cdot \frac{z - x}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \, \phi \left( \frac{t-l}{\lambda}, \frac{x-z}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right) dz\,dl \, d\lambda,
\]
\[
J_2 = \int_0^{\varepsilon^2} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-1} \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} u_t(l, z) \frac{l-t}{\lambda} \, \phi \left( \frac{t-l}{\lambda}, \frac{x-z}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right) dz\,dl \, d\lambda.
\]
For $J_2$, using the fact that $u_t = D_i g_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and the test function
\[
\phi \left(\frac{t - \cdot}{\lambda}, \frac{x - \cdot}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right) \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+),
\]
we further have
\[
J_2 = \int_0^{\varepsilon^2} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{3}{2}} \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} \frac{l-t}{\lambda} g(l, z) \cdot \nabla \phi \left( \frac{t-l}{\lambda}, \frac{x-z}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right) \,dz\,dl \, d\lambda,
\]
where $g= (g_1,\ldots,g_n)$.
Thus, one can write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0326_01}
\begin{aligned}
u(t, 0, x') &= u^{(\varepsilon)}(t, 0, x') - v(t, 0, x')
\\
&= u^{(\varepsilon)}(t,0,x') - J_1(t,0,x') - J_2(t,0,x')
\\
&= u^{(\varepsilon)}(t,0,x') - \sum_{j=1}^3 \int_0^{\varepsilon^2} V_j(t,x',\lambda;\varepsilon)\, d\lambda,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0329_01}
\begin{aligned}
V_1 &:= \frac{\lambda^{-\frac{n}{2} - \frac{3}{2}}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} D_1 u(l, z) \frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \, \phi (\cdot) \, dz\,dl,
\\
V_2 &:= \frac{\lambda^{-\frac{n}{2} - \frac{3}{2}}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} \nabla_{z'} u(l, z) \cdot \frac{z' - x'}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \, \phi(\cdot)\,dz\,dl,
\\
V_3 &:= \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{3}{2}} \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n}_+} \frac{l-t}{\lambda} g(l, z) \cdot \nabla \phi(\cdot)\,dz\,dl.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here,
\[
(\phi, \nabla \phi)(\cdot) = (\phi, \nabla \phi) \left( \frac{t-l}{\lambda}, \frac{-z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}, \frac{x'-z'}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right).
\]
The lemma below is a key estimate for our trace theorem.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0712_01}
Let $p$, $\theta$ and $\mathsf{s}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop0712_01}.
Let $u \in C_0^{\infty}(\overline{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+})$ satisfy
$u_t = D_i g_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$, where $g_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R})$.
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0405_01}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T \tau^{-1- \mathsf{s}p/2} \| u(\cdot + \tau, 0, \cdot) - u(\cdot,0,\cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p \, d \tau
\\
&\le N \left(\frac{T}{\varepsilon^2}\right)^{p-\mathsf{s}p/2} \int_0^{\varepsilon} \|g_i (\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_{L_p}^p \, y_1^{\theta - n} \, dy_1
\\
&+ N \int_0^{\sqrt{T}} F(y_1) \, y_1^{\theta - n} \, dy_1
+ N \int_0^{\varepsilon} F(y_1) \, y_1^{\theta - n} \, dy_1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for any $\varepsilon, T \in (0,\infty)$,
where $N = N(n, p, \theta)$ and
$$
F(y_1) = \sum_{i=1}^n \| \left( \left| D_iu \right| +\left| g_i \right| \right) (\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Throughout the proof, we denote $\|\cdot\|_p = \|\cdot\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$, where $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1} = \{(t,x'): t \in \mathbb{R}, x' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\}$.
By \eqref{eq0326_01}, for $\tau \in (0,T)$, we have
\[
|u(t+\tau,0,x') - u(t,0,x')| \leq |u^{(\varepsilon)}(t+\tau,0,x') - u^{(\varepsilon)}(t,0,x')|
\]
\[
+ \sum_{j=1}^3 \int_0^{\tau \wedge \varepsilon^2} \left| V_j(t+\tau,x',\lambda;\varepsilon) - V_j(t,x',\lambda;\varepsilon)\right| \, d \lambda
\]
\[
+ \sum_{j=1}^3 \int_{\tau \wedge \varepsilon^2}^{\varepsilon^2} \left| V_j(t+\tau,x',\lambda;\varepsilon) - V_j(t,x',\lambda;\varepsilon)\right| \, d \lambda
\]
\[
=: \Delta_\tau U_1 + \Delta_\tau U_2 + \Delta_\tau U_3.
\]
This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0712_01}
\| u(\cdot + \tau, 0, \cdot) - u(\cdot,0,\cdot)\|_p \le \| \Delta_\tau U_1\|_p + \| \Delta_\tau U_2\|_{L_p} + \| \Delta_\tau U_3\|_p,
\end{equation}
where $\|\Delta_\tau U_3\|_p = 0$ if $\tau \geq \varepsilon^2$.
Thus, to derive the desired estimate in the lemma, we deal with the terms on the right-hand side of the inequality \eqref{eq0712_01}.
First, for $\Delta_\tau U_1$, we write
$$
\Delta_\tau U_1 = \left| \int_0^{\tau} \frac{\partial u^{(\varepsilon)}}{\partial t}(t + \ell, 0, x') \,d\ell \right|,
$$
where, by the fact that $u_t = D_i g_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and $\phi_\varepsilon(t,x) = \eta_\varepsilon(x_1) \zeta_\varepsilon(t,x')$ with
\[
\eta_\varepsilon(x_1) = \varepsilon^{-1}\eta(x_1/\varepsilon), \quad
\zeta_\varepsilon(t,x') = \varepsilon^{-n-1}\zeta(t/\varepsilon^2,x'/\varepsilon),
\]
we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial u^{(\varepsilon)}}{\partial t}(t,0,x') &= \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+} u(s,y) \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[ \phi_\varepsilon(t-s,-y_1,x'-y')\right] \, dy \, ds
\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+} g_1(s,y) \eta_\varepsilon'(-y_1) \zeta_\varepsilon(t-s,x'-y') \, dy \, ds
\\
&+ \sum_{i=2}^n \int_{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+} g_i(s,y) \eta_\varepsilon(-y_1) D_i\zeta_\varepsilon(t-s,x'-y') \, dy \, ds.
\end{align*}
Then by Minkowski's inequality, Young's convolution inequality, H\"older's inequality, and the fact that $\operatorname{supp} \eta \subset (-1,-1/2)$,
\begin{align*}
\|\Delta_\tau U_1 \|_p &\le N \tau \varepsilon^{-2} \int_0^{\infty} \|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p \left( \left| \eta \right| + \left| \eta' \right| \right) \left( -\frac{y_1}{\varepsilon} \right) dy_1
\\
&\le N \tau \varepsilon^{-2} \int_{\varepsilon/2}^{\varepsilon}\|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p \, y_1^{\kappa}y_1^{-\kappa} \,dy_1
\\
&\le N \tau \varepsilon^{-2} \left( \int_{\varepsilon/2}^{\varepsilon} y_1^{-q\kappa} \, dy_1\right)^{1/q} \left( \int_{\varepsilon/2}^{\varepsilon} \|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p\kappa} \, dy_1\right)^{1/p}
\\
&\le N \tau \varepsilon^{-1 -\kappa - 1/p} \left( \int_{\varepsilon/2}^{\varepsilon} \|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p\kappa} \, dy_1\right)^{1/p},
\end{align*}
where $1/p + 1/q = 1$ and $\kappa = 1 - \mathsf{s} - 1/p$.
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0401_01}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T \tau^{-1-\mathsf{s}p/2} \|\Delta_\tau U_1\|_{L_p }^p \, d \tau
\\
&\le N \varepsilon^{-p - p\kappa -1} \int_0^T \tau^{-1-\mathsf{s}p/2 + p} \int_{0}^{\varepsilon} \|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p\kappa} \, dy_1 \,d\tau
\\
&\le N T^{p-\mathsf{s}p/2}\varepsilon^{-p - p\kappa -1} \int_{0}^{\varepsilon} \|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p\kappa}\,dy_1
\\
&= N \left( \frac{T}{\varepsilon^2}\right)^{p -\mathsf{s}p/2} \int_{0}^{\varepsilon} \|g_i(\cdot, y_1, \cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{\theta - n}\,dy_1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n, p, \mathsf{s}) = N(n, p, \theta)$.
We now estimate $\Delta_\tau U_2$.
Take $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\[
\frac{5}{q} - \mathsf{s} < \alpha < \frac{5}{q}, \quad \text{where} \quad 1/p+1/q = 1.
\]
From the definition of $V_1$ in \eqref{eq0329_01}, Minkowski's inequality, Young's convolution inequality, and H\"older's inequality (also recall $\phi(t,x) = \eta(x_1)\zeta(t,x')$ and $\operatorname{supp}\eta \subset (-1,-1/2)$), it follows that
\[
\left\| \int_0^\tau |V_1(\cdot,\cdot,\lambda;\varepsilon)|\, d \lambda\right\|_p
\]
\[
\leq N \int_0^\tau \lambda^{-1} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \frac{y_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \eta\left(-\frac{y_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right) \|Du(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p \, y_1^\alpha y_1^{-\alpha} \, dy_1 \, d\lambda
\]
\[
\leq N \left(\int_0^\tau \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda y_1^{-q \alpha} \, dy_1 \, d\lambda \right)^{1/q} \left(\int_0^\tau \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{1-2p} \|Du(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha} \, dy_1 \, d\lambda \right)^{1/p}
\]
\[
= N \tau^{\frac{5}{2q}-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\left(\int_0^\tau \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{1-2p} \|Du(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha} \, dy_1 \, d\lambda \right)^{1/p},
\]
where we used $1/q + (1-2p)/p = -1$, $5 - q\alpha > 0$, and the fact that
\[
\frac{y_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \eta\left(-\frac{y_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \right)
\]
is bounded by a constant depending on the choice of $\eta$.
Similar calculations for $V_2$ and $V_3$ with the above estimate for $V_1$ show that
\[
\|\Delta_\tau U_2\|_p \leq \sum_{j=1}^3\left\|\int_0^\tau |V_j(\cdot+\tau,\cdot,\lambda;\varepsilon) - V_j(\cdot,\cdot,\lambda;\varepsilon)| \, d\lambda \right\|_p
\]
\[
\leq 2 \sum_{j=1}^3\left\| \int_0^\tau |V_j(\cdot,\cdot,\lambda;\varepsilon)| \, d\lambda\right\|_p
\]
\[
\leq N \tau^{\frac{5}{2q}-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\left(\int_0^\tau \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{1-2p} \|G(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha} \, dy_1 \, d\lambda \right)^{1/p},
\]
where $G(t, x) = \left| Du(t, x)\right| + \left| g(t, x)\right|$ and, by changing the order of the integrations, the last double integral is not greater than
\[
\int_0^{\sqrt{\tau}} \int_{y_1^2}^{4y_1^2} \lambda^{1-2p} \, d\lambda \|G(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha} \, dy_1
\]
\[
\leq N \int_0^{\sqrt{\tau}} \|G(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha - 4p+4} \, dy_1.
\]
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0401_02}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T \tau^{-1-\mathsf{s}p/2} \|\Delta_\tau U_2\|_{L_p}^p \,d\tau
\\
&\leq N\int_0^T \tau^{\frac{5p}{2} - \frac{p\alpha}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{s}p}{2} - \frac{7}{2}} \int_0^{\sqrt{\tau}} \|G(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha - 4p+4} \, dy_1 \, d\tau
\\
&\leq N \int_0^{\sqrt{T}} \|G(\cdot,y_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, y_1^{p \alpha - 4p+4} \int_{y_1^2}^\infty \tau^{\frac{5p}{2} - \frac{p\alpha}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{s}p}{2} - \frac{7}{2}} \, d \tau \, dy_1
\\
&= N \int_0^{\sqrt{T}} \|G\left( \cdot, y_1, \cdot \right)\|_p^p \, y_1^{\theta - n} \, dy_1,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n,p,\theta)$, and the last equality is due to $5/q - \mathsf{s} < \alpha$ and $p-\mathsf{s}p-1 = \theta - n$.
Finally, to estimate $\Delta_\tau U_3$, which is only needed when $\tau < \varepsilon^2$,
we write
\[
V_j(t+\tau,x',\lambda;\varepsilon) - V_j(t,x',\lambda;\varepsilon) = \int_0^\tau \frac{\partial V_j}{\partial t}(t+\ell,x',\lambda;\varepsilon) \, d\ell.
\]
Note that
\[
\frac{\partial V_1}{\partial t}(t,x',\lambda;\varepsilon) = \frac{\lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{5}{2}}}{2} \int_0^\infty \frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \eta\left(-\frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) D_1u(\cdot,z_1,\cdot) * \zeta_t\left(\frac{\cdot}{\lambda},\frac{\cdot}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) \, dz_1,
\]
where, here and below,
$v*w$ indicates the convolution of $v$ and $w$ as functions on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1} = \{(t,x'): t \in \mathbb{R}, x' \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\}$,
\[
\frac{\partial V_2}{\partial t} = \frac{\lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{5}{2}}}{2} \sum_{i=2}^n \int_0^\infty \eta\left(-\frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) D_iu(\cdot,z_1,\cdot) * \tilde{\zeta}_i \left(\frac{\cdot}{\lambda},\frac{\cdot}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) \, dz_1,
\]
where $\tilde{\zeta}_i(t,x) = - x_i \zeta_t(t,x')$, and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial V_3}{\partial t} & = \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{5}{2}} \int_0^\infty \eta'\left(-\frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) g_1(\cdot,z_1,\cdot) * \hat{\zeta}\left(\frac{\cdot}{\lambda},\frac{\cdot}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) \, dz_1
\\
&+ \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}-\frac{5}{2}} \sum_{i=2}^n \int_0^\infty \eta\left(-\frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) g_i(\cdot,z_1,\cdot) * \check{\zeta}_i\left(\frac{\cdot}{\lambda},\frac{\cdot}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) \, dz_1,
\end{align*}
where $\hat{\zeta}(t,x') = - \zeta(t,x') -t\zeta_t(t,x')$ and $\check{\zeta}_i(t,x') = - D_i\zeta(t,x') - t D_i\zeta_t(t,x')$.
Then by Minkowski's inequality
\[
\|\Delta_\tau U_3\|_p \leq \sum_{j=1}^3 \int_\tau^{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^\tau \left\| \frac{\partial V_j}{\partial t}(\cdot+\ell,\cdot,\lambda;\varepsilon) \right\|_p \, d\ell \, d\lambda =: \sum_{j=1}^3 I_j,
\]
where, for instance, by Young's convolution inequality and H\"older's inequality
\[
\left\| \frac{\partial V_1}{\partial t}(\cdot+\ell,\cdot,\lambda;\varepsilon) \right\|_p \leq N \lambda^{-2} \int_0^\infty \frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \eta\left(-\frac{z_1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) \|D_1u(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p \, dz_1
\]
\[
\leq N \lambda^{-2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \|D_1u(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p \, dz_1.
\]
Thus,
\[
I_1 \leq N \tau \int_\tau^{\varepsilon^2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-2} \|D_1u(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p \, dz_1 \, d\lambda
\]
\[
= N \tau \int_\tau^{\varepsilon^2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q}} \, z_1^{-\frac{1}{q}} \, \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}} \|D_1u(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p \, z_1^{\frac{1}{q}} \, dz_1 \, d\lambda
\]
\[
\leq N \tau \left( \iint \ldots \right)^{\frac{1}{q}} \left(\int_\tau^{\varepsilon^2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-\frac{p}{2}-1} \|D_1u(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, z_1^{\frac{p}{q}} \, dz_1 \, d\lambda\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},
\]
where
\[
\iint \ldots = \int_\tau^{\varepsilon^2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-\frac{q}{2}-1} z_1^{-1} \, dz_1 \, d\lambda \leq N \tau^{-\frac{q}{2}}.
\]
The above estimate for $I_1$ along with similar calculations for $I_2$ and $I_3$ gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0401_03}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T \tau^{-1-\frac{\mathsf{s}p}{2}} \|\Delta_\tau U_3\|_p^p \, d\tau
\\
&\leq N \int_0^{\varepsilon^3} \tau^{\frac{p}{2}-1-\frac{\mathsf{s}p}{2}}\int_\tau^{\varepsilon^2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-\frac{p}{2}-1} \|G(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, z_1^{\frac{p}{q}} \, dz_1 \, d\lambda \, d\tau
\\
&= N \int_0^{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^\lambda \tau^{\frac{p}{2}-1-\frac{\mathsf{s}p}{2}} \, d\tau \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-\frac{p}{2}-1} \|G(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, z_1^{\frac{p}{q}} \, dz_1\, d\lambda
\\
&= N \int_0^{\varepsilon^2} \int_{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}}^{\sqrt{\lambda}} \lambda^{-\frac{\mathsf{s}p}{2}-1} \|G(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, z_1^{\frac{p}{q}} \, dz_1\, d\lambda
\\
&\leq N \int_0^\varepsilon \|G(\cdot,z_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, z_1^{\theta - n} \, dz_1,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where, as above, $G = |Du| + |g|$ and we used the fact that $s \in (0,1)$.
From the estimates \eqref{eq0401_01}, \eqref{eq0401_02}, \eqref{eq0401_03} with \eqref{eq0712_01}, we see that the inequality \eqref{eq0405_01} holds.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop0712_01}]
By Lemma \ref{lem0901}, it is enough to obtain \eqref{eq1001} for $u$ as in Lemma \ref{lem0712_01}. That is, we assume that $u \in C_0^\infty(\overline{\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+})$ with $u_t = D_ig_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$, $g_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})$.
From Lemma \ref{lem0603_2}, we have
$$
\|u(\cdot, 0,\cdot)\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} + \|u(\cdot, 0,\cdot)\|_{W_p^{0,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}
$$
$$
\le N \left(\|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})} + \|Du\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})}\right),
$$
where $N=N(n, p, \theta)$.
By taking $\varepsilon = T^{1/2}$ in Lemma \ref{lem0712_01} and letting $T \to \infty$, we obtain (also recall \eqref{eq0401_04})
$$
\|u(\cdot, 0,\cdot)\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} \le N \left(\|Du\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})} + \|g_i\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})}\right),
$$
where $N=N(n, p, \theta)$.
By combining above two inequalities we arrive at \eqref{eq1001}.
The proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem0426_1}
In Proposition \ref{prop0712_01}, we have $u_t \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(\mathbb{R})$, which means that $u_t$ may not be a function.
Nevertheless, via an integral representation of $u$, we make use of the fact that $u_t = D_ig_i$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \Omega$ in `distribution' sense for some $g_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(\mathbb{R})$, $i = 1. \ldots, n$.
On the other hand, if $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ so that $u_t \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta+p}(\mathbb{R})$, one can give a considerably simple proof of Proposition \ref{prop0712_01} (in fact, Lemma \ref{lem0712_01}), without using any integral representations, by proceeding as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem0603_2} with $u_t$ in place of $D_1 u$.
\end{remark}
\section{Extension operator}
\label{exten}
In this section, except Corollary \ref{extension_lip}, we set $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
Recall that, in this case, for instance, by $\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R})$ we mean
\[
\|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R})}^p = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R}^n_+)}^p \, dt = \int_\mathbb{R} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n_+} |u(t,x)|^p x_1^{\theta -n} \, dx \, dt.
\]
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop0715_01}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $n-1 < \theta < n-1+p$, and $\mathsf{s} =\left( n-1+p-\theta \right)/p$.
Then for $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ and $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma (\mathbb{R})$ such that
$$
\mathcal{T} u = g,
$$
where $\mathcal{T}$ is the trace operator from $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R})$ to $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ in Proposition \ref{prop0712_01}.
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0718_01}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma (\mathbb{R})} \le N\|g\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})},
\end{equation}
where $N=N(n, p, \theta, \gamma)$.
\end{proposition}
Before we present the proof of Proposition \ref{prop0715_01}, let us recall that, for a sufficiently smooth $g(t,x')$, a solution $u$ to the problem $u_t = \Delta u$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ with the lateral boundary condition $u(t,0,x') = g(t,x')$ on $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0406_01}
\begin{aligned}
u(t,x_1,x') &=[g*p(\cdot,x_1,\cdot)](t,x')
\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}p(t-s,x_1,x'-y')g(s,y') \, dy' \, ds,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
$$
p(t,x_1,x')=1_{t>0}
\frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{n/2}}\frac{x_1}{t}e^{-\frac{|x|^2}{4t}}
$$
for $(t,x) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$. Note that $p$ is infinitely differentiable in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn 160112.8}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}p(t,x_1,x') \, dx' \, dt=1, \quad \quad p_t=\Delta p,
\end{equation}
and, for any multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_n)$ with respect to the spatial variables, $|\alpha|\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn 114.6}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}D^{\alpha}p(t,x_1,x') \, dx' \, dt=0.
\end{equation}
Indeed, since $D^{\alpha}p(t,x_1,x')$ is integrable on $\{(t,x') \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\}$ for any $\alpha$ (see (\ref{e1}) and (\ref{e2})), one can check easily that \eqref{eqn 114.6} holds when $\alpha = (0, \alpha_2,\ldots, \alpha_n)$ or the integrand is $p_t$.
For $p_{x_1}$, a direct calculation of $p_{x_1}$ gives \eqref{eqn 114.6}.
Then, the remaining cases follow from the relation $p_t = \Delta p$ and the aforementioned cases.
Also note that $u$ is infinitely differentiable in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and $u(t,x)=0$ for $t\leq 0$ if $g(t,x')=0$ for $t\leq 0$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0603_03}
Let $p$, $\theta$ and $\mathsf{s}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop0715_01}.
If $g \in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ and $u$ is defined as in \eqref{eq0406_01}, then for any $m=0,1,2,\ldots$ and multi-index $\alpha$ with respect to the spatial variables (i.e., $D^\alpha = D_x^{\alpha}$), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0409_01}
\| D^{\alpha}u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta + mp}(\mathbb{R})}\leq N \left( [ g ]_{W^{\mathsf{s}/2, 0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} + [ g ]_{W^{0, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}\right)
\end{equation}
for $|\alpha| = m+1$, and
$$
\|D^{\alpha}u_t\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta + (m+1)p }(\mathbb{R} )}\leq N \left( [g]_{W^{\mathsf{s}/2, 0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} + [g]_{W^{0, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}\right)
$$
for $|\alpha| = m$,
where $N=N(n, p, \theta, m)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the second inequality is a direct consequence of the first one with the fact $u_t = \Delta u$ in $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n_+$, we only prove the first inequality.
From \eqref{eq0406_01} and \eqref{eqn 114.6}, we have
$$
D^{\alpha}u(t,x)=\int^{\infty}_0 \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} D^{\alpha}p(s,x_1,y')
\left(g(t-s,x'-y')-g(t,x')\right) \, dy' \, ds,
$$
where by the the triangle inequality
\[
|g(t-s,x'-y')-g(t,x')|
\]
\[
\leq |g(t-s,x'-y')-g(t,x'-y')| + |g(t,x'-y') - g(t,x')|.
\]
Thus, by Minkowski's inequality it follows that
\begin{multline}
\label{eq0409_02}
\|D^\alpha u(\cdot,x_1,\cdot)\|_p \leq \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} |D^\alpha p(s,x_1,y')| K_1(s) \, dy'\, ds
\\
+ \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} |D^\alpha p(s,x_1,y')| K_2(y') \, dy'\, ds,
\end{multline}
where $\|\cdot\|_p = \|\cdot\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$ and
\[
K_1(s) = \| g(\cdot-s,\cdot) - g(\cdot,\cdot)\|_p, \quad K_2(y') = \|g(\cdot,\cdot-y') - g(\cdot,\cdot)\|_p.
\]
Using induction, we see that $D^\alpha p(t,x_1,x')$ with $|\alpha|=m+1$ is a linear combination of the following terms with some non-negative integers $a$ and $b$:
\begin{align}
&I_1(m+1,a,b,\beta) \nonumber
\\
&=x_1^{1+b} t^{-(n/2+m+2-a)} e^{-(x_1^2+|x'|^2)/4t} (x')^{\beta} \times 1_{|\beta|=m+1-2a-b}\,1_{t>0} \label{e1},
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&I_2(m+1,a,b,\beta) \nonumber
\\
&=x_1^{b} \, t^{-(n/2+m+1-a)}e^{-( {x_1^2+|x'|^2})/4t} (x')^{\beta} \times 1_{|\beta|=m-2a-b}\,1_{t>0}, \label{e2}
\end{align}
where $\beta = (\beta_2,\ldots,\beta_n)$ is a multi-index with respect to $x'$.
For instance, $D_{x_1} p(t,x_1,x')$ is a linear combination of the term \eqref{e1} with $a=0$ and $b=1$, and the term \eqref{e2} with $a=0$ and $b=0$.
Hence, by \eqref{e1}, \eqref{e2}, and \eqref{eq0409_02}, to prove \eqref{eq0409_01} it is enough to show that, for $i,j=1,2$,
\begin{multline}
\label{eq0409_03}
\int_0^\infty x_1^{\theta + mp - n} \left( \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} I_j(m+1,a,b,\beta) K_i(s,y') \, dy' \, ds \right)^p dx_1
\\
\leq N \left( [g]_{W^{\mathsf{s}/2, 0}}^p + [g]_{W^{0, \mathsf{s}}}^p\right),
\end{multline}
where $K_i(s,y')$ is either $K_1(s)$ or $K_2(y')$.
Furthermore, thanks to the relation $I_1(m+1,a,b,\beta) = x_1 I_2(m+2,a,b,\beta)$, we only prove \eqref{eq0409_03} when $j = 2$.
We write
\[
I_2(m+1,a,b,\beta) = x_1^b J(m+1,a,b,\beta)
\]
and, using the condition that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0409_05}
n-1 < \theta < n-1+p,
\end{equation}
find a positive number $\delta_1$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0409_04}
0 < \delta_1 < \frac{\theta - n + 1}{(p-1)(n+m+b+2)}.
\end{equation}
Then, set
\[
B = \frac{n+1}{n+m+b+2} + \delta_1,
\]
and find a number $A$ such that
\[
\frac{A}{p} + \frac{B}{q} = 1, \quad \text{where} \quad \frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} = 1.
\]
By the choice of $\delta_1$ and \eqref{eq0409_05}, $A > 0$.
To prove \eqref{eq0409_03} with $j=2$, by H\"{o}lder's inequality, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0410_01}
\begin{aligned}
&\left( \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} I_2(m+1,a,b,\beta) K_i(s,y') \, dy' \, ds \right)^p
\\
&\leq x_1^{bp} \left(\int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}|K_i|^p J^A \, dy' \, ds \right) \left(\int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} J^B \, dy' \, ds\right)^{p/q}
\\
&:= x_1^{bp} \Theta_1 \Theta_2^{p/q}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here we have that, since $B > (n+1)/(n+m+b+2)$,
\[
\Theta_2 \leq N x_1^{-B(n+m+b+2) + n + 1} \int_0^\infty s^{-\frac{B}{2}(n + m + b + 2) + \frac{n}{2} - \frac{1}{2} } e^{-\frac{B}{4s}} \, ds
\]
\[
= N x_1^{-B(n+m+b+2) + n + 1}.
\]
Regarding $\Theta_1$ for $K_i = K_1(s)$, we have
\[
\Theta_1 \leq \int_0^\infty |K_1(s)|^p s^{-A\left(\frac{n}{2}+m+1-a\right)} e^{-\frac{Ax_1^2}{4s}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} e^{-\frac{A|y'|^2}{4s}} |y'|^{A|\beta|} \, dy' \, ds
\]
\[
= N \int_0^\infty |K_1(s)|^p s^{-\frac{A}{2}(n+m+b+2) + \frac{n}{2} - \frac{1}{2}} e^{-\frac{Ax_1^2}{4s}} \, ds.
\]
Thus, the left-hand side of \eqref{eq0409_03} with $I_2$ and $K_1$ is not greater than a constant times
\[
\int_0^\infty x_1^{\kappa_1} \int_0^\infty |K_1(s)|^p s^{-\frac{A}{2}(n+m+b+2) + \frac{n}{2} - \frac{1}{2}} e^{-\frac{Ax_1^2}{4s}} \, ds \, dx_1
\]
\[
= \int_0^\infty s^{-\frac{A}{2}(n+m+b+2) + \frac{n}{2} - \frac{1}{2}} |K_1(s)|^p \int_0^\infty x_1^{\kappa_1} e^{-\frac{Ax_1^2}{4s}} \, dx_1 \, ds
\]
\[
= N\int_0^\infty s^{-1 - \frac{1}{2}(n - 1 + p - \theta)} |K_1(s)|^p \, ds \leq N [g]^p_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})},
\]
where, by the choice of $B$ with \eqref{eq0409_05},
\[
\kappa_1 = \theta + mp - n + bp -\frac{p}{q}B(n+m+b+2) + \frac{p}{q}(n+1) > - 1.
\]
The above inequality proves \eqref{eq0409_03} for $j=2$ and $i=1$.
To show \eqref{eq0409_03} with $j=i=2$, since $K_2(y') = 0$ when $n=1$, we assume $n \geq 2$.
Then, upon recalling the inequalities in \eqref{eq0410_01} and the above estimate for $\Theta_2$, we see that the left-hand side of \eqref{eq0409_03} with $K_2(y')$ is not greater than a constant times
\[
\int_0^\infty x_1^{\kappa_1} \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} |K_2(y')|^p s^{-A\left(\frac{n}{2}+m+1-a\right)} e^{-\frac{A(x_1^2+|y'|^2)}{4s}} |y'|^{A|\beta|} \, dy' \, ds \, dx_1
\]
\[
= N \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} |K_2(y')|^p|y'|^{A(m-2a-b)} \int_0^\infty s^{\kappa_2} e^{-\frac{A|y'|^2}{4s}} \, ds \, dy'
\]
\[
= N \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} |K_2(y')|^p|y'|^{A(m-2a-b) + 2 \kappa_2 + 2} \, dy' = N [g]_{W_p^{0,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}^p,
\]
where, by the choice of $A$, the definition of $\kappa_1$, \eqref{eq0409_05}, and the fact that $n\geq 2$,
\[
\kappa_2: = -A\left(\frac{n}{2}+m+1-a\right) + \frac{\kappa_1}{2} + \frac{1}{2} = \frac{\theta}{2} - \frac{p}{2} - n - \frac{A}{2}|\beta| < - 1,
\]
\[
A(m-2a-b)+2\kappa_2+2 = \theta - p - 2n + 2 = - (n - 1 + \mathsf{s}p).
\]
Hence, the inequality \eqref{eq0409_03} is also proved for $j=i=2$.
Therefore, the inequality \eqref{eq0409_01} is proved, and so is the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop0715_01}]
For $\gamma$, take an integer $k$ such that $k \ge \max\{\gamma, 2\}$.
Since $C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ is dense in $W_p^{s/2, s}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$, it is enough to find $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{k}(\mathbb{R})$ satisfying \eqref{eq0718_01} for $g \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}) \cap W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$.
Set $v = g * p(\cdot,x_1,\cdot)(t,x')$ as in Lemma \ref{lem0603_03} and let $u(t,x) := v(t, x) \zeta(x_1)$ where $\zeta \in C_0^{\infty}(\overline{\mathbb{R}_+})$ such that $\zeta(x_1) = 1$ for $x_1 \le 1$ and $\zeta(x_1) = 0$ for $x_1 \ge 2$.
Note that from \eqref{eqn 160112.8} and Young's inequality for convolutions,
\[
\|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(\mathbb{R})}^p \leq \int_0^2 \|v(\cdot,x_1,\cdot)\|_p^p \, x_1^{\theta - n} \, dx_1 \leq N \|g\|_p,
\]
where $N = N(n, p, \theta)$, $\|\cdot\|_p = \|\cdot\|_{L_p(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$, and we used the fact that $\theta - n > - 1$.
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{lem0603_03}, we have
$$
\|Dv\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^{k-1}(\mathbb{R})} + \|v_t\|_{\mathbb{H}_{p,\theta}^{k-2}(\mathbb{R})}\le N \left( [g]_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,0}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} + [g]_{W_p^{0,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} \right),
$$
where $N=N(n, p, \theta, k) = N(n, p, \theta, \gamma)$.
Then the desired inequality follows by combining the above two inequalities, the fact that $x_1^{\theta - n + mp} \leq N(m) x_1^{\theta - n + jp}$ for $x_1 \in (0,2)$ and $j \in \{0, \ldots,m\}$, and the inequality (see Proposition \ref{propertyweighted})
$$
\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\mathbb{R})} \le \|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^k(\mathbb{R})}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk0117}
Note that $u(=v\zeta)$ in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop0715_01} satisfies
$$
\| u \|_{\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}(\mathbb{R} )} \le N\| u \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{k+1}(\mathbb{R})} \le N(n, p, \theta, k) \| g \|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}
$$
for any positive integer $k$, since $u$ satisfies \eqref{eq0718_01} for any $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ and $u(t, x) = 0$ when $x_1 \ge 2$.
\end{remark}
Once we have Proposition \ref{prop0715_01}, by applying a flattening argument with the help of \cite[Lemma 2.14]{MR2352844} and Proposition \ref{propertyweighted} (4), we obtain the following extension result for $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{extension_lip}
Let $p$, $\theta$ and $\mathsf{s}$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop0715_01} and $\partial\Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
Then for $g \in W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega)$ and $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists
$u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma (\mathbb{R})$ such that
$$
\mathcal{T} u = g,
$$
where $\mathcal{T}$ is the trace operator from $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1 (\mathbb{R})$ to $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega )$ as in Corollary \ref{trace_optimal}.
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma (\mathbb{R})} \le N\|g\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}(\mathbb{R} \times \partial\Omega )},
\end{equation}
where $N=N(n, p, \theta, \gamma, M, K, R)$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}}
\label{main}
In Section \ref{trace} we proved the trace part of Theorem \ref{thm0716_01} when $\gamma = 1$. In this section we prove the trace theorem for any $\gamma \geq 1$, which together with the extension theorems in Section \ref{exten} completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}.
To treat the case with $\gamma \geq 1$, we first extend the result in Lemma \ref{lem0901} so that the denseness holds for all $\gamma \geq 1$.
For the proof, we use the following observation.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0905_2}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$, and $n-1 < \theta < n - 1 + p$. If $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ with $\gamma \ge 1$ and $\mathcal{T} u = 0$, then $u \in \mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq210404}
\left\| u \right\|_{\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)} \le N \left\| u \right\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)}
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n, p, \theta)$ if $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and $N = N(n, p, \theta, M, K, R)$ if $\partial \Omega \in C^{0, 1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first remark that, since $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T) \subset \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ for $\gamma \geq 1$, the trace operator $\mathcal{T}$ in the lemma is the one from $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ to $W_p^{s/2, s}\left( \left(S, T \right) \times \partial\Omega \right)$ in Proposition \ref{prop0712_01} or Corollary \ref{trace_optimal} by viewing $u$ as an element of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$ (with an extension from $(S, T)$ to $\mathbb{R}$ as in Remark \ref{finite_time}, if necessary).
To prove the lemma, it suffices to show that $u \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta - p}(S, T)$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0411_01}
\|u \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta - p}(S, T)} \le N\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, once we have the above inequality, we use Proposition \ref{propertyweighted} (2) and (5) sufficiently many times until we have the estimate \eqref{eq210404} (see the proof of \cite[Lemma 2.14]{MR2386392}).
We now prove \eqref{eq0411_01} only for $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$.
The other case can be treated as earlier using a partition of unity and a flattening argument.
Let $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$.
Since $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T) \subset \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(S, T)$, by Lemma \ref{lem0901}, there exists a sequence $\{u^m\} \subset C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^n_+})$ such that $u^m \to u$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$.
By Proposition \ref{prop0712_01} with $\mathcal{T} u = 0$, we see that $u_m(t,0,x') \to 0$ in $W_p^{s/2,s}((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ as $m \to \infty$.
In particular, $u^m(t,0,x') \to 0$ in $L_p((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})$ as $m \to \infty$.
After relabeling, we may assuming that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0411_05}
\|u^m(\cdot,0,\cdot)\|_{L_p((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})} < \frac{1}{m}.\end{equation}
Find an infinitely differentiable function $\zeta(x_1)$ such that $\zeta(x_1) = 0$ for $x_1 \leq 0$ and $\zeta(x_1) = 1$ for $x_1 \geq 1$.
Then set $\zeta_m(x_1) = \zeta(m x_1)$ and
\[
\tilde{u}^m(t,x_1,x') = \zeta_m(x_1)u^m(t,x_1,x').
\]
Since $\tilde{u}^m(t,0,x') = 0$, by Hardy's inequality it follows easily that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0411_04}
\|\tilde{u}^m\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta-p}(S,T)} \leq N \|D\tilde{u}^m\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)},
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n,p,\theta)$.
Thus, to complete the proof of \eqref{eq0411_01}, it only remains to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0411_03}
\|D_1\tilde{u}^m - D_1 u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} \to 0
\end{equation}
as $m \to \infty$.
Indeed, because $u^m \to u$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$ it is clear that
\[
\|\tilde{u}^m - u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} + \|D_{x'}\tilde{u}^m - D_{x'}u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} \to 0
\]
as $m \to \infty$.
This combined with \eqref{eq0411_03} and \eqref{eq0411_04} implies
\[
\|u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta-p}(S,T)} \leq N \|Du\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)},
\]
which proves \eqref{eq0411_01} upon recalling that $\|Du\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} \leq \|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(S, T)}$ when $\gamma \geq 1$.
To prove \eqref{eq0411_03}, observe that
\[
\|D_1\tilde{u}^m - D_1 u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} \leq \|\zeta'_m u^m \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} + \|\zeta_m D_1 u^m - D_1 u\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)},
\]
where the last term clearly vanishes as $m \to \infty$.
Thus, we prove
\begin{equation}
\label{eq0411_06}
\|\zeta'_m u^m \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)} \to 0 \quad \text{as} \quad m \to \infty.
\end{equation}
Since
\[
|u^m(t,x_1,x')| \leq \int_0^{x_1} |D_1u^m(t,r,x')| \, dr + |u^m(t,0,x')|,
\]
by multiplying both sides of this inequality by $|\zeta'_m(x_1)|$ and using Minkowski's inequality, we get
\[
|\zeta'_m(x_1)|\|u^m(\cdot,x_1,\cdot)\|_p \leq |\zeta'_m(x_1)|\int_0^{x_1} \|D_1u^m(\cdot,r,\cdot)\|_p \, d r
\]
\[
+ |\zeta'_m(x_1)|\|u^m(\cdot,0,\cdot)\|_p,
\]
where $\|\cdot\|_p = \|\cdot\|_{L_p((S,T) \times \mathbb{R}^{n-1})}$ and by H\"{o}lder's inequality
\[
\int_0^{x_1} \|D_1u^m(\cdot,r,\cdot)\|_p \, dr \leq N x_1^{1 - \frac{\theta-n+1}{p}} \left(\int_0^{x_1} \|D_1u^m(\cdot,r,\cdot)\|_p^p \, r^{\theta - n} \, dr\right)^{1/p}.
\]
Hence,
\[
\|\zeta'_m u^m \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)}^p \leq \int_0^\infty |\zeta_m'(x_1)|^p \|u^m(\cdot,0,\cdot)\|_p^p \, x_1^{\theta - n} \, dx_1
\]
\[
+ N \int_0^\infty |\zeta_m'(x_1)|^p x_1^{p-1} \int_0^{x_1} \|D_1u^m(\cdot,r,\cdot)\|_p^p \, r^{\theta - n} \, dr \, dx_1 =: I_1 + I_2,
\]
where by the choice of $\zeta_m$ and \eqref{eq0411_05}
\[
I_1 \leq \int_0^{\frac{1}{m}} m^p m^{-p} x_1^{\theta - n} \, dx_1 \leq N \left(\frac{1}{m}\right)^{\theta - n + 1} \to 0
\]
as $m \to \infty$.
For $I_2$, we have
\[
I_2 = N \int_0^\infty \|D_1u^m(\cdot,r,\cdot)\|_p^p \, r^{\theta - n} \int_r^\infty |\zeta'_m(x_1)|^p x_1^{p-1} \, dx_1 \, dr
\]
\[
\leq N \int_0^{\frac{1}{m}} \|D_1u^m(\cdot,r,\cdot)\|_p^p \, r^{\theta - n} \, dr \to 0
\]
as $m \to \infty$ because $Du^m \to Du$ in $\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(S,T)$.
This proves \eqref{eq0411_06}.
Therefore, \eqref{eq0411_03} is proved, and so is \eqref{eq0411_01}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem0603_1}
Let $1< p < \infty$, $-\infty \le S < T \le \infty$ and $n-1 < \theta <n-1+p$.
If $\gamma \ge 1$, $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ is dense in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem0905_2}, let $\mathcal{T}$ be the trace operator from $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1( S, T)$ to $W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$.
On the other hand, by Propositions \ref{prop0715_01} and \ref{extension_lip} there is an extension operator $\mathcal{S}$ such that
$$
\mathcal{S} : W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega) \to \mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}( S, T)
$$
for a positive integer $k$ with $k \le \gamma < k+1$.
Indeed, to see this, it is enough to consider $(S, T) = \mathbb{R}$.
If $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$, recall that $\mathcal{S} g$ in Proposition \ref{prop0715_01} is not only in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(\mathbb{R})$ but also in $\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}(\mathbb{R} \times \Omega)$ as noted in Remark \ref{rmk0117}. For $\partial \Omega \in C^{0, 1}$, it is also true by the boundedness of $\Omega$.
Using the above operators $\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{S}$, for $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$, which is an element of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$ as well, we have
$$
\mathcal{T} u \in W_{p}^{s/2, s}( (S, T) \times \partial\Omega), \quad \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u \in \mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}( S, T ) \cap \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T).
$$
Since $\mathcal{T} \left( \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u\right) = \mathcal{T} u$, i.e. $\mathcal{T}\left(u - \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u \right) = 0$ and $u - \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$, we know $u - \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u \in \mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ by Lemma \ref{lem0905_2}. That is, we decompose $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ by
$$
u = \left( u - \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u \right) + \mathcal{S} \mathcal{T} u := u_1 + u_2
$$
where $u_1 \in \mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ and $u_2 \in \mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}(S, T )$.
For approximating $u_1$, it is well known that $C_0^{\infty}\left( [S, T] \times \Omega \right)$ is dense in $\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma( S, T )$ and $\| u_1 \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma} ( S, T )} \le N \| u_1 \|_{\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma} ( S, T )}$ when $\Omega$ is bounded.
If $\Omega = \mathbb{R}^n_+$, it may not be $\| u_1 \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma( S, T )} \le N \| u_1 \|_{\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)}$, but we make use of Lemma \ref{lem0911} with the fact that $\| v \|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)} \le N \| v \|_{\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)}$ for $v \in \mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ such that $v$ vanishes for large $x_1$. On the other hand, for $u_2$, we know $C_0^{\infty}(\overline{ (S, T) \times \Omega}) $ is dense in $\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}(S, T )$ (Lemma \ref{lem0905_1}) and $\mathcal{W}_{p, \theta + kp}^{k+1}(S, T) \subset \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^k(S, T) \subset \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^\gamma(S, T)$ (Lemma \ref{lem0910_01}).
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}]
First, note that the even extension with respect to the $t$ variable allows us to concentrate on the case $T = \infty$.
To prove the trace part, by Lemma \ref{lem0603_1}, it is enough to prove \eqref{eq_trace} for $u \in C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega}) \cap \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$, which then follows directly from the inequality \eqref{eq1001} or \eqref{eq1002} with the inclusion $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(\mathbb{R}) \subset \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(\mathbb{R})$.
The extension part is just Proposition \ref{prop0715_01} and Corollary \ref{extension_lip}.
The theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Since $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$ for $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ with $\gamma \geq 1$ and $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ is dense in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$ (see Lemma \ref{lem0901}), we may define $\mathcal{T} u$ to be the limit in $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2,\mathsf{s}}((S,T) \times \partial \Omega)$ of the sequence $u^m|_{(S,T) \times \partial \Omega}$, where $u^m \in C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ and $u^m \to u$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^1(S,T)$.
In this way, we may not need the denseness of $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$.
Our results show that one can choose a trace defining sequence $\{u^m\} \subset C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ with the convergence $u^m \to u$ in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$.
The result (and its proof) that $C_0^\infty(\overline{(S,T) \times \Omega})$ is dense in $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p,\theta}^\gamma(S,T)$ for $\gamma \geq 1$ may be of independent interest.
\end{remark}
\section{Boundary value problems}
\label{app}
Throughout this section we assume that $\Omega$ is a bounded $C^1$ domain, i.e., $\partial \Omega \in C^1$ as in \cite{MR2111792}.
More precisely, there exist constants $R, K\in(0,\infty)$ so that for any
$x_0 \in \partial \Omega$ there exists a one-to-one continuously differentiable mapping $\Psi$ of
$B_{R}(x_0)$ onto a domain $G \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
(i) $G_+:=\Psi(B_{R}(x_0) \cap \Omega) \subset \mathbb{R}^n_+$ and
$\Psi(x_0)=0$;
(ii) $\Psi(B_{R}(x_0) \cap \partial \Omega)= G \cap \{y\in
\mathbb{R}^n:y^1=0 \}$;
(iii) $\|\Psi\|_{C^{1}(B_{R}(x_0))} \leq K $ and
$|\Psi^{-1}(y_1)-\Psi^{-1}(y_2)| \leq K |y_1 -y_2|$ for any $y_i
\in G$;
(iv) $D\Psi$ is uniformly continuous in $B_{R}(x_{0})$.
Thanks to Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}, we are now able to deal with non-zero boundary value problems for divergence/non-divergence type parabolic equations in weighted Sobolev spaces.
To state and prove the results, we introduce some conditions on the lower-order coefficients $b = (b^1,\ldots,b^n), \tilde{b} = (\tilde{b}^1, \ldots, \tilde{b}^n)$, and $c$ as follows.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption_div}
There exist constants $\Lambda$ and $\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] for $(t, x) \in (0, T) \times \Omega$,
\[
\left|b(t, x) \right| + \rho(x)| \tilde{b}(t, x) | +\rho(x)\left| c(t, x)\right| \le \Lambda;
\]
\item[(ii)] for $x \in \Omega$,
\[
\limsup_{\rho(x) \to 0} \sup_{t \in (0, T)} \rho(x)| \tilde{b}(t, x) | \le \varepsilon.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Recall the definition of $W_{p, 0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ introduced in Section \ref{setting}.
One can check that $W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega) = W_{p,0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((S, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ if $\mathsf{s}p < 2$ by a standard approximation argument.
\begin{theorem}[Divergence equation]
\label{thm0914_01}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $T \in (0, \infty)$, and $n-1 < \theta < n-1+p $ with $\mathsf{s} = \left( n - 1 + p - \theta \right)/p$.
Then there exists a positive constant $\varepsilon$ depending only on $n$, $p$, $\theta$, and $K$ such that under Assumption \ref{assumption_div}, the equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq200914_04}
- u_t + D_i \left(D_iu + b^iu \right) + \tilde{b}^i D_i u + cu &= D_if_i \\
\label{eq200914_05}
u|_{(0, T) \times \partial \Omega} &= g
\end{align}
admits a unique solution $u\in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}^{1}_{p,\theta}(0,T)$ with $u(0,\cdot) = 0$ for any $f_i \in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(0,T)$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$, and $g \in W_{p, 0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)$. Moreover, for this solution we have
\begin{equation}
\label{200914_06}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}^{1}_{p,\theta}(0,T)} \leq
N\left( \sum_{i=1}^n \| f_i \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta}(0,T)} + \|g\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)} \right),
\end{equation}
where $N=N(n, p,\theta, T, K, R, \Lambda, \operatorname{diam}(\Omega))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
For simplicity's sake, we only deal with the Laplace operator in the equation \eqref{eq200914_04}.
However, Theorem \ref{thm0914_01} can cover an equation with $D_i(a^{ij}D_ju)$ in place of $\Delta u$ as long as the equation is uniquely solvable in the corresponding weighted Sobolev spaces (indeed, $\mathfrak{H}^{1}_{p,\theta}$) with the homogeneous boundary condition, and there are many results on the unique solvability of zero boundary value problems in weighted Sobolev spaces under weaker conditions on $a^{ij}(t,x)$. For instance, one can have $a^{ij}$ in the class of functions with vanishing mean oscillations (VMO).
We refer the reader to \cite{MR2990037, MR3147235, MR3318165, MR3541508, arXiv:1809.01325}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm0914_01}]
By Theorem \ref{thm0716_01}, we have an extension $v \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(0, T)$ of $g$ such that $v(0, \cdot) = 0$ since $g \in W_{p, 0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)$.
From the definition of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(0, T)$ and Assumption \ref{assumption_div} (i), we have
\[
b^iv \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(0, T),\quad \tilde{b}^iD_iv,\,\, cv \in \mathbb{L}_{p, \theta + p}(0, T) \subset \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(0, T)
\]
for $i = 1, \ldots, n$. Thus
\[
D_i(f_i - D_iv - b^iv) + v_t - \tilde{b}^iD_iv - cv \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{-1}(0,T).
\]
Now by \cite[Theorem 6.6]{MR3147235}, there exists an $\varepsilon = \varepsilon(n, p, \theta, K)>0$ such that under Assumption \ref{assumption_div} there is a unique solution $w \in \mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^1(0, T)$ of the equation
$$
-w_t + D_i \left( D_i w + b^i w \right) + \tilde{b}^iD_iw + cw
$$
$$
= D_i\left( f_i - D_iv - b^iv \right) + v_t - \tilde{b}^iD_iv - cv := D_i\tilde{f_i} + \tilde{f_0}
$$
in $(0, T) \times \Omega$ and $w(0, \cdot) = 0$ with the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{sol_homo_div}
\|w\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^1(0, T)} \le N\|w\|_{\mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^1(0, T)} \le N \left( \| \tilde{f_i} \|_{\mathbb{L}_{p, \theta}(0, T)} + \| \tilde{f_0} \|_{\mathbb{H}_{p, \theta+p}^{-1}(0, T)} \right),
\end{equation}
where $N = N(n, p, \theta, T, K, \Lambda, \operatorname{diam}(\Omega))$ and the first inequality is due to the boundedness of $\Omega$.
Note that the assumption for $b$ and $c$ in Assumption \ref{assumption_div} (i) is stronger than the corresponding one in \cite{MR3147235}.
Then $u = v + w$ is the desired solution to \eqref{eq200914_04}--\eqref{eq200914_05}. The estimate \eqref{200914_06} follows from \eqref{sol_homo_div} and \eqref{extension}.
\end{proof}
Similarly, we obtain the next theorem with the help of \cite[Theorem 7.7]{MR2990037}. Note that the assumption for $c$ in Assumption \ref{assumption_nondiv} (i) is stronger than the corresponding one in \cite{MR2990037}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption_nondiv}
There exist constants $\Lambda$ and $\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] for $(t, x) \in (0, T) \times \Omega$,
\[
\rho(x)| b(t, x) | +\rho(x)\left| c(t, x)\right| \le \Lambda;
\]
\item[(ii)] for $x \in \Omega$,
\[
\limsup_{\rho(x) \to 0}\sup_{t \in (0, T)} \rho(x)\left| b(t, x)\right| \le \varepsilon.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
\begin{theorem}[Non-divergence equation]
\label{thm0601_3}
Let $1 < p < \infty$, $T \in (0, \infty)$, and $n-1 < \theta < n-1+p $ with $\mathsf{s} = \left( n - 1 + p - \theta \right)/p$.
Then there exists a positive constant $\varepsilon$ depending only on $n$, $p$, $\theta$, and $K$ such that under Assumption \ref{assumption_nondiv}, the equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq200914_01}
- u_t + \Delta u + b^iD_iu + cu &= f \\
\label{eq200914_02}
u|_{(0, T) \times \partial \Omega} &= g
\end{align}
admits a
unique solution $u\in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}^{2}_{p,\theta}(0,T)$ with $u(0,\cdot) = 0$ for any
$f\in \mathbb{L}_{p,\theta + p}(0,T)$ and $g \in W_{p, 0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)$. Morerover, for this solution we have
\begin{equation}
\label{200914_03}
\|u\|_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}^{2}_{p,\theta}(0,T)} \leq
N\left(\| f\|_{\mathbb{L}_{p,\theta + p}(0,T)} + \|g\|_{W_p^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)} \right),
\end{equation}
where $N=N(n, p,\theta, T, K, R, \Lambda, \operatorname{diam}(\Omega) )$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{regularity}
In \cite[Theorem 2.10]{MR2111792}, the second author of this paper and Krylov proved that, for given $f \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{\gamma}(0, T)$, $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$, there is a unique solution $u \in \mathfrak{H}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma+2}(0, T)$ to the equation
\[
-u_t + a^{ij}D_{ij}u + b^i D_iu + cu = f.
\]
For this, they imposed some regularity conditions (see Assumption 2.3 in \cite{MR2111792}) on the coefficients, but the boundary of the domain is to be only $\partial\Omega \in C^1$ regardless of $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$.
On the other hand, Theorem \ref{thm0716_01} (and Remark \ref{finite_time}) allows an extension $\mathcal{S} g \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma}(0, T)$ for any $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$, provided that $g \in W_{p}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ with $\partial\Omega \in C^{0,1}$ and $\mathsf{s} = (p-\theta+n-1)/p$, where $s$ is independent of $\gamma$.
Thus, in Theorem \ref{thm0601_3}, if we further assume that the coefficients $b$ and $c$ are sufficiently smooth (we are assuming $a^{ij} = \Delta$ just for the simplicity) and $\gamma \ge -1$, we have a unique solution $u \in \widetilde{\mathfrak{H}}_{p, \theta}^{\gamma + 2}(0, T)$ to the equation \eqref{eq200914_01}--\eqref{eq200914_02} with $u(0, \cdot) = 0$ for any $g \in W_{p, 0}^{\mathsf{s}/2, \mathsf{s}}((0, T) \times \partial\Omega)$ and $f \in \mathbb{H}_{p, \theta + p}^{\gamma}(0, T)$. (Here, we need $\gamma \ge -1$ for the well-definedness of $\mathcal{T} u$.) That is, we obtain higher regularity of a solution to the equation \eqref{eq200914_01}-\eqref{eq200914_02} without any further regularity conditions on $g$ and $\partial\Omega$ other than those used in Theorem \ref{thm0601_3}.
The same statement holds for Theorem \ref{thm0914_01} since one can change the divergence type operator into non-divergence form if the coefficients are sufficiently smooth.
\end{remark}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\def$'${$'$}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are among the most powerful astronomical explosions, occurring during the final stellar evolutionary stages of massive stars ($M > 8$--10\,$M_\odot$; e.g., \citealt[][]{Garry2004, Woosley2005, Groh2017}).
Extensive reviews of various types of CCSNe and criteria used to categorise them are provided by (among others) \citet[][]{Filippenko1997} and \citet[][]{Gal-Yam16}.
CCSNe are broadly classified according to the presence or absence of hydrogen (H) features in their spectra. SNe showing prominent H features are classified as Type II, while those lacking them are Type I. These classes are further divided into various subclasses. Type Ib SNe exhibit prominent helium (He) features in their spectra, whereas Type Ic SNe show neither H nor He obvious features. Prominent features of intermediate-mass elements such as O, Mg, and Ca are also seen in Type Ib and Type Ic SN spectra. Although SNe~Ib/c lack obvious H features in their early-time spectra, few studies have focused on the existence of H in SNe~Ib \citep[e.g.,][]{Branch2002, Branch2006, Hachinger2012, Elmhamdi2006}. Type IIb SNe form a transition class of objects that link SNe~II and SNe~Ib \citep[][]{Filippenko1988, Filippenko1993, Smartt2009}. The early-phase spectra of SNe~IIb display prominent H features, while unambiguous He features appear after a few weeks.
The main powering mechanism in normal SNe~Ib/c is radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co, leading to the deposition of energetic gamma rays that thermalise in the homologously expanding ejecta \citep[e.g.,][]{Arnett1980, Arnett1982, Arnett1996, Nadyozhin1994, Chatzopoulous2013, Nicholl2017}. Some SNe~Ib (e.g., SN2005bf, \citealt[][]{Maeda2007}) have also shown evidence for the light curves being powered by the spin-down of a young magnetar \citep[e.g.,][]{Ostriker1971, Arnett1989, Maeda2007, Kasen2010, Woosley2010, Chatzopoulous2013, Nicholl2017}. In the post-photospheric phase, when the SN ejecta become optically thin, the light curves of CCSNe are powered by energy deposition from the radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni to $^{56}$Co and finally to $^{56}$Fe. In many cases, however, the SN progenitor is embedded within dense circumstellar matter (CSM), so when the SN explosion occurs the SN ejecta may violently interact with the CSM, resulting in the formation of forward and reverse shocks that deposit their kinetic energy into the material which is radiatively released and thus powers the light curve \citep[e.g.,][]{ Chevalier1982, Chevalier1994, Moriya2011, Ginzberg2012, Chatzopoulous2013, Nicholl2017}.
Understanding the possible progenitors of H-stripped CCSNe is still a challenging task, though a few studies have been performed. For SNe~Ib/c, broadly two scenarios are proposed. The first involves relatively low-mass progenitors ($> 11\,M_\odot$) in binary systems \citep[][]{Podsiadlowski1992, Nomoto1995, Smartt2009}, where the primary star lost its H envelope through transfer of mass to a companion star. The second considers massive Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars ($> 20$--25\, $M_\odot$) that lose mass via stellar winds \citep[e.g.,][]{Gaskell1986, Eldridge2011, Groh2013}. In one relatively recent study, \citet[][]{Cao2013} reported a possible progenitor of SN iPTF13bvn identified in pre-explosion images within a 2$\sigma$ error radius, consistent with a massive WR progenitor star. The massive WR progenitor scenario is also supported by stellar evolutionary models. Based on observational evidence, from early- and nebular-phase spectroscopy of SNe~Ib, both massive WR stars as well as interacting binary progenitors are proposed. For SNe~IIb, the direct detections of objects in pre-explosion images of four cases also indicate either massive WR stars ($M_{\rm ZAMS} \approx 10$--28\,$M_\odot$; \citealt{Crockett2008}) or more extended yellow supergiants (YSGs) with $M_{\rm ZAMS} = 12$--17\,$M_\odot$ \citep[][]{Van2013, Folatelli2014, Smartt2015} as possible progenitors. The hydrodynamical modelling of the possible progenitors (identified either via direct imaging as in the case of iptf13bvn \citep[][]{Cao2013} or indirect methods which include nebular-phase spectral modelling \citep[][]{Jerkstrand2015, Uomoto1986}) and simulating their synthetic explosions can be vital to understanding their nature, physical conditions, circumstellar environment, and chemical compositions. Unfortunately, only a handful of such studies have been performed in the cases of stripped-envelope SNe, including the Type Ib SN iptf13bvn \citep[][]{Cao2013, Bersten2014, Paxton2018}, the famous Type IIb SN~2016gkg \citep[][]{Bersten2018}, and the Type IIb SN~2011dh \citep[][]{Bersten2012}. Our work takes such studies one step further as we perform hydrodynamical simulations of the possible progenitors of two SNe~Ib and also simulate their synthetic explosions.
In this paper, we explore the photometric and spectroscopic behaviour of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau, primarily using data obtained using the KAIT, Nickel, and Shane telescopes at Lick Observatory. Based on the analysis, we model and attempt to place constraints on the properties of the progenitors of these two SNe. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Data_red}, details about various telescopes and reduction procedures are presented. Sec.~\ref{sec:Photometric} provides methods to correct for the Milky Way and the host-galaxy extinction. Photometric properties of the two SNe, such as their bolometric light curve, temperature, radius, and velocity evolution, are also discussed. Sec.~\ref{sec:Spectral} includes the analysis describing the spectral evolution of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau, as well as comparisons with other similar and well-studied SNe; we also model the spectra of these SNe using {\tt SYN++}. Quasi-bolometric light-curve modelling is performed and discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:lc_model}; light curves corresponding to various powering mechanisms of SNe are fitted to the observed quasi-bolometric light curves. The assumptions and methods for modelling the possible progenitors of the two SNe and their evolution until the onset of core-collapse using MESA are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:mesa}. We discuss the assumptions and methods for producing the synthetic explosions using SNEC and STELLA in Sec.~\ref{sec:snec}; here, the comparisons between the parameters obtained through synthetic explosions and observed ones are presented. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Discussions}, we discuss the major results and findings of our analysis. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusions}, we summarise our work by briefly discussing the major outcomes and provide concluding remarks.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{finding_chart_15ap.pdf}
\caption{Left panel: The discovery image of SN~2015ap using the KAIT telescope in C-filter.The SN is marked inside the red circle. . Middle panel: A zoomed version of an $R$-band image with $2' \times 2'$ FoV obtained on 6 Oct. 2020 using a 4k $\times$ 4k CCD imager mounted on the 3.6\,m DOT. Right panel: A further zoomed, about $6'' \times 6''$ FoV of the location of SN~2015ap taken on 12 Aug. 2020 using the {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} in the F814W filter. The SN seems to be fainter than the detection limit of {\it HST} at this time. A log of {\it HST} observations is included in the Appendix.}
\label{fig:finding_chart15ap}
\end{figure*}
\section{Data acquisition and reduction }
\label{sec:Data_red}
SN~2015ap was discovered by KAIT as part of the Lick Observatory Supernova Search \citep[LOSS;][]{Filippenko2001}, in an 18\,s unfiltered image (close to the $R$ band; see \citealt{Li2003}) taken at 11:16:31 on 2015~Sep.~08 \citep[][]{Ross2015}, at $17.41\pm0.06$\,mag. The object was also marginally detected one day earlier on Sep. 07.47 with $18.07\pm0.22$\, mag. We measure its J2000.0 coordinates to be $\alpha=02^{\mathrm{h}}05^{\mathrm{m}}13.32^{\mathrm{s}}$, $\delta=+06^{\circ}06\arcmin08\farcs4$, with an uncertainty of $0\farcs5$ in each coordinate. SN~2015ap is $28\farcs3$ west and $16\farcs2$ south of the nucleus of its host galaxy IC~1776, which has a redshift of $z=0.011375 \pm 0.000017$ \citep[][]{Chengalur1993} and a barred-spiral morphology \citep[SB(s)d;][]{deVaucouleurs1991}). SN~2016bau was discovered by Ron Arbour in an unfiltered image taken at 23:22:33 on 2016~Mar.~13 \citep[][]{2016TNSTR.215....1A}, at 17.8\,mag. Its J2000.0 coordinates are given as $\alpha=11^{\mathrm{h}}20^{\mathrm{m}}59.02{\mathrm{s}}$, $\delta=+53^{\circ}10\arcmin25\farcs6$. SN~2016bau is $35\farcs3$ west and $15\farcs2$ north of the nucleus of its host galaxy NGC~3631, which has $z=0.00384 \pm 0.00014$ \citep[][]{Falco1999} and a morphology of SAc~C \citep[][]{Ann2015}. Both of these SNe were classified as SN~Ib on the basis of well-developed features of He~I, Fe~II (blended), and Ca~II, a few days after maximum brightness.
Figure~\ref{fig:finding_chart15ap} shows finder charts of SN~2015ap obtained with different telescopes.
The $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ follow-up images of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau were obtained with both the 0.76\,m Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope \citep[KAIT;][]{Filippenko2001} and the 1\,m Nickel telescope at Lick Observatory. All images were reduced using a custom pipeline\footnote{https://github.com/benstahl92/LOSSPhotPypeline} detailed by \citet[][]{Stahl2019}. Here, we briefly summarise the process for photometry. The image-subtraction procedures were applied in order to remove the host-galaxy light, using additional images obtained after the SN had faded below our detection limit. Point-spread-function (PSF) photometry was obtained using DAOPHOT \citep[][]{Stetson1987} from the IDL Astronomy User\textquotesingle s Library\footnote{http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/}.
Three nearby stars were chosen from the Pan-STARRS1\footnote{http://archive.stsci.edu/panstarrs/search.php} catalogue for calibration. Their magnitudes were first transformed into \citet{Landolt1992} magnitudes using the empirical prescription presented by \citet[][Eq. 6]{Torny2012} and then transformed to the KAIT/Nickel natural system. Apparent magnitudes were all measured in the KAIT4/Nickel2 natural system. The final results were transformed to the standard system using local calibrators and colour terms for KAIT4 and Nickel2 \citep[][]{Stahl2019}.
In addition, the $U$-band photometry was obtained from the {\it Swift} Optical/Ultraviolet Supernova Archive (SOUSA; https://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/sousa/; \citealt[][]{Brown2014}).
There are a total of 17 spectra of SN~2015ap; 15 of them were taken with the Kast spectrograph\footnote{https://mthamilton.ucolick.org/techdocs/instruments/kast} \citep{Miller&Stone1993} on the 3\,m Shane telescope at Lick Observatory and the other 2 were taken with LRIS\footnote{https://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/lris/lrishome.html} \citep{Oke1995} on the Keck-I 10\,m telescope. Except for the earliest spectrum taken on 10.531 Sep. 2015 (UT dates are used throughout this paper) using the Lick Shane/Kast system, 16 spectra in this paper were published by \citet[][]{Shivvers2018}; refer to that paper for details of the observations. Also, there are 8 spectra of SN~2016bau, all obtained with the Lick Shane/Kast system. We used the 600/4310 grism on the blue side, the 300/7500 grating on the red side, the d5500 dichroic, and a long slit $2''$ wide. For LRIS we used the 600/4000 grism on the blue side, the 400/8500 grating on the red side, and a $1''$ slit. The spectra were binned to 2\,\si{\angstrom}\ pixel$^{-1}$.
\section{Photometric Properties}
\label{sec:Photometric}
In this section, we discuss various photometric properties of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau, including their colour evolution, extinction, quasi-bolometric light curves, and various blackbody parameters.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{light_curve_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{$UBVRI$ light curves of SN~2015ap, where $BVRI$ data were obtained with KAIT while the $U$-band data were taken from the UVOT mounted on {\it Swift} (https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov).}
\label{fig:UBVRI_LC}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Color_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{The top panel shows a comparison of the $(B-V)$ colour of SN~2015ap (corrected for Milky Way extinction) with that of other Type Ib SNe. The data for SNe other than SN~2015ap are taken from \citet[][]{Stritzinger2018}. The bottom panel shows the $(B-V)$ colour curves of SN~2015ap and SN~2009jf (both corrected for Milky Way extinction).}
\label{fig:color_curve_2015ap}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Photometric properties of SN2015ap}
\label{subsec:Photometric_SN2015ap}
Most of the analysis in this paper has been performed with respect to $B$-band maximum brightness. To find its date, we fit a sixth-order polynomial to the $B$ data which well sample the photospheric phase. The resulting date of $B$-band maximum is MJD $57282.47\pm2.56$.
To determine the explosion epoch ($t_{\rm exp}$) of SN~2015ap, we use $R$-band data. The $R$ magnitudes are converted into fluxes and a sixth-order polynomial is fitted. We extrapolate the polynomial and the epoch corresponding to zero flux is taken as the explosion epoch, MJD $57272.72 \pm 1.49$, which is in good agreement with \citet[][]{Prentice2019}.
Figure~\ref{fig:UBVRI_LC} shows the $UBVRI$ light curves of SN~2015ap. The rise rate for the $U$-band light curve is faster than that of other bands, and similarly the $U$ decline rate is faster, making the $U$ light curve much narrower compared to other bands. As we go to longer wavelengths, we see that the light curves become broader, with the $I$-band light curve being the broadest.
\subsubsection{Colour evolution and extinction correction}
Distances are taken from the NASA Extragalctic Database\footnote{https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/} (NED), and a cosmological model with H$_{0} = 73.8$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$ is assumed throughout.
For SN~2015ap, we corrected for Milky Way (MW) extinction using NED following \citet[][]{Schlafly2011}. In the direction of SN~2015ap, the Galactic extinctions for the $U$, $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ bands are 0.185, 0.154, 0.117, 0.092, and 0.064\,mag, respectively.
The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:color_curve_2015ap} shows a comparison of the $(B-V)$ colour of SN~2015ap with that of other Type Ib SNe (all corrected for MW extinction). SN~2015ap seems to be the least reddened and lies below nearly all of the other SNe~Ib.
Following \citet[][]{Prentice2019}, the host-galaxy contamination is negligible and hence ignored. To further support this assumption, the $(B-V)$ colour curve of SN~2009jf \citep[][]{Sahu2011} is shown in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:color_curve_2015ap}, corrected for an MW colour excess of $E(B-V)_{\rm MW} = 0.112$\,mag (host extinction is negligible). In order to match the ($B-V$) colour curve of SN~2009jf, we need not apply any shift to the MW-corrected SN~2015ap $(B-V)$ colour curve.
Figure~\ref{fig:miller} illustrates the position of SN~2015ap in the Miller diagram \citep[][]{Richardson2014}. The distance modulus ($\mu$) of SN~2015ap is 33.269\,mag; thus, SN~2015ap appears to be a normal SN~Ib. For SN~2016bau, we calculate $\mu = 32.65$\,mag; based on its position in Figure~\ref{fig:miller}, it seems to be a moderately luminous, normal SN~Ib.
\subsubsection{Quasi-bolometric and bolometric light curves}
To obtain the quasi-bolometric light curves, we made use of the {\tt superbol} code \citep{Nicholl2018}. We first provided the extinction-corrected $U$, $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ data to {\tt superbol}. Thereafter, it mapped the light curve in each filter to a common set of times through the processes of interpolation and extrapolation. It then fit blackbodies to the spectral energy distribution (SED) at each epoch, up to the observed wavelength, to give the quasi-bolometric light curve by performing trapezoidal integration. The peak quasi-bolometric luminosity obtained through integrating the flux over a wavelength range of 4000--10,000\,\si{\angstrom}\ is $10^{(42.548\pm0.019)}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, in agreement with \citet[][]{Prentice2019}.
Figure~\ref{fig:bol_compare} shows a comparison of the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2015ap with that of other H-stripped CCSNe.
The code {\tt superbol} also provides the bolometric light curve, including the additional blackbody corrections to the observed quasi-bolometric light curve, by fitting a single blackbody to observed fluxes at a particular epoch and integrating the fluxes trapezoidally for a wavelength range of 100--25,000\,\si{\angstrom}.
The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2015ap} provides the resulting quasi-bolometric and bolometric light curves of SN~2015ap.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{miller.pdf}
\caption{The position of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau in the Miller diagram.}
\label{fig:miller}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Bol_compare_combined.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of quasi-bolometric light curves of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau, obtained by fitting a blackbody to the SED and integrating the fluxes over the wavelength range of 4000--10,000\,\si{\angstrom}, with that of other stripped-envelope CCSNe. Symbols are colour coded: red, green, and blue correspond to Type Ib, IIb, and Ic SNe, respectively.}
\label{fig:bol_compare}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Temperature, radius, and velocity evolution}
\label{tempradvel_SN2015ap}
From {\tt superbol}, the photospheric temperature ($T_{\rm BB}$) and radius ($R_{\rm BB}$) evolution of SN~2015ap are also obtained. During the initial phases, the photospheric temperature is high, reaching about 11,400\,K at $-6.18$\,d. Further, as the SN ejecta expand, cooling occurs and the temperature tends to fall, dropping to 4490\,K on +21.66\,d, then remaining nearly constant (Fig.~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2015ap}, second panel from top). A conventional evolution in radius is also seen. Initially, at an epoch of $-8$\,d, the photospheric radius is $4.14 \times 10^{14}$\,cm. Thereafter, the SN expands and its radius increases, reaching a maximum radius of $3.27 \times 10^{15}$\,cm, beyond which the photosphere seems to recede into the SN ejecta (Fig.~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2015ap}, third panel from top).
From the prior knowledge of the explosion epoch and radii at various epochs, we can estimate the photospheric velocity evolution of this SN, using $v_{\rm ph} = R_{\rm BB}/t$, where $t$ is the time since explosion. The bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2015ap} shows the velocity evolution of SN~2015ap.
From the known value of $t_{\rm exp}$, a rise time ($t_{\rm rise}$) of $14.8\pm2.2$\,d is obtained. The photospheric velocity near maximum light is 9000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ \citep[][]{Prentice2019}. With the known values of $t_{\rm rise}$, the photospheric velocity near maximum light, and a constant opacity ($\kappa$) of 0.07\,cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$, we also obtain the ejecta mass ($M_{\rm ej}$) and kinetic energy ($E_{\rm ke}$) from the \citet{Arnett1982} model by following Equations (1) and (3) of \citet[][]{Wheeler2015}: $2.2 \pm 0.6\,M_\odot$ and $(1.05\pm0.31) \times 10^{51}$\,erg, respectively. Our derived ejecta mass is slightly higher than that of \citet[][]{Prentice2019}, but less than \citet[][]{Anjasha2020}.
Corresponding to a peak luminosity of $(3.53\pm0.16) \times 10^{42}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, the amount of $^{56}$Ni synthesised is $0.14\pm0.02\,M_\odot$, calculated following \citet[][]{Prentice2016}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BB_param_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{The top panel shows the bolometric and quasi-bolometric light curves of SN~2015ap. Second panel: the temperature evolution of SN~2015ap. Third and fourth panels: the radius and velocity evolutions (respectively) obtained using blackbody fits. }
\label{fig:BB_param_SN2015ap}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Photometric properties of SN~2016bau}
\label{subsec:Photometric_SN2016bau}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{light_curve_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{$BVRI$ and Clear filter light curves of SN~2016bau.}
\label{fig:CBVRI_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
Following a method similar to that for SN~2015ap, the $B$-band maximum and the explosion epochs of SN~2016bau were determined to be MJD $57477.37 \pm 1.99$ and MJD $57462.54 \pm 0.97$, respectively. Figure~\ref{fig:CBVRI_SN2016bau} shows the $BVRI$ and Clear ($C$) filter light curves of SN~2016bau. Light curves in the shorter-wavelength bands are narrower compared to those in the longer-wavelength bands, following a trend similar to that of SN~2015ap. Also, the $C$ filter almost exactly replicates the $R$-band light curve, as expected \citep{Li2003}.
\subsubsection{Colour evolution and extinction correction}
\begin{figure} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Color_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{The top panel shows a comparison of the $(B-V)$ colour of SN~2016bau with that of other SNe~Ib (all corrected for MW extinction). The data for the other SNe are taken from \citet[][]{Stritzinger2018}. The bottom panel shows the $(B-V)$ colour curves of SN~2016bau and SN~2009jf, both corrected for MW extinction. To match the SN~2009jf colour curve, a shift of 0.566\,mag is required for the SN~2016bau colour curve.}
\label{fig:color_curve_2016bau}
\end{figure}
Similar to SN~2015ap, we corrected for MW extinction using NED following \citet[][]{Schlafly2011}. In the direction of SN~2016bau, the Galactic extinction for the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ bands is 0.060, 0.045, 0.036, and 0.025\,mag, respectively. The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:color_curve_2016bau} shows a comparison of the $(B-V)$ colour of SN~2016bau with that of other SNe~Ib. SN~2016bau seems to be heavily reddened and lies above nearly all of the other SNe~Ib. To correct for the host-galaxy extinction, we made use of the colour curve of SN~2009jf. We calculated the differences in the colours of the two SNe and took their weighted mean. In this calculation, we made use of data only in the range 0 to +20\,d for the reasons mentioned by \citet[][]{Stritzinger2018}. The resulting host-galaxy extinction is $E(B-V)_{\rm host} = 0.566\pm0.046$\,mag. Thus, in order to match the SN~2009jf $(B-V)$ colour curve, we need to shift the MW-corrected $(B-V)$ colour curve of SN~2016bau downward by 0.566\,mag, as shown in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:color_curve_2016bau}.
\subsubsection{Quasi-bolometric and bolometric light curves}
To obtain the quasi-bolometric and bolometric light curves of SN~2016bau, we used {\tt superbol}, as in the case of SN~2015ap. The extinction-corrected $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ data were given as input to {\tt superbol}. The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2016bau} shows the quasi-bolometric and bolometric light curves of SN~2016bau. Figure~\ref{fig:bol_compare} shows the comparison of the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2016bau obtained by integrating the flux over the wavelength range 4000--10,000\,\AA\ with other H-stripped CCSNe from \citet[][]{Prentice2019}. Here, SN~2016bau also seems to lie on the moderately bright end.
\subsubsection{Temperature, radius, and velocity evolution}
\label{tempradvel_SN2016bau}
Figure~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2016bau} also shows the evolution of the photospheric temperature ($T_{\rm BB}$) and radius ($R_{\rm BB}$) of SN~2016bau, obtained using {\tt superbol}. During the initial phases, the photospheric temperature is very high, reaching about 17,000\,K near 0\,d. Thereafter, as the SN ejecta expand, cooling occurs and the temperature falls, reaching 6000\,K at around +20\,d, then remaining nearly constant (Fig.~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2016bau}, second panel from top). A conventional evolution in radius is also seen (Fig.~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2016bau}, third panel from top). Initially, at an epoch of around $-6$\,d, the photospheric radius is $0.28 \times 10^{15}$\,cm. Following this, the supernova expands and its radius increases, reaching a maximum radius of $0.96 \times 10^{15}$\,cm, beyond which the photosphere seems to recede within the SN ejecta.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{BB_param_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{The top panel shows the bolometric and quasi-bolometric light curves of SN~2016bau. Second panel: the temperature evolution of SN~2016bau. Third and fourth panels: the radius and velocity evolution (respectively) obtained using blackbody fits.}
\label{fig:BB_param_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
From the prior knowledge of explosion epoch and radii at various epochs, we estimate the photospheric velocity evolution of this SN in the same way as for SN~2015ap. The bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:BB_param_SN2016bau} shows the velocity evolution of SN~2016bau.
From the prior knowledge of $t_{\rm exp}$, a rise time ($t_{\rm rise}$) of $17.09 \pm 1.29$\,d is obtained. The photospheric velocity near maximum light is $\sim 5000$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, obtained from a blackbody fit. With the known values of $t_{\rm rise}$, the photospheric velocity near maximum light, and a constant opacity ($\kappa$) 0.07\,cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$, we obtain the ejecta mass ($M_{\rm ej}$) and kinetic energy ($E_{\rm ke}$) following Equation (1) and Equation (3) of \citet[][]{Wheeler2015}; the results are $1.6 \pm 0.3\,M_\odot$ and $(0.24 \pm 0.04) \times 10^{51}$\,erg, respectively. Following \citet[][]{Prentice2016}, an amount of $0.055 \pm 0.006\,M_\odot$ of $^{56}$Ni is synthesised, corresponding to a peak luminosity of $(1.19 \pm 0.08) \times 10^{42}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$.
\section{Spectral studies of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau}
\label{sec:Spectral}
In this section, we discuss spectral features of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau and further compare their properties with other similar SNe. We modelled the spectra of these two SNe at different epochs using {\tt SYN++} \citep[][]{Branch2007, Thomas2011} and performed the spectral matching of the 12, 13, and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ spectral models given by \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015} with the spectra of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau at phases around 100\,d past explosion. In this section, we also estimate the velocities of various lines present in the spectra, using their absorption troughs.
\subsection{Spectral properties of SN~2015ap}
\label{subsec:Spec_evol_SN2015ap}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{spectral_evolution_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: the early-phase spectra up to +55\,d. Bottom panel: the spectral evolution beyond +55\,d since $B_{\rm max}$ of SN~2015ap.}
\label{fig:spectral_evol_SN2015ap}
\end{figure}
The top and bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_evol_SN2015ap} show the early phases ($-7$\,d to +55\,d) and late phases (+61\,d to +147\,d) spectral evolution, respectively. It is quite evident from the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_evol_SN2015ap} that initially SN~2015ap shows broad-lined features (at $-7$\,d and $-2$\,d), which later evolve to spectra of a normal Type Ib SN. The characteristic He~I line at 5876\,\si{\angstrom} of a typical SN~Ib is clearly seen in the spectra of SN~2015ap. We also see unambiguous He~I features at 6678\,\si{\angstrom} and 7065\,\si{\angstrom}, but these two lines are not as prominent as the one at 5876\,\si{\angstrom}. In the very early phases (up to +4\,d), the He~I line at 7065\,\si{\angstrom} is hard to identify. We see that the He~I absorption at 5876\,\si{\angstrom} is stronger than any other absorption features, and it is present in every spectrum up to +147\,d. The Fe~II feature near 5169\,\si{\angstrom} is very hard to be identified, and it seems to be highly blended with He~I 5016\,\si{\angstrom}.
The spectral evolution also shows the Ca~II near-infrared (NIR) feature, which is almost absent in the very early phases ($-7$\,d to +4\,d), but starts to develop very strongly from +22\,d onward. It is so strong that each spectrum on and after +22\,d shows it, even the lowest-SNR spectrum at +147\,d. The forbidden [Ca~II] feature near 7300\,\si{\angstrom} is almost absent at very early phases ($-7$\,d to +4\,d), then begins to develop very obviously in the spectra from +22\,d, and is present up to +89\,d. This [Ca~II] feature can also get blended with [O~II] emission at 7320\,\si{\angstrom} and 7330\,\si{\angstrom}. It almost disappears in the spectrum at +147\,d, though its absence may not be real owing to the very poor SNR of that spectrum. We also see the Ca~II~H\&K feature near 3934\,\si{\angstrom}, which is present in every spectrum.
From the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_evol_SN2015ap}, we see that as the spectra evolve, the absorption features of different lines tend to disappear and the emission features become more prominent. We see a very weak semiforbidden Mg~I] line, at 4571\,\si{\angstrom}. However we can clearly see the forbidden emission lines of [O~I] and [Ca~II], which indicates the onset of the nebular phase.
\subsubsection{Spectral comparison}
\label{subsec:spec_com_SN2015ap}
To investigate the spectroscopic behaviour of SN~2015ap, we compare its spectral features with those of other well-studied SNe~Ib such as SN~2004gq \citep[][]{Modjaz2014}, SN~2008D \citep[][]{Modjaz2014}, SN~2012au \citep[][]{Pandey2020}, SN~2009jf \citep[][]{Sahu2011, Modjaz2014}, iPTF13bvn \citep[][]{Srivastav2014a}, SN~2007uy \citep[][]{Modjaz2014, Milisavljevic2010}, SN~2007gr \citep[][]{Valenti2008, Modjaz2014}, and SN~2005bf \citep[][]{Modjaz2014}.
The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_comparison} shows the early phase ($-7$\,d) spectral comparison of SN~2015ap with these well-studied SNe~Ib. The spectral features of SN~2015ap look similar to those of SN~2008D and SN~2012au, compared to other SNe~Ib. We can see that the Ca~II~H\&K feature, the Mg~II feature, and the He~I P~Cygni profile match very well with those of SN~2008D, while in other SNe in the comparison sample, these features are much more developed. The blue end of the spectrum matches nicely with SN~2008D, while the redder part is featureless and much closer to SN~2012au and SN~2005bf. The He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} feature of SN~2015ap is completely different from that of SN~2007uy, but resembles that of SN~2008D and seems to be less evolved compared to that of SN~2004gq, SN~2012au, SN~2009jf, and iptf13bvn. The Fe~II profile in SN~2015ap is hard to detect, which may be due to a very high initial optical opacity. We try to estimate the velocities using the various absorption features. As the spectrum at this epoch is continuum dominated, only a few absorption features were visible. The velocity estimated using He~I absorption lines is $\sim$\,14,100\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{spectral_comparison_combined.pdf}
\caption{Spectral comparison of the spectra of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau at epochs $-7$\,d (top panel), +33\,d (middle panel), and +61\,d (bottom panel). Various important SN~Ib features have been compared with those of other similar-type SNe.}
\label{fig:spectral_comparison}
\end{figure}
Further, we compare the +33\,d spectrum of SN~2015ap with our comparison sample (middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_comparison}). At this epoch, the spectrum of SN~2015ap shows various P~Cygni profiles. We see that it almost exactly replicates the +22\,d spectrum of SN~2008D. The blended He~I and Fe~II profiles near 5016\,\si{\angstrom} well match those of other SNe~Ib, except for SN~2007uy, where the peak is almost absent, and for SN~2005bf, where it is double peaked. The He~I feature at 5876\,\si{\angstrom} matches well with other SNe~Ib except for the cases of SN~2007uy and SN~2005bf, where the absorption features seem to be much broader. Here, once again, SN~2007uy seems to match much less and SN~2008D seems to best match the +22\,d spectrum of SN~2015ap. The velocities estimated using the Ca~II NIR triplet and He~I absorption features are $\sim$\,7800\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 10000\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively.
For a much clear comparison, we compared the +61\,d spectrum of SN~2015ap (bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:spectral_comparison}) with spectra of other well-studied SNe~Ib. At this epoch also, the spectrum is still much closer to that of SN~2008D compared to other SNe~Ib. The blended Fe~II and He~I feature near 5016\,\si{\angstrom} shows an almost similar profile to that of SN~2008D. However, the 5876\,\si{\angstrom} He~I profile is narrower in SN~2015ap compared to SN~2008D. We can see the onset of the appearance of the [O~I] line in SN~2015ap, which differs from SN~2008D. The He~I profile is well matched in the cases of SN~1999dn and SN~2009jf, but the Ca~II NIR triplet of these SNe differs from that of SN~2015ap. Here the velocities estimated using the Ca~II NIR triplet and He~I absorption features are $\sim$\,6900\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 8100\, km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively.
\subsubsection{Spectral modelling}
\label{subsec:syn_SN2015ap}
After confidently identifying the features present in the spectra of SN~2015ap and comparing them with those of other well-studied SNe, we tried to model a few spectra at various epochs using {\tt SYN++}. The top panel in Figure~\ref{fig:syn_SN2015ap} shows the early-phase ($-7$\,d) spectrum of SN~2015ap. This spectrum displays weak and broad P~Cygni profiles of He~I, Ca~II~H\&K, and the Ca~II~NIR triplet, and also some blended features of Fe~II. We also show the best-matching synthetic spectrum, generated by {\tt SYN++}. The absorption features due to Ca~II~H\&K, Ca~II~NIR triplet, He~I, and Fe~II multiplets are easily reproduced. The photospheric velocity and blackbody temperature associated with the best-fit spectrum are 12,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 12,000\,K, respectively. We perform {\tt SYN++} matching to four additional spectra from epochs $-2$\,d to +33\,d (Fig.~\ref{fig:syn_SN2015ap}). With the passage of time, the SN expands, cools gradually, and its expansion velocity decreases slowly, so we see a gradual decrease in the values of these fitted parameters. The photospheric velocities during the phase of $-7$\,d to +33\,d vary from 13,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to 6800\,km\,s$^{-1}$, and the blackbody temperature varies from 12,000\,K to 4500\,K, which are in good agreement with those obtained photometrically from blackbody fits. Owing to the local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) approximation, {\tt SYN++} does not work well for the later epochs and cannot be used to fit the spectra.
To get an estimate of the progenitor mass, we used the +98.75\,d post-explosion spectrum of SN~2015ap and plotted it along with the 12, 13, and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectra from \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015} at 100\,d, after scaling by a factor of exp$(-2 \times \Delta t /111.4)$ \citep[][]{Jerkstrand2015}, where $\Delta t$ = 1.25, is the time difference between the epoch of the model spectrum and the epoch of the observed spectrum. We can see that the 12\,$M_{\odot}$ and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectra seem to reproduce the observed spectrum of SN~2015ap. The 12\,$M_{\odot}$ spectrum very nicely matches the observed spectrum throughout the entire wavelength range, while the 17\,$M_{\odot}$ spectrum slightly overproduces the flux near the Ca~II~NIR triplet close to 8500\,\si{\angstrom}. However, the 13\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectrum fails to explain the observed fluxes throughout the entire wavelength range. Thus, based on this analysis, a range of 12--17\,$M_{\odot}$ is expected for the possible progenitor mass of SN~2015ap, in agreement with that described by \citet[][]{Anjasha2020}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{syn_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{{\tt SYN++} modelling of the spectra of SN~2015ap at epochs $-7$\,d, -2\,d, +4\,d, +22\,d, and +33\,d. Prominent He~I features could be produced nicely.}
\label{fig:syn_SN2015ap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Jerkstrand_model_comparison_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{The $t = +98.75$\,d spectrum of SN~2015ap plotted along with the 12, 13, and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ models from \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015} at 100\,d scaled with an exponential factor exp$(-2 \times 1.25/111.4)$. The 12\,$M_{\odot}$ and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ models seem to best match the observed spectrum of SN~2015ap.}
\label{fig:jerkstrand_SN2015ap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{vel_evolution_combined.pdf}
\caption{(a) The temporal evolution of velocities of He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} and the Ca~II NIR triplet for SN~2015ap. (b) Same as (a) but for SN 2016bau. The bottom two panels show the comparison of these line velocities of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau with SNe 2007Y \citep[][]{Stritzinger2009}, 2009jf \citep[][]{Sahu2011}, iPTF13bvn \citep[][]{Srivastav2014a}, and 2008D \citep[][]{Modjaz2014}. }
\label{fig:vel_evolve}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Velocity evolution of various lines of SN~2015ap}
\label{subsec:Vel_evol_SN2015ap}
We used the blue--shifted absorption minima of P~Cygni profiles and the special-relativistic Doppler formula \citep[][]{Sher1968} to obtain the velocities of several lines. Figure~\ref{fig:vel_evolve}$a$ shows the He~I and the Ca~II NIR triplet velocity evolution of SN~2015ap. In the initial few days, the line velocities tend to decrease rapidly.
At an epoch of +24\,d, the velocities estimated using He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} and the Ca~II NIR triplet are $\sim$\,10,600\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 8200\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. The velocities estimated using these two lines drop to $\sim$\,9100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 7100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (respectively) at an epoch of +49\,d. In the late phases, the velocities decline gradually.
Figure~\ref{fig:vel_evolve}$c,d$, show comparisons of velocities obtained using the Ca~II NIR triplet and He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} features with other well-studied SNe. Initially the Ca~II NIR line velocity of SN~2015ap evolves in a manner similar to iptf13bvn, thereafter it decays slowly, attaining a velocity of $\sim$\,7600\,km\,s$^{-1}$ at +89\,d. We see that the ejecta velocity of SN~2015ap obtained using He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} is higher than that of other SNe~Ib but closer to SN~2008D.
\subsection{Spectral properties of SN~2016bau}
\label{subsec:Spec_evol_SN2016bau}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{spectral_evolution_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{Various line identifications in the overall spectral evolution of SN~2016bau. Strong He~I features along with other important lines are indicated.}
\label{fig:spec_evol_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:spec_evol_SN2016bau} shows the spectral evolution of SN~2016bau for a period of $-14$\,d to +107\,d. In the first spectrum ($-14$\,d), we see well-developed He~I features (5876, 6678, and 7065\,\si{\angstrom}). Also, the spectrum on this particular epoch displays a weak and broad Ca~II~NIR feature, but with the passage of time (beyond $\sim +33$\,d), prominent Ca~II NIR features start to appear. We also see that in the initial phases there is a strong Ca~II~H $\&$ K feature, but it becomes progressively weaker at later phases. As the phase approaches the date of $B$-band maximum brightness, the He~I features start to appear much more strongly, as seen in the spectra at $-11$\,d, +4\,d, and +18\,d. Beyond $-11$\,d, the longer wavelengths exhibit strong Ca~II~NIR features. The spectra also display very strong P~Cygni profiles of He~I at 5016\,\si{\angstrom} after $t = -11$\,d. The emergence of very strong features of He~I in the early-time spectra confirms this SN to be of Type Ib.
\subsubsection{Spectral comparison}
\label{subsec:spec_com_SN2016bau}
To investigate the spectroscopic behaviour of SN~2016bau, we have compared its spectral features with those of other well-studied SNe~Ib. We used a sample similar to that for SN~2015ap.
The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_comparison} shows the early-phase ($-11$\,d) spectral comparison of SN~2016bau with other well-studied H-stripped CCSNe. The spectral features of SN~2016bau look much more similar to those of SN~2012au, SN~2009jf, and SN~1999dn compared to other SNe. we can see that the Ca~II~ H\&K feature, the Mg~II feature, and the He~I P~Cygni profile of SN~2016bau match very well those of SN~2012au, SN~2009jf, and SN~1999dn. The He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} feature of SN~2016bau is completely different from that of SN~2007uy, SN~2015ap, and SN2008D. As with SN~2015ap, the blended Fe~II profile in SN~2016bau is hard to detect, which may be due to a very high initial optical opacity. The spectrum at this epoch has nicely developed He~I features. The velocity estimated using the He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} absorption line is $\sim$\,15,600\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
The middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:spectral_comparison} shows the +33\,d spectral comparison of SN~2016bau with other well-studied SNe~Ib. The spectrum at this epoch contains many P~Cygni profiles of various lines. These spectral features look most similar to those of SN~2008D and SN~2015ap, compared to other SNe~Ib. We see that the Ca~II NIR feature, the Fe~II feature, and the He~I P~Cygni profile match very well those of SN~2008D and SN~2015ap, compared to other SNe. SN~2009jf also seems to match nicely in the redder part of the spectrum. The He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} feature of SN~2016bau is completely different from those of SN~2007uy, SN~2005bf, SN~2004gq, and SN~2007gr, but resembles those of SN~2008D, SN~2015ap, and SN2009jf. The He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} profile of SN~2016bau seems to be more asymmetric and narrower than that of iptf13bvn. At this epoch, the velocities estimated using the absorption features of He~I and the Ca~II NIR triplet are $\sim$\,8100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 4900\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively.
For much clearer comparisons, we also compared the +61\,d spectrum of SN~2016bau (bottom panel of Figure.~\ref{fig:spectral_comparison}) with other well-studied H-stripped CCSNe spectra. At this epoch, the bluer part of the spectrum is much closer to SN~2008D compared to other SNe~Ib. Here the blended Fe~II and He~I features near 5016\,\si{\angstrom} show profiles nearly similar to those of SN~2008D and SN~2009jf. However, the 5876\,\si{\angstrom} He~I profile is broader in SN~2016bau compared with SN~2008D. We can see that the onset of the appearance of [O~I] in SN~2016bau is slightly different from that of SN~2008D, while it matches nicely that of SN~2009jf. The He~I profile is well matched in the case of SN~2008D. Here the velocities estimated using the Ca~II NIR and He~I absorption features are $\sim$\,3700\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 7600\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively.
\subsubsection{Spectral modelling}
\label{subsec:syn_SN2016bau}
After confidently identifying various spectral features, we tried to model the spectra of SN~2016bau at different epochs using {\tt SYN++}. The top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:syn_SN2016bau} shows the early-phase ($-14$\,d) spectrum of SN~2016bau. It contains many broad P~Cygni profiles of He~I, Ca~II~H\&K, the Ca~II~NIR triplet, and also some blended features of Fe~II. In this figure we have also presented the best-matching synthetic spectrum generated by {\tt SYN++}. The modelled spectrum easily reproduces the absorption features of Ca~II~H\&K, Ca~II~NIR, He~I, and the Fe~II multiplet. The photospheric velocity and blackbody temperature associated with the best-fit spectrum are 16,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and 9000\,K respectively. We performed {\tt SYN++} matching for four additional spectra which covers a period of $-11$\,d to +33\,d (subsequent panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:syn_SN2016bau}). With the passage of time, the SN expands and cools gradually, and its expansion velocity decreases slowly, so we see a gradual decrease in the fit parameters such as velocity and temperature in the later phases. The photospheric velocity during the phase of $-14$\,d to +33\,d varies from 16,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to 8000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and the blackbody temperature ranges from 9000\,K to 4000\,K, in good agreement with values obtained photometrically from blackbody fits.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{syn_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{{\tt SYN++} modelling of the spectra of SN~2016bau at epochs $-14$\,d, $-11$\,d, $+4$\,d, $+18$\,d, and $+33$\,d.}
\label{fig:syn_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
We also try to match the +121\,d spectrum of SN~2016bau with the 12\,$M_{\odot}$, 13\,$M_{\odot}$, and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectra at +100\,d from \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015}, scaled with a factor of exp$(-2 \times \Delta t /111.4)$ \citep[][]{Jerkstrand2015}, where $\Delta t$ = 21, is the time difference of the epoch of model spectrum and the epoch of observed spectrum. We can see that all three models over--predict the observed fluxes from 3000\,\si{\angstrom} to around 6000\,\si{\angstrom}, beyond which the 12\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectrum seems to best describe the observed spectrum. It could nicely explain the [Ca~II] emission near 7300\,\si{\angstrom} and the Ca~II~NIR feature near 8500\,\si{\angstrom}. The 13\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectrum also produces the [Ca~II] emission but fails to explain the observed fluxes near the Ca~II-NIR triplet. The 17\,$M_{\odot}$ model spectrum overpredicts the flux throughout the entire wavelength range and thus fails to explain the spectrum of SN~2016bau. Hence, based on our analysis, a slightly low-mass progenitor ($\leq 12$\,$M_{\odot}$) is expected.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Jerkstrand_model_comparison_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{The $t = +121$\,d spectrum of SN~2016bau plotted along with the 12, 13, and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ models from \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015} at 100\,d scaled with an exponential factor exp$(-2 \times 21/111.4)$. The 12\,$M_{\odot}$ model seems to best match the spectrum of SN~2016bau.}
\label{fig:jerkstrand_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Velocity evolution of Various lines of SN~2016bau}
\label{subsec:Vel_evol_SN2016bau}
We used the blue-shifted absorption minima of P~Cygni profiles to obtain the velocities of He~I and Ca~II NIR lines. Figure~\ref{fig:vel_evolve}$b$ shows the He~I and Ca~II NIR velocity evolution of SN~2016bau. In the initial few days, the line velocities tend to decrease rapidly, but in later phases, the velocities decline gradually. At an early epoch of $-14$\,d, the velocities estimated using He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} and the Ca~II NIR triplet are $\sim$\,15,600\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $\sim$\,11,400\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively. The velocities estimated using these two lines drop to $\sim$\,7800\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $\sim$\,4400\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (respectively) at an epoch of +47\,d. Beyond +47\,d, the velocities continue to decline with a slower rate as compared to initial decline rate.
Figure~\ref{fig:vel_evolve}$c,d$ show the comparison of these two line velocities with other well-studied SNe. Initially, the Ca~II NIR velocity declines very fast but in the later epochs, only gradual decline is seen. It evolves in a manner very similar to iPTF13bvn, but in the late phases, the velocities are slower than other SNe.
The velocity obtained using He~I 5876\,\si{\angstrom} of SN~2016bau evolves in a manner similar to that of other SNe~Ib, but much closer to SN~2009jf and iPTF13bvn. The He~I line velocity of SN~2016bau at +33\,d reaches $\sim$\,8200\,km\,s$^{-1}$, nearly equal to those of SN~2009jf and iPTF13bvn.
\section{MINIM modelling of the quasi-bolometric light curve}
\label{sec:lc_model}
In this section, we fit the radioactive decay (RD) and the magnetar (MAG) powering mechanisms, as discussed by \citealt[][]{Chatzopoulous2013} (see also \citealt{Wheeler2017, Kumar2020, Kumar2021}), by employing the {\tt MINIM} \citep[][]{Chatzopoulous2013} code. {\tt MINIM} is a $\chi^{2}$-minimisation fitting code that utilises the Price algorithm \citep[][]{Brachetti1997}. In the RD model, the radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co leads to the deposition of energetic gamma-rays that are assumed to thermalise in the homologously expanding SN ejecta and thus powering the light curve. In the MAG model, the light curves are powered by the energy released by the spin-down of a young magnetar, located in the centre of the SN ejecta. Following \citet[][]{Prentice2019}, we have adopted a constant opacity, $\kappa$ = 0.07\,cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$, for both SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau.
\begin{table*}
\caption {Minimum $\chi^2$/dof parameters for SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau for the RD model.}
\label{tab:parameter_RD}
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
\hline\hline
& $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}$$^{a}$ & $t_\mathrm{d}$$^{b}$ & $A_{\mathrm{\gamma}}$$^{c}$ & $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$$^{b}$ & $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ \\
& ($M_{\odot}$) & (days) & & ($M_{\odot}$) \\
\hline
\hline
SN~2015ap\\
\hline
whole light curve & 0.094 $\pm$ 0.004 & 8.0 $\pm$ 2.0 & 30.05 $\pm$ 1.05 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.3 & 6.2 \\
+20\,d data & 0.181 $\pm$ 0.006 & 14.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 5.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 2.1 $\pm$ 0.09 & 1.2 \\
\hline
SN~2016bau\\
\hline
whole light curve & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & 20.5 $\pm$ 0.7 & 7.8 $\pm$ 0.5 & 2.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 22.7 \\
+20\,d data & 0.065 $\pm$ 0.001 & 18.09 $\pm$ 0.3 & 9.95 $\pm$ 0.4 & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.07 & 1.2 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
{$a$, mass of $^{56}$Ni synthesised;
$b$, effective diffusion timescale,}\\
{$c$, optical depth for the $\gamma$-rays measured 10\,d after the explosion;}\\
{$d$, ejecta mass, with $\kappa = 0.07$\,cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$.}\\
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Minimum $\chi^2$/dof parameters for SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau for the MAG model.}
\label{tab:parameter_MAG}
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
\hline\hline
& $R_0$$^{a}$ & $E_p$$^{b}$ & $t_d$$^{c}$ & $t_p$$^{d}$ & $v_{\rm exp}$$^{e}$ & $M_{\rm ej}$$^{f}$ & $P_i$$^{g}$ & $B$$^{h}$ & $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$\\
&($10^{13}$\,cm) & ($10^{51}$\,erg) & (days) & (days) & ($10^3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) & ($M_\odot$) & (ms) & ($10^{14}$\,G) & \\
\hline
\hline
SN~2015ap\\
\hline
& 0.594 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.01210 $\pm$ 0.00007 & 8.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 12.06 $\pm$ 0.08 & 6.03 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.75$\pm$ 0.02 & 40.6 $\pm$0.1 & 25.5$\pm$ 0.2 & 1.54 \\
\hline
SN~2016bau\\
\hline
& 7.9 $\pm$ 0.7 & 0.00403 $\pm$ 0.00007 & 8.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 15.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 6.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 1.26$\pm$ 0.02 & 70.4$\pm$ 0.6 & 52.6$\pm$ 0.8 & 1.4 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
{$a$, progenitor radius; $b$, magnetar rotational energy; $c$, effective diffusion timescale (in days); $d$, magnetar spin-down timescale;}\\
{$e$, SN expansion velocity; $f$, $\kappa = 0.07$\,cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$ is used; $g$, initial period of the magnetar; $h$, magnetic field of the magnetar.}\\
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{minim_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{{\tt MINIM} modelling of the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2015ap. The inset shows the RD model fitting only for the early phase (up to +20\,d).}
\label{fig:minim_SN2015ap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{minim_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{{\tt MINIM} modelling of the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2016bau. The figure in the inset shows the RD model fitting only for the early phase (up to +20\,d).}
\label{fig:minim_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
\subsection{SN~2015ap}
Figure~\ref{fig:minim_SN2015ap} shows the results of RD and MAG model fittings to the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2015ap. All of the fitted and calculated parameters are listed in Tables \ref{tab:parameter_RD} and \ref{tab:parameter_MAG}. The ejecta mass ($M_{\rm ej}$) in the RD and MAG models was calculated using Equation 1 from \citet[][]{Wheeler2015}. Although the RD model seems to reasonably fit the observed quasi-bolometric light curve, it seems unable to reproduce not only the observed peak luminosity, but also the light curve at late phases, after +50\,d. The nickel mass and ejecta mass obtained from these models are somewhat smaller than the ones inferred directly from the observed rise time and peak luminosity in Sec.\ref{tempradvel_SN2015ap}. As the RD model is the prominent powering mechanism for normal SNe~Ib, we tried to fit the RD model only up to a relatively early phase ($\sim +20$\,d). We see in the inset of Figure~\ref{fig:minim_SN2015ap} that the early phase is nicely fitted in this case. A nickel mass ($M_{\rm Ni}$) of $0.181 \pm 0.006\,M_\odot$ and an ejecta mass ($M_{\rm ej}$) of $2.1 \pm 0.09\,M_\odot$ obtained through this fitting are close to the observed values listed in Sec.\ref{tempradvel_SN2015ap}. The fitted and calculated values from the photospheric phase are collected in Table~\ref{tab:parameter_RD}.
The MAG model fits the whole observed light curve, both around peak brightness as well as during the late phase, better than the RD model. However, the fitted parameters seem to be unphysical, particularly the very slow initial rotation ($P_{i} \approx 40$\,ms) and the very low initial rotational energy ($E_{p} \approx 10^{49}$\,erg). This is not surprising given that the magnetar model contains {\it two} timescales, one for the rising part and another for the declining part of the light curve \citep{Chatzopoulous2013}.
Thus, the possibility of SN~2015ap powered by spin-down of a magnetar is less likely.
\subsection{SN~2016bau}
Figure~\ref{fig:minim_SN2016bau} shows the results of the RD and MAG model fittings to the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2016bau. The fitted and calculated parameters are listed in Tables \ref{tab:parameter_RD} and \ref{tab:parameter_MAG}. The RD model can fit the observed peak luminosity, but huge deviations from the observed light curve are seen in the later phases. The model also fails to match the observed stretch factor of the light curve. Like in the case of SN~2015ap, we also tried to fit only the early part, before +20\,d post-peak (see the inset in Fig.~\ref{fig:minim_SN2016bau}).
In this case, the fitted parameters, such as the nickel mass of $0.065 \pm 0.002\,M_\odot$ and the ejecta mass of $1.81 \pm 0.07\,M_\odot$ (see Table~\ref{tab:parameter_RD}), are very close to the observed values in Section~\ref{tempradvel_SN2016bau}. Similar to SN~2015ap, the slow rotation ($P_i \approx 70$\,ms), low magnetar rotational energy ($E_p \approx 10^{48}$\,erg), and very high progenitor radius ($\sim 1200\,R_{\odot}$) make the MAG model physically unrealistic for SN~2016bau, despite the better fit to the whole light curve in Figure~\ref{fig:minim_SN2016bau}.
\subsection{Summary of {\tt MINIM} modelling}
The failure of the semi-analytical RD models to simultaneously fit the early and late parts of the light curves of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau highlights the issues related to the validity of such kinds of models in the case of stripped-envelope SNe. The difficulty in explaining the late-phase decline rate with the assumed diffusion model have already been explored by \citet{Wheeler2015}.
Figures~\ref{fig:minim_SN2015ap} and \ref{fig:minim_SN2016bau} reveal another issue: the model light curve is steeper after +30--40\,d than the observed one. This indicates that the early- and late-phase data cannot be fitted simultaneously with the same model parameters.
Even though the nickel mass of the second model fits (insets in Figs.~\ref{fig:minim_SN2015ap} and \ref{fig:minim_SN2016bau}) the observed peak luminosity, the decline rate, which is related to the ejecta mass (see Eq. 1 of \cite{Wheeler2015}) is clearly too fast, suggesting an underestimated $M_{\rm ej}$.
This issue is very probably related to the assumption of the constant ejecta density profile (and also the constant opacity). The less steep late part of the light curve needs more ejecta mass to trap the heating gamma-rays originating from the Ni and Co decay. The early part, however, suggests ejecta that dilute much faster than what can fit the late part. Within the context of the constant-density model, this dichotomy means that fitting only the early part results in a lower ejecta mass compared to fitting only the late part (Fig.\ref{fig:minim_SN2015ap_tot}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{minim_SN2015ap_tot.pdf}
\caption{Detailed {\tt MINIM} modelling to the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2015ap. All of the models with different $M_{\rm ej}$ and $M_{\rm Ni}$ are shown together. The models with $M_{\rm ej} = 1.6\,M_{\odot}$ and 10.7\,$M_{\odot}$ show the RD model fittings considering only the early- and late-phase data, respectively. The other two models show the effect of the amount of nickel present. }
\label{fig:minim_SN2015ap_tot}
\end{figure}
Since this issue cannot be solved self-consistently with the constant-density model, and it can plague the mass estimates that consider only the early or late part of the light curve, we investigate it further in the following sections by applying more realistic models for the progenitors and the SN light curves.
\section{MESA modelling of a 12 $M_{\odot}$ ZAMS progenitor star}
\label{sec:mesa}
Adoption of a 12\,$M_{\odot}$ ZAMS progenitor star for SN~2015ap is primarily based on the results of comparison of the three models from \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015} and also in the literature; in addition, it supports the observed amount of ejecta mass for SN~2015ap. The ejecta mass for SN~2016bau was calculated to be $\sim 1.6\,M_{\odot}$. On account of such an ejecta mass and the result of \citet[][]{Jerkstrand2015} spectral model matching, we also choose a 12\,$M_{\odot}$ ZAMS star as a possible progenitor for SN~2016bau.
We first evolve the 12\,$M_{\odot}$ ZAMS star until the onset of core-collapse, using the one-dimensional stellar evolution code {\tt MESA}, version 11701\citep[][] {Paxton2011,Paxton2013,Paxton2015,Paxton2018}. We do not consider rotation and assume an initial metallicity of $Z = 0.02$. Convection is modelled using the mixing theory of \citet[][]{Henyey1965}, adopting the Ledoux criterion. We set the mixing-length parameters to $\alpha = 3.0$ in the region where the mass fraction of hydrogen is greater than 0.5, and set it to 1.5 in the other regions. Semi-convection is modelled following \citet[][]{Langer1985} with an efficiency parameter of $\alpha_{\mathrm{sc}} = 0.01$. For the thermohaline mixing, we follow \citet[][]{Kippenhahn1980}, and set the efficiency parameter as $\alpha_{\mathrm{th}} = 2.0$. We model the convective overshooting with the diffusive approach of \citet[][]{Herwig2000}, with $f= 0.01$ and $f_0 = 0.004$ for all the convective core and shells. We use the \say{Dutch} scheme for the stellar wind, with a scaling factor of 1.0. The \say{Dutch} wind scheme in MESA combines results from several papers. Specifically, when $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 10^4$\,K and the surface mass fraction of hydrogen is greater than 0.4, the results of \citet[][]{Vink2001} are used, and when $T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 10^4$\,K and the surface mass fraction of hydrogen is less than 0.4, the results of \citet[][]{Nugis2000} are used. In the case when $T_{\mathrm{eff}} < 10^4$\,K, the \citet[][]{dejager1988} wind scheme is used.
SNe~Ib have been considered to originate from massive stars which lose almost all of their hydrogen envelope, most probably due to binary interaction \citep[e.g.,][]{Yoon2010, Dessart2012, Eldridge2016, Ouchi2017}. Here, in order to produce such a stripped model, we artificially strip the hydrogen envelope, mimicking the binary interaction. Specifically, after evolving the model until the exhaustion of helium, we impose an artificial mass-loss rate of $\dot{M} \gtrsim 10^{-4}\,M_{\odot}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ until the total hydrogen mass of the star goes down to 0.01\,$M_{\odot}$. After the hydrogen mass reaches the specified limit, we switch off the artificial mass loss and evolve the model until the onset of core-collapse. At the time of core-collapse, our model has a total mass of $3.42\,M_{\odot}$.
\section{Explosions of modelled progenitors using SNEC and STELLA}
\label{sec:snec}
In this section we briefly discuss the assumptions and setups to produce artificial explosions using {\tt SNEC} \citep[][]{Morozova2015} and {\tt STELLA} \citep[][]{Blinnikov1998, Blinnikov2000, Blinnikov2006} for SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau.
\subsection{SN~2015ap}
Using the progenitor model on the verge of core-collapse obtained through {\tt MESA}, we then carried out the radiation hydrodynamical simulations. For this purpose, we use the publicly available codes {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}.
{\tt SNEC} is a one-dimensional Lagrangian hydrodynamic code, which also solves radiation energy transport with the flux-limited diffusion approximation. The code generates the bolometric light curve and the photospheric velocity evolution of the SN, along with other observed parameters.
The setup for the calculation using {\tt SNEC} closely follows \citet[][]{Ouchi2019}. Here, we briefly summarise the important parameters and modifications made to \citet[][]{Ouchi2019}. First, we excise the innermost $1.4\,M_{\odot}$ before the explosion, assuming that it collapses to form a neutron star. The number of cells is set to be 70. Although this number is relatively small, we have confirmed that the light curve and photospheric velocity of the SN are well converged in the time domain of interest.
We tried following two possible powering mechanisms for SN~2015ap using {\tt SNEC}, as follows.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lum_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2015ap with those obtained using {\tt SNEC} by taking into account the Ni and Co decay model and the magnetar model. This figure also depicts the result of the Ni--Co decay model obtained using {\tt STELLA}.}
\label{fig:lum}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{vel_SN2015ap.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the observed velocity evolution of SN~2015ap with that produced by {\tt SNEC} using two models. We also show a comparison of the observed velocity evolution produced with {\tt STELLA}.}
\label{fig:velocity}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Ni--Co Decay}
The radioactive decay of Ni and Co is considered to be the most prominent mechanism for the powering of light curves of SNe~Ib \citep[e.g.,][]{Karamehmetoglu2017}. {\tt SNEC} incorporates this model by default. Here, we provide the setup of the explosion parameters to incorporate the Ni--Co decay model.
The code does not include a nuclear-reaction network, and $^{56}$Ni is given by hand. We considered two scenarios of nickel distribution. In one case, the mass of Ni is set to be $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.135\,M_{\odot}$ and distributed from the inner boundary up to the mass coordinate $m (r) = 3.3\,M_{\odot}$. For this model the explosion is simulated as a {\tt piston}, with the first two computational cells of the profile boosted outward with a velocity of $4.0 \times 10^{9}$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$ for a time interval of 0.01\,s. The total energy ($E_{\rm tot}$) of the model is $3.7 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. For the second case, the mass of Ni is set to be $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.1\,M_{\odot}$ and distributed near the centre, from the inner boundary up to the mass coordinate of $m (r) = 1.45\,M_{\odot}$. The explosion is simulated as a {\tt piston}, with the first two computational cells of the profile boosted outward with a velocity of $5.0 \times 10^{9}$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$ for a time interval of 0.01\,s. The total energy of the model in this case is $6.5 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. Thus, our results provide a range of $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ and total energy, depending on the distribution of nickel mass.
\subsubsection{Spin-down of a magnetar}
We also tried a magnetar-powering mechanism for the light curve as SN~2015ap; it shows some resemblance to SN~2008D, which has broader features in its early-time spectra and also some X-ray emission in the later phases. A few SNe~Ib are also explained by magnetar models, one such example being SN~2005bf \citep[][]{Maeda2007}. For this model, the explosion is the {\tt piston} type, with the first two computational cells of the profile boosted outward with a velocity of $3.3 \times 10^{9}$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$ for a time interval of 0.01\,s. The total energy of the model in this case is $2.2 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. The most important change made to \citet[][]{Ouchi2019} is that we add the magnetar heat to the ejecta.
Following \citet[][]{Metzger2015}, the magnetar spin-down luminosity is given by
\[
L_{\mathrm{sd}} = L_{\mathrm{sd_i}} (1 + t/t_{\mathrm{sd}})^{-2}.
\]
\noindent
Here, $L_{\mathrm{sd_i}}$ is the spin-down luminosity at $t=0$, and $t_{\mathrm{sd}}$ is the initial spin-down time. We inject this luminosity into the whole ejecta above the mass cut uniformly in mass.
For the initial spin-down luminosity, we assume $L_{\mathrm{sd{_{i}}}} = 1.3 \times 10^{43}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, while for the initial spin-down time, we assume $t_{\mathrm{sd}} = 12$\,d. In this model, we do not include the effect of Ni heating. Following \citet[][]{Metzger2015} (Equations 2 and 3), corresponding to $L_{\mathrm{sd{_{i}}}} = 1.3 \times 10^{43}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ and $t_{\mathrm{sd}} = 12$\,d, we obtain a magnetic field ($B$) of $5.1 \times 10 ^{14}$\,G and an initial period ($P_i$) of 43.06\,ms for the modelled magnetar. These values of $B$ and $P_i$ are very close to those obtained using {\tt MINIM}.
We also use the public version of {\tt STELLA}, available with {\tt MESA}. The default radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co as a powering mechanism is used for SN~2015ap. Nearly similar parameters as in the case of {\tt SNEC} are used for {\tt STELLA}. The {\tt MESA} setups are unchanged for {\tt STELLA} calculations. We use a total energy after explosion of $3.6 \times 10^{51}$\,erg and a $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.193\,M_\odot$, which is slightly more than the $^{56}$Ni mass used in {\tt SNEC}. In order to avoid the numerical problem caused by the high-velocity material, we removed the outer layer of the progenitor where the density is less than $10^{-5}$\,g\,cm$^{-3}$ \citep[see also][]{Moriya2020}.
\subsubsection{Summary of the modelling}
Figure~\ref{fig:lum} shows the comparison of the observed quasi-bolometric luminosity with that produced by {\tt SNEC}. We find that the radioactive decay models with $^{56}$Ni mass in the range 0.1--0.135\,$M_\odot$ and total energy in the range (3.7--6.5) $\times 10^{51}$\,erg could nicely explain the light curve. Our results also signify that the distribution of $^{56}$Ni mass plays an important role for explaining the observed light curves.
The magnetar model could also explain the quasi-bolometric light curve, but we do not see very strong evidence that SN~2015ap is powered by a magnetar. This figure also shows the results of {\tt STELLA} calculations. We see that, although the explosion energy is similar, we need a slightly higher amount of nickel to properly match the observed light curve of SN~2015ap.
Figure~\ref{fig:velocity} illustrates a comparison of observed photospheric velocity evolution produced by blackbody fitting with that produced by {\tt SNEC}. We see that the Ni--Co decay and magnetar models initially show higher velocities, but in the later epochs they well replicate the observed photospheric velocities. This figure also shows the Fe~II 5169\,\si{\angstrom} velocity evolution produced by {\tt STELLA}. Owing to the unambiguous absence of Fe~II 5169\,\si{\angstrom} features in SN~2015ap, we used the photospheric velocity obtained through a blackbody fit for our comparison of Fe~II 5169\,\si{\angstrom} line velocities. We can see a very good match between the {\tt STELLA} velocities and observed ones. The modelling parameters, along with the observed values, are listed in Table \ref{tab:parameter_model}.
\subsection{SN~2016bau}
Using a similar progenitor model on the verge of core-collapse, obtained through {\tt MESA}, as in the case of SN~2015ap, we carried out the radiation hydrodynamical simulations using {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}. For calculations using {\tt SNEC}, the setup closely follows that of \citet[][]{Ouchi2019}. First, we excise the innermost $1.53\,M_{\odot}$ before the explosion, assuming that it collapses to form a neutron star. The number of cells is set to 70. We try two possible powering mechanisms for SN~2016bau using {\tt SNEC}, as follows.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Observed and modelled parameters for SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau}
\label{tab:parameter_model}
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
\hline\hline
& $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ & $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$ & $E_{\mathrm{tot}}$ \\
& ($M_{\odot}$) & ($M_{\odot}$) & $10^{51}$\,erg \\
\hline
\hline
SN~2015ap\\
\hline
Arnett's model$^{a}$ & 0.14 $\pm$ 0.02 & 2.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & * \\
{\tt SNEC} (Ni distributed up to $M(r) = 3.3\,M_{\odot}$) & 0.135 & 2.02 & 3.7 \\
{\tt SNEC} (Ni distributed up to $M(r) = 1.45\,M_{\odot}$) & 0.1 & 2.02 & 6.5 \\
{\tt SNEC} Magnetar model & 0.0 & 2.02 & 2.2 \\
From {\tt STELLA} & 0.193 & 1.92 & 3.6 \\
\hline
SN~2016bau\\
\hline
Arnett's model$^{a}$ & 0.055 $\pm$ 0.006 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.3 & ** \\
{\tt SNEC} (Ni distributed up to $M(r) = 3.3\,M_{\odot}$) & 0.045 & 1.89 & 1.23 \\
{\tt SNEC} (Ni distributed up to $M(r) = 1.57\,M_{\odot}$) & 0.03 & 1.89 & 1.93 \\
{\tt SNEC} Magnetar model & 0.0 & 1.89 & 0.8 \\
From {\tt STELLA} & 0.065 & 1.89 & 1.6 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
{$a$: Calculated using $t_{\rm rise}$, $\kappa = 0.07$\,cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$, and $L_{\rm peak}$.}\\
{$*$: Instead, a kinetic energy of the ejecta $(E_{k}) = 1.05 \times 10^{51}$\,erg is obtained.}\\
{$**$: Instead, a kinetic energy of the ejecta $(E_{k}) = 0.24 \times 10^{51}$\,erg is obtained.}\\
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Ni--Co Decay}
The setup for the calculation using {\tt SNEC} is similar to that of SN~2015ap.
Considering the radioactive decay of Ni--Co the most prominent mechanism for powering light curves of SNe~Ib, we employed this model as the powering mechanism for SN~2016bau. Here we briefly describe the setup of the explosion parameters incorporated in the Ni--Co decay model.
We considered two cases of $^{56}$Ni mass distribution. In the first case, the mass of $^{56}$Ni synthesised is set to be $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.045\,M_{\odot}$. Then, it is distributed from the inner boundary up to the mass coordinate of $M(r) = 3.3\,M_{\odot}$. Thereafter, we simulate the explosion as a {\tt piston}, with the first two computational cells of the profile boosted outward with a velocity of $4.2 \times 10^{9}$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$ for a time interval of 0.01\,s. The model has a total energy of $1.3 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. For the second case, the mass of $^{56}$Ni synthesised is set to be $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.03\,M_{\odot}$ and distributed from the inner boundary up to the mass coordinate of $M(r) = 1.57\,M_{\odot}$. Thereafter, we simulate the explosion as a {\tt piston}, with the first two computational cells of the profile boosted outward with a velocity of $4.9 \times 10^{9}$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$ for a time interval of 0.01\,s, and the model has a total energy of $1.93 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. We find that, depending on the $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ distribution, the radioactive decay models with $^{56}$Ni mass in the range 0.03--$0.045\,M_\odot$ and total energy in the range (1.23--1.93) $\times 10^{51}$\,erg can nicely explain the light curve.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lum_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the quasi-bolometric light curve of SN~2016bau and light curves produced by {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}, considering the radioactive decay model.}
\label{fig:lum_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{vel_SN2016bau.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the observed velocity evolution of SN~2016bau and the photometric velocity evolution produced by {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}, considering the radioactive decay model.}
\label{fig:velocity_SN2016bau}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Spin-down of a magnetar}
We also tried the magnetar powering mechanism for SN~2016bau. The explosion is simulated as a {\tt piston}, with the first two computational cells of the profile boosted outward with a velocity of $3.6 \times 10^{9}$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$ for a duration of 0.01\,s and a total model energy of $0.8 \times 10^{51}$\,erg. Like SN~2015ap, we inject $L_{\mathrm{sd_i}} = 0.4 \times 10^{43}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ to the ejecta above the mass cut uniformly in mass. We assume $t_{\mathrm{sd}} = 16.0$\,d and do not include the effect of Ni heating. Corresponding to $L_{\mathrm{sd{_{i}}}} = 0.4 \times 10^{43}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$ and $t_{\mathrm{sd}} = 16$\,d, we obtain a magnetic field ($B$) of $7.9 \times 10^{14}$\,G and an initial period ($P_i$) of 71.8\,ms for the modelled magnetar. These values of $B$ and $P_i$ are very close to those obtained using {\tt MINIM}.
We also perform {\tt STELLA} calculations for SN~2016bau, by employing the default radioactive decay of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co powering mechanism. We used similar parameters as in the case of {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}. The {\tt MESA} setups are unchanged for {\tt STELLA} calculations. We used a total energy after explosion of $1.6 \times 10^{51}$\,erg and a $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.065\,M_\odot$, slightly above the $^{56}$Ni mass used in {\tt SNEC}.
\subsubsection{Summary of the modelling}
Figure~\ref{fig:lum_SN2016bau} shows the comparison of the observed quasi-bolometric luminosity with that produced by {\tt SNEC} for the radioactive decay and magnetar spin-down models. We find that the radioactive decay model from {\tt SNEC} could successfully explain the light curve. The magnetar model also shows a good match, but we do not see any significant signs of SN~2016bau being powered by a magnetar. This figure also shows the results of {\tt STELLA} calculations; they also match the observed light curve of SN~2016bau nicely, with parameters similar to those of {\tt SNEC}.
Figure~\ref{fig:velocity_SN2016bau} shows a comparison of the observed photospheric velocity evolution produced by blackbody fitting with that produced by the radioactive decay model and the magnetar spin-down model using {\tt SNEC}. Here, the models show high initial velocities which drop at later epochs. We see that the velocities produced by the models initially deviate from the observed photospheric velocities, but tend to follow velocities similar to the observed ones at later epochs. The figure also shows a comparison the Fe~II 5169\,\si{\angstrom} line velocity obtained using {\tt STELLA} with the photospheric velocity obtained through blackbody fits. Similar to the case of SN~2015ap, this SN also lacks unambiguous features of the Fe~II 5169\,\si{\angstrom} line.
From Figure~\ref{fig:velocity_SN2016bau}, it is evident that our model overestimates the velocity by a factor of nearly two. The $M_{\rm ej}$ from Arnett's model is $\sim 1.6\,M_{\odot}$. The diffusion time is given by $(M^3/E)^{1/4}$. Since this combination is fixed, $M^3/E$ is roughly constant. But $M^3/E \approx M^3/(Mv^2) = M^2/v^2 \approx$ constant. Thus, we have $M \approx v$ to meet the observational constraints. So, if we need to decrease the velocity by a factor of two, the ejecta mass would also decrease by the same factor. Then the He star mass is likely $\sim 2$--2.5\,$M_{\odot}$, which is at the boundary between a SN and a non-SN. Since $E \approx Mv^2 \approx v^3$, the energy may go down quite substantially in this case.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussions}
We present a detailed photometric and spectroscopic analysis of two Type Ib SNe, namely SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau. From our analysis, SN~2015ap is an intermediate-luminosity normal SN~Ib, while SN~2016bau is highly extinguished by host-galaxy dust. In this section, we discuss the major outcomes of our present analysis.
The photometric properties of both the SNe were analysed by determining the bolometric luminosity of their light curves. For SN~2015ap, we calculate a $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.14\pm0.02$\,$M_\odot$ and an ejecta mass of $2.2\pm0.6$\,$M_\odot$, while for SN~2016bau, the $^{56}$Ni mass and ejecta mass were $0.055 \pm 0.006\,M_\odot$ and $1.6 \pm 0.3\,M_\odot$, respectively. The photospheric temperature, radius, and velocity evolution for both SNe were also explored. Based on the derived physical quantities from the temporal evolution of these two SNe, we tried to constrain possible powering mechanisms using a semi-analytical model called {\tt MINIM}. We found that the semi-analytical RD model failed to simultaneously fit the early and late phases of both SNe, raising issues related to the validity of such models in the case of stripped-envelope SNe. One solution to such a situation is to fit the early-phase and late-phase data with different sets of model parameters. Another cause for the failure of the RD model can be attributed to the assumption of the constant ejecta density profile. For the MAG model, the fitted parameters seemed to be unphysical in both SNe, especially the very slow initial rotation (for SN~2015ap, $P_{i} \approx 40$\,ms, and for SN~2016bau, $P_{i} \approx 70$\,ms) and the very low initial rotational energy (for both SNe, $E_{p} \approx 10^{49}$\,erg). Also, no signs of these SNe powered by a magnetar mechanism were evident either from photometry or spectroscopy, so this possibility was discarded.
The spectroscopic behaviour of both SNe was also studied using the present and archival data. These SNe showed unambiguous He~I features from very early to late phases, confirming them to be SNe~Ib. Their spectral features match with those of other well-studied SNe~Ib. Additionally, SN~2015ap closely resembled SN~2008D, which had shown X-ray emission. The spectra of our two SNe at various epochs were modelled using SYN++. For SN~2015ap, the spectral modelling indicated a range of photospheric temperatures and velocities from 13,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to 6800\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and from 12,000\,K to 4500\,K (respectively) during the time interval $-7$\,d to +33\,d. For SN~2016bau, these two parameters ranged from 16,000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to 8000\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and from 9000\,K to 4000\,K (respectively) during the time interval $-14$\,d to +33\,d. The spectra of these two SNe at particular epochs were compared with model spectra of 12, 13, and 17\,$M_{\odot}$ progenitor stars. For SN~2015ap, the 12\,$M_{\odot}$ and 17 $M_{\odot}$ model spectra showed reasonable matches, indicating a progenitor in the mass range 12--17\,$M_{\odot}$; for SN~2016bau, the 12\,M$_{\odot}$ model spectrum could explain the observed spectrum to some extent better than other models, indicating a $\leq 12\,M_{\odot}$ progenitor.
Based on the photometric and spectroscopic properties described above, a 12\,$M_\odot$ ZAMS star was chosen as the possible progenitor for both SNe. This 12\,$M_\odot$ ZAMS progenitor was evolved up to the onset of core collapse using {\tt MESA}. The {\tt MESA} outputs on the onset of core collapse were fed as input to {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}, which simulate the synthetic explosions. The RD and MAG models were employed using {\tt SNEC} while only the RD model was employed in {\tt STELLA}. Here also, the models failed to fit the late part of the light curve simultaneously. The cause can be attributed to the various assumptions, including the spherically symmetrical explosions and the use of constant ejecta density profiles throughout. Similar to the case of {\tt MINIM}, the MAG model provided unphysical parameters during the {\tt SNEC} analysis.
Our analysis favours a 12\,$M_\odot$ ZAMS star as a possible progenitor for SN~2015ap based on outputs of the models reasonably explaining the bolometric luminosity light curve and the photospheric velocity. However, in case of SN~2016bau, the model velocities are higher by a factor of almost 2, demanding that the ejecta mass be lower by similar factor. This would imply an He star of mass $\sim 2$--2.5\,$M_{\odot}$, which is at the boundary for exploding as an SN. Thus, a slightly lower mass ZAMS star could also be the possible progenitor of SN~2016bau. Hydrodynamical evolution models of such low-mass stars to reach the stage of core collapse and then undergo synthetic explosions are extremely difficult to perform, but this can be taken as a challenge for the future.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
Photometric and spectroscopic analyses of the Lick/KAIT-discovered Type Ib SN~2015ap and another Type Ib SN~2016bau, both having extensive follow-up observations made with various telescopes, are discussed. For both SNe, photometric data corrected for the Milky Way and host-galaxy extinction were used to estimate the quasi-bolometric luminosity light curves and study the photospheric radius, temperature, and velocity evolution. Spectral properties of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau were then explored in detail. We modelled the spectra, studied the spectral evolution, and compared the spectra at various epochs with those of other well-studied SNe~Ib, which further confirmed that these two SNe are Type Ib SN.
We attempted to determine the progenitor masses of SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau. Our results support $12\,M_{\odot}$ progenitors for these two SNe. The $12\,M_{\odot}$ ZAMS progenitor was evolved up to the onset of core-collapse using {\tt MESA}. The output of {\tt MESA} was incorporated as input to {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}, which produced the artificial explosions replicating the actual SN explosions. Considering the decay of Ni and Co to be the most prominent powering mechanism for SNe~Ib, we tried this powering mechanism for SN~2015ap and SN~2016bau, using {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA}. We found that the quasi-bolometric luminosity could nicely be explained by our models, while the velocity evolution obtained from {\tt SNEC} and {\tt STELLA} satisfactorily agrees with the observed one. We also explored the effect of the distribution of nickel mass near the centre and up to near the surface. Lower amounts of nickel were required to match the light curve for the case of centrally distributed nickel in comparison to the case where the nickel was distributed up to near the surface. Based on the above conclusions, our analysis supports a star having $M_{\rm ZAMS} = 12\,M_{\odot}$ as the possible progenitor for SN~2015ap. For SN~2016bau, a slightly lower ZAMS progenitor is expected.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are highly thankful to the anonymous referee for providing a very helpful report. We acknowledge Sanyum Channa, Maxime de Kouchkovsky, Andrew Halle, Michael Hyland, Minkyu Kim, Kevin Hayakawa, Kyle McAllister, Jeffrey Molloy, Andrew Rikhter, Benjamin Stahl, and Yinan Zhu for obtaining some of the Lick observations. We also thank the {\tt MESA} troubleshooting team, especially Jared Goldberg, for constant guidance. We also acknowledge Van Dyk Schuyler for useful discussion regarding the manuscript. A.A., S.B.P., R.G., and K.M. acknowledge BRICS grant DST/IMRCD/BRICS/Pilotcall/ProFCheap/2017(G). A.A. also acknowledges funds and assistance provided by the Council of Scientific \& Industrial Research (CSIR), India.
R.O. acknowledges support provided by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through KAKENHI grant (19J14158). K.M. acknowledges support provided by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through KAKENHI grants JP17H02864, JP18H04585, JP18H05223, JP20H00174, and JP20H04737. Support for A.V.F.'s supernova research group has been provided by the TABASGO Foundation, the Christopher R. Redlich Fund, and the U.C. Berkeley Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science (where A.V.F. is a Senior Miller Fellow). Additional support was provide by NASA/{\it HST} grant GO-15166 from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), which is operated by the Associated Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA), under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
J.V. is supported by the project ``Transient Astrophysical Objects" (GINOP 2.3.2-15-2016-00033) of the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (NKFIH), Hungary, funded by the European Union.
Lick/KAIT and its ongoing operation were made possible by donations from Sun Microsystems, Inc., the Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope Corporation, Lick Observatory, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the University of California, the Sylvia \& Jim Katzman Foundation, and the TABASGO Foundation. Research at Lick Observatory is partially supported by a generous gift from Google. Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and NASA; the observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation. The Lick and Keck Observatory staff provided excellent assistance with the observations.
\section*{Data availability}
The photometric and spectroscopic data used in this work can be made available on request to the corresponding author. The {\tt inlist} files to create the {\tt MESA} models and {\tt STELLA} calculations, along with {\tt SNEC} parameters files, can also be made available on request to the corresponding author.
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding star formation and the variety of locales in which it takes place is key to understanding galaxy formation and evolution. Star formation is most easily seen and studied in the inner luminous regions of galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{martin2001}, but star formation in low-density environments is less well understood, whether that be in low luminosity dwarf galaxies \citep{kennicutt2008,lee2007,lee2009} or outlying \ion{H}{2} regions \citep{rudolph1996,ferguson1998,lelievre2000,ryan-weber2004,werk2010}. In recent years, progress has been made to observationally explore these environments in ultraviolet and optical light.
UV investigations of the outer regions of galaxies has been primarily aided by the \emph{Galaxy Evolution Explorer} (\emph{GALEX}) satellite. \emph{GALEX} revealed that over $\sim$\SI{30}{\percent} of spiral galaxies posses UV-extensions of their optical disks, possibly indicating that low-density star formation is not rare \citep{thilker2007}. Moreover, extended-UV (XUV) emission and outyling \ion{H}{2} regions beyond the optical radius of the disk are associated with previous or ongoing galaxy interactions \citep{thilker2007,werk2010}.
In optical light, outlying isolated \ion{H}{2} regions have been detected via narrowband imaging targeting specific emission lines, primarily H$\alpha$, where they appear as emission-line point sources. These regions have been found in environments ranging from galaxy clusters and compact groups to the halos of galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{sakai2002,oliveira2004,ryan-weber2004,walter2006,boquien2007,werk2010,kellar2012,keel2012}. These \ion{H}{2} regions indicate recent formation of OB stars outside of the normal star-forming environment of the inner disk. And unlike the XUV emission of spiral galaxies, these outlying \ion{H}{2} regions can appear well outside twice the canonical $R_{25}$ size of the nearest galaxy \citep{ryan-weber2004,werk2010}. This gives us insight into extreme modes of star formation and may contribute to intragroup and intracluster light (see \citealt{vilchez-gomez1999} for a review).
Possible sites for this low-density star formation are dwarf galaxies. Dwarf galaxies are very common around massive galaxies and in group environments. Star forming dwarf galaxies (SFDGs) are one of the most common types of galaxies in the local universe \citep[e.g.][]{lapparent2003}. They are characterized by low stellar mass, low chemical abundance, high gas content, and high dark matter content (see \citealt{gallagher1984} for a review). They tend to lie in low density environments \citep{weisz2011a,weisz2011b} and are typically of low surface brightness. The low surface density of cold gas in SFDGs is below that at which star formation is truncated (the so-called Kennicutt-Schmidt law, e.g.\ \citealt{schmidt1959,kennicutt1989,kennicutt1998}), but star formation is not completely halted \citep{hunter1998}. These galaxies are noted for their rather chaotic spatial distributions of their star forming regions, typically being asymmetrical and clumped on large scales \citep[e.g.][]{hodge1975}. The extremely low surface brightnesses of many of these systems makes detection of the continuum stellar emission difficult, and SFDGs would likely appear as clumps of bright emission-line sources in H$\alpha$ surveys.
Additionally, types of dwarf galaxies are being found with very low masses (ultrafaint dwarfs, UFDs; \citealt{simon2019}) and very low surface brightness (ultradiffuse dwarfs, UDGs; \citealt{sandage1984, vandokkum2015}). Both types of galaxies represent the extreme faint end of the galaxy luminosity function, typically having luminosities fainter than $M_V = -7.7$ \citep{simon2019}. These dwarf galaxies tend to have ancient ages often consistent with star formation ending by reionization at $z \sim 6$ \citep{brown2014}. If there are star-forming analogues to these galaxy types in the local universe, they may be detectable through very deep and wide-field narrowband imaging \citep{vanderhulst1993,mcgaugh1994,schombert2011,cannon2011,cannon2018}.
In an effort to explore these areas of low-density star formation, we have used Case Western Reserve University's Burrell Schmidt 24/36-inch telescope to perform the first deep, wide-field, multiline, narrowband observations of the nearby spiral galaxy M101 (NGC~5457, $D = \SI{6.9}{\mega\parsec}$; see \citealt{matheson2012} and references therein) and its group environment. We image in three different emission lines that are characteristic of star formation, H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and [\ion{O}{3}], which allows us to more cleanly reject contaminants without the need for expensive follow-up spectroscopy. This strategy, combined with our large survey area ($\sim$\SI{6}{\square\deg}) and our deep photometric limit of \SI{5.7e-17}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre} (reaching SFR limits of \SI{1.7e-6}{\solarmass\per\year}) gives us a good census of extended and outlying star formation and faint star-forming dwarf galaxies over large areas in nearby groups.
M101 was chosen for this survey because its nearby distance enables its properties to be studied in detail \citep{mihos2012,mihos2013,mihos2018,watkins2017}. M101 is also currently interacting with its satellite population, likely its massive satellite NGC~5474 as evidenced by its asymmetric disk \citep{beale1969,rownd1994,waller1997}. Given that interacting systems often display extended or outlying star-forming regions, the M101 Group could be an excellent case study to explore the conditions under which extended intragroup star formation is triggered. Additionally, M101 has been found to harbor ultradiffuse galaxies \citep{merritt2014,merritt2016,karachentsev2015,danieli2017,carlsten2019} and constraining the star-forming properties of these objects will aid in understanding star formation in low-density environments.
\section{Narrowband Imaging}
The narrowband imaging used here was taken over the course of three seasons using Case Western Reserve University's 24/36-inch Burrell Schmidt telescope, located at Kitt Peak in Arizona. Our narrowband imaging and data reduction techniques are described in detail in \citet{watkins2017} and summarized briefly here.
The Burrell Schmidt images a $\ang{1.65}\times\ang{1.65}$ field of view onto a single 4096$\times$4096 back-illuminated CCD, yielding a pixel scale of \ang{;;1.45} \si{\per\pixel}. For each emission line studied (H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and [\ion{O}{3}]), we image in two narrowband filters (see Table~\ref{narrowbandobs}) --- one centered on the emission line and another shifted $\approx$\SI{150}{\angstrom} off the emission line for continuum subtraction. Given the width of our filters (necessitated by the fast $f/3.5$ beam of the Schmidt; \citealt{nassau1945}), our H$\alpha$-on filter covers both H$\alpha$\ and the adjoining [\ion{N}{2}]$\lambda\lambda$6648,6583 lines, while the [\ion{O}{3}]-on filter covers both lines of the [\ion{O}{3}]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 doublet. In each filter, we image M101 using 55--71 images of \SI{1200}{\second} exposure time each, with each pointing dithered randomly by up to \ang{0.5}. All data was taken under dark, photometric conditions, with the H$\alpha$\ imaging taken in Spring 2014 (and described in detail in \citealt{watkins2017}), the H$\beta$\ imaging in Spring 2018, and the [\ion{O}{3}]\ imaging in Spring 2019. Flat fielding was done using a combination of twilight flats and offset night sky flats \citep[see][]{watkins2017}, and deep \SI{1200}{\second} observations of Regulus and Arcturus were used to model and correct for scattered light from bright stars in the field \citep[see][]{slater2009}. We subtract sky from each image using a simple plane fit to the background sky levels across the image (typically $\sim$\SI{100}{\adu}). After correcting for sky and scattered light, as well as for fringing from \ch{OH} sky lines in the H$\alpha$ on-band filter, each set of dithered images was then median-combined to yield a final on- and off-band master image of the field, representing a total exposure time of 18--24 hours in each filter.
We flux calibrate the narrowband imaging using three methods. First, we calibrate using observations of spectrophotometric standard stars \citep{massey1988} taken throughout the course of each night, solving for extinction coefficients and nightly zeropoints that are applied to each image. Second, we self-calibrate each image using the 100--150 stars in the field around M101 that have well-measured photometry from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) imaging, applying a color-dependent offset between SDSS broadband filters and our narrowband filters synthesized using the \citet{pickles} Stellar Spectral Flux Library. Third, we self-calibrate each image using the the $\sim$100 SDSS spectroscopic point sources in the field, using the SDSS spectroscopy to synthesize calibrated AB magnitudes in our narrowband filters for zeropointing each image. These three independent techniques yielded zeropoints which agreed with one another to within $\pm$\SI{5}{\percent}, which we take as the uncertainty in our absolute photometric calibration.
\begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecaption{Narrowband Imaging Datasets}
\tablehead{\colhead{Filter} & \colhead{$\lambda_0$} & \colhead{$\Delta\lambda$} &
\colhead{Exposure Time} & \colhead{ZP (flux)} & \colhead{ZP (AB)}}
\startdata
H$\alpha$-on & 6590 \AA & 101 \AA & $71 \times \SI{1200}{\second}$ & \num{5.61e-18} & 26.63\\
H$\alpha$-off & 6726 \AA & 104 \AA & $71 \times \SI{1200}{\second}$ & \num{5.50e-18} & 26.64\\
H$\beta$-on & 4875 \AA & 82 \AA & $59 \times \SI{1200}{\second}$ & \num{7.65e-18} & 26.73\\
H$\beta$-off & 4757 \AA & 81 \AA & $55 \times \SI{1200}{\second}$ & \num{7.91e-18} & 26.74\\
[\ion{O}{3}]-on & 5008 \AA& 102 \AA & $67 \times \SI{1200}{\second}$ & \num{7.58e-18} & 26.91\\
[\ion{O}{3}]-off & 5114 \AA & 101 \AA & $66 \times \SI{1200}{\second}$ & \num{7.37e-18} & 26.89\\
\enddata
\tablecomments{ZP (flux) converts 1 ADU to $\rm erg\ s^{-1}\ cm^{-2}$ in the master
images, while ZP (AB) converts to AB magnitudes.}
\label{narrowbandobs}
\end{deluxetable}
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Source Detection}
Our final imaging dataset from the Burrell Schmidt consists of the narrowband imaging described in Section~2, along with deep broadband imaging in Washington $M$, similar to Johnson $V$, and a modified (bluer) Johnson $B$ filter from \cite{mihos2013}. We start by detecting sources on the H$\alpha$ on-band image, using \texttt{astropy}'s \texttt{PhotUtil} package, specifically the \texttt{segmentation} module \citep{bradley2019}. This program detects sources as objects that have a minimum number of connected pixels that are each greater than the background threshold value. In our case, the threshold value above which pixels would be marked as a detection was $3\sigma$ above the background level on the H$\alpha$ on-band image after a two pixel Gaussian smoothing. This sigma-clipping is conceptually similar to \texttt{SExtractor}'s $\kappa\sigma$ clipping \citep{sextractor}.
In order to avoid detecting random noise spikes or star-forming objects well inside known bright galaxies, we masked several regions in the H$\alpha$ on-band image. First, we masked a \SI{750}{\pixel} ($\sim$\ang{;19;}) border around the image where the background noise becomes dominant. We also masked stars in the Tycho-2 Catalog \citep{hog2000} brighter than $B_T = 12.5$. Circular masks were applied to many of the galaxies in our survey area corresponding to twice the $R_{25}$ isophotal radius, taken from the RC3 catalog \citep{rc3}. This mask size follows from what has been done previously by other authors in defining the boundary beyond which lies outlying \ion{H}{2} regions \citep{werk2010}. The only exception to this was M101 itself; \cite{mihos2013} showed that the $R_{25}$ reported in the RC3 significantly overestimates M101's $\mu_B = 25$ isophotal radius by as much as a factor of two. We utilized the areal-weighted $R_{25} = \ang{;8;}$ for M101 reported in \cite{mihos2013}.
Having masked these regions, we then create a two-dimensional background object to calculate the background sky level and its uncertainty. The sky level was estimated in boxes of $100 \times 100$ pixels with filter sizes of $10 \times 10$ pixels. Then, as mentioned before, we detected sources that were $3\sigma$ above the background, resulting in \num{32439} sources. We used the default parameters of 32 multi-thresholding levels and a contrast of $0.001$ to deblend close or overlapping sources. The \texttt{segmentation} module uses a combination of multi-thresholding and watershed segmentation to separate overlapping sources, which, given the parameters above, results in a segmentation map with a total of \num{35308} sources. For context, \texttt{SExtractor} utilizes only a multi-thresholding technique to deblend sources \citep{sextractor}.
Using this segmentation map to define each source, we calculated photometric and structural quantities for each source in each of the narrowband images as well as in the broadband imaging of \cite{mihos2013}. Many of these were default calculations for \texttt{segmentation}, including positions and fluxes. We also calculated photometric errors, signal-to-noise, and AB magnitudes for each object in each filter. In what follows, the magnitude in each filter will be written as $m_{\lambda_0}$, where $\lambda_0$ is the central wavelength of the filter. Additionally, we calculate flux differences, $\Delta f = f_{\text{on}} - f_{\text{off}}$, and emission line equivalent widths (EWs) in each pair of filters. We again note that our H$\alpha$ on-band filter bandpass includes the [\ion{N}{2}]$\lambda$,$\lambda$6549,6583 doublet, thus measuring $\text{H}\alpha + [\text{\ion{N}{2}}]$. We have corrected these fluxes by adopting the emission line ratio of [\ion{N}{2}]/H$\alpha = 0.33$ \citep{kennicutt1992,jansen2000}.
Given that the net flux in a filter pair can be either positive or negative, we express the net flux in each band using asinh magnitudes \citep{lupton1999}:
\begin{equation*}
m(\Delta f) = \text{ZP} - 2.5\log(b) - a\arcsinh\left(\frac{\Delta f}{2b}\right)
\end{equation*}
Here, $a \equiv 2.5\log e = 1.08574$ is Pogson's ratio \citep{pogson1856}, $\Delta f$ is the flux difference of the source in a particular filter, and the zero point, ZP, was chosen so that objects with $\Delta f = 0$ had zero magnitude. This system has the benefit that it can be calculated for any flux value, negative or positive, and behaves smoothly as the flux drops through zero. The softening parameter, $b$, was chosen to be the flux of an object with $\text{S/N} = 1$. The softening parameter and zero point were calculated per filter set; specific values can be seen in Table \ref{b_zp}. In this magnitude system, objects with positive net flux (``in emission'') will have numerically negative magnitudes, while objects with negative net flux (``in absorption'') will have positive magnitudes. Going forward, we will refer to these ``net flux'' magnitudes as $m(\Delta f)$ in each spectral line.
\begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tablecolumns{3}
\tablecaption{Asinh Magnitude Parameters\label{b_zp}}
\tablehead{\colhead{Filter Set} \vspace{-0.2cm} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{ZP} \\
& \colhead{{[\SI{e-17}{\erg\per\second\per\centi\metre\squared}]}} & }
\startdata
H$\alpha$ & \num{3.8} & -\num{41.05} \\
H$\beta$ & \num{5.4} & -\num{40.67} \\
{[\ion{O}{3}]} & \num{5.3} & -\num{40.69}
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
We also cross-matched our source list with those objects in the SDSS DR16 \citep{ahumada2020} and with \emph{Gaia} Early Data Release 3 (EDR3; \citealt{gaiaedr3}). The \emph{Gaia} data will aid in rejecting interlopers in our dataset, while the SDSS data provides additional photometry and structural information for our final sample of objects.
At this point, of those \num{35308} sources detected, \num{5442} ($\sim$\SI{15}{\percent}) were detected ``in emission'' (i.e.\ have positive net flux at the $3\sigma$ level) in H$\alpha$ and form the starting sample for our emission line source catalog. Only \num{450} ($\sim$\SI{1}{\percent}) were detected ``in emission'' in all of the three narrowband filters. However, as we will show next, many of these detections were not true narrowband emission features.
\subsection{Investigating Potential Sources}
At this point in our detection routine, we have a source catalog of any astronomical source that has excess emission in H$\alpha$. This could include objects such as \ion{H}{2} regions or dwarf galaxies in the nearby universe, background emission line objects, or objects such as M stars with molecular absorption bands in our filters.
This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{asinh} where we plot our ``net flux'' magnitudes and EWs against the signal-to-noise of each source in each filter set. Since we are attempting to detect \ion{H}{2} regions, we select for only those sources with net positive H$\alpha$ flux differences, i.e.\ negative ``net flux'' magnitudes. Most of our sources have very low signal-to-noise, so we use only those sources detected with $\text{S/N} > 3$. These plots are conceptually similar to those in Figure 2 of \cite{kellar2012} used to search for compact emission line sources, except that in place of their ``ratio'' quantity, we use a true signal-to-noise, and in place of their magnitude difference, we use our ``net flux'' magnitudes.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{asinh.pdf}
\caption{Top row: The H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and [\ion{O}{3}] asinh net flux magnitude as a function of signal-to-noise for each source observed in emission in H$\alpha$ (negative $m(\Delta f)$). Bottom row: The narrowband equivalent width (EW) as a function of signal-to-noise in each filter set. In both rows, the vertical dashed line indicates $\text{S}/\text{N} = 3$; sources at lower S/N are considered undetected in our analysis. Black points show all sources, orange crosses are sources detected in emission in all three lines, and green crosses are sources detected in two lines (H$\alpha$ and [\ion{O}{3}]). See text for details. \label{asinh}}
\end{figure*}
The most notable aspect of Figure~\ref{asinh} is that both the H$\beta$ and [\ion{O}{3}] filters have sources in absorption despite selecting for objects that are only in emission in H$\alpha$. We investigate this further using spectral synthesis of various objects -- stars, nearby galaxies, and high redshift objects -- through our filters to assess their behavior in our sample selection criteria.
To test how other stars would behave in our filters, we synthesized spectra from the Stellar Spectral Flux Library \citep{pickles} through our filters. The Stellar Spectral Flux Library was chosen because it offers a wide distribution of stars of various spectral types, luminosity classes, and metallicity while also covering a large wavelength range with uniform $R \sim 500$ spectral resolution. For nearby galaxies, we adopt the SDSS DR5 spectral template for different galaxy types, synthesizing their EWs at zero redshift, such that the emission lines fall within our filters. The synthesized EWs in each filter are shown as a function of $B-V$ color in Figure~\ref{stars_gals}.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{ew_color_galstars.pdf}
\caption{Synthesized equivalent width as a function of color for stars in the \protect\cite{pickles} Stellar Spectral Flux Library (black points) and $z=0$ SDSS galaxy spectral templates (blue triangles). The horizontal dashed line indicates the equivalent width selection cut for our emission line sample in each filter pair. \label{stars_gals}}
\end{figure}
It is clear from Figure~\ref{stars_gals} that stars bluer than $B-V\sim 1$ will broadly mimic H$\alpha$ emission, H$\beta$ absorption, and [\ion{O}{3}] emission. Meanwhile, stars redder than $B-V\sim 1$ will broadly mimic H$\alpha$ emission, H$\beta$ emission, and [\ion{O}{3}] absorption. However, these are not true narrowband absorption or emission features, but rather are a result of how our narrowband filters sample features in the stellar continuum. Because continuum starlight produces these low level ``pseudo-emission'' features, in our search for true star-forming signatures, we ignore any object with EW values lower than $\text{EW}(\text{H}\alpha) = \SI{8}{\angstrom}$, $\text{EW}(\text{H}\beta) = \SI{2}{\angstrom}$, and $\text{EW}(\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}) = \SI{5}{\angstrom}$ as shown by the dotted lines in Figure~\ref{stars_gals}. Given the relative weaker strength of the H$\beta$ line compared to H$\alpha$, we make a separate distinction between sources with all three filters in emission, satisfying all the EW cuts above, and sources with H$\alpha$ and [\ion{O}{3}] filters in emission, satisfying only those two EW cuts above. These two groups will be called the three-line sample and two-line sample, respectively. Making those cuts reduces our source catalog from \num{35308} sources to \num{147} sources with $\text{S/N} > 3$ (95 in the three-line sample and 52 in the two-line sample).
At zero redshift, galaxy SEDs show the expected trend between line emission and color: bluer late-type galaxies are stronger in EW than the redder early-type galaxies due to young stellar populations in the former. The EW cuts made above will only cut out the reddest galaxies with little to no H$\alpha$ or [\ion{O}{3}] emission. Therefore these cuts will not negatively impact our search for star-forming galaxies even at relatively low EW.
Finally, we investigate contamination of our sample due to high redshift objects in the M101 field. In the H$\alpha$ survey of \cite{kellar2012}, \SI{37}{\percent} of their detected sources were higher redshift objects where the [\ion{O}{3}] line was redshifted into their H$\alpha$ filter. \cite{watkins2017} detected a handful of background galaxies and quasars in their H$\alpha$ sample, so the possibility of detecting high redshift objects in any one filter is strong. While our use of three narrowband filters significantly reduces the chance of background contaminants, there are still regions of redshift space where bluer emission lines can redshift into our filters.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{redshift_patches.pdf}
\caption{Regions of redshift space where bright nebular emission lines manifest emission or absorption signatures as they redshift through our narrowband filters. Note that the legend indicates the narrowband filter pair, not the redshifted emission line. \label{redshift}}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{redshift} shows where common bright emission lines in star-forming galaxies can shift through our filters over the range of redshift $0 \leq z \leq 0.5$. At $z < 0.01$, all three filters will appear in emission. If we select for only those redshift ranges that satisfy the EW cuts above, i.e.\ objects detected in the three- or two-line samples, then emission line sources in the narrow redshift window $0.314 < z < 0.332$ can also potentially contaminate our samples. Here, the H$\alpha$ emission line has redshifted out of our filters entirely, while the [\ion{O}{3}]$\lambda\lambda4959{,}5007$ doublet has redshifted into the H$\alpha$ filters. Similarly, the H$\beta$ line has redshifted into the [\ion{O}{3}] filters and the [\ion{O}{2}]$\lambda\lambda3727{,}3729$ lines have redshifted into the H$\beta$ filters. Due to the small size of the Burrell Schmidt, star-forming galaxies at higher redshift are unlikely to be detected at all, but bright high redshift AGN may still produce some contamination of the sample. However, the rarity of such objects makes them unlikely to be present in large numbers in our sample.
\subsection{Removing M Stars}
While the equivalent width cuts significantly reduce contamination due to Milky Way stars, M stars continue to pose a particular challenge. The reason for this can be seen in Figure~\ref{Mstar}, which shows the spectrum of a M5V star from the Stellar Spectral Flux Library \citep{pickles}. Overplotted are the filter transmission curves of our narrowband filters. The H$\alpha$ off-band filter lies in a \ch{TiO} molecular absorption trough, producing net emission in the measured H$\alpha$ flux. Other features in the complex stellar continuum mimic emission in our H$\beta$ and [\ion{O}{3}] filters as well. The abundance of Galactic M stars at the faint end of the stellar mass function suggests many of our ``emission line'' detections will be M star contaminants needing to be removed.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{M5V_Star_norm.pdf}
\caption{The spectrum of a M5V star from \protect\cite{pickles} (solid black line) overplotted with our narrowband filter transmission curves (colored lines), showing how features in the stellar continuum of M stars produce pseudo-emission signatures in our narrowband filters.\label{Mstar}}
\end{figure}
One possible method to removing M stars from our detections is to use some definition of compactness to distinguish between stellar point sources and extended \ion{H}{2} regions. Indeed, such a measure of compactness, the Gini index \citep[e.g.][]{lotz2004}, is part of the standard calculations made by the \texttt{segmentation} routine. However, given the FWHM of the Schmidt imaging (\ang{;;2.2}) and the assumed distance to M101, we would only be able to resolve objects larger than \SI{75}{\parsec}. The Str\"{o}mgren sphere radius of an \ion{H}{2} region powered by an O9 star is $\sim$\SI{30}{\parsec}, illustrating that some \ion{H}{2} regions would be unresolved in our imaging. Therefore, using compactness to distinguish between stars and \ion{H}{2} regions would bias us against the detection of smaller \ion{H}{2} regions in our survey.
Instead, to remove any remaining Milky Way stars from our emission line sample, we cross-match our sources with the \emph{Gaia} EDR3 catalog. Since star-forming objects in the M101 Group should have no detectable parallax or proper motion, we cut any cross-matched source with a $3\sigma$ detection of parallax or proper motion. The results of these cuts are shown in Figure~\ref{bmv_gaia}. Nearly all of the sources with $B-V > 1$ are rejected by the \emph{Gaia} cuts on parallax and proper motion, indicating that they are Galactic M stars. There are a few red objects that do not appear in the \emph{Gaia} catalog at all. Of the brighter ones at $V\sim19$, the object at $B-V \sim 1.5$ is cataloged by SDSS as a galaxy with a photometric redshift of $z = \num{0.188 \pm 0.034}$, while redder one at $V\sim19$ and $B-V \sim 1.7$ is a point source in the SDSS imaging. Of the three fainter objects at $V\sim 22-23$, the bluest one at $B-V = 1.1$ is cataloged as a galaxy in the SDSS imaging, with a photometric redshift of $z=\num{0.388 \pm 0.137}$. Given the uncertainty in the photometric redshift, this object may be an example of a background contaminant leaking into our sample through the redshift window shown in Figure~\ref{redshift}. The other two faint red sources undetected by \emph{Gaia} appear as point sources in the SDSS imaging. Based on this combined analysis of \emph{Gaia} and SDSS properties, we reject all sources redder than $B-V=1$, including the five mentioned here that do not appear in the \emph{Gaia} catalog.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{bmv_gaia.pdf}
\caption{Broadband color-magnitude diagram for sources in both the three- and two-line samples. The red points are those objects rejected by the \emph{Gaia} parallax and proper motion cuts. Characteristic photometric errorbars are shown, which include both uncertainties in the source photometry and in the overall photometric zeropoints. \label{bmv_gaia}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Additional Cuts}
Aside from contamination of the sample on the red end by Galactic M stars, Figure~\ref{bmv_gaia} shows a handful of very blue objects at $B-V < 0$. Cross-matching these sources against the SDSS imaging catalog reveals they are background sources in the M101 field. The two bluer objects are QSOs at redshift $z=1.34$ and $z=0.76$, where bright emission lines from [\ion{O}{2}] or \ch{Mg} have shifted into our filters. The reddest of the three is a background galaxy resolved in the SDSS imaging, but lacks any spectroscopic or photometric redshift.
The high redshift objects mentioned above illustrate the need for a final cut to remove them. For objects in emission in the H$\beta$ filters, we utilize the $\text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta$ ratio as an additional interloper cut. For unobscured ionized gas, the Balmer decrement should be $\text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta = 2.86$ \citep{osterbrock1989} with higher ratios indicating higher extinction levels. Therefore objects in our sample which show much lower Balmer decrements are likely background sources where other emission lines have redshifted into the filters. Similarly, objects with anomalously high Balmer decrements are likely also contaminants, as star-forming galaxies in the local universe rarely get above a decrement of 8 \citep{dominguez2013}. We therefore keep only objects with $1 < \text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta < 8$ for the three-line sample. This cut removes four objects, including one of the QSOs noted above.
There is no similar calculation we can make for those sources in the two-line sample as they have no detected H$\beta$ emission. Additionally, depending on the specific redshift and combination of lines moving through our filters, it is possible that a background source could mimic a realistic Balmer decrement. To combat this, we cross-matched with SDSS, removing those sources for which SDSS has a spectroscopic or photometric redshift. This process removes 20 objects at higher redshift (8 QSOs and 12 galaxies), but also allows us to reject $z\sim0$ objects located just beyond M101. Two such examples of $z\sim0$ contaminants were detected: the blue compact dwarf galaxy SBS 1407+540 ($z = 0.0068$, $d = \SI{29.1}{\mega\parsec}$; \citealt{stepanian2005}) and the Magellanic-type irregular galaxy CGCG 272-015 ($z = 0.0071$, $d = \SI{30.4}{\mega\parsec}$; \citealt{ann2015}). After all of the cuts, we examined each object by eye to confirm the nature of the source; during this process one object was discarded due to it being an obvious blend, pairing a foreground M star with a background galaxy.
Summarizing, we have split our source catalog into two groups: the three-line sample consists of those sources in H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and [\ion{O}{3}], while the two-line sample is comprised of sources showing emission in H$\alpha$ and [\ion{O}{3}] only. Both samples have been cleaned of stellar contamination using a combination of EW cuts and \emph{Gaia} parallaxes or proper motions. Background contamination was removed by cross-matching with redshift estimates from SDSS imaging and spectroscopy. Finally, for the three-line sample, an additional cut was made on the observed Balmer decrement to reject non-physical values. Our final samples consist of 19 objects in the three-line sample and 8 objects in the two-line sample.
\section{Analysis}
In this section, we investigate and describe the properties of the sources in the three-line and two-line samples. In total, the three-line sample contains 19 sources while the two-line sample contains 8 sources. Tables \ref{narrow_gold} and \ref{narrow_silver} list the narrowband properties of the sources in the three-line and two-line samples, respectively. The tables include a unique identifier for each source, the right ascension and declination (epoch J2000), whether that source is unresolved (U) or extended (E) in our images, the flux difference for each filter pair, the equivalent width (EW) for each filter pair, and the $\text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta$ and [\ion{O}{3}]/H$\alpha$ ratios.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{Ha_on_vs_bmv.pdf}
\caption{Broadband color-magnitude diagram for sources in the final three-line (orange points) and two-line samples (green points). Circles show sources unresolved in SDSS imaging, while triangles show extended sources.\label{cmd}}
\end{figure}
Tables \ref{broad_gold} and \ref{broad_silver} list the broadband properties of the sources in the three-line and two-line samples, respectively. Included are the source identifier, the $V$-band magnitude, the $B-V$ color, the respective SDSS $ugriz$ photometry if available, and the \emph{GALEX} far ultraviolet (FUV) and near ultraviolet (NUV) magnitudes if available. The color-magnitude diagram of the sources is shown in Figure~\ref{cmd}.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\gridline{\fig{broadband_labeled.pdf}{0.5\textwidth}{(a)}
\fig{halpha_labeled.pdf}{0.5\textwidth}{(b)}}
\caption{(a) The broadband $B$ image with M101 and its companions, NGC~5474 and NGC~5477 labeled, as well as background galaxies also in the survey area. (b) The continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ image. The red circles represent the masks used in our source detection algorithm. The orange and green squares represent the objects in our three-line and two-line samples, respectively. Both images measure $2.4 \times 2.4$ \si{\deg}. North is up and east is to the left.\label{images}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{m101_detail.pdf}
\caption{A zoomed-in view of the detected regions surrounding M101. Left: the continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ image. Right: the broadband $B$ image, stretched to show the faint structure of the outer disk. The orange and green circles with radii of \ang{;;20} are centered on the objects in our three-line and two-line samples, respectively. The red circle represents the size of the mask used in our source detection algorithm. Both images measure $24 \times 24$ \si{\arcmin}. North is up and east is to the left.\label{m101_detail}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{ngc5474_5486_detail.pdf}
\caption{A zoomed-in view of the detected regions near NGC~5474 (top row) and NGC~5486 (bottom row). Left: the continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ image. Right: the broadband $B$ image, stretched to show the faint structure of the outer disks. Colored circles are the same as in Figure~\ref{m101_detail}. The images of NGC~5474 measure $9 \times 9$ \si{\arcmin} and the images of NGC~5486 measure $3.6 \times 3.6$ \si{\arcmin}. North is up and east is to the left. \label{dwarf_detail}}
\end{figure}
Briefly, we give a sense of how deep we have attained in fluxes and the range of equivalent widths investigated in each group. In the three-line sample, the faintest source has $V = 22.9$. The corresponding H$\alpha$ net flux is \SI{8e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}, which, at the \SI{6.9}{\mega\parsec} distance to M101 and using the SFR-$L(\text{H}\alpha)$ calibration of \cite{kennicutt2012}, would correspond to a SFR of \SI{2.4e-5}{\solarmass\per\year}. The three-line sample has a range of H$\alpha$ equivalent widths from \SIrange{35}{425}{\angstrom} with a median of \SI{110}{\angstrom}. In the two-line sample, the faintest source has $V = 24.4$. The corresponding H$\alpha$ net flux is \SI{9.3e-17}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}, which at the distance of M101 corresponds to a SFR of \SI{2.8e-6}{\solarmass\per\year}. The two-line sample's H$\alpha$ equivalent widths range across \SIrange{8}{300}{\angstrom}, with a median of \SI{60}{\angstrom}.
Figures~\ref{images}-\ref{dwarf_detail} show images of the detected sources and their surrounding environments. Source identifiers for each object were assigned based on their proximity to known objects in the survey area and their sample (see Figures \ref{images}-\ref{dwarf_detail}). For instance, sources labeled ``M101-3-\#'' are sources near M101 in the three-line sample. Additional sources were identified as belonging to NGC~5474 and NGC~5486. While the object associated with NGC~5486 lies just inside the galaxy's $2R_{25}$ isophotal radius, visual inspection shows the object to be a distinct source located well outside the galaxy's star-forming disk, so we have kept it in our sample.
In the three-line sample, 18 (\SI{95}{\percent}) sources appear to be associated with the outer disk of M101 and 1 (\SI{5}{\percent}) appears to be associated with NGC~5474. In the two-line sample, 7 (\SI{88}{\percent}) sources appear to be associated with the outer disk of M101 and 1 (\SI{12}{\percent}) are associated with NGC~5486.
\subsection{Structural Analysis}
Since we are looking for faint star-forming objects in the M101 Group, we begin by comparing the observed properties of our samples to the observed properties of known satellite galaxies in the Local Universe shifted to the M101 distance. We focus first on observed size, surface brightness, and apparent magnitude of our objects in the three- and two-line samples.
Given the better resolution of SDSS, we assigned the sizes of our objects by utilizing the SDSS structural properties where able. For sources unresolved in SDSS imaging, we assigned a size equivalent to the FWHM of the SDSS $g$-band PSF (\ang{;;1.44}; \citealt{fukugita1996}). For resolved sources, we use the effective radius of the best-fit de Vaucouleurs or exponential profile as reported in the SDSS catalog. For objects not in SDSS, we measure the half-light radius directly from aperture photometry on the $V$-band Schmidt imaging. In this case, unresolved objects are again given an effective radius equivalent to the FWHM of the Schmidt imaging (\ang{;;2.2}) which corresponds to \SI{75}{\parsec} at M101.
We plot these quantities in the structural plots shown in Figure~\ref{struc_all}. The unresolved objects that have sizes equivalent to the SDSS or Schmidt PSFs are marked with arrows; these sizes only serve as upper limits to their true sizes. For context, the Local Group dwarf galaxies from \cite{mcconnachie2012} are also plotted. Effective radii for the LMC and SMC were taken from \cite{gallart2004} and \cite{massana2020}, respectively, while apparent $V$-band magnitudes were taken from \cite{rc3}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{structure_all.pdf}
\caption{Structural properties of our detected sources, compared to Local Group dwarfs shifted to the M101 distance. Top: Effective radius versus apparent magnitude. The dotted line indicates \ang{;;1} (\SI{33}{\parsec} at M101's distance). Bottom: Surface brightness versus apparent magnitude. The dotted line represents the limit on surface brightness for unresolved sources. Both the three- and two-line samples are plotted (orange and green markers, respectively). Pentagons denote objects whose properties were derived using SDSS data, while squares are sources with properties derived from our Burrell Schmidt imaging. Data for Local Group dwarfs are taken from \protect\cite{mcconnachie2012} and are shown as gray circles, while known M101 satellites are shown as gray squares \protect\citep{rc3,taylor2005,merritt2014,bennet2019,bellazzini2020}. The limits for \ion{H}{2} galaxies are shown as dashed gray lines \protect\citep{thuan1981}.\label{struc_all}}
\end{figure*}
We also plotted several of the confirmed and candidate satellite galaxies of M101 according to \cite{carlsten2019}: NGC~5474, NGC~5477, Holmberg IV, DF1, DF2, DF3, DwA, and Dw9. There is no single paper that catalogs all of the photometric properties of the M101 satellite system; quantities for each galaxy were taken from a variety of sources \citep{rc3,taylor2005,merritt2014,bennet2019,bellazzini2020}. Finally, we also show the region where \ion{H}{2} galaxies would lie, using the definition of \cite{thuan1981}: $-18.0 < M_V < -13.5$ and sizes less than \SI{1}{\kilo\parsec}, which at M101 corresponds to an angular size of \ang{;;30}.
In general, the three- and two-line samples are separated into two groups: there is a group of larger objects that roughly follow the trends of known dwarf galaxies, and another set of smaller objects that do not. These latter objects are largely unresolved point sources, giving rise to an upper limit on size and lower limit on surface brightness as shown in Figure~\ref{struc_all}. Only one object lies near the region defined by \ion{H}{2} galaxies. We explore what this source might be by marking each object by associated galaxy.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sizes_3_2.pdf}
\caption{Effective radius versus apparent magnitude for our detected sources and comparison samples shifted to the M101 distance. Symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{struc_all}, but color-coded by associated object: M101 (blue), NGC~5474 (orange), or NGC~5486 (green). Top panel shows the three-line sample; bottom panel shows the two-line sample.\label{struc_homes}}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{struc_homes} shows the three-line and two-line samples' structural information individually, color-coded by associated galaxy. In the three-line sample, most of the sources that appear to be associated with M101 fall along the smaller edge of the trend defined by dwarf galaxies. However, these do not appear to be individual galaxies, but rather \ion{H}{2} regions on the outskirts of the spiral arms (see Figure~\ref{m101_detail}). This includes the two bright sources at $V = 15.8$ and $R_e = \ang{;;7.3}$ and $V = 17$ and $R_e = \ang{;;16}$; they belong to neighboring large \ion{H}{2} complexes directly north of the center of M101 and both are at the end of the large distorted spiral arm. These properties make these \ion{H}{2} regions very similar to the known giant extragalactic \ion{H}{2} regions of M101, such as NGC~5471 \citep{garciabenito2011}.
The source associated with NGC~5474 is the faintest $V$-band source in the three-line sample. It lies just outside $2R_{25}$ and does not appear to be an extension of NGC~5474's spiral arms like the M101-associated sources (see Figure~\ref{dwarf_detail}). Its apparent size is very similar to the Local Group dwarf Segue II, but given that our source is brighter than Segue II by a factor of 30, it is unlikely that our source is an undiscovered, very small dwarf galaxy. Rather, it is likely an \ion{H}{2} region; its physical size is \SI{30}{\parsec}, comparable to the size of a Str\"{o}mgren sphere powered by an O9 star \citep{stromgren1939,osterbrock1989}.
The two-line sample in Figure~\ref{struc_homes} has a wider variety of sources than the three-line sample. As before, all of the sources associated with M101 appear not as dwarf galaxies, but are interspersed throughout M101's extended spiral arms and are likely just \ion{H}{2} regions in the outer disk. These regions have a larger spread in luminosity than the three-line sources, but are all only a few arcseconds in size. Investigating the line ratios and EWs of the two-line sources explains why these sources are bright enough to be detected in H$\alpha$, but not in H$\beta$: half of the sources have high Balmer decrements, indicating they are heavily extincted, while the other half have such large uncertainties on their H$\beta$ EW that they could reasonably be absorption signatures caused by a strong stellar continuum.
In the case of the source near NGC~5486, it is unlikely to be a part of the galaxy's outer spiral arms. The galaxy itself has relatively regular outer isophotes in our deep $B$- and $V$-band images (see Figure~\ref{dwarf_detail}). Given that we can resolve the spatially extended nature of the M101 candidates in our images, but cannot for this source, it is unlikely that this is a star-forming object in the M101 Group, but likely more distant. NGC~5486 has a redshift of $z=0.004$ \citep{rc3}; coupled with a Virgocentric flow model of \cite{mould2000}, this gives a distance to the galaxy of \SI{28.2}{\mega\parsec}. If the detected object is at the same distance as NGC~5486, it would have a size of $\sim$\SI{1.8}{\kilo\parsec} and $M_V = -13.5$, similar in physical size to the dwarf irregular galaxy WLM and similar in luminosity to the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy \citep{mcconnachie2012}.
\subsection{Photometric Analysis}
Another way of understanding these objects is to compare their star-forming properties to those of known galaxies. We do this by again comparing the observed properties of our samples to the observed properties of known galaxies shifted to the M101 distance. Figure~\ref{ewflux_samples} shows the distribution of H$\alpha$ flux (left axis) and distance-independent equivalent width for the three- and two-line samples. As expected, the three-line sample as a whole has higher EWs than the two-line sample, although both span similar ranges in emission line flux. Other studies have also used EWs to search for extragalactic \ion{H}{2} regions. \cite{werk2010} reported their emission line sources, which they called ELdots, spanned a range of EWs of approximately \SIrange{20}{900}{\angstrom}. Greater than \SI{150}{\angstrom} the majority of their ELdots were H$\alpha$-emitting outlying \ion{H}{2} regions; 7 (\SI{27}{\percent}) of our sources have H$\alpha$ EWs greater than \SI{150}{\angstrom}.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{ewflux_11hugs_singg.pdf}
\caption{The main panel shows H$\alpha$ flux (for our objects) or H$\alpha$-inferred SFR (for galaxies in the 11HUGS and SINGG samples) versus H$\alpha$ equivalent width. Our objects are color-coded by sample and use the left-hand $y$-axis for flux; smaller marker sizes are used for unresolved objects. The 11HUGS (black points) and SINGG (blue points) samples are plotted using the right-hand $y$-axis for absolute SFR. The two axes are equivalent for objects at the \SI{6.9}{\mega\parsec} distance of M101. The upper panel shows the normalized distribution of H$\alpha$ equivalent widths in the various samples, the 11HUGS/SINGG samples together (black outlined bars) and the three- and two-line samples together (light blue bars).\label{ewflux_samples}}
\end{figure*}
To place our sources in the context of other star-forming galaxies, we also plot in Figure~\ref{ewflux_samples} the H$\alpha$-inferred SFRs (right axis) and EWs for the \SI{11}{\mega\parsec} H$\alpha$ and Ultraviolet Galaxy Survey (11HUGS, \citealt{11hugs,kennicutt2008}) and the Survey for Ionization in Neutral Gas Galaxies (SINGG, \citealt{singg}). The 11HUGS sample is a virtually complete sample of Local Volume galaxies with SFRs in the range of $\sim$\SIrange{e-5}{10}{\solarmass\per\year} and H$\alpha$ EWs spanning \SIrange{0}{545}{\angstrom}. The SINGG sample utilized those \ion{H}{1}-selected galaxies in the \ion{H}{1} Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS, \citealt{hipass}); the SINGG sample has SFRs spanning \SIrange{0.0012}{14}{\solarmass\per\year} and H$\alpha$ EWs from \SIrange{2.8}{451}{\angstrom}.
Comparing our sample to the 11HUGS and SINGG samples, we note several features. On average our sample, if at the M101 distance, would be objects that have SFRs equivalent to the faintest galaxies in the 11HUGS and SINGG samples, i.e.\ less than \SI{e-3}{\solarmass\per\year}. Our sample also consists of objects that have higher H$\alpha$ EWs, on average, than the faint star-forming galaxies in the two galactic samples. This is not surprising given that our survey is an emission line survey; we will find strong emitters with high EWs. If any of our sources are bona-fide dwarfs, they would represent small objects of low star formation rate but high equivalent width, i.e.\ weak starbursting objects.
There are a few galaxies in the 11HUGS/SINGG samples that have such properties. One galaxy, UGCA~92, a dwarf companion to NGC~1569, has a high EW (\SI{96}{\angstrom}; \citealt{kennicutt2008}) indicating recent star formation. The high EW in UGCA~92 may be due to an interaction with NGC~1569 \citep{makarova2012}, making it an interesting comparison to objects in the M101 Group which may have interacted with M101.
An alternative explanation might be that some of these sources are background objects. In Figure~\ref{ewflux_samples}, there is a population of 11HUGS/SINGG galaxies with high EWs and $-2 \leq \log(\text{SFR}) \leq -1$, three orders of magnitude brighter than our sources would be at the M101 distance. Moving our sources out by a factor of 30 in distance would make them commensurate with those objects in the 11HUGS/SINGG samples. However, at a distance of $\sim$\SI{200}{\mega\parsec}, the emission lines would have been redshifted out of our filters and they would not show up in our detections. Thus it is unlikely that these sources are background objects, and given the mismatch to known star-forming dwarf galaxies as well as the close proximity of many of our sources to M101, the bulk of these sources are likely to be extreme outer-disk \ion{H}{2} regions.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{ewflux_locations.pdf}
\caption{The main panel shows H$\alpha$ flux versus EW for points in the three-line sample (squares) and two-line sample (circles), color-coded by associated galaxy. The left $y$-axis shows measured flux; the right $y$-axis shows equivalent star formation if the objects were at the M101 distance. Smaller marker sizes are used for unresolved objects. The upper panel shows the normalized distribution of H$\alpha$ equivalent widths of the sources.\label{ewflux_loc}}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{ewflux_loc} is similar to Figure~\ref{ewflux_samples}, but shows our sources color-coded by their associated object, with the 11HUGS and SINGG samples removed. We notice that the objects with high EWs appear to be associated with M101. This is consistent with the H$\alpha$ EWs of \ion{H}{2} regions in the arms of M101 being high; \cite{cedres2002} found them to range from \SIrange{10}{e4.5}{\angstrom} with a median of \SI{1660}{\angstrom}. This supports our assumption that these sources are indeed associated with M101 as part of its outer spiral structure rather than being outlying \ion{H}{2} regions.
There are three outliers to the cluster of sources belonging to M101. One source has a very high emission line flux, $f_{\text{H}\alpha} = \SI{1.4e-13}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}$, and moderately high H$\alpha$ EW, \SI{112}{\angstrom}. The other has still high but lower values, $f_{\text{H}\alpha} = \SI{1.8e-14}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}$ and $\text{EW(H}\alpha) = \SI{42}{\angstrom}$. These are the same outliers in the top panel of Figure~\ref{struc_homes} at $(V, R_e) = (15.8, \ang{;;7.3})$ and $(17,\ang{;;16})$, respectively. The high emission line fluxes supports the hypothesis that these sources are similar to the other giant \ion{H}{2} regions in M101's disk. For instance, the \ion{H}{2} region NGC~5471 has an H$\alpha$ flux of \SI{3.65 \pm 0.17 e-12}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre} \citep{garciabenito2011}. These sources also have equivalent widths broadly consistent with \ion{H}{2} regions in the inner spiral arms, albeit on the lower end \citep{cedres2002}.
Conversely, the other outlier falls within the range of emission line fluxes defined by the other M101-associated sources (\SI[multi-part-units=single]{1.8 \pm 0.1 e-15}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}), but at a much lower H$\alpha$ EW (\SI[multi-part-units=single]{15.4 \pm 3.1}{\angstrom}). This is the same bright source in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{struc_homes} at $V = 18.4$ and $R_e = \ang{;;7.1}$. This is located in the same group of \ion{H}{2} complexes as the source described above, but is found in an area of H$\beta$ absorption, indicating a stronger continuum. Given the low EW and H$\beta$ absorption, it is likely that this is a somewhat older \ion{H}{2} region than others that lie in our sample.
The source with the lowest H$\alpha$ EW is the source associated with NGC~5486. If at the distance of NGC 5486, it has an H$\alpha$ luminosity of \SI{8.7e37}{\erg\per\second} giving it an SFR of \SI{4.7e-4}{\solarmass\per\year} \citep{kennicutt2012}. It is interesting to note that its H$\alpha$ luminosity and thus SFR are similar to that of NGC~4163, a nearby dwarf irregular galaxy \citep{kennicutt2008}. Their H$\alpha$ EWs are similar as well; compare our source's \SI{8 \pm 2}{\angstrom} to NGC~4163's \SI{8 \pm 2}{\angstrom} EW \citep{kennicutt2008}. It is quite likely that this source is a star-forming satellite of NGC~5486 similar in structure and luminosity to NGC~4163.
Finally, we turn to the source associated with NGC~5474 with the highest EW in the entire sample. This source has an H$\alpha$ EW of \SI{422 \pm 43}{\angstrom} putting it firmly in the realm of H$\alpha$-emitting outlying \ion{H}{2} regions as defined by \cite{werk2010}. It also has moderately strong H$\beta$ and [\ion{O}{3}] EWs, \SI{71 \pm 22}{\angstrom} and \SI{282 \pm 37}{\angstrom}, respectively. It has a projected separation from NGC~5474 of $\sim$\ang{;;265} (\SI{8.8}{\kilo\parsec}). Given its structural and photometric properties, this source is likely an outlying \ion{H}{2} region associated with NGC~5474, making it the best (and perhaps only) such candidate discovered in our survey. Followup spectroscopy would be useful to secure its status as a bona-fide object in the M101 Group.
\section{Discussion}
Overall, across the \SI{6}{\square\deg} field of our survey, we detect a total of 19 objects in our three-line sample and 8 objects in our two-line sample. Of these objects, nearly all are found close to M101, aside from one object associated with NGC~5474 and another source associated with NGC~5486 (and thus likely in a background object). None of the emission line sources detected were located far from bright galaxies, arguing against any significant, ongoing intragroup star-forming objects in the M101 Group, down to a limiting star formation rate of \SI{1.7e-6}{\solarmass\per\year}.
In the discussion that follows, we will investigate the consequences of this rarity of star-forming objects in the context of intragroup \ion{H}{1} clouds and newly discovered ultradiffuse galaxies in the M101 Group, as well as the faint end of the star-forming luminosity function. We will also give a more broad discussion of the merger history of M101 and group environments in general.
Our survey area covers the entire extent of the deepest portion of the M101 \ion{H}{1} imaging survey by \cite{mihos2012}. That survey had a limiting \ion{H}{1} column density of $\log(N) = 16.8$ and \ion{H}{1} mass detection limit of \SI{2e6}{\solarmass}; for comparison, that survey would have detected even the lowest \ion{H}{1} mass objects in the SINGG survey if they were in the M101 Group. The \cite{mihos2012} survey did detect a number of discrete \ion{H}{1} clouds in the M101 Group, along with a diffuse loop of \ion{H}{1} extending \SI{85}{\kilo\parsec} to the southwest of M101. This loop and the associated \ion{H}{1} clouds likely arise from tidal interactions between M101 and its companions, yet our deep narrowband imaging presented here shows no evidence of ongoing star formation in this gas, either in discrete sources or diffuse emission. Nor did the deep broadband imaging of the M101 system by \cite{mihos2013} show evidence for diffuse light in this gas. If extended star formation was triggered in this gas by the past interactions in the M101 Group, that star formation must have been very weak and died out quickly.
We have also searched for faint H$\alpha$ emission in several of the recently discovered ultradiffuse galaxies in the M101 Group. Five of these dwarfs are seen in our broadband images: DF1, DF2, DF3, DwA, and Dw9 \citep{merritt2014,merritt2016,karachentsev2015,danieli2017,carlsten2019}. \cite{bennet2017} used a large NUV footprint and determined that all five of the dwarfs in our images lack a NUV excess indicating an upper limit SFR of \SI{1.7 \pm 0.5 e-3}{\solarmass\per\year}. We detect no compact emission line sources associated with these objects, and aperature photometry over the \ang{;;10} sizes (typical half-light radii as reported by \citealt{bennet2017}) reveals no diffuse emission down to a level of \SI{4.5e35}{\erg\per\second}. This places a strong upper limit on any star formation in these objects of $\text{SFR} < \SI{2.5e-6}{\solarmass\per\year}$.
This lack of detected H$\alpha$ emission is consistent with the red optical colors of these dwarfs \citep{merritt2014,bennet2017}, arguing that these are older objects, rather than systems formed during recent tidal interactions in the M101 Group. UDGs are observed in both the field and the group environments, so an intuitive formation scenario for those in group environments would be that they were already ``puffed up'' in the field and quenched after falling into the group \citep{roman2017,alabi2018,chan2018,ferremateu2018}. Recent observations seem to support this scenario -- \cite{roman2017} and \cite{alabi2018} found UDGs to have redder colors at smaller cluster-centric distances. Simulations have predicted that of all satellites to have ever existed in a group environment, half originated in the field as UDGs \citep{jiang2019}, themselves formed from supernovae feedback \citep{dicintio2017}, and half were normal galaxies puffed up by tides as satellites \citep{jiang2019}. Perhaps the lopsidedness of M101's satellites might indicate that they are part of a infalling low-mass group \citep{merritt2014}; indeed most isolated blue galaxies, like M101, have lopsided satellite distributions \citep{brainerd2020}. More detailed kinematic investigation is needed of the M101 Group to determine the origin of these UDGs.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{lf_ratio_alpha.pdf}
\caption{The ratio of the expected number of faint-to-bright objects in the M101 Group as a function of the luminosity faint end slope, $\alpha$. Bright objects are defined as having SFRs of $\num{0.01} < \si{\solarmass\per\year} < \num{50}$, while fainter ones have SFRs of $\num{e-5} < \si{\solarmass\per\year} < \num{0.01}$. The gray shaded area shows where the faint sources are rare, as indicated by our data, and favors slopes flatter than $\alpha \sim -1.0$. \label{lf_func}}
\end{figure}
Given the lack of a significant population of low luminosity star-forming dwarf galaxies in the M101 Group, we can place rough limits on the slope of the faint end of the star-forming luminosity function of galaxies in the group. A steep faint end slope would predict a high dwarf-to-giant ratio; the lack of these dwarfs in the M101 Group argues instead for a relatively shallow slope. By adopting a \cite{schechter1976} function with $\text{SFR}_\ast = \SI{9}{\solarmass\per\year}$ \citep{bothwell2011} and varying the faint end slope, we can calculate how many faint star-forming objects we should detect within the group.
In the M101 Group, there are four galaxies with SFRs greater than \SI{0.01}{\solarmass\per\year}: M101, NGC~5474, NGC~5477, and Holmberg~IV \citep{kennicutt2008,kennicutt2012}. However, our deep, wide-field imaging detects no intragroup objects with lower star formation rates. While it is possible that some objects may have been missed due to, for example, being projected directly in front or behind M101's disk, our results argue that the number of faint star forming galaxies (down to $\text{SFRs} \sim \SI{e-5}{\solarmass\per\year}$) must be very low, and certainly do not outnumber the brighter galaxies. This is contrary to expectation if the faint end of the star-forming luminosity function is even moderately steep. For example, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{lf_func}, a flat luminosity function (with slope $\alpha = -1$) would predict equal numbers of objects in the low star formation range of $\num{e-5} < \text{SFR} < \SI{e-2}{\solarmass\per\year}$, while a steeper slope with $\alpha = -1.5$ predicts on the order of 120 objects in the same SFR range. Since we found no evidence of such a population, either flatter values for the faint end slope ($\alpha > -1.0$), or a luminosity function that is sharply truncated below \SI{0.01}{\solarmass\per\year}, are required.
Most of the sources detected (\SI{92}{\percent}) were associated with M101 and are not true outlying \ion{H}{2} regions as they were extensions of the spiral arms. However, one source located near NGC~5474 had both photometric and structural properties consistent with previous searches for isolated \ion{H}{2} regions. We can quantify this source by calculating the total number of ionizing photons, $Q_0$, from \cite{osterbrock1989}:
\begin{equation}
Q_0 = 2.2\frac{L_{\text{H}\alpha}}{h\nu_{\text{H}\alpha}} \sim \num{7.2e11}L_{\text{H}\alpha} \, \si{\per\second},
\end{equation}
where we assume case B recombination \citep{osterbrock1989}. Assuming this source to be at the M101 distance, it could be powered by only 4 O9V stars \citep{martins2005}, similar to the faintest isolated \ion{H}{2} regions detected in the studies of other galaxies by \cite{ryan-weber2004} and \cite{werk2010}. Such a low level of star formation pushes the ill-defined boundary differentiating outlying \ion{H}{2} regions from star-forming dwarf galaxies; follow-up spectroscopy would be of interest in studying this source in more detail.
Another source that deserves spectroscopic follow-up is N5486-2-1. Although this was located within $2R_{25}$ of NGC~5486 and does not satisfy the classical definition of an outlying \ion{H}{2} region, assuming it is physically near NGC~5486, it displays many properties similar to local dwarf galaxies. The knot of star formation our survey targeted could be powered by $\sim$80 O9V stars \citep{martins2005}, consistent with dwarf galaxies \citep{werk2010}. Additionally, this source has a similar $V$-band and H$\alpha$ luminosity to the dwarf irregular galaxy NGC~4163 as mentioned above. Another striking resemblance is the asymmetry in the broadband images. The source appears to consist of a bright compact region with a more diffuse extension to the west, structure which is also evident in the shallower $gri$ composite from SDSS. Similarly NGC~4163 is itself asymmetric in nature, with a burst of star formation occurring in the central portion of the galaxy, but not the outer regions \citep{mcquinn2012}. It also has a peculiar \ion{H}{1} distribution, with an \ion{H}{1} tail to the west and possibly the south \citep{hunter2011,lelli2014}. Although it is not clear what could be causing the behavior in NGC~4163, perhaps some large-scale interaction with NGC~5486 has caused this asymmetry in our source.
Equally uncertain is the interaction history of the M101 Group as a whole. The asymmetric disk of M101 has long been believed to arise from an interaction \citep{beale1969,rownd1994,waller1997}. Low surface brightness optical light has been detected in the outskirts of M101 \citep{mihos2013} with colors and stellar populations consistent with a burst of star formation $\sim$\SIrange{300}{400}{\mega\year} ago \citep{mihos2018}. High-velocity \ion{H}{1} gas has also been observed in the same location as the optical light \citep{vanderhulst1988,mihos2012}, while intermediate-velocity \ion{H}{1} gas has been detected between M101 and NGC~5474 \citep{mihos2012}. NGC~5474's offset bulge is usually added as further evidence of an interaction, although recent work has called that into question \citep{bellazzini2020,pascale2021}.
Galaxy-galaxy interactions frequently give rise to star formation in tidal debris \citep{schombert1990,gerhard2002,sakai2002,cortese2004,ryan-weber2004,boquien2007,boquien2009,werk2010}. Intragroup \ion{H}{2} regions have also been detected between pairs of massive galaxies in compact groups \citep{sakai2002,oliveira2004}, illustrating that the small group environment easily drives interactions leading to star-forming regions beyond the galactic disks.
Given our lack of detection of any isolated, intragroup \ion{H}{2} regions, what does this mean for the interaction scenario? All of the examples of star-forming objects in interacting systems involve strong interactions or major-merger events. The lack of star-forming \ion{H}{2} regions between NGC~5474 and M101 might indicate that the two galaxies have undergone only a weak interaction, or that any tidally-triggered intragroup star formation was very short-lived. If the pair's luminosity ratio of $17:1$ in the $V$-band is indicative of the masses of the galaxies, then this would classify it as a low-mass encounter.
Furthermore, the M101 Group is not a compact galaxy group. Compact galaxy groups are very dense environments, containing only a few galaxies separated by distances comparable to their sizes. This makes them strongly interacting environments, leading to the formation of tidal tails, intragroup star formation, and tidal dwarf galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{demello2008,torresflores2009}. A well-known example of this is Stephan's Quintet (Arp 319) where the star formation is heavily influenced by the ongoing interactions between its member galaxies. Intragroup star formation can be found at the tip of a shock front \citep{xu1999,xu2003} and in a tidal tail \citep{arp1973,sulentic2001,xu2005}. Numerous tidal dwarf galaxy candidates have been found in tidal tails as well \citep{hunsberger1996}.
In contrast with Stephan's Quintet, the M101 Group is dominated by M101, with relatively few low-mass companions, making it possibly the poorest group in the Local Volume \citep{bremnes1999}. The lack of an abundance of intragroup star formation in the M101 Group might be because the M101 Group involves only weak interactions with low mass companions. Given M101's ``anemic'' stellar halo \citep{vandokkum2014,jang2020}, it is unlikely that M101 has gone through any major mergers, and very few, if any, minor mergers. With no comparable companions nearby, it is likely that no outlying \ion{H}{2} regions will form until one of the low mass companions falls into and merges with M101. Clearly, detailed computer modeling is needed to unravel all of the features of the M101 Group.
\section{Summary}
We have conducted a narrowband emission line survey of the M101 Group to search for faint star-forming dwarf galaxies and outlying \ion{H}{2} regions. Using narrowband filters that target H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and [\ion{O}{3}], our survey detects sources as faint as $f_{\text{H}\alpha} = \SI{5.7e-17}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}$, or an equivalent star formation rate of \SI{1.7e-6}{\solarmass\per\year} for sources in the M101 Group. Imaging in multiple lines significantly reduces contamination from single-line detections of redshifted sources in the background, but there is significant contamination from Milky Way stars, particularly M stars whose complicated continuum structure mimics emission line flux in our narrowband filters. To eliminate this contamination, we use stellar spectral templates to place equivalent width cuts on the sample, requiring $\text{EW}(\text{H}\alpha) > \SI{8}{\angstrom}$, $\text{EW}(\text{H}\beta) > \SI{2}{\angstrom}$, and $\text{EW}(\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}) > \SI{5}{\angstrom}$. We further cross-match the sample with the \emph{Gaia} EDR3 catalog to eliminate objects with detected parallax and proper motion. Finally, we cross-match the remaining sources with the SDSS catalog to remove known background sources and, in cases where H$\beta$ is detected, we also reject sources with anomalous (unphysical) Balmer decrements. Our final sample consists of 17 sources detected in all three of the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and [\ion{O}{3}] filters (the three-line sample), and another 8 sources detected only in H$\alpha$ and [\ion{O}{3}] (the two-line sample).
\begin{enumerate}
\item Of the 27 total sources, 25 (\SI{93}{\percent}) were located in M101's extreme outer disk, while two were associated with other bright galaxies in the survey area. We found no evidence for any truly outlying emission line regions in the M101 intragroup environment.
\item Assuming that our sources are at the M101 distance, a comparison between their physical properties and the properties of known Local Group dwarfs and star-forming galaxies in the 11HUGS and SINGG surveys argues that most of our sources are not bona-fide star-forming dwarfs. Instead, their small sizes, low H$\alpha$ luminosities, and high H$\alpha$ EWs argue that they are more likely M101 outer disk \ion{H}{2} regions.
\item Two detected sources were unassociated with M101 itself: an unresolved but high EW source near the M101 satellite NGC~5474 (likely an outlying \ion{H}{2} region), and a spatially extended, low EW satellite of the background galaxy NGC 5486.
\item We searched for ionized gas emission in five previously discovered ultradiffuse dwarf galaxy candidates in the M101 Group (DF1, DF2, DF3, DwA, Dw9) and found none to a limit of \SI{2.5e-6}{\solarmass\per\year}. This makes it unlikely that any of these ultradiffuse candidates are undergoing star formation at present times.
\item The lack of any significant population of star-forming objects in the M101 Group down to a limiting equivalent star formation rate of \SI{e-5}{\solarmass\per\year} argues for a shallow faint end slope of the star-forming luminosity function ($\alpha \sim 1$).
\item Given that tidally induced star formation is a common outcome of close galaxy encounters, the lack of outlying \ion{H}{2} regions also suggests either that interactions within the M101 Group have been relatively weak, or that any extended star formation triggered by the encounters has quickly died out. Both scenarios are consistent with recent studies attributing M101's distorted morphology to a weak, retrograde encounter with NGC~5474 some \SIrange{300}{400}{\mega\year} ago.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by a Towson Memorial Scholarship to RG, and by grants to JCM from the National Science Foundation (award 1108964) and the Mt Cuba Astronomical Foundation. We also thank Stacy McGaugh for helpful discussions.
\end{acknowledgments}
\facilities{CWRU:Schmidt}
\software{Astropy \citep{astropy2013,astropy2018}, Matplotlib \citep{matplotlib}, NumPy \citep{numpy}}
\movetabledown=0.7in
\begin{longrotatetable}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccccc}
\tablecaption{Narrowband Properties\label{narrow_gold}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{ID} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{Dec} & \colhead{E/U} & \colhead{$\Delta f_{\text{H}\alpha}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\Delta f_{\text{H}\beta}$} & \colhead{$\Delta f_{\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}}$} & \colhead{EW$_{\text{H}\alpha}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{EW$_{\text{H}\beta}$} & \colhead{EW$_{\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}}$} & \colhead{$\text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}/\text{H}\alpha$\tablenotemark{a}} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{{[Deg]}} & \colhead{{[Deg]}} & \colhead{} & \colhead{{[\SI{e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}]}} & \colhead{{[\SI{e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}]}} & \colhead{{[\SI{e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}]}} & \colhead{{[\si{\angstrom}]}} & \colhead{{[\si{\angstrom}]}} & \colhead{{[\si{\angstrom}]}} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
\startdata
M101-3-1 & 210.7923 & 54.5976 & E & 51.167 (1.637) & 19.265 (2.275) & 20.744 (2.190) & 83.947 (16.911) & 22.162 (6.247) & 26.814 (6.174) & 2.656 & 0.405 \\
M101-3-2 & 210.8047 & 54.5948 & E & 1446.379 (3.644) & 520.204 (4.936) & 1827.889 (4.853) & 111.643 (48.094) & 25.178 (13.898) & 102.963 (45.658) & 2.780 & 1.264 \\
M101-3-3 & 210.8159 & 54.5954 & E & 42.782 (1.494) & 8.897 (2.075) & 19.030 (2.001) & 35.695 (6.600) & 4.523 (1.493) & 11.347 (2.435) & 4.809 & 0.445 \\
M101-3-4 & 210.8268 & 54.5884 & E & 179.646 (2.756) & 28.383 (3.829) & 172.745 (3.704) & 42.363 (14.186) & 3.854 (1.740) & 26.896 (9.307) & 6.329 & 0.962 \\
M101-3-5 & 210.8277 & 54.5944 & E & 48.542 (1.654) & 13.523 (2.300) & 40.987 (2.218) & 49.854 (10.167) & 8.679 (2.687) & 30.387 (6.503) & 3.590 & 0.844 \\
M101-3-6 & 210.9173 & 54.6299 & U & 9.192 (0.629) & 4.339 (0.874) & 8.228 (0.842) & 287.044 (29.440) & 254.578 (57.042) & 511.041 (65.872) & 2.118 & 0.895 \\
M101-3-7 & 211.0488 & 54.5866 & U & 14.315 (0.858) & 6.166 (1.192) & 9.960 (1.148) & 106.914 (12.851) & 37.397 (8.795) & 63.710 (10.026) & 2.322 & 0.696 \\
M101-3-8 & 211.0629 & 54.5992 & E & 5.951 (0.558) & 3.063 (0.774) & 2.935 (0.745) & 100.021 (11.582) & 87.032 (23.253) & 61.645 (16.232) & 1.943 & 0.493 \\
M101-3-9 & 211.1460 & 54.4876 & U & 11.338 (0.848) & 6.481 (1.178) & 6.802 (1.133) & 108.648 (13.840) & 73.776 (16.600) & 87.410 (17.255) & 1.749 & 0.600 \\
M101-3-10 & 211.1545 & 54.4514 & U & 18.797 (1.105) & 5.446 (1.537) & 12.977 (1.480) & 51.262 (7.518) & 9.571 (3.168) & 28.209 (5.053) & 3.452 & 0.690 \\
M101-3-11 & 211.1651 & 54.4407 & U & 26.721 (0.961) & 10.942 (1.331) & 31.493 (1.285) & 104.887 (12.783) & 32.559 (6.279) & 113.648 (14.358) & 2.442 & 1.179 \\
M101-3-12 & 211.1661 & 54.4580 & U & 54.601 (1.483) & 22.772 (2.056) & 107.590 (1.990) & 144.730 (26.330) & 58.293 (14.470) & 360.163 (66.812) & 2.398 & 1.970 \\
M101-3-13 & 211.1676 & 54.2532 & E & 49.412 (1.249) & 22.497 (1.728) & 112.280 (1.678) & 159.882 (24.508) & 76.696 (16.012) & 426.537 (66.469) & 2.196 & 2.272 \\
M101-3-14 & 211.1932 & 54.4407 & E & 10.295 (0.929) & 4.341 (1.290) & 7.437 (1.243) & 44.510 (6.442) & 17.032 (5.635) & 31.805 (6.473) & 2.372 & 0.722 \\
M101-3-15 & 211.1955 & 54.3812 & E & 9.888 (0.917) & 4.552 (1.278) & 4.716 (1.228) & 77.771 (11.291) & 28.326 (8.932) & 36.478 (10.382) & 2.172 & 0.477 \\
M101-3-16 & 211.1994 & 54.4902 & U & 11.352 (0.755) & 5.820 (1.050) & 3.253 (1.009) & 156.237 (17.710) & 79.776 (17.197) & 49.120 (15.925) & 1.950 & 0.287 \\
M101-3-17 & 211.2051 & 54.3800 & E & 30.155 (1.081) & 13.725 (1.498) & 9.856 (1.439) & 111.209 (15.120) & 49.666 (9.963) & 46.681 (9.261) & 2.197 & 0.327 \\
M101-3-18 & 211.2138 & 54.3906 & E & 12.376 (0.755) & 5.801 (1.049) & 11.343 (1.011) & 205.514 (22.631) & 90.213 (19.485) & 204.745 (26.554) & 2.133 & 0.917 \\
N5474-3-1 & 211.2695 & 53.7356 & U & 8.000 (0.578) & 2.646 (0.804) & 7.130 (0.774) & 422.339 (42.488) & 70.703 (22.404) & 281.790 (36.729) & 3.023 & 0.891 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{H$\alpha$ fluxes and EWs have been corrected for [\ion{N}{2}] emission by assuming [\ion{N}{2}]/H$\alpha = 0.33$ \citep{kennicutt1992,jansen2000}.}
\tablecomments{Numbers in parentheses are the associated uncertainties for that quantity.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\end{longrotatetable}
\movetabledown=0.7in
\begin{longrotatetable}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccccc}
\tablecaption{Narrowband Properties\label{narrow_silver}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{ID} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{Dec} & \colhead{E/U} & \colhead{$\Delta f_{\text{H}\alpha}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\Delta f_{\text{H}\beta}$} & \colhead{$\Delta f_{\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}}$} & \colhead{EW$_{\text{H}\alpha}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{EW$_{\text{H}\beta}$} & \colhead{EW$_{\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}}$} & \colhead{$\text{H}\alpha/\text{H}\beta$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\text{[\ion{O}{3}]}/\text{H}\alpha$\tablenotemark{a}} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{{[Deg]}} & \colhead{{[Deg]}} & \colhead{} & \colhead{{[\SI{e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}]}} & \colhead{{[\SI{e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}]}} & \colhead{{[\SI{e-16}{\erg\per\second\per\square\centi\metre}]}} & \colhead{{[\si{\angstrom}]}} & \colhead{{[\si{\angstrom}]}} & \colhead{{[\si{\angstrom}]}} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} }
\startdata
M101-2-1 & 210.8156 & 54.5862 & E & 18.049 (1.500) & -9.414 (2.092) & 29.587 (2.025) & 15.397 (3.094) & -4.529 (-1.467) & 15.829 (3.183) & -1.917 & 1.639 \\
M101-2-2 & 210.9127 & 54.5898 & E & 1.596 (0.457) & 0.374 (0.638) & 3.050 (0.614) & 60.755 (17.741) & 11.030 (18.830) & 125.374 (26.252) & 4.267 & 1.911 \\
M101-2-3 & 211.1586 & 54.2476 & E & 5.978 (0.824) & 1.448 (1.150) & 6.867 (1.107) & 59.436 (10.137) & 8.661 (6.968) & 48.588 (9.309) & 4.128 & 1.149 \\
M101-2-4 & 211.1632 & 54.4533 & E & 4.724 (0.684) & 0.524 (0.955) & 5.957 (0.919) & 80.791 (13.505) & 5.584 (10.199) & 79.426 (14.028) & 9.022 & 1.261 \\
M101-2-5 & 211.1730 & 54.4580 & E & 0.929 (0.248) & 0.347 (0.345) & 1.049 (0.333) & 295.520 (79.335) & 117.886 (117.421) & 325.623 (103.728) & 2.679 & 1.129 \\
M101-2-6 & 211.2291 & 54.3049 & U & 1.436 (0.386) & 0.570 (0.537) & 1.782 (0.517) & 49.596 (13.533) & 17.634 (16.640) & 70.720 (20.794) & 2.518 & 1.241 \\
M101-2-7 & 211.2296 & 54.2999 & E & 2.764 (0.369) & 1.219 (0.513) & 3.219 (0.494) & 249.438 (35.095) & 97.326 (41.319) & 265.051 (42.508) & 2.267 & 1.165 \\
N5486-2-1 & 211.8695 & 55.0837 & E & 9.093 (1.306) & 3.388 (1.800) & 8.630 (1.741) & 8.253 (1.771) & 3.254 (1.849) & 7.853 (2.036) & 2.683 & 0.949 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{H$\alpha$ fluxes and EWs have been corrected for [\ion{N}{2}] emission by assuming [\ion{N}{2}]/H$\alpha = 0.33$ \citep{kennicutt1992,jansen2000}.}
\tablecomments{Numbers in parentheses are the associated uncertainties for that quantity.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\end{longrotatetable}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccccc}
\tablecaption{Three-Line Sample Broadband Properties\label{broad_gold}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{ID} & \colhead{$V$} & \colhead{$B-V$} & \colhead{$u$} & \colhead{$g$} & \colhead{$r$} & \colhead{$i$} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$FUV$} & \colhead{$NUV$}}
\startdata
M101-3-1 & 19.20 & 0.05 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
M101-3-2 & 15.80 & 0.10 & 21.50 & 21.60 & 21.39 & 21.10 & 20.55 & -- & -- \\
M101-3-3 & 18.45 & 0.05 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
M101-3-4 & 16.98 & 0.09 & 18.71 & 18.56 & 18.65 & 18.92 & 22.70 & -- & -- \\
M101-3-5 & 18.61 & 0.10 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
M101-3-6 & 22.46 & 0.28 & 23.67 & 22.49 & 23.36 & 23.79 & 23.54 & -- & -- \\
M101-3-7 & 20.83 & 0.06 & 22.47 & 22.33 & 22.23 & 24.29 & 23.24 & -- & -- \\
M101-3-8 & 21.91 & 0.32 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
M101-3-9 & 21.31 & -0.01 & 21.33 & 21.50 & 21.64 & 22.19 & 22.61 & 17.55 & 18.87 \\
M101-3-10 & 19.74 & 0.05 & 20.72 & 19.93 & 20.12 & 21.25 & 21.36 & 16.99 & 18.14 \\
M101-3-11 & 20.12 & 0.12 & 21.07 & 21.13 & 21.23 & 22.02 & 22.18 & 17.23 & 18.40 \\
M101-3-12 & 19.66 & 0.27 & 21.57 & 20.73 & 20.66 & 22.35 & 21.47 & 16.28 & 17.47 \\
M101-3-13 & 19.80 & 0.59 & 19.79 & 19.71 & 19.78 & 20.81 & 19.24 & 16.48 & 17.96 \\
M101-3-14 & 20.34 & 0.41 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 17.05 & 18.34 \\
M101-3-15 & 20.92 & 0.10 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 16.96 & 18.35 \\
M101-3-16 & 21.55 & 0.15 & 22.46 & 22.14 & 23.03 & 22.84 & 21.40 & 17.49 & 18.73 \\
M101-3-17 & 20.39 & 0.08 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 16.56 & 17.94 \\
M101-3-18 & 21.49 & 0.26 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 17.30 & 18.69 \\
N5474-3-1 & 22.89 & -0.16 & 22.83 & 22.46 & 22.77 & 23.74 & 23.61 & -- & -- \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccccc}
\tablecaption{Two-Line Sample Broadband Properties\label{broad_silver}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{ID} & \colhead{$V$} & \colhead{$B-V$} & \colhead{$u$} & \colhead{$g$} & \colhead{$r$} & \colhead{$i$} & \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{$FUV$} & \colhead{$NUV$}}
\startdata
M101-2-1 & 18.37 & 0.08 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
M101-2-2 & 22.67 & 0.07 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
M101-2-3 & 21.01 & 0.10 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 17.39 & 18.86 \\
M101-2-4 & 21.45 & 0.21 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 17.98 & 19.22 \\
M101-2-5 & 24.37 & 0.25 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 20.12 & 21.36 \\
M101-2-6 & 22.75 & 0.35 & 23.35 & 22.56 & 22.34 & 22.44 & 22.42 & 18.73 & 20.28 \\
M101-2-7 & 23.24 & 0.31 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- & 18.83 & 20.38 \\
N5486-2-1 & 18.79 & 0.55 & 19.51 & 19.17 & 19.24 & 19.14 & 23.58 & -- & -- \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable*}
|
\section{Introduction}
The problem of computing the roots of a univariate
polynomial $F$ has a venerable history that dates back to antiquity.
With the advent of modern computing, the subject
received several newfound aspects;
in particular, the introduction of algorithmic rigor and complexity
analysis has been extremely fruitful
(see \cite{mcnamee:roots:bk2}).
This development is traced to
Sch\"onhage's 1982 landmark paper,
``{\em Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
in Terms of Computational Complexity}''
\citep{schonhage:fundamental}.
\longShort{ \footnote{
Coincidentally,
Smale wrote his influential paper
\cite{smale:fundamental-thm:81}
on the ``{\em Fundamental Theorem and Complexity Theory}''
around the same time.
Smale's work opened up a completely different line of work
that is outside the current scope.
In \cite[p.~48]{schonhage:fundamental}
Sch\"onhage noted that despite the similarity in their
titles, there is no overlap;
for instance, Smale's approach cannot handle multiple roots
which is a major concern of Sch\"onhage, and of this paper.
}}{
}
Algorithms in this tradition are usually described as ``exact and
efficient''. Sch\"onhage considers the problem of
approximate polynomial factorization, that is, the computation of
approximations $\tilde{z}_i$
of the roots $z_i$ of $F$ such that
$\|F-\wt{F}\|_{1}<2^{-b}\cdot\|F\|_{1}$, where
$\wt{F}(z):=\operatorname{lcf}(F)\cdot\prod_{i=1}^n (z-\wtz_i)$
and $b$ is a given positive integer.
The sharpest result for this problem is from
\cite[Theorem 2.1.1]{pan:poly-roots:02} and
\cite[p.196]{pan:history-progress:97}.
Hereafter, we refer to the underlying algorithm in this theorem as
``Pan's algorithm''.
Under some mild assumption on $F$ (i.e., $|z_i|\le 1$ and
$b\ge n\log n$), Pan's algorithm uses only $\tilde{O}(n\log b)$
arithmetic operations with a precision bounded by $\tilde{O}(b)$, and
thus $\tilde{O}(nb)$ bit operations.
This result further implies that the
complexity of approximating all $z_i$'s to any specified $b/n$ bits,
with $b>n\log n$,
is also $\wtO(nb)$ (see \cite[Corollary 2.1.2]{pan:poly-roots:02}).
Here, $\wtO$ means we ignore logarithmic factors
in the displayed parameters.
In a model of computation, where it is assumed that the coefficients of
$F$ are complex numbers for which approximations
are given up to a demanded precision, the above bound is tight (up to
poly-logarithmic factors) for polynomial factorization
as well as for root approximation.
The preceding paragraph is concerned with
\emph{root approximation},
i.e., computing $\wtz_i$ such that $|\wtz_i-z_i|\le \vareps$ for
specified $\vareps>0$. Our main focus is the
stronger problem of \emph{root isolation},
i.e., computing $(\wtz_i,r_i)$ such that $r_i\le \vareps$
and the discs $\Delta(\wtz_i,r_i)$ centered at $\wtz_i$ of
radius $r_i$ are pairwise disjoint and contains $z_i$.
A central focus in exact and efficient root approximation
research has been to determine the complexity of
\emph{isolating} all the roots of an \emph{integer} polynomial $F(z)$
of degree $n$ with $L$-bit coefficients.
We call this the \dt{benchmark problem} in
\cite{sagraloff-yap:ceval:11}
since this case is the main theoretical tool for comparing root
isolation algorithms.
Although this paper addresses complex root isolation, we will also
refer to the related \dt{real benchmark problem}
which concerns real roots for integer polynomials.
Root isolation can be reduced to
root approximation. Sch\"onhage showed that, for a
square-free polynomial $F$, it
suffices to choose a $b$ of size $\Omega(n(\log n+L))$ to ensure that
the approximations $\wtz_i$ are isolated with $2\vareps$ taken as
the root separation bound of $F$. Together with Pan's result on
approximate polynomial factorization, this yields a
complexity of $\wtO(n^2L)$ for the benchmark problem.
Interestingly, the latter bound was not explicitly stated until
recently
(see \cite[Theorem 3.1]{emiris-pan-tsigaridas:handbk:14}).
\cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff-wang:15} extend the latter
result to (not necessarily square-free) polynomials $F$
with arbitrary complex coefficients
for which the number of distinct roots is given as an additional input.
That is, Pan's algorithm is used
as a blackbox with successively increasing precision $b$ to isolate the
roots of $F$. For the benchmark problem, this yields
the bound $\wtO(n^3+n^2L)$; however, the actual cost adapts to the
geometry of the roots, and for most input polynomials, the
complexity is considerably lower than the worst case bound.
We further remark that it seems likely that the bound $\wtO(n^2L)$ is
also near-optimal for the benchmark problem
because it is generally believed that
Pan's algorithm is near-optimal for the problem of approximately
factorizing a polynomial with complex
coefficients. However, rigorous arguments for such claims are missing.
\ignore{
, they give an algorithm to isolate all roots by one can adaptively
choose the precision $b$ to yield a
bit complexity
$
\wtO(n^2(n+L))
$
for an arbitrary input $F(z)$ that is not necessarily square-free
(this result requires knowing the number $m$ of distinct roots, which
can be computed within this complexity).
But to use this result, we must first make $F(z)$ square-free.
Theoreticians feel justified to do this because it does not
affect degrade the benchmark complexity; but in practice, this is
undesirable
since it invokes an unrelated algorithm and since the
typical $F(z)$ is square-free.
\ignore{
Michael argued against my ``wasted effort remark'' (OK I will remove
my remark, even though what I state is literally true -- I am
not making a complexity claim). But Michael claims that
``in practice, this is done via a Las Vegas algorithm based
on modular computation and Chinese Remainder, which has low cost of
$O(nL)$''. I agree that the worst case complexity
is low (but these computations seems non-adaptive).
Can you tell me where this is practiced?
Complexity theorists in pursuit of ``record worst case
bounds'' has no qualms. But outside of crypto applications,
I cannot imagine any numerical community willing to adopt this.
Anyway, to settle this issue, it would be nice
to see some experimental results.
Perhaps Michael's work with Rouillier can provide this?
}
So it is of interest to have root isolation algorithms that are
not conditional on the square-freeness of $F(z)$.
This motivates the second improvement:
\cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff-wang:15}
showed that by using Pan's algorithm
as a blackbox, one can adaptively choose the precision $b$ to yield a
bit complexity
\ignore{
\beql{bench}
\wtO(n^2(n+L))
\eeql
}%
$
\wtO(n^2(n+L))
$
for an arbitrary input $F(z)$ that is not necessarily square-free
(this result requires knowing the number $m$ of distinct roots, which
can be computed within this complexity).
Note that \cite[p.~722]{pan:poly-roots:02} refers to the bounds
$\wtO(n^2L)$ (or $\wtO(n^2(n+L))$) as ``near-optimal'' for the benchmark problem.
It is an informal but useful terminology.
}
Until recently, it had been widely assumed that near-optimal bounds
need the kind of
``muscular'' divide and conquer techniques such as
the splitting circle method of Sch\"onhage (which underlies
most of the previous fast algorithms in the complexity literature).
These algorithms are far from practical (see below).
So, also the bound $\wtO(n^2(n+L))$ achieved by
\cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff-wang:15}
is mainly of theoretical interest as the algorithm uses Pan's method as
a blackbox.
\ignore{
Currently, the best implemented
algorithms for root isolation with guaranteed correctness
are based on subdivision methods (see
\cite{sagraloff-yap:ceval:11} for a brief survey).
}
Instead of these near-optimal algorithms, practitioners interested
in a priori root isolation invariably rely on subdivision methods.
The classical example is real root isolation based on Sturm sequences
(1829). For complex roots, Weyl (1924) introduced the quadtree method
for
\ignore{
Subdivision algorithms need one or more predicates for testing
subdivision
boxes; failure of the predicates would force the box to split, forming a
subdivision tree.
}%
Two types of subdivision algorithms are actively investigated currently: the
\dt{Descartes Method}
\citep{collins-akritas:76,lane-riesenfeld:81,rouillier-zimmermann:roots:04,schonhage:fundamental,sagraloff:newton-descartes:12,mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}
and the \dt{Evaluation Method}
\citep{burr-krahmer-yap:continuousAmort:09,burr-krahmer:sqfree:12,sharma-yap:near-optimal:12,becker:thesis:12,sagraloff-yap:ceval:11,kamath-voiculescu-yap:study:11,pan:weyl:00}.
%
See \cite{sagraloff-yap:ceval:11} for a comparison of
Descartes and Evaluation (or Bolzano) methods.
The development of certain tools, such as the Mahler-Davenport root
bounds
\citep{davenport:85,du-sharma-yap:sturm:07}, have been useful in deriving
tight bounds on the subdivision tree size for certain subdivision
algorithms
\citep{eigenwillig-sharma-yap:descartes:06,burr-krahmer:sqfree:12,sharma-yap:near-optimal:12}.
Moreover, most of these analyses
can be unified under the ``continuous amortization'' framework
\citep{burr-krahmer-yap:continuousAmort:09,burr:contAmortization:16}
which can even incorporate bit-complexity.
These algorithms only use bisection in their subdivision,
which seems destined to lag behind the above ``near optimal bounds''
by a factor of $n$.
To overcome this, we need to combine Newton iteration with bisection,
an old idea that goes back to Dekker and Brent
in the 1960s.
\cite{pan:weyl:00} showed that theoretically, the
near optimal bounds can be achieved with subdivision methods.
In recent years, a formulation of Newton iteration
due to \cite{abbott:qir} and
\cite{sagraloff:newton-descartes:12} has proven especially useful.
This has been adapted to achieve the recent near-optimal
algorithms of
\cite{sagraloff:newton-descartes:12} and
\cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}
for real roots, and \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18} for complex roots.
\longShort{One key contribution of this paper is to expand the scope of
these techniques.}{}
{\bf The Root Clustering Problem.}
In this paper, we are interested in root clustering.
The requirements of root clustering represents
a simultaneous strengthening of
root approximation (i.e., the output discs must be disjoint)
and weakening of root isolation (i.e., the output discs
can have more than one root). Hereafter, ``root finding'' refers
generally
to any of the tasks of approximating, isolating or clustering roots.
For an analytic function $F:\CC\to\CC$ and a complex disc
$\Delta\ib\CC$,
let $\cal Z(\Delta;F)$ denote the multiset of roots of $F$ in $\Delta$
and $\#(\Delta;F)$ counts the size of this multiset.
We write $\cal Z(\Delta)$ and $\#(\Delta)$ since $F$ is usually
supplied by the context.
Any non-empty set of roots of the form $\cal Z(\Delta)$ is called a
\dt{cluster}.
The disc $\Delta$ is called an \dt{isolator} for $F$ if $\#(\Delta)=$
$\#(3\Delta)>0$.
Here, $k\Delta=k\cdot \Delta$ denotes the centrally scaled version of
$\Delta$
by a factor $k\ge 0$.
The set $\cal Z(\Delta)$ is called a \dt{natural cluster} when
$\Delta$ is an isolator. A set of $n$ roots could contain
$\Theta(n^3)$ clusters, but at most $2n-1$ of these are natural.
This follows from the fact that any two natural clusters
are either disjoint or have a containment relationship.
The benchmark problem is a global problem because it concerns
{\em all} roots of the polynomial $F(z)$; we now address local
problems where we are interested in finding only {\em some} roots of
$F(z)$.
For instance, \cite{yakoubsohn:cluster:00} gave a method to
test if Newton iteration from a given point will converge to a cluster.
In \cite{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13}, we introduced
the following \dt{local root clustering problem}:
{\em given
$F(z)$, a box $B_0\ib \CC$ and $\vareps>0$,
to compute a set $\set{(\Delta_i,m_i): i\in I}$
where the $\Delta_i$'s are pairwise disjoint isolators,
each of radius $\le \vareps$ and $m_i =\#(\Delta_i)\ge 1$, such that}
$$
\cal Z(B_0) ~\ib~ \bigcup\nolimits_{i\in I}\cal Z(\Delta_i) ~\ib~ \cal Z(2B_0).
$$
We call the set
$S =\set{\Delta_i: i\in I}$ (omitting the $m_i$'s)
a \dt{solution} for the local
root clustering instance $(F(z), B_0,\vareps)$.
The roots in $2B_0\setminus B_0$ are said to be \dt{adventitious}
because we are really only interested in roots in $B_0$.
%
Suppose $S$ and $\wh{S}$ are both solutions for an instance
$(F(z),B_0,\vareps)$. If $S\ib\wh{S}$, then we call $\wh{S}$
an augmentation of $S$. Thus any $\Delta \in\wh{S}\setminus S$
contains only adventitious roots.
We solved the local root clustering problem
in \cite{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13} for any
analytic function $F$, provided an upper on $\#(2B_0)$ is known,
but no complexity analysis was given.
%
Let us see why our formulation is reasonable.
It is easy to modify our algorithm so that the adventitious
roots in the output are contained in
$(1+\delta)B_0$ for any fixed $\delta>0$.
We choose $\delta=1$ for convenience.
Some $\delta>0$ is necessary because in our
computational model where only approximate
coefficients of $F$ are available, we cannot decide
the implicit ``Zero Problem'' (see \cite{yap:praise:09}) necessary
to decide if the input has a root on the boundary of $B_0$,
or to decide whether $\Delta$ contains a root of multiplicity $k>1$.
Thus, root clustering is the best one can hope for.
\ignore
The advantage of our model (and its main motivation)
is that we are now able to
design ``unconditional'' algorithms for analytic roots
\citep{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13}.
For instance, Sch\"onhage
\cite[p.~5]{schonhage:fundamental}
noted that algorithms for root isolation
(see references [17,18,34] therein)
that are only ``conditionally correct'' because they use
contour tests which fail when roots lie on the contours.
}%
%
\subsection{Main Result}
In this paper, we describe a local root clustering
algorithm and provide an analysis of its bit-complexity.
Standard complexity bounds for root isolation
are based on \dt{synthetic parameters}
such as degree $n$ and bitsize $L$ of the input polynomial.
But our computational model for $F(z)$ has no notion of bit size.
Moreover, to address ``local'' complexity of roots,
we must invoke \dt{geometric parameters} such as root separation
\citep{sagraloff:newton-descartes:12,mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}.
We will now introduce new geometric parameters arising from
cluster considerations.
Assume $F(z)$ has $m$ distinct complex roots
$z_1\dd z_m$
where each $z_j$ has multiplicity $n_j\ge 1$,
thus $n=\sum_{j=1}^m n_j$ is the degree of $F(z)$.
Let the magnitude of the
leading coefficient of $F$ be $\ge 1/4$,
and the maximum coefficient magnitude $\|F\|_\infty$
be bounded by $2^{\tau_F}$ for some $\tau_F$.
\longShort{
This constraint on leading coefficient of $F$ is analogous
to making the leading coefficient equal to $1$; but in our
model of approximate coefficients, we use a lower bound of $1/4$.
}{}Let $k$ be the number of roots counted with multiplicities in
$2B_0$.
An input instance $(F(z), B_0,\vareps)$ is called \dt{normal} if
$k\ge 1$ and
$\vareps\le\min\set{1,\frac{w_0}{96n}}$ with $w_0$ the width of $B_0$.
For any set $U\ib\CC$,
let $\LOG(U) \as \max(1,\log\sup(|z|: z\in U))$.
Our algorithm outputs a set of discs, each one contains a
natural cluster. We provide a bit complexity bound of the
algorithm in terms of the output.
\bgenDIY{Theorem A}{
Let $S$ be the solution computed by our algorithm for
a normal instance $(F(z),B_0,\vareps)$.
Then there is an augmentation
$\wh{S}=\set{D_i: i\in I}$ of $S$ such that
the bit complexity of the algorithm is
{
\beql{TotalCost}
\wtO\Big(n^2\LOG(B_0)+ n \sum\nolimits_{D\in \wh{S}} L_D\Big)
\eeql}
with
{
\beql{L_D}
\begin{aligned}
L_D = \wtO \Big( \tau_F
+n\cdot\LOG(\xi_D)
+k_D\cdot(k+\LOG(\varepsilon^{-1}))
+ \LOG (\prod\nolimits_{z_j\notin D}
|\xi_D-z_j|^{-n_j})\Big)
\end{aligned}
\eeql}where
$k_D=\#(D)$, and $\xi_D$ is an arbitrary root in $D$.
Moreover, an $L_D^*$-bit approximation of the coefficients of $F$
is required with
$L_D^*\as\max_{D\in\wh{S}}L_D$.
}
\\The solution $\wh{S}$ in this theorem is called
an \dt{augmented solution} for input $(F(z),B_0,\vareps)$.
Each natural $\vareps$-cluster $D \in \wh{S}$ is an isolator of radius
$\le \vareps$.
From \refeQ{TotalCost}, we deduce:
\bgenDIY{\sc Corollary to Theorem A}{
\ \\The bit complexity of the algorithm is bounded by
{
\beql{complexity}
\wtO\Big(n^2(\tau_F + k+m)
+ nk\LOG(\vareps^{-1})
+ n\LOG|\operatorname{GenDisc}(F)|^{-1}
\Big)
\eeql}
where
\begin{equation*}\label{gdisc}
\operatorname{GenDisc}(F) \as {\operatorname{lcf}(F)}^{m}
\prod_{1 \le i< j\le m} \paren{\alpha_i - \alpha_j}^{n_i+n_j}.
\end{equation*}
In case $F$ is an integer polynomial, this bound becomes
{
\beql{complexity2}
\wtO\Big(n^2(\tau_F + k +m)
+ nk\LOG(\vareps^{-1}) \Big).
\eeql}
}
The bound \refeQ{complexity2} is the sum of two terms:
the first is essentially the near-optimal root bound,
the second is linear in $k$, $n$ and $\LOG(\vareps^{-1})$.
This suggests that Theorem A is quite sharp.
{\bf On strong $\vareps$-clusters.}
%
Actually, the natural $\vareps$-clusters in the $\wh{S}$ have some
intrinsic property captured by the following definition.
Two roots $z,z'$ of $F$ are \dt{$\vareps$-equivalent},
written $z\equiV z'$,
if there exists a disk $\Delta=\Delta(r,m)$ containing $z$ and $z'$
such that
$r\le \frac{\varepsilon}{12}$
and $\#(\Delta)=\#(114\cdot\Delta)$.
%
Clearly $\Delta$ is an isolator; from this, we see
that $\vareps$-equivalence is an equivalence relationship.
We define a \dt{strong $\vareps$-cluster} to be
any such $\vareps$-equivalence class.
Unlike natural clusters, any two strong
$\vareps$-clusters must be disjoint.
\bgenDIY{Theorem B}{ \ \\
Each
natural cluster $D\in\wh{S}$ is a union of strong
$\vareps$-clusters.
\vspace{4pt}
}
This implies that our algorithm will never split
any strong $\vareps$-cluster. It might appear
surprising that our ``soft'' techniques
can avoid accidentally splitting a strong $\vareps$-cluster.
\longShort{
With Theorem B, we can also give a bit complexity bound
in terms of the set of strong $\vareps$-clusters.
\bgenDIY{Lemma C}{\ \\
The bit complexity of the algorithm can be bound by \refeQ{TotalCost}
where $\wh{S}$ is replaced by the set of strong
$\vareps$-clusters contained in $2B_0$.
}
This bound is not as good as \refeQ{TotalCost}, nevertheless,
it is
intrinsic and does not depend on the output of the algorithm.
}{}
\subsection{What is New}
Our algorithm and analysis is noteworthy for its wide applicability:
(1) We do not require square-free polynomials. This is important
because we cannot compute the square-free part of
$F(z)$ in our computational model where the coefficients
of $F(z)$ are only arbitrarily approximated.
Most of the recent fast subdivision
algorithms for real roots
\citep{sagraloff:newton-descartes:12,mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}
require square-free polynomials.
(2) We address the local root problem
and provide a complexity analysis
based on the local geometry of roots.
Many practical applications (e.g., computational geometry)
can exploit locality. The companion paper \citep{becker+3:cisolate:18}
also gives a local analysis. However, it is under the condition that
the initial box is not too large or is centered at the origin, and
an additional preprocessing step is needed for the latter case.
But our result does not depend on any assumptions on $B_0$ nor
require any preprocessing.
(3) Our complexity bound is based on cluster geometry instead of individual
roots. To see its benefits, recall that the bit complexity in
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}
involves a term $\LOG \sigma(z_i)^{-1}$ where $\sigma(z_i)$ is the
distance to the nearest root of $F(z)$. If $z_i$ is a multiple root,
$\sigma(z_i)=0$. If square-freeness is not
assumed, we must replace $\sigma(z_i)$ by the distance $\sigma^*(z_i)$ to
the closest root $\neq z_i$ (so $\sigma^*(z_i)>0$).
But in fact, our bound in \refeQ{TotalCost} involves
$T_D\as \LOG\prod_{z_j\notin D} |\xi_i-z_j|^{-n_j}$ which depends only on the inverse distance
from a root within a cluster $D$ to the other roots outside of $D$,
which is smaller than $\LOG \sigma^*(z_i)^{-1}$. So the
closeness of roots within $D$ has no consequence on $T_D$.
Why can't we just run the
algorithm in \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}
by changing the stopping
criteria so that it terminates as soon as a component $C$
is verified to be a natural $\vareps$-cluster?
Yes, indeed one can. But our previous method of charging the work associated
with a box $B$ to a root $\phi(B)$ may now cause a cluster of multiplicity
$k$ to be charged a total of $\Omega(k)$ times, instead of $\wtO(1)$ times.
Cf.~Lemma 11 below where $\phi(B)$ is directly charged to a cluster.
\end{s1}
\begin{s2}
\subsection{Practical Significance}
Our algorithm is not only theoretically efficient, but
has many potential applications. Local root
isolation is useful in applications where
the roots of interest lie in a known locality,
and this local complexity can be much
smaller than that of finding all roots.
\longShort{
Many problems of computational geometry (e.g.,
locating Voronoi vertices in a non-linear diagrams),
we often have a good idea of the region $B_0$ where the Voronoi vertex
lies. The actual number of roots in $B_0$ may be very small
compared to the total number of roots.
}{}
From this perspective, focusing on
the benchmark problem is misleading for such applications.
We believe our algorithm is practical, and plan to implement it.
Many recent subdivision algorithms were implemented, with
promising results:
\cite{rouillier-zimmermann:roots:04}
engineered a very efficient
Descartes method algorithm which is widely used in the
Computer Algebra community, through Maple. The {\tt CEVAL}
algorithm in \cite{sagraloff-yap:ceval:11} was implemented in
\cite{kamath:thesis,kamath-voiculescu-yap:study:11}.
\cite{becker:thesis:12} gave a Maple implementation of the
{\tt REVAL} algorithm
for isolating real roots of a square-free real polynomial.
Most recently,
\cite{kobel-rouillier-sagraloff:for-real:16}
implemented the {\tt ANewDsc} algorithm
from \cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}, showing
its all round superiority; it especially shines against
known algorithms when roots are clustered.
Although there are several fast divide-and-conquer algorithms
\citep{renegar:approximate-poly-zeros,neff-reif:complex-roots:96,kirrinnis:poly-factor-newton:98},
there are no implementations of these methods.
\cite{pan:poly-roots:02} notes in p.~703:
``{\em Our algorithms are quite involved, and their implementation
would require a non-trivial work, incorporating numerous known
implementation techniques and tricks.}''
Further in p.~705:
``{\em since Sch\"onhage (1982b) already has 72 pages
and Kirrinnis (1998) has 67 pages,
this ruled out a self-contained presentation of our root-finding
algorithm}''.
\ignore{footnote:
In \cite[p.~49]{schonhage:fundamental}, it is
noted that Kirrinnis's Habilitationsschrift at Universit\"at Bonn
(1999) is about 200 pages and is ``hopefully getting published soon''.
}%
Our paper
\citep{becker+3:cisolate:18} is self-contained with over
50 pages, and explicit precision bounds for all
numerical primitives: we use asymptotic bounds
only in complexity analysis (since it has no consequence for
implementations) but not in computational primitives.
\ignore{
Root approximation is a very practical problem that
is used in many areas of applied science (see
\cite{mcnamee:roots:bk1,mcnamee:roots:bk2}).
So which root solvers do practitioners actually use?
We describe three distinct computing domains, each
with its own unique computing concerns.
For each domain, we mention the implemented algorithm
that is widely considered ``best in its domain''.
\benum[(A)]
\item
In numerical analysis, algorithms are optimized to exploit
fixed-precision floating point arithmetic; here
Jenkins-Traub \cite{jenkins-traub:roots:70}
is popular. The algorithm is stable, globally convergent and
used in commercial packages.
There is no a priori guarantee of correctness;
a posteriori error analysis (depending on condition numbers)
might confirm correctness.
\item
For stronger guarantees, many applications require multiprecision
arithmetic. In this domain, the MPSOLVE library of Bini and Fiorentino
\cite{bini-fiorentino:design:00,bini:mpsolve:96}
(with a recent update \cite{bini-robol:solving:14})
is widely recognized as the best in this class.
It is based on the Aberth-Erlich Iteration \cite{aberth-erlich:roots:73}
whose global convergence is, unfortunately, unknown.
Aberth-Erlich, along with Durand-Kerner \cite{durand-kerner:roots:66},
falls under the class of ``Weierstrass Methods'' that
can be viewed as simultaneous path following
(see \cite{batra:effective:10}).
\item
In Computer Algebra, algorithms with a priori guarantee of correctness
is a pre-requisite. Here the Descartes method %
from Collins and Akritas \cite{collins-akritas:76} (in the power basis form)
or Lane and Riesenfeld \cite{lane-riesenfeld:81} (in the Bernstein basis form)
is regarded as among the best. A highly engineered package from
Rouillier-Zimmerman \cite{rouillier-zimmermann:roots:04}
is available in Maple and widely used in exact computation.
\eenum
Clearly our new algorithm competes in
in the exact domain (C), but we believe it is also competitive in
the multiprecision domain (B). We mention three favorable
properties of our algorithm which
might be obscured by an extreme focus on the benchmark problem:
\\ 1.
Our algorithm does not need any preprocessing of the input polynomial.
Even though such preprocessing has no impact on the benchmark complexity,
this is an important practical consideration.
As mentioned, we do not require square-free input polynomials;
instead, the algorithm achieves the bound \refeQ{bench}
in general, but automatically achieves $\wtO(n^2L)$ in the square-free case
(see \cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}).
Another transformation we avoid, but commonly assumed
in the divide-and-conquer algorithms is to
transform the polynomial so that its roots
lie in the unit disc. Pan \cite[p.~702-3]{pan:poly-roots:02}
noted the practical difficulties of this transformation.
\\ 2.
Root isolation is actually
only one aspect of root approximation; but it is the critical
one because after a root has been isolated,
the refinement of the root to any desired precision can be
achieve using Newton-type iterations (e.g., \cite{kerber-sagraloff:qir:15}).
Moreover, in subdivision methods such as our algorithm, this refinement process can be
automatically built\footnote{
So the criticism of introducing a separate
square-free polynomial extraction algorithm into Pan's algorithm
does not apply here.
}
into the root isolation algorithm.
\\ 3.
The benchmark problem solves what might be called the \dt{global version}
of root isolation, i.e., finding all roots of a polynomial. But
many applications are interested in some subset of the roots only,
and it is often possible to compute a
simple bounded region (like a disc or a box region)
in which to search for roots. Subdivision algorithms can naturally solve
this \dt{local version} of root isolation.
Algorithms optimized for the global problem might be adapted as easily.
Note that the current best algorithm in (B) solves the global version.
}%
\ignore{Pan'02, page 702-703:
Our algorithms are quite involved, and their implementation would require a
non- trivial work, incorporating numerous known implementation techniques and
tricks (Bini and Fiorentino, 2000; Fortune, 2001; Bini and Pan, to appear). We
do not touch this vast domain here and just briefly comment on the precision of
computing.
Our algorithms involve the shifts of the variable (or equivalently of the
origin), its scaling, and approximation of the root radii, that is, the
distances of the unknown roots from a selected complex point. These techniques
have low arithmetic and Boolean cost and are customary for reducing the study
to the canonical cases, say where all roots lie in the unit disc {x : |x| ≤ 1}
(see Renegar, 1987; Pan, 1996; Kirrinnis, 1998). On the other hand, using these
techniques requires precision of computation of the order of n or n log n bits,
which creates an implementation problem for larger n. Although the Chi- nese
remainder algorithm and Sch ̈onhage–Strassen’s algorithm (Sch ̈onhage and
Strassen, 1971) overcome this problem in principle (at least at the asymptotic
complexity level), the problem is still substantial for numerical
implementation, which is most efficient using the single or double IEEE
precision. Thus the current champions in practical numerical root-finding rely
on Jenkins–Traub’s, modified Laguerre’s and modified Newton’s algo- rithms,
variations of the Weierstrass method, and the QR algorithm for the companion
matrix (McNamee, 1993, 1997; Fortune, 2001; Pan, 2002a; Bini and Pan, to
appear). We note, however, that our splitting approach has all the potential to
be effective for lower precision computation of polynomial factorization (see
Malajovich and Zubelli, 1997, Bini et al., 2002) and that the shift-free
variations of our algorithms (say in the beginning of Section 2.3) have the
same promise (in both cases substantial implementation work would be required).
}%
\ignore{COMPLEXITY CONSIDERATIONS:
TAKEN from Mehlhorn/Sagraloff -- discussion after Theorem 2:
For polynomials with integer coefficients, the bound can be stated more simply.
Theorem 2. For a square-free polynomial P ∈ Z[x] with integer coefficients of absolute value 2τ or less, the algorithm ANewDsc computes isolating intervals for all real roots of P with O ̃(n3 + n2τ) bit operations. If P has only k non-vanishing coefficients, the bound improves to O ̃(n2(k + τ)).
For general real polynomials, the bit complexity of the algorithm ANewDsc matches the bit complexity of the best algorithm known ([26]). For polynomials with integer coefficients, the bit complexity of the best algorithm known ([12, Theorem 3.1]) is O ̃(n2τ), however, for the price of using Ω(n2τ) bit operations for every input.8 Both algorithms are based on Pan’s approximate factorization algorithm [30], which is quite complex, and always compute all complex roots.
Our algorithm is simpler and has the additional advantage that it can be used to isolate the real roots in a given interval instead of isolating all roots. Moreover, the complexities stated in the theorems above are worst-case complexities, and we expect a better behavior for many instances. We have some theoretical evidence for this statement. For sparse integer polynomials with only k non-vanishing coefficients, the complexity bound reduces from O ̃(n2(n + τ)) to O ̃(n2(k + τ))
(Theorem 2). Also, if we restrict the search for roots in an interval I0, then only the roots contained in the one-circle region ∆(I0) of I0 have to be considered in the complexity bound (1) in Theorem 1. More precisely, the first summand n3 can be replaced by n2 · m, where m denotes the number of roots contained in ∆(I0), and the last summand ni=1 logM(P′(zi)−1) can be replaced by i:zi∈∆(I0) logM(P′(zi)−1). We can also bound the size of the subdivision tree in terms of the number of sign changes in the coefficient sequence of the input polynomial (Theorem 27). In particular, if P is a sparse integer polynomial, e.g., a Mignotte polynomial, with
only (log(nτ))O(1) non-vanishing coefficients, our algorithm generates a tree of size (log(nτ))O(1). Our algorithm generates a tree of size (log(nτ))O(1), whereas bisection methods, such as the classical Descartes method, generate a tree of size Ω(nτ), and the continued fraction method [6] generates a tree of size Ω(n).
}%
\end{s2}
\begin{s3}
\subsection{Some Background}
We now provide the necessary background for the techniques
in our algorithm. But first we mention
are several lines of related work for which we can only offer
brief pointers:
Sagraloff \cite{sagraloff:sparse:14}
has achieved near-optimal bounds for the
real benchmark problem for sparse integer polynomial.
One can generalize integer polynomials to real polynomials
whose coefficients are given as a bit stream.
Most of the algorithms here use the
Descartes Method (e.g., \cite{mehlhorn-sagraloff:real-roots:16}).
For the Evaluation Method, a bit stream algorithm
for real root isolation has been achieved in
Becker's thesis \cite{becker:thesis:12}.
There are two main algorithmic ingredients in our algorithm:
the first is Pellet's test
\cite{marden:bk}.
In root isolation, this test was
recently introduced in our algorithm for clustering
analytic roots \cite{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13}.
Let $T_k(D) = T_k(D;F)$ denote
the $k$th order Pellet test which provides a criteria for the complex disc $D$
to contain exactly $k$ roots (counted with multiplicity)
of a complex analytic function $F$.
When $k=0$, $T_0$ is precisely the $C_0$ predicate (exclusion predicate)
used in several of our subdivision algorithms for isolating roots,
curves and surfaces
(e.g., \cite{sagraloff-yap:ceval:11,cxy}).
Instead of $T_1$, our previous root isolation algorithms
\cite{sagraloff-yap:ceval:11}
used the $C_1$ predicate, viewed as $1$-dimensional form of
the normal variation predicate of Plantinga-Vegter
\cite{pv}. Note that $C_1$ is weaker than $T_1$ and only ensures
that that is at most one root; so we need some other method to
confirm that there is at least one root.
The second ingredient is Newton iteration cleverly combined with
subdivision. In root isolation, such a combination is an old idea
going back to Dekker (1967) and Brent (1973)
\cite[p.~49]{brent:minimization}. Recently, Abbot \cite{abbott:qir}
introduced an adaptive form of the Newton-Bisection called
QIR (quadratic interval refinement): this method requires
that the iteration remembers some ``speed parameter'' $\sigma$ (a
positive integer).
When a Newton step is successful, we increment $\sigma$.
If not, we perform bisection and decrement $\sigma$ (but never allowing it to
go below some constant). This idea had been previously been
exploited in real root isolation
\cite{sagraloff:newton-descartes:12},
leading to the near-optimal bound \refeQ{bench}
for the real benchmark problem.
One twist in the Newton iteration is that we must
apply the order $k$ Newton iterator $z' = z- k F(z)/F'(z)$
when there is a cluster of $k$ roots.
Such clusters are associated with a connected set of
subdivision boxes which fail the $T_0$ test.
Pellet's test enable us to confirm the presence of such clusters;
success of a Newton is measured in terms the new $z'$
being the center of the same cluster of $k$ roots with radius
smaller by a factor of $2^{2^\sigma}$.
If case of failure, we subdivide each box into four,
and re-compute the clusters. This make cause the original cluster of $k$
roots to split into two or more smaller clusters.
For the complexity analysis, one must show that there are no
``long chains'' of failures in which the multiplicity $k$ is not reduced.
\end{s3}
\begin{s4}
\section{Preliminary}
We review the basic tools from \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}.
%
%
The coefficients of $F$ are viewed as an oracle from
which we can request approximations to any desired absolute precision.
Approximate complex numbers are represented by a pair of
dyadic numbers, where the set of
dyadic numbers (or BigFloats) may be denoted
$\ZZ[\half]\as \set{n2^m: n,m\in\ZZ}$.
We formalize\footnote{
This is essentially the ``bit-stream model'',
but the term is unfortunate because it suggests that we
are getting successive bits of an infinite binary
representation of a real number.
We know from Computable Analysis that this representation
of real numbers is not robust.
}
this as follows:
a complex number $z\in\CC$ is an \dt{oracular number}
if it is represented by an \dt{oracle function}
$\wtz:\NN\to \ZZ[\half]$ with some $\tau\ge 0$
such that for all $L\in\NN$,
$|\wtz(L)-z|\le 2^{-L}$ and $\wtz(L)$ has $O(\tau+L)$ bits.
The oracular number is said to be \dt{$\tau$-regular} in this case.
In our computational model, the algorithm is charged the cost
to read these $O(\tau+L)$ bits.
This cost model is reasonable when $z$ is
an algebraic number because in this case,
$\wtz(L)$ can be computed in time $\wtO(\tau+L)$ on a Turing machine.
Following \citep{becker+3:cisolate:18,yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13},
we can construct a procedure ${\tt SoftCompare}(z_\ell,z_r)$
that takes two non-negative real
oracular numbers $z_\ell$ and $z_r$ with $z_\ell +z_r>0$,
that returns a value in $\set{+1,0,-1}$
such that if ${\tt SoftCompare}(z_\ell,z_r)$ returns $0$ then
$\frac{2}{3}z_\ell<z_r<\frac{3}{2}z_\ell$; otherwise
${\tt SoftCompare}(z_\ell,z_r)$ returns $\sign(z_\ell-z_r)\in\set{+1,-1}$.
Note that ${\tt SoftCompare}$ is non-deterministic
since its output depends on the underlying oracular functions used.
\blemT{\protect{see \cite[Lemma 4]{becker+3:cisolate:18}}
and \cite{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13}}{softcompare}
\ \\ In evaluating ${\tt SoftCompare}(z_\ell, z_r)$:
\ \\(a)
The absolute precision requested from
the oracular numbers $z_\ell$ and $z_r$
is at most $$L= 2(\LOG(\max(z_\ell,z_r)^{-1})+4).$$
(b)
The time complexity of the evaluation is $\wtO(\tau+L)$
where $z_\ell, z_r$ are $\tau$-regular.
\elemT
%
The critical predicate for our algorithm is a test from
Pellet (1881)
(see \cite{marden:bk}).
Let $\Delta =\Delta(m,r)$ denote a disc with radius $r>0$ centered at
$m\in\CC$.
For $k=0,1\dd n$ and $K\ge 1$,
define the \dt{Pellet test} $T_k(\Delta,K) =T_k(\Delta, K;F)$ as
the predicate
\begin{equation*}\label{pellet}
|F_k(m)| r^k > K\cdot \sum_{i=0, i\neq k}^n |F_i(m)|r^i
\end{equation*}
Here $F_i(m)$ is defined as the Taylor coefficient
$\frac{F^{(i)}(m)}{i!}$.
Call the test $T_k(\Delta,K)$ a \dt{success} if
the predicate holds; else a \dt{failure}.
Pellet's theorem says that for $K\ge 1$, a success implies $\#(\Delta)=k$.
Following \citep{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13,becker+3:cisolate:18},
we define the ``soft version'' of Pellet test
$\wt{T}_k(\Delta)$
to mean that ${\tt SoftCompare}(z_\ell,z_r)>0$ where $z_\ell=|F_k(m)| r^k$
and $z_r= \sum_{i=0, i\neq k}^n |F_i(m)|r^i$.
%
%
We need to derive quantitative information in case
the soft Pellet test fails. Contra-positively, what quantitative
information ensures that the soft Pellet test will succeed?
Roughly, it is that $\#(\Delta)=\#(r\Delta)=k$ for a suitably
large $r>1$, as captured by the following theorem:
\bthml{theorem 2}
\ \\Let $k$ be an integer with $0\le k\le n=\deg(F)$ and $K\ge 1$.
Let $c_1=7kK$, and
$\lambda_1=3K(n-k)\cdot \max\set{1,4k(n-k)}$.
\\If
$\#(\Delta) = \#(c_1\lambda_1\Delta)=k,$
then
$$T_k(c_1\Delta,K,F)\quad \text{holds.}$$
\ethml
The factor $c_1\lambda_1$ is $O(n^4)$ in this theorem, an
improvement from
$O(n^5)$ in \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}.
A proof is given in Appendix A.
In application, we choose $K=\frac{3}{2}$ and thus
$c_1\cdot \lambda_1 \le (7Kn)\cdot (12Kn^3) = 189n^4$.
The preceding theorem implies that
if $\#(\Delta)=\#(189n^4\Delta)$
then $T_k(\frac{21}{2}n\Delta,\frac{3}{2},F)$ holds.
This translates into the main form for our application:
\bgenDIY{{\sc Corollary}}{
\ \\ If $k=\#(\efrac{11}n\Delta)=\#(18n^3\Delta)$
then $T_k(\Delta,\frac{3}{2};F)$ holds.
}
In other words, under the hypothesis of
this Corollary, $\wt{T}_k(\Delta)$ succeeds.
%
We need one final extension: instead of applying
$\wt{T}_k(\Delta)$ directly on $F$, we apply $\wt{T}_k(\Delta(0,1))$ to
the $N$th Graeffe iterations of $F_\Delta(z)\as F(m+rz)$.
Here, $\Delta=\Delta(m,r)$ and
$N=\ceil{\log(1+\log n)}+4 =O(\log\log n)$.
The result is called the \dt{Graeffe-Pellet test}, denoted
$\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta)=\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta;F)$.
%
As in \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}
we combine $\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta)$ for all $k=0,1\dd n$ to obtain
$$\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta)$$
which returns the unique $k\in\set{0\dd n}$
such that $\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta)$ succeeds,
or else returns $-1$.
We say that the test $\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta)$
\dt{succeeds} iff $T^G_*(\Delta,K)\ge 0$.
\ignore
\blemT{Hard Pellet-Graeffe Test}{hard}
Let $\rho_1=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\simeq 0.943$ and $\rho_2=\frac{4}{3}$.
\\ (a) If $T^G_k(\Delta,K)$ succeeds for some $K\ge 1$ then
$\#(\Delta)=k$.
\\ (b) If $T^G_k(\Delta,3/2)$ fails for every $k\in\set{0\dd n}$
then $\#(\rho_2\Delta)> \#(\rho_1\Delta)$.
\elemT
(without the $K$ parameter) in which the comparison is performed
on two subexpressions $E_\ell:E_r$ of the underlying polynomial.
Again, let
$\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta)$
return the $k$ such that $\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta)$ succeeds, or returns $-1$
if there is no such $k$.
In implementation, we would perform
$\wt{T}^G_k$ for $k=0,1\dd $ until we get a success, but
in our algorithm, we often have an upper bound on the number
of roots in $\Delta$
that is better than the trivial bound of $n$. In that case
we can return $-1$ as soon as $k$ exceed that upper bound.
If $\Delta=\Delta(m,r)$, let $F_\Delta(z) \as F(m+rz)$.
\blem
\ \\(a) If $T_k(\Delta,3/2)$ succeeds, then $\wt{T}_k(\Delta)$ succeeds.
\ \\(b) $\wt{T}_k(\Delta)$ needs an
$\wtO(n\LOG(r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F))$-bit approximation of $F$ where
$$L(\Delta,F)\as 2\cdot(4+\LOG(\|F_\Delta\|_{\infty}^{-1})).$$
\ \\(c) The cost of computing $\wt{T}_*(\Delta)$ for $k=0\dd n$ is
$\wtO(n(n\LOG(r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F)))$.
\elem
The soft version of \refLem{hard} is:
}%
The key property of $\wt{T}^G_i(\Delta)$ is
\cite[Lemma 6]{becker+3:cisolate:18}:
\blemT{Soft Graeffe-Pellet Test}{soft}
\ \\ Let $\rho_1=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\simeq 0.943$ and $\rho_2=\frac{4}{3}$.
\ \\(a) If $\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta)$ succeeds then $\#(\Delta)=k$.
\ \\(b) If $\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta)$ fails then $\#(\rho_2\Delta)>\#(\rho_1\Delta)$.
\elemT
The bit complexity of the combined test $\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta)$
is asymptotically the same as any individual test
\cite[Lemma 7]{becker+3:cisolate:18}:
\blem
Let
$$L(\Delta,F)\as 2\cdot(4+\LOG(\|F_\Delta\|_{\infty}^{-1})).$$
(a) To evaluate $\wt{T}^G_k(\Delta)$, it is sufficient
to have an $M$-bit approximation of
each coefficient of $F$ where
$M = \wtO(n\LOG(m,r)+\tau_F+L(\Delta,F))$.
\\(b) The total bit-complexity of computing $\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta)$
is $\wtO(n M).$
\elem
\subsection{Box Subdivision}
Let $A,B\ib\CC$. Their \dt{separation} is $\Sep(A,B) \as$
$\inf\{|a-b|: a\in A, b\in B\}$,
and ${\rm rad}(A)$, the \dt{radius} of $A$, is the smallest radius
of a disc containing $A$.
Also, $\partial A$ denotes the boundary of $A$.
We use the terminology of subdivision trees (quadtrees)
(see \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}). All boxes are closed subsets
of $\CC$ with square shape and axes-aligned.
Let $B(m,w')$ denote the axes-aligned box centered at $m$
of width $w(B)\as w'$.
As for discs, if $k\ge 0$ and $B=B(m,w')$,
then $kB$ denotes the box $B(m,kw')$.
The smallest covering disc of $B(m,w')$ is $\Delta(m,\efrac{\sqrt{2}}w')$.
If $B=B(m,w')$ then we define
$\Delta(B)$ as the disc $\Delta(m,\frac{3}{4}w')$.
\longShort{This definition will be useful in the
application of \refLem{soft} above.
}{}Thus $\Delta(m,\efrac{\sqrt{2}}w')$ is properly contained in $\Delta(B)$.
Any collection $\cal S$ of boxes is called a (box) \dt{subdivision}
if the interior of any two boxes in $\cal S$ are disjoint.
The union $\bigcup \cal S$ of these boxes is called the \dt{support} of $S$.
Two boxes $B,B'$ are \dt{adjacent} if $B\cup B'$ is a connected set, equivalently, $B\cap B'\neq\es$.
%
A subdivision $\cal S$ is said to be \dt{connected} if its support is connected.
A \dt{component} $C$ is the support of some connected subdivision
$\cal S$, i.e., $C= \bigcup \cal S$.
%
The \dt{split} operation on a box $B$ creates
a subdivision $\ensuremath{\mathtt{Split}}(B)=\set{B_1\dd B_4}$
of $B$ comprising four congruent subboxes.
Each $B_i$ is a \dt{child} of $B$, denoted $B\to B_i$.
Therefore, starting from any box $B_0$, we may split
$B_0$ and recursively split zero or more of its children.
After a finite number of such splits, we obtain a \dt{subdivision tree}
rooted at $B_0$, denoted ${\cal T}_{subdiv}(B_0)$.
\ignore{
Any box that can potentially appear in ${\cal T}_{subdiv}(B_0)$
is called\footnote{
Aligned boxes are necessarily axes-aligned but the converse is not true.
}
an \dt{aligned box} (relative to $B_0$.
The significance of aligned boxes is that if $B$ is
represented by dyadic numbers, then all aligned boxes remain
representable by dyadic numbers.
}%
The \dt{exclusion test} for a box $B(m,w')$ is
$\wt{T}^G_0(\Delta(m,\frac{3w'}{4})) =\wt{T}^G_0(\Delta(B))$.
We say that $B(m,w')$ is \dt{excluded} if this test succeeds,
and \dt{included} if it fails.
The key fact we use is a consequence of \refLem{soft} for
the test $\wt{T}^G_0(\Delta)$:
\bcorl{exclusion}
Consider any box $B = B(m,w')$.
\\ (a) If $B$ is excluded, then
$\#(\Delta(m,\frac{3w'}{4}))=0$, so $\#(B)=0$.
\\ (b) If $B$ is included, then
$\#(\Delta(m,w'))>0$, so $\#(2B)>0$.
\ecorl
%
\subsection{Component Tree}
In traditional subdivision algorithms, we focus on
the complexity
analysis on the subdivision tree ${\cal T}_{subdiv}(B_0)$.
But for our algorithm, it is more natural to work with a tree
whose nodes are
higher level entities called components above.
Typical of subdivision algorithms, our algorithm consists
of several while loops, but for now,
we only consider the main loop.
This loop is controlled by the \dt{active queue} $Q_1$.
At the start of each loop iteration,
there is a set of included boxes. The maximally connected
sets in the union of these boxes constitute our (current) components.
And the boxes in the subdivision of a component $C$
are called the \dt{constituent boxes} of $C$.
\ignore{ These components may have been discarded (they are
``adventitious''
as discussed below), or stored in the \dt{output queue}
$Q_{\sc out}$, or remain active in $Q_1$.
}%
While $Q_1$ is non-empty, we remove a component $C$ from $Q_1$
for processing. There are 3 dispositions for $C$:
We try to put $C$ to the \dt{output queue} $Q_{\sc out}$. Failing this, we try a \dt{Newton Step}.
If successful, it produces a single
new component $C'\ibp C$ which is placed in $Q_1$.
If Newton Step fails, we apply a \dt{Bisection Step}.
In this step,
we split each constituent box of $C$, and apply the
exclusion test to each of its four children.
The set of included children are again organized into maximally
connected sets $C_1\dd C_t$ ($t\ge 1$).
Each subcomponent $C_i$ is either placed in $Q_1$ or $Q_{\sc dis}$,
depending on whether $C_i$ intersects the initial box $B_0$.
The components in $Q_{\sc dis}$ are viewed as \dt{discarded} because we
do not process them further (but our analysis need to ensure
that other components are sufficiently separated from them in the
main loop).
We will use the notation $C\to C'$ or $C\to C_i$ to indicate
the parent-child relationship. The \dt{component tree} is
defined by this parent-child relationship, and denoted ${\cal T}_{comp}$.
In \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}, the root of the component tree
is $B_0$; we take $\frac{5}{4}B_0$ as the root to
address boundary issues.
\ignore{this is sufficient for global root isolation, but for
local root isolation, matters are simplified with
$\frac{5}{4}B_0$ as root.}
So we write ${\cal T}_{comp}={\cal T}_{comp}(\frac{5}{4}B_0)$
to indicate that $\frac{5}{4}B_0$ is the root.
The leaves of ${\cal T}_{comp}$ are either discarded (adventitious)
or output.
For efficiency, the set of boxes in the subdivision of a component $C$
must maintain links to adjacent boxes within the subdivision;
such links are easy to maintain
because all the boxes in a component have the same width.
\section{Component Properties}
Before providing details about the algorithm,
we discuss some critical data associated with each component $C$.
Such data is subscripted by $C$.
\longShort{
E.g., $\cal S_C$ represents the subdivision of $C$.}
{}We also describe some qualitative properties so that
the algorithm can be intuitively understood.
\refFig{component} may be an aid in the following description.
\mynewfig{component}{Three components $C_1, C_2, C_3$:
blue dots indicate roots of $F$,
pink boxes are constituent boxes,
and the non-pink parts of each $B_C$ is colored cyan.
Only $C_3$ is confined.
}{0.3}
\benum[(C1)]\setlength{\itemsep}{-2pt}
\item
\longShort{
The primary data associated with a component $C$
is the connected subdivision $\cal S_C$
comprised of included boxes.
The boxes in $\cal S_C$ are called \dt{constituent boxes} of
$C$, and they all
share a common width, $w_C$.
The \dt{component size} $|\cal S_C|$ is
the number of boxes.
}{All the constituent boxes of a component share a common width,
denoted by $w_C$.}
\item
Our algorithm never discards any box $B$
if $B$ contains a root in $B_0$; it follows that
all the roots in $B_0$ are contained in
$\bigcup_{C} C$ where $C$ ranges over components in
$Q_0\cup Q_1\cup Q_{\sc out}$ (at any moment during our
algorithm).
\item
\longShort{
Since the initial component is $\frac{5}{4}B_0$, all the
components are subsets of $\frac{5}{4}B_0$.
}{}
Recall that a zero $\zeta$ of $F(z)$ in
$2B_0\setminus B_0$ is called adventitious.
A component $C$ is \dt{adventitious} if $C\cap B_0$
is empty\longShort{. In this case, it follows from (C3) that
then all the roots in $C^+$ are
adventitious, and therefore we can discard $C$
(i.e., store in $Q_{\sc dis}$).
}{ (placed in $Q_{\sc dis}$).}
\longShort{Let $\partial(\frac{5}{4}B_0)$ be called the \dt{critical boundary}.
}{}We say a component $C$ is \dt{confined}
if $C\cap \partial(\frac{5}{4}B_0)$ is empty; otherwise it is non-confined. \refFig{confined} shows these different kinds of components.
Note that after the preprocessing step,
all components are confined.
\ignore{
and for such
we have $\#(C)=\#(C^+)$ (see Appendix B).
%
Moreover, all the zeros in $C$ are separated from
zeros outside $C$ by at least $w_C$.
}
\item
If $C, C'$ are distinct active components, then
their separation $\Sep(C,C')$ is at least $\max\set{w_C, w_{C'}}$.
If $C$ is an adventitious component, then
$\Sep(C, B_0)\ge w_C$.
If $C$ is a confined component, then
$\Sep(C,\partial(\frac{5}{4}B_0))\ge w_C$.
\item
Let $C^+$ be the \dt{extended component} defined as the set
$\bigcup_{B\in\cal S_C}2B$.
If $C$ and $C'$ are distinct components, then $C^+$ and $C{'^+}$
are disjoint. Moreover, if $C$ is confined, then
$\#(C)=\#(C^+)$ (see Appendix B).
\ignore{
\longShort{
In \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18},
we do not have such a separation in general.
if $C$ and $C'$ are two components
such that both intersect $\partial B_0$ in
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}, then the roots
in $C^+$ and in $C'^+$ may be arbitrarily close.
Moreover, it is not possible to restrict to
components that are ``confined'' in the sense of
not intersecting $\partial B_0$. This also
motivates our use of $\frac{5}{4}B_0$ as the root
for subdivision.
}{}
}
\item
Define the \dt{component box} $B_C$ to be any smallest
square containing $C$ subject to $B_C\ib (5/4)B_0$.
Define $W_C$ as the width of $B_C$ and the disc
$\Delta_C\as \Delta(B_C)$. Define $R_C$ as the radius of
$\Delta_C$; note that $R_C=\frac{3}{4}W_C$.
\ignore{
If $M_C$ and $W_C$ is the center and width of $B_C$,
then define the disc $\Delta_C\as \Delta(M_C,R_C)$
where $R_C\as \frac{3}{4}W_C$.
}
\longShort{
Note that $B_C$ and $\Delta_C$ are computational
data, and so our definition ensures that they are dyadic.
}{}
\item
Each component is associated with a ``Newton speed''
\longShort{which is a number
$N_C$ such that $\lg\lg N_C$ is a positive integer.
Here, $\lg=\log_2$. Thus $N_C\ge 2^{2^1}=4$ is also integer.
}{denoted by $N_C$ with $N_C\ge4$.}
A key idea in the Abbot- Sagraloff technique for
Newton-Bisection is to automatically update $N_C$:
if Newton fails, the children of $C$ have speed $\max\set{4,\sqrt{N_C}}$
else they have speed $N_C^2$.
\longShort{
We use $N_C$ when applying Newton iteration to $C$.
Computationally, it suffices to maintain $\lg\lg N_C$
instead of $N_C$.
}{}
\item
Let $k_C\as \#(\Delta_C)$,
the number of roots of $\cal Z(\Delta_C)$,
{\em counted with multiplicity}.
Note that $k_C$ is not always available, but it is needed
for the Newton step.
\longShort{Moreover, $k_C\ge \#(C)$.
In our main loop, we will try to determine
$k_C$ just before the Newton step.
It is easy to maintain
an upper bound on $k_C$ to speed up the $\wt{T}^G_*$ tests.
}{We try to \\determine $k_C$ before the Newton Step in the main loop.}
\item
A component $C$ is \dt{compact} if $W_C\le 3w_C$.
Such components have many nice properties, and we will
require output components to be compact.
\eenum
In recap, each component $C$ is associated with the data:
\begin{equation*}\label{assoc}
\longShort{\cal S_C, }w_C, W_C,
B_C, \Delta_C, R_C,
k_C,
N_C.
\end{equation*}
\longShort{ Except for $N_C$, these are intrinsic properties of $C$.}{}
%
\mynewfig{confined}{Four types of components:
$C_1$ is not confined, the rest are confined;
$C_1$ and $C_2$ are adventitious;
$C_3$ may contain adventitious roots;
$C_4$ has no adventitious roots.
}{0.3}
\section{The Clustering Algorithm}
As outlined above, our clustering algorithm is a process
for constructing and maintaining components,
globally controlled by queues containing components.
Each component $C$ represents a non-empty set
of roots. In addition to the queues $Q_1, Q_{\sc out}, Q_{\sc dis}$
above, we also need a \dt{preprocessing queue} $Q_0$.
Furthermore, $Q_1$ is a priority queue such that the operation
$C\ass Q_1.pop()$ returns the component with the largest width $W_C$.
We first provide a high level description of the two main subroutines,
Newton Step and Bisection Step.
\longShort{\bitem\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}}{}
\longShort{ \item}{}
The \dt{Newton Step} ${\sc Newton}(C)$
is directly taken from \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}.
This procedure
takes several arguments,
${\sc Newton}(C,N_C,k_C,\\x_C)$.
The intent is to perform an order $k_C$ Newton step:
$$x'_C \ass x_C - k_C \frac{F(x_C)}{F'(x_C)}.$$
We then check whether $\cal Z(C)$ is actually
contained in the small disc
$\Delta'\as \Delta(x'_C, r')$ where
\beql{r'}
r'\as \max\set{\vareps, w_C/(8N_C)}.
\eeql
%
This amounts to checking whether $\wt{T}^G_{k_C}(\Delta')$ succeeds.
If it does, Newton test succeeds, and we return a
new component $C'$ that contains $\Delta'\cap C$ with speed $N_{C'}\as (N_C)^2$
and constituent width $w_{C'}\as \frac{w_C}{2N_C}$.
The new component $C'$ consists of at most $4$ boxes
and $W_{C'}\le 2w_{C'}$.
%
In the original paper \citep{becker+3:cisolate:18},
$r'$ was simply set to $\frac{w_C}{8N_C}$;
but \refeQ{r'} ensures that $r'\ge \vareps$.
This avoids the overshot of Newton Step and simplifies our complexity analysis.
\longShort{ \item
We now think of $C$ as an object (in Programming Language
jargon) that stores data such as $N_C$ and $k_C$.
Moreover, from $C$, we can
compute the additional argument $x_C$ within the ${\sc Newton}$
subroutine. Therefore we can simply denote this routine
as ``${\sc Newton}(C)$''. Moreover, ${\sc Newton}(C)$ returns
either an empty set (in case of failure)
or the component $C'$.
}{If $\wt{T}^G_{k_C}(\Delta')$ fails, then Newton test fails, and
it returns an empty set.
In the following context, we simply denote this routine as
``$Newton(C)$''.}
\ignore
We now give the details of the Newton Step:
\progb{
\lline ${\sc Newton}(C,k)$
\lline[5] OUTPUT: success or failure. In case of success,
\lline[15] a component $C'\ib C$, $\#(C)=\#(C')$, is added to $Q_1$.
\lline[5] Pick any $x_C\notin C$ such that
\lline[15] $x_C$ is at most $w_C/2$ from $C$.
\lline[5] If $SoftCompare( 4r_C |F'(x_C)|, |F(x_C)|)$ fails
\lline[10] Return Fail.
\lline[5] For $L=1,2,4,\ldots$
\lline[10] Compute an $L$-bit approximation of $F(x_C)$ and $F'(x_C)$
...
}
\longShort{ \item}{} The \dt{Bisection Step}
${\sc Bisect}(C)$ returns a set of components.
Since it is different from that in \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18},
we list the modified bisection algorithm in \refFig{bisect}.
\longShort{ \eitem}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\progb{
\lline[-3] ${\sc Bisect}(C)$
\lline[0] OUTPUT: a set of components containing all
\lline[7] the non-adventitious roots in $C$
\lline[7] (but possibly some adventitious ones)
\lline[0] Initialize a Union-Find data structure $U$
\lline[15] for boxes.
\lline[0] For each constituent box $B$ of $C$
\lline[5] For each child $B'$ of $B$
\lline[10] If ($\wt{T}^G_0(\Delta(B'))$ fails)
\lline[15] $U.add(B')$
\lline[15] For each box $B''\in U$ adjacent to $B'$
\lline[20] $U.union(B',B'')$
\lline[0] Initialize $Q$ to be empty.
\ignore
\lline[0] $specialFlag \ass \true$
\lline[0] If ($U$ has only one connected component)
\lline[5] $specialFlag \ass \false$
}%
\lline[0] For each connected component $C'$ of $U$
\lline[5] If {\color[rgb]{0.00,0.70,0.00}($C'$ intersects $B_0$)}
// $C'$ not adventitious
\ignore
\lline[10] If ($specialFlag$)
\lline[15] $N_{C'}=4$
\lline[10] Else
\lline[15] $N_{C'}=\max\set{4, \sqrt{N_C}}$
}%
\lline[10] $N_{C'}=\clauses{4
& \rmif\ U \textrm{ has only 1 component,}\\
\max\set{4,\sqrt{N_C}} & \ELSe.}$
\lline[10] $Q.add(C')$
\lline[5] Else
\lline[10] $Q_{\sc dis}.add(C')$
\lline[0] Return $Q$
}
\caption{Bisection Step}
\label{fig:bisect}
\end{figure}
We list the clustering algorithm in \refFig{algo}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\progb{
\lline[-5] {\sc Root Clustering Algorithm}
\lline[-5] \INPUt: Polynomial $F(z)$, box $B_0\ib\CC$ and $\vareps>0$
\lline[-5] \OUTPUt: Components in $Q_{\sc out}$ representing
\lline[5] natural $\vareps$-clusters of $F(z)$ in $2B_0$.
\lline[0] \commenT{Initialization}
\lline[0] $Q_{\sc out}\ass Q_1 \ass Q_{\sc dis} \ass \es$.
\lline[0] $Q_0\ass \set{(5/4)B_0}$ // initial component
\lline[0] \commenT{Preprocessing}
\lline[0] While $Q_0$ is non-empty
\lline[5] $C\ass Q_0.pop()$
\lline[5] If ($C$ is confined and $W_C\le w(B_0)/2$)
\lline[15] $Q_1.add(C)$
\lline[5] Else
\lline[10] $Q_0.add({\sc Bisect}(C))$
\lline[0] \commenT{Main Loop}
\lline[0] While $Q_1$ is non-empty
\lline[5] $C\ass Q_1.pop()$
// $C$ has the largest $W_C$ in $Q_1$
\lline[5] If ($4\Delta_C\cap C'=\es$ for all $C'\in Q_1\cup Q_{\sc dis}$)
// (*)
\lline[10] $k_C \ass \wt{T}^G_*(\Delta_C)$
\lline[10] If $(k_C> 0)$ // Note: $k_C\neq 0$.
\lline[15] If ($W_C\ge \vareps$)
\lline[20] $C' \ass {\sc Newton}(C, other args!)$
\lline[20] If ($C'\neq\es$)
\lline[25] $Q_1.add(C')$;\quad Continue
\lline[15] Else if (\cored{$W_C\le 3w_C$}) // $C$ is compact
\lline[20] $Q_{\sc out}.add(C)$;\quad Continue
\lline[5] $Q_1.add({\sc Bisect}(C))$
\lline[0] Return $Q_{\sc out}$
}
\caption{Clustering Algorithm}
\label{fig:algo}
\end{figure}
Remarks on Root Clustering Algorithm:
\ \\1.
The steps in this algorithm should appear well-motivated
(after \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}). The only
non-obvious step is the test ``$W_C\le 3w_C$''
(colored in red). We may say $C$ is
\dt{compact} if this condition holds.
This part is only needed for the analysis; the correctness of the
algorithm is not impacted if we simply
replace this test by the Boolean constant $\true$
(i.e., allowing the output components to have $W_C>3w_C$).
\\ 2. We ensure that $W_C\ge \vareps$ before we attempt to
do the Newton Step. This is not essential, but simplifies
the complexity analysis.
Based on the stated properties,
we prove the correctness of our algorithm.
\bthmT{Correctness}{corr}
The Root Clustering Algorithm halts and outputs
a collection
$\set{(\Delta_C,k_C): C\in Q_{\sc out}}$
of pairwise disjoint $\vareps$-isolators
such that
$\cal Z(B_0)\ib \bigcup_{C\in Q_{\sc out}} \cal Z(\Delta_C) \ib \cal Z(2B_0)$.
\ethmT
\bpf
First we prove halting. By way of contradiction, assume ${\cal T}_{comp}$
has an infinite path $\frac{5}{4}B_0=C_0\to C_1\to C_2\to\cdots$.
After $O(\log n)$ steps, the $C_i$'s are in the main loop
and satisfies $\#(C_i)=\#(C^+_i)\ge 1$. Thus the $C_i$ converges
to a point $\xi$ which is a root of $F(z)$.
For $i$ large
enough, $C_i$ satisfies $W_{C_i}\le 3w_{C_i}$ and $w_{C_i}<\vareps$.
%
Moreover, if $C_i$ is small enough,
$4\Delta_{C_i}$ will not intersect other components.
Under all these conditions,
the algorithm would have output such a $C_i$.
This is a contradiction.
Upon halting, we have a set of output components.
We need to prove that they represent a set of pairwise disjoint natural
$\vareps$-clusters. Here, it is important to use the fact that
$Q_1$ is a priority queue that returns
components $C$ in non-increasing width $W_C$.
Suppose inductively, each component in the $Q_{\sc out}$
represents a natural $\vareps$-cluster, and they are pairwise disjoint.
Consider the next component $C$ that we output:
from line (*), we know that $4\Delta_C$ does not intersect any
components in $Q_1\cupQ_{\sc dis}$. But we also know that
$C\cap 4\Delta_{C'}=\es$ for any $C'$ in $Q_{\sc out}$.
We claim that this implies that
$3\Delta_C \cap C'$ must be empty.
To see this, observe that $W_C\le W_{C'}$ because of the
priority queue nature of $Q_1$. Draw the disc $4\Delta_{C'}$,
and notice that the center of $\Delta_C$ cannot intersect $3\Delta_{C'}$.
Therefore, $3\Delta_C$ cannot intersect $\Delta_C'$.
This proves that $C$ can be added to $Q_{\sc out}$ and preserve the
inductive hypothesis.
It is easily verified that the roots represented by the confined components
belong to $\frac{15}{8}B_0\ibp 2B_0$.
But we must argue that we cover all the roots in $B_0$.
How can boxes be discarded? They might be discarded in the Bisection Step
because they succeed the exclusion test, or because they belong
to an adventitious component. Or we might replace an entire
component by a subcomponent in a Newton Step, but in this case,
the subcomponent is verified to hold all the original roots.
Thus, no roots in $B_0$ are lost.
\epf
We now show some basic properties of the components produced in
the algorithm.
\bleml{CompBasic}
\ \\ Let $C$ be a component.
\ \\(a)
If $C$ is confined with $k=\#(C)$, then
$C$ has at most $9k$ constituent boxes. Moreover,
$W_C\le 3k \cdot w_C$.
\ \\(b)
If $\cal Z(C)$ is strictly contained in a box of width $w_C$,
then $C$ is compact: $W_C\le 3w_C$.
\ \\(c)
If there is a non-special path $(C_1\to\cdots\to C)$ where $C_1$ is special,
then $w_C \le \frac{4w_{C_1}}{N_C}$.
\elem
\bpf
Parts (a) and (b) are easy to verify.
Part (c) is essentially
from \cite[Theorem 4]{becker+3:cisolate:18} with a slight difference:
we do not need to $C_1$ to be equal to the root $\frac{5}{4}B_0$.
That is because our algorithm resets the Newton speed of
the special component $C_1$ to $4$.
\epf
The next lemma addresses the question of lower
bounds on the width $w_C$ of boxes in components.
If $C$ is a leaf, then $w_C<\vareps$, but how much smaller
than $\vareps$ can it be? Moreover, we want to lower bound $w_C$
as a function of $\vareps$.
\bleml{BoxSize}
Denote $k=\#(2B_0)$.
\ \\(a)
If $C$ is a component in the pre-processing stage, then
$w_C\ge \frac{w(B_0)}{48k}$.
\ \\(b)
Suppose $C_1\to \cdots\to C_2$ is a non-special path
with $ W_{C_1}<\vareps$.
Then it holds
$$ \frac{w_{C_1}}{w_{C_2}}< 57k.$$
\ \\(c)
Let $C$ be a confined leaf in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$
then
$$w_C>\frac{\vareps}{2}\Big(\efrac{114k}\Big)^{k}.$$
\elem
A proof of \refLem{BoxSize} is given in Appendix B.
We will need what we call the \dt{small $\vareps$ assumption},
namely, $\vareps \le \min\set{1,w(B_0)/(96n)}$.
If this assumption fails, we can simply replace $\vareps$ by $\vareps=\min\set{1,w(B_0)/(96n)}$
to get a valid bound from our analysis.
This assumption is to ensure that no $\vareps$-cluster is split
in the preprocessing stage.
\section{Bound on Number of Boxes}
\longShort{ The rest of this paper is concerned with complexity analysis.}
In this section,
we bound the number of boxes produced by our algorithm.
All the proofs for this section are found in Appendix B.
\ignore{ The key is to bound the maximum length $s_{\max}$ of a
path in ${\cal T}_{comp}$ that is ``non-special''.
}
The goal is to bound the number of all the constituent boxes
of the components in ${\cal T}_{comp}$.
But, in anticipation of the following complexity analysis,
we want to
consider
an \dt{augmented component tree} $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ instead of
${\cal T}_{comp}$.
%
%
\longShort{
\bitem
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item
}{}
\ignore{
\refFig{confined} shows four components $C_i$ ($i=1\dd 4$)
illustrating the following remarks.
The leaves of ${\cal T}_{comp}$ may be adventitious (e.g., $C_1, C_2$)
or non-adventitious (e.g., $C_3, C_4$).
For the adventitious components, we further classify them
as confined (e.g., $C_2$) or non-confined (e.g., $C_1$).
}
Let $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ be the extension of ${\cal T}_{comp}$
in which, for each confined adventitious components
in ${\cal T}_{comp}$, we (conceptually) continue to run our algorithm
until they finally produce output components, i.e., leaves
of $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$. As before,
these leaves have at most 9 constituent boxes.
\longShort{ \item}{}
Since $C'\to C$ denote the parent-child relation,
a path in ${\cal T}_{comp}$ may be written
\beql{P}
P=(C_1\to C_2\to\cdots\to C_s).
\eeql
We write $w_i, R_i, N_i$, etc,
instead of $w_{C_i}, R_{C_i}, N_{C_i}$, etc.
\longShort{ \item}{}
A component $C$ is \dt{special} if $C$ is the root or a leaf
of $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$, or if $\#(C)<\#(C')$
with $C'$ the parent of $C$ in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$;
otherwise it is \dt{non-special}.
This is a slight variant of \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}.
\longShort{ \item}{}
We call $P$ a
\dt{non-special path led by $C_1$},
if each $C_i$ ($i=2\dd s$) is non-special,
i.e., $\#(C_i)=\#(C_{i-1})$.
The \dt{special component tree} ${\cal T}_{comp}^*$ is obtained from
$\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ by eliminating any non-special components
while preserving the descendant/ancestor relationship among
special nodes.
\longShort{ \eitem}{}
We now consider the length of an arbitrary non-special path as in \refeQ{P}.
In \cite[Lemma 10]{becker+3:cisolate:18}, it was shown that
$s =O\Big(\log n + \log(\LOG (w(B_0))\cdot \LOG(\sigma_F(2B)^{-1}))\Big)$.
We provide an improved bound
which is based on local data, namely, the ratio $w_1/ w_s$ only.
We define $s_{\max}$ to be the maximum length
of a non-special path in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$.
\bthml{s_max}
The length of the non-special path \refeQ{P} satisfies
$$s=O(\log\log\frac{w_{1}}{w_{s}}+\log n).$$
Particularly,
$$
s_{\max} =O\Big(\log n + \log\log\frac{w(B_0)}{\varepsilon}\Big).$$
\ethm
The proof of \refThm{s_max} is found in Appendix B.
\longShort{ \bigskip}{}
{\bf Charging function $\phi_0(B)$.}
%
For each component $C$,
define the \dt{root radius} of $C$ to be $r_C\as {\rm rad}(\cal Z(C))$,
that is the radius of the smallest disc enclosing all the roots in $C$.
%
We are ready to define a charging function $\phi_0$
for each box $B$ in the components of $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$:
Let $C_B\in\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ be the component of which $B$ is a constituent box.
Let $\xi_B$ be any root in $2B$.
There are two cases:
(i) If $C_B$ is a confined component,
there is a unique maximum path in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ from $C_B$ to a
confined leaf $E_B$ in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ containing $\xi_B$.
Define $\phi_0(B)$ to be the first special component $C$
along this path such that
\begin{equation}\label{charge}
r_C < 3 w_B.
\end{equation}
where $w_B$ is the width of $B$.
(ii) If $C_B$ is not confined, it means that
$C$ is a component in the preprocessing stage.
In this case, define $\phi_0(B)$ to be the largest natural
$\vareps$-cluster containing $\xi_B$.
Notice that $\phi_0(B)$ is a special component in (i)
but a cluster in (ii).
\bleml{phi_0}
The map $\phi_0$ is well-defined.
\elem
\bpf
Consider the component $C_B$ of which $B$ is a constituent box.
There are two cases in our definition of $\phi_0$:
(i) If $C_B$ is a confined component, it is easy to see that
we can find a root $\xi_B\in 2B$,
and fix a unique maximum path in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ from $C_B$ to a
confined leaf $E_B$ in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ containing $\xi_B$.
It suffices to prove that we can always find a
special component $C$ in this path such that $r_C<3w_B$.
This is true because $r_{E_B}<3 w_{E_B}$;
to see this, note that $E_B$ is a confined leaf of $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$.
Thus $W_{E_B}\le 3w_{E_B}$ (this is the condition for output
in the main loop of the Root Clustering Algorithm).
It follows
$r_{E_B}\le\frac{\sqrt2}{2}\cdot 3w_{E_B}<3w_{E_B}$.
Hence $r_{E_B}<3w_{E_B}<3w_B$.
We can always find a first special component along the path from
$C_B$ to $E_B$ such that (\ref{charge}) is satisfied.
(ii) If $C_B$ is a non confined component, we can also find a root
$\xi_B$ in $2B$, and we can always charge $B$ to the largest
natural $\vareps$-cluster containing $\xi_B$.
\epf
Using this map, we can now bound the number of boxes.
\bleml{TotalBox}
The total number of boxes in all the components in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$ is
$$O(t\cdot s_{\max}) = O(\#(2B_0)\cdot s_{\max})$$
with $t=|\{\phi_0(B):B $ is any box in $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}\}|$.
\elem
This improves the bound in \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}
by a factor of $\log n$. A proof for \refLem{TotalBox} is found in Appendix B.
\section{Bit Complexity}
Our goal is to prove the bit-complexity theorem stated
in the Introduction.
From the discussion in \cite[Theorem 7]{becker+3:cisolate:18},
the total cost of all the $\wt{T}^G$ tests is the main cost of
the whole algorithm.
Thus we need to account for the cost of $\wt{T}^G$ tests on all the concerned
boxes and components.
The road map is as follows:
we will charge the work of each box $B$
(resp., component $C$) to some natural
$\vareps$-cluster denoted $\phi(X)$ (resp., $\phi(C)$).
We show that each cluster $\phi(X)$ ($X$ is a box or
a component) is charged $\wtO(1)$ times.
Summing up over these clusters, we obtain our bound.
We may assume $\LOG(B_0)=O(\tau_F)$ since
Cauchy's root bound implies that any root $z_i$
satisfies $|z_i|\le 1+4\cdot 2^\tau_F$, thus
we can replace $B_0$ by $B_0\cap B(0,2+8\cdot 2^\tau_F)$.
%
{\bf Cost of $\wt{T}^G$-tests and Charging function $\phi(X)$:}
Our algorithm performs 3 kinds of $\wt{T}^G$-tests:
\beql{cost}
\wt{T}^G_*(\Delta_C),\quad
\wt{T}^G_{k_C}(\Delta'),\quad
\wt{T}^G_0(\Delta(B))
\eeql
respectively appearing in the main loop, the Newton Step and
the Bisection Step.
We define the
\dt{cost} of processing component $C$ to be
the costs in doing the first 2 tests in \refeQ{cost},
and
the \dt{cost} of processing a box $B$ to be the cost of
doing the last test.
%
Note that the first 2 tests do not apply to the non-confined components (which appear in the preprocessing stage only), so there is no corresponding cost.
We next ``charge'' the above costs to
natural $\vareps$-clusters. More precisely, if
$X$ is a confined component or any box produced
in the algorithm, we will charge its cost to
a natural $\vareps$-cluster denoted $\phi(X)$:
%
(a) For a special component $C$, let $\phi(C)$ be the
natural $\vareps$-cluster $\cal Z(C')$ where
$C'$ is the confined
leaf of ${\cal T}_{comp}^*$ below $C$ which minimizes the
length of path from $C$ to $C'$ in ${\cal T}_{comp}^*$.
%
%
(b) For a non-special component $C$,
we define $\phi(C)$ to be equal to $\phi(C')$ where
$C'$ is the first special component below $C$.
%
(c)
For a box $B$, we had previously defined $\phi_0(B)$ (see Section 5).
There are two possibilities:
If $\phi_0(B)$ is defined as a special component, then
$\phi(\phi_0(B))$ was already
defined in (a) above, so we let $\phi(B)\as \phi(\phi_0(B))$.
Otherwise, $\phi_0(B)$ is defined as
a natural $\vareps$-cluster, and we let $\phi(B) = \phi_0(B)$.
\bleml{phi}
The map $\phi$ is well-defined.
\elem
\bpf
For a special component $C$, to define $\phi(C)$ we first consider $C'$,
defined as the confined leaf such that path $(C\to\cdots\to C')$ is the
shortest in ${\cal T}_{comp}^*$. This path has length at most $\log n$
since there exists a path of length at most $\log n$ in which
we choose the special node with the least $\#(C_i)$ at each branching
(this was the path chosen in \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}).
Hence, $\phi(C)$ is well-defined. The map $\phi$ for a
non-special component and a box are defined based on that for a special
component, it is easy to check that they are well-defined.
It remains to prove that in the case where $\phi_0(B)$ is a natural
$\vareps$-cluster, the map $\phi$
is well-defined.
This follows from \refLem{phi_0}.
\ignore{
For this, we need to prove that $\phi_0(B)$ is a union of
strong $\vareps$-cluster.
That is to say: if a strong $\vareps$-cluster $D$ intersects $\phi_0(B)$,
then $D\ib \phi_0(B)$.
Note that both $\phi_0(B)$ and $D$ are natural clusters, thus either
$D\ib \phi_0(B)$ or $\phi_0(B)\ib D$.
For a constituent box $B$ of a non-confined component, by \refLem{BoxSize}(a) we have
$w_B\ge \frac{w(B_0)}{48n}$;
and by definition of a strong $\varepsilon$-cluster $D$, we have
${\rm rad}(D)<\frac{\vareps}{48}$.
From the definition of $\phi_0$ map,
$\phi_0(B)$ is the largest natural cluster satisfying
${\rm rad}(\phi_0(B))\le w_B$.
Therefore, if ${\rm rad}(D)\le w_B$, we can conclude
that ${\rm rad}(D)\le{\rm rad}(\phi_0(B))$ and thus $D\ib\phi_0(B)$.
It is easy to see that if $\vareps\le\frac{w(B_0)}{n}$ (by our assumption),
then ${\rm rad}(D)\le\frac{w(B_0)}{n\cdot 48}<w_B$.
We can further prove that $D\subset 2B_0$:
since $D\ib\phi_0(B)$, we have $r<{\rm rad}(\phi_0(B))\le w_B$
and by the remark in Section $4$, $w_B\le \frac{w(B_0)}{16}$,
thus $r<\frac{w(B_0)}{16}$. It is also easy to see that
for any box $B$, the distance from $2B$ to the boundary of $2B_0$
is at least $\frac{w(B_0)}{16}$.
}%
%
\epf
Define $\wh{S}$ to be the range of $\phi$, so it is a set of natural
$\vareps$- clusters.
%
The clusters in $\wh{S}$ are of two types: those defined
by the confined leaves of $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$, and those largest
$\vareps$-clusters of the form $\phi(B)$ with $B$
in non-confined components.
%
We use the notation $\wtO(1)$
to refer to a quantity that is $O((\LOG (n\tau\log(\vareps^{-1})))^i)$ for some
constant $i$. To indicate the complexity parameters explicitly,
we could have written ``$\wtO_{n,\tau,\LOG(\vareps^{-1})}(1)$''.
\bleml{ClustCharge}
Each natural $\vareps$-cluster in $\wh{S}$ is
charged $O(s_{\max}\log n)$ times, i.e., $\wtO(1)$ times.
\elem
\bpf
First consider the number of components mapped to
a same natural $\vareps$-cluster.
From the definition of $\phi(C)$ for a special component,
it is easy to see that the number of special components mapped to a same natural $\varepsilon$-cluster is at most $\log n$.
Thus the number of non-special components mapped to
a same natural $\varepsilon$-cluster is bounded by
$O(s_{\max}\log n)$.
Hence the number of components mapped to a same
natural $\vareps$-cluster is bounded by $O(s_{\max}\log n)$.
Then we consider the number of boxes mapped to a same
natural $\vareps$-cluster.
By \refLem{TotalBox}, the number of boxes charged to
a same special component by $\phi_0$ is bounded by
$O(s_{\max})$, and the number of special components mapped to
a same natural $\vareps$-cluster is bounded by $O(\log n)$,
thus the number of boxes mapped to a same
natural $\varepsilon$-cluster is bounded
by $O(s_{\max}\log n)=\wtO(1)$.
Also by \refLem{TotalBox}, the number of boxes charged to
a same natural $\vareps$-cluster by $\phi_0$ is
bounded by $O(\log n)\wtO(1)$.
In summary, each natural $\vareps$-cluster is mapped
$O(s_{\max}\log n) =\wtO(1)$ times.
\epf
Based on the charging map $\phi$, we can derive a bound for the cost of
processing each component and box.
\bleml{NoniceCostX}
Denote $k=\#(2B_0)$.
\ \\(a)
Let $B$ be a box produced in the algorithm.
The cost of processing $B$ is bounded by
\beql{BoxCost}
\wtO\left(n\cdot[\tau_F+n\LOG(B)
+ k_D\cdot (\LOG(\vareps^{-1})+k)+T_D]\right)
\eeql
with $D=\phi(B)$, $k_D=\#(D)$ and
\beql{T_D}
T_D\as \LOG\prod_{z_j\notin D} |\xi_D-z_j|^{-n_j}.
\eeql
where $\xi_D$ is an arbitrary root contained in $D$.
\ \\(b)
Let $C$ be a component produced in the main-loop,
and let $C_0$ be the last special component above $C$,
then the cost of processing a component $C$
is bounded by
\beql{CompCost}
\begin{aligned}
\wtO\Big(n\cdot [\tau_F+n\LOG(C)+n\LOG(w_{C_0})
+ k_D\cdot (\LOG(\vareps^{-1})+k)+T_D]\Big)
\end{aligned}
\eeql
where $D$ is an arbitrary cluster contained in $C$, $k_D=\#(D)$ and $T_D$ is as defined in \refeQ{T_D}.
\elem
A proof of \refLem{NoniceCostX} is found in Appendix C.
We are almost ready to prove the theorems announced
in Section 1.1. Theorem A is easier to prove
if we assume that
the initial box $B_0$ is \dt{nice} in the following sense:
\beql{condition2}
\max\nolimits_{z\in 2B_0}\LOG(z) = O( \min\nolimits_{z\in 2B_0}\LOG(z)).
\eeql
Here we only prove the case where the initial box is nice, and
a complete proof of Theorem A is provided in the end of Appendix C.
In the nice case, the following lemma bounds the cost of processing $X$ where $X$ is a
box or a component.
\bleml{costX}
If the initial box is nice, the
cost of processing $X$ (where $X$ is a box or a component)
is bounded by
\begin{equation*}\label{costTest}
\wtO\left(n\cdot L_D\right)
\end{equation*}
bit operations with $D=\phi(X)$ and
with $L_D$ defined in \refeQ{L_D}.
Moreover, an $L_D$-bit approximation of $F$ is required.
\elem
\bpf
Note that if the initial box satisfies \refeQ{condition2},
then it holds that
$\LOG(B)=O(\LOG(\xi))$
and
$\LOG(C)= O(\LOG(\xi))$
for any box $B$ and component $C$ and any root $\xi\in 2B_0$.
And we know that $\phi(C)\subset C$.
\epf
Thus this Lemma is a direct result form \refLem{NoniceCostX}.
Using this lemma, we could prove Theorem A of Section 1.1
under the assumption that $B_0$ is nice.
Before we prove the Theorem A in Section 1.1,
we want to address a trivial case excluded by the statement in that theorem. In Theorem A, we assumed that
the number of roots $k$ in $2B_0$ is at least $1$. If $k=0$,
then the algorithm makes only one test, $\wt{T}^G_0(\frac{5}{4}B_0)$.
We want to bound the complexity of this test.
Denoting the center of $B_0$ as $M_0$,
the distance from $M_0$ to any root
is at least $\frac{w(B_0)}{2}$. Thus
$|F(M_0)|>|\operatorname{lcf}(F)|\cdot(\frac{w(B_0)}{2})^n$.
Thus by \cite[Lemma 7]{becker+3:cisolate:18},
the cost of this $\wt{T}^G_k$ test is bounded by
$\wtO\left(
n\tau_F+n^2\LOG(B_0)+n\LOG(w(B_0)^{-1})
\right)$.
Now we return to the Theorem A in the introduction.
\bgenDIY{Theorem A}{
Let $S$ be the solution computed by our algorithm for
a normal instance $(F(z),B_0,\vareps)$.
Then there is an augmentation
$\wh{S}=\set{D_i: i\in I}$ of $S$ such that
the bit complexity of the algorithm is
\begin{equation*}
\wtO\Big( n \sum\nolimits_{D\in \wh{S}} L_D\Big)
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
L_D = \wtO \Big( \tau_F
+n\cdot\LOG(\xi_D)
+k_D\cdot(\LOG(k+\varepsilon^{-1})) + \LOG (\prod\nolimits_{z_j\notin D}
|\xi_D-z_j|^{-n_j})\Big)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where
$k_D=\#(D)$, and $\xi_D$ is an arbitrary root in $D$.
Moreover, an $L_D^*$-bit approximation of the coefficients of $F$
is required with
$L_D^*\as\max_{D\in\wh{S}}L_D$.
}
The set $\wh{S}$ in this theorem is precisely the
range of our charge function $\phi$, as defined in the text.
\blem
If $B_0$ satisfies \refeQ{condition2}, then
the Theorem A holds.
\elem
\bpf
Recall that the number of components
and that of boxes mapped to any
natural $\varepsilon$-cluster is bounded by
$\log n\cdot s_{\max}$.
Thus from \refLem{costX},
the cost of processing all the components and boxes
mapped to a natural cluster $D\in \wh{S}$ is bounded by
$\wtO(\log n\cdots_{\max} \cdot nL_{D})$.
But $\log n\cdot s_{\max}$ is negligible in the sense of
being $\wtO(1)$. Thus the
total cost of all the $\wt{T}^G$ tests
in the algorithm can be bounded by
%
$$\wtO\Big(n\sum\nolimits_{D\in \wh{S}}L_{D}\Big)$$
%
with $L_{D}$ defined in \refeQ{L_D}
and $\wh{S}$ is the range of $\phi$.
And it is easy to see that
$\wtO\Big(n\sum\nolimits_{D\in \wh{S}}L_{D}\Big)$
is bounded by \refeQ{TotalCost}.
There is another issue concerning total cost
(as in \cite[Theorem 7]{becker+3:cisolate:18}):
There is a non-constant complexity operation
in the main loop: in each iteration,
we check if $4\Delta_C\cap C'$ is empty.
This cost is $O(n)$ since $C'$ has at most $9n$ boxes.
This $O(n)$ is already bounded by the cost of the iteration,
and so may be ignored.
\epf
The appendix will prove Theorem A holds even if $B_0$ is not nice.
%
In \cite{becker+3:cisolate:18},
the complexity bound for global root isolation
is reduced to the case where $B_0$ is centered at the origin.
This requires a global pre-processing step.
It is unclear that we can adapt that pre-processing to
our local complexity analysis.
The bit complexity in Theorem A is based on geometric parameters,
we can also write it in terms of synthetic parameters, although
the latter bound is not as sharper as the former one.
\bgenDIY{\sc Corollary to Theorem A}{
\\ The bit complexity of the algorithm is bounded by
$$\wtO\Big(n^2(\tau_F + k+m)
+ nk\LOG(\vareps^{-1})
+ n\LOG|\operatorname{GenDisc}(F)|^{-1}
\Big).$$
In case $F$ is an integer polynomial, this bound becomes
$$\wtO\Big(n^2(\tau_F + k +m)
+ nk\LOG(\vareps^{-1}) \Big).$$
}
The proof is found in Appendices A and C.
Theorem A gives a bit complexity bound in terms of $\wh{S}$.
We now investigate the natural $\vareps$-clusters
in $\wh{S}$. From the definition of $\wh{S}$, we could write
\beql{sss}
\wh{S}=S\cup S'
\eeql
where $S$ is the set of natural $\vareps$-clusters defined by the confined
leaves of $\wh{{\cal T}}_{comp}$, and
$S'$ is the set of all the natural $\vareps$-cluster
$\phi(B)$ with $B$ being any constituent box of any non-confined
component in the preprocessing stage.
Now we want to show an intrinsic property of the output components
and also of the set $\wh{S}$,
using the concept of strong $\vareps$-clusters
as is defined in the introduction.
%
\bgenDIY{{Theorem B}}{
Each natural $\vareps$-cluster in $\wh{S}$ is a union of strong $\vareps$-clusters.
}
The proof of Theorem B is found in Appendix C.
\ignore
The general case of an arbitrary $B_0$ can
be reduced (via a pre-processing step)
to root clustering of a collection of nice boxes as in
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}. The overall complexity is unchanged.
%
$B_0$. The analysis is analogue to that in the original paper
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}, we adapt the analysis in
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18} for root isolation to root clustering.
}%
\sect{Conclusion}
This paper initiates the investigation of the local complexity
of root clustering. It modifies
the basic analysis and techniques of
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18} to achieve this.
Moreover, it solves a problem left open in
\cite{becker+3:cisolate:18}, which is to show
that our complexity bounds can be achieved without
adding a preprocessing step to
search for ``nice boxes'' containing roots.
We mention some open problems.
Our Theorem A expresses the complexity in terms of
local geometric parameters; how tight is this?
Another challenge is to extend our
complexity analysis to analytic root clustering
\citep{yap-sagraloff-sharma:cluster:13}.
\ignore{
This paper represents three directions in
the general topic of ``exact root finding'':
\\1. ``Root finding'' as a generic topic has a variety of
subproblems. Traditionally, in the domain of exact algorithms,
root finding is viewed as two main subproblem:
root isolation followed by root refinement (i.e., compute
an arbitrarily good approximation of an isolated root).
Alternatively, we can follow Sch\"onhage's view approach
of root approximation (i.e., produce approximating disks
for roots, but the disks need not be disjoint.
Our clustering approach is an alternative to both these
two views with many useful applications.
\\2. Ever since Sch\"onhage's landmark, the main criteria for
evaluating exact root finding algorithms has
been its performance on the ``benchmark problem'',
and so biases the
This paper begins the task of
providing complexity bounds for the local root finding problem.
It led to the development of tools based on root geometry.
\\
3. As the benchmark problem is based on integer polynomials,
it gives rise to assumptions that are not generally
meaningful. For integer polynomials, it
may be inferred that the inherent complexity of root finding
reduces to the square-free case. But this is both is
bad idea in practice (the step of making polynomials square-free
is a no-op for the typical input), very difficulty for general
polynomials with algebraic coefficients, and impossible
with general analytic polynomials.
To overcome this, we introduce the oracular number model.
Note that our oracular model is essentially the ``bit-stream model''.
The bit-stream terminology is unfortunate because it suggests that
numbers are essentially a unique infinite binary string.
We know from results in computable analysis that
this is not a robust model.
}
\dt{Postscript}: Our clustering algorithm has been implemented in
~\cite{imbach-pan-yap:ccluster:18}.
\end{s4}
\begin{bib}
\input{specialIssue.bbl}
\end{bib}
\begin{s5}
|
\section{Introduction}
As usual, $\mathbb{Z}^+=\{1,2,3,\dots\}$ and $\mathbb{N}=\mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$ denote the sets of positive and nonnegative integers, respectively.
Let $G$ be a graph, $l\in \mathbb{Z}^+$ an integer, and $f: V(G)\longrightarrow \{0,\dots , l\}$ a function. Let $V_i=\{v\in V(G):\; f(v)=i\}$ for every $i\in \{0,\dots , l\}$. We will identify $f$ with the subsets $V_0,\dots,V_l$ associated with it, and so we will use the unified notation $f(V_0,\dots , V_l)$ for the function and these associated subsets. The \emph{weight} of $f$ is defined as $$\omega(f)=f(V(G))=\sum_{i=1}^l i|V_i| .$$
Let $w=(w_0, \dots,w_l)\in \mathbb{Z}^+\times \mathbb{N}^l$ such that $ w_0\ge 1$.
As defined in \cite{w-domination}, a function $f(V_0,\dots , V_l)$ is a $w$-\emph{dominating function} if $f(N(v))\geq w_i$ for every $v\in V_i$.
The $w$-\emph{domination number} of $G$, denoted by $\gamma_{w}(G)$, is the minimum weight among all $w$-dominating functions. For simplicity, a $w$-dominating function $f$ of weight $\omega(f)=\gamma_{w}(G)$ will be called a $\gamma_{w}(G)$-function. For fundamental results on the $w$-domination number of a graph, we refer the interested readers to \cite{w-domination}; the paper where the theory of $w$-domination in graphs was introduced.
For any function $f(V_0,\dots , V_l)$ and any pair of adjacent vertices $v\in V_0$ and $u\in V(G)\setminus V_0$, the function $f_{u\rightarrow v}$ is defined by $f_{u\rightarrow v}(v)=1$, $f_{u\rightarrow v}(u)=f(u)-1$ and $f_{u\rightarrow v}(x)=f(x)$ whenever $x\in V(G)\setminus\{u,v\}$.
The authors of this paper \cite{sym12121948} introduced the approach of secure $w$-domination as follows.
A $w$-dominating function $f(V_0,\dots , V_l)$ is a \emph{secure} $w$-\emph{dominating function} if for every $v\in V_0$ there exists $u\in N(v)\setminus V_0$ such that $f_{u\rightarrow v}$ is a $w$-dominating function as well. The \emph{secure} $w$-\emph{domination number} of $G$, denoted by $\gamma_{w}^s(G)$, is the minimum weight among all secure $w$-dominating functions. For simplicity, a secure $w$-dominating function $f$ of weight $\omega(f)=\gamma_{w}^s(G)$ will be called a $\gamma_{w}^s(G)$-function.
This approach to the theory of secure domination covers the different versions of secure domination known so far. For instance,
we would emphasize the following cases of known parameters that we define here in terms of secure $w$-domination.
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{secure domination number} of $G$ is defined to be $\gamma_s(G)=\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G)$. In this case, for any secure $(1,0)$-dominating function $f(V_0,V_1)$, the set $V_1$ is known as a \emph{secure dominating set}. This concept was introduced by Cockayne et al. in \cite{MR2137919} and studied further in several papers, including among others, \cite{MR3355313,MR2529132,
MR3258160,Cockayne2003,MR2477230,Valveny2018}.
\item The \emph{secure total domination number} of a graph $G$ of minimum degree at least one is defined to be $\gamma_{st}(G)=\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G)$. In this case, for any secure $(1,1)$-dominating function $f(V_0,V_1)$, the set $V_1$ is known as a \emph{secure total dominating set} of $G$.
This concept was introduced by Benecke et al.\ in \cite{MR2364004} and studied further in several papers, including among others, \cite{STDS2019,TWRDF2018,MR3624798,MR2477230,MR3773180}.
\item The \emph{weak Roman domination number} of a graph $G$ is defined to be $\gamma_{r}(G)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G)$.
This concept was introduced by Henning and Hedetniemi \cite{MR1991720} and studied further in several papers, including among others, \cite{Cabrera-weak-tree-2020,MR3258160,Cockayne2003,Valveny2017}.
\item The \emph{total weak Roman domination number} of a graph $G$ of minimum degree at least one is defined to be $\gamma_{tr}(G)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G)$. This concept was introduced by Cabrera et al.\ in \cite{TWRDF2018} and studied further in \cite{TPlexicographic-2019}.
\item The \emph{secure Italian domination number} of $G$ is defined to be $\gamma_{_I}^s(G)=\gamma_{(2,0,0)}^s(G)$. This parameter was introduced by Dettlaff et al.\ in \cite{SecureItalian}.
\end{itemize}
In this paper we show how
the secure (total) domination number and the (total) weak Roman domination number of lexicographic product graphs $G\circ H$ are related to $\gamma_w^s(G)$ or $\gamma_w(G)$. For the case of the secure domination number and the weak Roman domination number, the decision on whether $w$ takes specific components will depend on the value of $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)$, while in the case of the total version of these parameters, the decision will depend on the value of $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)$.
We assume that the reader is familiar with the basic concepts, notation and terminology of domination in graph. If this is not the case, we suggest the textbooks \cite{Haynes1998,Haynes1998a}. For the remainder of the paper, definitions will be introduced whenever a concept is needed.
\section{Some tools}\label{NewSecureDomination}
Given a $w$-dominating function $f(V_0,\dots , V_l)$ and $v\in V_0$, we define $$M_f(v)=\{u\in V(G)\setminus V_0: \, f_{u\rightarrow v} \text{ is a } w\text{-dominating function}\}.$$
Obviously, if $f$ is a secure $w$-dominating function, then $M_f(v)\ne \varnothing$ for every $v\in V_0$.
\begin{theorem}{\rm \cite{sym12121948}}\label{PreliminaryBounds-w-Secure}
Let $G$ be a graph of minimum degree $\delta$, and let $w=(w_0,\dots ,w_l)\in \mathbb{Z}^+\times \mathbb{N}^l$ such that $w_i\ge w_{i+1}$ for every $i\in \{0, \dots , l-1\}$. If $l\delta\ge w_l$, then following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\gamma_{w}(G)\le \gamma_{w}^s(G).$
\\
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $k\in \mathbb{Z}^+$, then $\gamma_{(k+1,k=w_1,\dots, w_l)}(G)\leq \gamma_{(k,k=w_1,\dots, w_l)}^s(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}{\rm \cite{sym12121948}}\label{PreliminaryBounds-w-SecureSegundTh}
Let $G$ be a graph of minimum degree $\delta$, and let $w=(w_0,\dots ,w_l), w'=(w_0',\dots ,w'_l)\in \mathbb{Z}^+\times \mathbb{N}^l$ such that $l\delta\ge w_l$, $ w_i\ge w_{i+1}$ and $w_i'\ge w_{i+1}'$ for every $i\in \{0, \dots , l-1\}$.
If $w_i\ge w_{i-1}'-1$ for every $i\in \{1,\dots ,l\}$, and $\max\{w_{j}-1,0\}\ge w_j'\,$ for every $j\in \{0,\dots ,l\}$, then $$\gamma_{w'}^s(G)\le \gamma_{w}(G).$$
\end{theorem}
The following result is a particular case of Theorem \ref{PreliminaryBounds-w-SecureSegundTh}.
\begin{corollary}{\rm \cite{sym12121948}}\label{CorollarySecureSumaUno}
Let $G$ be a graph of minimum degree $\delta$, and let $w=(w_0,\dots ,w_l)\in \mathbb{Z}^+\times \mathbb{N}^l$ and $\textbf{1}=(1,\dots,1)$. If $ 0\le w_{j-1}-w_j\le 2$ for every $j\in \{1,\dots ,i\}$, where $1\le i\le l$ and $l\delta\ge w_l+1$, then $$\gamma_{(w_0,\dots,w_i,0, \dots ,0 )}^s(G)\le \gamma_{(w_0+1,\dots,w_i+1,0, \dots ,0 )}(G)\le \gamma_{w+\textbf{1}}(G).$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proposition}{\rm \cite{sym12121948}}\label{obs-subgraph-general-Secure}
Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$. Let
$w=(w_0,\dots ,w_l)\in \mathbb{Z}^+\times \mathbb{N}^l$ such that $ w_0\ge \cdots \ge w_l$.
If $G'$ is a spanning subgraph of $G$ with
minimum degree $\delta'\ge \frac{w_l }{l}$, then $$\gamma_{w}^s(G)\leq \gamma_{w}^s(G').$$
\end{proposition}
\section{The case of lexicographic product graphs}\label{SectionlexicographicSecure}
The \emph{lexicographic product} of two graphs $G$ and $H$ is the graph $G \circ H$ whose vertex set is $V(G \circ H)= V(G) \times V(H )$ and $(u,v)(x,y) \in E(G \circ H)$ if and only if $ux \in E(G)$ or $u=x$ and $vy \in E(H)$.
Notice that for any $u\in V(G)$ the subgraph of $G\circ H$ induced by $\{u\}\times V(H)$ is isomorphic to $H$. For simplicity, we will denote this subgraph by $H_u$. Moreover,
the neighbourhood of $(x,y)\in V(G)\times V(H)$ will be denoted by $N(x,y)$ instead of $N((x,y))$. Analogously, for any function $f$ on $G\circ H$, the image of $(x,y)$ will be denoted by $f(x,y)$ instead of $f((x,y))$.
The next subsections are devoted to show how
the secure (total) domination number and the (total) weak Roman domination number of lexicographic product graphs $G\circ H$ are related to $\gamma_w^s(G)$ or $\gamma_w(G)$, for certain vectors $w$ of three components.
\subsection{Secure domination}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem-vertice<=2-secure}
For any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any nontrivial graph $H$, there exists a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-function $f$ such that $f(V(H_u))\leq 2$ for every $u\in V(G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given a secure $(1,0)$-dominating function $f$ on $G\circ H$, we define $$R_f=\{x\in V(G): \, f(V(H_x))\ge 3\}.$$ Let $f$ be a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-function such that $|R_f|$ is minimum among all $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-functions.
Suppose that $|R_f|\geq 1$. Let $u\in R_f$, $u'\in N(u)$ and $v_1,v_2\in V(H)$ such that $f(u,v_1)=f(u,v_2)=1$. Now, let
$f':V(G)\times V(H)\longrightarrow \{0,1\}$ be a function defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] $f'(u,v_1)=f'(u,v_2)=1$ and $f'(u,y)=0$ for every $y\in V(H)\setminus \{v_1,v_2\}$;
\item[$\bullet$] $f'(V(H_{u'}))=\min\{2,f(V(H_{u'}))+f(V(H_{u}))-2\}$;
\item[$\bullet$] $f'(x,y)=f(x,y)$ for every $x\in V(G)\setminus \{u,u'\}$ and $y\in V(H)$.
\end{itemize}
It is not difficult to check that $f'$ is a secure $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$ with $\omega(f')\le \omega(f)$ and $|R_{f'}|<|R_f|$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $R_f=\varnothing $, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
We shall need the following two results.
\begin{theorem}\label{teo-s=r-lexicographic}{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}}
For any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any nontrivial graph $H$ with $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\leq 2$ or $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(H)\geq 3$,
$$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop-r-Kn-lexicographic}{\rm \cite{Valveny2017}}
For any graph $G$ and any integer $n\geq 1$,
$$\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ K_n)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G)$$
\end{proposition}
The following result shows how the secure domination number of $G\circ H$ is related to $\gamma_{w}^s(G)$ or $\gamma_{w}(G)$ for certain vectors $w$ of three components. The decision on whether the components of $w$ take specific values will depend on the value of $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)$ and $\gamma(H)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)}
For a graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and a nontrivial graph $H$, the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=1$, i.e., $H$ is a complete graph, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G)$. \\
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=2$ and $\gamma(H)=1$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$. \\
\item[{\rm (iii)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 3$ and $\gamma(H)=1$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(G)$. \\
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)\le \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\le\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(G)$. \\
\item[{\rm (v)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)>\gamma(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$. \\
\item[{\rm (vi)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$, then $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)\le\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$.
\\
\item[{\rm (vii)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 4$ and $\gamma(H)\geq 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $f(V_0,V_1)$ be a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-function which satisfies Lemma \ref{lem-vertice<=2-secure}. Let $f'(X_0,X_1,X_2)$ be the function defined on $G$ by $X_1=\{x\in V(G): f(V(H_x))=1\}$ and $X_2=\{x\in V(G): f(V(H_x))=2\}$. Notice that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')$. With this notation in mind, we differentiate the following cases.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $1.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=1$. In this case, $H$ is a complete graph. Hence, by Theorem \ref{teo-s=r-lexicographic} and Proposition \ref{prop-r-Kn-lexicographic} we deduce that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $2.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)= 2$ and $\gamma(H)=1$. In this case, if $x\in X_0$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 2$. Now, since $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)= 2$, if $x\in X_1$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$. Therefore, $f'$ is a $(2,1,0)$-dominating function on $G$, which implies that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$.
On the other side,
for any $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ and any universal vertex $v$ of $H$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1',W_2')$, defined by $W_1'=W_1\times \{v\}$ and $W_2'=W_2\times \{v\}$, is a $(2,1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$.
Hence, $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G\circ H)\le \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$. Therefore, by
Theorem \ref{teo-s=r-lexicographic} and Corollary \ref{CorollarySecureSumaUno} we conclude that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(2,0,0)}(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $3.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 3$ and $\gamma(H)=1$. As above, if $x\in X_0$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 2$ and, since $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 3$, if $x\in X_1\cup X_2$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$. Hence, $f'$ is a $(2,1,1)$-dominating function on $G$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,1,1)}(G)$.
On the other side,
for any $\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$, any universal vertex $v$ of $H$ and any $v'\in V(H)\setminus \{v\}$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1')$, defined by $W_1'= W_1\times \{v\} \cup W_2\times \{v,v'\}$, is a $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'$ with $x\in W_1\cup W_2$, we can see that $g'_{(x,v)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$, while for any $(x,y)\in W_0\times V(H)$ there exists $x'\in W_2\cap N(x)$ or $x',x''\in W_1\cap N(x)$, and so $g'_{(x',v)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Therefore, $g'$ is
a secure $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$ and, as a consequence, $\gamma_{(1,0)}(G\circ H)\le \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(G)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $4.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2$. If $x\in X_0\cup X_1$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$, which implies that $f'$ is a $(1,1,0)$-dominating function on $G$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in X_0\times V(H)$, there exists $(x',y')\in M_f(x,y)$ with $x'\in N(x)\cap(X_1\cup X_2)$. Hence, for any $u\in X_0\cup \{x'\}$ we have that $f'_{x'\rightarrow x}(N(u))=f_{(x',y')\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(V(H_u))\setminus V(H_u))\ge 1$. Now, if $u\in X_1$, then as $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H_u)=2$ we have that $f'_{x'\rightarrow x}(N(u))=f_{(x',y')\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(V(H_u))\setminus V(H_u))\ge 1$. Hence, $f'$ is a secure $(1,1,0)$-dominating function on $G$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)$.
On the other side,
for any $\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ and any $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)$-function $h(Y_0,Y_1)$ with $Y_1=\{v_1,v_2\}$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1')$, defined by $W_1'=W_1\times \{v_1\}\cup W_2\times Y_1$, is a $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'\setminus W_2\times V(H)$ and $x'\in N(x)\cap (W_1\cup W_2)$, we can see that $g'_{(x',v_1)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$.
Furthermore, for every $(x,y)\in W_0'\cap W_2\times V(H)$ there exists $v_i\in \{Y_1\}\cap M_h(y)$ such that $g'_{(x,v_i)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$.
Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(G)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $5.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)>\gamma(H)=2$. Since $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 3$, if $x\in X_0\cup X_1$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 2$, while if $x\in X_2$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$. Hence, $f'$ is a $(2,2,1)$-dominating function on $G$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$.
In order to prove that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$, let $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ be a $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$-function.
If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)>\gamma(H)=2$, then for any dominating set $S=\{v_1,v_2\}$ of $H$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1')$, defined by $W_1'=W_1\times \{v_1\}\cup W_2\times S$, is a $(2,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Hence, $\gamma_{(2,1)}(G\circ H)\leq \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$, and so
Corollary \ref{CorollarySecureSumaUno} leads to
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(2,1)}(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G).$
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $6.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$. As in Case 5, we deduce that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\ge \gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$.
In order to prove that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$, let $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ be a $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$-function and $S=\{v_1,v_2\}\subseteq V(H)$.
The function $g'(W_0',W_1')$, defined by $W_1'=W_1\times \{v_1\}\cup W_2\times S$, is a $(2,2)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Hence, $\gamma_{(2,2)}(G\circ H)\leq \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$. Therefore,
Corollary \ref{CorollarySecureSumaUno} leads to
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,2)}(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G).$
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $7.$ $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 4$ and $\gamma(H)\geq 3$. In this case, it is easy to check that $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 2$ for every $x\in V(G)$. Therefore, $f'$ is a $(2,2,2)$-dominating function on $G$, which implies that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$.
Finally, as in Case 6, we can deduce that $\gamma_{(2,2)}(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$, and so $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,2)}(G\circ H)\leq \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G).$
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.5, transform shape]
\node [draw, shape=circle, fill=black] (a1) at (0,0) {};
\node at (0,0.6) {\Large $1$};
\node [draw, shape=circle] (a2) at (-1.5,1.5) {};
\node [draw, shape=circle, fill=black] (a3) at (-3,0) {};
\node at (-3,0.6) {\Large $1$};
\node [draw, shape=circle, fill=black] (a4) at (-3,-2) {};
\node at (-3.4,-1.7) {\Large $1$};
\node [draw, shape=circle] (a5) at (0,-2) {};
\node [draw, shape=circle, fill=black] (b1) at (2,0) {};
\node at (2,0.6) {\Large $1$};
\node [draw, shape=circle] (b2) at (3.5,1.5) {};
\node [draw, shape=circle, fill=black] (b3) at (5,0) {};
\node at (5,0.6) {\Large $1$};
\node [draw, shape=circle, fill=black] (b4) at (5,-2) {};
\node at (5.4,-1.7) {\Large $1$};
\node [draw, shape=circle] (b5) at (2,-2) {};
\draw(a1)--(a2)--(a3)--(a4)--(a5)--(a1);
\draw(b1)--(b2)--(b3)--(b4)--(b5)--(b1);
\draw(b3)--(b1)--(a1)--(a3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A graph $G$, where the labels asigned to the vertices correspond to the positive weights assigned by a $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)$-function.}\label{fig-new}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.7]
\def\edgeLength{.7}
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (0,0cm)(v1){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v1) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (0:\edgeLength cm)(v2){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v2) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(45:\edgeLength)}]v2) (v3){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(0:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v2) (v4){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-45:\edgeLength)}]v2) (v5){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (180:\edgeLength cm)(v6){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v6) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(135:\edgeLength)}]v6) (v7){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v6) (v8){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-135:\edgeLength)}]v6) (v9){};
\foreach \ind in {1,3,4,5}
{
\draw (v2)--(v\ind);
}
\foreach \ind in {1,7,8,9}
{
\draw (v6)--(v\ind);
}
\node at ([shift={(0,-.5)}]v1) {$G_1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{.7cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.7]
\def\edgeLength{.7}
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (0,0cm)(v1){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v1) {$1$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (0:\edgeLength cm)(v2){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v2) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(45:\edgeLength)}]v2) (v3){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(0:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v2) (v4){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-45:\edgeLength)}]v2) (v5){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (180:\edgeLength cm)(v6){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v6) {$1$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (180:2*\edgeLength cm)(v7){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v7) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(135:\edgeLength)}]v7) (v8){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v7) (v9){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-135:\edgeLength)}]v7) (v10){};
\foreach \ind in {1,3,4,5}
{
\draw (v2)--(v\ind);
}
\foreach \ind in {6,8,9,10}
{
\draw (v7)--(v\ind);
}
\draw (v6)--(v1);
\node at ($(v1)!0.5!(v6)$)(vlabel) {}
\node at ([shift={(0,-.5cm)}]vlabel) {$G_2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{.7cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.7]
\def\edgeLength{.7}
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (0,0 cm)(v11){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v11) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at ([shift={(0:\edgeLength)}]v11)(v12){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v12) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(45:\edgeLength)}]v12) (v13){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(0:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v12) (v14){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-45:\edgeLength)}]v12) (v15){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:\edgeLength)}]v11)(v16){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v16) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(135:\edgeLength)}]v16) (v17){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v16) (v18){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-135:\edgeLength)}]v16) (v19){};
\foreach \ind in {11,13,14,15}
{
\draw (v12)--(v\ind);
}
\foreach \ind in {11,17,18,19}
{
\draw (v16)--(v\ind);
}
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at (5.3*\edgeLength,0cm)(v1){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v1) {$1$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at ([shift={(0:\edgeLength)}]v1)(v2){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v2) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(45:\edgeLength)}]v2) (v3){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(0:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v2) (v4){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-45:\edgeLength)}]v2) (v5){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:\edgeLength)}]v1)(v6){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v6) {$1$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=black, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:2*\edgeLength)}]v1)(v7){};
\node at ([shift={(0,.2)}]v7) {$2$};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(135:\edgeLength)}]v7) (v8){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(180:\edgeLength/2*sqrt(2))}]v7) (v9){};
\node[draw, shape=circle, fill=white, scale=.5] at ([shift={(-135:\edgeLength)}]v7) (v10){};
\foreach \ind in {1,3,4,5}
{
\draw (v2)--(v\ind);
}
\foreach \ind in {6,8,9,10}
{
\draw (v7)--(v\ind);
}
\draw (v6)--(v1);
\draw (v9)--(v14);
\node at ($(v15)!0.5!(v10)$)(vlabel) {}
\node at ([shift={(0,-.3cm)}]vlabel) {$G_3$};
\node at ([shift={(0,0.3cm)}]v13) {}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{For any $i\in \{1,2,3\}$, the labels asigned to the vertices of $G_i$ correspond to the positive weights assigned by a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G_i\circ H)$-function to the different copies of $H$ in $G_i\circ H$, where $H$ is any graph with $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$.}\label{LEXIC-raro-Secure}
\end{figure}
In order to show the behaviour of $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)$ when $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2$, we consider the following examples.
For the graph $G$ shown in Figure \ref{fig-new}, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)=6<8=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(G)$, while
$\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G\cup C_4)=9<10=\gamma_{(1,0)}^s((G\cup C_4)\circ H)<12=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(G\cup C_4)$
and
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_4\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(C_4)=4 >3=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_4)$.
Analogously, for the case $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$, we consider the graphs $G_1$, $G_2$ and $G_3$ illustrated in Figure \ref{LEXIC-raro-Secure}.
The weights shown in Figure \ref{LEXIC-raro-Secure} correspond to the weights assigned by a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G_i\circ H)$-function to the different copies of $H$ in $G_i\circ H$. In particular, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G_1\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G_1)=6$, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G_2\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G_2)=6$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G_3)=11<12=\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G_3\circ H)<14=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G_3).$
We now discuss some particular cases of Theorem \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)}.
\begin{corollary}
The following statements hold for any integers $n,r\ge 4$ and a nontrivial graph $H$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(K_n\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{if } H \text{ is a complete graph},\\[5pt]
2 & \text{if } \, \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)>\gamma(H)=1 \, \text{ or } \, \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2 ,\\[5pt]
3 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(K_{1,n-1}\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2 & \text{if } \, \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\leq 2,\\[5pt]
4 & \text{if } \, \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 4 \, \text{ and } \, \gamma(H)\geq 3 ,\\[5pt]
3 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(K_{2,n}\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2 & \text{if } H \text{ is a complete graph},\\[5pt]
4 & \text{if } \, \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 2 \, \text{ and } \, \gamma(H)\geq 2 ,\\[5pt]
3 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(K_{3,n}\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
3 & \text{if } H \text{ is a complete graph},\\[5pt]
4 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(K_{n,r}\circ H)=4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is not difficult to see that if $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(K_{2,n}\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(K_{2,n})=4$.
For the remaining cases, the result follows from Theorem \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)} by considering the following facts.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_n)=1$, $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_n)=\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(K_n)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_n)=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(K_n)=2$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_n)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_n)=3$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_{1,n-1})=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{1,n-1})=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_{1,n-1})=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(K_{1,n-1})=2$, $\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(K_{1,n-1})=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_{1,n-1})=3$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_{1,n-1})=4$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_{2,n})=2$, $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{2,n})=\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(K_{2,n})=3$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_{2,n})=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_{2,n})=4$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_{3,n})=3$ and $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{3,n})=\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(K_{3,n})=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_{3,n})=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(K_{3,n})=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_{3,n})=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_{3,n})=4$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_{n,r})=4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Next we consider the particular case when $G$ is a path. As we will see, this case has been partially studied in previous works.
\newpage
\begin{theorem}\label{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)-Paths}
For any integer $n\ge 6$ and any nontrivial graph $H$, the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{MR1991720}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=1$, i.e., $H$ is a complete graph, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(P_n)=
\left\lceil \frac{3n}{7} \right\rceil$.
\\
\item[{\rm (ii)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=2$ and $\gamma(H)=1$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)=
2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3} \right\rceil$.
\\
\item[{\rm (iii)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 3$ and $\gamma(H)=1$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{2n}{3}+1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 0 \pmod 3,\\[5pt]
2\lceil\frac{n}{3}\rceil & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\item[{\rm (iv)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)=2\left\lfloor \frac{n+2}{3} \right\rfloor$.
\\
\item[{\rm (v)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)>\gamma(H)=2$, then $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(P_n)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor+1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 1,2 \pmod 7,\\[5pt]
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
\item[{\rm (vi)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$, then $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n-\left\lfloor \frac{n}{11}\right \rfloor +1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 1,2,5 \pmod {11},\\[5pt]
n-\left\lfloor \frac{n}{11}\right \rfloor & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
\item[{\rm (vii)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 4$ and $\gamma(H)\geq 3$, then $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(P_n)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n & if \, n\equiv 0\pmod 4,\\[5pt]
n+1 & if \, n\equiv 1,3\pmod 4,\\[5pt]
n+2 & if \, n\equiv 2\pmod 4.
\end{array}\right. $$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proofs of (v) and (vii) are derived by combining Theorem \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)} with the values of $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(P_n)$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(P_n)$ obtained in \cite{w-domination}. It remains to prove (vi).
Assume that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$ and let $f(V_0,V_1)$ be a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)$-function which satisfies Lemma~\ref{lem-vertice<=2-secure}. Let $f'(X_0,X_1,X_2)$ be the function defined on $P_n$ by $X_1=\{x\in V(P_n): f(V(H_x))=1\}$ and $X_2=\{x\in V(P_n): f(V(H_x))=2\}$. Notice that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')$.
Let $n=11q+r$ with $r\in \{0,\dots, 10\}$. With this notation in mind, we proceed by induction on $q$.
It is not difficult to check that the result follows for $q=0$ and $r \in \{6,\dots, 10\}$. For these cases, possible sequences of weights assigned by $f'$ to consecutive vertices of $P_r$ are $021120$, $1200220$, $02200220$, $021012120$ and $0210121012$, respectively.
The result also follows for $q=1$ and $r=0$, i.e., $n=11$. In this case, the only possible sequence of weights assigned by $f'$ to consecutive vertices of $P_{11}$ is $02101210120$. The certainty that the result holds for $q=1$ and $r \in \{3,4,6,\dots, 10\}$ comes from a computer search. For these cases, since $P_{11+r}$ can be obtained by connecting a leaf of $P_{11}$ with a leaf $P_r$, possible sequences of weights assigned by $f'$ to consecutive vertices of $P_{11+r}$ are obtained by concatenating the sequences of weights associated to $P_{11}$ and $P_r$, where the sequences for $r=3$ and $r=4$ are $120$, $0220$, respectively. In summary, for any
$r \in \{0,3,4,6,\dots, 10\}$, we have that
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{11+r}\circ H)=10+r$. Analogously, among the possible sequences of weights assigned by $f'$ to consecutive vertices of $P_{12}$, $P_{13}$ and $P_{16}$,
a computer search gives, for instance, $022101200220$, $0210210220120$ and $0211200220021120$, respectively. Thus,
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{12}\circ H)=12$, $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{13}\circ H)=13$ and $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{16}\circ H)=16$, which completes the base case.
Assume that $q\ge 2$ and the statement holds for any $q'$ such that
$1\le q'\le q$. We differentiate two cases.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $1.$ $r\not\in \{1,2,5\}$. In this case, $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{11q+r}\circ H)=10q+r.$$
Let $n=11(q+1)+r$, $k_1=\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{n}\circ H)$, $P_{n}=x_1x_2\dots x_{n}$ and $k_2=f'(\{x_1,\dots, x_{11}\})$.
Suppose that $k_1<10(q+1)+r$.
Since $02101210120$ is the only possible sequence of weights assigned by $f'$ to consecutive vertices of $P_{11}$, we have that $k_2\ge 10$, and
$$
(k_2-10)+f'(\{x_{12},\dots , x_n\})=k_1-10<10q+r.
$$
Since the function $g$, defined as $g(V(H_{x_{13}}))=f(V(H_{x_{13}}))+k_2-10$ and
$g(V(H_{x_{i}}))=f(V(H_{x_{i}}))$ for every $i\in \{12\}\cup \{14,\dots, n\}$, is a secure $(1,0)$-dominating function on the subgraph of $P_{n}\circ H$ induced by $\{x_{12},\dots , x_n\}\times V(H)$, we can conclude that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{11q+r}\circ H)\le \omega(g)=k_1-10<10q+r$, which contradicts the hypothesis. Thus,
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{n}\circ H)\ge 10(q+1)+r$.
To conclude the proof, we only need to observe that
$P_{n}$ is obtained by connecting a leaf of $P_{11q+r}$ with a leaf of $P_{11}$, and so, by hypothesis,
$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{n}\circ H)\le \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{11q+r}\circ H)+\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{11}\circ H)=10(q+1)+r$.
Therefore, the proof of this case is complete.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $2.$ $r\in \{1,2,5\}$. This case is completely analogous to Case 1. The only difference is the induction hypothesis, which states that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{11q+r}\circ H)=10q+r+1.$
Hence, we take $n=11(q+1)+r$ and following the procedure described above, we deduce that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_{n}\circ H)=10(q+1)+r+1$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The next result concerns the case when $G$ is a cycle.
\begin{theorem}\label{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)-Cycles}
For any integer $n\ge 6$ and a nontrivial graph $H$, the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{MR1991720}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=1$, i.e., $H$ is a complete graph, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(C_n)=
\left\lceil \frac{3n}{7} \right\rceil$.
\\
\item[{\rm (ii)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 2$ and $\gamma(H)=1$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)= \left\lceil\frac{2n}{3}\right\rceil $.
\\
\item[{\rm (iii)}]\mbox{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}} If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=2\left\lfloor \frac{n+2}{3} \right\rfloor$.
\\
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)>\gamma(H)=2$, then $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(C_n)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor+1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 1,2 \pmod 7,\\[5pt]
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
\item[{\rm (v)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$, then $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n-\left\lfloor \frac{n}{11}\right \rfloor +1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 1,2,5 \pmod {11},\\[5pt]
n-\left\lfloor \frac{n}{11}\right \rfloor & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
\item[{\rm (vi)}] If $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\geq 4$ and $\gamma(H)\geq 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(C_n)=n. $
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proofs of (iv) and (vi) are derived by combining Theorem \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)} with the values of $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(C_n)$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(C_n)$ obtained in \cite{w-domination}. It remains to prove (v).
Assume that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)=\gamma(H)=3$ and let $f(V_0,V_1)$ be a $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)$-function which satisfies Lemma~\ref{lem-vertice<=2-secure}. Let $f'(X_0,X_1,X_2)$ be the function defined on $C_n$ by $X_1=\{x\in V(C_n): f(V(H_x))=1\}$ and $X_2=\{x\in V(C_n): f(V(H_x))=2\}$. Notice that $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')$.
Let $V(C_n)=\{x_0,\dots, x_{n-1}\}$, where consecutive vertices are adjacent and the addition of subscripts is taken modulo $n$.
If there exists $x_i\in V(C_n)$ such that $f(x_i)=f(x_{i+1})=0$, then $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)$ and we derive the result by Theorem \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)-Paths}. From now on, we assume that for any $x_i\in X_0$ we have that $f'(x_{i-1})>0$ and $f'(x_{i+1})>0$, which implies that $f'(x_{i-2})+f(x_{i-1})\ge 3$ and $f'(x_{i+1})+f(x_{i+2})\ge 3$. Now, for any $x_i\in X_0$ we define $S_i=\{x_{i},x_{i+1},x_{i+2}\}$ and $S=V(C_n)\setminus \left(\cup_{x_i\in X_0}S_i\right)$. Notice that $f(S_i)\ge 3=|S_i|$ for every $x_i\in X_0$ and $f(x_j)>0$ for every $x_j\in S$.
Hence, by Proposition \ref{obs-subgraph-general-Secure}, $$\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)\ge \gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H) =\omega(f')=\sum_{x_i\in X_0}f'(S_i)+f'(S)\ge n.$$
This implies that $n\in \{6,\dots, 10, 12, 13, 15\}$ and $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=n$. Therefore, the result follows.
\end{proof}
As a direct consequence of Theorems \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)}, \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)-Paths} and \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)-Cycles} we derive the following result.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop(2,1,1)-(1,1,0)s-paths}
The following statements hold for any integer $n\ge 4$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(P_n)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{2n}{3}+1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 0 \pmod 3,\\[5pt]
2\lceil\frac{n}{3}\rceil & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(2,1,1)}(C_n)=\lceil\frac{2n}{3}\rceil.$
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Weak Roman domination}
This subsection is devoted to study the weak Roman domination of lexicographic product graphs. To this end, we need the following tools.
\begin{remark}{\rm \cite{Valveny2017}}\label{remark-gamma_r=1-non_K_n}
Given a noncomplete graph $G$, the following statements are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G)=2.$
\\
\item $\gamma(G)=1$ or $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(G)=2.$
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem-vertice<=2-weak}
For any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any nontrivial graph $H$ with $\gamma(H)=1$, there exists a $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-function $f$ such that $f(V(H_u))\leq 2$, for every $u\in V(G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given a secure $(1,0,0)$-dominating function $f$ on $G\circ H$, we define $R_f=\{x\in V(G): \, f(V(H_x))\ge 3\}$. Let $f(V_0,V_1,V_2)$ be a $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-function such that $|R_f|$ is minimum among all $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-functions.
Suppose that $|R_f|\geq 1$. Let $u\in R_f$, $u'\in N(u)$ and $v$ be a universal vertex of $H$. Notice that the function $f'$ on $G\circ H$, defined by $f'(u,v)=f'(V(H_{u}))=2$, $f'(V(H_{u'}))=\min\{2,f(V(H_{u'}))+1\}$, and $f'(x,y)=f(x,y)$ for every $x\in V(G)\setminus \{u,u'\}$ and $y\in V(H)$, is a secure $(1,0,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$ with $\omega(f')\le \omega(f)$ and $|R_{f'}|<|R_f|$, which is a contradiction.
Therefore, $R_f=\varnothing $, and so the result follows.
\end{proof}
Our goal is to show how the weak Roman domination number of $G\circ H$ is related to $\gamma_{w}^s(G)$ or $\gamma_{w}(G)$ for certain vectors $w$ of three components. By Theorems \ref{teo-s=r-lexicographic} and \ref{teo-equality-gamma(1,0)},
the outstanding case is when $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 3$ and $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(H)=2$, which is equivalent to $\gamma(H)=1$ and $\gamma_{(1,0)}^s(H)\ge 3$, by Remark \ref{remark-gamma_r=1-non_K_n}.
In fact, we will present the result with the only assumption on $H$ of being a noncomplete graph with $\gamma(H)=1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th-WRD-Lex-gammaH=1}
For any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any noncomplete graph $H$ with $\gamma(H)=1$,
$$\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a noncomplete graph with $\gamma(H)=1$ and $f(V_0,V_1,V_2)$ a $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)$-function which satisfies Lemma \ref{lem-vertice<=2-weak}. Let $f'(X_0,X_1,X_2)$ be the function defined on $G$ by $X_1=\{x\in V(G): f(V(H_x))=1\}$ and $X_2=\{x\in V(G): f(V(H_x))=2\}$.
Since $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(H)=2$, if $x\in X_0$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 2$ and if $x\in X_1$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$. Hence, $f'$ is a $(2,1,0)$-dominating function on $G$, which implies that $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$.
Now, we show that $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)\le\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$. Let $v$ be a universal vertex of $H$. For any $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1',W_2')$, defined by $W_1'=W_1\times\{v\}$ and $W_2'=W_2\times\{v\}$, is a $(1,0,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'\setminus W_0\times V(H)$, we can see that $g'_{(x,v)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,0,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Furthermore, for every $x\in W_0$ there exists $x'\in W_2\cap N(x)$ or two vertices $x',x''\in W_1\cap N(x)$, and so $g'_{(x',v)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,0,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$ for every $(x,y)\in W_0\times V(H)$. Therefore, $g'$ is a secure $(1,0,0)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$, and as a consequence, $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(G\circ H)\le\omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(G)$.
\end{proof}
We next present some particular cases of Theorem \ref{Th-WRD-Lex-gammaH=1}.
\begin{corollary}
Let $n$ and $r$ be two integers such that $n\geq r\geq 2$. If $H$ is a noncomplete graph with
$\gamma(H)=1$, then the following statements hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_n\circ H)=2$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_{1,n-1}\circ H)=2$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(K_{n,r}\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
3 & \text{if }r=2,\\[5pt]
4 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Theorem \ref{Th-WRD-Lex-gammaH=1} leads to the result, as $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_n)=\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{1,n-1})=2$, $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{n,2})=3$ and $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(K_{n,r})=4$ whenever $r\ge 3$.
\end{proof}
To conclude this section, we would present the following result which shows that the study of the cases $G\cong P_n$ and $G\cong C_n$ is complete.
\begin{theorem}{\rm \cite{SecureLexicographicDMGT}}
For any integer $n\ge 3$ and any noncomplete graph with $\gamma(H)=1$,
$$\gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(P_n\circ H)= 2 \left\lceil\frac{n}{3}\right\rceil \quad \text{and} \quad \gamma_{(1,0,0)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\left\lceil\frac{ 2n}{3}\right\rceil .$$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Secure total domination and total weak Roman domination}
It was shown in \cite{TPlexicographic-2019} that for any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any nontrivial graph $H$ the secure total domination number of $G\circ H$ equals the total weak Roman domination number.
\begin{theorem}\label{teo-st=tr-lexicographic}{\rm \cite{TPlexicographic-2019}}
For any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any nontrivial graph $H$,
$$\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H).$$
\end{theorem}
According to Theorem \ref{teo-st=tr-lexicographic}, we can restrict ourselves to study the
secure total domination number of $G\circ H$. To this end, we shall need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem-st-lexicographic}{\rm \cite{TPlexicographic-2019}}
For any graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and any nontrivial graph $H$, there exists a $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)$-function $f$ satisfying that $f(V(H_u))\leq 2$ for every $u\in V(G)$.
\end{lemma}
The following result shows that the secure total domination number of $G\circ H$ equals $\gamma_{w}^s(G)$ or $\gamma_{w}(G)$ for certain vectors $w$ of three components. As we can expect, the decision on whether the components of $w$ take specific values will depend on the value of $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)$ and/or $\gamma(H)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{SecureTotalLexicographic}
For a graph $G$ with no isolated vertex and a nontrivial graph $H$, the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)$.
\\
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $\gamma(H)=1$ and $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)\ge 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G)$.
\\
\item[{\rm (iii)}] If $\gamma(H)=2<\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$.
\\
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $\gamma(H)\geq 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $f(V_0,V_1)$ be a $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)$-function which satisfies Lemma \ref{lem-st-lexicographic}. Let $f'(X_0,X_1,X_2)$ be the function defined on $G$ by $X_1=\{x\in V(G): f(V(H_x))=1\}$ and $X_2=\{x\in V(G): f(V(H_x))=2\}$. With this notation in mind, we differentiate the following four cases.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $1.$ $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)=2$. If $x\in X_0\cup X_1$, then $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$, which implies that $f'$ is a $(1,1,0)$-dominating function on $G$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in X_0\times V(H)$, there exists $(x',y')\in M_f(x,y)$ with $x'\in N(x)\cap(X_1\cup X_2)$. Hence, for any $u\in X_0\cup X_1\cup \{x'\}$ we have that $f'_{x'\rightarrow x}(N(u))=f_{(x',y')\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(V(H_u))\setminus V(H_u))\ge 1$, which implies that
$f'$ is a secure $(1,1,0)$-dominating function on $G$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)$.
On the other side,
for any $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ and any two universal vertices $v_1,v_2$ of $H$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1')$, defined by $W_1'=(W_1\times \{v_1\})\cup (W_2\times \{v_1,v_2\})$, is a $(1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'\setminus W_0\times V(H)$, we can see that $g'_{(x,v_1)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$.
Furthermore, for every $x\in W_0$ there exists $x'\in M_{g}(x)$, and so $g'_{(x',v_1)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$
for every $(x,y)\in W_0\times V(H)$.
Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(G)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $2.$ $\gamma(H)=1$ and $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)\ge 3$.
Since $f(V(H_x)\le 2$ and $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H_x)\ge 3$ for any $x\in V(G)$, we have that $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 1$.
Thus, $f'$ is a $(1,1,1)$-dominating function on $G$.
Now, for any $(x,y)\in X_0\times V(H)$, there exists $(x',y')\in M_f(x,y)$ with $x'\in N(x)\cap(X_1\cup X_2)$. Hence, for any $u\in V(G)$ we have that $f'_{x'\rightarrow x}(N(u))=f_{(x',y')\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(V(H_u))\setminus V(H_u))\ge 1$, which implies that
$f'$ is a secure $(1,1,1)$-dominating function on $G$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G)$.
Now we show that
$\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G)$.
Let $v$ be the universal vertex of $H$, which is unique, as $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)\ge 3$. For any $\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1',W'_2)$, defined by $W_1'=W_1\times \{v\}$ and $W_2'=W_2\times \{v\}$, is a $(1,1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'\setminus W_0\times V(H)$, we can see that $g'_{(x,v)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$.
Furthermore, for every $x\in W_0$ there exists $x'\in M_{g}(x)$, and so $g'_{(x',v)\rightarrow (x,y)}$ is a $(1,1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$
for every $(x,y)\in W_0\times V(H)$.
Therefore, $g'$ is a secure $(1,1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$, and
by Theorem~\ref{teo-st=tr-lexicographic} we deduce that $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\leq \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G)$.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $3.$ $\gamma(H)=2<\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)$. Assume first that $x\in X_0\cup X_1$. Since $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H_x)\ge 3$, we have that $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\ge 2$. Analogously, for any $x\in X_2$ we deduce that $f'(N(x))=f(N(V(H_x))\setminus V(H_x))\geq 1$. Therefore, $f'$ is a $(2,2,1)$-dominating function on $G$ and, as a consequence, $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$.
On the other side, for any $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ and any $\gamma(H)$-set $\{v_1,v_2\}$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1')$, defined by $W_1'=(W_1\times \{v_1\})\cup (W_2\times \{v_1,v_2\})$, is a $(1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Now, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'\setminus W_2\times V(H)$ and $x'\in N(x)\cap (W_1\cup W_2)$ we have that $g'_{(x',v_1)\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(u,v))\ge 1$ for every $(u,v)\in V(G\circ H)$.
Moreover, for any $(x,y)\in W_0'\cap (W_2\times V(H))$ we have that $g'_{(x,v_1)\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(u,v))\ge 1$ or $g'_{(x,v_2)\rightarrow (x,y)}(N(u,v))\ge 1$ for every $(u,v)\in V(G\circ H)$.
Therefore, $g'$ is a secure $(1,1)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$, which implies that $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\le \omega(g')=\omega(g)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(G)$.
\vspace{0,2cm}
\noindent
Case $4.$ $\gamma(H)\ge 3$.
In this case, for every $x\in V(G)$, there exists $y\in V(H)$ such that $f(N[(x,y)]\cap V(H_x))=0$. Hence, $f'(N(x))=f(N(x,y)\setminus V(H_{x}))\ge 2$ for every $x\in V(G)$. Therefore, $f'$ is a $(2,2,2)$-dominating function on $G$, and so $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\omega(f)=\omega(f')\ge \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$.
Now, for any $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$-function $g(W_0,W_1,W_2)$ and any $v\in V(H)$, the function $g'(W_0',W_1',W_2')$, defined by $W_2'=W_2\times \{v\}$ and $W_1'=W_1\times \{v\}$, is a secure $(2,2,2)$-dominating function on $G\circ H$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G\circ H)\le \omega(g')$, and by Theorems \ref{PreliminaryBounds-w-SecureSegundTh} and \ref{teo-st=tr-lexicographic} we deduce that $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(G\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(G\circ H)\le \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G\circ H)\le \omega(g')=\omega(g)= \gamma_{(2,2,2)}(G)$.
According to the cases above, the result follows.
\end{proof}
The following result is a particular case of Theorem \ref{SecureTotalLexicographic}.
\begin{corollary}
The following statements hold for a nontrivial graph $H$ and any integers $n,r$ such that $n\geq r\geq 2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(K_n\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2 & \text{if } \, \gamma(H)=1,\\[5pt]
3 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(K_{1,n-1}\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2 & \text{if } \, \gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)=2,\\[5pt]
4 & \text{if } \, \gamma(H)\geq 3,\\[5pt]
3 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\\
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(K_{n,r}\circ H)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
3 & \text{if } \, \gamma(H)=1 \text{ and } r=2,\\[5pt]
4 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Theorem \ref{SecureTotalLexicographic} by considering the following facts.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_n)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(K_n)=2$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_n)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_n)=3$.
\\
\item $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_{1,n-1})=2$, $\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(K_{1,n-1})=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_{1,n-1})=3$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_{1,n-1})=4$.
\\
\item If $r=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(K_{n,r})=3$, while if $r\ge 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(K_{n,r})=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(K_{n,r})=4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
By combining Theorem \ref{SecureTotalLexicographic} and some known results we derive the following results.
\begin{theorem}\label{SecureTotalLexicographic-Paths}
The following statements hold for any integer $n\ge 4$ and any nontrivial graph $H$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(P_n\circ H)=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil$.\\
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $\gamma(H)=1$ and $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)\ge 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(P_n)\stackrel{\mbox{\rm \cite{TWRDF2018}}}{=}\left\lceil \frac{5(n-2)}{7}\right\rceil +2.$ \\
\item[{\rm (iii)}] If $\gamma(H)=2<\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(P_n)\stackrel{\mbox{\rm \cite{w-domination}}}{=} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor+1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 1,2 \pmod 7,\\[5pt]
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $\gamma(H)\geq 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(P_n)\stackrel{\mbox{\rm \cite{w-domination}}}{=}\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n & if \, n\equiv 0\pmod 4,\\[5pt]
n+1 & if \, n\equiv 1,3\pmod 4,\\[5pt]
n+2 & if \, n\equiv 2\pmod 4.
\end{array}\right. $
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As indicated in the statements, we only need to prove (i). In this case, by Theorem \ref{SecureTotalLexicographic} we know that
$\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(P_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(P_n)$. Now, by Theorem \ref{PreliminaryBounds-w-Secure} (ii) and Corollary \ref{CorollarySecureSumaUno} we deduce that $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(P_n)\le \gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(P_n)\le \gamma_{(2,2,0)}(P_n)$. Moreover, as shown in \cite{w-domination}, $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(P_n)=\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(P_n)=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
By the result above and Theorem \ref{SecureTotalLexicographic} we deduce the following result.
\begin{proposition}\label{(110)s-caminos}
For any integer $n\ge 4$,
$$\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(P_n)=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil.$$
\end{proposition}
The following result concerns the case when $G$ is a cycle.
\begin{theorem}\label{SecureTotalLexicographic-Cycles}
The following statements hold for any integer $n\ge 4$ and any nontrivial graph $H$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] If $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)=2$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left\lceil \frac{2n}{3}\right\rceil & if \, n=4,7,\\[5pt]
2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right. $
\\
\item[{\rm (ii)}] If $\gamma(H)=1$ and $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)\ge 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,1)}^s(C_n)\stackrel{\mbox{\rm \cite{TWRDF2018}}}{=}\left\lceil \frac{5n}{7}\right\rceil.$ \\
\item[{\rm (iii)}] If $\gamma(H)=2<\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(H)$, then $$\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,1)}(C_n)\stackrel{\mbox{\rm \cite{w-domination}}}{=} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor+1 & \text{if } \, n\equiv 1,2 \pmod 7,\\[5pt]
n-\lfloor\frac{n}{7}\rfloor & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$
\item[{\rm (iv)}] If $\gamma(H)\geq 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(2,2,2)}(C_n)\stackrel{\mbox{\rm \cite{w-domination}}}{=}n. $
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As indicated in the statements, we only need to prove (i). In this case, by Theorem \ref{SecureTotalLexicographic} we know that $\gamma_{(1,1)}^s(C_n\circ H)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)$. As shown in \cite{w-domination}, $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(C_n)=\left\lceil \frac{2n}{3}\right\rceil$ and $\gamma_{(2,2,0)}(C_n)=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil$. Moreover, by Theorem \ref{PreliminaryBounds-w-Secure} (ii) and Corollary \ref{CorollarySecureSumaUno} we deduce that $\gamma_{(2,1,0)}(C_n)\leq \gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)\leq \gamma_{(2,2,0)}(C_n)$. Therefore, $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)\le 2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil$ and, if $n\equiv 0,2\pmod 3$, then $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil$.
From now on, we consider that $n\equiv 1\pmod 3$ with $n\geq 10$, as the cases $n=4$ and $n=7$ are very easy to check. Let $f(V_0,V_1,V_2)$ be a $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)$-function and let $V(C_n)=\{x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1}\}$, where consecutive vertices are adjacent and the addition of subscripts is taken modulo $n$. If there exists $x_i\in V(C_n)$ such that $f(x_i)=f(x_{i+1})=0$, then $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(P_n)$ and we derived the result by Proposition \ref{(110)s-caminos}. Hence, we assume that for any $x_i\in V_0$ we have that $f(x_{i-1})>0$ and $f(x_{i+1})>0$. From this fact, and considering that $f$ is a secure $(1,1,0)$-dominating function, we deduce that $f(\{x_j,x_{j+1}, x_{j+2}\})\geq 2$ for any $x_j\in V(C_n)$. Now, we consider the following two cases.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $1$. $V_2\neq \emptyset$. Without loss of generality, we suppose that $x_0\in V_2$ and let $S_i=\{x_{3i+1}, x_{3i+2}, x_{3i+3}\}$ for $i\in \{0, \ldots ,\frac{n-4}{3}\}$. Notice that $f(S_i)\geq 2$ for every $i\in \{0, \ldots ,\frac{n-4}{3}\}$, which implies that
$$\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=\omega(f)\geq \sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n-4}{3}}f(S_i)+f(x_0)\geq \frac{2(n-1)}{3}+2=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil.$$
This implies that $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil.$
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent
Case $2$. $V_2= \emptyset$. In this case, if there exist four consecutive vertices with weight one, namely without loss of generality $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4$, then we deduce that
$$\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=\omega(f)\geq \sum_{i=5}^{n}f(x_i)+f(\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\})\geq \frac{2(n-4)}{3}+4=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil.$$
From now on we assume that for any group of four consecutive vertices, at least one vertex has weight equal to zero.
Moreover, notice that $|V_0|\geq 2$ as $n\geq 10$ and $\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)\le 2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil.$
Without loss of generality, let $x_0\in V_0$. and suppose that $x_{1}\in M_f(x_0)$. This implies that $f(x_1)=f(x_2)=f(x_3)=1$ and $f(x_4)=0$, and so $f(x_5)=f(x_6)=1$.
If $f(x_7)=1$, then we have that
$$\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=\omega(f)\geq \sum_{i=8}^{n}f(x_i)+f(\{x_1,x_2, \ldots ,x_7\})\geq \frac{2(n-7)}{3}+6=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil,$$
Now, assume that $f(x_7)=0$. Thus, $n\geq 13$ and $x_8\in M_f(x_7)$, which implies that
$f(x_8)=f(x_9)=f(x_{10})=1$. Hence,
$$\gamma_{(1,1,0)}^s(C_n)=\omega(f)\geq \sum_{i=11}^{n}f(x_i)+f(\{x_1,x_2,\ldots , x_{10}\})\geq \frac{2(n-10)}{3}+8=2\left\lceil \frac{n}{3}\right\rceil,$$
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The final frontier of galaxy studies, the first generations of galaxies a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, has been opening up over the last decade \citep{Finkelstein16}. Large and growing samples of tens of thousands of galaxies at high redshifts $z = 4$--$12$ are now well-established and increasingly characterised in terms of luminosity and correlation functions \citep[e.g.,][]{2015ApJ...803...34B,Finkelstein2015,McLeod2016,Morishita2018,Oesch2018,Livermore2018,Ishigaki18,Hatfield2018,Harikane2018,Stefanon2019,Bowler2020,RojasRuiz2020}. This is thanks in particular to the successful application of the Lyman-break dropout selection technique and magnification by galaxy cluster gravitational lensing to optical-NIR surveys with telescopes like {\it Hubble}, VISTA and Subaru. With the advent of the {\it James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)} and {\it EUCLID}, new breakthroughs in surveying and understanding galaxies at $6 \lesssim z \lesssim 15$ can be expected. It is therefore timely to consider how such samples may be used to constrain models of both cosmology and galaxy/star formation.
The observed distribution of high-redshift galaxies depends on a number of components: the primordial density perturbations; the cosmic expansion and linear growth histories; the properties of dark matter, dark energy or other exotic constituents in the early Universe; the history of non-linear halo assembly; the impact of external feedback on galaxy formation; the statistical relation between halo mass and observed apparent galaxy magnitude including dust extinction; and the relevant survey selection. The abundance of high-redshift galaxies has already been used to place interesting constraints on non-standard dark matter models \citep{2013MNRAS.435L..53P,2014MNRAS.442.1597S,2016ApJ...825L...1M,2017PhRvD..95h3512C,2017ApJ...836...61M}, early dark energy \citep{2020ApJ...900..108M} and primordial non-gaussianity on small scales \citep{2021JCAP...01..010S}. High-redshift galaxies are thus an interesting novel probe sensitive to a variety of new early-Universe physics that could help reconcile the observational tension between late-Universe and early-Universe measurements of the Hubble constant $H_0$ \citep{2021arXiv210301183D} and the matter power spectrum normalization $\sigma_8$ \citep{2021A&A...646A.140H}.
The luminosity functions (LFs) and correlation functions (CFs) of high-redshift galaxies have been investigated at different redshifts to understand their connection to the underlying distribution of dark matter and its growth and evolution over time. It has been found that the galaxy population appears to evolve predominantly with the population of dark matter halos, implying that the relevant physics of star formation remains relatively constant over time \citep[e.g.,][]{Trenti2010,Behroozi2013,Dayal2013,Tacchella2013,Mason2015,Sun2016,Tacchella2018,Harikane2018,Yung2019a,Behroozi2019}. The population of high-redshift galaxies are likely the dominant sources for reionization, and their formation can also be suppressed due to feedback from the reionization process \citep{2018PhR...780....1D}.
This is the first in a series of papers that will investigate cosmology, structure and star formation, and reionization in the early Universe, using the new code GalaxyMC\footnote{\url{http://galaxymc.space}}. Later papers will investigate additional models, probes and data, including 21cm Cosmic Dawn / Epoch of Reionization data. Here, we present the basic modelling and demonstrate parameter constraints within the flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model using the observed galaxy UV LF at redshifts $z = 4 - 10$ and the galaxy CF at $z = 4 - 7$. We employ the same general, semi-analytic approach as in several recent studies, whereby the star-forming efficiency is parametrized and the parameter values directly fitted to observations \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Moster2010,Tacchella2013,Behroozi2013,Sun2016,Furlanetto2017,Park2019,2020MNRAS.491.3891P,Mirocha2020b}. However, we do not directly model halo assembly histories, but subsume their effect into an effective galaxy UV magnitude scatter for fixed halo mass. Our model is motivated by compromise between sufficient physical detail in relation to observational precision and computational tractability. Compared to earlier works, we also introduce modeling to account for dependence on cosmological model parameters, and employ multiply parallelized numerical routines to enable Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) exploration of both star formation and cosmological parameter space. Thanks to the attained efficiency, we can include the relevant galaxy UV LF data in full across all redshifts. We also include a measurement of the galaxy correlation function as an additional constraint. This allows us to -- for the first time -- place observational large-scale structure constraints on the current normalization of the matter power spectrum, $\sigma_8$, and mean matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}$ based on $z>4$ post-cosmic-microwave-background data, jointly with parameters of star formation physics. We also compare the implications of our best-fit galaxy UV LF for the global history of reionization with current observational constraints.
Logarithms are base 10 unless otherwise specified.
\section{DATA}
We use the galaxy luminosity function determinations derived from $\sim 10\,000$ Lyman-break selected high-redshift galaxy candidates across a redshift range $z \sim 4 - 10$ \citep[][\bf B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B}. This data set is a large, to good approximation magnitude-limited and homogeneously analyzed sample that has been extensively used in the literature. We use the derived galaxy LF, Table 5 in \cite{2015ApJ...803...34B}. We discuss completeness and other aspects further in Sect.~\ref{sec:syst}.
We also include measurements of mean galaxy magnitudes as a function of halo mass, determined from the galaxy CF \citep[][\bf H18]{Harikane2018}. We use a subset of the data points in their Fig.~15, chosen to give a maximal lever arm in halo mass and redshift, but otherwise minimal to allow the LF data to drive the results. Specifically, we use the two data points with smallest and largest halo mass at $z \sim 4$, and the data point with smallest halo mass at $z \sim 7$, as a constraint on the mean UV magnitude of halos as a function of \emph{dark-matter-only} halo mass $M_{200}$ in the fiducial cosmology of \cite{Harikane2018}. We propagate the published halo mass uncertainty to a magnitude uncertainty, and take care to convert between the halo mass definition used in \cite{Harikane2018} and that used in our model. For the latter, we assume an NFW profile halo concentration parameter $c = 3.1$ \citep{2015MNRAS.452.1217C,2016MNRAS.462..893R}, consistent with assumptions in \cite{Harikane2018}. This also includes converting between a dark-matter-only mass and a dark-matter-plus-baryons mass. We compute the predicted magnitude in the fiducial cosmology of \cite{Harikane2018}. Hence, this is effectively an independent constraint on the star-forming efficiency.
\vspace{15mm}
\section{MODEL}
\subsection{Galaxy luminosity function}
To model the observed distribution of galaxies, we employ a model combining a halo mass function with an effective mass--observable relation.
Our model to predict the comoving number density of galaxies at redshift $z$ with absolute magnitude $M_a \leq M \leq M_b$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:phi}
\Phi(M_a, M_b, z) & = & \epsilon_{\rm syst} \int_M \int_{M_{\rm min}(z)} W[M; M_a, M_b]
\\
\nonumber
& & \times p[M | \langle M\rangle (M_{\rm h}, z)] n_h[M_{\rm h}, z] dM_{\rm h} dM,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_{\rm syst}$ describes fractional systematic uncertainty (e.g., cosmic variance, uncertainty in halo/sub-halo mass function, completeness, contamination), $M_{\rm min}(z)$ is the minimum halo mass allowing galaxy/star formation, $W[M; M_a, M_b]$ is a top-hat window function picking out absolute magnitudes $M_a \leq M \leq M_b$, $p[M | \langle M\rangle (M_{\rm h}, z)]$ is the probability of a galaxy having absolute magnitude $M$ given a mean galaxy magnitude $\langle M\rangle (M_{\rm h}, z)$, $n_h(M_{\rm h},z)$ is the halo mass function. The integration variables are intrinsic, absolute magnitude $M$ and halo mass $M_{\rm h}$.
\subsection{Background and density perturbations}
We assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology described by the present mean matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}$, baryonic matter density $\Omega_{\rm b}$, and Hubble constant $H_0$ (also denoted by $h = H_0 / 100$ km/s/Mpc), with adiabatic scalar primordial density perturbations that have a power-law power spectrum described by the present-time normalization $\sigma_8$ and scalar spectral index $n_{\rm s}$, and no higher-order statistical moments. We assume that cosmological neutrinos are massless, and that there are $N_{\rm eff} = 3.046$ effective relativistic species in the early Universe.
\subsection{Halo mass function}
The differential number density of halos in a mass
interval ${\rm d}M$ about $M$ at redshift $z$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
n(M_{\rm h},z)\,{\rm d}M_{\rm h} = -F(\sigma)\,\frac{\rho_{\rm m}(z)}{M_{\rm h}\sigma(M_{\rm h},z)}\,
\frac{{\rm d}\sigma(M_{\rm h},z)}{{\rm d}M_{\rm h}}\,{\rm d}M_{\rm h}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(M_{\rm h},z)$ is the dispersion of the density field at some
comoving scale $R=(3M_{\rm h}/4\pi\rho_{\rm m})^{1/3}$ and redshift $z$, and
$\rho_{\rm m}(z) = \rho_{\rm m}(z=0)(1+z)^3$ the matter density.
The halo mass function $F(\sigma)$ encodes the halo collapse statistics. We use the fit to Bolshoi and MultiDark $N$-body simulations in \cite{2016MNRAS.462..893R} [Eq. (25), Eq. (32), Table 3],
calibrated on simulations up to $z = 9$. We use this fit up to $z = 10$, and for $10<z\leq 15$ linearly interpolate $\log F(\sigma)$ in redshift using our $z = 10$ value and the results in \cite{Yung20}, Appendix A. We expect that this determination is accurate to within $\sim 20\%$ for the relevant halo masses. The cited works use the virial overdensity at each redshift to define halo masses, so we accordingly let $M_{\rm h}$ correspond to the halo virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$.
For simplicity, we assume that halos host a central galaxy only, since at high redshift the fraction of satellites is expected to be at most a few percent \citep{2016MNRAS.462..893R, 2018MNRAS.480.3177B}. This is also within the theoretical uncertainty of the halo mass function quoted above \citep{2016MNRAS.462..893R}.
\subsection{Minimum mass of galaxy formation}
Both internal and external processes can inhibit the possibility to form galaxies in the early Universe. We model internal feedback through the star-forming efficiency model in Sect.~\ref{sec:sfe} below. Both the HI cooling limit of dark matter halos and photo-suppression by the ultraviolet radiation field built up during reionization can also prevent the formation of galaxies. The data we use are not faint enough to be sensitive to these mechanisms, but for definiteness, we model the minimum halo mass due to HI cooling and UV background feedback using Eq.~(11) in \cite{2013MNRAS.432.3340S} with central redshift and duration of reionization $z_{\rm re} = 7.7, \Delta z_{\rm re}=0.5$ following the Planck 2018 results \citep{Planck18}, and a sound-crossing redshift interval $\Delta_{\rm sc} = 1.0$.
\subsection{Galaxy star-forming efficiency and luminosity} \label{sec:sfe}
We assume that galaxy UV luminosities follow $L = \kappa^{-1} \dot{m}_\star$ \citep{2014ARA&A..52..415M}, with the star-formation rate (SFR) given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mstardot}
\dot{m}_\star = f_\star \frac{\Omega_{\rm b}}{\Omega_{\rm m}} \dot{M}_h \,,
\end{equation}
where $f_\star$ is the star-forming efficiency (SFE), the fraction of infalling baryonic matter that is converted to stars. The absolute UV magnitude $M = M_0 - 2.5\log_{10} L$, so that the mean magnitude for a galaxy is given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:massmag}
\langle M_{\rm UV} \rangle (M_{\rm h}, z) & = & M_0 - 2.5\left[ \log_{10} f_\star(M_{\rm h}, z) + \log_{10}\frac{\Omega_{\rm b}}{\Omega_{\rm m}} + \log_{10}\frac{\dot{M_{\rm h}}(M_{\rm h},z)}{M_\sun {\rm yr}^{-1}} - \log_{10} \frac{\kappa}{M_\sun\,{\rm yr}^{-1} / ({\rm ergs}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1})} \right]
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $f_\star(M_{\rm h}, z)$ is now the mean star-forming efficiency, and $\dot{M_{\rm h}}(M_{\rm h},z)$ is the mean mass accretion rate of halos. We use $\kappa = 1.15 \times 10^{-28} M_\sun\,{\rm yr}^{-1} / ({\rm ergs}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1})$, calibrated for 1500 \r{A} dust-corrected rest-frame UV luminosity, assuming continuous mode star formation and a Salpeter stellar initial mass function \citep{2014ARA&A..52..415M}. We use the AB magnitude system \citep{1974ApJS...27...21O} so $M_0 = 51.6$. Note that this implies that additional effects from e.g. mergers, scatter in the initial mass function, scatter in filtering mass due to UV background feedback, etc. are subsumed into the statistical magnitude scatter.
The mass-magnitude relation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:massmag}) requires two input functions: the SFE $f_\star(M_{\rm h}, z)$, and the mass accretion rate (MAR) $\dot{M_{\rm h}}(M_{\rm h},z)$. We model the mean SFE as a double power-law distribution in $M_{\rm h}$:
\begin{equation}
f_\star(M_{\rm h}, z) = \frac{N(1+z)^{\gamma_N}}{\left(\frac{M_{\rm h}}{M_{\rm p}}\right)^{\alpha(1+z)^{\gamma_\alpha}} + \left(\frac{M_{\rm h}}{M_{\rm p}}\right)^{-\beta(1+z)^{\gamma_\beta}}}\,.
\end{equation}
We assume throughout that $M_{\rm p}$ is given in units of $M_\sun/h$. This functional form is well-motivated based on earlier studies and allows the use of a single, general but compact function across all relevant redshifts and halo masses that implements internal feedback SFE suppression both at the low-mass (expected from supernova feedback) and high-mass (expected from feedback from active galactic nuclei) ends in a manner consistent with empirical studies \citep[see e.g.,][]{SunFurlanetto16,Furlanetto2017,Mirocha2020b}.
We model the MAR as
\begin{equation}
\dot{M}_{\rm vir} = \frac{\sigma_8^{\rm sim}}{\sigma_8}\frac{H(z)}{H_{\rm sim}(z)} \dot{M}^{\rm sim}_{\rm vir} \,,
\end{equation}
where $H(z)$ and $H_{\rm sim}(z)$ are Hubble parameters,
based on \cite{2015MNRAS.452.1217C} taking into account that the redshifts we consider are well within the matter-dominated regime [$\Omega_{\rm m}(z>4) \gtrsim 0.99$], such that the differences in growth rate for different choices of cosmological parameters are negligible. This model does not fully take into account the effect of changes in halo formation times when cosmological parameters are varied, but gives a good approximation to the mean MAR change. It should also be noted that for the ranges of cosmological parameter values considered in this work the variation in UV magnitudes is $\lesssim 0.1$ mag, and the overall impact on the galaxy LF dominated by the increase or decrease of halo densities. The fiducial MAR $\dot{M}^{\rm sim}_{\rm vir}$ is given by a fit to the same $N$-body simulation used for the halo mass function \citep{2016MNRAS.462..893R},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:marsim}
\frac{\dot{M}^{\rm sim}_{\rm vir}}{h^{-1}\,M_\sun\,{\rm yr}^{-1}} & = & \eta(z) M_{\rm vir,12}^{\xi(z)}\frac{H_{\rm sim}(z)}{H^{\rm sim}_0}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here,
\begin{eqnarray}
\log \eta(z) & = & 2.677 - 1.708a + 0.661a^2\,, \\
\xi(z) & = & 0.975 + 0.300a - 0.224a^2 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The simulation has been performed with parameter values $H^{\rm sim}_0 = 67.8$ km/s/Mpc, $\Omega^{\rm sim}_{\rm m} = 0.307, \Omega^{\rm sim}_{\Lambda} = 0.693, \sigma_8^{\rm sim} = 0.823$. While the simulation data reaches up to $z = 9$, we have confirmed numerically that Eq.~(\ref{eq:marsim}) matches very well the MAR for $z = 9 - 15$ determined by assuming that the evolution of the halo mass function of \cite{Yung20} is due to mass accretion in individual halos.
The model has a simple and natural physical interpretation: the accretion rates are regulated by the matter available for accretion from the background. If the degree of clustering is increased ($\sigma_8$) or the amount of matter is decreased ($\Omega_{\rm m}$), less matter will be available for accretion compared to the simulation baseline.
\subsection{Magnitude scatter}
The statistical scatter in galaxy UV magnitude is assumed to follow the distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
p(M_{\rm UV} | \langle M_{\rm UV} \rangle ) = \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_M} \exp \left[ - \frac{(M_{\rm UV} - \langle M_{\rm UV} \rangle )^2}{2\sigma_{M}^2} \right] \,,
\end{eqnarray}
We allow the value of $\sigma_M$ to be determined by the data.
\subsection{Dust extinction}
We model dust extinction following \cite{2017PhRvD..95h3512C}, whereby the mean extinction at each UV magnitude $M_{\rm UV}$ and redshift $z$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\langle A_{\rm UV} \rangle = 4.43 + 0.79\ln(10)\sigma^2_{\beta_{\rm UV}} + 1.99 \langle \beta_{\rm UV} \rangle
\end{equation}
with $\sigma_{\beta_{\rm UV}} = 0.34$ and $\langle \beta_{\rm UV}(M_{\rm UV}, z) \rangle$ approximated as in \cite{2017PhRvD..95h3512C} Eq.~(5-6).
\subsection{Fiducial model adjustment}
To compare our model predictions for the galaxy UV LF with the observational data, and allow cosmological parameters to be varied consistently, we rescale the model predictions to the fiducial cosmological model that was assumed in the derivation of the observed galaxy LF \citep{2015ApJ...803...34B}. When computing the predicted galaxy LFs from Eq.~(\ref{eq:phi}), we adjust galaxy absolute magnitudes as they would have appeared in the fiducial cosmology:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm UV}^{\rm fid} = M_{\rm UV} + 5 \log \left( \frac{d_{\rm L}(z)}{d^{\rm fid}_{\rm L}(z)} \right) \,,
\end{equation}
where $d_{\rm L}(z)$ is the luminosity distance. We also rescale the predicted number densities such that
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\rm fid} = \Phi \frac{dV_{\rm fid}/dz}{dV/dz}\,,
\end{equation}
where $dV/dz$ is the comoving volume element. Above, super- and subscripts ``fid'' refer to the fiducial cosmology.
\subsection{Systematics} \label{sec:syst}
The estimated contamination in the B15 data set is low, with the contamination fraction approximately described by the relation $c(z) = [0.14(1+z)^2 - 1.7]/100$, based on \cite{2015ApJ...803...34B}. The galaxy LF data is already corrected for contamination, and hence we do not make any additional correction for this. The galaxy sample is estimated to be complete to at least $80\%$, and the observed number densities to have a $10\%$ uncertainty due to cosmic variance \citep{2015ApJ...803...34B}. The theoretical uncertainty in the halo/sub-halo mass function is of order $\sim 20\%$ \citep{2016MNRAS.462..893R}. Combining these estimates, we estimate an overall systematic uncertainty in galaxy number densities of around $15$-$20\%$. These uncertainties are subdominant to the statistical uncertainties on the galaxy LF, but we nonetheless include a normal-distribution prior $\epsilon_{\rm syst} = 1.00 \pm 0.15$.
Our assumed conversion between galaxy SFR and luminosity depends on assumptions about star formation dynamics, stellar initial mass function and metallicity, which could introduce a systematic bias. The uncertainty is expected to be within a factor of a few \citep{2014ARA&A..52..415M}, which is at worst comparable to the statistical uncertainty we find in the normalization $N$ of the SFE.
\subsection{Likelihood and priors}
We employ the measurements of the galaxy LF from \cite{2015ApJ...803...34B}, with corresponding normally-distributed uncertainties. We take care to appropriately truncate the probability density functions at zero where relevant.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{3450006.png}
\caption{The best-fit galaxy UV luminosity function $\Phi$ at $z = 6$ for prior combination I (indistinguishable from combination II), together with \citet[][B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B} data (with 68\% error bars), obtained from the online cloud computing application \url{galaxymc.cloud}. }
\label{fig:lumfunc}
\end{figure*}
We use non-restrictive, uniform priors on model parameters, unless otherwise stated. We enforce $N>0$ by employing instead the parameter $\log N$. We require $\alpha \geq 0$, $\beta \leq 0$ to avoid the artificial parameter degeneracy from index switching. The UV magnitude scatter $\sigma_M \geq 0.2$, in line with the theoretically expected minimum value possible due to variation in halo assembly based on analytical estimates and numerical simulations \citep{2018ApJ...856...81R, 2019ApJ...878..114R, 2020MNRAS.495.3602W}. We also restrict $h \leq 1$ to avoid an age of the Universe less than e.g. the ages of globular clusters \citep{2003Sci...299...65K}.
We employ the following external priors:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{n_{\rm s}}\,{\rm\bf Planck} & & n_{\rm s} = 0.9649 & \text{\rm \cite{Planck18}} \,, \\
& \text{\rm\bf BBN} & & \Omega_{\rm b} h^2 = 0.0222 \pm 0.0005 & \text{\rm \cite{Planck18}} \,, \\
& {\rm\bf SNIa } & & \Omega_{\rm m} = 0.298 \pm 0.022 & \text{\rm \cite{2018ApJ...859..101S}} \,,\\
& \mathbf{H_0}\,{\rm\bf low-}\mathbf{z} && h = 0.7348 \pm 0.0166 & \text{\rm \cite{2018ApJ...855..136R}}\,, \\
& \mathbf{H_0}\,{\rm\bf Planck} && h = 0.674 \pm 0.005 & \text{\rm \cite{Planck18}} \,. \\
& {\rm\bf Syst.} & & \epsilon_{\rm syst} = 1.00 \pm 0.15 & \text{\rm See\,Sect.~\ref{sec:syst}.}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
For the Hubble constant, we test two different choices of prior, as indicated above. However, we do not combine the {\it Planck} Hubble constant prior with the corresponding {\it Planck} constraint on $\Omega_{\rm m}$, to distinguish the effect of changing $h$ alone.
\section{COMPUTATION}
We perform a Monte Carlo Markov Chain exploration of the posterior probability distribution for the full set of 11 model parameters: $\{\Omega_{\rm b}, \Omega_{\rm m}, h, \sigma_8, \log N, \gamma_N, \log M_{\rm p}, \alpha, \beta, \sigma_M, \epsilon_{\rm syst}\}$. We test four different combinations of data and priors:
\begin{description}
\item [I] B15+H18+BBN+SNIa+$H_0$ (low-$z$)
\item [II] B15+H18+BBN+SNIa+$H_0$ ({\it Planck})
\item [III] B15+H18+BBN+$H_0$ (low-$z$)
\item [IV] B15+H18+BBN+SNIa.
\end{description}
The likelihood evaluations are performed using the hybrid FORTRAN-Python code GalaxyMC, a further development of the framework described in \cite{SahlenEqs}. An online cloud computing version of GalaxyMC, \url{galaxymc.cloud}, is publicly available\footnote{\url{http://galaxymc.cloud}}, and can be used to perform computations and visualizations of the galaxy LF model in this work. GalaxyMC performs cosmological calculations using CAMB \citep{2000ApJ...538..473L}, and numerical integrations using the state-of-the-art library Cuba \citep{2005CoPhC.168...78H, HAHN2016341}. About one hundred multi-dimensional integrations are performed at each likelihood evaluation. Thanks to parallelization, a likelihood evaluation takes on the order of a few seconds on a 10-core Intel Xeon E5 2630 v4 CPU at 2.20 GHz/core. The Monte Carlo exploration of the posterior is performed using the Emcee affine invariant ensemble sampling package \citep{2019JOSS....4.1864F} in Python, for which calculations are also parallelized.
Convergence of the Monte Carlo exploration of the posterior distribution is monitored by computing the auto-correlation length of the samples for each parameter using the Goodman-Weare estimator \citep{2010CAMCS...5...65G}, and requiring an effective sample size of at least 1100 samples to ensure robust credence regions \citep{2017ARA&A..55..213S}. We remove burn-in sections, confirm that a sampling acceptance rate $\sim 0.2 - 0.5$ is reached \citep{2013PASP..125..306F}, and visually inspect for good mixing and convergence.
\section{RESULTS}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Parameter & I. & II. & III. & IV. \\
\hline
$\Omega_{\rm m}$ & $\bf 0.30 \pm 0.02$ & $\bf 0.30 \pm 0.02$ & $0.33 \pm 0.07$ & $\bf 0.30 \pm 0.02$ \\
\hline
$h$ & $\bf 0.73 \pm 0.02$ & $\bf 0.674 \pm 0.005$ & $\bf 0.73 \pm 0.02$ & $0.74^{+0.15}_{-0.13}$ \\
\hline
$\sigma_8$ & $0.81 \pm 0.03$ & $0.84 \pm 0.03$ & $0.78 \pm 0.06$ & $0.82 \pm 0.06$ \\
\hline
$\log N$ & $0.21 \pm 0.20$ & $0.11 \pm 0.20$ & $0.13 \pm 0.26$ & $0.21 \pm 0.28$ \\
\hline
$\gamma_N$ & $-0.58 \pm 0.29$ & $-0.50 \pm 0.28$ & $-0.48 \pm 0.36$ & $-0.57 \pm 0.33$ \\
\hline
$\alpha$ & $0.55 \pm 0.07$ & $0.50 \pm 0.06$ & $0.55 \pm 0.07$ & $0.55^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$ \\
\hline
$\beta$ & $-1.03 \pm 0.07$ & $-1.02 \pm 0.07$ & $-1.06 \pm 0.09$ & $-1.03 \pm 0.07$ \\
\hline
$\log M_{\rm p}$ & $11.48 \pm 0.09$ & $11.45 \pm 0.08$ & $11.49 \pm 0.09$ & $11.48 \pm 0.11$ \\
\hline
$\sigma_{M}$ & $0.56 \pm 0.08$ & $0.48 \pm 0.09$ & $0.57 \pm 0.08$ & $0.56^{+0.14}_{-0.20}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Marginalized parameter constraints based on the \citet[][B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B} galaxy luminosity function, $z = 4 - 10$, and measurements of the galaxy correlation function from \citet[][H18]{Harikane2018}, $z = 4 - 7$. Four combinations of external priors on $h$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ are tested (I-IV). Constraints fully determined by external priors are marked in bold face.}
\label{tab:lnresults}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Galaxy UV luminosity function}
An example of the best-fit galaxy UV LF at $z = 6$ for case I, together with B15 data, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lumfunc}. Our best-fit model predicts somewhat fewer galaxies at the faint end of the LF at $z\gtrsim 7$ compared to the reference LFs of \citet{Finkelstein16}.
All fits (I-IV) reproduce the B15 data equally well, with reduced chi-square value $\chi^2_{\nu} \approx 1$. While acceptable within observational uncertainties, these findings likely reflect that our $z\lesssim 7$ data carries stronger statistical weight in the joint fit and also reaches fainter magnitudes, than our $z\gtrsim 7$ data, but could also be due to some additional redshift evolution in the mean SFE or UV magnitude scatter relative to $4\lesssim z \lesssim 7$ that our model does not fully capture.
\subsection{Parameter inference}
Parameter constraint contours are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:corners8om}--\ref{fig:cornerall}. The marginalized parameter constraints are reported in Table~\ref{tab:lnresults}. All fits (I-IV) have reduced chi-square value $\chi^2_{\nu} \approx 1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{corner_s8_om_combo.png}
\caption{Parameter constraints ($68\%$ and $95\%$ credence regions) on $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ based on the \citet[][B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B} galaxy luminosity function, $z = 4 - 10$, and measurements of the galaxy correlation function from \citet[][H18]{Harikane2018}, $z = 4 - 7$. Four combinations of external priors on $h$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ are investigated (I-IV).}
\label{fig:corners8om}
\end{figure}
We find that the inclusion of a redshift dependence in the SFE mass scaling (via parameters $\gamma_\alpha$ and $\gamma_\beta$) is not preferred by the data. Hence, in the following we restrict our analysis to the case where $\gamma_\alpha = \gamma_\beta = 0$. This is consistent with the findings in e.g.~\cite{Harikane2018, Tacchella2018}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{corner_sfe_combo.png}
\caption{Parameter constraints ($68\%$ and $95\%$ credence regions) on mean SFE model parameters based on the \citet[][B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B} galaxy luminosity function, $z = 4 - 10$, and measurements of the galaxy correlation function from \citet[][H18]{Harikane2018}, $z = 4 - 7$. Four combinations of external priors on $h$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ are investigated (I-IV).}
\label{fig:cornersfe}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{corner_all_combo.png}
\caption{Joint parameter constraints ($68\%$ and $95\%$ credence regions) on both cosmology and star formation based on the \citet[][B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B} galaxy luminosity function, $z = 4 - 10$, and measurements of the galaxy correlation function from \citet[][H18]{Harikane2018}, $z = 4 - 7$. Four combinations of external priors on $h$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ are investigated (I-IV).}
\label{fig:cornerall}
\end{figure*}
The inferred parameter values are clearly consistent in all the investigated cases, albeit with marginal tension in some cases. We find no evidence for a deviation from low-redshift cosmology across $z = 4$--$10$. The constraints on $\sigma_8$ are all rather tight and not very sensitive to conservative assumptions about $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $h$ (in case III, IV), reflecting the sensitivity of halo formation to this parameter. The credence intervals for $\sigma_8$ are all consistent with current measurements from the cosmic microwave background \citep[CMB,][]{Planck18}, cluster abundance \citep[e.g.,][]{2019MNRAS.489..401Z} and weak lensing \citep{2021A&A...646A.140H}, but at least marginally in tension with the low-redshift measurements, especially for the case of a {\it Planck} Hubble constant prior (II). As suggested by the inverse degeneracy between $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:corners8om}, this tension could be relieved by a slightly larger value of $\Omega_{\rm m}$.
When $\Omega_{\rm m}$ is allowed to vary freely (III), it is still possible to obtain relatively good constraints on both $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ (see Table~\ref{tab:lnresults}) thanks to the fortuitous orientation of their degeneracy in Fig.~\ref{fig:corners8om}.
When the Hubble constant $h$ is allowed to vary freely (IV, with $h\leq 1$), a weak constraint can be placed on its value (see Table~\ref{tab:lnresults}), with preferred values close to those of the low-$z$ Hubble constant prior (I). As a consequence, the preferred values of $\sigma_8$ are very similar in these two cases.
The SFE normalization $N \sim 1.3-1.6$, consistent with the results in \cite{Harikane2018}. The redshift evolution of the SFE normalization, $\gamma_N$, is quite robustly inferred as negative, but is degenerate with $\log N$: a larger value of $\log N$ is compensated by a stronger negative redshift evolution.
Our inferred values of the high-mass and low-mass SFE slopes $\alpha$, $\beta$ are consistent with the values found in other recent works \citep[e.g.,][cf. Table~\ref{tab:lnresults}]{Harikane2018,2020MNRAS.498.2645M}, although there defined relative to different peak halo masses $M_{\rm p}$, and despite our inclusion of a UV magnitude scatter. The consistency is strengthened when considering their choices of $M_{\rm p}$ and the degeneracy between the two slope parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\log M_{\rm p}$ seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cornersfe}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{raregal_dpl_sfe_ultimate_priors_rev2.pdf}
\caption{Monte Carlo-derived star-formation quantities with 68\% and 95\% credence regions (dark and light gray shading) for prior combination I (indistinguishable from combination II). {\bf Left:} Star-forming efficiency as a function of halo mass. {\bf Right:} Halo mass - magnitude relation (\emph{with} dust extinction), including both statistical parameter uncertainties and the UV magnitude scatter. The coloured dashed lines indicate the range of the \citet[][B15]{2015ApJ...803...34B} observational data at each redshift.}
\label{fig:sfemagrel}
\end{figure*}
While some degeneracies are present between SFE parameters (see Fig.~\ref{fig:cornersfe}), we see no significant changes in their marginalized parameter constraints between cases I-IV, except for the high-mass slope $\alpha$ and UV magnitude scatter $\sigma_{M}$. These show strong degeneracies with each other and with $h$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:cornerall}. This results in at least marginally significant shifts in $\alpha$ and $\sigma_{M}$ between low-$z$ and {\it Planck} Hubble constant priors (I, II), and only weak constraints when no prior is applied to $h$ or $\Omega_{\rm m}$ (III, IV). We can understand these degeneracies in the following way: changing the values of $h$, $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}$ effectively rescales the whole galaxy LF \cite[cf. e.g., ][Fig.~8]{2020arXiv201000619V}, while scatter in UV magnitude for fixed halo mass ($\sigma_M$) predominantly affects the bright end of the LF \citep{2019ApJ...878..114R} where the effect of Malmquist bias is most prominent. The high-mass slope $\alpha$ also regulates the SFEs, hence galaxy magnitudes, at the bright end. In contrast, the SFE slope at the low-mass end ($\beta$) is quite robustly determined (see Fig.~\ref{fig:cornersfe} and Table~\ref{tab:lnresults}). At the fainter end of the galaxy LF, we move toward the rather flat bulk of the halo mass function. Galaxy abundance in this regime is not as sensitive to cosmological parameters as for high-mass halos. Since the halo mass function here is relatively flat in mass, scattering up and down in UV magnitude tend to cancel one another in the LF. Hence, the value of $\beta$ needed to reproduce observations should be relatively insensitive to $\sigma_M$ and cosmological parameters.
We determine a UV magnitude scatter $\sigma_M \sim 0.5 - 0.6$, in good agreement with the degree of scatter measured in other recent works \cite[e.g.,][]{2018ApJ...856...81R,Tacchella2018}. The degeneracies of $\sigma_M$ with other parameters are discussed above.
We marginalize all parameter constraints over $\Omega_{\rm b}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm syst}$, but have confirmed that their marginalized posteriors are consistent with their priors.
\vspace{20mm}
\subsection{Implications for star formation and mass-magnitude relations}
As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:sfemagrel}, the peak mean SFE is $ (19 \pm 5)\%$ at $z \sim 10$, rising to $(32 \pm 4)\%$ at $z \sim 4$. The mean SFEs and UV magnitudes as a function of halo mass show essentially no difference between a low-$z$ and a {\it Planck} Hubble constant prior (I, II), although the best-fit parameter values of the SFE model shift slightly. While we find clear evidence for the suppression of star formation due to feedback, one should bear in mind that the tight constraints on the mean SFE at small and large halo masses outside the range probed by observations (see dashed lines in right-hand column of Fig.~\ref{fig:sfemagrel}) are driven by the double power-law functional form assumed for the mean SFE. As noted above, a UV magnitude scatter $\sigma_M \sim 0.5-0.6$ is preferred by the data. A $\sim 1\sigma$ shift is seen in the UV magnitude scatter towards smaller values in the {\it Planck} Hubble constant case (II).
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Ionizing_emissivity.png}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Neutral_fraction.png}
\caption{{\bf Left:} The ionizing emissivity ($\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}(z)$) produced by our best-fit model LF model (black solid line) under the assumption of a constant $\log_{10}\xi_\mathrm{ion}\approx 25.4$ and constant $f_\mathrm{esc}=0.2$, as compared to $\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}(z)$) models developed by Bouwens et al. \citep{Bouwens15b}, Finkelstein et al. \citep{Finkelstein19} and Naidu et al. \citep{Naidu20} (their model I) to fit a number of observational constraints on cosmic reionization. Because our best-fit LF model implies fewer low-luminosity galaxies at the highest redshifts compared to most other LFs in the literature, our ionizing emissivity is lower at $z>9$ than the other models shown here, yet is still able to complete cosmic reionization by $z\approx 6.5$.
{\bf Right:} The cosmic neutral hydrogen fraction ($1-Q_\mathrm{HII}$) as a function of redshift for the same constant-$\xi_\mathrm{ion}$, constant-$f_\mathrm{esc}$ model (black solid line) as in the left panel. As seen the model is in rough agreement with a number of constraints on the neutral fraction, including high-redshift quasars (green symbols), the Ly$\alpha$ emitter equivalent width distribution (blue symbols for measurements and arrow for lower limit), Ly$\alpha$ emitter clustering (maroon arrow for upper limit) and the Ly$\alpha$, Ly$\beta$ dark fraction (yellow arrow for upper limit).}
\label{reionization_fig}
\end{figure*}
Our best-fitting peak mean SFEs are a factor $\sim 1-2$ times some other recent determinations \citep{SunFurlanetto16,Furlanetto2017,2019ApJ...878..114R}, but drops faster toward the mass tails. However, taking statistical uncertainty into account, we are in good agreement with these results.
The best-fitting galaxy LF at $z = 6$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lumfunc}) follows closely the results in \cite{Naidu20}. The ionizing emissivity, hydrogen neutral fraction and reionization optical depth resulting from our galaxy LFs can also be made to match theirs well (although the ionizing emissivity is lower than theirs at the highest redshifts -- see Sect.~\ref{sec:reion}). They assume, like in this work, a redshift-independent SFE, but also include in their model the effects of merger histories and individual spectral energy distributions of galaxies. The close similarity of these results suggests that the impact on the galaxy LF of those physical effects can indeed be effectively described by the model we use: a magnitude scatter prescription around a mean magnitude - halo mass relation.
\subsection{Implications for reionization} \label{sec:reion}
While our fitting procedure ensures a good fit of the galaxy LF (Eq.~\ref{eq:phi}) to the luminosity function constraints derived from galaxy number counts \citep{2015ApJ...803...34B} inside the brightness and redshift range covered by the observations, there is no guarantee that the extrapolation of this LF to fainter magnitudes or higher redshifts will produce a galaxy population capable of reionizing the Universe in accordance with current constraints.
The galaxy contribution to the ionizing photon budget of the Universe is regulated by:
\begin{equation}
\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}(z)=\rho_{\rm UV}(z)\xi_\mathrm{ion}f_\mathrm{esc},
\label{eq:Nion}
\end{equation}
where $N_\mathrm{ion}$ is the ionizing emissivity (ionizing photons per time and comoving volume), $\rho_{\rm UV}(z)$ is the dust-corrected, non-ionizing (1500 \AA) luminosity density produced by the whole galaxy population at redshift $z$, $\xi_\mathrm{ion}$ is the ionizing photon production efficiency (a conversion factor between the non-ionizing UV flux at 1500 \AA{} and the number of hydrogen-ionizing (Lyman continuum) photons), and $f_\mathrm{esc}$ is a the fraction of ionizing photons able to evade absorption of gas and dust within galaxies and make it into the intergalactic medium. For simplicity, we have here assumed $\xi_\mathrm{ion}$ and $f_\mathrm{esc}$ to be independent of redshift and galaxy luminosity \citep[for more advanced models, see e.g.,][]{Finkelstein19,Naidu20,Yung20}. The comoving luminosity density $\rho_\mathrm{UV}(z)$ can be derived by integrating over the dust-corrected LF at each redshift, usually with a cut-off at some faint luminosity limit where galaxy formation is assumed to become inefficient, either because of the HI cooling limit of dark matter halos or by photo-suppression by ultraviolet radiation field built up during the cosmic reionization process itself. Here, we have adopted the commonly adopted limit $M_{\rm UV}\approx -13$, and tested that going faintward has no significant impact on our result.
The $\xi_\mathrm{ion}$ parameter depends on the spectral energy distribution of galaxies, but is typically assumed to be in the range $\log_{10}\xi_\mathrm{ion}\approx 25.2$--25.8, whereas the Lyman continuum escape fraction is usually assumed to be $f_\mathrm{esc}\approx 0.01$--0.3 at $z=5$--15.
Our machinery gives rise to a galaxy LF with a smaller number of low-luminosity galaxies at the highest redshifts (below the detection limit) compared to most LF fits in the literature, and because of this, the product $\xi_\mathrm{ion} f_\mathrm{esc}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Nion}) needs to be set high to produce a hydrogen reionization history in agreement with current constraints. In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{reionization_fig}, we show the $\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}(z)$ evolution predicted under the assumption of $\xi_\mathrm{ion}=25.4$ and $f_\mathrm{esc}=0.2$. This is contrasted to three recent models \citep{Bouwens15b,Finkelstein19,Naidu20} designed to fit a number of reionization constraints. With our parameter choices, the model a similar ionizing emissivity as these models at $z\approx 8$, but a higher $\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}$ at lower redshifts and a much lower one at higher redshifts. As is to be expected, our emissivity model most closely resembles that of \cite{Naidu20}, where high-luminosity galaxies are similarly invoked to provide most of the ionizing photons affecting the IGM.
To derive the evolution of the cosmic ionized volume fraction $Q_\mathrm{HII}$ we solve the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\dot{Q}_\mathrm{HII}(z)=\frac{\dot{N}_\mathrm{ion}(z)}{\overline{n}_\mathrm{H}} - \frac{Q_\mathrm{HII}}{t_\mathrm{rec}},
\label{eq:Q}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{n}_\mathrm{H}$ is the comoving cosmic hydrogen density (here assumed to be $ \approx 1.9\times 10^{-7}$ cm$^{-3}$; \citet{2014ARA&A..52..415M}) and $t_\mathrm{rec}$ is the IGM recombination time of hydrogen (computed as in \citet{2014ARA&A..52..415M}, but with redshift-dependent clumping factors at $z=6$--14 based on the LN25N512 simulation of \citet{Pawlik15}). This results in the redshift evolution of the cosmic neutral hydrogen fraction (1-$Q_\mathrm{HII}$) shown in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{reionization_fig}. This reionization history turns out to be in rough agreement with observational constraints based on the dark pixel fraction of the Ly$\alpha$, L$\beta$ forest \citep{McGreer15}, the equivalent width distribution of Ly$\alpha$-emitters \citep{Mason18,Hoag19,Mason19}, the clustering of Ly$\alpha$-emitters \citep{Ouchi10} and individual high-redshift quasar sightlines \citep{Davies18,Yang20, Wang20}. Our model also produces a Thomson scattering optical depth of $\tau \approx 0.048$ in agreement with the Planck+18 measurement of $\tau=0.054\pm0.007$ \citep{Planck18}, and a midpoint of reionization (1-$Q_\mathrm{HII}$=0.5) at $z\approx 7.1$.
Even though this simple model -- primarily based on our best-fit LF derived completely without reionziation considerations -- manages to achieve hydrogen reionization by $z\approx 6.5$ and produce evolution in the cosmic neutral fraction in rough agreement with existing constraints, it overshoots the $z\approx5$ ionizing emissivity measurement of \cite{Becker13} by a factor of $\approx 4$, which means that $\xi_\mathrm{ion} f_\mathrm{esc}$ would have to drop by a similar factor in no more than $\approx 350$ Myr once reionization is complete. While this may not be completely implausible, we do not currently have any physical justification for such abrupt parameter evolution at these redshifts.
Hence, taking hydrogen reionization constraints into account during the fitting procedure (instead of being used as a posteriori consistency check) would likely alter the best-fitting LF by boosting the comoving number density of low-luminosity galaxies at the high-redshift end \cite[e.g.,][]{Park2019, 2020MNRAS.491.3891P}. The SFE model assumptions may also not be fully realistic. For example, the SFE at low halo masses (that we are here not observationally sensitive to) may deviate from the assumed power-law shape. Also, the UV magnitude scatter is realistically not constant in both mass and redshift. An increased scatter at high redshift could help boost the ionizing emissivity.
\section{SUMMARY}
We have introduced a new semi-analytical framework for modelling early-Universe galaxy population statistics that combines sensitivity to cosmological and star formation models. The framework is implemented in the novel parallelized code GalaxyMC, and publicly available in the cloud computing application \url{galaxymc.cloud}. We use GalaxyMC to derive MCMC parameter constraints on an 11-parameter model of star formation, cosmology and systematics with galaxy UV luminosity and correlation function data at $z = 4 - 10$.
For the first time using data at these redshifts, we constrain
\begin{align}
\sigma_8 = 0.81 \pm 0.03\,, & & & \,\,{\rm I.\,H_0\,low-}z \\
\sigma_8 = 0.84 \pm 0.03\,, & & & \,\,{\rm II.\,H_0\, Planck} \\
\sigma_8 = 0.81 \pm 0.06\,, & & & \,\,{\rm IV.}\,h\leq 1
\end{align}
with a BBN prior on $\Omega_{\rm b}h^2$ and a SNIa prior on $\Omega_{\rm m}$. Without a prior on $\Omega_{\rm m}$, we find
\begin{align}
\sigma_8 = 0.78 \pm 0.06\,, & & & \,\,{\rm III.\,H_0\,low-}z \\
\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.33 \pm 0.07\,. & & &
\end{align}
The inferred parameter values are consistent with constraints from other contemporary cosmological data, albeit with marginal tension between the {\it Planck} Hubble constant prior case (II) and some late-time Universe measurements of $\sigma_8$. The preferred values of the freely fitted $h$ (IV) are closer to those of the low-$z$ Hubble constant prior than the {\it Planck} prior, though consistent with both. In summary, we find no evidence at $z = 4$--$10$ for a deviation from low-redshift cosmology, but possible hints of tension with a {\it Planck} 2018 cosmology.
With a low-$z$ or {\it Planck} Hubble constant prior (I, II), the peak mean SFE is constrained to be $\sim (19 \pm 5)\%$ at $z \sim 10$, rising to $\sim (32 \pm 4)\%$ at $z \sim 4$, given the double power-law SFE model assumed, and consistent with other theoretical and observational estimates a UV magnitude scatter of $\sigma_{M} = 0.56 \pm 0.08$ or $\sigma_{M} = 0.48 \pm 0.09$. The constraints on the five SFE model parameters are quite similar and well-constrained for all the data/prior combinations, except for the high-mass slope $\alpha$ and UV magnitude scatter $\sigma_{M}$ in the case with no prior on $h$ (IV), due to significant degeneracies. Likewise, the mean SFEs and UV magnitudes as a function of halo mass show essentially no difference between a low-$z$ or {\it Planck} Hubble constant prior (I, II), and are in good agreement with other recent estimates in the literature.
Our best-fit model predicts fewer galaxies at the faint end of the LF at $z\gtrsim 7$ compared to the reference LFs of \citet{Finkelstein16}, but can still achieve a Thomson scattering optical depth to reionization of $\tau = 0.048$, in good agreement with {\it Planck} 2018, under reasonable assumptions on the escape fraction of ionizing photons and the ionizing photon production efficiency. The corresponding ionizing emissivity exhibits stronger redshift evolution than those of \cite{Bouwens15b} and \cite{Finkelstein19}, but is similar to that of \cite{Naidu20}, and reaches a mid-point of reionization at $z\approx 7.1$.
This study presents the first simultaneous constraints on cosmology and star formation in the $z>4$ post-CMB Universe. This epoch in cosmic history is a relatively unexplored bridge between late-Universe (e.g. galaxy surveys, SNIa) and early-Universe cosmological probes (e.g. BBN, CMB). Studying galaxy population statistics during this epoch particularly can provide new information about the matter distribution on small scales, and the expansion and growth history at high redshift. The advent of deeper and larger surveys of this epoch with the {\it James Webb Space Telescope}, {\it EUCLID}, and later the {\it Roman Space Telescope} and the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), will enable tests of new physics in the $z>4$ Universe that could also shed light on the current observational tension in measurements of the Hubble constant $h$ and matter power spectrum normalization $\sigma_8$.
In ongoing and future work, we plan to employ the full range of available high-redshift galaxy and 21cm data in synergy to constrain cosmology and star formation, and test models of new physics in the early Universe.
\vspace{5mm}
{\bf Acknowledgments}
We thank P.~Behroozi, R.~Bouwens, L.~Bradley, D.~Coe, J.~Dunlop, E.~Macaulay, G.~Mamon, C.~Maraston, A.~Mesinger, L.~Moustakas, J.~Silk, D.~Spolyar and L.Y.A.~Yung for helpful conversations related to this work.
The computations were enabled by resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at Uppsala Multidisciplinary Center for Advanced Computational Science (UPPMAX) under projects SNIC 2018/3-667 and SNIC 2020/15-25, partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement no. 2016-07213. The computations and availability of GalaxyMC Cloud are enabled by resources provided by SNIC at Chalmers Centre for Computational Science and Engineering (C3SE), High Performance Computing Center North (HPC2N) and UPPMAX under projects SNIC 2020/20-2 and SNIC 2021/18-10, partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreements no. 2016-07213 and 2018-05973. Marcus Lundberg at UPPMAX is acknowledged for assistance concerning technical and implementational aspects in making the code run on the UPPMAX resources. Mathias Lindberg and Lars Viklund at SNIC Science Cloud are acknowledged for assistance concerning technical and implementational aspects in making the code run on the SNIC Science Cloud resources.
MS was supported by the Fulbright Commission, Helge Ax:son Johnson Foundation, the Lars Hierta Memorial Fund, the Lundstr\"om--\r{A}man Foundation, the L\"angmanska Fund for Culture, and the Olle Engkvist Foundation. MS also acknowledges the award of a P.E.~Fil\'en fellowship from the Fil\'en Foundation at Uppsala University, and a Natural Sciences fellowship at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study.
EZ acknowledges funding from the Swedish National Space Board.
\vspace{5mm}
\software{CAMB \citep{2000ApJ...538..473L}, Cuba \citep{2005CoPhC.168...78H, HAHN2016341}, NumPy \citep{2020Natur.585..357H}, SciPy \citep{2020NatMe..17..261V}, Matplotlib \citep{2007CSE.....9...90H}, emcee \citep{2019JOSS....4.1864F}, corner \citep{corner}}
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
\newcommand{\noop}[1]{}
|
\section*{Introduction}
A singular foliation on a manifold $M$ is a submodule $\mathcal{F}$ of $\Gamma_c(TM)$ of the $C^\infty(M)$-module of compactly supported vector fields such that $\mathcal{F}$ is locally finitely generated and is closed under taking Lie brackets. We call the foliation regular if $\mathcal{F}$ is the module of sections of a subbundle of $TM$. By a theorem of Stefan and Sussmann theorem \cite{Sussmann,Stefan}, a singular foliation gives a partition of $M$ into connected immersed submanifolds, so called leaves. The foliation is regular if and only if all leaves are of the same dimension.
For regular foliations, Ehresmann \cite{EhresmannFoliation} and Winkelnkemper \cite{WinkenkemperFoliation} defined the holonomy groupoid, see also \cite{PradinesFoliation,PradinesFoliation2}. This construction was generalised by Debord \cite{DebordFoliation2001} to some singular foliations and then by Androulidakis and Skandalis \cite{AS1} to arbitrary singular foliations. We will denote the holonomy groupoid by $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\rightrightarrows M$. The holonomy groupoid plays a fundamental role in noncommutative geometry, see \cite{ConnesSurvey,ConnesSkandalis,ConnesTransverse,ConnesBook}. Nevertheless a major issue is that, for singular foliations, $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ is neither locally compact nor locally Hausdorff. It is well known in the literature that non Hausdorff locally compact groupoids are more complicated to study and they fail to satisfy many properties that are satisfied by locally compact Hausdorff groupoids. It is even less clear which results remain true for non locally compact non Hausdorff groupoids.
In this article, we construct a locally compact locally Hausdorff blowup groupoid $$\hblup(\mathcal{F})\rightrightarrows\blup(\mathcal{F})$$ of the holonomy groupoid of singular foliation. Notice that we blowup both the space of objects and the space of arrows. If $\mathcal{F}$ is regular, then $\blup(\mathcal{F})=M$ and $\hblup(\mathcal{F})=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$. Before we proceed with its properties we give an example to illustrate the construction \begin{ex}Consider $SL_n(\mathbb{R})$ acting on $\mathbb{R}^n$. This gives a singular foliation whose leaves are the orbits. The holonomy groupoid is equal to $$\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})=\big(\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\big)\sqcup SL_n(\mathbb{R}).$$ The groupoid structure is the disjoint union of the pair groupoid on $\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}$ and the group structure on $SL_n(\mathbb{R})$. The topology is given by \begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}$ is an open subset with its usual topology
\item $SL_n(\mathbb{R})$ is a closed subset with its usual topology
\item a net $(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)\in \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}$ converges to $g\in SL_n(\mathbb{R})$ if and only if there exists $g_\alpha\in SL_n$ such that $g_\alpha x_\alpha =y_\alpha $ and $g_\alpha \to g$. Therefore the topology is neither locally compact nor locally Hausdorff. The idea of the blowup of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ is that if a net $(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)$ converges in $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$, then (up to a subnet) the limit set is the coset $gH_x$ for some $x\in S^{n-1}$, where $H_x=\{T\in SL_n:Tx=x\}$. The blowup construction adds the direction of convergence to the space of objects and then quotients $SL_n$ by the $H_x$ to obtain the space of arrows.
\end{itemize}
The blowup construction for this foliation is as follows. The space of objects $$\blup(\mathcal{F})=\blup(\mathbb{R}^n,0)=\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\sqcup \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$$ is the classical blowup of $\mathbb{R}^n$ at $0$. The blowup groupoid is $$\hblup(\mathcal{F})=\bigg(\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\bigg)\sqcup \big(\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}^n\backslash\{0\}\big)/\mathbb{R}^*\subseteq \blup(\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^n,(0,0)).$$ The inclusion means that $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is an open subset of $\blup(\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^n,(0,0))$ whose complement is $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}\times \{0\}\sqcup\{0\}\times \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$.
\end{ex}
The main result of this article is that the above construction can be done for an arbitrary singular foliation. Furthermore the resulting groupoid retains some smoothness. The results of this article can be summarised in the following theorem.
\begin{thmx}\label{intro thm}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is a topological blowup of $M$. In the sense that $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is a separable metrizable locally compact space with a natural map $\pi:\blup(\mathcal{F})\to M$ which is proper and there exists $U\subseteq M$ an open dense subset such that $\pi:\pi^{-1}(U)\to U$ is a homeomorphism.
\item Over the space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$, we construct a vector bundle denoted $T\mathcal{F}$. If $u\in \pi^{-1}(U)$, then the fiber of $T\mathcal{F}$ at $u$ can be naturally identified with the tangent space at $\pi(u)$ of the leaf of $\mathcal{F}$. For a general $u\in \blup(\mathcal{F})$, $T\mathcal{F}_u$ projects onto the tangent space of the leaf at $\pi(u)$.
\item We construct a separable locally metrizable locally compact groupoid $\hblup(\mathcal{F})\rightrightarrows \blup(\mathcal{F})$ such that $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is a continuous family groupoid in the sense of Paterson \cite{ContFamilyGroupoids} whose Lie algebroid is $T\mathcal{F}$. In particular if $x\in \blup(\mathcal{F})$, then $\hblup(\mathcal{F})_x$ is a smooth manifold whose tangent space at $x$ is equal to $T\mathcal{F}_x$.
\item We construct a $*$-homomorphism between $C^*\mathcal{F}$ defined in \cite{AS1} and $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ $$\fint:C^*\mathcal{F}\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F}).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{thmx}
In general the space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ isn't a smooth manifold. Nevertheless, \begin{itemize}
\item the space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is defined as a closed subset of a smooth manifold and thus it inherits a sheaf of smooth functions.
\item The pullback of smooth functions on $M$ by $\pi$ is smooth. Furthermore $\pi:\pi^{-1}(U)\to U$ is a diffeomorphism.
\item if $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is a smooth manifold, then $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is a Lie groupoid.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Applications.}Since the groupoid $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is locally compact. Many of the notions of noncommutative geometry are well defined for it. For example amenability \cite{AnaRenaultGrps}, Baum-Connes conjecture \cite{BaumConnesHigsonConj}.\footnote{Cf. \cite{AS4} where the Baum-Connes conjecture using $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ is only defined for a special class of singular foliations. Furthermore one cannot use results like \cite{TuBC} to get Baum-Connes for amenable singular foliations (which to our knowledge wasn't defined before our work).}
Since $T\mathcal{F}$ is a vector bundle, one can define orientation, spin structure, characteristic classes of $\mathcal{F}$ to be those of $T\mathcal{F}$. Furthermore since the groupoid $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ admits a Lie algebroid, one can construct a Dirac operator (under the assumption $T\mathcal{F}$ being spin) and thus obtain a longitudinal Dirac operator for singular foliations, see \cite{ConnesTransverse} for applications in the case of regular foliations. We plan to investigate this further in a future paper.
We also expect our groupoid to give a simple treatment of the blowup groupoid of stratified manifolds defined in \cite{DebordJMKduality,DebordJMRochonPseudodiff}.
Finally this blowup groupoid is used by the author with Androulidakis, van Erp and Yuncken \cite{MohsenMaxHypo} to settle the Helffer Nourrigat conjecture \cite{HelfferNourrigatBook}. It is also used by the author \cite{MohsenIndexmaxhypo} to compute the index of some maximally hypoelliptic differential operators . Both are based upon the notion of half-continuity of fields of $C^*$-algebras, which we introduce in Section \ref{sec:semicont fields}.
\paragraph{Structure of the article.}
We think it is beneficial to consider first singular foliations which come from actions of connected Lie groups, which is treated in Section \ref{sec:group act}. In Section \ref{sec:general case}, the general case is treated. The reader can go directly to Section \ref{sec:general case} if they wish to.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was done partially while the author was a postdoc in University of Muenster and was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - Project-ID 427320536 - SFB 1442, as well as Germany's Excellence Strategy EXC 2044 390685587, Mathematics M\"{u}nster: Dynamics-Geometry-Structure.
The author thanks G. Skandalis for many helpful and illuminating discussions. The author also thanks Androulidakis his help with the formulation of Theorem \ref{thm:AZ}.
\section{Blowup construction}\label{sec:group act}
In this article, a smooth manifold is by definition Hausdorff. We will explicitly say non Hausdorff manifolds, if that's the case. If $M$ is a smooth manifold, $X$ a vector field on $M$, $x\in M$, $t\in \mathbb{R}$, then $\exp_X^t(x)$ denotes the flow of $X$ at time $t$ starting from $x$, if defined. If $t=1$, then we write $\exp_X(x)$.
\subsection{Regular points and blow-up space}
\paragraph{Regular points.}
Let $G$ be a connected Lie group acting smoothly on a smooth manifold $M$. The derivative of the action is the anchor map $\natural:\mathfrak{g}\to \Gamma(TM)$, where $\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra of $G$. One has \begin{equation}\label{eqn:bracket}
\natural([X,Y])=[\natural(X),\natural(Y)],\quad X,Y\in \mathfrak{g}.
\end{equation}
Let $x\in M$. We will denote by $\natural_x:\mathfrak{g}\to T_xM$ the evaluation of $\natural$ at $x$. Let $\mathfrak{h}_x=\ker(\natural_x)$. The space $\natural_x(\mathfrak{g})\simeq \frac{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathfrak{h}_x}$ is the tangent space of the orbit $G\cdot x$ at $x$.
\begin{dfn} A point $x$ is called regular if the function $y\mapsto \dim(\mathfrak{h}_y)$ is continuous at $x$. The set of regular points is denoted $M_{\reg}$.
\end{dfn}
By \cite[Prop 2.1]{AS1}, the set $M_{\reg}$ is an open dense set.
\paragraph{Blow-up space.}Let $$\mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})=\sqcup_{0\leq k\leq \mathfrak{g}}\mathrm{Grass}_k(\mathfrak{g})$$ where $\mathrm{Grass}_k(\mathfrak{g})$ is the Grassmannian manifold of linear subspaces $\mathfrak{g}$ of dimension $k$. We equip $\mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})$ with the disjoint union topology. Let \begin{align*}
i:M_{\reg}\to \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})\times M,\quad i(x)=(\mathfrak{h}_x,x).
\end{align*}
The map $i$ is a continuous embedding. The blow-up space is defined by $$\blup(G\ltimes M):=\overline{i(M_{\reg})}\subseteq \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})\times M.$$
It is convenient to also define for $x\in M$, $$\blup(G\ltimes M)_x :=\{V\in \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g}):(V,x)\in \blup(G\ltimes M)\}.$$ By compactness of Grassmannian spaces, $\blup(G\ltimes M)_x$ is a nonempty closed subset of $\mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:gamma prop}Let $x\in M$, $V\in \blup(G\ltimes M)_x$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $x\in M_{\reg}$, then $\blup(G\ltimes M)_x=\{\mathfrak{h}_x\}$.
\item One has $V\subseteq \mathfrak{h}_x$.
\item The vector subspace $V$ is a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$.
\item If $g\in G$, then $Ad(g)V\in \blup(G\ltimes M)_{g\cdot x}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
1 and 2 are obvious. For 3, since $V$ is the limit of Lie subalgebras, $V$ is also a Lie subalgebra. For 4, let $V\in \blup(G\ltimes M)_x$, $x_n\in M_{\reg}$ such that $x_n\to x$ and $\mathfrak{h}_{x_n}\to V$. Since $Ad(g)\mathfrak{h}_{x_n}=\mathfrak{h}_{g \cdot x_n}$, and $g \cdot x_n\to g\cdot x$. One obtains that
$ \lim_{n\to \infty}Ad(g)\mathfrak{h}_{x_n}=Ad(g)V \in \blup(G\ltimes M)_{g\cdot x}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}Consider $G=\mathbb{R}$ acting on $M=\mathbb{R}$ by the flow of the vector field $X=\rho(x)\frac{\partial }{\partial x}$, where $\rho $ is any smooth function such $\rho>0$ on $]-1,1[$ and $\supp(\rho)=[-1,1]$. One easily sees that $$\blup(G\ltimes M)_x=\begin{cases}\{0\}&\text{if}\quad x\in]-1,1[\\\{\mathbb{R}\}&\text{if}\quad x\in ]-\infty,-1[\cup ]1,+\infty[\\\{0,\mathbb{R}\}&\text{if}\quad x\in\{-1,1\}.\end{cases}$$ It follows that $\blup(G\ltimes M)$ is equal to $]-\infty,-1]\sqcup [-1,1]\sqcup [1,+\infty[ $ with the three intervals disjoint by doubling the endpoints $-1$ and $1$.
\end{ex}
\subsection{Longitudinal smoothness}
If $V\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$ is a Lie subalgebra, then we denote by $\exp(V)$ the connected immersed Lie subgroup of $G$ whose Lie algebra is $V$.
\begin{theorem}\label{closed} Let $x_n\in M$, $V\in \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})$ such that $x_n\to x$ and $\mathfrak{h}_{x_n}\to V$ in $\mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})$. Then $\exp(V)$ is a closed Lie subgroup of $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{rem}\begin{itemize}
\item Since $G/\exp(\mathfrak{h}_x)$ is a cover of $G\cdot x$, one can think of $G/\exp(V)$ as an orbit at $x$ with tangent space $\mathfrak{g}/V$. Thus Theorem \ref{closed} gives smoothness of these auxiliary orbits.
\item The space $\blup(G\ltimes M)$ is defined by taking the closure of $\mathfrak{h}_x$ for $x\in M_{\reg}$, because we think it is more natural to only take the closure of regular points. Theorem \ref{closed} is true without supposing that $x_n\in M_{\reg}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
Theorem \ref{closed} is a corollary of the periodic bounding lemma. \begin{lem}[Periodic bounding lemma \cite{period1,period2}]\label{lem:periodic}Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, $X$ a vector field, $K\subseteq M$ a compact subset, then there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that for any $x\in K$ either $X(x)=0$ or $\exp^t_X(x)\neq x$ for all $0<|t|<\epsilon$.
\end{lem}
For the rest of this subsection, we equip $\mathfrak{g}$ with a Euclidean norm. The following lemma appears in \cite[Proposition 1.1]{Debord2013}.
\begin{lem}[Parametrised periodic bounding lemma]\label{lemma 2}Let $K\subseteq M$ be a compact subset. Then there exists $\eta>0$ such that for every $y\in K$, $Y\in \mathfrak{g}$ if $\exp(Y)\cdot y=y$, then either $Y\in \mathfrak{h}_y$ or $\norm{Y}\geq \eta$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Let $X$ be the vector field on $M\times \mathfrak{g}$ which at $(y,Y)$ is equal to $(\natural_y(Y),0)$. The flow of $X$ at $(y,Y)$ is equal to $(\exp(tY)\cdot y,Y)$. Let $\epsilon$ be obtained from Lemma \ref{lem:periodic} applied to $X$ and $K\times B$, where $B\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$ is the unit ball. If $Y\in \mathfrak{g}$ such that $Y\notin \mathfrak{h}_y$ and $\exp(Y)\cdot y=y$, then by Lemma \ref{lem:periodic}, $\exp_X^t(y,\frac{Y}{\norm{Y}})\neq (y,\frac{Y}{\norm{Y}})$ for all $0<|t|<\epsilon$. In other words $\exp(t Y)\cdot y\neq y$ for all $0<|t|<\frac{\epsilon}{\norm{Y}}$. Since $\exp(Y)\cdot y=y$, it follows that $\norm{Y}\geq \epsilon$.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{closed} easily follows from the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemama 123}There exists $\eta''$ such that if $X\in \mathfrak{g}$ with $\norm{X}<\eta''$ and $\exp(X)\in \exp(V)$, then $X\in V$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Let $\eta$ be obtained from Lemma \ref{lemma 2} applied to $K=\{x_n:n\in \mathbb{N}\}\sqcup \{x\}$. Let $\eta'$ be such that $\exp:\mathfrak{g}\to G$ is an embedding when restricted to $B(0,\eta')$ the ball around $0$ of radius $\eta'$. We denote by $\log:\exp(B(0,\eta'))\to \mathfrak{g}$ the inverse of $\exp$. Let $X\in \mathfrak{g}$ be such that $\norm{X}<\min(\eta,\eta')$ and $\exp(X)\in \exp(V)$. Then there exists $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in V$ such that $\exp(X)=\exp(X_1)\cdots \exp(X_k)$. By approximating each $X_i$ with elements in $\mathfrak{h}_{x_n}$, we construct a sequence $g_n\in \exp(\mathfrak{h}_{x_n})$ such that $g_n\to \exp(X)$. Since $\exp(X)\in \exp(B(0,\eta'))$. It follows that for $n$ big enough $g_n\in \exp(B(0,\eta'))$. Hence $\log(g_n)$ is well defined and $\log(g_n)\to X$. Since $g_n\in \exp(\mathfrak{h}_{x_n})$, it follows that $g_n\cdot x_n=x_n$. By Lemma \ref{lemma 2}, $\log(g_n)\in \mathfrak{h}_{x_n}$ for $n$ big enough. Therefore $X\in V$.
\end{proof}
In the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma 2} by taking $K$ a compact neighbourhood of $x$, one obtains\begin{theorem}\label{closed2}Let $(V,x)\in \blup(G\ltimes M)$, $S\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$ a subspace transverse to $V$. Then there exists an open neighbourhood $S'$ of $0\in S$, and an open neighbourhood $L$ of $(V,x)\in \blup(G\ltimes M)$ such that for any $(W,y)\in L$, the map $$\exp:S'\to G/\exp(W),\quad X\to \exp(X)\exp(W)$$ is an embedding.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Blow-up groupoid}\label{sec:blup groups action}
In this section we define a groupoid $\hblup(G\ltimes M)\rightrightarrows \blup(G\ltimes M)$. The set $\hblup(G\ltimes M)$ denotes the set of all left cosets of $\exp(V)$ for $(V,x)\in \blup(G\ltimes M)$. By Proposition \ref{prop:gamma prop}.d, the set of left cosets agree with the set of right cosets. Hence we define \begin{align*}
\hblup(G\ltimes M)=\{(g\exp(V),x):(V,x)\in \blup(G\ltimes M)\}
\end{align*}
The groupoid structure is given by
\begin{align*}
&s(g\exp(V),x)=(V,x),\quad r(g\exp(V),x)=(Ad(g)V,gx)\\
&(g \exp(Ad(h)V),hx)\cdot (h\exp(V),x)=(gh\exp(V),x)\\
&(g\exp(V),x)^{-1}=(g^{-1}\exp(Ad(g)V),gx)
\end{align*}
The the product is well defined (independent of the choice of $g,h$ in their respective cosets) because $gh\exp(V)$ is equal to the product of $g \exp(Ad(h)V)$ and $h\exp(V)$ as subsets of $G$. Same for the inverse.
The topology is defined as follows. One has a natural map $$\pi:G\times \blup(G\ltimes M)\to \hblup(G\ltimes M),\quad (g,(V,x))\to (g\exp(V),x).$$The topology on $\hblup(G\ltimes M)$ is the quotient topology. In other words, a sequence (or a net) $(g_n\exp(V_n),x_n)$ converges to $(g\exp(V),x)$ if \begin{itemize}
\item $x_n\to x$ and $V_n\to V\in \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})$
\item there exists $y_n\in \exp(V_n)$, $y\in \exp(V)$ such that $g_ny_n\to gy$.
\end{itemize}
This topology is metrizable. Let $d_M,d_G,d_{\mathfrak{g}}$ a metric on $M$, $G$, $\mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})$ respectively. Then we define $$d((g\exp(V),x),(h\exp(W),y))=d_M(x,y)+d_{\mathfrak{g}}(V,W)+d_G(g\exp(V),h\exp(W)).$$
The following theorem is then straightforward to check.
\begin{theorem}
The groupoid $\hblup(G\ltimes M)$ is a metrizable locally compact continuous family groupoid in the sense \cite{ContFamilyGroupoids}.
\end{theorem}
The groupoid $\hblup(G\ltimes M)$ being a continuous family groupoid is essentially the content of Theorem \ref{closed2}. The following proposition is straightforward to prove.\begin{prop} One has a groupoid morphism $G\ltimes \blup(G\ltimes M)\to \hblup(G\ltimes M)$ defined by $(g,V)\mapsto g\exp(V)$. This groupoid morphism is surjective, its kernel is $N=\{(g,V):g\in \exp(V)\}$. The induced map $\left(G\ltimes \blup(G\ltimes M)\right)/N\to \hblup(G\ltimes M)$ is an isomorphism.
\end{prop}
\paragraph{Lie algebroid.}
The groupoid $\hblup(G\ltimes M)$ being a continuous family groupoid has a Lie algebroid. The Lie algebroid can be reconstructed as follows. Let $(V,x)\in \blup(G\ltimes M)$. Then $\hblup(G\ltimes M)_{(V,x)}\simeq G/\exp(V)$. \begin{prop}\label{prop: Lie algebroid groups} The bundle over $\blup(G\ltimes M)$ whose fiber over $(V,x)$ is $$T_{(V,x)}\hblup(G\ltimes M)_{(V,x)}\simeq \frac{\mathfrak{g}}{V}$$ is a vector bundle.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the inclusion $i:\blup(G\ltimes M)\to \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})\times M$. Let $E$ be the canonical vector bundle on $\mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})\times M$ whose fiber at $(V,x)\in \mathrm{Grass}(\mathfrak{g})\times M$ is equal to $V$, $F$ the trivial vector bundle with fiber $\mathfrak{g}$. Then $i^*(F/E)$ is the above vector bundle.
\end{proof}
\section{Blowup of singular foliations}\label{sec:general case}
\subsection{Singular foliations and fibers}
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, $\mathcal{F}$ a $C^\infty(M,\mathbb{R})$-submodule of $\Gamma_c(TM)$. If $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in \mathcal{F}$, $U\subseteq M$, then we say that $\mathcal{F}$ is generated by $X_1,\cdots,X_k$ on $U$ if for any $X\in \mathcal{F}$, there exists $f_1,\cdots,f_k\in C^\infty(U,\mathbb{R})$ such that $$X=\sum_{i=1}^k f_i X_{i},\quad \text{on}\,\, U$$
\begin{dfn}A singular foliation on $M$ is a $C^\infty(M,\mathbb{R})$-submodule $\mathcal{F}$ of $\Gamma_c(TM)$. such that \begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under Lie bracket, i.e., if $X,Y\in \mathcal{F}$, then $[X,Y]\in \mathcal{F}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}$ is locally finitely generated, i.e., $M$ can be covered by open sets $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ such that on each $U_i$, there exists a finite family $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in\mathcal{F}$ which generates $\mathcal{F}$ on $U_i$ ($k$ can depend on $i$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
\begin{ex}\label{ex:singular foliation group action} Let $G$ be a Lie group acting on $M$, $\natural:\mathfrak{g}\to \Gamma(TM)$ the anchor map. One has a singular foliation $\mathcal{F}$ on $M$ defined by $$\mathcal{F}=\{\sum_{i=1}^kf_i\natural(X_i):k\in \mathbb{N},f_i\in C^\infty_c(M,\mathbb{R}),X_i\in\mathfrak{g}\}.$$ \end{ex}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a singular foliation and $x\in M$. We define two fibers of $\mathcal{F}$ at $x$ by $$\mathcal{F}_x:=\frac{\mathcal{F}}{I_x\mathcal{F}},\quad F_x:=\{X(x)\in T_xM:X\in \mathcal{F}\},$$ where $I_x\subseteq C^\infty(M,\mathbb{R})$ is the ideal of smooth functions vanishing at $x$. If $X\in \mathcal{F}$, then we denote by $[X]_x\in \mathcal{F}_x$ the class of $X$. Let $\natural_x$ be the linear map $$\natural_x:\mathcal{F}_x\to F_x,\quad \natural_x([X]_x)=X(x),\, \forall \,X\in \mathcal{F}.$$ \begin{rem}\label{rem:Lie algebra hx}The Lie bracket of vector fields endows $\mathfrak{h}_x:=\ker(\natural_x)$ with the structure of a Lie algebra, given by $$[[X]_x,[Y]_x]:=[[X,Y]]_x,\quad X,Y\in \mathcal{F}.$$\end{rem}
\begin{prop}[\cite{AS1}]\label{prop:AS}\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $x\in M$, $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in \mathcal{F}$. Then the family $X_1,\cdots ,X_k$ generate $\mathcal{F}$ on a neighbourhood of $x$ if and only if $[X_1]_x,\cdots ,[X_k]_x$ generate $\mathcal{F}_x$ as a vector space. Furthermore $k$ is minimal if and only if $[X_1]_x,\cdots,[X_k]_x\in \mathcal{F}_x$ form a basis of $\mathcal{F}_x$.
\item The function $$M\to \mathbb{N}\sqcup\{0\},\quad x\to \dim(\mathcal{F}_x)$$ is upper semi-continuous. The set of its points of continuity will be denoted by $M_{\mathrm{areg}}$.
\item The function $$M\to \mathbb{N}\sqcup\{0\},\quad x\to \dim(F_x)$$ is lower semi-continuous. The set of its points of continuity will be denoted by $M_{\reg}$.
\item One has $M_{\reg}\subseteq M_{\mathrm{areg}}$ and both sets are open and dense.
\item The set $M_{\reg}$ is equal to the set of points such that $\natural_x$ is an isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
In general the inclusion $M_{\reg}\subseteq M_{\mathrm{areg}}$ is strict, for example if $M=\mathbb{R}$, $\mathcal{F}=\langle x\partial_x\rangle$, then $M_{\reg}=\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\}$ and $M_{\mathrm{areg}}=\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Sussmann,Stefan}]Let $x\in M$. Then there exists a unique immersed connected smooth submanifold $l\subseteq M$ that contains $x$ such that $T_yl=F_y$ for all $y\in l$. The manifold $l$ is called the leaf of $x$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Blow-up space}
Let $x\in M$, $k=\dim(\mathcal{F}_x)$, $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in\mathcal{F}$ be a family such that $[X_1]_x,\cdots,[X_k]_x\in \mathcal{F}_x$ form a basis. By Proposition \ref{prop:AS}, it follows that \begin{itemize}
\item There exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ such that $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in\mathcal{F}$ generate $\mathcal{F}$ on $U$.
\item if $y\in U$, then $[X_1]_y,\cdots,[X_k]_y$ generate $\mathcal{F}_y$.
\end{itemize} Let $\phi_y$ be the surjective linear map defined by \begin{align}\label{dfn phi}
\phi_y:\mathcal{F}_x\to \mathcal{F}_y,\quad \phi_y([X_i]_x)=[X_i]_y,\quad \forall i\in\{1,\cdots,k\}.
\end{align}
\begin{dfn}The set $\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ (and respectively $\blup(\mathcal{F})$) denotes the set of $V\subseteq \mathcal{F}_x$ such that there exists a sequence $x_n\in M$ ($x_n\in M_{\reg}$) such that \begin{equation}\label{eqn:conv blowup}
x_n\to x,\quad \phi_{x_n}^{-1}(\mathfrak{h}_{x_n})\to V.
\end{equation}
\end{dfn}
All of the results of this article (except Proposition \ref{prop:gamma foliation}.3 and the results in Section \ref{sec:semicont fields}) work equally well if one literally replaces $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ with $\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})$. In our opinion, the space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is the more natural space to consider.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:gamma foliation}
For $x\in M$, the set $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ is a non-empty closed subset of $\mathrm{Grass}(\mathcal{F}_x)$ which doesn't depend on the choice of $X_1,\cdots,X_k$. Furthermore if $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x$, then \begin{enumerate}
\item One has $V\subseteq \mathfrak{h}_x$.
\item The vector subspace $V$ is a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{h}_x$.
\item One has $x\in M_{\mathrm{areg}}$ if and only if $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x=\{0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\begin{proof}
By compactness of the Grassmannian spaces, $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ is non-empty. For independence, let $Y_1,\cdots,Y_k\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $[Y_1]_x,\cdots ,[Y_k]_x$ form a basis of $\mathcal{F}_x$. Suppose $U$ is small enough that $\mathcal{F}$ is generated by $X_1,\cdots,X_k$ on $U$ and is also generated by $Y_1,\cdots,Y_k$ on $U$. It follows that there exists smooth functions $f_{ij}\in C^\infty(U,\mathbb{R})$ such that $$X_i=\sum_{j=1}^k f_{ij}Y_j,\quad (\text{on }U).$$ Let $\psi_y:\mathcal{F}_x\to \mathcal{F}_y,L_y:\mathcal{F}_x\to \mathcal{F}_x$ be the linear maps defined by $$\psi_y([Y_i]_x)=[Y_i]_y,\quad L_y([X_i]_x)=\sum_{j=1}^kf_{ij}(y)[Y_j]_x.$$ Clearly $\psi_y\circ L_y=\phi_y$. Since $L_y$ converges to the identity as $y\to x$, the result follows.
The inclusion $V\subseteq \mathfrak{h}_x$ follows directly from Eqn. \eqref{eqn:conv blowup}. We now prove that $V$ is a Lie subalgebra. Since $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under Lie brackets, there exists smooth functions $f_{ij}^l\in C^\infty(U,\mathbb{R})$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eqn:6 isom}
[X_i,X_j]=\sum_{l=1}^k f_{ij}^lX_l,\quad (\text{on }U).
\end{equation} Let $A,B\in V$ with $$A=\sum_{i=1}^ka_i[X_i]_x,\quad B=\sum_{i=1}^kb_i[X_i]_x.$$ Let $x_n\in M_{\reg}$ as in Eqn. \eqref{eqn:conv blowup}. Hence there exists sequences $a_1^n,\cdots,a_k^n,b_1^n,\cdots,b_k^n$ such that $$a_i^n\xrightarrow{n\to \infty} a_i,\quad b_i^n\xrightarrow{n\to \infty} b_i,\quad \forall i\in \{1,\cdots,k\},\quad \text{and}\quad \sum_{i=1}^ka_i^nX_i(x_n)=\sum_{i=1}^kb_i^nX_i(x_n)=0.$$ Therefore \begin{align}\label{eqn:8 isom}
\sum_{i,j}a_i^nb_j^n[X_i,X_j](x_n)=\left[\sum_{i=1}^k a_i^nX_i,\sum_{i=1}^kb_i^nX_i\right](x_n)=0.
\end{align} By Equation \eqref{eqn:6 isom} and \eqref{eqn:8 isom}, one gets $$\sum_{i,j,l=1}^ka_i^nb_j^nf_{ij}^l(x_n)X_l(x_n)=0.$$ Hence $\sum_{i,j,l=1}^ka_i^nb_j^nf_{ij}^l(x_n)[X_l]_x\in \phi_{x_n}^{-1}(\mathfrak{h}_{x_n})$ and thus $\sum_{i,j,l=1}^ka_ib_jf_{ij}^l(x)[X_l]_x\in V$. By Eqn. \eqref{eqn:6 isom}, $$\left[[\sum_{i=1}^ka_i X_i]_x,[\sum_{i=1}^kb_i X_i]_{x}\right]=\sum_{i,j,l=1}^ka_ib_jf_{ij}^l(x)[X_l]_x\in V.$$
If $x\in M_{\mathrm{areg}}$, then for $y$ close enough to $x$, $\phi_y:\mathcal{F}_x\to \mathcal{F}_y$ is an isomorphism. If $y\in M_{\reg}$, then $\phi_y^{-1}(\mathfrak{h}_y)=\ker(\phi_y)=0$. Hence $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x=\{0\}.$ Compactness of Grassmannian spaces and $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x=\{0\}$ imply that $x\in M_{\mathrm{areg}}$.
\end{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:gamma foliation}.3 is false for $\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})$, because $\mathfrak{h}_x\in\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ for all $x\in M$. It is true however that $x\in M_{\reg}$ if and only if $\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})_x=\{0\}$.
\paragraph{Topology.} Let $\blup(\mathcal{F})=\{(V,x):x\in M,V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x\}$. We equip $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ with the topology such that \begin{itemize}
\item the natural projection $\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}:\blup(\mathcal{F})\to M$ is continuous \item if $U\subseteq M$ is an open neighbourhood of $x\in M$, and $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in \mathcal{F}$ as above, then the inclusion \begin{align}\label{eqn:top blowup}
\pi^{-1}_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}(U)\cap \blup(\mathcal{F})\to \mathrm{Grass}(\mathcal{F}_x)\times U,\quad (V,y)\to (\phi_y^{-1}(V),y)
\end{align} is an embedding.
\end{itemize}
It is straightforward to check that the topology on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is well defined (different local generators give compatible maps) and that it is a locally compact and Hausdorff.
The topology on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ can also be defined intrinsically as follows. In \cite{AS2}, the authors equip the space $\mathcal{F}^*:=\sqcup_{x\in M}\mathcal{F}_x^*$ with the weakest topology such that\begin{itemize}
\item the projection $\pi:\mathcal{F}^*\to M$ is continuous
\item if $X\in \mathcal{F}$, then the natural map $\mathcal{F}^*\to \mathbb{R}$ defined by $\xi\in \mathcal{F}_x^*\mapsto \langle \xi,[X]_x\rangle$ is continuous.
\end{itemize} The topology on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is the weakest topology such that a net $(V_n,x_n)\to (V,x)$ if and only if \begin{itemize}
\item $x_n\to x$ and $\dim(V_n^\perp)\to \dim(V^\perp)$.\footnote{The function $\blup(\mathcal{F})\to \mathbb{Z},\quad (V,x)\mapsto \dim(V)$ isn't continuous, only $x\mapsto \dim(V^\perp)=\dim(\mathcal{F}_x)-\dim(V)$ is.}
\item for every $\xi_n\in \mathcal{F}_{x_n}^*$, if $\xi_n\in \mathcal{F}^*$ converges to $\xi\in \mathcal{F}_x^*\subseteq \mathcal{F}^*$ and $\xi_n\in V_n^\perp$ for all $n$, then $\xi\in V^\perp$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{exs}\label{exs 1}\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $N\subseteq M$ be a smooth submanifold, $\mathcal{F}$ the module of compactly supported vector fields on $M$ which vanish on $N$. Then one sees that \begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}_x=\begin{cases}T_xM&\text{if}\, x\notin N\\\mathrm{Hom}(\frac{T_xM}{T_xN},T_xM)&\text{if}\, x\in N\end{cases},\quad F_x=\begin{cases}T_xM& \text{if}\, x\notin N\\0&\text{if}\, x\in N\end{cases}.
\end{align*}
Hence $M_{\reg}=M_{\mathrm{areg}}=N^c$. A direct computation shows that for $x\in N$,
$$\blup(\mathcal{F})_{x}=\{\ker(v):v\in \frac{T_xM}{T_xN},v\neq 0\},\quad \ker(v)=\{L\in \mathrm{Hom}(\frac{T_xM}{T_xN},T_xM):L(v)=0\}.$$ Hence $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ can be identified with the projective space $\mathbb{P}(T_xM/T_xN)$. Furthermore the space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is then homeomorphic to the classical blow-up of $M$ along $N$. One also checks that $\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})=\blup(\mathcal{F})\sqcup N$ with the disjoint union topology.
\item If $G$ is a connected Lie group acting on $M$ with anchor map $\natural$. One has a surjective map $\tilde{\natural}_x:\mathfrak{g}\to \mathcal{F}_x$ given by $\tilde{\natural}_x(X)=[\natural(X)]_x$. It is straightforward to check that if $V\in \blup(G\ltimes M)_x$, then $\ker(\tilde{\natural}_x)\subseteq V$ and $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x=\{\tilde{\natural}_x(V):V\in \blup(G\ltimes M)\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{exs}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:open}The map $\pi_{\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})}:\mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})\to M$ isn't necessarily open as Example \ref{exs 1}.1 shows. I don't have an example where $\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}:\blup(\mathcal{F})\to M$ isn't open.
\end{rem}
\paragraph{The bundle $T\mathcal{F}$} Since the space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ embeds locally inside a Grassmannian space. The bundle over $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ whose fiber over $(V,x)$ is $\mathcal{F}_x/V$ is naturally a vector bundle. It satisfies the properties stated in Theorem \ref{intro thm}.2 (with $U=M_{\reg}$.)
\paragraph{Functoriality of the blowup space.}Let $\phi:N\to M$ be a smooth submersion, $\mathcal{F}$ a singular foliation on $M$. Then $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$ denotes the singular foliation on $N$ of all $X\in \Gamma_c(TN)$ such that there exist $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and $f_1,\cdots ,f_k\in C^\infty(N),X_1,\cdots ,X_k\in \mathcal{F}$ such that\begin{equation}\label{eqn:proof frak d def 3}
d\phi(X)=\sum_i f_i X_i\circ \phi.
\end{equation} By \cite[Proposition 1.10]{AS1}, $\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$ is a singular foliation. Let $x\in N$. Then there is a natural map $$\mathfrak{d}_x\phi:\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})_x\to \mathcal{F}_{\phi(x)}$$ defined as follows. Let $X\in \phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})_x$, $f_i\in C^\infty(N)$, $X_i\in \mathcal{F}$ as in Eqn. \eqref{eqn:proof frak d def 3}. We define $$\mathfrak{d}_x\phi([X]_x):=\sum_i f_i(x)[X_i]_{\phi(x)}\in \mathcal{F}_{\phi(x)}.$$ \begin{prop}\label{prop:Funct pullback} The map $\mathfrak{d}_x\phi$ is a well defined surjective linear map and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:proof math frak d}
\natural_{\phi(x)}\circ \mathfrak{d}_x\phi=d_{x}\phi\circ \natural_{x}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}We will show that $\mathfrak{d}_x\phi([X]_x)$ doesn't depend on the choice of $f_i,X_i$. Suppose that $g_i\in C^\infty(N),Y_i\in \mathcal{F}$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eqn:proof frak d def}
d\phi(X)=\sum f_i X_i\circ \phi=\sum g_i Y_i\circ \phi.
\end{equation} Let $h:\dom(h)\subseteq M\to N$ be any local section of $\phi$ around $\phi(x)$. We precompose Eqn. \eqref{eqn:proof frak d def} with $h$ to obtain \begin{equation}\label{eqn:proof frak d def 2}
\sum (f_i\circ h) X_i=\sum_i (g_i\circ h) Y_i\end{equation}
Both sides of Equation \eqref{eqn:proof frak d def 2} are elements of $\mathcal{F}$ (defined locally around $\phi(x)$) and hence we can take their class in $\mathcal{F}_{\phi(x)}$. We get $$\sum f_i(x) [X_i]_{\phi(x)}=\sum g_i(x) [Y_i]_{\phi(x)}.$$ This shows that $\mathfrak{d}_x\phi([X]_x)$ only depends on $X$. To show only dependence on $[X]_x$, let $X'\in \phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$ such that $[X']_{x}=[X]_x$. Then $X'-X\in I_x\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$. Hence there exists $l_i\in C^\infty(N),Y_i\in\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$ such that $X'-X=\sum_i l_i Y_i$ and $l_i(x)=0$. By writing each $d\phi(Y_i)$ as in Eqn. \eqref{eqn:proof frak d def 3}, it follows that one can write $X'-X$ as in Eqn. \eqref{eqn:proof frak d def 3} with each $f_i(x)=0$. It follows that $\mathfrak{d}_x\phi([X]_x)$ is well defined.
It is clear that $\mathfrak{d}_x\phi([X]_x)$ is linear surjective. For Eqn. \eqref{eqn:proof math frak d}, one has $$\natural_{\phi(x)}(\mathfrak{d}_x\phi([X]_x))=\natural_{\phi(x)}\left(\sum_i f_i(x)[X_i]_{\phi(x)}\right)=\sum_i f_i(x)X_i(\phi(x))=d_x\phi(X(x)).$$This finishes the proof
\end{proof}
We remark that $\Gamma(\ker(d\phi))\subseteq \phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$. By taking the localization of each module at $x$ and using the fact that $\ker(d\phi)$ is a vector bundle, one obtains a linear map $$\ker(d\phi)_x\to \phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})_{x}.$$\begin{prop}\label{prop:short exact seq fibers pullback}One has a short exact sequence $$0\to \ker(d\phi)_x\to \phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})_{x}\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{d}_{x}\phi}\mathcal{F}_{\phi(x)}\to 0.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The statement is local, therefore we can suppose that $N=M\times \mathbb{R}^k$, $\phi$ is the projection. If $X\in \mathcal{F}$, then let $\bar{X}\in \Gamma(TN)$ be the constant extension defined by $\bar{X}(x,t)=X(x)$. It is clear that $$\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=\{\sum_{i=1}^k f_i\partial_{t_i}+\sum_{j=1}^s g_j \bar{X}_j:s\in \mathbb{N}, f_i,g_i\in C^\infty_c(N),X_j\in \mathcal{F}\}.$$ The proposition is then straightforward to check.
\end{proof
\begin{theorem}[Functoriality of the blowup]\label{thm:funct blowup}Let $x\in N$. The maps \begin{align*}
\blup(\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F}))_x\xrightarrow{\blup(\phi)_x} \blup(\mathcal{F})_{\phi(x)},\quad V\mapsto \mathfrak{d}_x\phi(V).
\end{align*}and \begin{align*}
\blup(\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F}))\xrightarrow{\blup(\phi)} \blup(\mathcal{F})\times_{\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})},\phi}N,\quad (V,x)\mapsto (\mathfrak{d}_x\phi(V),\phi(x)).
\end{align*} are homeomorphisms.\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $k=\dim(\mathcal{F})$, $k'=\dim(\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F}))$, $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $[X_1]_x,\cdots,[X_k]_x$ form a basis of $\mathcal{F}_x$. Let $\tilde{X}_1,\cdots,\tilde{X}_k\in \phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$ such that $d\phi(\tilde{X}_i))=X_i\circ \phi$, $\tilde{X}_{k+1},\cdots,\tilde{X}_{k'}\in \Gamma(\ker(d\phi))$ such that $\tilde{X}_{k+1}(x),\cdots,\tilde{X}_{k'}(x)$ form a basis of $\ker(d\phi)_x$. If one uses family $X_1,\cdots,X_k$ and $\tilde{X}_1,\cdots,\tilde{X}_{k'}$ to calculate $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ and $\blup(\phi^{-1}(\mathcal{F}))$ the theorem follows immediately.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Holonomy groupoid and action on the blowup space}
In this section, we will recall the construction of the holonomy groupoid $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ in \cite{AS1}. We then show that it acts on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$.
\paragraph{Bi-submersions.} A bi-submersion for $\mathcal{F}$ is a triple $(U,r_U,s_U)$ where $U$ is a smooth manifold, $s_U,r_U:U\to M$ are submersions such that \begin{equation}\label{eqn:bi-sub}
s_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=r_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=\Gamma(\ker(ds_U))+\Gamma(\ker(dr_U)).
\end{equation}
If $x,y\in M$, then we denote $s_U^{-1}(x)$ by $U_x$, $r_U^{-1}(y)$ by $U^y$, $s_U^{-1}(x)\cap r_U^{-1}(y)$ by $U^y_x$. We will often simply write $U$ instead of $(U,r_U,s_U)$ for a bi-submersion
\begin{exs}\label{exs:bisubmersions}\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathcal{F}$ is as in Example \ref{ex:singular foliation group action}, then by \cite[Proposition 2.2]{AS1}, $(G\times M,r,s)$ is a bi-submersion where $r(g,x)=g\cdot x$, $s(g,x)=x$.
\item Let $x\in M$, $\mathcal{F}$ an arbitrary singular foliation, $X_1,\cdots,X_k\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $[X_1]_x,\cdots,[X_k]_x$ form a basis of $\mathcal{F}_x$. We define \begin{align*}
r,s:M\times \mathbb{R}^k\to M,\quad s(y,t_1,\cdots,t_k)=y,\quad r(y,t_1,\cdots,t_k)=\exp_{\sum_{i=1}^kt_iX_i}(y)
\end{align*}By \cite[Proposition 2.10]{AS1}, for some open neighbourhood $W$ of $(x,0)\in M\times \mathbb{R}^k$, the triple $(W,r_{|W},s_{|W})$ is a bi-submersion.
\end{enumerate}
\end{exs}
If $(U,r_U,s_U)$ is a bisubmersion. Then its inverse $U^{-1}$ is the bi-submersion $(U,s_U,r_U)$. If $U,U'$ are bi-submersions, then their product $U\circ U'$ is the bi-submersion $(U\times_{s_U,r_{U'}}{U'},r_{U\circ {U'}},s_{U\circ {U'}})$, where $r_{U\circ {U'}}(u,u')=r_U(u)$ and $s_{U\circ {U'}}(u,u')=s_{U'}(u')$.
\paragraph{Bi-sections and path holonomy.} A bi-section of a bi-submersion $U$ at $u\in U$ is an embedded submanifold $S\subseteq U$ such that $u\in S$ and $$s_{U |S}:S\to s_U(S),\quad r_{U|S}:S\to r_U(S)$$ are diffeomorphisms onto open subsets of $M$. By \cite[Proposition 2.7]{AS1}, bi-sections always exists. It follows from the definition of a bi-submersion that $r_{U|S}\circ s_{U|S}^{-1}$ is an automorphism of $\mathcal{F}$ (on its domain of definition), called the automorphism associated to $S$. \textbf{We will suppose that all bi-submersions are path holonomy}. This means that for any $u\in U$, there exists a bi-section $S$ such that $r_{U|S}\circ s_{U|S}^{-1}=\phi_{|s_U(S)}$ for some $\phi\in \exp(\mathcal{F})$, the group of diffeomorphisms of $M$ generated by $\exp_X$ for $X\in \mathcal{F}$, see \cite[Proposition 1.6]{AS1}. We remark that this isn't a restrictive condition on $\mathcal{F}$ because path holonomy bi-submersions always exist. The bi-submersions in Examples \ref{exs:bisubmersions} are path holonomy.
We say that a bi-submersion carries the identity at $u$ if there exists a bi-section at $u$ such that the associated automorphism is equal to the identity. We call the bi-submersion $U$ minimal at $x$ if $\dim(U)=\dim(M)+\dim(\mathcal{F}_{x})$. The bi-submersion in Example \ref{exs:bisubmersions}.2 carries the identity and is minimal at $(x,0)$.
\paragraph{Morphisms of bi-submersions.} If $(U,r_U,s_U),(U',r_{U'},s_{U'})$ are bi-submersions, then a morphism of bi-submersions $f:(U,r_{U},s_{U})\to (U',r_{U'},s_{U'})$ is a smooth map $f:U\to U'$ such that $$s_{U'}\circ f=s_U,\quad r_{U'}\circ f=r_U.$$
A local morphism at $u\in U$ is a morphism which is defined in a neighbourhood of $u$.
\paragraph{Holonomy Groupoid.}Consider the disjoint union of all bi-submersions $\sqcup_{U} U=\{(U,u)\}$. Here $U$ is a bi-submersion\footnote{To be a set, one has to restrict to bi-submersions which are subsets of $\mathbb{R}^\infty$.}, $u\in U$. We equip this set with a relation $(U,u)\sim (U',u')$ if there exists a local morphism of bi-submersions $f:U\to U'$ such that $f(u)=u'$. By \cite[Corollary 2.11]{AS1}, this is an equivalence relation. The quotient of the set $\sqcup_{U} U$ by this relation is the holonomy groupoid and is denoted by $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$. One equips $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ with the quotient of the disjoint union topology on $\sqcup_{U} U$.
If $U$ is a bi-submersion, we denote by $q_U:U\to \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ the map which sends $u$ to the class of $(U,u)$. The groupoid structure on $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ is given by \begin{align*}
s_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(q_U(u))=s_U(u),\quad r_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(q_U(u))=r_U(u)\\
q_U(u)q_{U'}(u')=q_{U\circ U'}(u,u'),\quad q_U(u)^{-1}=q_{U^{-1}}(u).
\end{align*}
The identity at $x\in M$ is given by $q_U(u)$ where $U$ is any bi-submersion which carries the identity at $u$ with $s_U(u)=x$.
\begin{rems}\label{rem:open map}\begin{enumerate}
\item Even though the topology on $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ is quite pathological, it is shown in \cite{Debord2013} that for every $x\in M$, the map $q_{U|U_x}:U_x\to \mathcal{H}_x$ is a local homeomorphism, where $U$ is a bi-submersion which is minimal at $x$. Hence $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ naturally carries a unique smooth manifold structure of dimension $\dim(\mathcal{F}_x)$ such that the maps $q_{U|U_x}:U_{x}\to \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ are smooth submersions when $U$ is a bi-submersion. Furthermore because we only consider path-holonomy bi-submersions, $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ is connected.\begin{theorem}[\cite{AndZambon1}]\label{thm:AZ}Let $x\in M$, $l\subseteq M$ the immersed leaf which passes though $x$. Then \begin{enumerate}
\item the connected component of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x$ at $x$ is a simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{h}_x$.
\item the map $r:\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x\to l$ is a $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x$ principal bundle.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\item By \cite[Corollary 3.12]{AS1}, the map $q_{U}$ is an open map for any bi-submersion $U$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rems}
\paragraph{Action of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$.}Let $G$ be a topological groupoid. Recall that an action of $G$ on a topological space $X$ consists of continuous maps $\pi: X \to G_0$ and $m: G\times_{s_G,\pi}X\to X$, written $(\gamma, x)\to \gamma x$, such that $\pi(x)x = x$, $\pi(\gamma x) = r(\gamma)$, and $(\gamma'\gamma)x = \gamma'(\gamma x)$ for all
$x\in X, \gamma\in G_{\pi(x)}, \gamma' \in G_{r(\gamma)}$.
Let $(U,r_U,s_U)$ be a bi-submersion, $u\in U$. Since $s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})=r_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$, by Theorem \ref{thm:funct blowup}, the map $$\blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_U(u)}\xrightarrow{\blup(s_U)_u^{-1}}\blup(s_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F}))_u=\blup(r_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F}))_u\xrightarrow{\blup(r_U)_u}\blup(\mathcal{F})_{r_U(u)}$$ is a homeomorphism.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:action} The groupoid $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ acts on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ by the formula $$q_U(u)\cdot (V,s_U(u))=(\blup(r_U)_{u}\circ\blup(s_U)_u^{-1}(V),r_U(u)),$$ where $U$ is a bi-submersion, $u\in U$, $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_U(u)}$.
\end{theorem}
If $\gamma\in \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$, $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}$, then we will write $\gamma\cdot V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_{r_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)} $ for the action.
\begin{proof}
Let $U,U'$ be bi-submersions, $u\in U$, $f:U\to U'$ a local morphism, $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_U(u)}$. We claim that $$\blup(r_U)_{u}\circ\blup(s_U)_u^{-1}(V)=\blup(r_{U'})_{f(u)}\circ\blup(s_{U'})_{f(u)}^{-1}(V).$$ This is obvious if $f$ is a submersion at $u$. By \cite[Corollary 3.12]{AS1}, there exists a bi-submersion $U^{\prime \prime}$ and a local morphism $g:U'\to U^{\prime \prime}$ at $f(u)$ such that $g$ and $g\circ f$ are submersions at $f(u)$ and $u$ respectively. The claim follows. This shows that the action is well defined. We leave checking the algebraic identities to the reader. Continuity of the action follows from Theorem \ref{thm:funct blowup}.
\end{proof}
It follows that $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})$ is a well defined groupoid, see \cite[Section 2.3]{DebordSkandLiegroup}. We will use the notation $$\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\times_{{s_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}},\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}}\blup(\mathcal{F})=\{(\gamma,V):\gamma\in\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F}),V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}\}.$$
\subsection{Blowup groupoid}\label{sec:smoothnes foliations}
In this section, we define the holonomy blowup groupoid.
\paragraph{Integration of $\blup(\mathcal{F})$.}Let $(U,r_U,s_U)$ be a bi-submersion, $u\in U$. Since $\ker(ds_U)_u\subseteq s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u$, $\ker(dr_U)_u\subseteq r_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})_u$ and $s_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=r_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})$, it follows that one has two natural inclusions given by \begin{align*}
&\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\hookrightarrow \ker(dr)_u\hookrightarrow r^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u\\&\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\hookrightarrow \ker(ds)_u\hookrightarrow s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u.
\end{align*}
It is important in what follows to remark that the two inclusions \textit{aren't equal} in general. We accordingly define two maps $$\mathfrak{d}'_us_U:\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\to \mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)},\quad \mathfrak{d}'_ur_U:\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\to \mathcal{F}_{r_U(u)}$$ by the composition respectively\begin{align*}
&\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\hookrightarrow \ker(dr)_u\hookrightarrow r^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u=s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{d}s_U} \mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)}\\&\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\hookrightarrow \ker(ds)_u\hookrightarrow s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u=r^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_u\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{d}r_U} \mathcal{F}_{r_U(u)}.
\end{align*}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:image hx} The image of $\mathfrak{d}'_us_U$ is equal to $\mathfrak{h}_{s_U(u)}$. The kernel is equal to the set of $v\in \ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u$ such that there exists $X\in \Gamma(\ker(ds_U))\cap \Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$ such that $X(u)=v$. Similar statement for $\mathfrak{d}'_ur_U$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The map $\mathfrak{d}_us_{U|\ker(dr_U)}:\ker(dr_U)_u\to \mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)}$ is surjective because $s_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=\ker(ds_U)+\ker(dr_U)$. By Eqn. \eqref{eqn:proof math frak d}, the image inverse of $\mathfrak{h}_{s_U(u)}$ is equal to $\ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u$. To compute the kernel, let $v\in \ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u$ which is in kernel of $\mathfrak{d}'_us_U$. By Proposition \ref{prop:short exact seq fibers pullback}, this means that one can find $X\in \Gamma(\ker(ds_U))$ and $Y\in \Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$ such that $X(u)=Y(u)=v$ and $[X]_u=[Y]_u\in s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})_{s_U(u)}$. Hence $X-Y=\sum f_i Z_i$ with $Z_i\in s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F}) $ and $f_i\in C^\infty(U,\mathbb{R})$ vanish at $u$. Since $s_U^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=\ker(ds_U)+\ker(dr_U)$, it follows that each $Z_i=A_i+B_i$ with $A_i\in \ker(ds_U),B_i\in \ker(dr_U)$. It follows that $X-\sum f_iA_i=Y+\sum f_i B_i\in \Gamma(\ker(ds_U))\cap \Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$ and it is equal to $v$ at $u$.
\end{proof}
We remark that a straightforward computation shows that $u\cdot V=\mathfrak{d}'_ur_U(\mathfrak{d}'_us_U^{-1}(V))$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:foliation} Let $(V,x)\in \blup(\mathcal{F})$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item The bundle $(\mathfrak{d}'_us_U^{-1}(V))_{u\in U_x}$ is a vector subbundle of $TU_x$ which will be denoted by $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$.
\item The bundle $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ is a regular foliation on $U_x$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}The maps $$\mathfrak{d}_us_{U|\ker(dr_U)}:\ker(dr_U)_u\to \mathcal{F}_x$$ vary smoothly as $u$ varies in $U_x$. To see this, one chooses any local basis of $\Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$ and then write each base element as in Equation \eqref{eqn:proof math frak d}. Hence $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ is a subbundle of $\ker(dr_U)_{|U_x}$. Since $$\mathfrak{d}'_us_U^{-1}(V)\subseteq \ker(dr)_u\cap \ker(ds)_u\subseteq \ker(ds_U)_u=T_uU_x,$$ it follows that $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ is a vector subbundle of $TU_x$ as well.
Let $L=\Gamma(\ker(ds)_{|U_x})\cap \Gamma(\ker(dr_U)_{|U_x})$, where the intersection is taken as subsets of $\Gamma(TU_{|U_x})$. We claim that the Lie bracket endows $L$ with the structure of a Lie algebra. To see this let $X,Y\in L$. Then \begin{itemize}
\item from one side $X,Y\in\Gamma(\ker(ds)_{|U_x})$ are both vector fields on $U_x$, hence $[X,Y]$ is well defined and $[X,Y]\in \Gamma(\ker(ds)_{U_x})$.
\item from the other side, $X,Y\in \Gamma(\ker(dr_U)_{|U_x})$ admit an extension $\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}\in\Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$. Furthermore $[\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}]\in \Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$ because $\ker(dr_U)$ is a regular foliation. Hence the restriction of $[\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}]$ to $U_x$ still belongs to $\Gamma(\ker(dr_U)_{U_x})$. Finally the Lie bracket is independent of the choice of the extensions on $U_x$ and is equal to $[X,Y]$.
\end{itemize}
Let $u\in U_x$. We define a map $\phi_u:L\to \mathfrak{h}_x$ by $$L\xrightarrow{\mathrm{ev_u}} \ker(ds_U)_u\cap \ker(dr_U)_u\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{d}'_us_U}\mathfrak{h}_x,$$ where $\ev_u$ is evaluation at $u$. By Remark \ref{rem:Lie algebra hx}, $\mathfrak{h}_x$ is also a Lie algebra. \begin{lem}\label{lem:temp 1234} Let $X,Y\in L$. Then $u\mapsto\phi_u(X)$ is a smooth function $U_x\mapsto\mathfrak{h}_x$ which we denote by $\phi(X)$. One has $$\phi_u([X,Y])=[\phi_u(X),\phi_u(Y)]-Y\cdot \phi(X)(u)+X\cdot \phi(Y)(u).$$ Here $Y\cdot \phi(X)$ means the differential of the function $\phi(X)$ in the direction of $Y$, which is well defined because $Y$ is a vector field on $U_x$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $X,Y\in L$, $\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}\in \Gamma(\ker(dr_U))$ extensions of $X$ and $Y$. Then $\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}\in r^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})=s^{-1}_U(\mathcal{F})$. Hence there exists $f_i,g_i\in C^\infty(U)$, $X_i,Y_i\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $$ds_U(\tilde{X})=\sum f_i X_i\circ s_U,\quad ds_U(\tilde{Y})=\sum g_i Y_i\circ s_U.$$
Hence $$\phi_u(X)=\sum f_i(u)[X_i]_x,\quad \phi_u(X)=\sum g_i(u)[Y_i]_x.$$ This implies smoothness of $\phi(X)$ and $\phi(Y)$. Since
\begin{align*}
ds_U([\tilde{X},\tilde{Y}])=\sum_{i,j}f_ig_j [X_i,Y_j]\circ s_U-\sum_i (\tilde{Y}\cdot f_i)X_i\circ s_U+\sum_j (\tilde{X}\cdot g_j)Y_j\circ s_U.
\end{align*}
It follows that \begin{align*}
\phi_u([X,Y])&=\sum_{i,j}f_i(u)g_j(u) [[X_i,Y_j]]_x-\sum_i \tilde{Y}\cdot f_i(u)[X_i]_x+\sum_j \tilde{X}\cdot g_j(u)[Y_j]_x\\
&=\left[\phi_u(X),\phi_u(Y)\right]-Y\cdot \phi(X)(u)+X \cdot\phi(Y)(u).\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Since $\Gamma(\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V))=\cap_{u\in U_x}\phi_u^{-1}(V)$. Proposition \ref{prop:gamma foliation} and Lemma \ref{lem:temp 1234} imply that $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ is a regular foliation.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}Consider the bi-submersion in Example \ref{exs:bisubmersions}.1. If $x\in M$, then $U_x=G\times \{x\}$. Let $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x$. A straightforward computation shows that the leaf of the foliation $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ which passes through $(g,x)$ is $g\exp(V)\times\{x\}$.
\end{ex}
Let $u\in U_x$. Then we denote by $\mathcal{L}_s(U,u,V)$ the leaf of $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ passing through $u$. We remark that since $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)\subseteq \ker(dr_U)\cap \ker(ds_U)$, it follows that \begin{equation}\label{eqn:double leaf up}
\mathcal{L}_s(U,u,V)\subseteq U_{s_U(u)}^{r_U(u)}.
\end{equation}
Similar to $U_x$, we foliate $U^x$ by the regular foliation $\mathfrak{d}'r_U^{-1}(V)$, whose leaves are denoted by $\mathcal{L}_r(U,u,V)$.
\begin{theorem}[Leaf decomposition of the holonomy groupoid]\label{thm:leaf decomp}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $(V,x)\in \blup(\mathcal{F})$, $\gamma\in \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$. We define $$\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)=\cup_{(U,u)}q_U(\mathcal{L}_s(U,u,V)),$$ where the union is over $U,u$ with $q_U(u)=\gamma$. This leaf decomposition of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ comes from a regular foliation. Similarly, we define $\mathcal{L}_r(\gamma^{\prime},V)$ if $\gamma^{\prime}\in \mathcal{H}^x$.
\item The leaf decomposition of the $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ is compatible with the groupoid structure \begin{align}\label{eqn:thm leaf decomp 1}
\gamma'\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)=\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma'\gamma,V),\, \mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)\gamma^{\prime\prime}=\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma\gamma'',\gamma''^{-1}\cdot V), \, \mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)^{-1}=\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma^{-1},\gamma\cdot V),
\end{align}
where $\gamma'\in \mathcal{H}_{s_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}$, $\gamma''\in \mathcal{H}^{r_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}$, and we use the action of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ given in Theorem \ref{thm:action}. The formulas are well defined by Eqn. \ref{eqn:double leaf up}.
\item It is compatible with the action on $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ \begin{align}\label{eqn:thm leaf decomp 2}
\gamma'\in \mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)\Rightarrow \gamma'\cdot V=\gamma\cdot V.
\end{align}
\item The foliation using $\mathcal{L}_r$ is the related to $\mathcal{L}_s$ by the identity $\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)=\mathcal{L}_r(\gamma,\gamma\cdot V)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{cor}The space $N\subseteq \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})$ given by $$N=\{(\gamma,V)):\gamma\in \mathcal{L}_s(x,V)\}$$ is a subgroupoid. We define the holonomy blowup groupoid $$\hblup(\mathcal{F}):=\big(\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})\big)/N.$$ We denote the quotient map by $\mathcal{Q}:\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})\to \hblup(\mathcal{F})$.
\end{cor}
We also define $\mathcal{C}\!\mathcal{H}\!\blup(\mathcal{F}):=\big(\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})\big)/N$, where $N\subseteq \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \mathcal{C}\!\blup(\mathcal{F})$ given by $N=\{(\gamma,(V,x)):\gamma\in \mathcal{L}_s(x,V)\}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:leaf decomp}]
\begin{lem}\label{prop:f comm diag}Let $f$ a local morphism of bi-submersion at $u\in U$. The diagram$$\begin{tikzcd}\ker(ds_U)_u\cap\ker(dr_U)_u\arrow[r,"d_uf"]\arrow[dr,"\mathfrak{d}'_us_{U}"']&\ker(ds_{U'})_{f(u)}\cap \ker(dr_{U'})_{f(u)}\arrow[d,"\mathfrak{d}'_{f(u)}s_{U'}"]\\&\mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)}
\end{tikzcd}$$ commutes. Similarly with $\mathfrak{d}'_ur_{U}$ and $\mathfrak{d}'_{f(u)}r_{U'}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $f$ is a submersion, then this is obvious. For a general $f$, one uses \cite[Corollary 3.12]{AS1} like in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:action}. \end{proof}
Let $U$ be a minimal bi-submersion at $x$. Hence $q_{U|U_x}:U_x\to \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_{x}$ is a local diffeomorphism. One can then transport the regular foliation $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ to a regular foliation on $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$. Lemma \ref{prop:f comm diag} implies the regular foliations obtained glue together for different $U$. Furthermore its leaves are $\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)$ for $\gamma\in \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:continuity of leaves}Let $U$ be a bi-submersion, $\mathrm{Grass}(\ker(ds_U))$ the fiber bundle over $U$ whose fiber over $u$ is $\mathrm{Grass}(\ker(ds_U)_u)$. Then the following map is continuous \begin{align*}
U\times_{s_U,\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}}\blup(\mathcal{F})\to \mathrm{Grass}(\ker(ds_U)),\quad (u,(V,s_U(u)))\to \mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
The proof of Lemma \ref{lem:continuity of leaves} is very similar to the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:foliation}.1 and will be omitted.
Since any $(V,x)\in\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is a limit of $(0,x_n)\in \blup(\mathcal{F})$ with $x_n\in M_{\reg}$, by Lemma \ref{lem:continuity of leaves}, it is enough to prove parts 2,4 for $V=0$. From Theorem \ref{thm:AZ}, it follows that $\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)=\{\gamma\}$ in $\mathcal{H}_{s_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}^{r_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}$. Same for $\mathcal{L}_r$. For part $3$, one also reduces to $V=0$. It then follows for dimension reasons using Proposition \ref{prop:gamma foliation}.1, that $\gamma'\cdot V=\gamma\cdot V=0$. This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:leaf decomp}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:tangent space of hx}By Lemma \ref{prop:f comm diag}, we can identify the tangent space of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ at $\gamma$ with $\mathcal{F}_{r_{\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})}(\gamma)}$, in such a way that if $U$ is a bi-submersion and $u\in U$, then the maps \begin{align*}
&\mathfrak{d}_ur_{|\ker(ds)}:\ker(ds)_u\to \mathcal{F}_{r(u)},\quad d_uq_{U|U_x}:\ker(ds)_u\to T_{q_U(u)}\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F}_x)=\mathcal{F}_{r(u)}
\end{align*} are the same.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Continuous family groupoid}
We equip $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})$ with the product topology and $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ with the quotient topology.
\begin{theorem}\label{main smoothness theorem}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $x\in M$, $\gamma\in \mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$, $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x$. Then the leaf $\mathcal{L}_s(\gamma,V)$ is an embedded closed submanifold of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$.
\item The quotient space of $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x$ by the foliation given by $\mathcal{L}_s$ is a smooth manifold whose tangent space at $x$ is $T\mathcal{F}_{(V,x)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We remark that the quotient space is the same as $\hblup(\mathcal{F})_{(V,x)}$. We also have the parametrised version of Theorem \ref{main smoothness theorem}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:closed leaves general}
Let $U$ be a bisubmersion, $u\in U$, $V\in\blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_U(u)}$, $S\subseteq U$ a smooth transversal of $\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$ at $u$, in other words $$T_uS\oplus \mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u=T_uU.$$ Then there exists $S',K$ open neighbourhoods of $u$ and $(V,x)$ in $S$ and $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ respectively such that the map $$\psi:S\times_{s_U,\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}}K\to \hblup(\mathcal{F}),\quad \psi(v,(W,s_U(v)))=\mathcal{Q}(q_U(v),W)$$ satisfies the following
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\psi$ is an open embedding.
\item the map $S'\cap U_y\to \hblup(\mathcal{F})_{(W,y)}$ which sends $v\in S'\cap U_y$ to $\mathcal{Q}(q_U(v),W)$, is an open smooth embedding.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main smoothness theorem} and Theorem \ref{thm:closed leaves general}.]
Let $k=\dim(\mathcal{F}_x)$, $X_1,\cdots,X_k$, $r:M\times \mathbb{R}^k\to M $, $\mathcal{W}\subseteq M\times \mathbb{R}^k$, as Example \ref{exs:bisubmersions}.2, $\phi_y:\mathcal{F}_x\to \mathcal{F}_y$ the linear map defined in Eqn. \eqref{dfn phi}. Let $K$ be a open neighbourhood of $(V,x)\in\blup(\mathcal{F})$ with $\overline{K}$ compact and $K'=\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}(\overline{K})\subseteq M$. We remark that $K'$ is compact but is not necessarily a neighbourhood of $x$, see Remark \ref{rem:open}.
\begin{lem}\label{lemma 2 gen}There exists $\eta>0$ such that for any $(y,t)\in K'\times \mathbb{R}^k$ if $r(y,t)=y$ and $\norm{t}<\eta$, then $\sum_{i=1}^k t_i X_i(y)=0$.
\end{lem}
The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma 2} and will be omitted. After possibly reducing $\mathcal{W}$, we can suppose that $\mathcal{W}\subseteq M\times B(0,\eta)$, where $B(0,\eta
)$ is the ball of radius $\eta$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem: af}If $(W,y)\in K$, $(y,t)\in \mathcal{W}$, $q_\mathcal{W}(y,t)\in \mathcal{L}_s(y,W)$, then $\sum_{i=1}^k t_i[X_i]_y\in W$. Equivalently $\sum_{i=1}^k t_i[X_i]_x\in \phi_y^{-1}(W)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition of $\blup(\mathcal{F})$, there exists $y_n\in M_{\reg}$ such that $(0,y_n)\to (W,y)$. Since $K$ is open, we can suppose that $(0,y_n)\in K$ for all $n$. Hence $y_n \in K'$. One can find $\gamma_n\in \mathcal{L}_s(x_n,0)$ which converge to $q_\mathcal{W}(y,t)$. This is done by covering a smooth path from $q_\mathcal{W}(y,t)$ to $y$ in $\mathcal{L}_s(y,W)$ with a finite number of bi-submersions, then using Lemma \ref{lem:continuity of leaves} on each. By Remark \ref{rem:open map}.2, it follows that there exists $t_n$ such that $(y_n,t_n)\in \mathcal{W}$ and $(y_n,t_n)\to (y,t)$ and $q_{\mathcal{W}}(y_n,t_n)=\gamma_n$. It follows that $r(y_n,t_n)=y_n$. By Lemma \ref{lemma 2 gen}, $\sum_{i=1}^k t_{ni} [X_i]_{x}\in \phi_{y_n}^{-1}(\mathfrak{h}_{x_n})$. Hence $\sum_{i=1}^k t_i[X_i]_x\in \phi_y^{-1}(W)$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem: af} and Theorem \ref{thm:leaf decomp} applied to $(V,x)$ immediately imply that $\mathcal{L}_s(x,V)$ is closed and that all leaves are closed embedded submanifolds. By \cite[Section 5.9.5]{BourbakiDiffVariety}, the quotient is a smooth manifold. This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{main smoothness theorem}.
For Theorem \ref{thm:closed leaves general}. After possibly reducing $K,S$, by Lemma \ref{lem:continuity of leaves}, we can suppose that if $(W,y)\in \overline{K}$ and $v\in S\cap U_y$, then $$T_vS\oplus \mathfrak{d}'_vs_{U}^{-1}(W)=T_vU.$$
By the definition of the topology on $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$, the map $\psi$ is continuous. It is open by Remark \ref{rem:open map}.2 and the following lemma. \begin{lem}The quotient map $\mathcal{Q}:\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\ltimes \blup(\mathcal{F})\to \hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is open.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lem:continuity of leaves} and Theorem \ref{thm:leaf decomp}.1.
\end{proof}
We will show that we can reduce $S$, so that $\psi$ becomes an injective. Consider the bi-submersion $U^{-1}\circ U$. Since $q_{U^{-1}\circ U}(u,u)=x$, it follows that there exists $f:U^{-1}\circ U\to \mathcal{W}$ a local morphism of bi-submersions such that $f(u,u)=(x,0)$. For $(W,y)\in \overline{K}$, consider the map \begin{align*}
g_{(W,y)}:\{(v,v')\in \dom(f):v,v'\in S\}\to \frac{\mathcal{F}_x}{\phi_y^{-1}(W)}\times U\\ g_{(W,y)}(v,v')=(\pi_{\mathcal{F}_x}(f(v,v'))\mod W,v'),
\end{align*} where $\pi_{\mathcal{F}_x}:\mathcal{W}\to \mathcal{F}_x$ is the projection onto the second coordinate. The differential of $g_{(V,x)}$ at $(u,u)$ is injective. This is deduced from Lemma \ref{lem: af}. Since $\overline{K}$ is compact, we can find an open neighbourhood $S'\subseteq S$ of $u$ such that $g_{(W,y)}$ restricted to $\{(v,v')\in \dom(f):v,v'\in S'\}$ is injective.
We claim that $\psi$ restricted to $S'\times_{s_U,\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}}K$ is injective. To see this let $v,v'\in S'$ such that $\mathcal{L}_s(q_U(v),W)=\mathcal{L}_s(q_U(v'),W)$. By Theorem \ref{thm:leaf decomp}, $$q_{\mathcal{W}}(f(v,v'))=q_{U}(v')^{-1}q_{U}(v)\in \mathcal{L}_s(y,W).$$ By Lemma \ref{lem: af}, $\pi_{\mathcal{F}_x}(f(v,v'))\in \phi_y^{-1}(W)$. Hence $g_{(W,y)}(v,v')=(0,v')$. By the same argument $g_{(W,y)}(v',v')=(0,v')$. Injectivity claim follows.
Finally the map $S'\cap U_y\to \hblup(\mathcal{F})_{(W,y)}$ which sends $v\in S'\cap U_y$ to $\mathcal{Q}(q_U(v),W)$, is a smooth by Theorem \ref{main smoothness theorem} and Remark \ref{rem:open map}.1. By Remark \ref{rem:tangent space of hx}, we deduce that the derivative is injective at every point in the domain by transversality of $S$ and $\mathfrak{d}'s_{U}^{-1}(W)$.\end{proof}
\begin{cor}The groupoid $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is a not necessarily Hausdorff continuous family groupoid in the sense of \cite{ContFamilyGroupoids}
\end{cor}
The content of Theorem \ref{thm:closed leaves general} is that local charts in the sense of \cite{ContFamilyGroupoids} exist. We leave it to the reader to check that product and inverse on $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ are $C^{\infty,0}$ smooth in the sense of \cite{ContFamilyGroupoids} (this follows from the fact that they both come from morphisms of bi-submersions which are $C^\infty$).
\begin{rems}[Smooth structure]\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $A\subseteq M$, a closed set, $N$ a smooth manifold, then we say $f:A\to N$ is a smooth if it admits a smooth extension to an open neighbourhood $U$ of $A$. Since $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is locally a closed subset of $\mathcal{G}\mathrm{r}(\mathcal{F}_x)\times M$, we can define $f:\blup(\mathcal{F})\to N$ to be smooth if its restriction to $\pi^{-1}(U)$ is smooth for any $X_1,\cdots,X_k$, $U\subseteq M$ as in Eqn. \eqref{eqn:top blowup}. One can easily check that different local charts of $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ are compatible, and so this notion of smoothness doesn't depend on the choice of $X_1,\cdots,X_k$, $U$. Furthermore by construction $ \pi:\blup(\mathcal{F})\to M$ is smooth and it is a diffeomorphism when restricted to $\pi^{-1}(M_{\reg})$.
\item If $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is a smooth manifold, then the local charts in Theorem \ref{thm:closed leaves general} show that $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is a Lie groupoid.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rems}
\subsection{Integration}
Since $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is non Hausdorff in general, more care needs to be taken in defining its $C^*$-algebra. We refer the reader to \cite{SkandalisKohshkamReg,TimmermannFellComapct,TuNonHausdorff} for more details on the $C^*$-algebra of locally compact non Hausdorff groupoids.
Let $U$ be a bi-submersion. We define $\left(\Omega^\frac{1}{2}U\right)_u=|\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\ker(ds)_u\otimes |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\ker(dr_U)_u$, see \cite[Section 4]{AS1}. Here $|\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}$ denotes the bundle of $\frac{1}{2}$ densities. Let $u\in U,V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_{s_U(u)}$. By proposition \ref{prop:image hx}, the following is an exact sequence $$0\to \mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u\to \ker(dr_U)_u\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{d}s_U} \frac{\mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)}}{V}\to 0.$$ It follows that we have a canonical isomorphism $$|\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)}}{V}\otimes |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u\simeq |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\ker(dr_U)_u.$$We also have the short exact sequence $$0\to \mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u\to \ker(ds_U)_u\xrightarrow{\mathfrak{d}r_U} \frac{\mathcal{F}_{r_U(u)}}{u\cdot V}\to 0.$$ Hence a canonical isomorphism $$|\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2} \frac{\mathcal{F}_{r_U(u)}}{u\cdot V} \otimes |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u\simeq |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\ker(ds_U)_u.$$ Taking the tensor product of the two isomorphisms we get $$ |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathcal{F}_{s_U(u)}}{V} \otimes |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2} \frac{\mathcal{F}_{r_U(u)}}{u\cdot V}\otimes |\Lambda|^1\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u\simeq \left(\Omega^\frac{1}{2}U\right)_u.$$
Let $T\mathcal{F}$ be the Lie algebroid of $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$. The last isomorphism can be thus rewritten as $$ |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}T\mathcal{F}_{(V,s_U(u))}\otimes |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2} T\mathcal{F}_{(u\cdot V,r_U(u))} \otimes |\Lambda|^1\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)_u\simeq \left(\Omega^\frac{1}{2}U\right)_u.$$
We define $\Omega^\frac{1}{2} \hblup(\mathcal{F})$ to be the vector bundle \begin{align*}
\Omega^\frac{1}{2} \hblup(\mathcal{F}):&=|\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}s_{\hblup(\mathcal{F})}^*T\mathcal{F}\otimes |\Lambda|^\frac{1}{2}r_{\hblup(\mathcal{F})}^*T\mathcal{F}
\end{align*}
Let $f\in \Gamma_c(U,\Omega^\frac{1}{2}U)$, $u\in U$. Then since the tangent bundle of $\mathcal{L}_s(U,u,V)$ is equal to $|\Lambda|^1\mathfrak{d}'s_U^{-1}(V)$, we get that the following integral is well defined $$\int_{\mathcal{L}_s(U,u,V)}f\in \left(\Omega^\frac{1}{2} \hblup(\mathcal{F})\right)_{(q_U(u),(V,x))}.$$
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the algebra defined in \cite[Section 4.3]{AS1}. We have thus defined a map $$\fint:\mathcal{A}\to \Gamma_c(\hblup(\mathcal{F}),\Omega^\frac{1}{2}\hblup(\mathcal{F})).$$ It is straightforward to check that this map is a $*$-algebra homomorphism. Hence it passes to the completion $$\fint :C^*_{\max}\mathcal{F}\to C^*_{\max}\hblup(\mathcal{F}).$$
\section{Half-continuous fields of $C^*$-algebras and $z$-completion}\label{sec:semicont fields}
\subsection{Half-continuous fields}
Let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space, $A$ a $C_0(X)$-$C^*$-algebra in the sense of Kasparov \cite{KasparovInvent}, see also \cite{WilliamsCrossedBook,BlanchardHopf}. By \cite[Proposition C.5]{WilliamsCrossedBook}, $\hat{A}=\sqcup_{x\in X}\hat{A}_x$ (as a set not a topological space) and the projection map $\hat{A}\to X$ is continuous.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:semi cont}Let $x\in X$ be a non isolated point. The following conditions are equivalent \begin{enumerate}
\item for any $a\in A$, one has $$\limsup_{y\to x}\norm{a_y}=\norm{a_x}.$$
\item for any $a\in A$, if $a_y=0$ for all $y\in X\backslash \{x\}$, then $a=0$.
\item The set $\sqcup_{y\in X\backslash\{x\}}\hat{A}_y$ is dense in $\hat{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The implication $1\Rightarrow 2$ follows from By \cite[Proposition C.10.a]{WilliamsCrossedBook}. For the converse, let $a\in A$. We can suppose that $a$ is self-adjoint by replacing $a$ with $a^*a$. Consider the $C^*$-subalgebra generated by $fa$ for $f\in C_0(X)$. This is a commutative $C_0(X)$-$C^*$-algebra. Hence it is isomorphic to $C_0(Y)$ for some locally compact space $Y$ equipped with a continuous map $\pi:Y\to X$. Part $2$ implies that if $f\in C_0(Y)$ is equal to $0$ on $\pi^{-1}(X\backslash \{x\})$, then $f=0$. Hence $\pi^{-1}(x)\subseteq \overline{\pi^{-1}(X\backslash \{x\})}$. Let $f\in C_0(X)$. Then $$\norm{f_{|\pi^{-1}(x)}}\leq \limsup_{y\to x}\norm{f_{|\pi^{-1}(y)}}.$$ The inequality $$\norm{f_{|\pi^{-1}(x)}}\geq \limsup_{y\to x}\norm{f_{|\pi^{-1}(y)}}$$ is straightforward to check. The equivalence of $2$ and $3$ is by the definition of the Jacobson topology on $\hat{A}$.
\end{proof}
We say that $A$ is half-continuous at $x$ if either $x$ is isolated or $A$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:semi cont}. We say that $A$ is half-continuous if it is half-continuous at every point $x\in X$.
\begin{ex}The $C^*$-algebra $C([0,\frac{1}{2}])$ is a half-continuous $C([0,1])$-$C^*$-algebra but it is not a continuous $C([0,1])$-$C^*$-algebra.
\end{ex}
By Proposition \ref{prop:semi cont}, if $x_0\in X$ is non isolated and $I_{x_0}:=\{a\in A:a_y=0\forall y\in X\backslash \{x\}\}$, then $A/I_{x_0}$ is the maximal half-continuous at $x$ quotient of $A$.
\paragraph{Fibered groupoids.} Let $G$ be a locally compact Hausdorff groupoid, $\lambda$ a continuous family of Haar measures on the $s$-fibers, see \cite[Def. I.2.2]{RenaultBook}. Let $p:G^0\to X$ be a continuous map such that $p\circ s=p\circ r$. It follows that for $x\in X$, $G_{p^{-1}(x)}=G_{p^{-1}(x)}^{p^{-1}(x)}$ is a subgroupoid of $G$.
The $C^*$-algebras $C^*G$, $C^*_rG$ and $C_0(G^0)$ are $C_0(X)$-$C^*$-algebras. The following Proposition is an adaptation of \cite[Theorem 5.6]{LandsmanRamazanContinuousField} to half-continuous fields.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:cont field}Let $x\in X$.\begin{enumerate}
\item The fiber at $x\in X$ of $C^*G$ is equal to $C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}$.
\item If $C_0(G^0)$ is half-continuous at $x$, then $C^*_rG$ is half-continuous at $x$.
\item If $G_{p^{-1}(x)}$ is amenable, then the fiber at $x\in X$ of $C^*_rG$ is equal to $C^*_rG_{p^{-1}(x)}$.
\item If $G_{p^{-1}(x)}$ is amenable and $C^*_rG$ is half-continuous at $x$, then $C^*G$ is half-continuous at $x$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Consider the map $C_c(G)\to C^*G\to (C^*G)_x$, where the last map is the map taking the fiber of $C^*G$ at $x$. This map only depends on the restriction of $f\in C_c(G)$ to $C_c(G_{p^{-1}(x)})$. We thus get a map $C_c(G_{p^{-1}(x)})\to \left(C^*G\right)_x$. By definition of the maximal $C^*$-algebra, this extend to $*$-homomorphism $C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}$, and we thus get \begin{align}
C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}\to (C^*G)_x\label{eqn:max}
\end{align} It is surjective because the image was dense before extending to $C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}$. The map \eqref{eqn:max} is injective by Renault's disintegration theorem \cite{RenaultBook}.
\item
Let $E$ be the $C_0(G^0)$-$C^*$-module which is obtained as the closure of $C_c(G)$ with respect to the inner product $$\langle f,g\rangle (y)=f^*\star g(y)=\int_{G_x} \bar{f}(\gamma)g(\gamma)d\lambda_x(\gamma),\quad y\in G^0.$$ Furthermore one has an injective $*$-homomorphism $C^*_rG\to \mathcal{L}(E)$.
Suppose $x$ isn't isolated. Let $a\in C^*_r(G)$ such that $a_y=0$ for all $y\in X\backslash\{x\}$. For $\xi\in E$, one has $$\langle a\star \xi,a\star \xi\rangle(y)=0,\quad \forall y\in p^{-1}(X\backslash \{x\}).$$ Since $C_0(G^0)$ is half-continuous at $x$, it follows that $\langle a\star \xi,a\star \xi\rangle=0$. Hence $a\star \xi =0$. Since this holds for all $\xi \in E$, it follows that $a=0$.
\item Since $G_{p^{-1}(x)}$ is amenable, by \cite{AnaRenaultGrps}, $C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}=C^*_rG_{p^{-1}(x)}$. By \eqref{eqn:max}, one has \begin{align*}
C^*_rG_{p^{-1}(x)}=C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}\to (C^*G)_x\to (C^*_rG)_x
\end{align*}
This map is surjective because it clearly has dense image. It is injective because the left regular representation on $L^2G_y$ for $y\in p^{-1}(x)$ factors through $(C^*_rG)_x$.
\item Let $a\in C_c(G)$. By the previous parts, one has \begin{align*}
\norm{a_{|G_{p^{-1}(x)}}}_{C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}}=\norm{a_x}_{(C^*_rG)_x}=\limsup_{y\to x}\norm{a_y}_{(C^*_rG)_y}&\leq \limsup_{y\to x}\norm{a_y}_{(C^*G)_y}\\ &\leq \norm{a_x}_{(C^*G)_x}=\norm{a_x}_{C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}},
\end{align*}
where we used \cite[Proposition C.10.a]{WilliamsCrossedBook} in the last inequality. The result follows.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{rems}
\begin{enumerate}
\item In general the fiber of $C^*_rG$ at $x$ is a quotient of $C^*G_{p^{-1}(x)}$ but not equal to $C^*_rG_{p^{-1}(x)}$. For example if $G^0=X=\{\frac{1}{n}:n\in \mathbb{N}\}\sqcup\{0\}$ with $G_{\frac{1}{n}}=SL(2,\frac{\mathbb{Z}}{n\mathbb{Z}})$ and $G_{0}=SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$, see \cite[Section 2]{BCcounter}.
\item Theorem \ref{thm:cont field} is also true for locally compact locally Hausdorff groupoids with $G^0$ Hausdorff. Part 1, one uses Renault's disintegration theorem for non Hausdorff groupoids \cite[Theorem 7.8]{MuhlyWilliamsRenaultTheoremsNonHaus}. In part 2, one replaces the module $E$ with the module constructed in \cite{SkandalisKohshkamReg}. In this case, one constructs a $C_0(Y)$-$C^*$-module $E$ with the proeprty that $C^*_rG\to \mathcal{L}(E)$ is injective. The space $Y$ is constructed in \cite[the paragraph preceding Proposition 2.6]{SkandalisKohshkamReg}. Semi-continuity of $C_0(G^0)$ over $X$ together with \cite[Proposition 2.6]{SkandalisKohshkamReg} imply semi-continuity of $C_0(Y)$ over $X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rems}
\paragraph{Fibered foliations.}Let $M,Y$ be smooth manifolds, $p:M\to Y$ a surjective submersion, $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \Gamma(\ker(dp))$ a singular foliation. The space $\blup(\mathcal{F})$ is fibered over $Y$ through the map $p\circ \pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}$. Since $\mathcal{F}$ is longitudinal to $\ker(p)$, $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ and $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ are fibered over $Y$.\footnote{Here we make use of the assumption that we only consider path holonomy bi-submersions. For a path holonomy bi-submersion $U$, one has $p\circ s_U=p\circ r_U$.} \begin{cor}\label{cor:semicont}The $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is a half-continuous $C_0(Y)$-$C^*$-algebra. \end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By construction of $\blup(\mathcal{F})$, the set $\pi^{-1}_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}(M_{\reg})$ is dense in $\blup(\mathcal{F})$. Since $p$ is a surjective submersion, $p(M_{\reg})$ is an open dense subset of $Y$. Semi-continuity of $C_0(\blup(\mathcal{F}))$ follows immediately from Proposition \ref{prop:semi cont}. Semi-continuity of $C^*_r\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ follows from Theorem \ref{thm:cont field}.2.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Characteristic set and $z$-completion}
In this section, we define the $z$-completion and the characteristic set of a singular foliation. We prove a theorem which is used by the author in various applications, whose proof relies on the blowup construction.
\begin{dfn}Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a singular foliation. We define\begin{itemize}
\item $C^*_z\mathcal{F}:=\frac{C^*\mathcal{F}}{\ker(\fint)}$.
\item for $x\in M$, the characteristic set of $\mathcal{F}$ at $x$ denoted $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$ as the set $\bigsqcup_{V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x}V^\perp\subseteq \mathcal{F}^*_x$. We also define $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}:=\bigsqcup_{x\in M}\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$ with the subspace topology from the inclusion $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathcal{F}^*$.
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
The map $\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}:\blup(\mathcal{F})\to M$ being proper implies that \begin{itemize}
\item Both $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x$ and $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$ are closed subsets of $\mathcal{F}^*_x$ and $\mathcal{F}^*$ respectively.
\item $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}=\overline{\bigsqcup_{x\in M_{\reg}}\mathcal{F}_x^*}$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{theorem}Let $Y$ be a smooth manifold, $p:M\to Y$, a surjective submersion, $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \Gamma(\ker(dp))$ a singular foliation. We suppose
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p^{-1}(p(M_{\reg}))=M_{\reg}$.
\item for every $x\in M_{\reg}^c$, $\mathfrak{h}_x=\mathcal{F}_x$
\item for every $x\in M_{\reg}^c$, the simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{h}_x$ is amenable.
\item $C^*\mathcal{F}$ is half-continuous at every $y\in p(M_{\reg})$.
\end{enumerate}
Then \begin{enumerate}
\item $C^*_z\mathcal{F}=C^*\mathcal{F}/I,\quad I=\{a\in C^*\mathcal{F}:a_y=0\quad\forall y\in p(M_{\reg})\}$.
\item $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ is a half-continuous at every $y\in Y$.
\item $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})^x_x$ is a simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{h}_x$.
\item $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ lies in a short exact sequence $$0\to C^*\mathcal{F}_{M_{\reg}}\to C^*_z\mathcal{F}\to A\to 0,$$ where $A$ is a $C^*$-algebra fibered over $M_{\reg}^c$. Its fiber at $x\in M_{\reg}^c$ is equal to $C^*\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x/J_x$, where $$J_x=\bigcap_{V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x}\ker(\pi_V),\quad \pi_V:C^*\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x\to B(L^2(\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x/V)).$$ Here $\pi_V$ is the quasi-regular representation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The equality \begin{equation}\label{eqn:equ hblup h reg}
\hblup(\mathcal{F})_{M_{\reg}}=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_{M_{\reg}}
\end{equation} together with Assumption 1 imply that $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is half-continuous at $y\in p(M_{\reg})$. If $y\in p(M_{\reg}^c)$, then Assumption 3, Theorem \ref{thm:cont field}.4, Corollary \ref{cor:semicont} imply that $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is half-continuous at $y$. Hence $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is half-continuous at every point. Since the map $\fint$ respects the fibration over $X$, we deduce that $\fint(I)=0$. Hence $I\subseteq \ker(\fint)$. By Eqn. \eqref{eqn:equ hblup h reg}, it follows that $\ker(\fint)\subseteq I$. The equality $C^*_z\mathcal{F}=C^*\mathcal{F}/I$ follows.
\item Since $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ is a $C^*$-subalgebra of $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$, half-continuity follows.
\item This follows from Assumption $2$, Theorem \ref{thm:AZ} and the paragraph preceding it.
\item The short exact sequence exists by Equation \eqref{eqn:equ hblup h reg}. By Assumption 2, $A$ is fibered over $M_{\reg}^c$. Let $A_y$ be the fiber of $A$ over $y\in p(M_{\reg}^c)$. It is the union of all fibers $A_x$ for $x\in p^{-1}(y)$. The map $\fint$ induces a map $\fint:A_y\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})_y$. This map is injective because $\fint:C^*_z\mathcal{F}\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is the identity on the regular part and both $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ and $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ are half-continuous. Since $\hblup(\mathcal{F})_y$ is amenable, by Theorem \ref{thm:cont field}.1, its fiber over $x\in p^{-1}(y)$ is $\hblup(\mathcal{F})_x$. Hence $\fint:A_x\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})_x=C^*_r\hblup(\mathcal{F})_x$ is injective. The result follows because the left regular representations of $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ at $V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ composed with $\fint:C^*\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ are the quasi regular representations $\pi_V$.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{ex} If $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x$ is commutative, then $C^*\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x=C_0(\mathcal{F}_x^*)$ and $A_x=C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x)$. More generally if $G=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x$ is nilpotent, then by the orbit method \cite{KirillovArticle,BrownArticleTopOrbitMethod}, we can identify the spectrum of $C^*G$ with $\mathfrak{h}_x^*/Ad^*(G)$. By \cite[Lemma 2]{LudwigGoodidealart}, the support of $\pi_V$ is equal to $\overline{\bigcup_{g\in G}\mathrm{Ad}^*(g)V^\perp}/Ad^*(G)\subseteq \mathfrak{h}_x^*/Ad^*(G)$. Since the set $\blup(\mathcal{F})_x$ is closed under the Adjoint action of $G$ by Theorem \ref{thm:funct blowup} (applied to $\exp(X)$ for $X\in \mathcal{F}$). It follows that the quotient $A_x$ is the quotient of $C^*G_x$ which corresponds to the closed set $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}_x/Ad^*(G)$.
\end{ex}
\iffalse
Let $x\in M$ be a point such that $X(x)=0$ for all $X\in \mathcal{F}$. By Theorem \ref{thm:AZ}, $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x$ is a simply connected Lie group integrating $\mathfrak{h}_x=\mathcal{F}_x$. Since $\{x\}$ and $_{\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}^{-1}(x)}$ are closed saturated subsets for $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})$ and $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$, restriction at $x$ gives two short exact sequences \begin{align*}
0\longrightarrow C^*\mathcal{F}_{|\{x\}^c}\longrightarrow &C^*\mathcal{F}\longrightarrow C^*\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x\longrightarrow 0\\
0\to C^*\blup(\mathcal{F})_{\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}^{-1}(x)^c}\to &C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})_{\pi_{\blup(\mathcal{F})}^{-1}(x)}\to 0.
\end{align*}
Suppose that $\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_x^x$ is amenable.
Let $\mathbb{R}_+=[0,+\infty[$, $\mathbb{R}_+^*=]0,+\infty[$. Then consider the foliation $\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F}$ on $M\times \mathbb{R}_+$ which is generated by $tX(x)$ for $X\in \mathcal{F}$. By \cite[Proposition 3.1]{AS3}, $\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F}$ is a singular foliation. This foliation is fibered over $\mathbb{R}_+$. By Theorem \ref{thm:AZ}, $$\mathcal{H}(\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F})=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})\times \mathbb{R}^*_+\sqcup \left(\sqcup_{x\in M}\mathcal{F}_x\right)\times \{0\}\rightrightarrows M.$$
By \cite[Theorem 3.7]{AS3}, one has a short exact sequence \begin{equation}\label{eqn:exact seq aF}
0\to C^*\mathcal{F}\otimes C_0(\mathbb{R}^*_+)\to C^*\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F}\to C_0(\mathcal{F}^*)\to 0.
\end{equation}
We are interested in the corresponding sequence for $C^*_z$ completion.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:adiabtic}
One has a short exact sequence $$0\to C^*_z\mathcal{F}\otimes C_0(]0,1])\to C^*_z\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F}\to C_0(\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F})\to 0.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A straightforward computation shows that$$\hblup(\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F})=\hblup(\mathcal{F})\times \mathbb{R}^*_+\sqcup T\mathcal{F}\times \{0\}\rightrightarrows \blup(\mathcal{F}).$$ By Theorem \ref{thm:cont field}, one has a short exact sequence $$0\to C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})\otimes C_0(\mathbb{R}_+^*)\to C^*\hblup(\mathfrak{t}\mathcal{F})\to C_0(T^*\mathcal{F})\to 0.$$
It is also direct from the definition of $\fint$, that the map $\fint:C_0(\mathcal{F}^*)\to C_0(T^*\mathcal{F})$ is the dual of the map $$(\xi,V,x)\mapsto (\xi,x),\quad x\in M,V\in \blup(\mathcal{F})_x,\xi\in \left(\frac{\mathcal{F}_x}{V}\right)^*=V^\perp,$$ whose image is $\mathcal{T}^*\mathcal{F}$. The result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}Let $X$ be a smooth manifold, $p:M\to X$, a surjective submersion $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \Gamma(\ker(dp))$ a singular foliation. We suppose that $\hblup(\mathcal{F})_{M_{\reg}^c}$ is amenable and $C^*\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_{M_{\reg}}$ is a half-continuous $C_0(p(M_{\reg}))$-$C^*$-algebra. Then $$C^*_z\mathcal{F}=C^*\mathcal{F}/I,\quad I=\{a\in C^*\mathcal{F}:a_x=0\quad\forall x\in p(M_{\reg})\}.$$ In particular $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ is a half-continuous $C_0(X)$-$C^*$-algebra.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The equality \begin{equation}\label{eqn:equ hblup h reg}
\hblup(\mathcal{F})_{M_{\reg}}=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F})_{M_{\reg}},
\end{equation} together with Theorem \ref{thm:cont field} and Corollary \ref{cor:semicont} imply that $C^*\hblup(\mathcal{F})$ is a half-continuous $C_0(X)$-$C^*$-algebra. Since the map $\fint$ respects the fibration over $X$, we deduce that $\fint(I)=0$. Hence $I\subseteq \ker(\fint)$. By Eqn. \eqref{eqn:equ hblup h reg}, it follows that $\ker(\fint)\subseteq I$. The equality $C^*_z\mathcal{F}=\frac{C^*\mathcal{F}}{I}$ follows. Since $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ is a $C^*$-subalgebra of $\hblup(\mathcal{F})$, by Corollary \ref{cor:semicont}, it follows that $C^*_z\mathcal{F}$ is half-continuous.
\end{proof}
\fi
\begin{refcontext}[sorting=nyt]
\printbibliography
\end{refcontext}
{\footnotesize
(Omar Mohsen) Paris-Saclay University, Paris, France
\vskip-10pt e-mail: \texttt{<EMAIL>}}
\end{document}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.